In Defense of Abundance

The first underground line of the New York City Subway opened on October 27, 1904. Construction began on March 24, 1900, meaning it took a mere four and a half years to construct the nine mile-long subway line. Once the route was settled, the construction’s planning only took another year or two, despite considerable debate during that decade over what New York’s subway should look like. Planning entailed quick, cut-and-cover construction; the subway line was a full four-track line along Lafayette Street, Park Avenue, 42nd Street, Broadway, and Lenox Avenue.

In contrast, the first phase (two miles) of the Second Avenue Subway took 12 years to plan, and then another 10 years to complete. It opened for service in January 2017. Phase Two (1.76 miles) has not even begun construction; it is projected to be completed sometime in the 2030s. The line currently consists of only two tracks with minimal provisions for expansion built in. 

Nevertheless, building the line is a very expensive enterprise: Phase One cost four billion dollars, and Phase Two will cost six billion dollars upon completion. Building infrastructure in America today is incredibly difficult due to the many regulations in place to prevent environmental and economic damage. Ironically, many of the same environmental reviews and regulations meant to ensure safety and the protection of the environment have had the opposite effect.

This is the premise of Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson’s new book Abundance, which outlines an emerging economic ideology: supply-side progressivism. This theory proposes that the best way to make products more affordable is to increase the supply of necessary goods and services and, in turn, increase accessibility. The book also advocates to reduce unnecessary regulations and only keep those which promote a fair economy and prevent monopolies. Regulations meant to help have been abused by affluent entrepreneurs for their own economic gain at the cost of the average American. Americans suffer from chronic housing shortages with high real estate costs, poor transit infrastructure, dirty energy, and extreme sprawl in most urban areas. Abundance advocates for the weakening of unneeded regulations that block housing and transit developments and stand in the way of progressive policy.

The book explains that zoning regulations regularly tie up new housing projects, and these regulations were created intentionally to be exclusionary of unwanted peoples such as minorities, contributing to racial segregation. Housing reform legislation has also failed at the hands of Not In My Backyard (NIMBY) advocates. Transit projects meant to benefit cities and reduce the use of cars get stuck in years of environmental review; those same environmental protection laws are used in opposition to projects on the basis of fears that they will lower property values or “ruin” a neighborhood’s character. For instance, the California High Speed Rail was first funded in 2008, and it is nowhere near done. Solar, nuclear, and wind energy projects are also obstructed by NIMBY advocates, despite the potential of the projects to reduce carbon emissions. For example, many of the projects funded under the Inflation Reduction Act of 2022 have not gotten off the ground, and they are under threat of losing their funding with the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. Remarkably, however, these laws are rarely wielded against environmentally-destructive highway widenings that states like Texas conduct with ruthlessness and speed.

Abundance has had considerable praise, but it has also faced controversy from being a possible rehashing of neoliberal ideology. Neoliberals are a major proponent of supply-side economics, since they believe economic growth will “trickle down” to the average American. Thus, neoliberals are staunchly for deregulation. It can be acknowledged that many, many regulations—such as workplace safety and even environmental protection laws—have been necessary. Despite this, other regulations currently in place do more harm than good and, if removed, would improve standards of living for Americans. There are good regulations and there are bad regulations, and progressive economists should embrace that viewpoint.

The field of supply-side progressivism is newly emerging and quickly gaining popularity, but there is good reason to also be skeptical of some of its supporters, such as Vox founder Matt Yglesias. He first outlined some of the general macroeconomic principles of supply-side progressivism through his articles during the COVID-19 pandemic. However, he now runs a Substack called Slow Boring that also engages in “hippie punching” on social issues, particularly LGBTQ+ rights. Yglesias’s policy of scapegoating the LGBTQ+ community has given supply-side progressivism a poor reputation, even though he helped pioneer it.

However, supply-side progressivism does not necessitate social moderation, which Yglesias advocates for. These are two completely different ideologies—one looks to benefit society while the other only uplifts certain groups and isn’t a sound policy for society. In fact, there are some politicians who could be considered “supply-side” despite being staunchly progressive—such as New York mayoral candidates Brad Lander, Zellnor Myrie, and potentially even Zohran Mamdani, and Representative Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez—especially with housing, where they seek to reduce regulatory burdens. 

In the views of Klein and Thompson, supply-side progressive policies would contribute to an “abundance” of goods and services for Americans by making it easier to build infrastructure and create other necessary products, thus giving the book its eponymous title. This is something that is almost certainly desired—especially for those who, in theory, hold more left-wing beliefs. The lack of abundance of goods and services dooms every redistributionist system that works to ensure equality, which is why most systems in social democratic countries instead aim for equity. Supply-side progressivism would create more opportunities for an equitable society to take shape.

Abundance also encourages a conversation in economic progressivism regarding a balance between supply-side and demand-side policies as well as what American social democracy looks like—something that has not really been seriously  discussed. New York City has taken the lead with this through congestion pricing—born out of supply-side economists’ ideas about externalities. Value-added taxes are designed to be regressive; however, many countries have them while simultaneously funding generous social safety nets, ultimately creating a slightly progressive effect. Land-value taxes in place of property taxes encourage economic development despite reducing the taxable estate, and they have repeatedly been found to be the “perfect tax” across the economic spectrum. 

A mix of supply-side and demand-side policies may be the most progressive option. This is something that is visible with Singapore’s economic system, where they flourish. “It doesn't matter whether a cat is black or white, as long as it catches mice”—a quote commonly attributed to Deng Xiaoping, who effectively led China through the 1980s and exposed its previously communist system to capitalist elements. He defended his policy with proverbs like this, explaining that it did not matter what system he implemented so long as they achieved the desired end result. Similarly, economic progressives should not be afraid to take the good parts of supply-side economics and mix them with the good parts of demand-side economics in order to achieve progressive results. Supply-side economics as it has been implemented is problematic, but that does not mean it cannot be utilized more efficiently to serve society. Red tape and regulations get in the way of progressive policy, and that is certainly not desired nor is it helpful in achieving a more equitable economy. Ultimately, progressivism is about serving the underserved. Abundance’s ideas on implementing supply-side progressivism could help achieve that goal.