The idea that scarcity is not an unchangeable reality but often a **choice** is a central theme. The argument is made that despite saying we want certain things, like clean energy or affordable housing, policies and actions often lead to these things remaining scarce. This can be frustrating, or as the source puts it, "maddening," when we see that we could potentially choose otherwise. Several reasons for these "chosen scarcities" are explored. Sometimes, it's simply conflicting interests – what benefits one community (like solar panels or an apartment building) might be seen as a negative by neighbors. Other times, the solutions from a previous era can become problems today. For instance, environmental regulations created to protect nature decades ago are now sometimes seen as hindering the very clean energy projects needed to address climate change in the present. There's also the notion of an "ideological conspiracy" in politics. The suggestion is that the focus on debates about the size of government (right wanting less, left sometimes hobbling it) has obscured a diminishing capacity for government to actually _do_ things. This has led to a situation where there might be an abundance of consumer goods, but a scarcity of essential things like homes, energy, infrastructure, and scientific breakthroughs. This brings up the concept of the **supply-side mistake**. Economics traditionally considers both supply (how much of something exists) and demand (how much people want it). However, in recent politics, these have become separated. Conservatives often focused on boosting supply by getting government out of the way (cutting taxes, reducing regulations). Democrats, meanwhile, sometimes focused more on the demand side, like subsidizing people's ability to afford things. The issue with subsidizing demand for something that is scarce is that it often just drives up prices. If there aren't enough homes, giving people money to buy them benefits homeowners with higher prices but makes it harder for buyers to afford them. This creates an affordability crisis. The post-pandemic period, for example, saw increased demand after stimulus measures, which ran into supply chains battered by the pandemic and global events, leading to inflation. The call emerged for increasing supply – more chips, more cars, more goods, more energy. The source contrasts a **politics of scarcity** with a **politics of abundance**. The politics of scarcity is described as seductive, leading to suspicion of outsiders (like immigrants) who are seen as competing for limited resources like housing. This is seen in arguments that immigrants drive up housing costs. However, it's noted that even liberals practice a version of scarcity politics through zoning regulations that restrict housing supply, contributing to the affordability crisis that the right then leverages. Abundance, on the other hand, is presented as a vision for the future. It's not just about having "more" of everything indiscriminately. Instead, it's defined as a state where there is enough of what is needed to create better lives, focusing on fundamental **building blocks** like housing, energy, transportation, and health. This vision is about **production** and what we can _build_, rather than just **consumption** and what we can _buy_. Specific areas of scarcity are highlighted to illustrate this point. **Housing** is a prime example, where the lack of building, often due to policy choices like restrictive zoning, leads to high costs and homelessness. **Energy** is another critical area. While climate change demands a shift to clean energy, building the necessary infrastructure (solar farms, wind turbines, transmission lines) faces significant obstacles from existing regulations and local opposition. Energy abundance, particularly clean energy, is seen as essential for tackling numerous modern challenges, from powering AI to enabling technologies like desalination to increase water supply. It's argued that energy inequality is fundamental, and poor nations suffer more from pollution because they lack access to cleaner energy sources. Beyond physical infrastructure, the source touches on the **slowdown in scientific progress** as another form of scarcity. Despite increased resources and personnel in academia, the pace of discovery seems to be slowing in many fields. This is partly attributed to the increasing complexity of unsolved problems and a funding system that might be biased against risky, novel ideas and young scientists. Overcoming these scarcities requires addressing the difficulties in getting things built and invented. This involves confronting the complex layers of regulations, permitting processes, and numerous "veto points" where projects can be stalled or stopped by various groups or interests. The solution isn't simply bigger government or smaller government, but focusing on **state capacity** – the government's ability to achieve its goals. It's suggested that systems built by some liberals have become overly focused on procedure and rules, leading to ineffectiveness and frustrating outcomes like persistent homelessness despite significant spending. Ultimately, embracing a politics of abundance means challenging the idea that we must accept limitations and instead focus on actively creating more of what we need. This involves becoming "bottleneck detectives" to understand the specific obstacles in different industries and finding ways to remove them, rather than applying a single ideological approach. Recognizing a challenge as a "crisis," like climate change or heart disease, can be a political choice that galvanizes action and focuses resources on solutions. The shift towards abundance is presented as an opportunity, requiring institutional renewal, a willingness to question established processes and alliances, and a focus on building and invention to create a better future. It's framed not as a list of specific policies, but as a new way of looking at challenges through the lens of what is scarce that should be abundant, and what is hard to build that should be easy. This perspective suggests that while conflict and scarcity narratives are prominent in politics, there's an emerging possibility for a political order centered on abundance, focused on building and inventing to improve lives and address challenges.