Phil in SF reviewed Abundance by Ezra Klein
I agree with them, but this is underwhelming
2 stars
I agree with many of the authors' conclusions and political positions, but this book is mostly a facile argument for "abundance". It's best feature is the articulation of an "abundance" (as opposed to scarcity) political theory. But the chapters arguing that it is right rely on anecdote and suffer from severe survivorship bias (the logical fallacy that examining winners reveals how to succeed). As I noted in a comment, they also subject degrowth to a pretty withering critique that they do not subject their own theory to: degrowth is a political dead end because it includes policies like vegetarianism that are political non-starters. Nowhere in the book do they talk about how one of their core positions, subsidize things you want like heck, is a really hard sell because it means giving a lot more money to people who have money. Another of their core positions is that liberals value …
I agree with many of the authors' conclusions and political positions, but this book is mostly a facile argument for "abundance". It's best feature is the articulation of an "abundance" (as opposed to scarcity) political theory. But the chapters arguing that it is right rely on anecdote and suffer from severe survivorship bias (the logical fallacy that examining winners reveals how to succeed). As I noted in a comment, they also subject degrowth to a pretty withering critique that they do not subject their own theory to: degrowth is a political dead end because it includes policies like vegetarianism that are political non-starters. Nowhere in the book do they talk about how one of their core positions, subsidize things you want like heck, is a really hard sell because it means giving a lot more money to people who have money. Another of their core positions is that liberals value too many things, and because of that don't do any of them, especially building stuff, particularly well. But they do not really articulate what goals liberals should give up in favor of building things. Is it the environment? Is it equitable distribution of wealth? Is it diversity? About the only thing they are clear that should be given up is lengthy process. And I kind of agree with them on that, but process is what ensures those other goals are considered. If not process to accomplish goals, what is the alternate way to achieve those goals. If that's not figured out, we give up all those other goals, just so we can build some shit.
And as a side note, the authors are very positive about "AI" in the book, and that's another thing they may not have wrestled with to the extent they should. But I'll critique that if they ever write a book where the main topic is AI.
