“It may also be the case that, for a variety of reasons, innovation gets harder over time as the “low-hanging fruit” gets plucked — certainly, this maturation process occurs for specific technologies and industries.”
If technology is the main driver of growth, then it seem likely that massive capital consumption by the state in the $ trillions (over decades) has dramatically reduced the investment funds that would have been available for research & development, which may contribute to an illusion that the low hanging fruit has already been picked.
I'd really like to see a more global explanation of the anti-abundance. It can't all be about Vietnam and Southern Sheriffs when Sweden, Italy, Japan, and Germany also seem to suffer from it to greater or lesser extents. Even Vietnam does! Look up how long the Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City metros have taken to complete just a few kilometres.
So I feel like an overly American explanation is missing something for me to understand what's going on.
My civilizational narrative in the second half of the essay gives the global explanation you're looking for: mass affluence induces a culture of complacent loss aversion.
Based on the summaries I have read, it seems they are trying to write a book on how a good card carrying leftist should pursue abundance. A more bold duo would ask “what ideological framework supports dynamism and abundance?” Different questions, with very different answers.
Lots of good potential books out there to write, but I like the one they actually wrote. Left and right aren't going anywhere, and as I've said I think the abundance agenda needs help from both sides.
I agree that an agenda benefits from help from both sides, or better yet, more recognition that if the goal is abundance/progress, then the sides are more about HOW we get there.
I am sure I have read somewhere between 50 and 100 books (and countless articles) on progress. Your incredible insights on the issue have attracted me to your writing. That said, I have heard enough about this book from reviews and the authors to put it way down on my list of future books to read. It just seems to be stuck in anti-progress leftist ideology. The path to abundance doesn’t go through top down master planning of giant bureaucracies dedicated to achieving equality of outcome regardless of contribution. Putting lipstick on this pig won’t lead to more abundance. They need to first and foremost throw out the pig.
Not sure why you think climate change non denier is a side. Said another way, I don’t deny that humans have an impact of climate, and I don’t belong to a side.
I think that both "Abundance" and "The Permanent Problem" miss the biggest issue(s) facing the western democracies. The biggest issue, it seems to me, is an all-encompassing lack of seriousness among our governing class and the elites in culture, academia, and the media.
The most obvious illustration is totally inadequate military preparedness to deal with the geopolitical threats from Russia and China. Perhaps the most visible example is the large number of US Navy ships that are not deployable. Figures aren't public, but there are significant numbers that are not deployable due to lack of maintenance or manpower shortages. There have been an alarming number of accidents (collisions, groundings, friendly fire incidents) that have made it to the public, and they indicate a frightening lack of competence on the part of Navy officers, as well as a critical lack of industrial capacity to maintain the shrunken force we have. Other examples are easy to find as well - repeated relief-for-cause actions among commanders, who are unfit for the positions they hold because the services can't retain officers needed for positions of responsibility.
The Navy's problems may be most visible, but I can't imagine that the Army and Air Force don't have equally serious problems. The Biden administration, in supporting Ukraine, has drawn down conventional ammunition stores to a dangerous level that will take at least 10 years to recover, assuming our government gets serious about dedicating the resources.
For all of the US military's problems, our allies are in much worse shape. They have reduced their militaries to a pathetic shell of the forces that were ready to deal with hostile threats in the 1980s. The UK has a small military, but can deploy almost none of it on short notice. When NATO was worried about potential Russian aggression in 2014 (when Russia took control of Crimea and stirred up "separatists" in Donbass), Germany, the most capable ground force aside from the US, had 40 operational tanks, down from about 2,000 in the 1980s, but had only 3 rail cars to move them to Poland or the Baltics if needed (one tank per car).
In 2008, George W. Bush announced to the world that Ukraine and Georgia "will" join NATO, without any apparent thought to actually defending those countries if needed. Russia's 2008 invasion of Georgia, 2014 subversion of Ukraine, and 2022 full-on invasion have shown just how hollow NATO defense commitments would have been.
It seems that MAGA Republicans think we don't need allies, apparently not knowing that our allies have been critical to protecting US interests since World War II. Democrats, on the other hand, think our allies are critical, because they represent the other 5% of the world's population critical to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. This ignores Russia, China, India, the rest of Asia, all of Africa, South and Central America, none of which even pretend to try to reduce their emissions. Not that emissions reductions are particularly important to prevent any serious problem, but we are squandering immense resources in futile gestures to obtain minimal reductions, while our allies do even more.
You mention three specific illustrations of economic problems coming from our current governance. The first, high housing costs, is certainly a result of bad policies, primarily in Blue states, that restrict housing supply. Improving these policies could go a long way toward decreasing housing costs.
The second, California's high speed rail, is an illustration of the Blue state (and larger national) problem with building anything. However, it has a much bigger problem - it was an ill-conceived project from the beginning. Even if there were no procedural problems blocking construction, and even if the requirements that inflate construction costs were to disappear, California would still be left with an expensive project of minimal economic value. It has been a gargantuan misallocation of capital driven by false promises in service of a utopian vision with no real chance of public usefulness.
The third, recharging stations for electric vehicles, is equally ridiculous. If built, the stations would be an expensive subsidy for expensive toys used by rich people, with no economic or environmental benefits for the larger society. As it is, they serve as a comic example of how the Left is so dedicated to meeting impossible social justice goals that they sabotage their own green dreams.
We have a fundamental lack of seriousness from our entire governing class. Our media institutions don't even seem to recognize this lack of attention to real problems. Our educational institutions are so fixated on fixing pronouns and deconstructing colonization that they have no attention to any problems of real significance.
At this point, the Permanent Problem is back to geopolitics. Whatever abundance Klein and Thompson's efforts can produce will be squandered on pointless gestures. Putin's Russia isn't really enough of a threat to really get these people's attention, but Xi's China might be.
I don't write about geopolitics -- this blog covers enough turf as it is. But I agree with you about the lack of seriousness, not just in leadership but throughout society. See, e.g., here: https://brinklindsey.substack.com/p/the-retreat-from-reality.
Fantastic review. I immediately printed out the 2025 State Capacity paper from Niskanen. Excited to see how these new orthodoxies come to define the ascendant political order that defines post-neoliberal left-right consensus.
To get firm footing, they'll have to answer two big ethical questions that aren't addressed in their book, or in this review.
1/ intra-state: how best to re-negotiate the balance between state action and civilian veto? Ezra and Derek kind of dodge the question and in subsequent interviews have given some hand-wavy "well, leaders need to be empowered to just decide." While all constituents should be heard, they won't all be able to block.
2/ inter-state: how to maintain our commitments to global human rights development and poverty reduction while the developed world pulls back from globalization? Need a compelling story where we can convince the population that we can maintain USAID and our NATO commitments while re-shoring and cracking down on illegal immigration. Similar issues in other developed countries fighting over shrinking pies.
This is one of the best reviews of Abundance I’ve read. The book is aimed at the left because it is exactly where the problems are most acute: NY and CA. The left is far more convinced about climate change and the need to decarbonize. Abundance will not be had without addressing climate change . The pushback that Klein and Thompson are getting from the left needs to be resolved on the left. I think that a lot of these ideas that we need to solve corporate power or remedy inequality before doing the extensive and politically tough resolution is a distraction. These issues are are real problems but can be resolved independently of the reforms in Abundance. But the other reality is that the problems need to be addressed by people on both sides. Texas is doing a much better job of addressing affordable housing and even climate change than California. We should learn from good outcomes not just what we think is good ideology. The Nikansen center seems to be doing a nice pivot from its libertarian orientation!
The left and the right pursue abundance in different ways. Take California and Texas for example. California has fostered abundance through immigration, innovation, education, free thinking, and the free import/export of goods and ideas. Texas has fostered abundance through low regulation, low friction, and relatively high affordability.
The book seems to be cherry-picking aspects of abundance from right-leaning places and saying, "we want that too." But before anyone says, "California is bad at abundance" – look at average incomes and the market value of companies started there.
Curiously California is probably better at providing abundance for “elite human capital” - with its top schools and dedication to research of various kinds - and their counterparts at the other end, i.e. thirsty impoverished immigrants. People in the middle feel hamstrung.
“It may also be the case that, for a variety of reasons, innovation gets harder over time as the “low-hanging fruit” gets plucked — certainly, this maturation process occurs for specific technologies and industries.”
If technology is the main driver of growth, then it seem likely that massive capital consumption by the state in the $ trillions (over decades) has dramatically reduced the investment funds that would have been available for research & development, which may contribute to an illusion that the low hanging fruit has already been picked.
I'd really like to see a more global explanation of the anti-abundance. It can't all be about Vietnam and Southern Sheriffs when Sweden, Italy, Japan, and Germany also seem to suffer from it to greater or lesser extents. Even Vietnam does! Look up how long the Hanoi and Ho Chi Minh City metros have taken to complete just a few kilometres.
So I feel like an overly American explanation is missing something for me to understand what's going on.
My civilizational narrative in the second half of the essay gives the global explanation you're looking for: mass affluence induces a culture of complacent loss aversion.
Don’t have time for lengthy comment other than to say, boy are you good!
Thanks Bob!
Based on the summaries I have read, it seems they are trying to write a book on how a good card carrying leftist should pursue abundance. A more bold duo would ask “what ideological framework supports dynamism and abundance?” Different questions, with very different answers.
Lots of good potential books out there to write, but I like the one they actually wrote. Left and right aren't going anywhere, and as I've said I think the abundance agenda needs help from both sides.
I agree that an agenda benefits from help from both sides, or better yet, more recognition that if the goal is abundance/progress, then the sides are more about HOW we get there.
I am sure I have read somewhere between 50 and 100 books (and countless articles) on progress. Your incredible insights on the issue have attracted me to your writing. That said, I have heard enough about this book from reviews and the authors to put it way down on my list of future books to read. It just seems to be stuck in anti-progress leftist ideology. The path to abundance doesn’t go through top down master planning of giant bureaucracies dedicated to achieving equality of outcome regardless of contribution. Putting lipstick on this pig won’t lead to more abundance. They need to first and foremost throw out the pig.
True but as a card carrying climate change non denier I think our side should get its own shit together 😎
Not sure why you think climate change non denier is a side. Said another way, I don’t deny that humans have an impact of climate, and I don’t belong to a side.
I think that both "Abundance" and "The Permanent Problem" miss the biggest issue(s) facing the western democracies. The biggest issue, it seems to me, is an all-encompassing lack of seriousness among our governing class and the elites in culture, academia, and the media.
The most obvious illustration is totally inadequate military preparedness to deal with the geopolitical threats from Russia and China. Perhaps the most visible example is the large number of US Navy ships that are not deployable. Figures aren't public, but there are significant numbers that are not deployable due to lack of maintenance or manpower shortages. There have been an alarming number of accidents (collisions, groundings, friendly fire incidents) that have made it to the public, and they indicate a frightening lack of competence on the part of Navy officers, as well as a critical lack of industrial capacity to maintain the shrunken force we have. Other examples are easy to find as well - repeated relief-for-cause actions among commanders, who are unfit for the positions they hold because the services can't retain officers needed for positions of responsibility.
The Navy's problems may be most visible, but I can't imagine that the Army and Air Force don't have equally serious problems. The Biden administration, in supporting Ukraine, has drawn down conventional ammunition stores to a dangerous level that will take at least 10 years to recover, assuming our government gets serious about dedicating the resources.
For all of the US military's problems, our allies are in much worse shape. They have reduced their militaries to a pathetic shell of the forces that were ready to deal with hostile threats in the 1980s. The UK has a small military, but can deploy almost none of it on short notice. When NATO was worried about potential Russian aggression in 2014 (when Russia took control of Crimea and stirred up "separatists" in Donbass), Germany, the most capable ground force aside from the US, had 40 operational tanks, down from about 2,000 in the 1980s, but had only 3 rail cars to move them to Poland or the Baltics if needed (one tank per car).
In 2008, George W. Bush announced to the world that Ukraine and Georgia "will" join NATO, without any apparent thought to actually defending those countries if needed. Russia's 2008 invasion of Georgia, 2014 subversion of Ukraine, and 2022 full-on invasion have shown just how hollow NATO defense commitments would have been.
It seems that MAGA Republicans think we don't need allies, apparently not knowing that our allies have been critical to protecting US interests since World War II. Democrats, on the other hand, think our allies are critical, because they represent the other 5% of the world's population critical to cutting greenhouse gas emissions. This ignores Russia, China, India, the rest of Asia, all of Africa, South and Central America, none of which even pretend to try to reduce their emissions. Not that emissions reductions are particularly important to prevent any serious problem, but we are squandering immense resources in futile gestures to obtain minimal reductions, while our allies do even more.
You mention three specific illustrations of economic problems coming from our current governance. The first, high housing costs, is certainly a result of bad policies, primarily in Blue states, that restrict housing supply. Improving these policies could go a long way toward decreasing housing costs.
The second, California's high speed rail, is an illustration of the Blue state (and larger national) problem with building anything. However, it has a much bigger problem - it was an ill-conceived project from the beginning. Even if there were no procedural problems blocking construction, and even if the requirements that inflate construction costs were to disappear, California would still be left with an expensive project of minimal economic value. It has been a gargantuan misallocation of capital driven by false promises in service of a utopian vision with no real chance of public usefulness.
The third, recharging stations for electric vehicles, is equally ridiculous. If built, the stations would be an expensive subsidy for expensive toys used by rich people, with no economic or environmental benefits for the larger society. As it is, they serve as a comic example of how the Left is so dedicated to meeting impossible social justice goals that they sabotage their own green dreams.
We have a fundamental lack of seriousness from our entire governing class. Our media institutions don't even seem to recognize this lack of attention to real problems. Our educational institutions are so fixated on fixing pronouns and deconstructing colonization that they have no attention to any problems of real significance.
At this point, the Permanent Problem is back to geopolitics. Whatever abundance Klein and Thompson's efforts can produce will be squandered on pointless gestures. Putin's Russia isn't really enough of a threat to really get these people's attention, but Xi's China might be.
I don't write about geopolitics -- this blog covers enough turf as it is. But I agree with you about the lack of seriousness, not just in leadership but throughout society. See, e.g., here: https://brinklindsey.substack.com/p/the-retreat-from-reality.
Conflating Trump’s actions and Klein and Thompson’s main argument serves your purposes, but badly distorts the book’s meaning.
Fantastic review. I immediately printed out the 2025 State Capacity paper from Niskanen. Excited to see how these new orthodoxies come to define the ascendant political order that defines post-neoliberal left-right consensus.
To get firm footing, they'll have to answer two big ethical questions that aren't addressed in their book, or in this review.
1/ intra-state: how best to re-negotiate the balance between state action and civilian veto? Ezra and Derek kind of dodge the question and in subsequent interviews have given some hand-wavy "well, leaders need to be empowered to just decide." While all constituents should be heard, they won't all be able to block.
2/ inter-state: how to maintain our commitments to global human rights development and poverty reduction while the developed world pulls back from globalization? Need a compelling story where we can convince the population that we can maintain USAID and our NATO commitments while re-shoring and cracking down on illegal immigration. Similar issues in other developed countries fighting over shrinking pies.
This is one of the best reviews of Abundance I’ve read. The book is aimed at the left because it is exactly where the problems are most acute: NY and CA. The left is far more convinced about climate change and the need to decarbonize. Abundance will not be had without addressing climate change . The pushback that Klein and Thompson are getting from the left needs to be resolved on the left. I think that a lot of these ideas that we need to solve corporate power or remedy inequality before doing the extensive and politically tough resolution is a distraction. These issues are are real problems but can be resolved independently of the reforms in Abundance. But the other reality is that the problems need to be addressed by people on both sides. Texas is doing a much better job of addressing affordable housing and even climate change than California. We should learn from good outcomes not just what we think is good ideology. The Nikansen center seems to be doing a nice pivot from its libertarian orientation!
The left and the right pursue abundance in different ways. Take California and Texas for example. California has fostered abundance through immigration, innovation, education, free thinking, and the free import/export of goods and ideas. Texas has fostered abundance through low regulation, low friction, and relatively high affordability.
The book seems to be cherry-picking aspects of abundance from right-leaning places and saying, "we want that too." But before anyone says, "California is bad at abundance" – look at average incomes and the market value of companies started there.
Curiously California is probably better at providing abundance for “elite human capital” - with its top schools and dedication to research of various kinds - and their counterparts at the other end, i.e. thirsty impoverished immigrants. People in the middle feel hamstrung.