"For decades, American liberalism has measured its successes in how near it could come to the social welfare system of Denmark."
As someone who actually spends his time trying to convince people to adopt Nordic welfare institutions, the bolded sentence stopped me in my tracks. American liberals are internationally notable because of how thoroughly they reject proposals that mirror these systems. The Nordic countries don’t use means-tested tax credits to provide cash benefits to children. They just send all of the kids a check each month. The Nordic countries don’t expand health insurance via means-tested tax credits and mandates to buy private health insurance. They have universal public insurance. (On this point, the authors miss a chance to see how the inefficiency and administrative burdens they loathe in construction actually plague the welfare state too, something liberals are very much to blame for but also have no desire to fix.)
One of the personally amusing aspects of reading Abundance is that it kept reminding me of a two-hour discussion I had with Ezra Klein in 2019 about Medicare for All. In the discussion, Klein is fairly agreeable to the point that moving to a universal public health insurance model would be hugely preferable over the status quo. Indeed, one of the main arguments in favor of such a move is the very abundance-style argument that it would cut out half a trillion annually from pointless health care administrative burdens. Another argument for Medicare for All is that it would reduce health care unit costs, something Abundance actually does discuss, but only in the context of hoping to induce a bidding-down of doctor pay by increasing doctor supply, something that would clearly not be as effective as a public insurer using monopsonistic price-setting power.
In our discussion, Klein balked at making Medicare for All the centerpiece of a Democratic health care agenda because he thought it was not politically practical. There is too much opposition of it from too many powerful constituencies on top of the usual status quo bias and general human fears of rapid change. At one point in the discussion, he asks how would I overcome employer opposition to the change, and I responded that we will just have to beat it, which he clearly did not find persuasive.
It’s not hard to imagine having the same conversation about Abundance but with the roles reversed. Whatever the merits of their proposals, Klein and Thompson are pushing an agenda that requires direct confrontation with many powerful, entrenched constituencies. The main thing they lament about the administrative burdens of construction is the way in which we have given homeowners — who account for two-thirds of the adult population and are older, richer, and more politically engaged than non-homeowners — effective veto rights over construction in their area, sometimes directly in the public planning process and other times indirectly by empowering them to sue developers. Will these homeowners want to be divested of this power so that transmission lines, railroads, energy plants, and apartment towers can be built right by them?
I would answer this with reference to the concept of "pity-charity liberalism" famously invoked by Mike Konczal.
To me, a world where there is a lot of economic growth and then there are tax-and-spending institutions that ensure the growth is widely shared would be amazing. Once upon a time, I understand that to be a progressive view. Something that I've learned over the years, is that among leading progressive institutions this is very much NOT viewed as an amazing goal. It's in fact widely disparaged through a variety of frames and phrases including "pity-charity liberalism."
So if you like the idea of rapid economic growth that is broadly shared thanks to the structure and design of the tax code and the social safety net, I think you should love abundance. But if I understand the progressive movement correctly, they hate this idea and should hate abundance.
I don't think this response fits on a piece that defends the ACA against incoming attacks.
I link to you discussing whether or not YIMBYs should stay "narrow" or go wide, and you are going to be more aware than I am of the complicated tech/AI politics within the 'varieties' of Abundance. So I do think this piece brings up reasonable points that could be addressed.
I still haven't seen you respond adequatedly to Matt Bruenig's critique of this idea:
"I think it would be a huge mistake, on the merits, to sideline whatever focus there is on welfare state expansion and economic egalitarianism in favor of a focus on administrative burdens in construction, both because parceling out the present matters but also because these institutions will determine how the authors’ utopian future will be parceled out. Indeed, we have now seen what it looks like when the government supports and subsidizes technological innovation and implementation without concerning itself with the inegalitarianism of the system. His name is Elon Musk. In its desire to promote electric vehicles and rocketry innovations, the US government made him the richest man in the world and then he used his riches to take over a major political communications platform and then the government.
This point is more general than Musk of course. Many of the anxieties that stoke opposition to the kinds of construction projects and rapid technological innovations favored by the authors are downstream of economic inegalitarianism. People block housing construction because they fear living next to the people that our economic system provides so little income to. They block nearby transportation and energy infrastructure because they don’t want to tumble down the economic ladder by impairing the value of their personal real estate assets. They resist productivity-enhancing technology because they fear job loss and permanent income loss. The preservation or deepening of economic inegalitarianism could easily turn the authors’ utopian vision of 2050 into a dystopian nightmare. Attending to distribution is a must."
Don’t mind me as I share this piece with every friend and family member who was skeptical about Klein and Thompson’s book!!
Well done Mike. Thanks!
I appreciate this framing, but I am surprised Matt Bruenig's excellent piece didn't get a call out: https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2025/03/24/the-abundance-agenda/
Some choice sections quoted below:
"For decades, American liberalism has measured its successes in how near it could come to the social welfare system of Denmark."
As someone who actually spends his time trying to convince people to adopt Nordic welfare institutions, the bolded sentence stopped me in my tracks. American liberals are internationally notable because of how thoroughly they reject proposals that mirror these systems. The Nordic countries don’t use means-tested tax credits to provide cash benefits to children. They just send all of the kids a check each month. The Nordic countries don’t expand health insurance via means-tested tax credits and mandates to buy private health insurance. They have universal public insurance. (On this point, the authors miss a chance to see how the inefficiency and administrative burdens they loathe in construction actually plague the welfare state too, something liberals are very much to blame for but also have no desire to fix.)
One of the personally amusing aspects of reading Abundance is that it kept reminding me of a two-hour discussion I had with Ezra Klein in 2019 about Medicare for All. In the discussion, Klein is fairly agreeable to the point that moving to a universal public health insurance model would be hugely preferable over the status quo. Indeed, one of the main arguments in favor of such a move is the very abundance-style argument that it would cut out half a trillion annually from pointless health care administrative burdens. Another argument for Medicare for All is that it would reduce health care unit costs, something Abundance actually does discuss, but only in the context of hoping to induce a bidding-down of doctor pay by increasing doctor supply, something that would clearly not be as effective as a public insurer using monopsonistic price-setting power.
In our discussion, Klein balked at making Medicare for All the centerpiece of a Democratic health care agenda because he thought it was not politically practical. There is too much opposition of it from too many powerful constituencies on top of the usual status quo bias and general human fears of rapid change. At one point in the discussion, he asks how would I overcome employer opposition to the change, and I responded that we will just have to beat it, which he clearly did not find persuasive.
It’s not hard to imagine having the same conversation about Abundance but with the roles reversed. Whatever the merits of their proposals, Klein and Thompson are pushing an agenda that requires direct confrontation with many powerful, entrenched constituencies. The main thing they lament about the administrative burdens of construction is the way in which we have given homeowners — who account for two-thirds of the adult population and are older, richer, and more politically engaged than non-homeowners — effective veto rights over construction in their area, sometimes directly in the public planning process and other times indirectly by empowering them to sue developers. Will these homeowners want to be divested of this power so that transmission lines, railroads, energy plants, and apartment towers can be built right by them?
I would answer this with reference to the concept of "pity-charity liberalism" famously invoked by Mike Konczal.
To me, a world where there is a lot of economic growth and then there are tax-and-spending institutions that ensure the growth is widely shared would be amazing. Once upon a time, I understand that to be a progressive view. Something that I've learned over the years, is that among leading progressive institutions this is very much NOT viewed as an amazing goal. It's in fact widely disparaged through a variety of frames and phrases including "pity-charity liberalism."
So if you like the idea of rapid economic growth that is broadly shared thanks to the structure and design of the tax code and the social safety net, I think you should love abundance. But if I understand the progressive movement correctly, they hate this idea and should hate abundance.
I don't think this response fits on a piece that defends the ACA against incoming attacks.
I link to you discussing whether or not YIMBYs should stay "narrow" or go wide, and you are going to be more aware than I am of the complicated tech/AI politics within the 'varieties' of Abundance. So I do think this piece brings up reasonable points that could be addressed.
I still haven't seen you respond adequatedly to Matt Bruenig's critique of this idea:
"I think it would be a huge mistake, on the merits, to sideline whatever focus there is on welfare state expansion and economic egalitarianism in favor of a focus on administrative burdens in construction, both because parceling out the present matters but also because these institutions will determine how the authors’ utopian future will be parceled out. Indeed, we have now seen what it looks like when the government supports and subsidizes technological innovation and implementation without concerning itself with the inegalitarianism of the system. His name is Elon Musk. In its desire to promote electric vehicles and rocketry innovations, the US government made him the richest man in the world and then he used his riches to take over a major political communications platform and then the government.
This point is more general than Musk of course. Many of the anxieties that stoke opposition to the kinds of construction projects and rapid technological innovations favored by the authors are downstream of economic inegalitarianism. People block housing construction because they fear living next to the people that our economic system provides so little income to. They block nearby transportation and energy infrastructure because they don’t want to tumble down the economic ladder by impairing the value of their personal real estate assets. They resist productivity-enhancing technology because they fear job loss and permanent income loss. The preservation or deepening of economic inegalitarianism could easily turn the authors’ utopian vision of 2050 into a dystopian nightmare. Attending to distribution is a must."
https://www.peoplespolicyproject.org/2025/03/24/the-abundance-agenda/