Jeremiah Johnson writes that modern politics is dominated by “affordability theater,” specifically the idea that leaders can make life more affordable without actually making anything cheaper.
He writes that policies like tariff rebate checks, farmer bailouts, and gas tax holidays “don’t actually solve the problem” and instead create the impression that someone is *pretending* to do something. A classic case of performative changes.
Johnson writes that both parties engage in this approach and argues that actually lowering costs requires increasing supply, especially in areas like housing and energy.
Curious what you all think about Jeremiah Johnson’s argument and the best way forward.
surreptitioussloth on
It’s all theater
Things are generally affordable for people, at least as affordable as they’ve ever been
Some things are less affordable, some things are more affordable, and it’s especially different in different areas. But the idea of an affordability crisis is almost completely theater where elites are attempting to read the tea leaves of polling to write about why people are so mad
I don’t think even a “cure” for affordability would solve this
I would change my mind if somebody showed evidence that relative affordability of different areas was causing differences in these kinds of sentiments, but I haven’t seen that yet
AtomicGameTester on
>The actual solutions to these problems are not mysterious, they’re just politically inconvenient. To lower the cost of housing, you have to build more of it. If energy is too expensive, you have to increase supply and reduce vulnerability to shocks. If inflation is a concern, you probably shouldn’t deficit spend like there’s no tomorrow.
Dead-on. No one wants to do the long-term stuff, they want short-term highs that solve nothing.
bigbeak67 on
If bribing voters was legal, every politician would always do it. Promising tax cuts and rebate checks is functionally just a legal and indirect bribe. The language of “affordability theater” is, more or less, just to legitimize the bribe offer. The question is if voters are willing to tolerate bad policy in exchange for the bribe for the given cycle, and that tends to depend on the overall state of the economy.
5 Comments
Jeremiah Johnson writes that modern politics is dominated by “affordability theater,” specifically the idea that leaders can make life more affordable without actually making anything cheaper.
He writes that policies like tariff rebate checks, farmer bailouts, and gas tax holidays “don’t actually solve the problem” and instead create the impression that someone is *pretending* to do something. A classic case of performative changes.
Johnson writes that both parties engage in this approach and argues that actually lowering costs requires increasing supply, especially in areas like housing and energy.
Curious what you all think about Jeremiah Johnson’s argument and the best way forward.
It’s all theater
Things are generally affordable for people, at least as affordable as they’ve ever been
Some things are less affordable, some things are more affordable, and it’s especially different in different areas. But the idea of an affordability crisis is almost completely theater where elites are attempting to read the tea leaves of polling to write about why people are so mad
I don’t think even a “cure” for affordability would solve this
I would change my mind if somebody showed evidence that relative affordability of different areas was causing differences in these kinds of sentiments, but I haven’t seen that yet
>The actual solutions to these problems are not mysterious, they’re just politically inconvenient. To lower the cost of housing, you have to build more of it. If energy is too expensive, you have to increase supply and reduce vulnerability to shocks. If inflation is a concern, you probably shouldn’t deficit spend like there’s no tomorrow.
Dead-on. No one wants to do the long-term stuff, they want short-term highs that solve nothing.
If bribing voters was legal, every politician would always do it. Promising tax cuts and rebate checks is functionally just a legal and indirect bribe. The language of “affordability theater” is, more or less, just to legitimize the bribe offer. The question is if voters are willing to tolerate bad policy in exchange for the bribe for the given cycle, and that tends to depend on the overall state of the economy.
Doug Ford would be a Democrat in America (/s….?)