Abundance: How we build a better future by
Ezra Klein and
Derek ThompsonStarted: May 9, 2025
Completed: May 12, 2025
Recommendation: Mild Recommendation
Recommended by: Nobody, I seem to be on an Ezra Klein kick
Review:
So, the thesis of this book seems to be: create abundance and then we will live in abundance. That is true. The obstacles to abundance are, well, OK. If regulations are relaxed, then it will be easier and faster to build, well, everything. So, why not ease the regulations? After all, some of them don't make sense, like, well, zoning. Oh, and, also make it easier to get research grants and make those grants on high risk projects. After all, nobody is going to abuse that funding. So, this is the liberal agenda without any safe guards. Or is it? Is this the conservative agenda?
Experience has shown that easing regulations leads to abuse. Now, taking bigger risk on research grants and making it easier to comply with the paperwork for a research grant makes some sense. The problem is that whenever regulations are eased, there are abuses and the those abuses (for, say, construction or even research) have been seriously egregious. There is a case to be made that private money can get this stuff done faster. When it happens that way, though, we end up fires that take out Chicago or San Francisco. We end up with sinking buildings in Florida and buildings/roadways that cannot survive an earthquake in LA. We end up with mining tailings in the water and air so thick it cannot be breathed. But just the relax the regulations. Maybe the onerous ones that prevent industrial sites near schools (Love Canal anyone)? Or the ones that govern how mines are managed (Centralia Pennsylvania)?
I get that there is a real problem with NIMBYism and I can see how regulations (particularly zoning laws) facilitate that. This book, however, simply says that those regulations which make it hard to build stuff (like environmental impact studies) should just be removed. So, yes, the building would move forward faster and cheaper, but the world would not be better for the effort. Why not look at how to make environmental impact studies for efficient and faster? Maybe more people working on the impact study would help? Maybe there is a way to consider cascading impacts that could be handled by integrated assessment teams? Maybe NIMBY can be solved by reducing the impact of the rich on government (hold meetings when everyone can attend like 2:00 on the weekend), require petitions with signatures to halt things (instead of some wealthy guy hitting up his friend on council), and require quality of life impacts that match the quality of life impact of completing the project (so reduced value of the neighborhood housing is not used to weigh against providing housing for more people). I don't know, but it feels to me like the authors cherry picked some regulations that they don't like and decided that no regulations are good if they impact PROGRESS.