The abundance agenda
Just started reading a new book with high expectations. I did end up accidentally ranting against Degrowth just a little bit again, but generally I think it is a reconciliatory post.
Started a new book about abundance
Here’s a snippet from a Noahpinion post about the book (which is how I heard about it):
Currently, most American policy debates are framed in terms of ideology — small government versus big government. Instead, Klein and Thompson, like the YIMBY movement that inspired them, want to reframe debates in terms of results. Who cares if new housing is social housing or market-rate housing, as long as people have affordable places to live? Why should cutting burdensome regulation and hiring more bureaucrats be seen as alternatives, instead of complementary approaches? And so on.
This looks so glaringly obvious. It saddens me that voters in democracies around the world are not a bit more results oriented. But I also know that I am particularly results oriented as a person. Probably partly therefore, I am predisposed to like this book. I am strongly and unabashedly progressive, and a sucker for a good, data-informed policy plan that involves growing the economy to create better outcomes for people and planet!
Reactions to the book are interesting
It looks like in the reactions to this book, a divide between centrist progressives and leftwing ideologues is on display. I found it interesting to read this part of Noah’s review, in part because I can hear echos of this type of ideology online and in things other millennials sometimes post on their social media:
Why are all these critics of abundance liberalism talking nonstop about monopolies and corporate power? It’s not as if Klein and Thompson think antitrust is bad. Part of it is just because these are Elizabeth Warren types who are ensconced in a very small elite thought-bubble, who have somehow convinced themselves that A) bashing corporations is a populist crusade that will lead people flooding into the streets,3 and B) breaking up Google and Meta would somehow make the average American rich.4 That’s part of it.
But part of it has got to be class resentment. There are a number of elite progressives who simply don’t like the idea that in an America of growth and abundance, a few techbros would be very rich. Redistribution isn’t enough to make this bargain palatable — rich entrepreneurs must be cut off from the sources of their wealth, through antitrust, regulation, wealth taxes, or whatever tools are available.
Abundance liberalism just doesn’t care about that stuff; zero-sum status struggles like that are simply not a goal. What matters to the abundance agenda is that regular people — the middle class, the working class, and the poor — have a less onerous life. If that means rich people have to give up some of their wealth, then fine, but if it means that rich people get richer, that’s also fine.
This part struck me because there are echoes here of a common, anti-work, anti-capitalist point of view, obsessed with inequality and power, that ultimately leads to degrowth. Something like this:
Capitalism is oppressive!
Worse than communism!
Eat the rich!
Dismantle capitalism!
Back to washing clothes by hand!
This to me represents the left end of the political horse shoe, with MAGA at the other end. And I hate both pretty much with equal vigor. But, I do suppose there is a real debate that needs to happen on how modern capitalism can support the next level of prosperity improvements for all people. And how we can design policies to make creating a few billionaires a neutral side-effect of raising quality of life for everyone.
So, I am very much looking forward to read ‘Abundance’ and learn more about why and how policies in the last 30 years failed1, and what we should do instead. I hope more people at all points of the political spectrum read it and get convinced by it’s results oriented logic. Because I believe that if governments would start delivering actual results, public support will follow.
This is a big word to use, to be honest. By any possible read of the data, even the last 30 years saw continued progress and increases in living standard pretty much across all classes and across the entire world, with some exceptions that have obvious reasons (like war).