Great review. I think the book is fatally flawed given what you have outlined, a conclusion that many others have reached as well. Yet, you have done so in a far more thoughtful and thorough manner than I've seen from anyone else so far. Many reviews of the book I've seen have been far too reductivist (isn't this just making an argument for a resurgence of neoliberalism?) or far too snarky (seemingly from writers and intellectuals who I think are somewhat jealous of Klein's, if not Thompson, place in the public intellectual/podcasting/professional writing class). Thanks for serving your readers well with this measured analysis.
Just finished reading Abundance. Yes timing is off, but the issues they raise are very/were real. If we survive MAGA and DOGE it may be the beginning concept of rebuilding for a much more robust future! Neoliberalism needs to be buried and the Oligarchy needs to pay their share. Where are we going to find the next FDR?
I have bought, but have not yet read, Abundance, so I am judging everything based on (as you put it) " the publicity tour surrounding the book" (plus being a regular listener to Klein's podcast). As such, I have been very frustrated by its reception, since nearly all its critics have been criticizing the book for saying things that (at least in the publicity tour & on podcasts) they explicitly disavow. So it was a pleasure to read a critique of the book that seems to be a critique of *what they are actually saying* (or, at least, what they are currently saying they said). Thank you. — Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to actually read the damn book.
Interesting and useful review. Others I've read simply call it warmed-over neoliberalism, but I would have expected better from these authors. Sounds like they don't grapple with the reasons WHY "building things" is so hard for government. Henry Farrell has been flogging cybernetics as a discipline that could help with that problem, which is one of the basic problems to solve for a political party that doesn't want to return to the 1880s.
Which leads to Biden's "popularity" problem. It's a tangled mess, like the American public, but when you have a problem that all rational argument says shouldn't exist, then you don't have a rational problem.
This review has a perspective, which I suspect that it shares with the book, of, "We're the good guys, and we're constantly being thwarted by the bad guys. We need to fight better." Implicit in that view, I would argue, is a disturbingly naive understanding of social systems. They do not consist of good guys on one side and bad guys on the other. They consist of complex processes, which none of us understands perfectly. But your understanding of government and markets strikes me as especially stunted.
This is such an important point. One side may be sending innocent people to foreign death camps, but the other side is passing environmental regulations. We can’t just say that one side is “better” or “worse” than the other. We’re rational adults here.
Your review makes me mourn once again for the fight we should and would be having but for the Kaos Klowns rampaging through our government. I suspect I'd find plenty to argue with in this book -- I'm with Kate Raworth on where things need to go -- but at least there would be a good faith discussion. As a science fiction writer struggling to write near future stories that are neither dystopias or Pollyanna -- anybody can write apocalypse right now -- your discussion provides useful grist. I don't need to read the book, since we don't live in that world, but I'm glad you did because critiquing this kind of thinking shows more about the path forward if we can stop being sidetracked by cruel nonsense.
I can tell you exactly why Biden’s economic policies weren’t more popular. They were too little and too late. The people at the bottom have watched the people at the top hog all the gravy for decades, and they’re fucking sick of it. Sick of capitalism, sick of America, sick of people telling them things aren’t so bad - “Hey, I’M doing great!”
People who are doing well don’t need some song and dance act telling them how well they’re doing. And people who aren’t? They’re not buying the song and dance act anymore. Not all of them are frustrated and dumb enough to think Trump is their salvation, but they’re pretty sure Democrats aren’t either.
Want them back? Make their lives better in real, tangible ways. You’re not going to jolly them into voting for you again.
This is a very helpful review. I haven't read Abundance yet because I sensed a hippie-punching mentality. At the same time, I can see in my neck of the woods how 1970s-style environmentalism tends to be better at saying no than saying yes.
We do need to get better at building what we want. However, it can be alarming to read in a growing number of national left-of-center political media outlets otherwise quite liberal writers advocating housing policies that sound like the local lobbyist for the Master Builders: build, build, build without regard to the environmental or social consequences.
As a case in point, carrying capacity should still matter -- particularly in an era of escalating climate impacts such as water shortages. So we need to exercise discernment about what constitutes a "sustainable" abundance. Okay, I just used a buzzword from another intellectual fad, but the sustainability movement at least tried to create a holistic framework for deciding what abundance might look like.
My critique of the book is that they fail to address the one area where there has been consensus on abundance (car culture) that is, in my view, largely responsible for so many of our other problems. We need a lot more housing in our cities, and a lot fewer cars.
Environmental reviews saying is no instead of yes is just another facet of the capital owners problem. Somehow all the red tape only applies to bike lanes but not highways, and downtown apartments but not suburban sprawl.
Everyone who actually wants to address housing costs ought to "sound like a lobbyist" for builders/developers when rent nationwide has been increasing faster than income over several years (I believe that changed in 2024). The rent-to-income ratio passed the 30% threshold nationally, literally meaning the nation is overburdened by rent. I would link to the White House report from last year that said 1/4 renters is "severely overburdened," meaning they pay more than half of their income on housing, but I believe the Trump government information apocalypse has resulted in that link being killed.
With that all said, renting is now cheaper than buying homes in many of our country's largest markets. So yes, we need to "build, build, build."
Nowhere in the book (or in this post) are people of Klein's persuasion arguing that building homes/apartments ought to be done without regard for the environmental or social consequences. They are simply arguing that the laws that were essential to curbing the clear environmental harms present in the 1970s should not be allowed to hold development hostage when faced with the clear economic burdens present in today's housing and rental markets. Arguing for a common sense approach to address a societal problem is not arguing for ridding approval processes of any prudence whatsoever.
This is a good review, both charitable and critical with nuance. Does a good job explaining how the authors vision differs from neoliberalism but also where it falls into some of the same traps, or at least offers an incomplete picture. I was most interested in the section where you talked about why Bidenism wasn't more popular. I am also curious about that and think that question is much more important than this stupid Biden age debate. But the fact that it wasn't popular was my initial critique of Abundance before any of the left / center debate about it started raging. Voters have already proven they just don't really care about policy.
I think there's a pretty good answer on Bidenism-- one answer is that inflation is unpopular, and for awhile it was too high. Biden is only partially to blame for that, but electorates don't really do nuance. The other part is that the big initiatives take time, and the industrial policy was only about half successful. And that's where Klein/Thompson is instructive.
As Noah Smith pointed out, factory construction spending took off after the CHIPS Act. If you care about building manufacturing capacity to reshore critical industries like semiconductors, that's very important. On the other hand, that boom was pretty much exclusively in the private sector. The government didn't engage in the construction that it promised to, primarily due to the regulatory process hurdles that Klein/Thompson identify. That's a pretty good vindication of their argument.
Great thoughtful review indeed. So agree with your conclusion: yes, government, yes, get out of our way, but only if we can regain degrees of freedom by shaking some constraints kept there by entities who have all interests in keeping said constraints preventing government, and preventing government from getting out of its way. Where are the books that discuss HOW to do that? (Only example I see is China going after its billionaires, or Europe’s slow and ineffectual litigating and regulating monopolies)
As per the timing of the book, I listened to a podcast of the authors where they discuss that it was originally aimed to publish in summer 2024 in support of 2024 presidential campaign for democrats - exactly the timing window you imagine. Their own schedule got in their way I guess. Maybe an example of too many objectives layered onto their own lives 😉
You don’t get it. It would be far less compelling if juxtaposed with a Harris presidency. Not because it would have less merit in its message, but because the reinforcement of the default Democratic view would neutralize the “need for self-reflection” aspect of its relevance.
In the world of a Harris presidency, Democrats would not find the argument compelling because it would not be contextualized by a strategic loss that demanded self-reflection. They would simply ignore the message, and continue on within the fog of their blank-slatist religion, which would ultimately reject markets for socialistic tendencies, but perpetuate the more fundamental problem of bureaucracy and bloated governance.
Only within the context of a loss is this work impactful in helping its readers consider the negatives of bloated, ineffective governance.
Very interesting review. Want to say +1000 on the point about science funding. What happened to it (and so many other areas) is that while it looks like a lot of money is being spent, compared to the past, too often the funding has not grown relative to things like (population, size of the economy, complexity of challenges) and taking on the "on the cheap" philosophy of the right is necessary otherwise the "experiments about experiments" will not change much.
An excellent, fair-minded review. I disagree on one over-arching point, best described as “necessary, but not sufficient.” I hope, and believe, that we will eventually emerge from the Trump – Musk-Vought cataclysm. This book is certainly not a manual for that escape. But no book is. There are a few or no leaders that propose a plan for that escape. So to pin that absence on this book as making it “not timely“ is to try to force a false dilemma onto the book.
Having said that, Dave is absolutely correct that the book utterly fails to address the power seeking and seizing properties of capital. Also, a minor point, but the pet peeve of mine, is that it fails to address adequately the risk averse friction created by intra-agency bureaucracy, independent of the layering on of requirements by legislation.
At the end of the day, when we emerge from the catechism, we will need some path for moving forward. I propose that “the Mo pose” isn’t essential but incomplete piece of that path
Just finished Abundance, perfectly fine ideas, but little connection to execution, which they highlight as extremely important.
This is the problem - as much as I like reading and thinking about ideas, change comes in the doing. Our current Substack and high quality ideas-rich environment (truly) is not translating to action.
No one in local government is reading these great Substack takes and putting them into action! Our opinion journalism has evolved in an interesting (and somewhat positive) way, but it’s mostly benefiting the writers and providing topics for conversation.
Maybe it’s time for less writing and more doing? Can we take all of these Substack writers and put them together to support public policy implementation?
Great review. I think the book is fatally flawed given what you have outlined, a conclusion that many others have reached as well. Yet, you have done so in a far more thoughtful and thorough manner than I've seen from anyone else so far. Many reviews of the book I've seen have been far too reductivist (isn't this just making an argument for a resurgence of neoliberalism?) or far too snarky (seemingly from writers and intellectuals who I think are somewhat jealous of Klein's, if not Thompson, place in the public intellectual/podcasting/professional writing class). Thanks for serving your readers well with this measured analysis.
Just finished reading Abundance. Yes timing is off, but the issues they raise are very/were real. If we survive MAGA and DOGE it may be the beginning concept of rebuilding for a much more robust future! Neoliberalism needs to be buried and the Oligarchy needs to pay their share. Where are we going to find the next FDR?
I have bought, but have not yet read, Abundance, so I am judging everything based on (as you put it) " the publicity tour surrounding the book" (plus being a regular listener to Klein's podcast). As such, I have been very frustrated by its reception, since nearly all its critics have been criticizing the book for saying things that (at least in the publicity tour & on podcasts) they explicitly disavow. So it was a pleasure to read a critique of the book that seems to be a critique of *what they are actually saying* (or, at least, what they are currently saying they said). Thank you. — Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to actually read the damn book.
Interesting and useful review. Others I've read simply call it warmed-over neoliberalism, but I would have expected better from these authors. Sounds like they don't grapple with the reasons WHY "building things" is so hard for government. Henry Farrell has been flogging cybernetics as a discipline that could help with that problem, which is one of the basic problems to solve for a political party that doesn't want to return to the 1880s.
Which leads to Biden's "popularity" problem. It's a tangled mess, like the American public, but when you have a problem that all rational argument says shouldn't exist, then you don't have a rational problem.
This review has a perspective, which I suspect that it shares with the book, of, "We're the good guys, and we're constantly being thwarted by the bad guys. We need to fight better." Implicit in that view, I would argue, is a disturbingly naive understanding of social systems. They do not consist of good guys on one side and bad guys on the other. They consist of complex processes, which none of us understands perfectly. But your understanding of government and markets strikes me as especially stunted.
This is such an important point. One side may be sending innocent people to foreign death camps, but the other side is passing environmental regulations. We can’t just say that one side is “better” or “worse” than the other. We’re rational adults here.
Good review.
Your review makes me mourn once again for the fight we should and would be having but for the Kaos Klowns rampaging through our government. I suspect I'd find plenty to argue with in this book -- I'm with Kate Raworth on where things need to go -- but at least there would be a good faith discussion. As a science fiction writer struggling to write near future stories that are neither dystopias or Pollyanna -- anybody can write apocalypse right now -- your discussion provides useful grist. I don't need to read the book, since we don't live in that world, but I'm glad you did because critiquing this kind of thinking shows more about the path forward if we can stop being sidetracked by cruel nonsense.
I can tell you exactly why Biden’s economic policies weren’t more popular. They were too little and too late. The people at the bottom have watched the people at the top hog all the gravy for decades, and they’re fucking sick of it. Sick of capitalism, sick of America, sick of people telling them things aren’t so bad - “Hey, I’M doing great!”
People who are doing well don’t need some song and dance act telling them how well they’re doing. And people who aren’t? They’re not buying the song and dance act anymore. Not all of them are frustrated and dumb enough to think Trump is their salvation, but they’re pretty sure Democrats aren’t either.
Want them back? Make their lives better in real, tangible ways. You’re not going to jolly them into voting for you again.
This is a very helpful review. I haven't read Abundance yet because I sensed a hippie-punching mentality. At the same time, I can see in my neck of the woods how 1970s-style environmentalism tends to be better at saying no than saying yes.
We do need to get better at building what we want. However, it can be alarming to read in a growing number of national left-of-center political media outlets otherwise quite liberal writers advocating housing policies that sound like the local lobbyist for the Master Builders: build, build, build without regard to the environmental or social consequences.
As a case in point, carrying capacity should still matter -- particularly in an era of escalating climate impacts such as water shortages. So we need to exercise discernment about what constitutes a "sustainable" abundance. Okay, I just used a buzzword from another intellectual fad, but the sustainability movement at least tried to create a holistic framework for deciding what abundance might look like.
My critique of the book is that they fail to address the one area where there has been consensus on abundance (car culture) that is, in my view, largely responsible for so many of our other problems. We need a lot more housing in our cities, and a lot fewer cars.
Environmental reviews saying is no instead of yes is just another facet of the capital owners problem. Somehow all the red tape only applies to bike lanes but not highways, and downtown apartments but not suburban sprawl.
Everyone who actually wants to address housing costs ought to "sound like a lobbyist" for builders/developers when rent nationwide has been increasing faster than income over several years (I believe that changed in 2024). The rent-to-income ratio passed the 30% threshold nationally, literally meaning the nation is overburdened by rent. I would link to the White House report from last year that said 1/4 renters is "severely overburdened," meaning they pay more than half of their income on housing, but I believe the Trump government information apocalypse has resulted in that link being killed.
With that all said, renting is now cheaper than buying homes in many of our country's largest markets. So yes, we need to "build, build, build."
Nowhere in the book (or in this post) are people of Klein's persuasion arguing that building homes/apartments ought to be done without regard for the environmental or social consequences. They are simply arguing that the laws that were essential to curbing the clear environmental harms present in the 1970s should not be allowed to hold development hostage when faced with the clear economic burdens present in today's housing and rental markets. Arguing for a common sense approach to address a societal problem is not arguing for ridding approval processes of any prudence whatsoever.
https://listwithclever.com/research/rent-to-income-ratio-2024/#cheapest
https://www.badcredit.org/studies/historical-rent-income-data/
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/more-expensive-buy-house-rent-us-analysis/story?id=108351536#:~:text=Buying%20a%20house%20in%20the,in%20front%20of%20a%20house.
Perhaps you should reread what I said about who sounds like lobbyists for the Master Builders. Alas, it would remove a straw man from your argument.
This is a good review, both charitable and critical with nuance. Does a good job explaining how the authors vision differs from neoliberalism but also where it falls into some of the same traps, or at least offers an incomplete picture. I was most interested in the section where you talked about why Bidenism wasn't more popular. I am also curious about that and think that question is much more important than this stupid Biden age debate. But the fact that it wasn't popular was my initial critique of Abundance before any of the left / center debate about it started raging. Voters have already proven they just don't really care about policy.
I think there's a pretty good answer on Bidenism-- one answer is that inflation is unpopular, and for awhile it was too high. Biden is only partially to blame for that, but electorates don't really do nuance. The other part is that the big initiatives take time, and the industrial policy was only about half successful. And that's where Klein/Thompson is instructive.
As Noah Smith pointed out, factory construction spending took off after the CHIPS Act. If you care about building manufacturing capacity to reshore critical industries like semiconductors, that's very important. On the other hand, that boom was pretty much exclusively in the private sector. The government didn't engage in the construction that it promised to, primarily due to the regulatory process hurdles that Klein/Thompson identify. That's a pretty good vindication of their argument.
Great thoughtful review indeed. So agree with your conclusion: yes, government, yes, get out of our way, but only if we can regain degrees of freedom by shaking some constraints kept there by entities who have all interests in keeping said constraints preventing government, and preventing government from getting out of its way. Where are the books that discuss HOW to do that? (Only example I see is China going after its billionaires, or Europe’s slow and ineffectual litigating and regulating monopolies)
As per the timing of the book, I listened to a podcast of the authors where they discuss that it was originally aimed to publish in summer 2024 in support of 2024 presidential campaign for democrats - exactly the timing window you imagine. Their own schedule got in their way I guess. Maybe an example of too many objectives layered onto their own lives 😉
You don’t get it. It would be far less compelling if juxtaposed with a Harris presidency. Not because it would have less merit in its message, but because the reinforcement of the default Democratic view would neutralize the “need for self-reflection” aspect of its relevance.
In the world of a Harris presidency, Democrats would not find the argument compelling because it would not be contextualized by a strategic loss that demanded self-reflection. They would simply ignore the message, and continue on within the fog of their blank-slatist religion, which would ultimately reject markets for socialistic tendencies, but perpetuate the more fundamental problem of bureaucracy and bloated governance.
Only within the context of a loss is this work impactful in helping its readers consider the negatives of bloated, ineffective governance.
Science will abide kinda like the dude 😎
Very interesting review. Want to say +1000 on the point about science funding. What happened to it (and so many other areas) is that while it looks like a lot of money is being spent, compared to the past, too often the funding has not grown relative to things like (population, size of the economy, complexity of challenges) and taking on the "on the cheap" philosophy of the right is necessary otherwise the "experiments about experiments" will not change much.
An excellent, fair-minded review. I disagree on one over-arching point, best described as “necessary, but not sufficient.” I hope, and believe, that we will eventually emerge from the Trump – Musk-Vought cataclysm. This book is certainly not a manual for that escape. But no book is. There are a few or no leaders that propose a plan for that escape. So to pin that absence on this book as making it “not timely“ is to try to force a false dilemma onto the book.
Having said that, Dave is absolutely correct that the book utterly fails to address the power seeking and seizing properties of capital. Also, a minor point, but the pet peeve of mine, is that it fails to address adequately the risk averse friction created by intra-agency bureaucracy, independent of the layering on of requirements by legislation.
At the end of the day, when we emerge from the catechism, we will need some path for moving forward. I propose that “the Mo pose” isn’t essential but incomplete piece of that path
Just finished Abundance, perfectly fine ideas, but little connection to execution, which they highlight as extremely important.
This is the problem - as much as I like reading and thinking about ideas, change comes in the doing. Our current Substack and high quality ideas-rich environment (truly) is not translating to action.
No one in local government is reading these great Substack takes and putting them into action! Our opinion journalism has evolved in an interesting (and somewhat positive) way, but it’s mostly benefiting the writers and providing topics for conversation.
Maybe it’s time for less writing and more doing? Can we take all of these Substack writers and put them together to support public policy implementation?