Move fast, break things: A review of Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson

Is “Abundance” just supply-side / deregulation?

• Some see the agenda as repackaged supply-side economics or “growth-ism” with a Democratic gloss.
• Others argue that lumping it together with right-wing deregulation (e.g., tariffs, drill-only energy policy, NIMBY politics) erases major differences in goals and methods.
• There’s disagreement over whether the current Republican project is actually degrowth in practice, despite pro-growth rhetoric.

Coherence vs vibes: is there a real framework?

• A central criticism of the book and of “abundance” is that it’s an inspiring value statement but not a coherent policy framework.
• Critics say the book strings together anecdotes that point in opposite directions (e.g., outsourcing dooms California HSR but enables vaccine rollout) without deriving clear, generalizable rules.
• Defenders respond that the point is not a universal template but a political vision: prioritizing outcomes and demonstrated competence over process purity.

Democratic coalition and intra-left conflict

• Several comments frame the backlash as an internal Democratic fight: progressives want large universal programs (e.g., single payer), while “abundance” proposes a different long game—govern well where Democrats already rule, especially on housing and infrastructure.
• Some on the left say it’s ironic that the author once called Medicare for All politically unrealistic but now backs an agenda that also confronts entrenched interests.

Regulation, competence, and case studies

• Broad agreement that some regulations are counterproductive; sharp disagreement on how to identify which.
• Critics fault the book for not naming enough concrete statutes to repeal or redesign.
• Supporters say diagnosing pathologies (local veto points, consultant-driven megaprojects, box-checking bureaucracies) is valuable even without a detailed repeal list.

Housing, zoning, and NIMBY dynamics

• The housing chapter is widely praised as the strongest and most concrete.
• Commenters detail how zoning, environmental review, and local hearings empower existing homeowners (often older, wealthier) to block multifamily housing.
• Debate over who should decide land use: property owners alone, neighbors, city, or state. Some emphasize zoning’s racist origins; others focus on school-funding inequities tied to property values.
• There’s pushback on the idea that upzoning always hurts homeowners’ wealth; some argue long-run effects are more nuanced.

Growth, “more stuff,” and losers in a positive-sum world

• Disagreement over whether “the last thing society needs is more stuff” is meaningful or just a luxury belief of the affluent.
• Others recast the issue as misallocation and inequitable access rather than absolute scarcity.
• Multiple comments focus on political economy: even in positive-sum changes, some groups perceive themselves as losers (e.g., NIMBYs), and compensating or over-ruling them is hard both practically and normatively.