What they proposed is that we reduce regulations strangling the building of housing. The sheer quantity of regulation being the problem. We can have some for things we really care about, but we need to value actually building housing at something other than at the bottom of the priority list.

If you want a real world example of policies under this agenda that have now been put into place, look at the California budget passed under Newsom a month ago under the section literally titled “Advancing an Abundance Agenda”

https://www.gov.ca.gov/2025/06/30/governor-newsom-signs-into...

> It is running away from any reform that would be critical to capital, hence why they dispense so much vitriol on the progressives and almost none on the right.

It has vitriol to the type of progressive who crows about if you scratch a liberal a fascist bleeds. The default for the right is that they are bad, the type of discussions like the one in the article this thread is about are internal left infighting, not intended for the general public.

Also I will quibble on you that it’s not a reform to capital. Saying everyone gets rich from the benefits of capitalism, by structural design, is a reform from our current “git gud” increasingly laissez faire approach.

If you’re one of those folks whose arguing for abolishing capitalism entirely, I agree with your end goal but I think we’re a century or two of progress at reducing scarcity away from implementing that level of reform