Pragmatic Abundance
On AI, an abundance agenda and LFG wonks
The stock market boom and potential AI bubble burst has been a source of heavy focus for the Economist over the last several weeks. This represents a marked change from the AI ’bandwagoning’ that much of the media has engaged in since its inception. Eyes have been opened, and many are starting to question the sustainability of this experiment.
This vast growth has been underwritten by ballooning debt and a fear of missing out. Nvidia’s market value has risen to £2 trillion, £3 trillion, and £4 trillion over the past few years. Arbitrary numbers - this is an estimation of potential rather than reality. This might not happen, but what if it does? The potential is too enticing. You’re not missing the train; you’re missing a whole restructuring of our economic systems.
Such high stakes carry great jeopardy. The media are not creating hysteria out of nothing; they are relaying warning signs from the industry. Jamie Dimon recently said, “You have a lot of assets out there which look like they’re entering bubble territory.” The JP Morgan top brass may enjoy his influential power, but his voice has great credence. AI could rip up the global financial system. On a much larger scale than in 2008. So much capital has been allocated to this being the rightway. The former bank of England Governor Andrew Bailey said: “The alarm bells are ringing”, as they were in 2008, looking at the extraordinary levels of private credit. US and European banks have a $4.5tn exposure to this source of finance.
This level of unimanageable dependence happens as the major banks lie still. Private equity-backed projects are booming. Governments swoon over the tech bros, courting and grovelling as they vie to be chosen. If Sam Altman or Jason Yeung reject the cooler climates of Scandinavia or the low corporate tax of Ireland for their investments and choose your country to allocate capital, then governments proclaim victory. The job is done. Growth is inevitable. Take this back to the people and let them bask in our glory.
Trump’s recent visit to the UK highlighted this absurd situation. Where the government is reliant on the US’s cabal of billionaires to pledge investment in the country. They were able to secure £150bn worth of investment, the majority provided by Blackstone – the mass asset hoarder currently embarking on a buying splurge across Europe. Superficially, this was something to be applauded. 7,600 jobs are estimated to be created with the new investment, something not to be sniffed at. It is the infatuation towards these instruments of investment that leave a sour taste. As Daniela Gabor wrote before the election, Labour is “getting BlackRock to rebuild Britain.”
One only must look at the disgraceful story of care homes and special education schools being acquired by these vehicles – run solely for profit, the biggest ones have raked in £95million in profit in the past three years. They squeeze local councils of any cash they still have swimming around and deliver a service significantly worse than their publicly run alternatives. Governments know that splitting the public realm pie in such a way will lead to this; their focus is on optics rather than the substance. As Ethan Shone writes: “the argument goes, becomes the generation of profit, rather than providing a working, reliable service. In practice, this might mean cutting investment while raising prices.”
Reimaging an environment where such an absence of care or self-interest is present does not entail a socialist utopia. You cannot dispel capitalistic voices, but nor can you have mass subservience towards them. Everything must come down to balance: lifting the bottom up by providing equitable access to resources and services does not require moving heaven and earth, all while selling yourself out in the process. Their is an alternative.
--
Embracing an abundant agenda has become the in-vogue mantra for governments. First mainstreamed by NYT columnist Ezra Klein and fellow writer Eric Thompson through their book ‘abundance’, depicts the year 2050 as having mass renewable energies, accessible infrastructure and equitable resources. It is a rejection of the neoliberal 21st century status quo, bogged down in short-termism, allergic to anything that might upset the apple car. Abundance deplores this. Not only does it deplore its minimalistic aspirations but of the selfish motive it serves. Abundance is not to be squeezed; it is to be reaped and redistributed amongst its inhabitants.
Western governments have started to understand that the Keynesian notion of government interventionism has run its course. However much they try and resurrect a pre 2008 landscape, without the excess and over hedging, it’s a redundant endeavour. The ‘growth at any cost’ is detrimental to governments. European countries are drunk on the copium, desperate for a quick reprieve and quick to fall to their knees at any actor willing to alleviate the pressure. Abundance doesn’t have to paper over the cracks in this way; it’s a fundamental reconstruction of the system. Rejecting the quixotism of dispelling private investment but not aspersing their claims that their motives are born out of benevolence.
China’s techno-nationalist mission demonstrates the extremes of the abundance dogma. It is a case study to be learned from. When such a ferocious obsession to create and build becomes detrimental to the state. The idea of involution would be a dream to Western society, which is scarce of houses and hospitals, but it’s starting to weigh on the regime. Wealth inequality is stark – the top 10% hold nearly 70% of the country’s wealth. Despite the amazing travel links, revolutionary technology that removes daily tedium and clean energy, substantial capacity cannot address economic disparities without a more targeted approach.
Levelling the bottom up can rein in the affluent tendencies. The middle class in China have accrued real estate assets, whilst hundreds of thousands sit empty, unaffordable to those who need it. As these cities have transformed into urban metropolises, millions now work in the service economy, providing for the bankers and lawyers. Abundance at all costs projects an image of dominance and superiority. The youth in China are far less convinced, able to indulge in Western culture and influences that do not advocate for a life of endless work. In contrast to their parents, who have only ever known this way.
The far-reaching statist behaviour of the CCP and Xi Jinping has enabled such transformation in building and innovation to be propped up so brittlely. Abundance must be administered thoughtfully and targeted more strategically. The declaration from Xi Jinping at the summit with Vladimir Putin and Kim Jong Un, that his country “was unstoppable,” shows an impenetrable attitude towards his country’s project. China wants to be the best at everything; isolationism would not pose an existential threat. Its tentacles spread far and wide.
The UK and its contemporaries would be inclined to focus all their resources, intellect and heft behind the two biggest topics that will dominate the forthcoming decades: Technology, more specifically AI and addressing the dire state of housing. Prioritising these two main topics does not mean that areas such as travel connections, managing the renewable transition, or infrastructure development are not important. No one would dispel that notion. It is more an acceptance of living within our means, acting with prudence and nous. Not biting off more than you can chew and understanding that selling the country heaven and earth is a fundamental reason for our terminal malaise.
It is why the LFG rally on Thursday night was such a personal angst. Fundamentally, their mission is a good one. Highlighting the anaemic state, invigorating the younger generation, and understanding the importance of both building and cutting the red tape.
The people they decided to platform were less inspiring. Dominic Cummings – a techno-nationalist, who has demonstrated his profound nihilism since departing government. And Katie Lam, the new poster girl for the Tories. Rumour is that she is plotting with Cummings to stand for leadership. Understandably, her derangement – she gained significant traction for wanting to abolish indefinite leave to remain and deport 3 million people - can be masqueraded as needed radicalness by Cummings and his nerd army. She best embodies the Anglofuturist aspects of the movement. Attractive and amicable on the outside, scratch beneath and it’s laced with ethnonationalism. Self-ownership that is isolationist and hostile.
One of its proponents, the editor for works-in-progress magazine Sam Bowman, expressed his happiness about how the event had gone the following morning and went on to say: “London is broken – crime has been legalised, and building has criminalised.” This exposed the movements’ deep unseriousness. Fundamentally, a shouty, activist group that really is all about attacking Westminster and Whitehall. The most noteworthy moment since inception has been cleaning up tube trains littered with graffiti. Who does this serve? If not for being used as a stick to bash Sadiq Khan with. Pouring doubt on the apolitical stance, it still believes it wears like some school roseate, whilst Reform MP Danny Kruger dials in to give his two pence and rally the troops.
Most of the night’s speakers spoke of a time when the country “was an industrial power” and “birthed the modern world.” This British exceptionalism is a tool for galvanising and to excite. Most commentators would note this as bread-and-butter populism. The abundant agenda required needs to be more grown up, less fervent and rooted in solving problems not identifying enemies. As Unherd put it, “growth for growth’s sake can only get you so far; there are always questions of which growth, and for whose benefit.”
--
Harnessing the potential of AI is a key element to a prosperous future. As aforementioned, it walks a tightrope that could blow up at any time. The IMF chief economist, Gita Gopinath, estimated that if the bubble were to burst $20tn in wealth would be wiped from American households. The impact would ripple across the globe. Restraint is needed in how it is approached and administered.
Reducing the daily tedium in many workers’ lives should be one of its primary purposes. Allowing office workers to just focus on human interactions and not endless emails, farmers who can deploy machines to automate tasks such as harvesting, or factory workers who are moved from their lines of production and are reassigned to innovate and problem solve. Removing mundane operations can allow for an intellectual levelling up. That creates a world that incentivises pushing the boundaries; AI becomes the bedrock on which we build everything from, not a vehicle that seeks to dispel and strip us of our livelihood.
Data centres still have a role to play. You need to train models and create software that can be transported globally. The full-throttled capital allocation towards them is misguided. Protestations that they are a golden goose that will enact endless growth look shortermist. The Sunday Times reported a cabinet split on a potential £100bn development in Teesside, a data centre that would be four times the biggest one in the US. Ed Miliband, the environment secretary, is reluctant to approve the idea; the Prime Minister is desperate for something to pin to his growth agenda.
There are huge environmental considerations with data centres, the energy and water consumption having swathes dotted around the country would consume is significant. Speaking to the BBC, a data engineering consultant said a “singular workload at this scale is unheard of”. Many multinationals claim they will do their bit by continuing to invest in the climate. Alphabet has invested in clean nuclear power. Amazon is already the single largest corporate buyer of renewable energy worldwide. The durability of these dual interests is questionable. One will surely take precedence as interests become more crystallised.
Additionally, these sites are capital retainers; once placed in an area, they will employ people to manage their facilities. That is where their contribution to the local area ends. The velocity of money – central to any mechanism or infrastructure trying to achieve growth – is non-existent. Rolling out the red carpet for them in the hope it will be the beginning of a Silicon Valley equivalent is fanciful. They envisage the UK and Europe as the engine room, allowing for a closer position to lobby. The US-China tech is too politically intertwined for it to ever be offshored.
The technologies’ primary objective must be to liberate, not replace, workers. Creating tools, robots and mechanisms to do this creates a tangible impact. AI is already present in many people’s lives through ChatGPT and other equivalents. Yes, these are powered off data centres, but the principle remains - having AI that is accessible and useful and not existential. Viewing the technology through the data centre lens speaks to a future currently unattainable and serving corporate interests. A more grounded, practical approach doesn’t dispel creativity; it creates more impact.
The grandiose thinking towards AI is mirrored in the government’s approach to housing – the second central pillar of the abundant agenda. The housing department and its frontman, Steve Reed, strolled around the recent Labour party conference with ‘build, baby, build’ merch planted on them. This mantra adoption has been weird to watch. Not only does it imitate a Trump soundbite that directly contradicts Labour policy, but it also speaks to a broader desperation to spout attractive slogans in the hope of floating the sinking ship.
The government aims to build 1.5 million homes by the end of the parliament. Reed said that his job would be on the line if the goal wasn’t realised, but that “the celebration would be all the sweeter” when it happened. Spare us this performative nonsense. Headline-grabbing exercises and attempting to drink from the YIMBY well of discontent are a distraction to the real picture. Moreover, such rhetorical flourishes are terminally damaging for a government that is consistently blighted by unfilled promises.
The will can be there, and it can be there all it wants; the evidence cannot be disputed. Only 40,000 new homes are currently under construction in the capital, two-thirds of the normal rate. The cost of building has risen by a fifth since 2021. It is a perfect storm of high interest rates, bureaucratic overbearingness and general sluggishness in addressing the issue. When the damming report dropped, Sadiq Khan and Reed were quick to pull more levers in a bid to stimulate building, reducing the number of affordable homes for developers and local tax relief breaks, which are used to support surrounding infrastructure.
This was a necessary action. Still more radicalness is needed for Labour’s pledges to be realised. Sam Dumitriu, an affiliate of LFG, wrote on X about how the government could take things further: unbanning development on brownfield sites ( previously developed land, a 2024 report stated 1.5 million homes could be built solely on this land) and automatic development rights near public transport (higher density near transport hubs). The problem is not just a London-centred one. Nationwide, only 201,000 homes were given an Energy Performance Certificate in the 12 months to June 2025, an 8% decrease from the year before. Depressingly, the current time for councils to align with national policy on developments is seven years. An unworkable situation that has been changed to 30 months under a new mandate.
The pledge from the Government to deliver all these homes is an admirable pursuit. Such building levels have not been achieved since the late 1960s. It must be a national imperative to build more homes; the plethora of distractions and influences means it will never occupy that position. The media cycle moves too quickly. The government cannot focus on just building; the purpose of housing and its accessibility should be at the forefront of any discussion. Picking up the remanets that the right to buy scheme has laid to waste and understanding geographically where to best allocate resources.
Thinking more holistically allows for a more integrated and targeted approach, which in turn can harness economic development and propel upward social mobility. The streamlining and centralisation of planning is a standardised aim - additionally, making planning a digitalised procedure is non-negotiable. Utilising land that is underused or neglected should be prioritised over any environmental considerations that would put the brake on development. Nature-loving has evermore started to manifest into annoying militance.
Where a pragmatic agenda differs is not just building for the sake of building. Rejecting the notion that building so much and having plentiful resources means rents will be so cheap, everyone will have a home. Of having huge upfront investment in the hope of creating an economic loop where further capital injections are not necessary. Or where their is no planning permission present at all, if you want to build, you build!
It is a destructive and blinkered view; the system cannot just be torn to pieces. Reinvigoration must be the aim, then burning everything to the ground and starting again. This is why the combative nature of LFG is unhelpful. On the night they also revealed plans to build Britian’s next great city in Cambridge, which would be home to a million people. We simply don’t need to do this. It clearly takes inspiration from the recently submitted plans for the next great American City, an hour north of Silicon Valley. A techbro amalgamation of innovation and utopic thinking, whose hostility to landowners and residents epitomises their sociopathic tendencies.
One cannot help but laugh at the rendered images of the LFG alternative, which looks like a wooden cyberpunk 2077, with trees dotted around and an electric tram waltzing through the middle. The city would generate £55 billion in GDP, supposedly and have four-bedroom homes for just £350,000. The report places Milton Keynes as a source of inspiration. This bastion of economic growth and prosperity, demonstrating what the country can do when it dreams big. Have any of these people been to Milton Keynes? Walked around its empty streets or watched a football game at its half-empty stadium. It may have strong business growth and be a hotbed for startup developments – seeing cities in this way is reductive. They are living entities, walk through its centre and one will soon realise that creating a new town can only get so you far.
Our efforts should rather be on building more in the cities and towns we already have. Targeted attempts to build cheap and affordable housing, particularly in cities up north, which are in desperate need of economic levelling up than their southern compatriots. Doing so stimulates more economic activity, while gradually bringing down the prices of homes across the country as supply increases and people realise that viable alternatives for prosperity exist outside of London.
Administering an agenda that makes planning easier, utilises barren land more and focuses on not building mega projects, but on affordable homes, is moderate and coalition-building. The current environment doesn’t require bold, disruptive and ideological actors; it needs a thought-out strategy that yields long-term results. Dogmatism creates a volatile environment that has the potential to buckle at any roadblock or obstacle that could be thrown in its way.
--
In a world of spiel and hyperbole, speaking rationally is hard to do. Politics at the voter level has become less about the destination you want to reach and more about the direction you want to go. In this context, a form of technocratic gradualism can appeal to the public. Incrementalism through specific and targeted action, compared to seismic rewiring of the system and its mechanisms through an anarchist mindset. Abundance in resources creates mass access and equitable opportunity. Economic policy is about transformation rather than personal salvation. Understand that and you can attempt to rewrite the narrative of Western decline.