A Scarcity of Abundance

Reflections on Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson's *Abundance*

Wouldn’t it be great if Democrats prioritized a drastic increase in American productivity, thereby deprioritizing safetyism, wokeness, and redistribution? That’s definitely my view, so I’m delighted that Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson (henceforth KT) have written a whole book — Abundance sans subtitle — defending that position. Despite the scarcity of words on the cover, the book is already an abundant success: Not only is it a #1 New York Times Bestseller; the governor of California gave Ezra a shout-out when he signed the sclerotic state’s latest housing deregulation bill.

What’s included in Abundance?

• A lengthy discussion of one key problem — housing — with one clear solution — deregulation.

• A much shorter discussion of transportation, arguing that government should actually build infrastructure instead of obsessing over collateral damage. This includes the colorful story of California’s “No-Speed Rail.”

• A similarly brief discussion of energy generally, arguing in favor of some deregulation of energy (especially alternative energy), and more research spending, with just a handful of pages on nuclear power.

• Some thin political economy, best summarized by this passage:

  Over the course of the twentieth century, America developed a right that fought the government and a left that hobbled it. Debates over the size of government obscured the diminishing capacity of government.

But how intellectually successful is the book? Only so-so, I’m afraid. In all candor, I expected a more abundant case for abundance. My main reactions:

1. The housing parts are very good. Since my native California is already making progress, this isn’t a total pipedream. KT don’t cite my case for radical housing deregulation, but one shouldn’t be petty.

2. The transportation and energy parts are OK. They point multiple fingers in the right direction — draconian regulation. But they should have built on Alex Epstein’s deep idea of the “anti-impact standard.” Support for strict regulation really does rest on the widespread superstition that modifying nature for human betterment is presumptively bad.

3. KT ignore numerous straightforward applications of abundance. There’s near-zero on public sector unions, which almost everyone blames for poor public sector performance. There’s near-zero on education of any kind, even though education is plainly one of the economy’s most stagnant sectors. There’s almost nothing on falling fertility, not even an acknowledgment that low fertility makes existing entitlement programs hard to sustain. Indeed, after reviewing a long list of existing redistributive programs, all they can say is: “These are important policies, and we support them.”

4. The Straussian reality is that what KT call “supply-side progressivism” is literally “neoliberalism” — an economically literate effort to promote center-left values. They’re not taking the U.S. left of 2021 and adding “let’s listen more to Larry Summers.” They’re taking the U.S. left of 1993 and adding “let’s put Larry Summers in charge.”

5. The main off-the-record defense of the book that I keep hearing is, “KT had to tread lightly, because they’re selling these ideas to progressives.” KT can’t be anti-union, because progressives idolize unions. KT can’t criticize public education, support vouchers, or even call for a big reallocation of government funding from humanities to STEM, because progressives love the actually-existing education system. KT can’t bemoan low fertility, because that’s right-coded. KT can’t even call for “marginally more austerity to ensure entitlements’ long-run sustainability.”

6. But if your view of progressives is that negative, why would any proponent of abundance continue to identify as a “progressive”? If you reply, “I call myself a progressive so progressives will listen to me,” you’ve got to wonder, “What’s the point of talking to these benighted fanatics?” Wouldn’t it make more sense to address your case to moderates?

7. A few kind words for foreign-born scientists aside, Abundance ignores the single greatest abundance opportunity on Earth — immigration. You could fairly object, “Progressives are pro-immigration for humanitarian reasons, not economic gain.” But if you’re selling abundance to progressives, isn’t “Immigration, which you already favor, is also good for abundance” a great talking point?

8. When Abundance tells the story of California’s no-speed rail, they’re clearly trying to woo progressive ideologues by calling for big, effective government. But if you’re not a progressive ideologue, the moral of the story is almost exactly the opposite: Big government hasn’t been effective for decades, so it won’t be effective in the foreseeable future, so don’t fund it. Especially in one-party Democratic states! In all seriousness, California’s high-speed train debacle is a total vindication of every curmudgeon who scoffed, “California’s going to build high-speed rail? Why not just take billions of dollars and burn them?!”

9. At the national level, progressives can always blame Republicans for hobbling their noble yet practical dreams. But KT at least seem to concede that government failures are especially severe in one-party Democratic states. Which strongly suggests that some major factions in the Democratic Party are full-blown enemies of abundance and should be purged unless they repent. Sadly, KT say nothing like this. Even their criticism of Ralph Nader is mild and prefaced with warm praise. It’s almost like they’re worried that their main audience will say, “Neoliberalism!” and throw the book in the trash.

10. I understand why KT ignore conservatives and libertarians. But they also barely try to address non-ideological people in states like California who are fed-up with habitual massive waste of their tax dollars. The folks who grump, “Until California cleans up the garbage and fills the potholes, the government of California has no business even fantasizing about high-speed rail. Such chutzpah!”

11. To appeal to these numerous folks, KT could start with, “Look, I know progressive Democrats have frittered away hundreds of billions of dollars, and you have every right to be upset. But we abundance Democrats promise to start delivering value from now on.” As soon as you make such a statement, though, it’s hard not to hear its hollowness. Promising “Good results… from now on” is a bad joke. The best way to predict future performance is past performance. Once you admit that governments, especially one-party Democratic governments, have a bad track record, austerity is the obvious response. Which is why the vast majority of progressives keep insisting that the governments they control are already working wonders. They’re delusional, but at least their position is internally consistent.

12. What you really ought to tell California’s fed-up non-ideologues is more like: “Look, I know progressive Democrats have frittered away hundreds of billions of dollars, and you have every right to be upset. To make amends, we’re going to balance the budget with spending cuts on progressive programs. Then we’re going to squeeze 5% better results out of our reduced budgets over the next two years. Test scores will rise 13 points, the streets will be 17% less dirty, commuting times will fall by six minutes per day, murder will go down by 9%. If we succeed, we restore 25% of the funding cuts for progressive programs and reiterate. Otherwise, we keep balancing the budget on the back of progressive programs.” If you scoff, “Progressives will never stand for that!,” you should just admit that the fed-up non-ideologues are correct: Progressives want zero accountability and infinite tax money, so just starve the beast.

What is the real goal of Abundance? I can’t read minds, but I think KT are trying to show power-hungry Democratic leaders an amazing opportunity: Forget the “everything-bagel liberalism” of the past, prioritize abundance in word and deed, and you’ll gain more votes than you lose.

Alas, this probably won’t work unless KT manage to trick progressive Democrats into supporting major pro-market policy changes they ideologically abhor. If I were a power-hungry Democratic politician, I’d listen patiently, smirk, and say: “Thanks, but I’ve got a much better idea.” Namely: Add “abundance” to the everything-bagel, loudly make some cosmetic changes, trick the marginal moderates, and hold my coalition together. Wouldn’t you?