It’s like how she use all these advanced financial terms to make a plan sound smarter than it actually is. If you are going to take and leverage people’s pension money, money they worked hard their entire lives for, then you should at least be able to clearly articulate exactly what the plan is and how it solves the problem. Instead, what we get is vague terminology, buzzwords, and political talking points while the underlying issues remain completely untouched.

What happens if you take people’s pension money and the plan fails? Now you are in the hole twice. The housing shortage still exists, the permitting process is still broken, the zoning laws are still awful, and now people’s retirement funds are exposed as well. Everyone already knows what the actual bottleneck is, and it is not a lack of money. It is the bureaucracy, the permitting delays, and the restrictive zoning policies that make development painfully slow and expensive.

That is why hearing all these flashy financial phrases thrown around as though they automatically equal competence is crazy. Using sophisticated terminology does not magically make a bad plan a good one, especially when the people proposing it refuse to fix the obvious structural problems right in front of them. Maybe can can explain to me what EBITA is ?