One-sentence summary: Kevin D. Williamson critiques Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson’s book Abundance for its utopian premise that scarcity is a choice, arguing that the authors ignore fundamental economic realities and advocate for an impractical, centralized planning approach.
Williamson argues that Klein and Thompson’s book, Abundance, is based on the flawed assumption that scarcity is a matter of political will rather than an economic fact. He contends that the authors fail to engage with the economic definition of scarcity, which acknowledges limited resources and competing demands. Instead, they promote a vision of government intervention and centralized planning to eliminate scarcity, disregarding historical failures of such approaches.
The review highlights the book’s reliance on speculative technological advancements, such as nuclear fusion and green hydrogen, without addressing real-world constraints on scaling these innovations. Williamson criticizes the authors’ lack of engagement with public-choice theory, which explains the inefficiencies of government action, and their dismissive attitude toward economic constraints. He also points out factual inaccuracies in their analysis, such as misleading inflation adjustments when discussing college tuition increases.
Williamson particularly takes issue with the book’s approach to regulatory and legal obstacles, suggesting that the authors view democracy, legal challenges, and property rights as barriers to progress rather than essential checks on power. He argues that their desire for a streamlined approval process for projects like California’s high-speed rail ignores the risks of government overreach and inefficiency.
Furthermore, Williamson critiques Klein and Thompson’s assertion that markets cannot distinguish between “good” and “bad” sources of wealth, arguing that this assumption leads to heavy-handed government intervention that often exacerbates scarcity rather than alleviating it. He contends that a more pragmatic and modest approach to regulation, rather than sweeping utopian visions, is necessary for sustainable economic progress.
Ultimately, Williamson concludes that Abundance serves more as a rhetorical blueprint for progressive policy rather than a practical economic plan. He warns against the dangers of ideological thinking that dismisses scarcity as an illusion, advocating instead for policies that acknowledge economic limitations and the unintended consequences of government intervention.
Kevin D. Williamson. “Ignoring Scarcity at Our Own Peril.” The Dispatch, 17 Mar. 2025, https://thedispatch.com/article/ezra-klein-derek-thompson-book-liberalism-utopia/.
Key takeaways:
- Williamson critiques Abundance for dismissing economic scarcity as a real constraint and treating it as a political choice.
- He argues that the authors ignore historical failures of central planning and do not engage with public-choice theory.
- The book relies on speculative technological breakthroughs without addressing practical constraints.
- The authors’ approach to regulation and government intervention risks undermining democracy and property rights.
- Williamson calls for more pragmatic and humble economic thinking instead of utopian visions.
Important quotations:
- “Scarcity, as understood in economics, is not a choice but a fact.”
- “Never mind that government planners and would-be managers of the national economy have been flipping those switches like cocaine monkeys in a federal lab for going on a century now.”
- “The problem is that if you subsidize demand for something that is scarce, you’ll raise prices or force rationing.”
- “We need less utopian thinking, not more. We need more modest thinking, more specific thinking, more humble thinking.”
Word count of summary: 504
Word count of original article: ~2,700
Model version: GPT-4
Custom GPT name: Summarizer 2