Review and Reflection on "Abundance"

Sometime last year — well ahead of President Trump’s victory in the 2024 presidential election — I served as a panelist for a scholarly debate between two intelligent secondary school students. The essential question at hand: “Quality of Life or Income Inequality: Which is a More Prudent KPI for the State of the Nation?”

Both students presented well-reasoned arguments to support their side (frankly, I am saddened to say our national discourse would be better off if these two 18-year-old students were running for president). I left the panel pondering the question further, somewhat flailing to come to an answer.

Months later, Derek Thompson and Ezra Klein published Abundance. Depending on who you ask, their book is either a masterpiece that should shape the future of the American Left or a Trojan Horse-style manifesto parading as a left-leaning movement while quietly supporting conservative-backed corporate interests.

You’ll find me in the camp of the former. And if it’s a Trojan Horse, let’s wheel it through the gates.

I’ll back up to give some context: Abundance is written for the American Left. Klein and Thompson explain it is a policy agenda to improve quality of life in the United States by eliminating needless or ineffective bureaucracy and regulation.

Both authors also note that Abundance policy could see Democrats improve their future electoral opportunities. The authors aptly point to solidly blue states such as New York and California, which both saw dramatic decreases in population in the last census (in real terms, not to mention relative to red states).

Why are they seeing decreases in population? In part, Thompson and Klein argue, because their governments struggle in notable policy arenas, such as affordable housing and infrastructure.

Abundance addresses multiple areas of the American policy landscape: infrastructure, housing, the economy, and climate change.

Many of these actually tend to be issues in which appeal can be found from both parties, even when the respective rationales differ. Take housing as an example: many on the Left wish to build more housing to bring down costs, the idea being that more housing supply will lead to a lower equilibrium price.

This position actually tends to reconcile very well with the position of the American Right, which generally wishes to remove government regulations. The result? Support for striking down restrictive zoning policies, removing bureaucratic obstacles, and reforming property tax systems.

One of the most common consequences of our current political environment is that Democrats seek to over regulate government out of a desire to achieve a social outcome; Republicans seek to destroy it, either outright or by deliberately stalling or defunding programs. (Democrats rarely participate in the blanket defunding of programs, but they do surely deliberately stall as well).

All of those approaches are socially destructive.

But it is time for Democrats to look within and admit that they have enacted regulations that quite simply result in poor societal outcomes.

For example, I join the Left as someone who cares deeply about the environment. And if we wish to build an enormous hundred-acre, multi-building project, I can see the need for an environmental review. But moving a bus station across the street? I think we can agree the environmental review may not be necessary.

Regardless, current law often requires it when federal money is involved. The result? The Washington Metropolitan Area Transit Authority (WMATA) must take longer to improve its bus system. That’s a restriction of state capacity.

The same can be said of state requirements to use union labor (or pay prevailing wages). These requirements are well-intentioned, but the result is painful: overextended budgets and lengthened timelines. And the unions, understandably, have an incentive to keep it this way: nobody has an issue with a locked gate if you’re one of the few holding the key. That’s a restriction of state capacity.

Affordable housing provides another example. Many affordable housing complexes are built with such enormously high costs that they cannot be revenue-neutral. In Washington DC, one affordable housing development cost more to build than a market-rate development next door. Why? Because the government is often required to follow rules that private industry isn’t. That, too, is a restriction of state capacity.

If we want critical infrastructure to improve the climate, we’ll need to build quicker and cheaper. If we want to solve the water crisis before it becomes mainstream, we will need to build quicker and cheaper. If we want realistic affordable housing, we’ll need to build quicker and cheaper. (Notice a pattern?). Abundance is the policy agenda to get us there.

The critics of Abundance oft suggest that eliminating regulation and thus opening the floodgates to markets will result in corporate interests making more money. To be clear: yes, someone who delivers something the market demands will make money. And I believe that’s a good thing, not a bad thing.

You’re probably reading this on an iPhone, a product created by Apple. Tim Cook, Apple’s current CEO, is worth $2.4 billion; Laurene Powell Jobs — who inherited most of Steve Jobs’ fortune — is worth nearly $15 billion; and Warren Buffett — whose Berkshire Hathaway owns almost 6% of Apple — is worth $144 billion. Was that “worth it?” Or would we have preferred those individuals forego their wealth and not take the financial risk necessary to produce the iPhone? Personally, I’ll take the iPhone.

In my experience, the common refrain is true: a rising tide raises all the boats in the water. The Left should embrace two agendas in keeping with this metaphor: 1) how can we raise the tide, and 2) how can we ensure that all the boats are in the water. We should focus less on whose boat is bigger or faster.

This returns me to the debate that led this article: what is the KPI to judge our country’s future? My answer is quality of life. We want to work easier, eat healthier, buy cheaper, and breathe cleaner. We can accomplish all of that, but it requires a conscious choice to place those goals above our clumsy and silly frustration that someone will likely become rich by getting us there.

It is possible that the critics are correct. Perhaps it’s true that Abundance glosses over power structures, places too much blame on the Left for our problems, or relies too heavily on market forces. But I’ve seen little evidence of it, and I’ve seen plenty of evidence to the contrary.

Therefore, until I am convinced that I am wrong, I’ll maintain this at a minimum: if Abundance is corporate propaganda, then capitalists found the right writers for the job.