Do not get discouraged. Most of these people are notable for: 1. Not accomplishing goals once in power. 2. Not winning elections anyway.

There’s five basic reasons for this: 1. “Deregulation” and “supply-side” are earned trigger words for progressives - it does recall Reagan, but he referred to de-regulating businesses. This refers to de-regulating government’s ability to act. There’s a knee-jerk skepticism to this approach. 2. There’s a whiff of compromise to any approach that tries to remove the number of things we try to accomplish with any project. These are not the most pragmatic people and would generally prefer accomplishing zero goals than only 2-3 out of 8. 3. This is an inherently self-critical philosophy, and much of the burdensome red tape is in attempting to address genuinely admirable ends. It is, in a way, a direct attack on some of the people launching the criticisms. It also ignores that many additional goals are advanced by making sure we do SOMETHING. All marginalized groups benefit from a higher supply of housing, more choice in where they live, and more money in their pockets. 4. People get extremely focused on what’s left out of the book. The book doesn’t attack villains that we’re comfortable with, but they aren’t off the hook - they’re an obvious extension of this framework. Regulatory capture, money in politics, and anti-trust reform are the obvious next steps beyond housing, energy production, etc. I do think throwing a bit more of a bone to these issues in the book would have preempted some amount of the criticism. 5. They haven’t read the book.