Those of us who care about building a healthy, thriving, and prosperous future are reeling. The Trump administration’s attacks on our people and our planet plus the outright evisceration of government by Elon Musk and his corporate army are forcing us to reflect on how we got here and to ponder how we move forward.

As believers in the government’s ability–and in fact responsibility–to do good, we are having to face the extremely uncomfortable fact that the government does not work for the majority of people. So, it makes sense that many are talking about how government can work better to create “abundance” — the recent release of Ezra Klein and Derek Thompson’s book of the same name – as the solution to our despair. They argue that America’s inability to build and the reason why liberals are losing is the result of excessive red tape, deliberate policy decisions, and bureaucratic inertia, which must be eliminated.

For over a decade I have worked to craft, implement, and evaluate strategies that leverage private, public, and philanthropic investments to deliver tangible and substantial benefits to formerly “redlined” communities. In plain terms, I’ve been fighting like hell to get resources–actual dollars–back into communities of color. And I’ve borne witness to the growing frustration with the perceived inability of all levels of government to deliver results. All too often, regulations have become the scapegoat that some argue drive up the cost or slow the development of essential infrastructure like housing, renewable energy, and transportation networks. Don’t get me wrong, I completely agree that we have to urgently build more housing, transportation networks, and clean energy – the ingredients that people need to live healthy and prosperous lives.

But just building more by eliminating regulations is not the silver bullet. “Abundance” without an eye for who the abundance serves runs the risk of exacerbating the problem at the core of our economic challenges – the hoarding of power and wealth by the people that already have a lot of, well, abundance.

Just building more – “abundance” as a goal in and of itself – will not allow us to deliver solutions to the thorniest and extremely interconnected challenges we face, like climate change, a widening racial wealth gap, extremely low levels of confidence in the public sector, eroding governance structures, and dwindling public financing due to rising costs and constraints on raising new revenue.

These problems were not created because we don’t build things; rather, they are the outcomes of an economic system built on fabricated scarcity and the doctrine of maximizing profit, exploiting communities of color, and concentrating political and economic power.

It’s our inability to share in abundance, our over consumption, and the belief that in order to have more abundance you need to hoard as much of it as possible that truly hurts our planet and our people.

Take this example. Several years ago, California’s investor-owned utilities were planning to invest hundreds of millions of dollars in charging infrastructure to support the state’s transition to electric vehicles. But the majority of the investment was planned for wealthy communities where electric vehicles were already being used. The utilities claimed that low-income families would not use the chargers because they didn’t own electric vehicles, but we argued that investments in charging infrastructure at multifamily housing and in low-income communities were essential to creating the conditions for families to consider switching to clean vehicles. In the end, the utilities agreed that a percentage of chargers should be deployed to low-income communities and over the years those percentages have continued to increase as the stigma that low-income communities would not use chargers was dispelled.

And this lesson is replicable. By focusing on who the benefits of vehicle charging stations were going to, we were able to scale the clean energy transition even faster by opening the option up to more Californians–not just those who already had access.

And so, I propose that to really tackle our complex challenges we must not work towards “abundance,” but instead work towards the goal of “shared prosperity,” of which abundance is a key strategy to achieving that goal.

Shared prosperity first and foremost is rooted in people, not markets, and meets the needs of all people, including those who have suffered the most under our current paradigm, creating an economy in which all communities can thrive. It ultimately recognizes that we are part of an interconnected system and that we are only as strong as our ability to care for the most vulnerable among us.

What shared prosperity requires is a shift away from profit maximization and towards affordability. By definition, it’s prosperous for all, meaning that jobs with good benefits and worker protections are ubiquitous, and so are opportunities to build generational wealth and community resilience to climate, social, health, and economic crises.

The most vulnerable among us need to know that they can count on being able to both bounce back. And to do so, our governments, our community-based organizations, and our people must have the capacity and resources to meet the call for support when needed.

Reading Abundance I get the sense that the authors think that people are often the obstacle to progress. Government, community leaders, environmental justice advocates, and environmentalists are not antagonists towards a healthy and prosperous future; they are the force that will ultimately help us achieve it.

Let me give an example of how a pivot from an “abundance” to a “shared prosperity” paradigm can function.

Take the Transformative Climate Communities Program a California state program which has delivered 400 units of affordable housing, planted 13,000 trees, installed over 600 solar panels on homes, deployed 26 electric buses, and placed people into approximately 800 job–all thanks to the vision and voices of the communities and their local governments who have been at the center of decision-making that impact their daily lives. The eight communities–notably formerly redlined communities–where this work is taking place previously had an “abundance” mindset, they just needed the right support and government interventions. TCC is successful precisely because it shifted from this abundance mindset and towards a shared prosperity mindset, putting communities in the driver’s seat to determine how best to build thriving neighborhoods, fight climate change and determine their own economic futures.

The challenge before us is to design a government that has new and better tools to scale our progress, from financing mechanisms that generate the revenue necessary to do this work, to governance practices to steer our progress, to, yes, revisiting the laws and regulations that govern our built environment to eliminate those that no longer fit our moment and to update those that require retooling.

Above all, we must focus our attention on building abundance and prosperity where it is hardest to achieve, where decades of disinvestment and a legacy of injustice have locked in poverty and pollution. Otherwise, “abundance” is just a new version of trickle-down economics, which not only never trickled-down but continued the grotesque hoarding of wealth and power among the people that already had it to begin with.

Alvaro Sanchez is an urban planner with 15+ years of experience crafting, implementing, and evaluating strategies that leverage private, public, and philanthropic investments to deliver tangible and substantial benefits to formerly redlined communities. He is the former Vice President of Policy at The Greenlining Institute and serves on the boards of The Urban Sustainability Directors Network and The UCLA Luskin Center for Innovation. Organizations named for identification purposes only.