America Today Resembles a Childlike Society

Abstract： The article reviews Abundance by Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson, which calls for building a future of shared prosperity through innovation and better governance. Despite its wealth, America faces man-made shortages due to political dysfunction. Republicans resist government action, while Democrats focus on redistribution, leaving essential problems like housing, healthcare, and infrastructure unsolved.

The piece critiques America’s identity-driven politics and shrinking middle class, arguing that true progress requires moving beyond ideology to practical, bipartisan solutions. Today’s U.S. resembles a childlike society—more focused on expression and consumption than creation and problem-solving.

I recently read a new book titled Abundance, which explores how we might build a society of abundance.

The two authors are Ezra Klein, a columnist for The New York Times, and Derek Thompson, a staff writer for The Atlantic.

“Abundance” is the opposite of “scarcity.” Overcoming scarcity and welcoming abundance cannot be achieved by technology alone—you also need sound economic and political systems. As we all know, the core issue of economics is to solve scarcity, and sound economic policies require sound politics.

America is a very wealthy country, yet it faces serious shortages today: soaring housing prices, insufficient clean energy, aging infrastructure, expensive healthcare and education, and so on. The two authors argue that these shortages are not due to a lack of technology or resources—but are man-made.

In simple terms, both major political parties in the U.S. have serious policy flaws. The central theme of this book is how to fix these problems and build a truly abundant society.

Recently, as Trump reignited a trade war, an intriguing observation emerged: America wants to become a manufacturing country, while China aims to become a consumer-driven country—both nations want to become each other. We are fundamentally different from the U.S.

At the beginning of the book, the authors describe a future scenario.

By 2050, you should be able to live like this:

Energy is incredibly cheap and leaves zero carbon footprint.

Water comes from seawater desalination powered by microbial membranes. This method is so efficient that it supplies over half of the world’s fresh water. Natural rivers are barely used anymore, and deserts have been transformed into green oases.

Vegetables are grown in vertical farms near your home, stacked in greenhouses and lit precisely by LED lights. The meat you eat isn’t from slaughtered animals, but lab-grown from animal cells. Considering that we currently use 25% of the earth’s land to raise livestock for meat, this would seem absurd to future you. That land could be returned to nature, becoming a paradise for wildlife.

You now take magical medications that slow aging and help manage weight.

You only need to work two or three days a week and enjoy long holidays—AI handles most of the labor.

Flights across the globe take less than two hours thanks to supersonic jets…

All of this should happen—but it won’t happen automatically. It requires people to build it.

Take high-speed rail as a simple example. China has already built extensive networks; the technology is no longer a barrier. The U.S. has no shortage of resources or land, and yet it doesn’t have a single operational high-speed rail line. California has been building one between Los Angeles and San Francisco for years, spending enormous sums, and it’s still far from completion.

If things go on like this, an abundant society will never materialise. The problem is serious. Klein and Thompson argue that America’s shortages are man-made.

Science writer Wan Weigang once said, America’s strength comes not from what the government does, but from what it doesn’t do. The U.S. may be the most market-oriented country in the world, where people let the market take care of everything as much as possible. The market gives the U.S. its unique creative power—but it doesn’t solve everything.

If the market is the "zero-order logic," we need several "first-order corrections."

For example, the market doesn’t distinguish between clean and traditional energy. A kilowatt-hour is a kilowatt-hour—it doesn’t care if it comes from coal or solar. Government intervention is essential to encourage the use of clean energy even when it’s still slightly more expensive than traditional sources—through subsidies or tax incentives.

Moreover, the market only addresses economic returns. But some activities—like environmental protection—deliver social value, not financial gain.

Or consider basic scientific research. With no short-term commercial returns, you can’t expect private companies to fund it all. The ideal model is for governments to fund early research. Once promising results appear, private companies can take over and commercialise the discoveries. For decades, government investment in U.S. research has produced massive gains—yet Trump is dismantling this very system.

So yes, government needs to act.

And right now, both U.S. political parties are preventing it from doing so. The Republican Party is explicitly anti-government, believing government should do little beyond national defense. The Democratic Party weakens the government by focusing on redistributing money to citizens—leaving the government with no funds to implement meaningful change. One refuses to act, the other is unable to act. That’s the current state of the U.S. government.

In China, people tend to value proactive government. You might find it hard to imagine, but in the U.S., the President can publicly criticise the government. Ronald Reagan once famously said: “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.”

One of the core beliefs of the Republican Party is that the government should collect less tax, avoid interfering in the operations of the private sector, loosen regulations, and let companies freely pursue innovation, invention, and production. This is the Republican version of supply-side economics.

It sounds reasonable, but reality tells a different story. History has repeatedly shown that when companies receive tax cuts, they rarely use the extra money for investment or business expansion. What they love to do most with surplus funds is stock buybacks—once stock prices rise, everyone in the market is happy.

The Democratic Party, on the other hand, focuses on the demand side. Put simply, their idea is to give money to the people. Sometimes it’s in the form of direct subsidies; other times it comes under the label of “stimulus policies.” The belief is that increasing demand will naturally lead the market to generate more supply. However, history shows that such policies often end up simply driving up prices. This inflation is most obvious not in everyday goods, but in sectors that have been heavily subsidised by Democratic policies.

One such sector is healthcare. In the U.S., if you don’t have health insurance, even a basic medical visit can result in a shockingly high bill. This sounds like a broken system—but why haven’t Americans revolted? Because of government subsidies. Medicare for the elderly is fully funded by the government, and low-income individuals receive government assistance to purchase insurance. These subsidies make it possible for the vast majority of Americans to afford expensive healthcare—but they also distort the market, creating the conditions for medical prices to rise without limit.

Why can rent be so expensive? Because the government provides housing subsidies to low-income families. Why have university tuition fees become outrageously high? Do Americans actually have the means to afford them? Of course not—but the government offers student loans.

You can’t fool economics: artificially boosting demand without increasing supply will inevitably lead to rising prices.

And government money doesn’t fall from the sky—it comes from taxpayers. When those funds are used for healthcare subsidies, housing assistance, or student loans, they’re not being used for infrastructure or public investment. As a result, the actual amount of money the U.S. government has at its own discretion for construction and development is very limited. Large-scale investment projects like China’s multi-trillion-yuan infrastructure plans are simply beyond America’s reach.

Republicans advocate for lower taxes; Democrats advocate for more handouts. In the end, both approaches render the government ineffective. So, should the U.S. learn from China? Not necessarily—China’s issue is that it both taxes heavily and doesn’t provide much direct financial support to its citizens, leaving people with limited spending power. The deeper issue isn’t how much the government invests, but how both parties have distorted market mechanisms through their policies.

In the 1950s, the median price of a home in the U.S. was only 2.2 times the average annual income—so most families could afford to buy one. By 2020, that ratio had risen to 6 times annual income, turning housing into a major financial burden. The same trend applies to healthcare, college tuition, and childcare.

Today, the lives of average Americans are deeply divided. On one hand, general consumer goods are very affordable—buying home appliances or even a car isn’t a big deal. On the other hand, the most basic services—housing, healthcare, and education—are absurdly expensive. Many people have taken on crushing debt because of them.

This is a somewhat absurd story: in the 1960s, an average family could afford to attend college without taking out loans, but buying a high-end television was a luxury. Today, the situation is exactly the opposite—it’s easy to buy a TV without financial pressure, but nearly impossible to attend college without going into debt.

In today’s America, if you’re very poor, life may actually be more manageable—the government provides welfare, helps you with rent, and offers subsidies to cover basic living needs. If you have income from assets, life can be quite comfortable too, since stock prices and home values are rising. But if you’re middle class—neither poor enough for aid nor rich enough to coast—you’re burdened with the full costs of housing, healthcare, and higher education.

This is why the American middle class is shrinking. But the middle class is the backbone of the nation—they’re the ones doing the work.

In the past, manufacturing was the primary source of middle-class jobs, but employment in that sector has dropped dramatically. Americans still have strong purchasing power, but most of the goods they buy are made abroad. These are major drivers of the Make America Great Again sentiment among Trump supporters—trade wars and calls for "reshoring" manufacturing are direct responses to this anxiety.

Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson advocate for a new path that transcends partisan politics, which they call “a liberalism that builds”—an agenda focused on building an abundant society.

The authors explicitly state that this book is written primarily for Democrats—because Republicans, they admit frankly, are unlikely to read their work. They also clearly point out that Trump’s popularity isn’t solely the Republicans’ fault; it’s also due to Democrats’ failures. Take California, a long-time Democratic stronghold—yet even there, support for Trump is rising.

The reality is that people are growing disillusioned with Democratic governance. You keep indulging problems instead of solving them—you can’t even address the homeless crisis or looting in the streets of San Francisco. Meanwhile, the issues you’re passionate about—LGBTQ rights, abortion access—aren’t the pain points that matter most to average people. On the flip side, the Republicans aren’t truly governing either—they’re playing ideological games.

Today, both parties have essentially become platforms for identity politics. Supporting a party is more about declaring who you are than about choosing how the country should be governed.

Saying you support the Republican Party is really saying you believe in small government, oppose high taxes, and value individual freedom. Saying you support the Democratic Party is really saying you care about social equity, helping the vulnerable, and regulating the market.

But those are ideologies, not policies. Real policy is specific and involves a balance of degrees—it requires situational analysis. Sometimes, the right approach might involve adopting a bit from both parties. If you really want to solve problems, you must be willing to admit that the other side’s ideas might also have merit.

But the moment you do that, you lose your ability to use politics to "prove who you are." You risk being cast out by your own political camp.

This is the most foolish aspect of American politics today. It reminds one of Keith Hayward’s book Childhoodization, which argues that the U.S. has become a kind of childlike society—more interested in self-expression than creation; more focused on consumption than production.