Abundance

I borrowed this as an eBook through my local library. That way, I wouldn't have to pay for it, and no one on public transit would see me reading it. I was convinced to read this because of two reasons: 1. If you really want to criticize something, you should read it. Especially so that if someone accuses you of misrepresenting any aspect of it, you can assure them that you did, in fact, read the book. 2. It is short.

The biggest problem of the book is that it doesn't address the core issue beneath all of their lamentations about the decline in American manufacturing and 'progress'. That is: moneyed interest. Instead they claim that while there may be a common thread throughout all the deficits in American gumption they cite as examples, each case is really unique in as much as they cannot be addressed by a lack of spirit or an 'abundance' of red tape. Honestly, there's not much more to say about that. They just miss it, or choose to ignore it.

As for the actual writing and craft of the book: it reads as a precocious teen's essay. Long-winded stories used as examples to emphasize a point, repetition, jumping around. Thankfully it's not written with the intent to challenge, so like reading the transcript to a podcast, you could just zone out and let your eyes do the reading.

Don't make the same mistake I did. Don't bother reading this. Disengage from those who want to talk about this book with you, or if you really can't, watch/read/listen to a critique of this book instead.

I agree with many of the authors' conclusions and political positions, but this book is mostly a facile argument for "abundance". It's best feature is the articulation of an "abundance" (as opposed to scarcity) political theory. But the chapters arguing that it is right rely on anecdote and suffer from severe survivorship bias (the logical fallacy that examining winners reveals how to succeed). As I noted in a comment, they also subject degrowth to a pretty withering critique that they do not subject their own theory to: degrowth is a political dead end because it includes policies like vegetarianism that are political non-starters. Nowhere in the book do they talk about how one of their core positions, subsidize things you want like heck, is a really hard sell because it means giving a lot more money to people who have money. Another of their core positions is that liberals value too many things, and because of that don't do any of them, especially building stuff, particularly well. But they do not really articulate what goals liberals should give up in favor of building things. Is it the environment? Is it equitable distribution of wealth? Is it diversity? About the only thing they are clear that should be given up is lengthy process. And I kind of agree with them on that, but process is what ensures those other goals are considered. If not process to accomplish goals, what is the alternate way to achieve those goals. If that's not figured out, we give up all those other goals, just so we can build some shit.

And as a side note, the authors are very positive about "AI" in the book, and that's another thing they may not have wrestled with to the extent they should. But I'll critique that if they ever write a book where the main topic is AI.

Downgrading this to 2 stars. A few weeks have gone by and I'm finding myself more and more annoyed at some (many?) of the choices the authors made in the framing of this book.

Giving this 3 stars instead of 2 because reading it seems useful to keep abreast of The Discourse, and it was a reasonably quick read (I reserve 1 star for "didn't want to waste time to finish this").

Despite all the footnotes and references, this book has the superficial vibe of the early Internet "Let's make more Progress with Technology and then we will have Luxury for Everyone!" manifestos, but applied more broadly to also housing, energy production and some nebulous "innovation". It's hard to take seriously as a stance in 2025.

I hope it spurs more conversation and deeper thinking about these themes, but I fear its lack of thoughtfulness about trade-offs might take us in an even worse direction.

I was familiar with most of this argument from reading Ezra Klein's columns and listening to his podcasts (and, to a lesser extent, listening to Thompson's Plain English podcast). I am convinced by the argument: The U.S. political system has put up layers of barriers that prevent inventing, making, and building. From homes to public transportation systems, everything takes too long to build. The barriers were built with good intentions (environmental concerns, racial justice, supporting union labor), but we have reached a point where it is difficult to build what we need. And it is especially bad in cities and states run by Democrats.

I leave the book without a clear sense for how Klein and Thompson would guard against the problems of a "just build it" approach that emerged in previous years (highways built through Black neighborhoods, energy infrastructure built in those same neighborhoods because suburbs take a NIMBY approach to everything from affordable housing to power stations). They would likely say that these trade-offs have to be worked in out politically but that the tradeoff argument can't always land us in a place of not building.

I find it interesting that this book arrived at the exact same time as Jacobin's Spring 2025 issue on "Progress." All parts of the left seem to believe that the time has come for an affirmative vision of the future, given that the right's regressive vision is a hellscape.

The left has not necessarily embraced the argument fully (I think the center-left will be much more amenable). Here's a Jacobin review:

jacobin.com/2025/03/abundance-klein-thompson-book-review

Matt Bruenig lays out the counter-arguments: 1) The historical narrative the book tells is contested; 2) The book sidelines a number of agendas in the name of removing barriers to building/inventing; 3) The authors never face up to the political practicality of their argument - how do they propose to deal with the resistance to an abundance agenda? Resistance from homeowner's associations, unions, environmental activists, and more.

The close of that review seems right to me:

"Ultimately, the book seems fine to me. I’d say the policy specifics are a bit of a retread, but that’s not really a critique: the authors never claim novelty and the book itself is literally a retread of some articles they wrote for the Atlantic and the New York Times. It’s a pop policy book written for a Malcolm Gladwell type of audience, which is a valuable thing for a political movement to have. In short, I think the pique over the book is out of proportion to what the book is.

With that said, the broader Abundist world that the book is attempting to push forward — a world that appears to be teeming with libertarians, right-wing Democrats like Jared Polis and Ritchie Torres, refugees of the effective altruist implosion, and tech sector types — does seem like it could head in some pretty bad directions that Abundance would fit naturally into. But this would not be the fault of Klein and Thompson."

A recent book from these writers/creators. They do not take a left or right view - they sling mud both ways to both sides. They revisit government decisions and show them as short sighted and not taken in our best interests.

This book covers the United States history and potential. They do focus on several building block programs and opine on what could be done to improve the situation. They cover artificial scarcities and how those have persisted over the decades, along with the impacts of such.

All in all, it's a well thought out and honest look at some huge problems the United States has, with prescriptions that may or may not work, but are probably worth trying. For the better of all of us.

The book does say that some of the content comes from their columns; fans may feel deja vu while reading.

While the goal of the book is noble, the unbelievably gentle tone Ezra and Derek took will have little impact on progress. This isn't the brutal wake up call America needs. The book is like giving a child only one scoop of ice cream instead of two after the child burns down a house for fun. While I imagine this book will get rave reviews, it will be forgotten quickly.