Subscribe now

PE has become a four letter word for most Americans. We have all experienced the symptoms, and without any research we know the cause. A beloved food brand, a local vet, a small cafe gets “acquired.” Over the next few years everything you loved about it turns rancid, and you know why: private equity.

But knowing the name is not the same as knowing the mechanism. This essay is about the specific arrangement that produces the rot across dozens of industries at once, and about why we do not stop it. For most of the last century, American democracy actively governed capitalism to public purpose, adjusting the rules whenever markets began to hurt the people they were supposed to serve. That is what the antitrust laws of the early 1900s were, and the banking rules of the 1930s, and the pension protections of the 1970s. Then it spent five decades stepping back from that work. The rules changed and made room for what came next. Private equity is what happened in the space the old rules used to fill. What we are looking at is a failure of democracy, not a failure of capitalism, and the difference points at what to change.

What the thing is

A private equity firm raises money from pension funds, university endowments, insurance companies, sovereign wealth funds and rich individuals. It pools that money into a fund, then uses the fund plus a much larger amount of borrowed money to buy companies outright. It holds each company for a few years, reorganizes it, and sells it or takes it public. Along the way the firm charges a fee for managing the money, and at the end it keeps a share of the profits.

The word private refers to what happens to the companies. A public company files quarterly reports, discloses executive pay, and answers to anyone who buys a share. Take it private and those obligations end. Ownership becomes hard to trace, the numbers stop being published, and the people affected by the decisions lose the ability to see who is making them.

Very few people will ever put money into a fund like this. Most of us hand money to the companies these funds own every week without knowing it.

There is a second, quieter piece of this. In 1974 Congress passed a law called ERISA that governs how pension funds invest their money. In 1979 the Labor Department clarified the law in a way that let pensions put money into private equity funds. That single interpretive change opened one of the largest pools of capital in the country to these firms. The practical effect is a loop. A teacher’s or nurse’s pension pays into a fund. The fund uses that money, plus much larger amounts of borrowed money, to buy the company where somebody’s spouse works. A few years later the company is loaded with the debt that bought it and sold or bankrupted. The paper the pension holds is worth what is left. The worker pays for it, holds a share of it, and cannot see any part of the arrangement. Making that hidden share visible is the argument I make elsewhere for universal basic assets, in UBI vs UBA.

What you experience

It arrives as a set of small degradations that seem unrelated to each other.

The dentist’s office you have used for years is part of a chain now. The hygienist you liked has left, appointments run shorter, and you are being sold treatments nobody mentioned before. The veterinary practice down the road changed hands and the bill for the same annual visit went up by half. Your building was sold, maintenance requests stopped being answered, and a monthly fee appeared on the rent statement for something that used to be included in the rent.

You went to an emergency room that was in your insurance network, and the bill came from a doctor who was not, because the hospital had contracted its emergency staffing out to a separately owned company. You had no way to know that, and no ability to shop for a different doctor while you were on a gurney. The nursing home where your father lives runs fewer aides on the overnight shift than it did last year, and the ones who remain are covering more residents each. The retailer you grew up with emptied out over a few years, stopped carrying much of anything, and closed.

None of this arrives with a label. The name over the door usually stays the same, which is deliberate. The change happens upstream, in who owns the business, what they need it to produce, and how quickly they need it.

What these situations have in common is a business that used to be run to serve its customers and is now run to service its debt. How that debt got there is the whole argument.

The exchange that prompted this

I said a version of this on a thread recently: that a business model built on asset stripping and debt loading should not exist, and that it does nothing for society. The first reply dismissed the point by accusing me of being against economic freedom. Then someone asked a fair question. If one business buys another for the sole purpose of shutting it down, would I ban that too?

My answer was, yes, and we mostly already do. Buying a competitor in order to close it is a classic antitrust violation, because the harm to society is easy to see: one fewer option, less competition on price, less pressure to invest in quality. The question is worth answering at length anyway, because it forces the objection to be stated precisely. Nobody sensible objects to companies changing hands. Nobody sensible objects to businesses closing, since an economy where failing firms cannot die is an economy that stops working. Evolution, innovation and progress are built into capitalism, and they are the reason we recoil from centrally planned production, where bad products never die and better ones never arrive. But losing competition produces the same dead end from the other direction. The real fight is not capitalism versus socialism. It is against actual monopoly, and against financial transactions built to cut the stakeholders out. In the case of private equity, the objection runs to a specific financial structure that separates the people making decisions from the people who live with them, then sends the gains toward the first group and the losses toward the second.

Economic freedom is the standard reply, and for a long time ordinary Americans had no vocabulary to answer it. After fifty years of watching the middle class get crushed, I think we can see it now. The phrase points at something that seems reasonable: a conference room, two sets of lawyers, a seller who wanted to sell, a buyer who wanted to buy, everyone signing willingly. Nobody was coerced. Framed that way, objecting to the deal means objecting to adults making their own arrangements, which sounds like a preference for having bureaucrats run the economy.

The frame leaves out the stakeholders I named a moment ago: everyone who was not in the room. The cook in the restaurant chain being purchased was not there. Neither was the town whose hospital sat in the portfolio, nor the small supplier who will go unpaid in a bankruptcy three years from now, nor the resident in the nursing home. They signed nothing. They cannot walk away from the result. The freedom being praised is not theirs, and it is being exercised on them. Environmental economics has a name for costs that land on people outside a transaction: externalities, and the discipline insists they be counted. Stakeholder thinking, which I laid out in The Politics of Stakeholder Society, makes the same insistence about deals like these. A financial transaction is never only about the money, because its social consequences land on people who never signed. This is where Milton Friedman’s famous claim, that the only social responsibility of business is to increase its profits, shows what it is: a blunt instrument, hollow about the one thing that counts... people.

Economic-freedom rhetoric slides quietly between two different things here. There is freedom to do things, which is what the phrase usually points at, and there is freedom from being coerced, which is what most people actually care about. Coercion by government is visible: laws are debated, votes are held, agencies answer to elected officials, and citizens can push back when they think the coercion isn’t legitimate. Coercion by a private buyer with concentrated capital is invisible: it happens through prices, wages, staffing decisions, and contract terms nobody outside the room saw negotiated. In a tradeoff between the two I take the visible kind under democratic control every time, because it is contestable. What we are watching now is a steady shift of power from the visible kind into the invisible kind, and the vocabulary of freedom makes the shift sound like liberation.

Someone who has never been shown how these deals are assembled has no way to know any of this. So here is how they are assembled.

What capital is supposed to do

There are two ways to fund a business. You can sell a piece of it, which is equity, or you can borrow, which is debt.

Equity carries the risk. If the business fails, the owners are wiped out before anyone else loses a dollar. That exposure is the entire moral case for the returns equity earns. You put your money at risk, you accept that you might lose all of it, and in exchange you keep the upside if you were right.

Debt sits ahead of equity in line. Lenders get paid before owners, they get paid a fixed amount rather than a share of the profits, and if the business collapses they have first claim on whatever can be sold. Less risk, less reward. That ordering matters enormously, and it is worth being concrete about what the line looks like when a company goes under. Secured lenders are paid first from the sale of the assets. Then the lawyers and bankers running the bankruptcy. Then a limited category of priority claims, including some unpaid wages, up to a capped amount. Then everyone else, meaning suppliers, landlords, customers holding gift cards, workers owed severance. Owners get whatever is left, which is almost always nothing. That is the design, and the design is defensible: the people who chose the risk lose first.

Everything defensible about capitalism depends on that ordering holding. It is what allows an economy to learn. Back a good bakery and you make money and can open two more. Back a bad one and you lose your savings and stop opening bakeries. Bread gets better and cheaper over time because people who guess wrong run out of money with which to keep guessing.

Limited liability changed this system without abandoning its logic. Shareholders are not personally liable for a corporation’s debts, a deliberate policy choice made so that strangers could pool money to build railroads without risking their houses. Investors would risk what they put in and no more. They still lost that.

What a leveraged buyout actually does

Start with an ordinary purchase. A company with cash buys a rival, pays for it out of its own funds, and closes it down. If that turns out to be a mistake, the buyer eats the loss. Its money is gone. That is a bet, and the person making it is the person carrying it.

A leveraged buyout works differently, and the difference is the entire subject of this essay.

Take an illustrative case with round numbers. A fund buys a company for a billion dollars. It puts in three hundred million of its own investors’ money and borrows the other seven hundred million. The borrowed money does not go on the fund’s books. It goes on the books of the company being purchased. The company has just been made to borrow the money used to buy itself, and from that day forward it must pay the interest out of its own sales.

Nothing about this is hidden or unlawful. It is the standard structure, and lenders know exactly what they are financing.

Look at what it does to the distribution of risk. The fund is exposed for three hundred million. Its other funds, its other companies, and the partners’ personal wealth are all beyond reach, because each acquired company is held in a separate legal entity. The purchased company is exposed for the full seven hundred million, money it never received and from which it got nothing. The people who work there, the suppliers who extend it credit, the landlords who lease it space and the customers who depend on it are exposed to whatever paying that interest does to the operation, and none of them were in the conference room.

Now the money starts moving outward, on a schedule set in advance.

The fund charges the company for managing it. Management fees and monitoring fees flow from the company to the firm that bought it, quarterly, regardless of how the business performs.

The fund may run a dividend recapitalization. This means having the company borrow still more money and hand the proceeds to the fund as a dividend. The fund gets cash now. The company gets a larger interest bill forever. In plain terms, the owner borrows against the business and keeps the money, and the business is left to make the payments.

If the company owns its buildings, the fund can execute a sale-leaseback. The real estate is sold to a property investor, the fund takes the proceeds, and the company continues operating in the same buildings, now as a tenant paying rent it never had to pay before. A hospital that owned its campus outright and had no mortgage now has a permanent lease expense that must be covered every month before it buys a single bandage. That rent has to come from somewhere, and in a hospital it comes from staffing.

Each of these moves takes value out of the company and returns nothing to it. Each one is booked long before anyone knows whether the business has actually improved. The fees are paid whether the turnaround happens or not.

That is the crux. If the operation thrives, the fund collects. If the debt crushes it, the fund has already collected, and the losses fall down that bankruptcy line described above, where workers and suppliers sit near the back. The fund’s downside was capped at the day it signed. Everyone else’s downside was not.

The tax code has historically encouraged all of this. Interest payments are deductible, so a company financed with debt owes less tax than the same company financed with equity, which makes borrowing artificially attractive. The 2017 tax law capped that deduction, tightening the subsidy without ending the incentive. And carried interest, the fund managers’ share of investment profits, is taxed at capital gains rates rather than as ordinary income, even though it is payment for managing other people’s money. A schoolteacher’s salary is taxed as income. A fund manager’s cut of the gains on a pension fund’s capital is not.

Calling the model extractive is not name-calling. It describes where the cash goes and who is standing underneath when it stops.

What good governance of markets looks like

I believe in markets. I want capital allocated by people with their own money at risk rather than by a ministry. The real question is what markets are being governed to produce.

That belief has boundaries. Markets work best where the customer can shop, compare, and walk away, and worst where they cannot. I favor universal healthcare, because a sick person cannot shop and shouldn’t have to. I also favor a market layer on top of that public base, because someone who wants extra choice or a specific practitioner should be able to buy it. Public provision where markets structurally fail, market supplements where they add real choice, both under active governance.

So what should markets be governed to produce? My answer is the one most people give when asked plainly. Market activity earns its legal protection by delivering lower prices, more choice and higher quality, sustained over time. That standard is demanding. It rules out monopoly. It rules out fraud. It rules out financial structures that consume a working business to produce a return. Nothing in it cares who wins. All of it cares whether the public got anything out of the arrangement.

Governing toward that outcome takes two things.

Competition has to be maintained by force of law, because a market that has consolidated does not break itself back up. Once four companies become two, the two do not spontaneously become four again.

And whoever decides to take a risk has to be the one exposed to it. If I can borrow against your house and keep the cash, I will borrow more than is wise, because the worst case lands on you. That is the arrangement being defended as economic freedom, and no amount of financial vocabulary changes what it is.

Democratic capitalism, not democratic socialism

I have written elsewhere about defending democratic capitalism from attacks on both flanks, in Defending Democratic Capitalism from the Extreme Right and Defending Democratic Capitalism from the Extreme Left. Private equity is a useful place to show what the distinction actually means, because the two obvious responses to it are both wrong.

The libertarian response says the deal was voluntary and the government has no business in it. That position ends where this essay began, with a business gone, a town short a hospital, and nobody accountable. It treats every rule as an intrusion on liberty, which in practice means the only people left with real freedom are the ones with enough capital to set the terms.

The socialist response says the problem is private ownership itself, so the remedy is public ownership of the firm. That gets the diagnosis wrong. The cook, the supplier and the retiree were not injured because someone owned a business privately and hoped to profit from it. They were injured because the owner could load debt onto the company, extract the proceeds, and walk away from the wreck. Private ownership plus that set of rules produces extraction. Private ownership plus different rules produces the ordinary business that has served the same town for forty years.

Democratic capitalism means using democratic institutions to set the rules markets run on, so that markets stay the main engine of innovation and wealth creation while the public keeps the power to say what they may and may not do. Two constraints work at once. Democratic government constrains concentrated wealth. Genuine competition constrains it too, by keeping any single firm from dictating terms. Where markets structurally cannot deliver, which is mostly the survival goods where people cannot shop, walk away, or evaluate what they are buying, public provision fills the gap. Everywhere else, competitive markets do the work.

Private equity sits precisely where those principles bite hardest, which is why it makes a clean test case. It concentrates ownership, so competition weakens. It removes companies from public disclosure, so democratic oversight weakens. It has moved heavily into housing, hospitals, nursing homes, dialysis and emergency care, which is to say into the goods where the customer has the least ability to refuse. A person having a heart attack does not shop. A family with a parent in a nursing home does not switch providers over a staffing ratio. Those are exactly the markets where extraction faces the least resistance, and exactly where the public has the strongest claim to set terms.

None of that argues for abolishing private investment. Nobody has to nationalize a restaurant chain to stop its owner from mortgaging the buildings and pocketing the money. It argues for what democratic capitalism has always argued for, which is rules written by the public that keep private activity pointed at something the public gets.

Both of these were once well understood in American law.

How the law changed

The Clayton Act of 1914 and the Celler-Kefauver Act of 1950 gave courts the power to block mergers before they produced a monopoly, and closed the loophole that let firms buy a rival’s assets rather than its shares in order to escape review. Courts used that power aggressively into the 1960s. In Von’s Grocery the Supreme Court blocked two Los Angeles grocery chains from merging even though their combined share was under ten percent, on the reasoning that the drift toward concentration was itself the harm.

That approach had real costs, and its critics made real arguments. What replaced it went well past correction.

Robert Bork published The Antitrust Paradox in 1978, arguing that antitrust law had never been about anything but consumer welfare, and that consumer welfare meant economic efficiency, which in practice meant prices. The Supreme Court cited Bork’s phrase in Reiter v. Sonotone in 1979, giving it the authority that let lower courts build antitrust doctrine around it in the years that followed. In 1982 the Reagan administration rewrote the government’s merger guidelines around concentration statistics and claimed efficiencies, which shifted the burden. Enforcers now had to predict a price increase. Defendants could answer with projections of the savings the merger would generate.

The phrase consumer welfare sounds like the standard I described a moment ago, which is exactly why the substitution worked. What most people mean by protecting consumers is choice, quality, service, and the business still being there in five years. What the courts came to mean was a number, and a forecast. A merger that cut staff, closed locations and left a town with one option instead of three could clear review so long as the price forecast held up. Everything else stopped counting as harm at all.

The money side changed on the same schedule. This is the ERISA story from earlier: the 1974 pension law, and the 1979 Labor Department clarification that opened one of the largest pools of capital in the world to these funds. The move has the same shape as the accounting-rules change I documented in Depreciation Rules Transfer Wealth Up: a technical clarification, framed as neutral, that pointed a very large flow of money in a specific direction.

The debt side arrived at the same moment. Michael Milken at Drexel Burnham Lambert built a working market in high-yield bonds, known as junk bonds, which meant that for the first time a small firm could borrow enormous sums to buy a large company. The takeover wave of the 1980s followed, culminating in the roughly twenty-five billion dollar purchase of RJR Nabisco in 1988.

Justification kept pace with practice. Friedman put his claim in print in 1970, in a New York Times essay declaring that the social responsibility of a business is to increase its profits. Michael Jensen’s agency theory recast company managers as agents who needed to be disciplined by financial markets, and his 1989 essay “Eclipse of the Public Corporation” praised the leveraged buyout as a superior way to organize a company precisely because heavy debt forces management to cut. Shareholder primacy became the operating assumption of American corporate life, though it has always been more a norm than an actual legal requirement. And here is the strange part. Everyday Americans have been taught to treat Friedman as a hero of freedom, while the philosophy he championed spent fifty years hollowing out the middle class that celebrates him.

The language

The vocabulary of freedom did not attach itself to these changes by accident. Friedman’s Capitalism and Freedom, published in 1962, fused market outcomes and political liberty into a single package. By the 1990s the Heritage Foundation was publishing an annual index ranking countries by economic freedom, scored largely on how little their governments constrained capital. The effect was to make any particular piece of deregulation look like an advance in human liberty rather than what it was, a decision about who would absorb which risk.

An operating vocabulary followed. Unlocking value. Creating shareholder value. Letting the market decide. Job creators. Each phrase names an act while hiding where the money came from. Value gets unlocked, as though it had been sitting idle in a vault rather than being taken out of a payroll or a maintenance budget. The market decides, so no person decided and nobody need be asked to explain. And every one of these phrases keeps the reader’s attention fixed on the day the papers were signed. That is the pattern I called Socialism for the Wealthy in an earlier essay: the private capture of public functions, dressed in the language of markets.

That framing is the whole defense, and it works only while the people it leaves out stay left out. The employee did not agree to the dividend recapitalization. The town did not agree to the sale of the hospital buildings. The resident did not agree to the overnight staffing cut that paid for the new lease. None of them were in the room, none of them can leave the outcome, and that is why the argument stays pinned on the people who were and can. Whether you may buy a company is a question about freedom. Who eats the loss when the debt cannot be paid is a question about consequences, and shifting consequences onto people who never agreed to carry them is what this structure is built to do.

What it looks like when it fails

Toys “R” Us was bought in a leveraged deal in 2005. It spent the following decade paying interest instead of building the online business it needed to survive against Amazon, and it liquidated in 2018. Tens of thousands of workers initially received no severance, and got a hardship fund only after months of public pressure.

Steward Health Care sold the real estate under its hospitals in a sale-leaseback. Its owner exited with a large return. The hospitals, now paying rent on buildings they used to own, entered bankruptcy in 2024 while communities scrambled to keep their emergency rooms open.

Red Lobster ran the same real estate maneuver and reached the same ending.

In each case the structure performed exactly as designed. The losses landed where the design puts them.

What would actually change it

None of this requires abolishing private investment. Every reform below restores a piece of democratic capacity the country let go, or writes a rule the country needed and never wrote. Together the reforms put the consequences of the arrangement back on the people who choose it. The reforms are drawn from the broader framework I’ve built in Opportunity Economics and its operational companion, The Opportunity Economy Toolkit. The larger point, which I make in Defending Democratic Capitalism Through Capacity Stewardship, is that this kind of work is what democratic capacity looks like when it exists.

Make the fund liable for the debts it puts on the companies it controls, so that the entity making the borrowing decision is exposed to the failure. Restrict dividend recapitalizations, particularly in the first years after an acquisition, so that a company cannot be made to borrow in order to pay its new owner. Limit sale-leasebacks of essential physical infrastructure such as hospitals and nursing homes, where the building is not a spare asset but the service itself. Tax carried interest as the ordinary income it is. Put unpaid wages and severance higher in the bankruptcy line than the lenders who financed the buyout. Restore merger review that counts choice, quality and community stability as harms, rather than only forecast prices. Adjust the tax code so capital that stays reinvested in productive activity is treated better than capital that sits accumulating. Wealth transferred to family is one thing. Wealth accumulating past what a family reasonably passes on, and turning into pure hoarding, is another, and the code should tell the difference. Legislation along these lines has been introduced in Congress, most prominently the Stop Wall Street Looting Act, and has gone nowhere, which tells you something about who is organized on this question and who is not.

Back to the question

So, yes. If a firm buys a competitor for the sole purpose of closing it, police that, because it reduces choice and raises prices, and those are injuries to real people.

Police the leveraged buyout on the same reasoning, because the injury takes a different route to the same place. A business that existed, employed people and served customers is gone, and someone made money on its disappearance without ever putting their own capital where their decisions were.

One rule covers both cases. Economic activity deserves the law’s protection when it leaves the public better off. When it does not, whatever we call it does not matter. Capitalism can pass that test. The reason we are watching it fail the test is that a democracy that once wrote the rules stopped writing them. Writing them again is what changes it, and the reforms above are what writing them again would look like.

References

Law and policy

Clayton Antitrust Act of 1914.

Celler-Kefauver Act of 1950, amending Section 7 of the Clayton Act to cover asset acquisitions.

United States v. Von’s Grocery Co., 384 U.S. 270 (1966).

Reiter v. Sonotone Corp., 442 U.S. 330 (1979).

U.S. Department of Justice, Merger Guidelines (1982).

Employee Retirement Income Security Act of 1974.

U.S. Department of Labor, investment duties regulation under ERISA, 29 C.F.R. § 2550.404a-1 (1979).

Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017, limiting the deduction of business interest and extending the holding period for carried interest.

Stop Wall Street Looting Act, introduced in Congress in 2019 and reintroduced since. Check its current status before citing.

Ideas that shaped the shift

Milton Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom (1962).

Milton Friedman, “The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits,” The New York Times Magazine, September 13, 1970.

Michael C. Jensen and William H. Meckling, “Theory of the Firm,” Journal of Financial Economics (1976).

Michael C. Jensen, “Eclipse of the Public Corporation,” Harvard Business Review (1989).

Robert H. Bork, The Antitrust Paradox (1978).

On private equity specifically

Eileen Appelbaum and Rosemary Batt, Private Equity at Work: When Wall Street Manages Main Street (2014).

Brendan Ballou, Plunder: Private Equity’s Plan to Pillage America (2023).

Gretchen Morgenson and Joshua Rosner, These Are the Plunderers: How Private Equity Runs and Wrecks America (2023).

Bryan Burrough and John Helyar, Barbarians at the Gate: The Fall of RJR Nabisco (1990).

Atul Gupta, Sabrina T. Howell, Constantine Yannelis and Abhinav Gupta, “Does Private Equity Investment in Healthcare Benefit Patients? Evidence from Nursing Homes,” National Bureau of Economic Research Working Paper 28474 (2021).

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

The United States started a war with Iran. Now it wants to end one. According to a New York Times report this week, the draft framework on the table includes a $300 billion “reconstruction program” for Iran, described by diplomats as an international investment fund Washington would help make possible. Trump has not signed off yet. The number is already real enough to argue about.

Hold that number next to a familiar phrase. Every time someone proposes universal healthcare, tuition-free college, or housing Americans can actually afford, the same question arrives on cue: how will you pay for it? The question never shows up for a war. It did not show up when the U.S. funded the military operation that caused the damage Iran now wants compensated. It is not showing up for the fund being arranged to clean it up.

That asymmetry is the whole story. It is also not an accident.

The federal government is a currency issuer, not a currency user. It does not collect dollars and then spend them the way a household earns a paycheck and then pays rent. It creates dollars by crediting accounts, and it removes some of them later through taxation. This is not a fringe theory. Beardsley Ruml, chairman of the New York Federal Reserve, told the American Bar Association in 1945 that “taxes for revenue are obsolete” for a government that issues its own inconvertible currency. Three Fed chairs since have said versions of the same thing, under oath and on television.

So when you hear that the country cannot afford something, understand what is actually being said. The government can always create the dollars. The real limits are inflation and real resources: the workers, materials, and capacity available to do the thing. “We can’t afford it” describes a choice about who the spending is for, not a fact about the bank balance.

Iran makes the decision visible. The money to fight was found instantly. The money to rebuild is being assembled across negotiating tables before the ink is dry. Nobody in that room is asking where it comes from, because everyone in that room understands the answer. When leaders want the money to exist, it exists.

Turn that same machinery toward an American city and the rules suddenly change. Now there is a deficit to worry about. Now there are future generations to protect. Now we must live within our means. The mythology returns the moment the beneficiary is an ordinary person instead of a war, a bank, or a geopolitical objective.

I have called this Socialism for the Wealthy and the Iran deal is the foreign-policy version of it. Public money-creation capacity, used freely for the priorities of the powerful, withheld from everyone else with a story about scarcity the powerful never have to hear.

The point is not that the U.S. should refuse to help rebuild what it destroyed. Ending the war is worth doing. The point is that the capacity on display here is the same capacity Americans are told does not exist for them. It was always there. It is there right now. You are watching it work in real time, pointed at a reconstruction fund on the other side of the world.

So the next time a politician asks how you plan to pay for schools or hospitals or homes, you have the answer. The same way we are about to pay for Iran, and the same way we paid for the war before it. The money was never the constraint. The choice about who deserves it always was.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

How a Deliberately Built System Operates Against Ordinary Americans, and How They Can Reengineer It to Serve Them

The popular framing of socialism is simple: taxpayer money (treated as scarce and as confiscations of other people’s wealth) is redistributed to people who didn’t work for money. Money in this view carries a moral charge. Money is property. Work is moral. Markets are the moral way to acquire money.

This view rests on zero-sum thinking. The popular framing treats federal money like household money: there is a fixed pool that comes from taxpayers, and every dollar the government spends is a dollar taken from people who earned it. Spending on the undeserving is waste. It all collapses into a slogan: market transactions good, government disbursements bad. Government disbursements are socialism.

Strip away the moral framing. The popular definition of socialism comes down to a single question: is the government using public resources to enrich a particular group through political decisions instead of market activity? By that test, what this essay describes is socialism. The group being enriched is the asset-holder class (the people who own most of the wealth), not ordinary Americans. The right uses this same test to attack public investment in housing, healthcare, education, and income support. Apply the test honestly to what the United States has actually been doing since 1971, and it lands on the asset-holder class. The result is what this essay calls “Socialism for the Wealthy.” Naming the system precisely is what makes reengineering it possible.

This is not about households that own a home, have a 401k, or have built modest savings through regular work. The recipient class is the ultra-wealthy and the billionaire class. These are households whose wealth has gotten so large it can warp the political and economic systems of the country. Think the top 0.1% and the top 0.01%, where the only thing the holders can do with their wealth is use it to shape political, regulatory, and election outcomes in their own favor. The middle class is not the recipient class of socialism for the wealthy. Even most of the top 10% are not the recipient class. The recipient class is the small group of asset holders so wealthy that their interests have become baked into the design of the system itself. When this essay says “the wealthy” or “the asset-holder class,” that is who is being named.

Socialism for the wealthy is not one thing. It runs through monetary policy, tax law, regulations, trade agreements, the collapse of antitrust enforcement, the capture of publicly funded research, and procedural shortcuts that let government act before the public can weigh in. No single mechanism does the work. The wealth concentration this essay describes happens because all of these mechanisms reinforce each other over decades. Each of them uses the same set of myths in two different ways: applied strictly to ordinary Americans when they ask for public spending, and quietly waived for the asset-holder class when their interests are at stake. Bank bailouts get called “emergency response.” Corporate tax cuts get called “pro-growth.” Quantitative easing gets called “monetary policy.” That selective use of the myths is the wealth transfer. The complexity is not essay sprawl. The complexity is the point. This is not a one-time policy. It is a system of continuous wealth transfer that runs decade after decade.

The change that made Socialism for the Wealthy possible came in 1971, when the U.S. dollar stopped being convertible to gold. Before 1971, every dollar the government created had to be backed by physical gold in storage. After 1971, dollars stopped being tied to any physical commodity. That switch removed the real limit on federal spending. The government could now create dollars at any scale political will allowed. But the story the public was told stayed the same. The household-budget version (the government has a fixed amount of money, can run out, must live within its means) had described a real limit before 1971. After 1971, it became a story told to everyone except the asset-holder class. The new mechanics were not a secret. Abba Lerner described how the system actually worked in 1943. Beardsley Ruml, the chairman of the New York Fed, told the American Bar Association in 1945 that federal taxes do not fund federal spending. (You’ll see that quote again later in this essay.) Generations of economists carried the line through the decades that followed and extended it further (Hyman Minsky, Joan Robinson, Paul Davidson among them).

The political and economic establishment knew how the new system actually worked. They did not announce it. They quietly pushed the economists who taught the real mechanics to the academic margins, used those mechanics for themselves, and kept telling the public the old story was still true. The gap between what is actually possible and what ordinary Americans are told is possible is where socialism for the wealthy lives. Some of the mechanisms below predate the 1971 turn (depreciation rules baked into ordinary tax law). But the biggest ones (trillion-dollar quantitative easing programs, the bailout machinery, the corporate stock-buyback regime) only became possible because of what changed in 1971.

My position in this essay is not anti-wealth-building. The Opportunity Economics framework I argue for elsewhere holds the opposite: wealth-building should be open to everyone, and the system works better when it is. Competition is good when it is fair, when everyone gets a real chance, and when no one is rigging it. Competition turns harmful when it becomes extractive, exploitative, or rigged through bigotry. That kind of competition doesn’t lift anyone up; it just entrenches the asset-holder class. Wealth that comes from creating real value in fair competition is exactly what a healthy economy produces, and what Opportunity Economics aims to make available to everyone. The wealth this essay describes is something different. It is wealth captured through arrangements built on public resources that ordinary Americans are systematically blocked from using for themselves. This essay is the diagnosis. The alternative, where the same public resources support ordinary Americans rather than the asset-holder class, is what I argue for in UBI vs UBA and Capacity Stewardship.

Who Actually Owns the Assets?

Start with the basic question of who benefits when financial assets go up. The introduction named the recipient class conceptually (top 0.1% and 0.01%); the Federal Reserve data confirms it.

The top 10% of U.S. households own roughly 93% of all household stock market wealth. The top 1% alone owns about 54%. The bottom half of all American households owns less than half a trillion dollars in stock market wealth in a market valued at around $55 trillion as of 2025. These are Federal Reserve numbers, not progressive talking points.

Yes, about 62% of Americans hold some stocks, mostly through retirement accounts. That fact gets used to suggest the stock market is something most Americans benefit from. It isn’t. The story isn’t whether ordinary people own any stocks. The story is who owns enough stocks for it to matter. By that measure, the stock market is a wealth concentrator: a lot of Americans hold a tiny share each, and a tiny share of Americans hold most of it.

The trend matters as much as the snapshot. As I documented in Why Economic Models Matter, the top 1% wealth share has grown from roughly 23% in 1979 to over 32% in the 2020s (Saez-Zucman estimates). The top 0.1% captured a wildly disproportionate share of the gains after the 2008 financial crisis. This is not a stable inequality number. This is fifty years of continuous concentration, with each policy change pushing more wealth further up.

Wage earners had the opposite experience. From 1979 to 2019, productivity grew about 60% while typical hourly pay grew only 16% (Economic Policy Institute data, also covered in Federal Taxes Don’t Fund the Government). Workers produced the value. The asset-holding class captured it. That gap is the fingerprint of an economy that has been financialized (rewards tied to owning assets rather than to doing productive work). The rest of this essay walks through how the gap was produced.

The composition of the asset-holding class has also shifted in stages. As I traced in 50 Years of Economic Myths Have Delivered Americans Into Technofeudalism, the dominant elite was industrial in the 1980s, financial through the 1990s and 2000s, and tech-and-finance from roughly 2010 onward. Different industries, same recipient class, same fifty-year wealth-concentration project.

So when financial commentators celebrate that “the market” is up, they are reporting that the top 10% got richer. Any policy or action that systematically pushes up stock prices is, by definition, a transfer of wealth toward that group.

The current moment makes this visible. Through 2025 and into 2026, ordinary Americans have been experiencing layoffs, a softening labor market, and inflation that policy is actively producing through tariff and immigration shocks. At the same time, the Trump administration is claiming the economy is booming and pointing at a record-setting stock market as the proof. Both can be true simultaneously, and the reason explains the trick. The stock market is a capital sink: a place where excess capital in the system goes to inflate prices, not a barometer of the productive economy. The 2025 One Big Beautiful Bill Act added enormous federal spending to the existing deficit, which sent more Treasury issuance into the financial system and routed more interest income to the asset-holder class, which then flowed back into stocks.

The trading mechanics inside the sink make the concentration worse. Momentum trading (buying what is already rising and selling what is already falling) and dip buying (buying every price decline on the assumption the Fed will rescue, a pattern trained into the market by every QE intervention since 2008) push capital toward whatever the largest players are already accumulating. Pump-and-dump dynamics, where coordinated buying drives prices up before insiders sell to the retail crowd that arrived late, have become increasingly prevalent through social-media coordination, options-driven price squeezes, and concentrated whale positioning. The mechanism is the same in each case: large players move first, smaller traders chase, and the gains flow upward. The market today functions less as a system for honestly pricing the productive economy and more as a casino in which the largest players consistently clip the smaller traders who arrive after the move. The concentration makes this more extreme. As of 2024-2025, the top ten stocks in the S&P 500 (mostly consumer-recognizable brands like Apple, Microsoft, Nvidia, Alphabet, Amazon, Meta, and Tesla, the so-called “Magnificent Seven”) accounted for roughly 35 percent of the index’s total market capitalization, an all-time concentration high. When financial commentators celebrate that “the market” is up, they are usually celebrating that a handful of mega-cap stocks favored by the largest trading players went up.

The mechanism is explained more fully later in this essay. The point here is that the market and the economy are no longer the same thing. The stock market going up is no longer evidence that Americans are getting wealthier.

These are the wealthy in “Socialism for the Wealthy.” Once you see who owns the assets, the next question is who decided to inflate them, and with whose money.

What Mechanism Makes This Possible? The Soft-Money Tool

Most Americans still don’t realize the next part.

After 1971, the U.S. dollar stopped being convertible to gold. The country moved from a hard-money system (dollars backed by physical gold) to a soft-money system (dollars not backed by any physical commodity). How many dollars exist is no longer pinned to how much gold is in storage. It is a policy choice made by the Federal Reserve and Congress in combination. In this system, federal money is not private property in the way the popular framing assumes. It is a public institution: a resource created and managed by the government to enable economic activity.

This is not theory. This is how the system actually works. As I explained in Federal Taxes Don’t Fund the Government and Why Monetary Systems Matter, the federal government is a currency issuer, not a currency user. It does not “run out” of money. It creates dollars by crediting bank accounts. Federal taxes do other important things (controlling inflation, redistributing income, creating demand for the dollar), but they are not the source of the money the federal government spends. An economist writing in the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis Regional Economist stated this plainly: “As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent.” Then-Federal-Reserve-Chairman Alan Greenspan made the same operational point in 1997 testimony, observing that because U.S. debt is denominated in dollars the federal government cannot default on its obligations in the way a private borrower can. Ben Bernanke, defending crisis-era Fed action on 60 Minutes in 2009, put it more directly: “It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed… we credit those accounts. So it’s much more akin to printing money than borrowing.” Jerome Powell, asked about Federal Reserve capacity during the COVID crisis on 60 Minutes in March 2020, said: “There’s an infinite amount of cash in the Federal Reserve. We will do whatever we need to do to make sure there’s enough cash in the banking system.” Three Federal Reserve Chairs, three decades, three crises, the same operational point. The Bank of England documented the same mechanics in its 2014 paper on money creation in the modern economy.

The constraint on federal spending is not arithmetic. The constraint is real resources (labor, materials, energy, productive capacity) and inflation (what happens when too many dollars chase too few goods). Beardsley Ruml, the chairman of the New York Fed, told the American Bar Association this in 1945. We’ve spent eighty years pretending otherwise. The distinction matters because the rules describing who is in charge of what are not the same as how dollars actually get created. I work through this distinction in Why Economic Models Matter. Confusing the two is how the mythology survives.

The part that matters for “Socialism for the Wealthy”:

The soft-money tool is neutral. The question is always: in whose direction is it pointed?

A natural reaction to this diagnosis is to want to abolish fiat. That instinct gets the problem backwards. A return to hard money does not solve socialism for the wealthy. It hands the money-creation monopoly back to whoever holds the physical commodity, which was a small concentrated class then and would be again now. The reason fiat is the most powerful tool for democratic capitalism is precisely that no one holds a monopoly on the commodity. Money creation becomes a public institution under political control. That is what makes democratic redirection possible at all. The diagnosis in this essay is not that fiat enables socialism for the wealthy. The diagnosis is that the public has allowed the asset-holder class to direct the public’s tool against the public. Defending Democratic Capitalism Through Capacity Stewardship makes the full case for fiat as the democratic instrument.

In principle, the federal government could use this tool to eliminate child poverty, build infrastructure, fund a green transition, guarantee a job at a living wage, or directly provide the things ordinary people need to live. That’s the framework I lay out in UBI vs. UBA and Opportunity Economics.

In practice, for fifty years, we have pointed the tool in one direction. Where it has been pointed is what “Socialism for the Wealthy” refers to. The next section catalogs the specific deployments.

How the Tool Has Been Deployed: Five Monetary Mechanisms

Look at the receipts. Five mechanisms, in roughly the order they were stacked.

Depreciation Rules. The least-discussed mechanism is also the longest-running. Federal tax law permits businesses to write off depreciation (the gradual loss of value as equipment wears out) on capital equipment they own. Ordinary households cannot write off the same kind of wear on the cars, appliances, and electronics they own and replace. As I detailed in How Corporate-Friendly Accounting Rules Create a $30 Trillion Transfer from Consumers into Wealthy Pockets, the difference is not an accounting curiosity. It is an ongoing wealth transfer baked into ordinary tax law. Wealthy asset holders get an annual public subsidy on the wear of their productive assets. Wage earners get nothing on the wear of their household assets, while paying the higher prices that forced replacement creates. By the right’s own definition of socialism, applied consistently, this is socialism for asset holders. It also predates quantitative easing by decades, which is why “Socialism for the Wealthy” is not a 2008 phenomenon. The architecture was already in place long before the bailouts.

Stock Buybacks. During the 2010s alone, U.S. publicly listed companies spent approximately $6.3 trillion buying back their own shares. S&P 500 buybacks reached a record approximately $943 billion in 2024 and continued near $1 trillion in 2025. A buyback is a way for a company to convert its cash into a higher share price (when a company buys back its own stock, each remaining share represents a bigger slice of the company). Buybacks directly inflate the wealth of existing shareholders, who are concentrated at the top. They were largely illegal as market manipulation until the SEC adopted Rule 10b-18 in 1982, creating a safe harbor that has redirected trillions of dollars away from wages, R&D, and capital investment, and into the share prices held by the asset-holder class. This is not a market outcome. It is a regulatory choice with a predictable winner.

The Bailouts. In 2008, the federal government and Federal Reserve mobilized somewhere between $700 billion (TARP alone) and several trillion dollars (counting Fed emergency lending facilities) to prevent the collapse of banks and other financial institutions. In 2020, a similar but larger response prevented the COVID-induced market collapse from compounding. In 2023, the FDIC effectively guaranteed all deposits at Silicon Valley Bank, including the uninsured ones held by venture-capital-backed firms, in a matter of days.

Quantitative Easing. Between 2008 and 2022, the Federal Reserve’s balance sheet expanded from roughly $800 billion to nearly $9 trillion. That is more than $8 trillion in newly created money, used overwhelmingly to buy Treasury bonds and mortgage-backed securities from banks and financial institutions. The official theory was that this would lower long-term interest rates and stimulate the economy. The actual mechanism, well understood by central bankers, was the “wealth effect”: push down bond yields, push investors into riskier assets like stocks, push asset prices up, and hope some of it trickles down. It worked exactly as designed for the asset-holding class. It did not work for everyone else. Wages grew sluggishly through most of the 2010s while stock indexes tripled. Real median household income grew by a fraction of that. The wealth effect was, in practice, a wealth concentration effect.

Interest on Excess Reserves. Less visible but important. Beginning in 2008, the Federal Reserve started paying banks interest on the reserves they hold at the Fed rather than lend out. The program is known as Interest on Excess Reserves (IOER), later restructured but continuing in similar form. The effect is straightforward: the Fed pays banks for not lending. Money flows from the Fed (a public account) to commercial banks (private accounts) without any productive activity in exchange. The amounts are not trivial. With trillions of dollars in reserves earning interest, the program has transferred billions per year from the public to the largest banks. Like quantitative easing, this is a public money-creation tool pointed in one direction. It is a quiet, technical mechanism that absorbs public money into private financial institutions, defended as “monetary-policy plumbing” rather than discussed as the upward transfer it actually is.

In none of these cases was anyone seriously asked, “How will we pay for it?” The soft-money tool was simply used. The decision was made. The asset class was protected.

Compare that to how the same tool gets discussed when ordinary people are the proposed beneficiaries. Cancel student debt? “How will we pay for it?” Universal pre-K? “How will we pay for it?” Medicare for All? “How will we pay for it?” Build public housing at scale? “How will we pay for it?” The question that never gets asked when banks need rescuing is the only question that gets asked when working people need help.

This is the trick. This is the entire trick.

How the Mechanism Is Reinforced Beyond Money: The Policy Stack

The monetary mechanisms above did not act alone. They were backed by a matching set of policies across labor, trade, regulation, and tax law that weakened workers’ ability to negotiate while making it easier for asset holders to capture the gains. As I argued in The Opportunity Economy Toolkit, most federal spending growth over the last fifty years went to defense and security rather than to social support. Meanwhile corporate advantages expanded dramatically through tax-code changes favoring asset owners, trade policies enabling offshoring, and financial deregulation that privatized gains while socializing losses. We have had corporate socialism for decades while working people operate under artificial limits. Most Americans experience these policies daily without recognizing them as part of the same project.

Free trade agreements and offshoring. NAFTA in 1994, permanent normal trade relations with China in 2000, the WTO accession that followed, and the TPP that almost passed. Each agreement was sold as expanding consumer access to cheap goods. The actual effect was to expose American manufacturing labor to global wage competition without any equivalent restructuring of capital ownership. Real wages for non-college-educated workers stagnated for two decades while corporate profit margins on offshored production expanded. The asset-holder class captured the productivity gains. The wage earners absorbed the dislocation.

Right-to-work laws and union destruction. Twenty-six states currently have right-to-work legislation in effect. Section 14(b) of the Taft-Hartley Act in 1947 enabled them to pass these laws, and the count grew through the 2010s. Private-sector union membership has fallen from roughly 35% in 1954 to under 6% today. Without unions, the counterweight that helped workers bargain for higher pay vanished. Pay growth decoupled from productivity growth. The depreciation rules and stock buybacks worked far better for shareholders precisely because labor could no longer organize to demand a share of the gains. Weakening unions was the precondition that made financialization politically sustainable.

Deregulation and “smaller government.” Airline deregulation in 1978, savings-and-loan deregulation in 1980, financial deregulation across the 1980s and 1990s, and the 1999 Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act repealing Glass-Steagall. Each step expanded what financial firms were allowed to do, and each step concentrated the gains in the asset-holder class. “Smaller government” was always smaller in one direction: smaller for capital, larger for the regulatory machinery that protects asset values. Bailouts and emergency lending are not exceptions to smaller government. They are what smaller government means when capital is the constituency.

Tax law tilted toward capital. Capital gains rates (the tax on profits from selling investments) lowered relative to ordinary income (the tax on wages). The carried-interest loophole, which lets hedge fund and private equity managers pay the lower capital-gains rate on what is effectively their compensation. The estate tax weakened across multiple administrations. The post-2017 21% corporate rate. Stepped-up basis at death, which erases capital-gains taxes when assets pass to heirs. The depreciation regime cataloged earlier is the front-line example. The rest is a forty-year rewriting of the tax code that shifted the tax burden away from capital and onto labor.

Buy, Borrow, Die. A specific exploit of the tax code lets the wealthy avoid income tax indefinitely. Wealthy households accumulate appreciating assets (stocks, real estate, businesses), then borrow against those assets at low interest rates rather than selling them. Those low rates are not accidental, and they are not necessarily exploitative on their own. The natural rate of interest in a country that issues its own currency tends toward zero. The exploitation is the unequal access: wealthy households know how the mechanics work and structure their finances around the resulting low-cost borrowing; ordinary Americans neither know how the system works nor can borrow on similar terms. The money from the loans is not taxable income. The assets continue to gain value. At death, the assets transfer to heirs at a “stepped-up basis,” which resets the original cost to current market value and erases all the gains from being taxed. The cycle then resets in the next generation. ProPublica’s 2021 reporting on leaked IRS records documented that the wealthiest Americans pay effective income tax rates close to zero by exploiting this loop.

Whole life insurance and “family bank” trust structures, sometimes called the Rockefeller Method, layer onto the same loop. The policy’s cash value grows tax-deferred. Policyholders borrow against the policy without paying tax on the borrowed amount. The death benefit transfers tax-free. The wealth passes across generations with minimal tax exposure. None of this is illegal. All of it is available to households with enough assets to enter it. The result is a machinery for handing concentrated wealth across generations while wage-earning households pay income tax on every paycheck.

Welfare and bankruptcy reform. The 1996 welfare reform tightened eligibility and time-limited benefits. The 2005 bankruptcy reform made personal bankruptcy harder while leaving corporate bankruptcy intact. Both shifted risk from the public balance sheet onto individual households. Both were sold as fiscal responsibility. Both moved wealth and security upward.

Privatization of public risk and security. A class of policy shifts has moved long-running publicly-administered programs into private profit-taking structures, shifting risk from public accounts to individual households or to private companies that take profits along the way. The 1978 creation of the 401(k) provision in the tax code, accelerated under Reagan, shifted American retirement saving from defined-benefit pensions (where employers bore the investment risk) to defined-contribution accounts (where individual workers bear the risk). Wall Street asset managers take fees on the resulting flows forever. Medicare Advantage, the privatized alternative to traditional Medicare, has grown from a small fraction of Medicare beneficiaries in the early 2000s to roughly half by the mid-2020s. The shift routes public Medicare funds through private insurance companies that take profits, while traditional fee-for-service Medicare keeps the public-administration cost structure. The pattern is consistent: public-administered programs that worked are converted into private-administered programs that extract.

Antitrust collapse and the rise of concentration. Through the 1970s the U.S. ran a serious antitrust regime that broke up dominant firms and blocked anti-competitive mergers. Robert Bork’s The Antitrust Paradox (1978) and the Chicago school doctrine that followed effectively dismantled that regime. Antitrust enforcement collapsed during the Reagan administration and never substantially recovered. The result is documented: roughly three-quarters of U.S. industries became more concentrated between the late 1990s and the mid-2010s. Thomas Philippon’s The Great Reversal (2019) showed that U.S. markets are now less competitive than European ones, a complete inversion of the 1990s baseline. Europe kept up antitrust enforcement; the U.S. abandoned it. Concentrated industries extract monopoly rents (excess profits made possible by lack of competition) that flow to shareholders rather than to consumers as lower prices. Concentrated employer markets give workers fewer real alternatives to threaten leaving for, which holds wages down. The “free market” rhetoric that justifies the U.S. arrangement is actually false: U.S. markets are less free than European ones because legal market power concentrated in fewer hands has replaced real competition. As I argued in Defending Democratic Capitalism Through Capacity Stewardship, restoring antitrust enforcement is part of what ordinary Americans have to demand.

Public investment, private capture. A specific class of mechanisms transfers wealth upward by funding the foundational research and infrastructure with public dollars, then privatizing the commercial upside. The internet emerged from DARPA-funded ARPANET in the 1960s; the trillion-dollar tech platforms commercialized it. GPS came from Department of Defense investment, was opened to civilian use starting in the 1980s, and now sits inside every smartphone and logistics chain. mRNA vaccine technology came from decades of NIH-funded basic research; Pfizer and Moderna captured over $54 billion in combined 2021 vaccine revenue. Every major component of the modern smartphone, touchscreen, GPS, internet, voice recognition, lithium-ion battery, traces to publicly-funded research, as Mariana Mazzucato documents in The Entrepreneurial State (2013). About a third of the most clinically important drugs in recent decades trace to NIH-funded basic research, then commercialized by private pharmaceutical companies that charge prices the same public can barely afford. Cleary, Beierlein, and others, writing in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences in 2018, documented that every one of the 210 new drugs approved by the FDA from 2010 through 2016 had NIH-funded research underlying it. The pattern is consistent: public takes the risk, public funding covers the foundational research, private captures the commercial upside, and the wealth concentrates at the top of the asset-holder class. The public should benefit first when public money built the underlying capability. Most Americans have not been taught this is a question they could ask, much less demand. Once the pattern is visible, alternatives become demandable: public-purpose licensing terms, royalties paid back to the public, public equity stakes in commercialized research, mandatory affordability conditions on drugs that came out of NIH-funded research.

Slow government and the “move fast” attack on procedural protection. Procedural slowness in government has a purpose. The studies, environmental reviews, public-comment periods, and multi-year deliberations are not bureaucratic inefficiency. They are features designed to protect ordinary people from being run over by concentrated interests. The “move fast” rhetoric, imported into political discourse from Silicon Valley, is a mechanism for bypassing those protections. The bypass routes the gains to whoever can move fast, which is the asset-holder class. Public input gets reframed as obstruction; local opposition gets recast as anti-progress.

Utah Governor Spencer Cox is currently making the argument in plain terms. Defending the Stratos data center project in Box Elder County over local opposition, Cox said: “I’m so tired of our country taking years to get stuff done. It’s the dumbest thing ever. We think that taking time makes things better or safer. It absolutely does not” (KSL). The project advanced through a state-level authority rather than through a county-led permitting process that would have given the public more input. Separately, the Salt Lake Tribune has documented that Cox’s family telecom company, CentraCom, doubled its fiber network during his decade in executive office and absorbed more than $32.6 million in taxpayer payments over the same period. In January 2025, the first executive order of Cox’s second term fast-tracked infrastructure permitting, and Cox invoked his prior CentraCom executive role as the rationale for “light regulations” (Deseret News). Cox personally denies any current relationship with the company, and CentraCom denies involvement in the Box Elder data center specifically (ABC4). The picture the available reporting supports is structural, not a personal-kickback story: a former family-telecom executive is building the procedural-shortcut machinery in the federal and state policy environment his family’s company has done well in, with the rhetorical justification stated openly that slow government is “the dumbest thing ever.” That is the architecture of socialism for the wealthy at the state and county scale, and the public’s preference for deliberation gets dismissed as inefficiency.

The pattern across these is consistent. Each policy was sold to the public on grounds the household-budget mythology made credible: free trade gives you cheaper goods, right-to-work protects your job, smaller government respects your money, welfare reform stops free riders, tax cuts on capital encourage investment that benefits everyone. Each policy did the opposite for the bottom 90%. The trick is the same trick the monetary mechanisms run. The public is told a household-budget story, and meanwhile a different arrangement actually transfers wealth and power upward.

This is why “socialism for the wealthy” cannot be reduced to monetary policy. It is the entire policy stack. The soft-money tool is the largest and most visible mechanism, but it sits inside a labor regime, a trade regime, a regulatory regime, and a tax regime all calibrated for the same outcome.

What the Mechanism Produces: Financialization

Step back from the mechanisms cataloged above, monetary and policy alike, and ask what they have in common. Each one moves dollars from the productive economy into financial assets. Each one pushes up the value of financial claims without pushing up the production of real goods and services. Each one rewards ownership of paper rather than the making of things. The pattern is not coincidental. It is what fifty years of public money-creation policy pointed upward looks like when you stop looking at the individual mechanisms and start looking at the whole.

The whole has a name: financialization. The financial sector grew from roughly 2.8% of U.S. GDP in 1950 to roughly 7-8% by 2008 and stayed there. Manufacturing went the other direction. The economy did not stop generating wealth, but the wealth it generated increasingly went to financial activity rather than to the production of goods and services. This is what I described in 50 Years of Economic Myths Have Delivered Americans Into Technofeudalism as the financial-sector-dominance era of the broader oligarchy project.

The stock market is the most visible site where this pattern operates. Most Americans treat “the market” as a barometer of the economy. It is not. The stock market is better understood as a capital sink: a place where excess capital in the system goes to inflate prices, mostly for wealthy shareholders.

The loop between deficit spending and stock-market inflation is direct. When the federal government runs deficits, it issues Treasury bonds. Large investors and institutions buy those bonds. The bonds pay guaranteed government-backed interest with low risk. A significant share of the cash income from those bonds then flows into the stock market and other asset markets, pushing prices up. The wealthy collect twice: bond interest on the way in, stock gains on the way out. The “safe asset” label on Treasury bonds hides the fact that they are part of the same pipeline that produces the asset-side socialism this essay describes.

Three observations sharpen the point. First, market cap (the total value of a company’s shares) under a soft-money system tells you almost nothing about how well that business is actually doing. It tells you how much capital is flowing toward the business. Money chasing a stock drives the price much more than business fundamentals do. Second, market activity is concentrated in a handful of stocks. The “market” that financial commentators celebrate is dominated by a small number of names whose price movements drive the indexes. Algorithmic trading and stock buybacks compound the effect. The stock market today is closer to an organized casino with a few dominant tables than a system for honestly pricing the broader productive economy. Third, the stock market is not currently designed to serve everyday people. It is designed to absorb excess capital and concentrate the gains in the asset-holding class. The stock market can be reengineered to serve everyday people. That requires the public understanding how it actually works, not how the cover story says it works.

Private equity is the parallel mechanism, operating outside public stock markets and largely outside public view. Private equity has grown from a niche investment activity in the 1980s into a multi-trillion-dollar industry with the U.S. as the dominant market. The model is consistent: acquire companies (often using borrowed money), extract value through special dividend payouts funded by more borrowing, sales of assets and real estate, and aggressive cost-cutting that often falls on workers, then exit. The gains flow to the investors and managers in the fund, concentrated in the asset-holder class. The losses, when they happen, often fall on the workers and customers of the acquired companies, on the pension funds that put up the capital, or on the public when bankruptcies leave creditors and communities holding the bag. Private equity is what financialization looks like when it operates one company at a time, away from the disciplining visibility of public stock markets.

The household consequence of this pattern is what most Americans live every day. Wages are tied to productive activity, which has been systematically defunded. Cost of living, particularly housing, healthcare, and education, is tied to assets whose prices have been systematically pushed up. The household experience is wages-flat-prices-up, year after year. The reason is that the public money-creation tool has been pointed at the second curve, not the first. As I argued in Defending Democratic Capitalism Through Capacity Stewardship, what should constrain spending is the country’s actual capacity to produce things, not arithmetic. Financialization hides that capacity question by making finance look like productive activity.

The political consequence is more dangerous. An economy that mainly generates wealth through rising asset prices rather than through production cannot deliver shared prosperity, because asset ownership is concentrated by definition. The growth numbers report success while ordinary people experience decline. Democratic legitimacy erodes because the system tells ordinary Americans it is working when their lives are getting harder. That gap between the official picture and the lived experience is the political fuel for everything that has followed: the breakdown of public trust, the rise of authoritarian movements, the appeal of leaders who name the dysfunction even if they have no real plan to fix it. Financialization produced not only the asset-holder class but also the political vulnerability we are now living through.

Financialization is what “Socialism for the Wealthy” produces when you look at the whole economy at once. The mechanisms in the previous two sections are the dollar-by-dollar accounting. Financialization is what the accounting adds up to over fifty years.

How the System Survives Politically: The Mythology

How does the system survive when so many Americans should logically reject it? Because the system is protected by a deliberately maintained mythology about the national debt and government finance.

In this mythology, the federal government is like a household. Its spending is constrained by what it can “afford.” The national debt is a burden being passed to future generations. We must “live within our means.” Therefore proposals to spend on healthcare, housing, education, or income support must clear a budgetary bar that asks where the money will come from.

This mythology is selectively applied. It comes out in force whenever a policy would benefit the bottom 90%. It recedes silently whenever the question is whether to backstop a bank, ease financial conditions, cut taxes on capital gains, or bail out an asset class. In those cases, the money simply appears. The Fed’s balance sheet expands. The Treasury issues debt that the Fed buys. The financial press writes about “decisive action.”

The selective application is reinforced by a layer of backup arguments. The moment someone points out that taxpayer money isn’t actually scarce, or that the proposed beneficiaries aren’t actually undeserving, these arguments come out. Each is doing rhetorical work to keep the framing intact.

The most common backup is crowding-out theory, which I cover in Your Mainstream Economics Decoder Ring: the claim that government spending pushes private investment aside by competing for the same limited pool of savings. The claim presupposes the same fixed-pool zero-sum thinking the popular framing rests on. Even readers who understand how government money actually works often get sold this backup, which claims public spending hurts the broader economy.

Behind that sits inflation fear: the Weimar / Zimbabwe / Venezuela comparison used to dismiss any large-scale government spending. I work through why those comparisons don’t fit in UBI vs. UBA and in 50 Years of Economic Myths Have Delivered Americans Into Technofeudalism. The point worth holding here is that inflation is the real constraint on government spending, just not the way the popular framing claims. Real inflation comes from spending past the economy’s productive capacity. Inflation fear in the popular framing is a generic objection used to block any proposal, not a specific risk analysis tied to real resources.

And underneath all of it sits trickle-down distribution and the meritocracy myth: the case the wealthy and their defenders make for why it is good when they get more (trickle-down) and why they deserve to have it in the first place (meritocracy). Where the popular framing and the crowding-out and inflation-fear backups tell you why the public can’t have things, trickle-down and meritocracy tell you why it is good when the wealthy get them. Together they produce a one-sided framework: we can’t afford to help you, but helping the wealthy is helping you indirectly anyway. That last piece is what makes the lopsidedness feel morally legitimate, not just baked into the rules.

When even these backups fail, the asset-holder class falls back on emergency framing. Deficit spending classified as “emergency response” uses the public money-creation tool freely without ever triggering the “we can’t afford it” anxiety the rest of us are conditioned to feel. Bank bailout? Emergency. Pandemic asset support? Emergency. Silicon Valley Bank deposit guarantees? Emergency. None of those get challenged on funding, because the emergency framing makes the household-budget story disappear. The household-budget story returns the moment the proposed beneficiary is anyone other than asset holders. The wealthy get the real mechanism (deficit spending creates new dollars). Everyone else gets the false story (“how will we pay for it?”). That is the trick at the door of this essay.

The mythology is what holds the entire arrangement up. Without it, the lopsidedness would be too visible to sustain. With it, every act of giving public money to the wealthy looks like prudent crisis management, and every proposal to spend public money on ordinary Americans looks like reckless socialism. The actual reality is the inverse. As I argued in The U.S. National Debt Is Caused by Underspending, we carry a national debt because we have systematically underspent on the public good, not because we have overspent.

The natural next question is: why doesn’t either party expose this? Why has the mythology survived through Republican administrations, Democratic administrations, divided government, and unified government, all without anyone in power calling it what it is?

The answer, as I argue in Beyond Capitalism vs. Socialism, is that both parties benefit from keeping the public economically illiterate. Republicans invoke “fiscal responsibility” and “free markets” to block social programs while ignoring deficits for military spending and tax cuts. Democrats accept the premise of budget limits and argue merely about percentages rather than challenging the underlying confusion. Both parties pretend the federal government faces household-like budget limits because it is politically easier than explaining how the government’s money actually works to voters. A two-party system that keeps the public confused about how public money actually works is a two-party system that gets to keep choosing the beneficiaries.

The progressive side of this deserves a sharper line. As I documented in Why Progressives Are Accidentally Helping Authoritarians Win, the Democratic establishment accepted the household-finance framing through the Clinton, Obama, and pre-2021 Biden eras. Progressive movements often retreated from federal power to local fights that local revenues could never finance. The point is not that “both sides did it.” The point is that the mythology is not defeated by going along with it. The 2021-2022 Biden break with the framing, which I write about in The Best Presidency for Ordinary Americans Since the 1970s, was the first sustained federal challenge in forty years. It is the proof that the rest of this essay assumes is possible.

Among the people who keep it going while knowing it is false, this is fraud, not mythology. Mythology suggests an honest mistake or an organic story. The political class and the economic establishment that keep the household-budget story going know that it is false. They keep it going because the false story keeps the public from demanding things they could otherwise have. The functional name for this (a deliberately maintained false story told to people whose lived experience contradicts it, with the result that those people start to doubt their own perception) is gaslighting. The mythology is what most Americans carry. The fraud is what the people who taught them the mythology are running. Gaslighting is the political strategy that connects the two.

The fraud is backed by a system that gives it credibility. As I argued in Economics is not a Science, the field of economics has the prestige of a science (Nobel-equivalent prizes, peer-reviewed journals, university chairs, expert testimony) without the rigor of a science (no real standards for testing whether claims are true, theories that fail predictions never get retracted, a fixed set of conclusions that always favor the asset-holder class). That prestige is what makes the household-budget story believable to people who are not specialists. They are not arguing with a mistaken consensus. They are arguing with a field that calls itself science. The mythology is what the public carries. The credentialed fraud is what the field supplies. The wealthy use both.

This is what I called out in Technofeudalism. The myths are not innocent simplifications. They are the rhetorical infrastructure of fifty years of upward wealth transfer. As The Parasites’ Dilemma names, an economy that depends on its host population staying confused about how it works will eventually destroy that host. Economic insecurity makes us politically exploitable. The deficit mythology is what keeps that insecurity in place. It blocks the upward path from economic security to political independence, and it locks in the downward path from economic fragility to political dependence.

The mythology is also why “Socialism for the Wealthy” is not common political knowledge. Without the mythology, the title of this essay would describe the consensus understanding of how the U.S. economy works rather than a contrarian framing of it. The mythology is what makes the actual reality invisible to the people it runs against. Seeing the mythology clearly is the first step toward reengineering the system it protects.

What This Machinery Adds Up To

What we have walked through in the previous sections is not a list of complaints. It is the architecture of a system. The mechanisms catalogued at the monetary level (depreciation, buybacks, bailouts, QE), the policy level (trade, labor, deregulation, tax, welfare and bankruptcy, antitrust, public-investment capture, slow-government bypass), and the structural level (financialization, mythology supported by credentialed fraud) are not separate phenomena. They are the same project running on multiple layers.

Sixty-five years ago, President Eisenhower’s 1961 farewell address warned about the “military-industrial complex”: a structural alignment of defense industry, military establishment, and Congress that he saw as a new threat to democratic governance. He was describing one sector. The pattern catalogued above is the generalized version of the same concern, extended across the entire asset-holder economy in the half-century since.

We can now restate the term with the receipts behind it.

“Socialism for the Wealthy” describes a fifty-year pattern in which the government, using its money-creation powers post-1971, has systematically pushed up the value of assets concentrated in the top decile of American households. It absorbs the losses on those assets through bailouts and emergency programs. It uses tax law and regulation to permit corporate behaviors that pump up share prices. It gives capital owners an ongoing tax subsidy on the wear of their assets that wage earners don’t receive on theirs. And it blocks any similar intervention for ordinary people by invoking a budget-as-household story that magically disappears when the beneficiaries are wealthy.

By the right’s own definition of socialism, public resources directed to enrich a class of people through political action rather than market activity, this is socialism. Apply the test consistently and you cannot reach any other conclusion.

By any honest definition of capitalism, which requires capital holders to bear real risk in exchange for real returns, this is not capitalism. Real capitalism cannot survive a Fed standing by to prop up the stock market every time it falls. Real capitalism cannot survive systematic public guarantees against asset losses. What we have is the appearance of markets and the reality of government-directed wealth allocation, with the reality carefully hidden behind the appearance.

This is what I mean when I say in Technofeudalism that today’s tech and finance elites function as modern lords ruling over economically fragile populations. The lordship is not metaphorical. It is purchased, fifty years running, with publicly created money that we have been told we cannot afford to spend on ourselves.

That is the precise answer to the title of this essay. We have socialism already. We just don’t have it for ourselves.

What I am arguing for is neither what we have nor what democratic socialism proposes. The full case is in Defending Democratic Capitalism Through Capacity Stewardship; the short version is capitalism bounded by democratic values, ensuring competitiveness, supported by socialized safety nets and serious human capital development of the kind I describe in UBI vs UBA, and oriented toward the country’s actual productive capacity rather than asset-price inflation.

The reason for democratic capitalism rather than democratic socialism is that it keeps the productive and innovative engine of market activity while binding it to democratic accountability and shared prosperity. Democratic socialism, by contrast, often replaces market mechanisms entirely, which tends to lose the engine and create its own concentration-of-power problems. The fight here is not capitalism versus socialism. It is whether the public’s money-creation tool is pointed at one class or at the whole country.

How This Was Built Historically: A Hundred-Year Convergence

The system that produces this fight has a hundred-year history. None of it requires conspiracy. There is no smoke-filled room. This essay’s diagnosis does not assume that anyone sat down to plan today’s outcome. The diagnosis is an account of interests that converged over a hundred years.

This kind of historical convergence has a name. Karl Polanyi, writing in The Great Transformation in 1944, argued that when unrestrained markets cause widespread economic dislocation, society pushes back. That pushback can take two forms. One is democratic and protective: the New Deal, the postwar European welfare states, the gains organized labor won, civil-rights expansions. The other is fascist and reactionary: the interwar European authoritarian movements, which channeled the same widespread anger into ethno-nationalist politics that protected concentrated wealth from democratic accountability while pretending to protect ordinary people from market forces. Polanyi argued that the path society takes depends on what political organization is available when the pushback arrives. The hundred-year arc described here is what happens when the asset-holder class, with a century of head-start in political organization, has channeled the public’s reactive movement into the second path rather than the first. Trump’s coalition is not an accident of American culture. It is the form Polanyi predicted the second movement would take when democratic-protective organization had been systematically suppressed.

The arc starts with the New Deal. Business interests opposed FDR’s social contract from the moment he signed it. The 1934 American Liberty League is the first organized expression of that opposition. The 1947 Taft-Hartley Act weakened labor’s ability to organize. That same year, the Mont Pelerin Society launched what would become the neoliberal counter-revolution in economic theory. The 1971 Powell Memo organized corporate political activity into a coherent program. The 1980 Reagan election turned all of this into governing power, and Reagan’s record proves the engineering was deliberate. He campaigned on “fiscal responsibility” and against deficit spending. Once in office, he ran the largest peacetime deficits in American history at that time, deficits that funded military expansion and tax cuts for the asset-holder class. The deficit spending happened. It was pointed at the wealthy. The deficit-spending rhetoric continued to be applied to social programs that would have benefited everyone else. The contradiction was not an accident. It was the template all subsequent administrations either accepted or extended. The 1982 founding of the Federalist Society built the legal-doctrine and judicial-appointment machinery of the convergence and supplied a generation of federal judges. The 2010 Citizens United v. FEC ruling opened the door to unlimited corporate and dark-money political spending, and gave the convergence its modern political-finance scaffolding. The policy stack cataloged earlier in this essay is what that consolidation produced over the following four decades. None of these milestones required coordination across the others. They are visible artifacts of groups that converged, by different routes, on the same project: weakening federal capacity to act on behalf of ordinary Americans, weakening labor’s capacity to bargain, weakening democracy’s capacity to legitimately redirect resources, and concentrating the wealth and power that would otherwise have gone to public capacity into private hands.

The convergence required one specific tool: a way to keep ordinary Americans, particularly white working-class voters, attached to the project that was taking from them. The Southern Strategy, beginning with Goldwater in 1964 and put into practice by Nixon in 1968, supplied that tool. Republican strategist Lee Atwater described the strategy plainly in a 1981 interview: the language could not stay racially explicit in the post-Civil-Rights era, so the strategy moved to coded substitutes like states’ rights and busing, and eventually to economic euphemisms like tax cuts and fiscal responsibility, that achieved the same political effect through different words. As I traced in Good Faith is Democratic Infrastructure, the Southern Strategy was the political-organization side of the same project the economic strategy was running.

The culture war that followed is the distraction machinery of that project. Whatever the specific issue at any given time, immigration, religion in schools, “wokeness,” transgender athletes, the function is the same: redirect voter attention away from class warfare being waged by the asset-holder class and onto fights among the people the asset class is taking from. Christians who say they are “losing their country” are voicing this redirection in its purest form. The country those voters describe was never the actual America. The actual America’s founding premise is that people from different places, different backgrounds, and different values come together to build a country. To grieve the loss of a culturally homogeneous America is to grieve the loss of something this country was specifically designed not to be. The grief is real. The diagnosis offered by the culture-war coalition is false. These voters have not lost their country to immigrants or Black families or LGBTQ+ neighbors. They have lost the economic security that would have given them confidence in the country’s diversity, and they have lost it to the same hundred-year project that runs the asset-side socialism this essay describes.

Trump’s electoral coalition is what that hundred-year convergence looks like at the end-game. Racists, bigots, religious nationalists, anti-tax billionaires, anti-government libertarians, fascists, and white-grievance populists do not naturally agree about much. They agree on this project, because each of them has been cultivated by some part of it for a hundred years. The asset-holder class needs the labor-suppression coalition. The labor-suppression coalition needs the racial-grievance coalition. The racial-grievance coalition needs the religious-nationalist coalition, which I traced in Trump’s Iran War Is About Christian Nationalism. The religious-nationalist coalition needs the authoritarian-institutional coalition. Each piece protects the others from democratic accountability, and the asset-holder class at the top harvests the resulting wealth concentration. Trump is not the architect. Trump is what the convergence elects when it has accumulated enough institutional capture to put a figurehead through.

Ordinary, freedom-loving Americans who want to live peaceful, simple lives alongside their neighbors are not in this coalition. They have never been the beneficiaries of this project. They are who the project is run against. The story the project has told them for a hundred years, that the federal government cannot afford to invest in their futures, that immigrants and Black families and women are taking what is rightfully theirs, that traditional American identity is under threat from secular institutions, that democracy itself is the enemy of order, has been the price of admission. They have been told a story to keep them politically passive while the actual project of upward wealth concentration ran on. The outrage that gets channeled into the Trump coalition is real. It is redirected anger. What has been taken from these Americans was not taken by the people the coalition tells them to blame. It was taken by the same hundred-year project the coalition exists to protect. This essay names that project by its precise title: socialism for the wealthy, dressed in cultural and economic mythology so the people it runs against cannot see it clearly. The next section explains what they can do about it.

What Ordinary Americans Can Do: From Diagnosis to Action

Once you see that “Socialism for the Wealthy” describes the actual operation of the U.S. political economy, three things follow.

First, the question “How will we pay for it?” loses its one-sided power. We have already been underwriting it. We have been underwriting it for fifty years. We have just been underwriting it on behalf of the top decile. The real question is who the next round of public money-creation capacity should be pointed at.

Second, the choice between capitalism and socialism stops being useful. As I argue in Beyond Capitalism vs. Socialism, this either-or is a zombie idea, intellectually dead but still shambling through American political discourse. We do not have capitalism. We have a government-managed asset-inflation system with capitalist branding. The real question is not whether to choose markets or government. It is whether the design uses resources well to meet human needs. That is the question every successful economy in the world is already asking. We are still arguing about labels.

Third, the realistic political move becomes coherent. We are not going to undo the wealth concentration that fifty years of asset-side socialism has produced. The oligarchy is here. The institutional capture is real. The political power that comes with concentrated wealth has bought enough resilience to survive any near-term redistributive reform. That sounds like surrender. It is not. It is a clarifying move.

With those three things in mind, two common objections come up the moment you try to act on the diagnosis. They come from opposite political directions and both rest on the same household-budget framing.

As I argued in Defending Democratic Capitalism Through Capacity Stewardship, even the popular progressive proposal to tax the billionaires reinforces the same hard-money mythology this essay just dismantled. The federal government does not need billionaire tax revenue. It creates money limited by the country’s capacity to produce, not by collected revenue. Tax-the-billionaires proposals do not actually pay for new public spending in a soft-money system. They redistribute wealth, which is a moral move, but the federal government does not need their tax revenue to fund public housing or healthcare or education. Confusing the two locks public energy onto a target the asset class does not actually have to defend. The problem is not too little tax collection. The problem is concentrated wealth corrupting the institutions that should constrain it. Demanding “fair-share taxation” as the alternative to the asset-side socialism keeps the public locked inside the same household-budget framing the asset class uses to keep us locked out.

A different objection often comes up from the other direction: any expansion of government action means more corruption. Bigger government, more graft. The empirical answer is that the current regime is already the corrupt outcome. Recent reporting on Trump second-term self-dealing documents a 17-fold increase in family business income driven by foreign-investor crypto token sales, hundreds of millions in UAE sovereign-fund investments into Trump-family ventures, a $1.776 billion taxpayer-funded “anti-weaponization” settlement created by Trump settling his own lawsuit against the IRS, and political committees spending nearly a million dollars at Trump properties in the first seven months of the second term. None of this happened because the federal government was too large. All of it happened because the federal government’s accountability structures were too weak. The four moves below are the accountability framework that makes ambitious public action safe rather than corrupting.

The real alternative is different. It does not require defeating the oligarchy. It requires shedding the mythology that makes the oligarchy’s continued capture politically passive. Oligarchs survive on our ignorance, not on our consent. Once individuals understand that the public money-creation tool exists, that the household-budget analogy is actually false, and that the tool is being pointed at one class while another is told the tool does not exist, the demand becomes coherent. Not “take from them.” Build for us. Defending Democratic Capitalism Through Capacity Stewardship lays out the program. Stakeholder Society supplies the philosophical frame: every American holds a real stake in the country, not a conditional one earned through market participation. UBI vs. UBA, a Job Guarantee, public provision of housing and healthcare and education, stock-market reform that redirects capital from price inflation to productive investment, antitrust enforcement that breaks up monopolies and prevents anti-competitive mergers, and the broader Opportunity Economics framework are not radical departures from how the United States operates. They are an application of the same public money-creation tool already in use, pointed in a different direction. The technical capacity exists. It has existed since 1971. The world you want is possible without you having to want to be wealthy or financialized yourself. The only thing missing is enough ordinary Americans who have shed the fraud to make the demand for that world coherent.

“Build for us” answers a question the closing has been hinting at but not stating. Why do ordinary Americans deserve a system built for them? The answer comes from a tradition in political philosophy called neo-republicanism, most clearly laid out by Philip Pettit. Freedom is not just the absence of someone interfering with you. It is the absence of someone having power over you. A worker is not free when their employer can, at any time, fire them and end their healthcare coverage, even if the employer never actually does. A tenant is not free when their landlord can, at any time, raise the rent beyond what they can pay. Financialization gives asset holders that kind of power over wage earners through arrangements that aren’t coercive in the everyday sense but still amount to one group having power over another. The system ordinary Americans deserve is the one in which they no longer have someone else’s power hanging over them. That is what the alternative architecture above is for. Universal Basic Assets reduces employer power over you. Public provision of healthcare and education reduces insurer and creditor power over you. The Job Guarantee reduces the fear of unemployment that gives those people power. None of these is a redistribution demand. Each one is a freedom demand.

The phrase “Socialism for the Wealthy” is the door, not the room. Once we walk through it, we are no longer arguing about whether public action to redirect resources is possible. We are arguing about who deserves it. That is a far better argument to be having.

There is also damage that this generation cannot expect to undo. The Trump administration has accelerated decades of institutional erosion into something closer to permanent loss. Foreign and trade relationships built over generations have been broken. Civil-rights protections have been rolled back. The dollar’s status as the global reserve currency has been put under pressure that did not exist five years ago. The legal and regulatory infrastructure that made American economic potential exceptional has been hollowed out. Some of this can be slowed. Most of it cannot be restored to the way it was. As I traced in The Best Presidency for Ordinary Americans Since the 1970s, the Biden administration’s break with the deficit mythology was the proof that direct challenge of the asset-side socialism is possible. The damage that followed shows what happens when the mythology and the authoritarian project come together. Despite these realities, what lifts my spirit is that I know Americans are not in the business of restoring what was lost. They are in the business of building a future that works for themselves and is an example to the world.

For fifty years we have not been having that argument. We have been having a different one, in which working Americans accept artificial constraints on the public capacity that has never once been constrained when the beneficiaries are wealthy. That argument has cost us a generation of housing, healthcare, education, infrastructure, and democratic strength.

It does not have to cost us another one. But it will, if we wait.

The historical record offers one important orientation. The current concentration of wealth and power most closely resembles the 1870s-1890s Gilded Age, the original era of robber barons, machine politics, and labor suppression. America’s response to that earlier convergence took thirty years to organize and never finished its work, but the Progressive Era it produced did real damage to that earlier oligarchy. Sherman Antitrust in 1890. The constitutional income tax in 1913. Women’s suffrage in 1920. The labor protections of the Wagner Act in 1935. None of it was complete. All of it mattered. The current moment is not unprecedented. It is the second Gilded Age, and the response to the first one tells us what democratic counter-organization looks like and how long it takes.

As I argued in Be a Builder, nobody is coming to save us. No candidate, no court ruling, no election cycle is going to restore the social contract from the top down. The hundred-year project that built the asset-side socialism is institutional, organized, and resourced. It does not surrender voluntarily. The only counter-organization in American history that has ever actually rolled back this kind of concentration was citizen-built, citizen-funded, and citizen-led. The Progressive Era. The New Deal coalition. The Civil Rights Movement. None of them waited for permission. None of them had a sympathetic federal government to start with.

Before the work below, it’s worth recalling who the system has been running for and against. The asset-holder class this essay describes is the ultra-wealthy and billionaire class named in the opener, not the broader middle class and not most of the top 10%. The work of rebuilding democracy and capitalism is for everyone else. That is most Americans. They are the people the system has been running against for fifty years and the people the four moves below are addressed to.

How do you eat an elephant? A little at a time. The hundred-year project this essay describes did not assemble itself overnight. It took fifty years of organizing, fifty years of policy-making, fifty years of mythology maintenance to arrive at the system we now describe as socialism for the wealthy. Reversing it will take comparable time. There is no overnight fix. Tax-the-rich proposals do not fix it because, as we have already seen, they reinforce the same mythology. Defeating the oligarchy in a single election cycle does not fix it because the wealth concentration is already baked in. What can be done, over years, over decades, over the long arc that bent the wrong way, is for ordinary people to reengineer democracy and capitalism themselves. The only way to do that is to understand how the current system actually works. That is what this essay is for. Supporting and advocating for politicians who actively talk about the policies in this essay is one of the moves below. None of those politicians will lead with this on their own. They will follow public pressure once enough ordinary Americans carry the actual understanding into their politics.

The work in front of us comes in four moves, and they have to happen in this order. The reason the moves are sequenced rather than singular is that the machinery is not a single thing to attack. It is interconnected, and interconnected systems require interconnected counter-organization. The four moves below are not aspirational. They are the real handles available to any ordinary American who has read this far.

Be informed. The mythology this essay dismantles is not optional reading for an ordinary American living in this country. Every American who still carries the household-budget metaphor as a real constraint on federal action is, regardless of party, operating inside a frame the asset class wrote. The first work is shedding that frame.

Know what is possible. The alternative is real, not aspirational. The technical capacity exists. The constraint is political will, and political will follows from the public actually understanding the choice.

Act collectively. Individuals shedding the mythology is necessary but not sufficient. The system runs on coordinated organization, and only coordinated organization can answer it. That coordination begins where the Progressive Era’s coordination began: in workplaces, in neighborhoods, in civic associations, in mutual-aid networks, in schools and churches and unions and the local political structures the convergence has spent a century weakening. The work is not glamorous. It is also not mysterious. People have done it before. People are doing it now.

Demand leaders who actually govern. Citizen organization needs electoral expression. The leaders we elect should fund transparency, build reporting and oversight infrastructure, and accept accountability to the electorate, not the indignance and contempt for the public we have seen from the Trump administration. As I argued in Defending Democratic Capitalism Through Capacity Stewardship, the demand framework is specific: quality knowledge from academia, quality institutions from government, transparency in agency operations, accountability when officials fail. Voting is the minimum. Both parties are currently captured by the household-budget framing. Neither will lead with the actual reality voluntarily. The work of forcing them to talk about it falls to the ordinary Americans who have shed the fraud and can articulate the specific demand. Politicians follow articulated public pressure; they almost never lead it. The civic work of telling the people we elect what we actually expect from them, and refusing to settle for performance instead of governance, is the rest of it.

Now you know how the machinery works. The four moves above are not theory. They are the real handles that have been hidden from you for a hundred years. Pick them up, or watch the convergence finish what it started.

The handles are real. The choice is yours.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

References

1. Nanayakkara, Chevan. “Federal Taxes Don’t Fund the Government: We’ve Known This Since 1946.” December 2, 2025.

2. Nanayakkara, Chevan. “Why Monetary Systems Matter.” November 9, 2025.

3. Nanayakkara, Chevan. “Why Economic Models Matter.” November 8, 2025.

4. Nanayakkara, Chevan. “The U.S. National Debt Is Caused by Underspending. We Can Pay It Off Anytime, But We Don’t Have To, Because We Have a Soft-Money Economy.” June 14, 2025.

5. Nanayakkara, Chevan. “How Corporate-Friendly Accounting Rules Create a $30 Trillion Transfer from Consumers into Wealthy Pockets.” June 24, 2025.

6. Nanayakkara, Chevan. “Your Mainstream Economics Decoder Ring.” June 22, 2025.

7. Nanayakkara, Chevan. “50 Years of Economic Myths Have Delivered Americans Into Technofeudalism.” July 3, 2025.

8. Nanayakkara, Chevan. “The Parasites’ Dilemma.” July 14, 2025.

9. Nanayakkara, Chevan. “Stakeholder Society.” July 17, 2025.

10. Nanayakkara, Chevan. “Universal Basic Income (UBI) isn’t the right solution, the U.S. needs Universal Basic Assets (UBA).” November 16, 2025.

11. Nanayakkara, Chevan. “Beyond Capitalism vs. Socialism.” November 10, 2025.

12. Nanayakkara, Chevan. “Defending Democratic Capitalism Through Capacity Stewardship.” January 5, 2026.

13. Nanayakkara, Chevan. “Why Progressives Are Accidentally Helping Authoritarians Win.” June 15, 2025.

14. Nanayakkara, Chevan. “The Case for Biden: The Best Presidency for Ordinary Americans Since the 1970s.” March 29, 2026.

15. Nanayakkara, Chevan. “Trump’s Iran War Is About Christian Nationalism.” June 19, 2025.

16. Nanayakkara, Chevan. “Be a Builder.” February 22, 2026.

17. Nanayakkara, Chevan. “Good Faith is Democratic Infrastructure.” March 1, 2026.

18. Polanyi, Karl. The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time. Beacon Press, 1944.

19. Pettit, Philip. Republicanism: A Theory of Freedom and Government. Oxford University Press, 1997.

20. Nanayakkara, Chevan. “Economics is not a Science.” June 24, 2025.

21. Nanayakkara, Chevan. “Introducing Opportunity Economics: How to Make Capitalism Work for Everyone.” June 24, 2025.

22. Nanayakkara, Chevan. “The Opportunity Economy Toolkit.” July 10, 2025.

23. Federal Reserve / Axios. “The rich now own a record share of stocks.” January 10, 2024. Top 10% of U.S. households hold approximately 93% of household stock market wealth.

24. Inequality.org / Institute for Policy Studies. “The Richest 1 Percent Own a Greater Share of the Stock Market Than Ever Before.” Top 1% holds approximately 54% of public equity market value.

25. Congressional Research Service. “The Federal Reserve’s Balance Sheet.” Balance sheet expanded from approximately $800 billion pre-2008 to approximately $8.9 trillion in 2022.

26. Roosevelt Institute. “Regulating Stock Buybacks: The $6.3 Trillion Question.” Total open-market share repurchases by U.S. publicly listed companies during the 2010s.

27. Ruml, Beardsley. “Taxes for Revenue Are Obsolete.” American Affairs, January 1946. Based on Ruml’s 1945 address to the American Bar Association.

28. Saez, Emmanuel and Gabriel Zucman. “Wealth Inequality in the United States since 1913: Evidence from Capitalized Income Tax Data.” Quarterly Journal of Economics, 2016, and updated estimates via the Realtime Inequality project.

29. Philippon, Thomas. The Great Reversal: How America Gave Up on Free Markets. Belknap Press / Harvard University Press, 2019.

30. Economic Policy Institute. “Growing inequalities, reflecting growing employer power, have generated a productivity-pay gap since 1979.” 2021. https://www.epi.org/blog/growing-inequalities-reflecting-growing-employer-power-have-generated-a-productivity-pay-gap-since-1979-productivity-has-grown-3-5-times-as-much-as-pay-for-the-typical-worker/

31. Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis. “Why Health Care Matters and the Current Debt Does Not.” Regional Economist, October 2011. https://www.stlouisfed.org/publications/regional-economist/october-2011/why-health-care-matters-and-the-current-debt-does-not

32. Mazzucato, Mariana. The Entrepreneurial State: Debunking Public vs. Private Sector Myths. Anthem Press, 2013.

33. Schott, Bryan, and Tony Semerad. “Here’s why Utah Gov. Spencer Cox’s family business has become an internet powerhouse.” Salt Lake Tribune, January 18, 2024. https://www.sltrib.com/news/2024/01/18/why-utah-gov-spencer-coxs-family/

34. Hart, Ava. “CentraCom, tied to Gov. Cox’s family, denies involvement in Box Elder County data center.” ABC4 Utah, May 7, 2026. https://www.abc4.com/news/politics/inside-utah-politics/centracom-gov-coxs-box-elder-county-data/

35. Tavss, Jeff. “Gov. Cox admits his recent comments on proposed data center did not meet his ‘expectations’.” Fox 13 News Utah, May 8, 2026. https://www.fox13now.com/news/politics/gov-cox-admits-recent-comments-on-proposed-data-center-did-not-meet-his-expectations

36. Hart, Ava. “Governor Cox addresses Utah drought, data centers in monthly news conference.” ABC4 Utah, April 30, 2026. https://www.abc4.com/news/politics/governor-cox-address-utah-drought-data-centers/

37. Standard-Examiner. “Massive Box Elder County data center could increase Utah’s carbon emissions by 50%.” May 2, 2026. https://www.standard.net/news/2026/may/02/massive-box-elder-county-data-center-could-increase-utahs-carbon-emissions-by-50/

38. KSL. “Cox backs Box Elder County data center proposal, in part, due to national security factors.” April 30, 2026. https://www.ksl.com/article/51491313/cox-backs-box-elder-county-data-center-proposal-in-part-due-to-national-security-factors

39. Utah News Dispatch. “‘I seek to do better,’ Cox says after heated comments on Box Elder County data center.” May 8, 2026. https://utahnewsdispatch.com/2026/05/08/cox-seeks-to-to-better-after-heated-comments-on-box-elder-data-center/

40. Deseret News. “Utah Gov. Cox signs order to permit large infrastructure projects.” January 11, 2025. https://www.deseret.com/politics/2025/01/09/utah-governor-spencer-cox-signs-executive-order-on-permitting-reform/

41. KSL. “Gov. Cox signs first executive order of 2nd term to fast-track large infrastructure projects.” January 2025. https://www.ksl.com/article/51225770/gov-cox-signs-first-executive-order-of-2nd-term-to-fast-track-large-infrastructure-projects

42. ProPublica. “The Secret IRS Files: Trove of Never-Before-Seen Records Reveal How the Wealthiest Avoid Income Tax.” 2021 series. https://www.propublica.org/series/the-secret-irs-files

43. Cleary, Ekaterina Galkina; Jennifer M. Beierlein; Navleen Surjit Khanuja; Laura M. McNamee; and Fred D. Ledley. “Contribution of NIH funding to new drug approvals 2010-2016.” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, March 2018. Documented that NIH funding contributed to research underlying every one of the 210 new drugs approved by the FDA from 2010 through 2016.

44. Greenspan, Alan. Testimony before the U.S. House of Representatives Committee on the Budget, March 1997. “There is no way that we can default on our debt as long as we have a printing press.” Greenspan made the same point in subsequent testimony and remarks, including his August 7, 2011 Meet the Press interview on US default risk.

45. Bernanke, Ben. Interview with Scott Pelley, 60 Minutes, CBS News, March 15, 2009. Bernanke explained the Fed’s crisis-era account-crediting mechanism, noting that “it’s not tax money” and that the Fed credits the banks’ accounts at the Fed electronically, “much more akin to printing money than borrowing.”

46. Powell, Jerome. Interview with Scott Pelley, 60 Minutes, CBS News, March 22, 2020. Powell stated that “there’s an infinite amount of cash in the Federal Reserve” when describing the Fed’s capacity to supply liquidity during the COVID crisis.

47. McLeay, Michael; Amar Radia; and Ryland Thomas. “Money Creation in the Modern Economy.” Bank of England Quarterly Bulletin, 2014 Q1. The canonical institutional explanation of money creation in a sovereign-currency economy.

48. Bork, Robert H. The Antitrust Paradox: A Policy at War with Itself. Basic Books, 1978. The foundational text of the Chicago school antitrust doctrine that dismantled the U.S. antitrust regime starting in the Reagan administration.

49. Lerner, Abba P. “Functional Finance and the Federal Debt.” Social Research, vol. 10, no. 1, February 1943. Lerner’s foundational statement that government spending should be judged by its real effects (employment, inflation, output) rather than by budget-balance arithmetic.

50. Atwater, Lee. Interview with political scientist Alexander Lamis, 1981. Originally published anonymously in Lamis’s The Two-Party South (Oxford University Press, 1984), with Atwater identified as the speaker after his death. Atwater’s plain description of how Southern Strategy rhetoric moved from explicitly racial language to coded substitutes and eventually to economic euphemisms.

51. S&P Dow Jones Indices. “S&P 500 Buybacks.” Quarterly and annual share repurchase report. 2024 annual data showed approximately $943 billion in S&P 500 share repurchases, an all-time record. https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/

52. S&P Dow Jones Indices. “S&P 500 Concentration.” 2024-2025 data showing the top ten S&P 500 stocks (the “Magnificent Seven” plus a small handful of additional mega-caps) accounted for approximately 35% of the index’s total market capitalization, an all-time concentration high exceeding the dot-com peak. https://www.spglobal.com/spdji/en/

53. Congressional Budget Office. “Estimated Budgetary Effects of the One Big Beautiful Bill Act of 2025.” CBO projected the Act would add approximately $3.4-3.8 trillion to the federal deficit over the 2025-2034 budget window. https://www.cbo.gov/

The Trump administration’s pattern of finding money for its own priorities while pleading scarcity for everyone else’s has reopened a debate that always ends the same way: someone replies, “okay, but we still have a spending problem.”

Both halves of that reply are doing work the speaker doesn’t realize.

“Okay” concedes the operational point. Yes, the federal government is a currency issuer, not a currency user. A country that issues its own floating currency cannot be forced into insolvency in that currency. The Bank of England spelled out the mechanics in its 2014 paper on money creation. Three Federal Reserve chairs have said the same thing on the record. Alan Greenspan on Meet the Press in August 2011, on US default risk: “The United States can pay any debt it has because we can always print money to do that. So there is zero probability of default.” Ben Bernanke on 60 Minutes in 2009, defending crisis-era Fed action: “It’s not tax money. The banks have accounts with the Fed... we credit those accounts. So it’s much more akin to printing money than borrowing.” Jerome Powell on 60 Minutes in March 2020: “There’s an infinite amount of cash in the Federal Reserve. We will do whatever we need to do to make sure there’s enough cash in the banking system.”

“But we have a spending problem” reasserts the household-budget framing the operational point just dismantled. The trick is that the reassertion sounds reasonable. It isn’t. Or rather, it’s reasonable about a different question than the one the operational point answered.

The household-budget mythology has a defensive layer the rest of the structure rests on. Sovereign currency mechanics get described accurately when the question is whether the United States can pay debts denominated in dollars. The moment the framing gets applied to anyone other than the asset-holder class, the “spending problem” frame snaps back into place. That’s not a coincidence. It’s the asset-side architecture I walked through in 50 Years of Economic Myths Have Delivered Americans Into Technofeudalism and catalogued more fully in Your Mainstream Economics Decoder Ring. The federal government’s money-creation capacity gets pointed at one beneficiary class freely (bailouts, QE, “emergency response” facilities, asset guarantees). The same capacity gets gated behind “how will we pay for it?” the moment the proposed beneficiary is anyone else.

“We have a spending problem” does three things at once.

It conflates the binding constraint. Money is not the binding constraint. Real resources are: labor, materials, energy, productive capacity. The constraint on spending is inflation, what happens when you try to buy more real stuff than the economy can produce. That’s a genuine limit, and it takes real planning to manage. But it’s a completely different limit from “we ran out of money,” and the difference matters enormously for what we can actually decide to do.

It smuggles the household analogy back in. The federal government is not a household. A currency issuer is not a currency user. “We have a spending problem” only makes sense if the federal budget is constrained the way a household budget is. Restate the claim accurately and “spending problem” becomes “resource allocation problem” or “inflation risk problem.” Both are real. Neither is what the speaker meant.

It implies the unspecified problem is spending too much on the poor. This is rarely said out loud. But “we have a spending problem” almost never gets followed by “yeah, we should cut the defense budget” or “yeah, we should stop subsidizing fossil fuels” or “yeah, we should stop guaranteeing too-big-to-fail banks.” The implied frame is that the spending is happening downward, and the cuts should follow.

When the spending-problem rhetoric appears in a thread, the response is not to argue back about how much spending is too much. The frame is the trap. Pivot to: what binding constraint are we actually talking about? If the answer is “we don’t want to print our way into inflation,” that’s a real conversation about real resources and planning. If the answer is “we’re running out of money,” the conversation has slid back into the household analogy and the speaker doesn’t know they did it.

There’s a corollary on corruption that travels with this. Corruption always exists. The right question isn’t “is there corruption?” but “what kind of corruption are we tolerating, and what is it buying?” Some countries tolerate small-scale corruption because it buys large-scale governing results. The Trump-era version is the opposite trade: billions in blatant corruption with no governing results, and often active destruction. That’s the version actually worth being angry about. Naming the scale and direction is what makes the corruption critique productive instead of decorative.

The American middle class was deliberately built by federal policy in the postwar decades. The decline of the last fifty years tracks the rise of austerity logic justified by debt panic, which I walk through in The U.S. National Debt Is Caused by Underspending and in Federal Taxes Don’t Fund the Government. The debt-is-a-myth claim doesn’t mean spending is free. It means the household-budget metaphor that drives austerity politics is wrong, and it’s been wrong in a way that’s hurt and diminished Americans.

The asymmetric application is the entire trick. Same tool, different beneficiary. The mythology is what makes the asymmetry politically sustainable, and shedding it is what makes a different politics possible.

Anyone else getting the “spending problem” reply hit at them in threads? Curious whether the version showing up in your conversations is closer to “we’re broke” (the household frame) or “we should cut Medicare to balance the books” (the implied direction). Different responses depending on which frame is loading.

Subscribe now

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Link to the original article

This week, Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JPMorgan Chase, stood in front of a room full of bankers and big investors at a conference in Oslo, Norway, and warned that “there will be some kind of bond crisis, and then we’ll have to deal with it.” He blamed rising U.S. government deficits, oil prices, and global conflict. The financial press picked it up immediately. Yahoo Finance, Inc., CNBC, and dozens of others ran the warning as if it were a serious forecast that the public should worry about.

It does deserve attention, but not for the reasons being given. Dimon’s warning is worth a closer look precisely because, when you slow down and ask what he actually means, it doesn’t really say anything. And once you see that, you can see how the same trick has been running American economic politics for fifty years.

What Dimon Doesn’t Say

Read the coverage carefully. Dimon never explains how a bond crisis would actually start. He doesn’t point to anything the country is running out of. He doesn’t describe how prices would rise or what would tip things over. He just lists three worrying-sounding things (“geopolitics, oil, government deficits”) and lets the audience get nervous on its own. That’s not analysis. It’s a feeling.

It’s also worth pinning down what kind of bond crisis he’s actually warning about, because he never says. Dimon uses the phrase “some kind of bond crisis” without specifying which kind. But the reasons he gives (deficits, geopolitics, oil) only make sense as causes for a U.S. Treasury bond crisis, and the UK comparison the original article uses to illustrate the danger is explicitly about British government bonds, called gilts. So he’s clearly alluding to a sovereign debt crisis, the kind where investors lose faith in U.S. government bonds and force interest rates up. He just doesn’t say so plainly. The vagueness is convenient. It lets him invoke the alarm of a Treasury crisis, which is what makes the deficit framing land emotionally, while keeping his exit ramp open if anyone challenges him on the mechanism. A more honest version of the warning would name what’s actually being predicted, and then have to explain how a country that issues its own currency could be forced into a debt crisis on debt it owes in that same currency. That conversation would end the warning before it started.

A real crisis needs a real cause. So what’s the cause supposed to be? It can’t be that the U.S. government will run out of money. Here’s a fact most people aren’t told: at the national level, the U.S. is what’s called a currency sovereign. That means it issues its own currency (the dollar), and it pays its debts in that same currency. The federal government is the source of what’s called base money, the foundational dollars that everything else in the financial system is built on. Commercial banks create most of the dollars that circulate in the economy by making loans, but every one of those bank-created dollars is ultimately settled in base money that only the federal government can produce. Because of this, the federal government can no more run out of dollars than a bowling alley can run out of points to put on the scoreboard. The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis has said this directly: as the only maker of base dollars, with debts owed in those dollars, the U.S. government can never go bankrupt.

This isn’t fringe economics. It’s how the system actually works. When Congress approves spending, the Treasury tells the Federal Reserve to add money to bank accounts. New money comes into existence through what amounts to a typed entry in a computer. Taxes don’t fund this spending. Taxes pull money back out of circulation after the fact, mostly to keep prices in check.

If that sounds radical, it shouldn’t. Back in 1946, a man named Beardsley Ruml, who was the chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, gave a speech to the American Bar Association titled “Taxes for Revenue Are Obsolete.” Ruml wasn’t some left-wing professor. He was a corporate executive (he also chaired Macy’s), and he actually invented the modern paycheck withholding system. He explained, plainly, that the federal government doesn’t need to collect taxes to spend. Once a country has a central bank and a currency that isn’t tied to gold, taxes serve other purposes (controlling inflation, shaping who has wealth, encouraging or discouraging behaviors), but funding the government isn’t one of them. We’ve spent eighty years pretending he didn’t say it.

The Household Comparison That Won’t Die

When Dimon, or anyone else, warns that U.S. deficits are “unsustainable,” they’re really comparing the federal government to a household. A family that spends more than it earns runs out of money, gets cut off by lenders, and ends up in trouble. Apply that picture to the U.S. and you get the bond-crisis story.

The comparison falls apart at the first step. Households use dollars. The federal government creates them. States and cities also use dollars without making them, which is why a city really can run out of money and really can default. Businesses use dollars. So do other countries that have to borrow in foreign currencies they don’t control. The federal government is the one player in the U.S. economy that doesn’t share these limits, and it’s the only one Dimon is talking about.

What does limit the federal government is real stuff. If the country tries to buy more goods, services, and labor than it can actually produce, prices go up. That’s inflation, and it’s the real ceiling. So at the national level, the right question is never “can we afford it?” It’s “do we have the doctors, workers, materials, and energy to do this thing?” Those are completely different questions, and they lead to completely different politics.

Why the UK Story Doesn’t Apply Here

The Yahoo article props up Dimon’s warning by comparing the U.S. to the UK’s 2022 bond scare under Prime Minister Liz Truss. The story is meant to suggest that America is one bad announcement away from the same fate. It isn’t, and the comparison is doing a lot of work it hasn’t earned.

Here’s what actually happened in the UK. British pension funds had been making complicated, risky bets that required them to put up extra cash whenever interest rates moved suddenly. When Truss announced unfunded tax cuts, interest rates jumped, and those bets blew up. The pension funds had to dump UK government bonds (called gilts) to raise cash, which made bond prices fall and interest rates rise even more, which made things worse. The Bank of England had to step in to stop the spiral. It was a problem about pension funds making risky bets in a country whose currency isn’t the world’s main one. It wasn’t really a problem about government borrowing.

The U.S. is in a fundamentally different position. The dollar is the world’s reserve currency. That means almost every other country and big company on Earth holds dollars and uses them for trade. There’s a constant, structural demand for dollars that the UK simply doesn’t have for pounds. People have been predicting for forty years that bond markets would force the U.S. into cuts and austerity, and it keeps not happening, because the mechanism just isn’t there.

Where Dimon Has a Real Point He Isn’t Making

There’s one part of the bond-trouble story that actually matters, and it’s the part Dimon avoids. The dollar’s role as the world’s reserve currency is what gives the U.S. its extraordinary financial flexibility. That role isn’t a law of physics. It’s a political achievement built up over decades, based on the world trusting that America will be predictable, follow its own rules, and act as a neutral place to hold and move money.

The Trump administration has been actively dismantling that trust on multiple fronts at once. Tariffs have been announced, raised, paused, and reversed on no clear schedule, leaving every business that imports or exports anything unable to plan more than a few weeks out. Long-standing allies have been publicly threatened, including suggestions about annexing Greenland, taking back the Panama Canal, and turning Canada into the 51st state, which signals to every other country that mutual treaties and security guarantees can be tossed aside on a whim. Sanctions are being used as a casual political tool against friend and foe alike, which is the single biggest reason countries have to think about getting off the dollar in the first place. The administration has openly attacked the independence of the Federal Reserve, threatened the rule of law in financial cases, and treated international institutions like enemies. Each one of these moves, on its own, would worry the people who park trillions of dollars in U.S. Treasury bonds because they thought America was the boring, reliable choice. Doing all of them together is something different.

The result is that countries are quietly building alternatives, and the alternatives are no longer hypothetical. China is signing trade deals with Brazil, Russia, Saudi Arabia, and dozens of other countries that settle in yuan instead of dollars. The BRICS bloc (originally Brazil, Russia, India, China, and South Africa, now expanded to include several Middle Eastern and African economies) has been openly working on a shared payment infrastructure designed to move money between member countries without touching the U.S. banking system. Central banks are buying gold at the fastest pace in decades, which is a quiet way of moving reserves out of dollars. None of these alternatives is ready to replace the dollar tomorrow. But every one of them gets stronger every time the U.S. acts unpredictably, and that’s exactly what’s been happening.

The Iran war is the cleanest example of how this works, and it’s worth a closer look because Dimon himself cited it as a reason for his crisis warning. For about fifty years, the dollar’s reserve status has been propped up by what’s called the petrodollar arrangement. Saudi Arabia and other oil producers agreed to price oil in dollars, which meant every country on Earth needed to hold dollars to buy energy. That single arrangement created enormous, automatic global demand for U.S. currency. The administration’s handling of the Iran war has put that arrangement under serious strain. Saudi Arabia has been openly negotiating oil sales in yuan with China. Iran, now far more aligned with China and Russia after the conflict, has been pushed entirely out of the dollar system. Other Gulf states are watching, hedging, and quietly diversifying. The petrodollar isn’t dead yet, but it’s been weakened more in the last few years than in the previous forty combined, and almost all of that damage traces back to specific U.S. policy choices.

So when Dimon invokes “geopolitics” and “oil” as reasons for a coming bond crisis, he’s pointing at real things. He’s just describing them as if they’re weather, as if they fell from the sky, when in reality they’re the direct downstream effects of an administration deliberately torching the relationships and arrangements that make the dollar valuable in the first place. The threat isn’t abstract pressure on the deficit. The threat is that the United States is actively driving the rest of the world toward yuan-denominated trade, BRICS payment systems, and post-petrodollar arrangements, and once those alternatives mature, the extraordinary financial flexibility America has enjoyed for half a century will be permanently diminished.

If a real bond crisis ever does show up in the United States, this is the door it walks through. Not the deficit number, not “entitlements,” not Social Security. A loss of the dollar’s privileged global position, caused by deliberate policy choices coming out of the White House.

Dimon doesn’t make this argument. That’s worth pausing on. He’s not a stupid man, and he runs the largest bank in the country. He understands reserve-currency dynamics and petrodollar mechanics better than almost anyone alive. Yet his public warning points the finger at Congress and voters for the deficit, not at the administration for the actual, observable damage being done to the dollar’s standing right now. By blaming “deficits” in the abstract, he gives political cover to the people actually wrecking the system, and he turns public attention toward the policies their critics want (universal healthcare, public investment, full employment) rather than toward the policies that are causing the real risk. Maybe that’s coincidence. Maybe it’s the natural reflex of a banker who’s used to blaming public spending for everything. Or maybe it’s something more deliberate: a powerful figure in finance protecting an administration whose policies are dangerous to the country but profitable for his industry. I can’t read his mind. But the framing is suspicious, and it’s worth saying so.

The Decoder Ring

I’ve written before about how mainstream economics often works less like a science and more like a set of talking points that quietly shut down debate. In *Your Mainstream Economics Decoder Ring*, I laid out 31 assumptions that limit what Americans think is politically possible. Dimon’s warning leans on two of them: Assumption #7 (the idea that federal spending has to be paid for by taxes or borrowing, just like a household) and Assumption #22 (the idea that deficits create unsustainable debt). Both of these sound like math. They’re not. They’re political opinions wearing the costume of economic law.

These two assumptions have been doing the same job for fifty years. They’ve been used to make universal healthcare, paid leave, full employment, climate action, and serious public investment seem impossible. Not because we lack the workers, hospitals, materials, or energy to do these things, but because doing them would shift power and money away from creditors and asset holders.

Jamie Dimon runs a giant bank. Banks are creditors. Of course he prefers a story where government spending is dangerous and bondholders need to be kept comfortable. That’s a defensible position if he argued for it openly. Dressed up as a coming crisis with no real mechanism behind it, it’s just lobbying in a serious-sounding voice.

Why This Matters for Ordinary Americans

It would be easy to read all this as inside-baseball about bond markets and Federal Reserve operations. It isn’t. The fight over how the federal government can spend money is the most important fight in American political life right now, because it determines whether ordinary people get the basic foundation they need to live free, secure lives.

Here’s the connection. When Dimon and others succeed in convincing the public that federal spending must be limited because of “fiscal responsibility,” the programs that get cut are always the same. Healthcare. Social Security. Education. Housing. Childcare. Public infrastructure. The programs that give working families the breathing room to take risks, change jobs, start businesses, push back against bad bosses, organize, and demand better. The programs that create what I’ve called economic security. And economic security is the foundation of political independence. Without it, ordinary people can’t afford to resist exploitation, can’t afford to wait out a bad job market, can’t afford to challenge the powerful. They have to accept whatever terms they’re offered.

This is the trap I’ve written about before in *50 Years of Economic Myths Have Delivered Americans Into Technofeudalism*. Economic insecurity makes people politically exploitable. The more fragile your finances, the worse the deals you have to accept. The worse the deals, the more fragile you become. The cycle drives downward into something that looks less like democratic capitalism and more like feudalism with smartphones, where a small class of asset holders and platform owners rules over a much larger class of people who can’t afford to say no to anything.

The Strategy Behind the Damage

Once you see this clearly, Trump’s economic policies stop looking like chaos or stupidity and start looking like a strategy. The wreckage he’s causing to the dollar’s global standing isn’t a side effect of “America First” patriotism. It’s a tool for delivering the American consumer market into the hands of a small group of domestic oligarchs.

Think about what tariffs actually do when applied broadly and erratically. They don’t bring back high-quality manufacturing jobs. American factories can’t be rebuilt overnight, and even if they could, the tariffs are too unstable for any company to invest in the multi-year buildout that real reshoring would require. What tariffs do, immediately, is wall off the U.S. consumer market from foreign competition. They make imported goods more expensive or unavailable, and they push American consumers toward whatever is produced and sold by domestic firms. The smaller the field of competition, the more pricing power those domestic firms have. The fewer alternatives Americans have, the worse the deals they have to accept.

Now ask who actually controls domestic production and distribution at scale. The answer is the same handful of tech, finance, and platform oligarchs who have spent the last fifteen years consolidating control over American commerce. Amazon for retail. A few firms for groceries, pharmacies, and household goods. Tech platforms for software, services, and increasingly hardware. Finance and private equity for the rollups happening across health care, housing, veterinary services, dental practices, auto repair, and dozens of other sectors most people don’t realize have been quietly consolidated. Wall off the U.S. market from international competition, and these are the firms that get to set the terms.

The result is less competitive capitalism, not more. Higher prices, because there’s no foreign alternative to discipline domestic pricing. Worse quality, because consumers have nowhere else to go. Less choice, because the field of options shrinks to whatever the oligarch class decides to produce. And critically, weaker workers, because once foreign competition is gone and domestic firms are consolidated, employees lose their leverage too. If you don’t like working conditions at one of the three companies that dominates your industry, your alternatives narrow toward zero.

This isn’t a free market. It’s a captive market dressed up in the language of nationalism. And it’s the natural endpoint of the technofeudal project. Once a population is economically fragile (no savings, dependent on platforms, locked into debt), the final step is to make sure they can’t even shop their way out of bad deals by sourcing better goods and services from elsewhere. Tariffs do that. Damage to dollar reserve status does that. Hostility toward allies and trading partners does that. They aren’t separate policies. They’re a coordinated strategy to deliver American consumers into a closed market controlled by the same small class of oligarchs who already control most of American political and economic life.

What This Costs Ordinary Americans

The cruel irony is that ordinary Americans pay for this twice. They pay first through inflation on the imported goods and services they used to be able to buy more cheaply, and through the loss of choice and quality that comes from a market with less competition. They pay second through the weakening of the dollar’s global standing, which raises the relative cost of energy and everything tied to international markets, while the wealthy are insulated by the very assets (stocks, real estate, foreign currency, gold) that gain value when the dollar loses ground. Working families pay the bill for an elite-driven loss of dollar primacy, while the people who caused the damage walk away richer.

Meanwhile, the public conversation is hijacked by warnings about deficits and “fiscal responsibility” that misdirect attention away from the actual project. Every minute spent debating whether we can “afford” healthcare or paid leave is a minute not spent asking why the people who designed this captured market are also the people demanding that ordinary Americans accept less security and fewer public goods. Jamie Dimon’s bond crisis warning, whether he intends it this way or not, is part of the apparatus that keeps that conversation pointed in the wrong direction.

So when you hear “we need to be fiscally responsible” or “the deficit will cause a crisis,” ask who benefits from you accepting that framing. It isn’t you. It’s the same people who benefit from tariffs that wall off your market, from sanctions and chaos that weaken the dollar, from consolidation that eliminates your alternatives, and from a public conversation that keeps you focused on imaginary constraints while real ones are being engineered around you. The path to a country that works for ordinary Americans starts with refusing the false framings that have been used to keep us economically fragile and politically exploitable for half a century.

Asking Better Questions

The path forward starts with refusing the question Dimon is asking. At the national level, “can we afford it?” is the wrong question. Better questions are: Do we have the real resources? Will doing this cause prices to rise? Does it serve a public purpose? And who benefits from the framing being used to shut down the conversation?

When enough of us learn to ask those questions, the political landscape changes. The limits we’ve been told to accept turn out to be artificial. The choices we’ve been told are impossible turn out to be available. That’s not a radical claim. It’s what a Federal Reserve chairman said out loud in 1946. We’ve just spent eighty years pretending he didn’t.

References:

• Your Mainstream Economics Decoder Ring

• Federal Taxes Don’t Fund the Government: We’ve Known This Since 1946

• 50 Years of Economic Myths Have Delivered Americans Into Technofeudalism

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Link to original news article

Trump says he can pay off $36 trillion in national debt by selling wealthy immigrants $5 million “gold card” visas. This is a perfect example of how the “national debt” mythology gets weaponized.

Here’s the thing most people don’t know: the U.S. hasn’t operated under a gold standard since 1971. Since then, we’ve been in what economists call a soft money regime... the federal government creates its own currency. It cannot involuntarily run out of dollars the way you or I run out of a paycheck.

That means the “national debt” isn’t a debt in any meaningful sense. There’s no payback liability. No creditor is going to repossess America. What we call the national debt is actually an accounting record of net dollars the government has spent into the economy and not taxed back. Those dollars are, dollar for dollar, private sector financial assets at home and abroad. (I explain the full mechanics here: chevan.substack.com/p/t…)

The U.S. has enjoyed a special status called “Global Reserve Currency” where the U.S. dollar is essentially the currency of the world. Trump has been destroying that status since he started his second term, with profound negative geo-political consequences to the world and negative economic consequences to the U.S.

Treasury securities, the thing people call “the debt”, are better understood as an investment product offered by the U.S. government that forms the stable base of the entire global credit system. If you want to understand why this matters: chevan.substack.com/p/w…

So when Trump says he needs to sell $5 million gold cards to “pay off” the national debt, the premise itself is nonsensical. You don’t need to pay off something that doesn’t function as a debt. And no, federal taxes don’t pay for government spending either... that’s another part of the mythology: chevan.substack.com/p/f…

A note on using ChatGPT to fact-check this: it won’t help. The discipline of economics itself is not scientific... it’s an ideology with math. Mainstream economics doesn’t practice falsification, it failed to predict the 2008 financial crisis, stagflation, and Japan’s lost decades, and it resolves disagreements through institutional power rather than evidence. ChatGPT is trained on this literature. Ask it about the national debt and you’ll get the orthodox answer back... the same answer that has been demonstrably wrong about deficits, inflation, and government solvency for decades.

You’re not getting a neutral analysis, you’re getting confirmation of the dominant ideology. To understand why the orthodox economics is wrong, you have to get into the actual mechanics of how money is created, how spending works, how inflation actually happens. That’s what I’ve tried to do in my essays. Conservative politics has spent 50 years corrupting the information landscape... including the entire discipline of economics... to justify austerity and wealth concentration. The economics you learned in school, the economics ChatGPT will give you, is the product of that corruption. (I wrote about exactly how and why here: chevan.substack.com/p/e… and what it would take to fix it: chevan.substack.com/p/h…)

The real question is: why create severe austerity... gutting agencies, slashing services, starving communities of capital to “pay off” something that doesn’t need paying off? You may not understand monetary operations and how fiat currency works but Trump and his advisors do. The answer is that austerity concentrates wealth. When you starve resources from ordinary people, the only ones who benefit are those with enough excess money and assets to weather the storm. That’s not fiscal responsibility. That’s neofeudalism... a modern version of lords and serfs, except the castle is a hedge fund. (More on where this leads: chevan.substack.com/p/5…)

The actual danger isn’t the national debt. It’s Trump threatening to default on or cancel it. This would destroy the credit markets that the entire global economy depends on.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Trump attacked Mayor Mamdani this week. “TAX, TAX, TAX Policies are SO WRONG. People are fleeing.” The president of the United States publicly calling out a mayor for raising local taxes.

Here’s the part he gets right: Mamdani does have to tax to fund programs. NYC is what economists call a currency user. It runs on dollars it has to collect, borrow, or receive from the federal government. Cities and states have no other option.

Here’s the part he’s lying about: the U.S. government isn’t a currency user. It’s the currency sovereign. It issues the dollar. It doesn’t need tax revenue to fund anything... it just has to appropriate. This isn’t opinion. It’s how the monetary system has actually operated since 1971. I wrote about that here: chevan.substack.com/p/f…

Trump knows this. He just signed the One Big Beautiful Bill... an appropriation roughly the scale of what Biden passed. The money was there. It always is. The question was never “can we afford it.” The question was always “who gets it.” Biden appropriated for the CHIPS Act, infrastructure, the IRA, clean energy... investment in Americans. Trump appropriated for military escalation, ICE expansion, domestic surveillance, and enrichment for people in his orbit. Same tool. Opposite purpose. More on that contrast: chevan.substack.com/p/t…

Which brings us back to Mamdani. Mamdani has to tax New Yorkers because the federal government has chosen not to fund what cities are forced to fund locally. Trump is attacking Mamdani for the predictable consequence of Trump’s own governing philosophy. You’ll hear Trump say “let the states fund it” like that’s an answer. It isn’t. It’s the mechanism. He’s using the power of the currency sovereign to enrich himself and oligarchs while starving ordinary Americans of the resources to make their lives better. The hypocrisy isn’t a bug. It’s the whole point. More on how we got to neo-feudalism: chevan.substack.com/p/5…

Many conservatives cheer it on because they think he’s reducing wasteful spending and ending dependency on the government. He’s doing neither. The spending is the same size. It’s just pointed at different people.

And this is the part that should make every American furious: the same mythology Trump is using to attack Mamdani is the one that keeps Americans afraid of the national debt. We’ve been trained to believe the debt is a burden we’re passing to our grandchildren, that we have to pay it back, that it’s about to destroy us. None of it is true. The discipline of economics was captured decades ago by people who benefit when we believe we can’t afford what we could easily afford. They trained us to enslave ourselves with a fear that isn’t real... and to call that self-enslavement “fiscal responsibility.” More detail: chevan.substack.com/p/e…

If Americans understood that Congress could appropriate for universal healthcare, housing, childcare, or a Universal Basic Assets floor the same way it appropriates for wars and tax cuts... I suspect most of them would demand it. That’s why the mythology is maintained. A population that thinks “we can’t afford it” is a population that won’t ask for it. More on what we could actually build: chevan.substack.com/p/u…

This is what neo-feudalism looks like in real time. It runs on a lie about money, told by people who know better, to an audience conditioned not to ask. The national debt isn’t the threat. The mythology about it is.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Subscribe now

Evaluating a presidency requires more than grocery prices and gas prices. It requires more than approval ratings, debate performances, or the feeling you get watching cable news. But the civic education and media infrastructure that once supported that kind of evaluation have broken down, and nothing has replaced them. Worse, the foundational knowledge systems that shape how Americans think about government have themselves been corrupted, with demonstrably false ideas about how taxes, debt, and public spending work perpetuated through institutions that should know better (Nanayakkara, “Economics is not a Science,” chevan.info, 2025).

A serious evaluation asks specific questions. Did the president use the full power of American government to improve the lives of their people? Did they use American strength to improve global conditions in ways that circle back home? Did they govern in good faith, the operational mechanism that makes democracy function (Nanayakkara, “Good Faith is Democratic Infrastructure,” chevan.info, 2026)? Did they build institutions rather than hollow them out (Nanayakkara, “Be a Builder,” chevan.info, 2026)? Did they direct the country’s productive capacity toward collective benefit rather than extraction, and honor the founding commitment to pluralism, the idea that profoundly different people can govern themselves together?

Most presidential coverage doesn’t ask these questions. It operates at the tactical or transactional level. Did the press conference go well? Was the withdrawal orderly? Did prices go up this quarter? Those questions have answers, but they don’t tell you whether a presidency worked. Strategic analysis asks something different: over the full term, did the president set a direction, build the institutional capacity to execute it, and produce measurable results at scale? That is the level at which this essay operates. Chaotic execution of a correct strategic decision matters less than whether the system delivered the intended outcome. And performative criticism of process, when the outcome was structurally sound, should be weighted accordingly.

By this standard, most presidents of my lifetime have been disappointing. Some actively dismantled government capacity. Others governed competently but within a consensus that limited what government should even attempt. Some were constrained by opposition into modest incrementalism. A few caused catastrophic damage through recklessness or ideology.

One president broke that pattern. Joe Biden entered the White House as a 78-year-old moderate whom few expected to govern boldly. He left four years later with a legislative record that historians and nonpartisan analysts have called the most productive since Lyndon Johnson’s, achieved with the thinnest possible congressional margins, during a pandemic recovery, against a backdrop of extreme polarization. He also left with an approval rating in the low 40s, a failed re-election effort, and a public that overwhelmingly believed he had accomplished “little or nothing.”

Both realities are true simultaneously. The measurable, verifiable outcomes of the Biden presidency should carry far more weight than public sentiment when evaluating presidential quality. And the reasons the public never recognized the quality of Biden’s governance are themselves part of the story: a broken information environment that can no longer distinguish between effective governance and its opposite (Nanayakkara, “The Broken Infrastructure of Hope,” chevan.info, 2026). This essay builds the evidence case first, then confronts two harder questions: why don’t Americans have the analytical tools to evaluate whether their government is working, and what does it mean for democracy when the information systems they depend on can’t surface the answer?

I. Legislative Achievement: The Most Productive Congress Since the Great Society

The raw legislative record is the foundation of the case, because it is the least subjective measure available. Historians and nonpartisan analysts widely credited Biden with achieving more legislatively in his first two years than any president since Lyndon B. Johnson (Calmes, “Biden has the best legislation record of any president since LBJ,” Los Angeles Times , 2023). More than six in ten Americans, according to a Washington Post-ABC News poll, said Biden had accomplished “little or nothing.” But as Calmes observed, that was a communications crisis, not a policy one.

The combined scale is staggering: four major bills totaling roughly $5.6 trillion in authorized spending (the Bipartisan Infrastructure Law, the Inflation Reduction Act, the American Rescue Plan, and the CHIPS and Science Act), plus the first significant gun safety legislation in nearly three decades, the PACT Act expanding veterans’ healthcare, the Respect for Marriage Act codifying same-sex marriage protections, bipartisan postal reform, and the reauthorization of the Violence Against Women Act. The specifics of what these bills accomplished are detailed in the sections that follow. What matters here is the sheer volume: no post-Nixon legislative portfolio comes close in combined dollar value, policy breadth, or bipartisan components.

The “degree of difficulty” factor is essential context. Franklin Roosevelt commanded 313 House seats and 59 Senate seats. Lyndon Johnson controlled the 89th Congress with Democratic majorities of 68-32 in the Senate and 295-140 in the House. Biden’s party had 73 fewer House seats than LBJ and 18 fewer Senate seats (Cook, “Comparing Biden’s Mandate to FDR’s and LBJ’s,” Cook Political Report , 2021). In 1964, 77 percent of Americans (and astonishingly, 74 percent of Republicans) said they trusted the federal government. By 2019, only 17 percent felt the same. Biden legislated in an environment of institutional distrust that would have been unrecognizable to his predecessors.

American University’s James Thurber, founder of the Center for Congressional and Presidential Studies, described Biden’s first two years as more legislatively fertile than those of Donald Trump, George W. Bush, or any other recent president.

II. Policy Direction: A Break with Forty Years of Consensus

Beyond the volume of legislation, the direction matters. For four decades, from Reagan through Obama, the governing consensus held that markets should lead, government should step back, and the best the public sector could do was stay out of the way. This consensus was built on neoclassical economic assumptions that I have argued elsewhere are demonstrably false: that taxes fund the government, that the national debt represents a burden on future generations, that government spending must be “paid for” by cutting something else (Nanayakkara, “Your Mainstream Economics Decoder Ring,” chevan.info, 2025). These myths constrained every president’s political imagination for four decades. Biden was the first to direct that understanding toward building public capacity rather than concentrating private wealth. He directed productive capacity toward climate, antitrust enforcement, labor protections, and drug pricing through deliberate government action, the kind of capacity stewardship (Nanayakkara, “Defending Democratic Capitalism Through Capacity Stewardship,” chevan.info, 2026) that asks not “can we afford it?” but “do we have the resources to build it, and is government or the market the right mechanism?”

Climate. The contrast with every predecessor is stark. The Inflation Reduction Act delivered the largest climate and clean energy investment in history, projected to reduce emissions in 2030 by about one gigaton, ten times more climate benefit than any previous legislation. Companies announced over $470 billion in new clean energy manufacturing investments and more than 330,000 new clean energy jobs (“The Biden-Harris Administration Record,” The White House, 2025). Biden also set the first-ever national conservation goal, conserving 674 million acres of lands and waters, more than any president in history. Obama’s signature environmental achievement was joining the Paris Climate Accord, an important but largely aspirational framework with no binding domestic spending component. No prior president had enacted climate legislation at even a fraction of this scale.

Antitrust and Corporate Power. During the Clinton and Obama eras, Democrats were largely amenable to corporate concentration, having acquiesced to the “consumer welfare standard” that had dominated since the Reagan era. I have written about how fifty years of economic myths delivered Americans into technofeudalism (Nanayakkara, “50 Years of Economic Myths Have Delivered Americans Into Technofeudalism,” chevan.info, 2025); Biden’s antitrust agenda was the first serious attempt to reverse that trajectory. The Obama administration’s FTC had evidence of monopolization by Google and dropped the case. Biden broke decisively with this four-decade consensus. Since Ronald Reagan’s presidency, antitrust regulators had done little to challenge mergers and acquisitions, a posture adopted by every president, including Clinton and Obama. Biden ended that pattern. He appointed Lina Khan to the FTC, Jonathan Kanter at the DOJ, and Rohit Chopra at the CFPB, the most aggressive anti-monopoly posture since the 1970s. The administration won a historic court victory against Google’s search monopoly, sued to break up Live Nation and Ticketmaster, blocked the Kroger-Albertsons grocery merger, and issued new merger guidelines restoring authority stripped by previous administrations (Majsak, “A New Antitrust Era,” Beyond Politics / Notre Dame, 2025; Vassallo, “Lina Khan and the Return of Anti-Monopoly,” Jacobin, 2024).

Drug Pricing. Biden’s administration was the first to implement Medicare drug price negotiations, a goal Democrats had pursued for decades without success (Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services, “Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program,” 2024). He also capped insulin costs, a tangible pocketbook victory for millions of Americans.

Labor. Biden was the most explicitly pro-labor president in modern memory, becoming the first sitting president to walk a picket line (with the UAW). He signed the Butch Lewis Act, the most significant law for union retirement security in over 50 years, rescuing roughly two million workers’ pensions. He issued executive orders requiring project labor agreements on federal construction projects and embedding high labor standards into federal grant programs. Real wages grew most quickly for low-wage workers, the strongest recovery for real wage growth in 50 years (“The Biden-Harris Administration Record,” The White House, 2025).

Judicial Appointments. Biden confirmed over 200 federal judges, including Ketanji Brown Jackson as the first Black woman on the Supreme Court. The slate was the most diverse in U.S. history. This contrasts with Obama’s widely criticized deprioritization of judicial appointments early in his presidency, a decision that contributed to the vacancy Mitch McConnell exploited to block Merrick Garland.

The Obama Comparison. Obama retains the clear edge on the Affordable Care Act, a singular structural achievement in expanding the American safety net that no subsequent president has matched. That must be acknowledged upfront, though I have significant concerns about what the ACA actually achieved for ordinary Americans even as I recognize its massive legislative, structural, and political significance (Nanayakkara, “Obamacare Succeeded at Health Insurance but Was Always Doomed to Fail at Healthcare,” chevan.info, 2025). But on nearly every other dimension of progressive policy, Biden’s single term surpassed Obama’s two, despite having far less to work with. While Obama had 59-60 Senate seats for his first two years, Biden had exactly 50, and still managed to pass a larger combined spending portfolio. Biden’s $1.9 trillion stimulus was considerably larger than Obama’s $787 billion recovery package. Obama veterans on Biden’s team explicitly acknowledged they were correcting the mistakes of the earlier era. Where Obama had a knack for making moderate programs like the ACA sound transformative to progressives, Biden’s talent was making FDR-sized liberal ideas sound moderate. The substance-to-rhetoric ratio was inverted. On climate, antitrust, labor, drug pricing, and the ideological direction of economic policy, Biden accomplished more in four years than Obama did in eight.

III. Economic Performance: The Data vs. the Feeling

The objective economic data under Biden is, by most measures, the strongest of any post-Nixon presidency. The challenge is that almost no one believed it at the time.

For data through November 2024, Biden on average had the lowest unemployment rate (4.12%) and highest real hourly wages for production and non-supervisory workers ($30.11) among presidents going back to 1964 (Bureau of Labor Statistics, “Employment Situation” and “Real Earnings” reports, 2021-2025). He was the first U.S. president to oversee monthly job gains for the entirety of his presidency: 16.6 million jobs added over his term (Isidore, “Biden’s economic legacy,” CNN Business, 2025). Some of that total reflects pandemic recovery jobs that would have returned under any president, but the speed and completeness of the U.S. recovery relative to peer nations suggests policy choices mattered. GDP grew by at least 2.5% each year, with real GDP growth of 2.8% in 2024 (Robertson et al., “Biden’s Final Numbers,” FactCheck.org , 2025). Real GDP growth and GDP per capita were both running at their fastest pace during a presidential transition since 2000, according to the Economic Policy Institute (Isidore, CNN Business , 2025).

The labor market under Biden achieved record-low unemployment rates for Black Americans, Latino Americans, women, veterans, workers without a high school diploma, and workers with disabilities. The share of working-age women in the workforce hit a record high. Wage and employment gaps between Black and white workers narrowed to record levels. The Black unemployment rate hit an all-time low of 4.8% in April 2023 (Isidore, CNN Business , 2025). Wealth, adjusted for inflation, rose a record 37% for the median American household (“The Biden-Harris Administration Record,” The White House, 2025). New business formation rose 30% from pre-pandemic levels, with notable strength among women and women of color (U.S. Census Bureau, “Business Formation Statistics,” 2021-2025).

The U.S. outperformance was not merely domestic. Since the start of 2020, America’s real growth was 10%, three times the average for the rest of the G7. Among the G20, America was the only nation whose output and employment were above pre-pandemic expectations (“The Biden-Harris Administration Record,” The White House, 2025).

The inflation caveat is real but must be contextualized. Consumer prices rose 21.5% over Biden’s full term, and this was the defining economic experience for most Americans (Robertson et al., “Biden’s Final Numbers,” FactCheck.org, 2025). However, the bout of high inflation was a global phenomenon, present across the Eurozone, Canada, and the United Kingdom, driven primarily by pandemic supply chain disruptions and Russia’s war in Ukraine. Larry Summers and co-authors demonstrated that if the cost of money (interest rates and borrowing costs) were included in the consumer price index as they were before 1983, the index would have peaked closer to 18%, which actually explains the gap between official inflation figures and how expensive life felt to ordinary Americans (Summers et al., “The Cost of Money is Part of the Cost of Living,” NBER, 2024). By the end of Biden’s term, inflation had returned near its pre-pandemic rate, and the feared recession that the majority of professional forecasters predicted for 2023 never materialized.

IV. Domestic Outcomes: Tangible Improvements in American Life

A note on causality before continuing. Not every positive outcome during a presidency is caused by the president. Crime trends, business cycles, and pandemic recovery dynamics all have momentum independent of who sits in the Oval Office. This essay does not claim Biden personally caused every data point cited here. What it claims is that Biden’s policy choices, where they were clearly causal (legislation, appointments, executive orders, diplomatic initiatives), produced measurable results, and that the broader governance environment he maintained contributed to outcomes that could have been far worse under different leadership. The comparison with G7 peers, who experienced the same global shocks but recovered more slowly, is the strongest evidence that American policy choices during this period mattered.

Beyond macroeconomic indicators, Biden’s presidency produced measurable improvements in domains that directly affect Americans’ daily lives.

Crime. Violent crime decreased significantly during Biden’s term. The 2023 violent crime rate of 363.8 per 100,000 population was 22.5 points lower than in 2020. The murder rate dropped from 6.8 to 5.7 per 100,000, and the number of murders declined by 14.5%. The aggravated assault rate decreased by 13.6 points. Property crime rates dropped by 50.2 points (Robertson et al., “Biden’s Numbers, 2024 Pre-Election Update,” FactCheck.org, 2024). Multiple independent sources, including the Major Cities Chiefs Association, confirmed continued declines into 2024. A causality note: the 2020-2021 crime spike was driven primarily by pandemic disruption, and the subsequent decline likely reflects a return toward pre-pandemic trends more than any single president’s policies. Biden signed the Bipartisan Safer Communities Act and funded community violence intervention programs, but the scale of the decline is too large to attribute primarily to those actions. What can be said is that crime improved substantially on Biden’s watch, and his administration invested in prevention rather than ignoring the problem.

Healthcare. The number of uninsured Americans under age 65 fell from 31.2 million in 2020 to 27.0 million, a reduction of 3.2 million. Both the number and percentage of uninsured hit record lows for data going back to 1997 (National Health Interview Survey, National Center for Health Statistics, 2020-2024). This was achieved through expansion of ACA subsidies, pandemic-driven policy expansions, and aggressive outreach.

Infrastructure. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law directed $284 billion for transportation, $65 billion for broadband, $73 billion for power infrastructure, and $55 billion for clean drinking water. Unlike many policy achievements that remain abstract, infrastructure investment produces visible, physical results (rebuilt bridges, expanded broadband in rural communities, replaced lead pipes) that will persist for decades.

Conservation. Biden set the first-ever national conservation goal through the America the Beautiful Initiative, launched one of the most rapid accelerations of conservation progress in history, and created the largest corridor of protected lands in the lower 48 states, the Moab to Mojave Conservation Corridor (“The Biden-Harris Administration Record,” The White House , 2025).

Veterans. The PACT Act expanded healthcare and benefits for veterans exposed to toxic substances during military service, addressing a longstanding failure that had left burn pit-exposed veterans without adequate care.

V. Global and Strategic Leadership: Rebuilding Alliances and Managing Great Power Competition

The standard I outlined at the start includes using American strength to improve global conditions in ways that circle back home. Biden’s foreign policy record is best characterized by what Brookings scholar Michael O’Hanlon called “unspectacular but solid” (O’Hanlon, “Biden’s unspectacular but solid national security record,” Brookings Institution , 2024), which, in the context of a post-Nixon comparison set that includes Vietnam’s aftermath, Iran-Contra, Iraq, and the Afghanistan war, is a stronger descriptor than it might initially appear.

The administration reinvigorated NATO, welcoming Sweden and Finland to the alliance, a historic expansion directly precipitated by Russia’s invasion of Ukraine. Biden nearly tripled the number of NATO allies meeting their 2% defense spending commitments. He rallied a coalition of more than 50 nations to support Ukraine, coordinating unprecedented economic sanctions against Russia while avoiding direct military confrontation. The administration signed the AUKUS trilateral security pact with Australia and the United Kingdom, established the Indo-Pacific Economic Framework, and elevated partnerships across Africa, the Americas, and Asia (O’Hanlon, “Biden’s unspectacular but solid national security record,” Brookings Institution, 2024).

O’Hanlon assessed that by focusing on fundamentals (China, Russia, defense policy, and national economic and scientific strength) Biden got most of the big picture right, with no huge disasters. The CHIPS Act and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act both carried national security significance, reducing dependence on East Asian semiconductor supply chains and strengthening the domestic industrial base.

The Afghanistan withdrawal was chaotic in execution, and the imagery was politically devastating. But through a systems lens, Biden accomplished what three predecessors could not: he ended a 20-year war through institutional processes, absorbed the political cost of a strategically correct decision, and produced the intended outcome. No American troops have been killed in Afghanistan since. The withdrawal was constrained by the timeline Trump had negotiated with the Taliban and by the speed of the Afghan government’s collapse, factors that made operational chaos nearly inevitable regardless of who was president. The critique of how it was done is a transactional argument about optics. The systemic reality is that it was done, and the strategic objective was achieved.

The Gaza limitation is a harder case, and an honest assessment requires acknowledging a deeper structural problem. Biden’s support for Israel during the war in Gaza following the October 7 Hamas attack drew intense criticism from progressives and complicated his standing with parts of his coalition. Unlike Afghanistan, this is not merely a values critique; it represents a systemic inconsistency. But the inconsistency did not begin with Biden. The United States has provided disproportionate economic aid, military partnership, and political support to Israel for decades. Congressional Research Service data shows cumulative U.S. aid to Israel totaling $174 billion in nominal dollars since 1948, substantially more when adjusted for inflation, making Israel the largest cumulative recipient of U.S. foreign assistance since World War II. Aid to Palestinians has been a fraction of that amount and has been periodically suspended for political reasons (Congressional Research Service, “U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel,” 2024). It is difficult to judge any single president’s consistency on this issue when the underlying U.S. posture has been structurally inconsistent from the start, claiming to support a two-state solution while funding and arming one side at a scale that makes genuine balance impossible. Biden inherited this asymmetry and, during a crisis, deepened it rather than correcting it. The broader foreign policy architecture he built remains a significant achievement, but Gaza is the clearest instance where the structural bias of U.S. policy overwhelmed the administration’s own stated framework for how American power should be used.

VI. Democratic Norms, Institutional Stewardship, and the Politics of Bad Faith

Evaluating Biden on democratic process and norms requires distinguishing between two baselines: the standard he set for himself, and the standard set by his immediate predecessor.

Against the Trump baseline, Biden’s improvements were substantial. The Biden administration reinstated voluntary disclosure of White House visitor logs, becoming the first administration to post logs from its first full year in office, after Trump had discontinued the practice entirely. The administration resumed regular press briefings and cultivated a functional, if sometimes contentious, relationship with the press. Attorney General Merrick Garland issued a memorandum banning the Justice Department from seizing journalists’ records during whistleblower investigations. The administration released the intelligence report on the murder of Jamal Khashoggi that Trump had refused to disclose. Biden waived executive privilege over Trump-era White House communications related to the January 6 insurrection.

Against the higher standard Biden set for himself, the record is more mixed. A coalition of transparency organizations including the ACLU, the Society of Professional Journalists, and the Project on Government Oversight criticized the administration for failing to issue a FOIA guidance memo, a step that both Republican and Democratic administrations had traditionally taken. Visitor logs excluded virtual meetings and Biden’s frequent trips to Delaware. FOIA backlogs persisted.

However, in the broader context of institutional stewardship, Biden’s presidency stands out for what it preserved. He maintained the independence of the Justice Department, respected the authority of inspectors general, complied with congressional oversight (however reluctantly at times), and executed a peaceful transfer of power to his successor despite that successor’s prior attempts to subvert the same process. The contrast with both the preceding and succeeding administrations underscores that democratic norms are not self-sustaining; they require presidential commitment, and Biden provided it.

The Border Bill: A Case Study in Institutional Sabotage

The episode of the bipartisan border security bill of early 2024 crystallizes both Biden’s commitment to working within institutional channels and the extraordinary obstacles he faced from a political opponent operating entirely outside them. It is also a case study in what happens when good faith infrastructure breaks down entirely (Nanayakkara, “Good Faith is Democratic Infrastructure,” chevan.info, 2026).

Immigration is one of the most persistent critiques of the Biden presidency, and the criticism has surface-level merit. Border encounters rose dramatically, reaching 2.4 million in fiscal year 2022 and 2.5 million in fiscal year 2023 (Galston, “The collapse of bipartisan immigration reform,” Brookings Institution , 2024). Biden’s early reversal of Trump-era policies, while intended to restore a more humane system, initially failed to manage the scale of migration effectively. This is a legitimate shortcoming.

What is far less widely understood is what happened when Biden moved to fix it.

For four months, a bipartisan group of senators (conservative Republican James Lankford of Oklahoma, Democrat Chris Murphy of Connecticut, and independent Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona) negotiated what would become the most significant border security legislation in decades. The bill would have hired thousands of additional border security professionals, immigration judges, and asylum officers, invested billions in border infrastructure and technology including $650 million for the border wall, and given the president new emergency authorities to shut down the border when it became overwhelmed. The legislation raised the evidentiary standard for asylum claims, mandated expedited processing, and ended the effective “catch and release” practice for most cases (Farley, “Unraveling Misinformation About Bipartisan Immigration Bill,” FactCheck.org, 2024).

This was not a progressive wish list. Senator Mark Kelly characterized the compromise as meeting Republicans “not on the 50-yard line” but “on the 10-yard line, on their side of the field.” The bill received endorsements from organizations that typically align with the Republican Party: the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, the Wall Street Journal editorial board, and, critically, the National Border Patrol Council, a union representing roughly 18,000 border patrol agents that had endorsed Donald Trump. Brandon Judd, president of the Border Patrol Council and a Trump supporter, said the bill contained “such huge benefits to border security” and called Republican criticisms of the measure “intentionally misleading or false.” He added: “They know that the vast majority of people are just going to listen to the talking points, rather than actually digging into it. And unless somebody fact-checks them on it, then their misstatements become truth” (Tomco, “Failed border bill would have stopped migrants from ‘gaming the system,’” Deseret News, 2024).

Then Donald Trump intervened. Many of the same Senate Republicans who had insisted they wouldn’t back Ukraine funding without changes to asylum policy quickly reversed themselves once Trump publicly lobbied lawmakers to kill the deal. Within 48 hours of the bill’s release, Mitch McConnell’s Republican conference rejected it. Just four Republicans voted for it. In the end, even McConnell voted against the package he had helped develop.

Trump was explicit about his motives. “I think we killed it. I think it’s dead!” he told members of the National Rifle Association, publicly taking credit for the bill’s demise (Bolton, “Trump praises collapse of bipartisan border deal,” The Hill, 2024). He framed the legislation as a political gift to Biden and argued that passing it would deprive Republicans of a campaign issue. Lankford himself acknowledged the dynamic: “Obviously, a chaotic border is helpful to him.” Lankford also revealed that a prominent conservative media figure demanded he abandon the border issue entirely until after the election, threatening to “destroy” him if he didn’t. Trump went further, falsely denying he had ever endorsed Lankford, despite having issued a public statement in September 2022 giving him his “Complete and Total Endorsement” and praising him as “Strong on the Border, Tough on Crime.”

Lankford’s own assessment was damning: “Republicans, four months ago, would not give funding for Ukraine, for Israel and for our southern border because we demanded changes in policy. And now, a few months later, when we’re finally getting to the end, they’re like, ‘Oh, just kidding, I actually don’t want a change in law because it’s a presidential election year’” (Farley, FactCheck.org, 2024).

This episode is significant for two reasons. First, it reframes the immigration critique of Biden: he recognized the problem, worked the bipartisan legislative process, and produced a bill endorsed by the Border Patrol’s own union, only to have it killed by a private citizen wielding political influence over elected legislators for explicitly self-interested reasons. Second, and more broadly, it illustrates a pattern of bad-faith political leadership that is, in the modern era, genuinely unique to Trump. Previous presidents, including those out of office, have opposed legislation from the opposing party. But the deliberate sabotage of a bipartisan solution to a national crisis, openly and for the stated purpose of preserving a campaign issue, represents something qualitatively different. It is governance subordinated entirely to political performance, and it stands in stark contrast to Biden’s approach of working within institutional channels to produce compromises, even deeply imperfect ones, that address real problems.

Brookings scholar William Galston summarized the consequence: “We will never know what would have happened if compromise legislation had been put on the table while it was uncertain whether Trump would be the nominee. Now that we know he will be, no compromise on immigration is possible” (Galston, Brookings Institution , 2024). The continued border crisis, in other words, was not merely a policy failure of the Biden administration. It was also the product of a political system in which one actor could paralyze institutional solutions for personal gain.

VII. The Perception Gap: Why the Best Record Produced the Worst Reviews

The most powerful counterargument to the “Biden was best” thesis is simple: if he was so good, why did everyone think he was terrible? This question deserves a serious answer, because the data on the perception gap is now extensive, and it overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that public sentiment during the Biden years was a poor measure of objective presidential performance.

But the perception gap is not merely an interesting footnote. It points to a structural crisis in American civic infrastructure. The media environment that once supported presidential evaluation, however imperfectly, was simpler: editorial was distinct from reporting, investigative journalism was distinct from gossip, and institutions paid reputational costs for getting things wrong. That environment has fragmented into something unrecognizable. Algorithms have replaced editors. Engagement metrics reward outrage over accuracy. Partisan media ecosystems filter reality through tribal affiliation. And most Americans were never given the media literacy to navigate the difference. The information systems that citizens depend on to evaluate their own government have stopped functioning (Nanayakkara, “The Broken Infrastructure of Hope,” chevan.info, 2026). The data that follows illustrates just how wide the gap between governance reality and public perception had become.

The “vibecession” was real and documented. In June 2022, consumer sentiment hit its lowest point ever recorded on the University of Michigan index, below the troughs of the pandemic and the Great Recession, even though GDP growth was strengthening and unemployment was historically low (Gascon and Martorana, “What’s Behind the Recent Slump in Consumer Sentiment?,” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, 2024). The Federal Reserve found that consumer sentiment remained substantially below pre-pandemic levels through late 2024, but noted that the sustained drop had not preceded or coincided with any actual recession, breaking the historical pattern entirely (“Tracking consumer sentiment versus how consumers are doing based on verified retail purchases,” Federal Reserve Board, 2025). The same Fed study, linking survey responses to verified purchase data, found that only 14% of respondents said their incomes had outpaced prices, while 53% said they’d fallen behind, yet their actual verified spending had increased in real terms. People were objectively doing better than they believed they were.

The psychological asymmetry of inflation. Research published through the National Bureau of Economic Research found that people do not associate income increases with inflation adjustments, attributing them instead to personal merit, while blaming price increases on external forces (Summers et al., “The Cost of Money is Part of the Cost of Living,” NBER, 2024). This creates a cognitive distortion in which inflation feels like something being done to you while wage gains feel like something you earned. Even when real wages recovered and exceeded pre-pandemic levels, the cumulative price level (the fact that eggs and gas cost more than in 2019) remained viscerally salient in a way that a rising 401(k) balance or a lower unemployment rate did not.

Partisanship now dominates economic perception. Researchers at UNC’s Kenan Institute found clear evidence that heightened political polarization is muddying economic outlook, making average Americans appear gloomier than conditions warrant. Pew Research documented partisan gaps of 60 to 70 points on basic evaluations of presidential traits and performance, illustrating how entrenched division decouples aggregate approval from any cross-partisan consensus on governance quality (“Trump’s job approval and views of his personal traits,” Pew Research Center, 2025).

Media negativity amplified the gap. The Brookings Institution found that media coverage of the economy between 2018 and 2024 was significantly more negative than fundamental economic data would have predicted, based on historical models of the relationship between coverage tone and actual conditions (Harris, Mahoney, and Cummings, “The paradox between the macroeconomy and household sentiment,” Brookings Institution, 2024). This degradation of quality information infrastructure is not accidental. It is a structural consequence of the platform economy’s incentive design (Nanayakkara, “The Parasite’s Dilemma,” chevan.info, 2025).

CEO confidence told the opposite story. The same Brookings study documented that between Q4 2019 and Q1 2022, consumer sentiment declined by roughly 35% while CEO confidence increased by roughly 49%, a net divergence of nearly 85%. Business leaders, evaluating the economy through operational data rather than media narratives, reached dramatically different conclusions from consumers watching cable news.

The Trump comparison crystallizes the point. The 2024 Presidential Greatness Project Expert Survey, polling 154 historians and presidential experts, ranked Biden 14th all-time and Trump dead last at 45th (Rottinghaus and Vaughn, “Presidential Greatness Project Expert Survey,” 2024). Yet Trump won re-election while Biden’s approval languished. Trump’s current approval clusters in the high 30s to low 40s across major polls (Moore, “What is President Trump’s current approval rating?,” Arizona Republic, 2026), yet his base support remains durable. Popularity is measuring something (cultural resonance, tribal affiliation, media ecosystem effects) but it is demonstrably not measuring governance performance.

VIII. The Leadership Question: What Presidents Actually Do

Perhaps no critique of Biden was more persistent, or more viscerally damaging, than the charge that he was too old, too diminished, and too passive to lead effectively. The June 2024 debate performance crystallized anxieties that had simmered throughout his term, and his eventual withdrawal from the re-election campaign seemed, to many, to confirm that the critics had been right all along. The question of Biden’s cognitive acuity is not one that can be resolved here, and dismissing the concern entirely would be dishonest. Something was clearly different about Biden in 2024 compared to Biden in 2020.

But the critique contains an embedded assumption that deserves interrogation: the assumption that presidential effectiveness is primarily a function of personal vigor, rhetorical sharpness, and visible command. This is a model of leadership drawn more from television than from political science, and it maps poorly onto what presidents actually do.

Presidential leadership is not about personally drafting legislation, delivering bravura press conference performances, or projecting an image of inexhaustible energy. It is about setting a governing vision and direction, building and empowering a team capable of executing that vision, creating the political conditions for legislative and executive action, and then having the discipline to let competent people do their jobs.

By this standard, Biden’s presidency was not merely adequate. It was exceptionally well-executed.

Setting direction. Biden made a series of consequential ideological choices early in his presidency that broke sharply with the previous four decades of Democratic economic orthodoxy. The decision to pursue a stimulus far larger than Obama’s 2009 package, over the objections of deficit hawks and even some sympathetic economists, was a deliberate strategic choice. The decision to appoint Lina Khan to the FTC, a 32-year-old anti-monopoly crusader whose philosophy was an explicit repudiation of the Reagan-through-Obama consensus, was not an accident. The decision to embed labor standards into federal infrastructure spending, to pursue Medicare drug price negotiations, and to make climate investment the centerpiece of the Inflation Reduction Act rather than accepting a skinnier deal: each of these reflected a president who understood what he wanted to accomplish and made clear, directional choices to get there. These are not the actions of a passive or disengaged leader. They are the actions of someone who knew exactly which levers to pull and in what order.

Building the team. Biden assembled what was, by most accounts, one of the most effective executive branch teams in recent memory. His personnel choices were not random; they reflected a coherent theory of governance. Khan at the FTC, Kanter at the DOJ Antitrust Division, and Chopra at the CFPB formed a coordinated anti-monopoly apparatus that no previous administration had attempted. Jake Sullivan at the National Security Council articulated and executed a foreign policy framework that balanced great power competition with alliance management. Janet Yellen at Treasury provided economic stewardship that helped navigate the inflation crisis without triggering the recession that most forecasters considered inevitable. Crucially, Biden empowered these people to operate with genuine authority. Lina Khan did not need to call the Oval Office before filing an antitrust suit. The model was: hire people who share your vision, give them the resources and political cover they need, and let them execute. This is, in fact, the textbook definition of effective organizational leadership, in any domain, not just politics.

Creating political conditions. The legislative achievements documented earlier in this essay did not happen by accident. They required a president who understood the Senate (where he had served for 36 years) at a granular, tactical level. The Bipartisan Infrastructure Law required peeling off Republican votes. The Inflation Reduction Act required months of patient, often frustrating negotiation with Joe Manchin, conducted largely by Biden and his team personally. The CHIPS Act required building a coalition that spanned national security hawks and industrial policy progressives. The gun safety bill required navigating a political landscape that had defeated every such effort for nearly 30 years. Each of these legislative victories involved the kind of behind-the-scenes relationship management, sequencing, and strategic patience that Biden had spent a career developing. The fact that this work was invisible to cable news cameras does not mean it wasn’t happening.

The contrast is instructive. Consider the alternative model of presidential leadership on offer during this period. Trump projected vigor, dominance, and constant personal visibility. He held rallies, dominated news cycles, and conveyed an unmistakable sense of personal command. He also failed to pass infrastructure legislation despite promising it repeatedly, failed to repeal the Affordable Care Act despite controlling both chambers of Congress, failed to build the border wall through legislative means, and, as documented in this essay, actively sabotaged bipartisan border legislation from outside office in order to preserve a campaign talking point. When the legislative process didn’t produce what he wanted, Trump attempted to circumvent it entirely, using executive orders as a substitute for legislation and trying to reallocate congressionally appropriated funds through impoundment to finance the border wall that Congress had refused to fund. This pattern reveals something larger than a difference in leadership style. The political contest in America is no longer about how to use the system of governance. It is about whether the system survives at all. One side is working to preserve institutional processes, separation of powers, and the rule of law. The other is openly working to circumvent them. Biden’s approach, building coalitions, negotiating compromises, working the legislative process even when it was slow and frustrating, was not a sign of weakness. It was the defense of the governing architecture itself.

None of this is to say that age and acuity are irrelevant to presidential performance, or that concerns about Biden’s fitness were manufactured in bad faith. A president must be able to make sound decisions under pressure, process complex information, and communicate with the public. The degree to which Biden’s age affected these capacities in his final year is a legitimate subject of inquiry. But the record of what was actually accomplished (the legislation passed, the appointments made, the alliances built, the crises managed) suggests that whatever personal limitations Biden experienced, they did not prevent him from presiding over one of the most substantively productive presidencies in modern American history. The results are the results. And the results speak to a leader who understood that the presidency is not a performance. It is a job. Biden did the job.

Conclusion

I began this essay with a standard: a president should be measured by whether they used the full power of government to improve people’s lives, whether they used American strength to improve global conditions, whether they governed in good faith, built institutions, directed capacity toward collective benefit, and honored the founding commitment to pluralism.

By every element of that standard, Biden’s single term stands at or near the top of the post-Nixon era. The most productive legislative record since LBJ, achieved with razor-thin margins. A decisive break with four decades of consensus that government should step back, replaced by active investment in climate, antitrust, labor, and infrastructure. The strongest composite economic data of any modern president, with gains distributed most broadly to the workers who needed them most. Measurable improvements in crime, healthcare, conservation, and veterans’ care. A foreign policy that strengthened alliances and avoided catastrophic miscalculation. A commitment to good faith and institutional process that looks increasingly exceptional, as illustrated by his pursuit of bipartisan border legislation even as it was sabotaged by an opponent acting in transparent bad faith.

Every presidency has failures, and Biden’s are real: inflation that caused genuine hardship, a chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan, a politically disastrous re-election campaign, a Gaza policy that contradicted his own stated values, and a transparency record that fell short of his own goals. These should not be minimized. But measured against the full sweep of the post-Nixon era, against the stagflation of Carter, the Iran-Contra of Reagan, the single-term limitations of Bush Sr., the impeachment of Clinton, the Iraq War and financial crisis of Bush Jr., the constrained ambition of Obama, and the institutional destruction of Trump, Biden’s record of enacted, measurable governance outcomes for ordinary Americans is the strongest of my lifetime.

The standard I’ve described here is not a partisan test. It is a test of whether a president used the office for its intended purpose: to build, to steward, to govern in good faith for all Americans, treating every citizen as a stakeholder in the democratic project (Nanayakkara, “The Politics of Stakeholder Society,” chevan.info, 2025) rather than sorting them into those who count and those who don’t. Any president who instead uses the office to corrode the institutions that constrain his power, corrupt the information environment that citizens depend on, and exploit civic illiteracy rather than correct it has failed this standard categorically, regardless of party. That is not a close call.

The deeper question this essay raises is not about Biden. It is about us. Most Americans were never taught how to evaluate whether their government is working. That is not a personal failure. It is an infrastructure failure. Civic education doesn’t teach strategic analysis of governance. The media doesn’t model it. And the knowledge systems that shape how Americans think about government have themselves been corrupted: when the root of most citizens’ understanding of fiscal policy comes down to “taxes fund the government” and “the national debt is a burden on our children,” both demonstrably false, perpetuated through academic institutions and policy discourse at the direction of moneyed interests (Nanayakkara, “Economics is not a Science,” chevan.info, 2025), the public lacks even the conceptual vocabulary to recognize what effective governance looks like. Add to that the degradation of the information systems citizens depend on, the journalism, the algorithms, the educational foundations of shared civic knowledge, and the result is predictable: the best presidential record in fifty years produced the worst public reviews. Biden governed effectively inside a nation that had lost the knowledge, the tools, and the information to recognize effective governance.

That is not a communications failure. It is a democratic crisis. And the crisis is accelerating. The V-Dem Institute’s 2026 Democracy Report found that the United States has lost its long-term status as a liberal democracy for the first time in over fifty years, with democracy falling back to levels last seen in 1965 (V-Dem Institute, “Democracy Report 2026: Unraveling The Democratic Era?,” University of Gothenburg, 2026). The very statistical agencies whose data this essay relies on, the Bureau of Labor Statistics, the Census Bureau, the agencies that produce the numbers that allow citizens to evaluate their government, are now facing politicized interference, shrinking budgets, and declining capacity (Rigobon and Cavallo, “Measuring by Executive Order,” NBER, 2026; reported in Vereckey, “What happens when US economic data becomes unreliable,” MIT Sloan, 2026). The tools for seeing governance clearly are not just broken. They are being dismantled.

It will not be solved by better messaging. It will be solved by rebuilding the civic infrastructure that self-governance requires: functional information systems, good faith institutions, independent statistical agencies, and citizens who demand quality from all of them. Biden did the work. The question now is whether we can build the systems that let us see it.

Leave a comment

References

1. Bolton, A. (2024, February 10). “Trump praises collapse of bipartisan border deal: ‘I think it’s dead’.” The Hill.

2. Bureau of Labor Statistics. “Employment Situation” and “Real Earnings” reports (2021-2025). U.S. Department of Labor.

3. Calmes, J. (2023, February 10). “Biden has the best legislation record of any president since LBJ. Why can’t voters see it?” Los Angeles Times (via Yahoo News).

4. Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services. (2024). “Medicare Drug Price Negotiation Program.” CMS.gov.

5. Congressional Research Service. (2024). “U.S. Foreign Aid to Israel.” CRS Reports.

6. Cook, C. (2021). “Comparing Biden’s Mandate to FDR’s and LBJ’s.” Cook Political Report.

7. Galston, W.A. (2024). “The collapse of bipartisan immigration reform: A guide for the perplexed.” Brookings Institution.

8. Farley, R. (2024, February 8). “Unraveling Misinformation About Bipartisan Immigration Bill.” FactCheck.org.

9. Gascon, C.S. and Martorana, J. (2024, January 4). “What’s Behind the Recent Slump in Consumer Sentiment?” Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis, On the Economy.

10. Harris, B., Mahoney, N., and Cummings, R. (2024, October). “The paradox between the macroeconomy and household sentiment.” Brookings Institution.

11. Isidore, C. (2025, January 19). “Biden’s economic legacy: Historic wage gains, investment and job growth but marred by inflation.” CNN Business.

12. Majsak, J. (2025, January 27). “A New Antitrust Era: A Review of the FTC under Lina Khan.” Beyond Politics, University of Notre Dame.

13. Moore, P. (2026, March 28). “What is President Trump’s current approval rating? What polls say.” Arizona Republic / AZ Central.

14. Nanayakkara, C. (2025, June 22). “Your Mainstream Economics Decoder Ring.” chevan.info.

15. Nanayakkara, C. (2025, June 24). “Economics is not a Science.” chevan.info.

16. Nanayakkara, C. (2025, July 3). “50 Years of Economic Myths Have Delivered Americans Into Technofeudalism.” chevan.info.

17. Nanayakkara, C. (2025, July 14). “The Parasite’s Dilemma: How AI Destroys the Quality Information Supply Chain It Depends On.” chevan.info.

18. Nanayakkara, C. (2025, July 17). “The Politics of Stakeholder Society: A New Way to Understand Left vs. Right.” chevan.info.

19. Nanayakkara, C. (2025, December 7). “Obamacare Succeeded at Health Insurance but Was Always Doomed to Fail at Healthcare.” chevan.info.

20. Nanayakkara, C. (2026, January 5). “Defending Democratic Capitalism Through Capacity Stewardship.” chevan.info.

21. Nanayakkara, C. (2026, February 1). “The Broken Infrastructure of Hope: How Americans Lost Faith in Self-Governance, and How to Rebuild It.” chevan.info.

22. Nanayakkara, C. (2026, February 22). “Be a Builder.” chevan.info.

23. Nanayakkara, C. (2026, March 1). “Good Faith is Democratic Infrastructure.” chevan.info.

24. National Center for Health Statistics. “National Health Interview Survey” (2020-2024). Centers for Disease Control and Prevention.

25. O’Hanlon, M.E. (2024, February 17). “Biden’s unspectacular but solid national security record.” Brookings Institution.

26. Robertson, L., et al. (2024, October 17). “Biden’s Numbers, 2024 Pre-Election Update.” FactCheck.org.

27. Robertson, L., et al. (2025). “Biden’s Final Numbers.” FactCheck.org.

28. Rottinghaus, B. and Vaughn, J.S. (2024). “Presidential Greatness Project Expert Survey.” University of Houston / Coastal Carolina University.

29. Tomco, B. (2024, February 8). “Failed border bill would have stopped migrants from ‘gaming the system.’” Deseret News.

30. Summers, L., et al. (2024). “The Cost of Money is Part of the Cost of Living: New Evidence on the Consumer Sentiment Anomaly.” National Bureau of Economic Research (NBER).

31. “The Biden-Harris Administration Record.” (2025, January 15). The White House.

32. “Tracking consumer sentiment versus how consumers are doing based on verified retail purchases.” (2025, April 24). Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, FEDS Notes.

33. “Trump’s job approval and views of his personal traits.” (2025, August 14). Pew Research Center.

34. U.S. Census Bureau. “Business Formation Statistics” (2021-2025). Census.gov.

35. Vassallo, J.H. (2024, December). “Lina Khan and the Return of Anti-Monopoly.” Jacobin.

36. V-Dem Institute. (2026, March). “Democracy Report 2026: Unraveling The Democratic Era?” University of Gothenburg.

37. Vereckey, B. (2026, March 11). “What happens when US economic data becomes unreliable.” MIT Sloan School of Management. (Reporting on Rigobon, R. and Cavallo, A., “Measuring by Executive Order,” NBER, 2026.)

Subscribe now

America is built on a foundation most Americans have never been taught about. Not the Constitution, though that matters. Not elections, though those matter too. Something more fundamental: the commitment that when Americans disagree, they negotiate in good faith. That everyone’s interests deserve a seat at the table. That the process of working things out together is what makes this country work. Good faith is American values in practice. It is the operating infrastructure of a nation founded on the idea that people who disagree can still govern themselves together. Human rights and inclusivity aren’t soft ideals. They’re the operating system of American democracy. And right now, a significant portion of the country is enthusiastically tearing that infrastructure apart.

Yesterday, the president started an unauthorized war against Iran, and a third of the country is celebrating. That’s not a policy disagreement. That’s the infrastructure cracking in real time. When a president bypasses the democratic process to launch a war nobody voted for, and millions cheer because the right people are getting hurt, something deeper than politics has broken. The building is leaning. Last week I wrote about being a builder. This week the demolition crew showed up.

Every building depends on a foundation you can’t see from the street. You notice the walls, the windows, the roof. You never think about the concrete and rebar underneath, until it cracks. Then you notice. America’s civic foundation works the same way. Good faith is the expectation that participants in democratic life will negotiate honestly, that they’ll treat opponents as wrong rather than evil, that they’ll honor the process even when they lose. When that expectation holds, you never think about it. When it breaks, everything built on top of it starts to fail.

Most Americans have never been taught this concept. Not in history class, not in civics, not in any formal education about how governance actually works. And that gap is not an accident. It’s the vulnerability. You can’t defend infrastructure you don’t know exists. You can’t name a violation you were never given vocabulary for.

People do reach for the phrase. “You’re not arguing in good faith” comes up on cable news, on social media, at family dinners that go sideways. And the instinct behind it is usually right. Something in our politics has broken, the arguments aren’t honest, the process isn’t working. But the phrase gets used as a personal accusation, a way to say “you’re being dishonest with me right now.” It stops there. This essay doesn’t stop there. Good faith isn’t a thing you accuse your uncle of lacking at Thanksgiving. It’s infrastructure. The structural foundation that makes democratic governance possible in the first place.

The difference matters. When good faith is just a personal accusation, it’s a weapon in an argument. When good faith is infrastructure, it’s something you can demand from institutions, measure in systems, and build into the way government operates. The personal accusation asks “is this person being honest with me?” The structural question asks “is this system designed to produce honest negotiation on behalf of all citizens?”

This essay will give you the framework to see it and the language to name it. What good faith actually looks like as American infrastructure. How it functioned when it worked. When and how it broke. Who broke it, and why. And something most people haven’t considered: the system that protects your interests, whatever they are, is the same system that protects everyone’s interests. Not because that’s a nice idea, but because that’s how the mechanism works. A democratic system that can be rigged to exclude some people is a system that can be rigged to exclude you. That’s not a political position. It’s a structural fact about how self-governance produces results.

Section 1: The Invisible Requirement

What does good faith actually look like in practice? It’s not agreement. People who negotiate in good faith disagree constantly, sometimes bitterly. Good faith is a set of baseline commitments that make disagreement productive instead of destructive.

Accept election results. When you lose, you accept the outcome and try to win next time. You don’t claim the election was stolen. You don’t try to prevent the peaceful transfer of power.

Honor institutional norms even when they’re inconvenient. Give Supreme Court nominees a hearing, even when the other party nominated them. Respond to Congressional subpoenas. Follow the laws you swore to uphold, including the ones you voted against.

Treat the opposition as wrong, not evil. You think the other side has bad policy ideas. You don’t think they’re enemies of the state or traitors. You can argue fiercely about taxes, healthcare, military spending, and education without claiming the other side wants to destroy America.

Compromise when you have power, expecting the same when you don’t. This is the hardest one. When your party controls Congress and the White House, you still negotiate with the minority. Not because you have to, but because you know you’ll be the minority eventually and you’ll want the same treatment.

Argue honestly about what you want and why. If you oppose a social program, say you oppose it on political grounds. Don’t disguise your political choice as an economic law. Don’t manufacture a false crisis to avoid making your actual argument. As I argued in Economics is not a Science, an entire intellectual apparatus has been built to do exactly this: present political choices as if they were natural laws, removing whole categories of democratic decision-making from the table before negotiation even begins.

Build systems that serve citizens, not insiders. Good faith isn’t just interpersonal. It shows up in how you design governmental systems:

1. Outcome measures – Can you tell if it’s actually working?

2. Transparency – Can citizens see how decisions are made?

3. Accountability – Can poor performance be identified and addressed?

4. Disclosure – Are conflicts of interest visible?

When systems have these four features, they serve citizens. When they don’t, they serve whoever controls them. System design is where good faith either becomes structural or stays rhetorical.

None of this requires people to agree. None of it requires anyone to give up their principles. It just requires accepting that everyone at the table is a legitimate participant in the process. That’s the invisible requirement.

This is what American governance looks like when it works. Not agreement. Not kumbaya. Fierce disagreement channeled through processes that protect everyone’s interests. That’s not weakness. That’s the system the founders built and that every generation of Americans has been responsible for maintaining. Good faith isn’t some invention of this essay. It’s already the foundation of American legal culture, the principle that makes contracts enforceable, negotiations meaningful, and democratic governance possible. When someone abandons these commitments, they’re not just “playing hardball.” They’re abandoning what makes America function.

Without it, democracy doesn’t have a mechanism to continue. The whole system assumes that elected representatives will negotiate solutions and honor agreements. When one side won’t negotiate, or won’t honor what they agreed to, there’s no enforcement mechanism. No referee steps in. The foundation just cracks.

Section 2: What It Looked Like When It Worked

Americans tend to think of political compromise as some lost golden age that never really existed. That’s wrong. Good faith negotiation produced real results within living memory, often between people who genuinely disagreed about fundamental questions.

The New Deal Coalition (1930s-1960s)

The New Deal wasn’t a kumbaya moment. It was forged from fierce disagreements between Northern urban Democrats and Southern rural Democrats, between labor unions and business interests, between progressives who wanted dramatic government expansion and moderates who didn’t. These factions disagreed about almost everything.

But they negotiated in good faith. They accepted each other as legitimate participants. The result was Social Security, the minimum wage, union protections, and massive public works programs that built the infrastructure Americans still use. Even fierce conservative opponents like Senator Robert Taft, who hated the New Deal, worked within the system. He argued against policies on their merits. He didn’t claim FDR was an illegitimate president or try to burn the system down. That was American governance. Disagree on policy, respect the process, try to win next time.

The New Deal coalition produced more than thirty years of broadly shared prosperity. Not because everyone agreed, but because they accepted the process.

The Great Society (1964-1965)

When Lyndon Johnson pushed for the Civil Rights Act, he didn’t have enough Democratic votes. Southern Democrats were filibustering the bill. So Johnson worked with Republican Senate Minority Leader Everett Dirksen. Dirksen was a conservative from Illinois. He didn’t agree with Johnson about most things. But he believed the civil rights legislation was right on its merits, and he was willing to break from segregationist Democrats to make it happen.

The bipartisan coalition that passed the Civil Rights Act, Medicare, Medicaid, and the Voting Rights Act wasn’t built on everyone liking each other. It was built on mutual recognition of legitimacy. Republicans provided the votes to defeat a Democratic filibuster because they evaluated the policy, not the party proposing it.

The Social Security Rescue (1983)

By the early 1980s, Social Security was heading toward insolvency. Ronald Reagan and Democratic Speaker Tip O’Neill could not have been more different politically. Reagan wanted to shrink government. O’Neill wanted to protect social programs. They disagreed about nearly everything.

They compromised anyway. The deal raised the retirement age, increased the payroll tax, and taxed benefits for high earners. Nobody loved it. Both sides took political heat from their bases. But they honored the agreement, and it stabilized Social Security for decades.

This is what patriotism looks like in practice. Not flag pins and rallies. Two leaders with opposing visions sitting down and doing the hard work of governing for all Americans. Making a deal neither side loves, and sticking to it because the alternative is worse for everyone.

The Clean Air Act Amendments (1990)

George H.W. Bush, a Republican president, worked with a Democratic Congress to pass sweeping environmental legislation. The compromise used market-based mechanisms (cap and trade for sulfur dioxide) that appealed to conservatives while achieving the environmental goals Democrats wanted. Business interests opposed it. Environmental groups wanted more. But the deal held.

Acid rain was reduced by 90 percent. It worked because both sides negotiated honestly about their goals, accepted the compromise, and let it function.

Every one of these examples shares the same feature: Americans who disagreed fiercely but respected the process. They treated their opponents as fellow Americans with legitimate interests. They compromised, honored agreements, and built things that worked. That’s the tradition. That’s the invisible infrastructure. That’s the inheritance. What follows is the story of how that inheritance was systematically squandered, and by whom.

Notice what every one of these compromises had in common. Both sides argued honestly about what they wanted and why. Reagan didn’t claim Social Security was “economically impossible.” He said he thought government was too big. O’Neill said he thought the safety net was worth protecting. They disagreed on values, not on reality. That honesty, that willingness to state your actual position rather than hide behind manufactured justifications, is what made productive negotiation possible.

Notice something else. In every one of these compromises, each side’s interests were protected better by the deal than they would have been by winning outright. Reagan got fiscal stability he couldn’t have achieved alone. O’Neill got a Social Security system that survived rather than one that collapsed under its own weight. Bush got market mechanisms for environmental policy. Democrats got clean air.

The reciprocity wasn’t just procedural courtesy. It was the mechanism that produced better outcomes for everyone at the table. Each side gave something up, and each side got something they couldn’t have gotten any other way. That’s not compromise as weakness. That’s the only process that works, because democratic governance is the only tool that can balance competing legitimate interests at scale. When it functions, everybody’s interests get addressed. Not perfectly, but reliably. That’s the track record.

Section 3: The Pattern of Breaking

Something changed. Not overnight, and not because of any single event. But over the last several decades, one side’s political project became fundamentally incompatible with good faith negotiation. As I documented in 50 Years of Economic Myths Have Delivered Americans Into Technofeudalism, this wasn’t accidental. It was a deliberate, decades-long campaign to reshape what Americans believe is possible through democratic governance.

The important distinction here is between voter motivations and political strategies. Many Republican voters support their party because of real fears and real insecurities: economic anxiety from decades of wage stagnation, cultural disorientation from rapid social change, legitimate concerns about their communities and futures. Those fears are real. They deserve to be addressed through honest policy debate.

But the political strategies deployed to capture and hold those voters don’t address those fears. They exploit them. And every one of those strategies requires breaking good faith.

The Southern Strategy (1960s-present)

After the Civil Rights Act passed with bipartisan support, the Republican Party made a strategic decision. Rather than competing for Black voters or accepting the expanding democratic participation that civil rights represented, the party chose to court white voters through coded racial appeals.

The Southern Strategy didn’t invent white working-class economic anxiety. That was real. But it channeled that anxiety into racial resentment rather than demanding systems that worked for all workers. The strategy required breaking good faith because you can’t honestly negotiate solutions for everyone while building your coalition on maintaining racial hierarchy. You can’t accept all Americans as legitimate democratic participants while your electoral strategy depends on denying some Americans’ full citizenship.

This wasn’t a policy position about how to make government work better. It was a strategy for using government power to sustain privilege.

The Corporate Capture of Economics (1940s-1980s)

As I argued in Economics is not a Science, corporate interests spent decades funding academic positions, think tanks, and research programs to reshape economics from an analytical toolkit into an ideological framework. The result: when Americans vote for universal healthcare, free public education, or infrastructure investment, they’re told these things are “economically impossible.” But they’re not impossible. They’re political choices that certain interests oppose. Disguising political choices as economic laws is bad faith at its most sophisticated, because it removes democratic decisions from the table before negotiation begins. It says “we can’t afford that” when the real position is “we don’t want to do that.” That’s not honest disagreement about policy. That’s manufacturing a false reality to avoid American democratic negotiation entirely.

The Gingrich Revolution (1994)

Newt Gingrich made the strategic choice to treat Democratic opposition not as political opponents but as enemies. His “Contract with America” wasn’t just a policy platform. It was a declaration that compromise itself was weakness, that governance meant winning, and that the permanent campaign had replaced the work of actually running a country.

Before Gingrich, congressional Republicans and Democrats might fight bitterly on the floor and have dinner together afterward. That wasn’t hypocrisy. That was good faith. It was the recognition that your political opponent is still your colleague, still a legitimate participant in the process, still someone you’ll need to work with tomorrow.

Gingrich destroyed that. He trained a generation of Republican politicians to see Democrats as the enemy, to use government shutdowns as leverage, and to treat any cooperation with the other side as betrayal. The permanent campaign meant there was never a moment to govern because governing requires the kind of compromise that Gingrich declared unacceptable.

Trump and the Escalation (2016-present)

Donald Trump took every previous break from good faith and amplified it. He demonized political opponents as “enemies of the people.” He refused to comply with subpoenas and Congressional oversight. He rejected election results. He pressured state officials to “find” votes. And on January 6, 2021, he attempted to prevent the peaceful transfer of power, the most fundamental good faith commitment in a democracy.

But Trump didn’t create this pattern. He inherited it. The Southern Strategy built the coalition. Corporate economics constrained the policy debate. Gingrich made opposition into warfare. Trump just stopped pretending.

But there’s a violation even more basic than any of those, and it’s one that should have been disqualifying before any of the rest happened.

Every modern president, regardless of party, has stood before the country and positioned himself as president of all Americans. This wasn’t just rhetoric. It was the most fundamental expression of good faith in the office: the acknowledgment that every citizen, including the ones who voted against you, has a legitimate stake in how you govern.

Barack Obama, 2004: “There is not a liberal America and a conservative America; there is the United States of America.” George W. Bush, 2001: “I will work to build a single nation of justice and opportunity.” Bill Clinton, 1993: “There is nothing wrong with America that cannot be cured by what is right with America.” You can argue about whether they lived up to those words. You can point to policies that favored one side or failed the other. But the verbal commitment mattered. It said: I see you. You belong here. Your interests are part of what I’m supposed to protect. That commitment is the bare minimum of good faith from someone who holds the office.

Trump never made it. Not once. His inaugural address gave America “American carnage,” not a unifying vision. He called political opponents “the enemy within.” He called the press “the enemy of the people.” He called fellow Americans “vermin,” “radical left thugs,” language designed not to defeat an argument but to deny that the other side is fully human, fully American, fully legitimate. That is the most basic good faith violation available to a president: refusing to acknowledge that the citizens who oppose you have any legitimate stake at all. It’s not just breaking the norms of the office. It’s rejecting the premise that the office exists to serve everyone.

This should have been disqualifying. When a president tells you, openly, that tens of millions of Americans are enemies, vermin, threats to be eliminated rather than citizens to be governed alongside, that person is telling you they will not negotiate in good faith. They cannot, because good faith starts with recognizing the other side’s legitimacy, and they’ve just told you they don’t. Every violation that followed, the refused subpoenas, the rejected elections, January 6, was downstream of this. The rhetoric was the signal. The rest was confirmation.

“Flood the Zone” (Bannon strategy)

Steve Bannon articulated a strategy that might be the purest expression of deliberate bad faith in American politics: “flood the zone with shit.” The idea is simple and devastating. If you overwhelm the public with so much disinformation, contradiction, and chaos that people can’t determine what’s true, you make shared reality impossible. And if people can’t agree on basic facts, they can’t negotiate solutions.

You can’t negotiate in good faith when you can’t establish what’s true. That’s not a side effect of this strategy. That’s the point.

The Through-Line

Look at the pattern across all of these:

The Southern Strategy says Black voters aren’t legitimate participants. Corporate economics says democratic majorities demanding social programs aren’t legitimate, disguising that exclusion behind the language of economic “laws” that aren’t laws at all. Gingrich says Democratic opposition isn’t a legitimate governing partner. Trump says Democratic election results aren’t legitimate. Bannon says shared reality itself isn’t legitimate.

None of these are policy positions. They are attacks on American democratic infrastructure. Each one requires denying the legitimacy of some group of Americans as democratic participants. That’s not conservative politics. It’s not even politics. It’s the systematic destruction of the system that makes American self-governance possible. And there’s a word for that: it’s un-American. You cannot negotiate in good faith with people whose legitimacy you refuse to recognize.

Section 4: The Citizenship Question

But strategies don’t operate themselves. Political strategies require voters who support them. And this is where the conversation has to get uncomfortable, because the through-line described above didn’t happen in a vacuum. It happened with the enthusiastic support of tens of millions of American citizens.

This essay has been careful to distinguish between voter motivations and political strategies. That distinction is real and it matters. Many Republican voters support their party because of genuine economic anxiety, legitimate concerns about their communities, real frustration with a government that doesn’t seem to work for them. Those fears deserve to be heard. Those interests deserve a seat at the table. Voting for a party because you’re worried about the economy, because you want stronger borders, because you think regulation has gone too far, those are legitimate political choices. Full stop.

But there’s a meaningful difference between voting for a party because you’re worried about the economy and enthusiastically celebrating when that party tears apart democratic processes. The first is a political choice. The second is bad faith citizenship.

And the record shows which one happened.

I had a conversation recently with a Trump supporter who said, without any sense of irony, that conservatives are tired of people coming in from outside, bringing their ideas, lobbying the political system, building support for change, and implementing things they don’t like.

Read that again. What this person described, point by point, is democracy. People arrive. They bring ideas. They advocate. They build coalitions. They win enough support to implement change. That is the American system working exactly as designed. Competition and new ideas is how a democratic society generates growth, innovation, and adaptation. It is the mechanism the founders built.

And this person was describing it as the problem.

They didn’t want to compete in the marketplace of ideas. They didn’t want to build a better argument and win. They wanted the privilege of their status quo preserved without doing any of the work that democracy demands. And if other people do that work, organize, advocate, build support, win, they still want those people to fail. Not because the ideas are wrong. Because the process itself, the process of democratic participation, threatens a position they believe they’re entitled to hold without defending it.

That’s not conservatism. Conservatism is a set of ideas about governance that competes honestly in the democratic arena. What this person described is authoritarianism: the belief that the democratic process should be constrained to produce only outcomes that preserve existing hierarchy. They didn’t use that word. They didn’t need to. The position speaks for itself.

This is what bad faith citizenship looks like before it gets to the Capitol steps. Before the rally, before the riot, before the refusal to accept election results. It starts here: with ordinary people who believe, sincerely, that democracy is only legitimate when it produces outcomes they approve of. That belief, held by millions, is the soil in which every strategy described in Section 3 grows.

When Donald Trump refused to accept the 2020 election results, his supporters didn’t hold their noses. They didn’t say “I wish he’d accept the outcome, but I still prefer his tax policy.” They showed up in Washington wearing his name on their bodies. They chanted his slogans. They stormed the Capitol. Not all of them, but enough, and millions more cheered from home.

When Trump refused to comply with Congressional subpoenas, his supporters didn’t express discomfort with the precedent. They called the subpoenas a witch hunt. They adopted his framing wholesale. When he attacked judges who ruled against him, calling them biased, questioning their legitimacy, his supporters didn’t defend judicial independence. They attacked the judges too. When he pressured a state official to “find” 11,780 votes, his supporters didn’t recoil at an attempt to fabricate an election outcome. They insisted the real fraud was on the other side.

Every time Trump demanded something that violated democratic norms, refusing subpoenas, attacking judges, claiming stolen elections, attempting to overturn results, his supporters didn’t hold their noses. They cheered. They adopted the violation as their own. That pattern of enthusiastic abandonment of inclusive processes, repeated every time the authoritarian demands it, is the definition of bad faith citizenship.

This matters because the distinction between tolerating violations and celebrating them is the distinction between political compromise and civic betrayal. Democracy can survive voters who reluctantly accept imperfect candidates. Every voter in every election does that. Democracy cannot survive voters who enthusiastically celebrate the destruction of democratic processes, because those voters aren’t just choosing a candidate. They’re choosing to dismantle the system that makes choosing possible.

When you cheer for a president who refuses to accept election results, you’re not expressing a policy preference. You’re endorsing the destruction of the process that protects your right to vote too. When you celebrate a leader who treats judicial independence as an obstacle, you’re not supporting strong leadership. You’re supporting the elimination of the institution that protects your rights when power turns against you. When you defend a president who refuses Congressional oversight, you’re not defending executive authority. You’re supporting a government that operates without accountability to the people it governs, including you.

This isn’t about policy. You can want lower taxes, stronger borders, less regulation, those are legitimate political positions that deserve a seat at the table. But when your support for those positions leads you to celebrate the destruction of the table itself, you’ve crossed from politics into something else.

And that something else has a name. It’s un-American.

That word gets thrown around cheaply in political arguments, so let me be precise about what I mean. America was founded on a specific idea: that people who disagree can govern themselves together through democratic processes. Not that they’ll always agree. Not that the process will be painless. But that the process itself, the negotiation, the compromise, the peaceful transfer of power, is what makes self-governance possible. That idea is the American idea. It’s what separates this country’s founding from every monarchy, empire, and dictatorship that came before it.

When you enthusiastically support the dismantling of those processes, you’re not defending America. You’re fighting against the thing that makes America what it is. You can’t claim to be a patriot while dismantling American democratic infrastructure. You can’t wave the flag while cheering for the destruction of the system that flag represents.

This is what un-American actually looks like. Not dissent. Dissent is among the most American things a citizen can do. Not protest. Protest is how democratic systems correct themselves. Not voting for candidates the other side dislikes. That’s democracy functioning. Un-American is the enthusiastic celebration of dismantling the democratic processes that allow all of those things to happen.

And the pattern isn’t subtle. It’s not a matter of interpretation or spin. Refusing to accept election results is a violation of the most basic democratic norm. Attempting to prevent the peaceful transfer of power is an attack on the foundation of the American system. Demanding that a president be above legal accountability is a rejection of the rule of law. These aren’t gray areas. These are the lines that separate democratic citizenship from something else.

The uncomfortable truth is that responsibility doesn’t stop with the politicians who deploy bad faith strategies. It extends to the citizens who embrace them. Not the citizens who reluctantly vote for a flawed candidate because the alternative seems worse, that’s the difficult compromise democracy always demands. But the citizens who show up with enthusiasm for the destruction. The ones who make the violation their identity. The ones who, given the choice between supporting democratic norms and supporting their leader’s demand to break them, choose the breaking, every single time, without hesitation.

That’s a choice. It’s a choice made by adults who have access to the same information as everyone else. And while the political strategies that manipulate fear are real, and the economic anxieties that make people vulnerable to those strategies are real, at some point the person cheering for the destruction of democratic processes bears responsibility for cheering.

You don’t get to celebrate the wrecking and then claim you were just worried about grocery prices. Not when the wrecking was the point. Not when you showed up for it, dressed for it, posted about it, made it your identity. The economic anxiety was real. The choice to channel that anxiety into enthusiastic support for dismantling democratic processes was a choice. And it was the wrong one.

This isn’t a call to write off Republican voters or treat them as irredeemable. The whole argument of this essay is that everyone’s interests deserve a seat at the table. But sitting at the table requires accepting that the table exists. It requires accepting that other people get to sit there too. It requires accepting outcomes you don’t like, because next time the outcome might go your way, and you’ll want the same process to protect your win.

Republican voters who want their economic fears addressed, who want competent governance, who want a country that works for them, those voters need the system this essay describes. They need good faith negotiation. They need democratic processes that function. They need a government that can actually solve problems instead of performing culture war while the problems get worse. Everything they say they want requires the infrastructure they’re helping to tear down.

The question isn’t whether you’re a good person or a bad person. The question is whether you’re willing to be a citizen, which means accepting the obligations that come with self-governance, including the obligation to defend the process even when it doesn’t give you what you want this time. That’s the citizenship question. And right now, a significant portion of the country is answering it wrong.

Section 5: Why This Breaks the Mechanism

This isn’t a personality problem. It’s not about individual politicians being mean or stubborn. It’s a philosophical incompatibility at the deepest level.

Good faith negotiation requires one thing above all else: accepting that every participant at the table is a legitimate participant. You can think they’re wrong about everything. You can think their ideas are terrible. But you have to accept that they have a right to be there and that the democratic process will determine outcomes.

American conservatism, as actually practiced over the last several decades, has been organized around maintaining hierarchies of power and privilege. Racial hierarchy. Economic hierarchy. Cultural hierarchy. This isn’t a secret. It’s visible in every strategy described above.

As I explored in Defending Democratic Capitalism from the Extreme Right, the philosophical roots run deep: far-right libertarian frameworks systematically delegitimize collective democratic action by labeling all government intervention as “coercion” and “violence,” while simultaneously requiring government enforcement of the property rights and market structures that sustain their privilege. That contradiction is fundamental bad faith. You can’t declare democratic governance illegitimate while relying on it to protect your position.

Here’s the philosophical problem: you cannot simultaneously maintain hierarchy and treat everyone as equal participants in democratic negotiation. Hierarchy means some people’s interests matter more than others. Equal participation means everyone’s interests are legitimate. These two commitments are mutually exclusive.

I wrote about this framework in The Politics of Stakeholder Society: the divide between universal stakeholding (everyone affected by collective decisions has a legitimate voice) and conditional stakeholding (participation is earned and can be revoked based on criteria that conveniently exclude people who threaten existing power arrangements). Good faith negotiation only works under universal stakeholding. Conditional stakeholding, by definition, rejects the premise.

That’s why good faith keeps breaking. Not because Republican politicians are uniquely dishonest as individuals, but because the political project they serve requires denying certain people’s legitimacy as democratic participants. If you accept Black voters as fully legitimate, the Southern Strategy collapses. If you accept that democratic majorities can direct economic resources, the corporate economics project collapses. If you accept that economics is a political framework rather than a natural science, the entire intellectual justification for limiting democratic choice falls apart. If you accept the opposition as a legitimate governing partner, the Gingrich strategy collapses. If you accept election results, the Trump project collapses.

The pattern isn’t random. It’s structural. The conservative political project, as currently constituted, cannot operate in good faith because good faith requires the kind of mutual recognition that would make hierarchy impossible to maintain.

This is the diagnosis. Not “Republicans are bad people.” Rather: a political project built on hierarchy is philosophically incompatible with good faith democratic negotiation, which requires treating all participants as equals.

Many Republican voters don’t consciously support hierarchy. They support their party because of real economic fears, real cultural anxieties, real concerns about their communities. Those motivations are legitimate and deserve to be addressed through honest policy debate. But the political strategies their party uses to capture and hold their support require breaking the very mechanism that could address those fears: good faith negotiation aimed at solutions that work for everyone.

There’s one more dimension to this diagnosis. Complexity is how bad faith hides. When systems are genuinely difficult to understand, false premises can be embedded in public discourse and sustained for decades. Economic mythology is the clearest example: the idea that “we can’t afford” popular social programs has been repeated so consistently that it functions as common sense, even though a Federal Reserve Chairman explained in 1946 that the premise is false. I’ve catalogued 31 specific assumptions designed to constrain what democratic majorities can demand. Complexity provides the cover. Hierarchy makes bad faith necessary. Together they produce a politics where the foundation has been cracking for decades while most people couldn’t see the damage.

And here is the irony that neither side sees. The people who break good faith to protect their position end up in a system that can’t protect anyone’s position.

Consider what happens. A Republican voter who supports bad faith strategies because of economic fear gets a government that can’t address economic fear, because the mechanism for addressing it has been destroyed by the very strategies they supported. A wealthy donor who funds bad faith politics to protect privilege gets an unstable society where privilege becomes precarious, because concentrated wealth in a dysfunctional democracy doesn’t stay secure. It becomes a target.

The system that protects the donor’s interests is the same system that protects the worker’s interests, the same system that protects everyone’s interests. There is no version of democratic governance that works for some people and not others. There’s only a version that works and a version that doesn’t.

This is the moral thesis at the center of this essay: protecting your own interest requires a system that protects everyone’s interest, because that is the only kind of system that functions. Not as idealism. As mechanism. As structural fact.

Every attempt to rig the system in favor of one group degrades the system’s ability to serve any group, including the one doing the rigging. That’s why hierarchy and good faith are incompatible. Hierarchy says some people’s interests matter more. But a system built on that premise can’t produce stable outcomes for anyone, because the people whose interests are excluded don’t disappear. They push back, check out, or get desperate. And the system grinds down under the weight of its own contradictions.

This is what we’re living through right now. And it should concern everyone: left, right, rich, poor, every person who depends on the system to function. Which is all of us.

All of this produces anti-government ideology as a mass political phenomenon, and this is where the loop closes. The strategies in Section 3 each involve deliberately breaking some piece of democratic governance. Put them together and you get a government that genuinely does not function well for ordinary people, not because government is inherently incompetent, but because it has been deliberately degraded by people who benefit from its dysfunction.

Ronald Reagan set the terms in his 1981 inaugural address: “Government is not the solution to our problem; government is the problem.” Consider the irony of that sentence. A man who just convinced the American people to make him the most powerful government official on earth used his first official act to tell them that the institution they’d just entrusted to him was the enemy. He ran to be the steward of something he was publicly committed to dismantling. And Americans cheered. They’ve been cheering ever since. That is the foundational act of self-fulfilling political prophecy: elect leaders who believe government can’t work, watch them make government not work, then accept their conclusion that government was never going to work. The cycle didn’t start by accident. It started with a president standing at the podium and telling the country to stop believing in the thing he’d just been hired to run.

Then comes the move that makes the whole project self-sustaining. The same political actors who broke the system point to the broken system and say: “See? Government doesn’t work. Government is the problem.” And millions of Americans, experiencing real dysfunction, nod along. The frustration is legitimate. The diagnosis is false. Government isn’t failing because it’s government. Government is failing because specific people broke the mechanisms that make it work. Break the system, blame the system, use the public’s justified frustration to break it more. The cycle is self-reinforcing.

But we know the diagnosis is false, because we have the receipts. The U.S. government manufactured the most prosperous middle class in human history. That wasn’t an accident. It was deliberate policy: the GI Bill, progressive taxation, union protections, public universities, Social Security. A government that recognized a strong middle class distributes power, and that distributed power is what makes democratic governance stable. Those programs worked. The middle class they built was the proof. Then different people, with different priorities, wrote different laws that took it apart. And now the demolition crew points at the rubble and says government was never any good at building.

As I documented in Venezuela Is a Symptom, this wasn’t abstract ideology. Specific actors funded it and profited from it, donating to both parties to ensure that regardless of who won elections, the policy boundaries stayed favorable to concentrated wealth. That bipartisan complicity is why the dysfunction feels so total: voters keep changing parties and nothing changes.

If government dysfunction is the intended outcome of a political project designed to concentrate power and wealth, then the answer isn’t less government. It’s government that works: with outcome measures, transparency, accountability, and disclosure. Those four features aren’t bureaucratic ideals. They’re the direct counter to a strategy that depends on keeping American governance broken and opaque.

Section 6: What This Explains

I grew up the child of Sri Lankan immigrants. That gave me something most Americans don’t have: a regular outside view. I’ve traveled to every continent except Antarctica, starting young, and for most of my life the observation I heard from people overseas was remarkably consistent. America wasn’t perfect. It had been the aggressor more often than not for a century. But the way its government operated, with a kind of self-restraint and transparency that other countries recognized even if Americans took it for granted, produced tangible results. A higher standard of living. Better technology and infrastructure. Geopolitical stability that the rest of the world organized itself around. American democratic governance was a symbol because it functioned.

In the Trump era, traveling overseas, all I hear is: “What happened?”

That question is what this section answers.

Why “just compromise more” doesn’t work. Compromise requires good faith. When one side’s political project depends on denying the other side’s legitimacy, no amount of willingness to compromise can make the mechanism function. It’s not that Democrats haven’t tried hard enough to reach across the aisle. It’s that reaching across requires someone on the other side who accepts your right to be there.

There’s a saying I first heard in a 9th grade political science class: “A good compromise is one that all parties hate.” It sounds wise. It’s supposed to capture the maturity of accepting that nobody gets everything they want. But here’s why that saying has curdled into cynicism for so many people: it assumes both sides showed up to negotiate honestly. When they did, yes, compromise means everyone gives something up and nobody’s thrilled. That’s democracy working. But when one side negotiates in good faith and the other side doesn’t, “compromise” doesn’t mean meeting in the middle. It means the honest side keeps giving ground while the dishonest side just takes. Do that enough times and compromise starts to feel like surrender with better branding. The saying isn’t wrong about what compromise should feel like. It’s describing a system that only works when good faith is present on both sides. Without that, the people who keep showing up to negotiate honestly aren’t being mature. They’re being played. That’s not an argument against compromise. It’s an argument for demanding good faith as the prerequisite.

Why something feels fundamentally broken. People can tell the difference between disagreement and bad faith, even if they can’t name it. When politicians disagree about tax rates, that’s politics. When politicians claim elections are stolen, refuse to honor agreements, and treat the opposition as enemies of the state, that’s the invisible foundation cracking. People can feel the building leaning even if they can’t see the concrete.

Why the asymmetry matters. People sometimes say “both sides do it.” They don’t. Both sides play hardball politics. Both sides spin and exaggerate. But only one side has systematically denied the legitimacy of the other side’s participation in democracy. Only one side has refused to accept election results. Only one side has attempted to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. That’s not political disagreement. That’s an assault on American values. The asymmetry isn’t a matter of opinion. It’s a matter of record.

Why “Democrats aren’t doing anything” is exactly backward.

When Trump flouts the law, ignores court orders, bypasses Congress, and defies established procedure, then turns around and says “the Democrats aren’t doing anything,” he’s exploiting a perceptual trap. Democrats are doing something. They’re operating within the governing framework: following the law, respecting court rulings, honoring institutional processes. From outside the framework, from the perspective of someone who has abandoned every constraint, that looks like weakness. It looks like nothing.

This reveals a role reversal neither side has fully named. Democrats are the conservatives here. They’re enforcing and upholding the constitutional system, defending institutional norms, insisting that laws apply to everyone. Republicans under Trump are the radicals. They’re tearing down governing structures that every previous generation of American leaders maintained.

The deeper principle is restraint. American democratic governance has been historically powerful not because leaders grabbed everything they could, but because they chose not to. Every president who submitted to Congressional oversight, honored court rulings they disagreed with, or accepted electoral defeat was choosing to be constrained by the system rather than overpower it. That restraint was good faith made visible. It was what made their power legitimate.

Trump’s unrestrained exercise of power looks like strength only if you’ve forgotten what legitimate power looks like. A president who ignores courts and defies Congress isn’t strong. He’s abandoned the commitment that makes presidential power legitimate in the first place.

That’s the optical illusion at the heart of this crisis. Good faith looks like inaction because it operates within constraints. Bad faith looks like action because it ignores them. The person following the rules appears passive. The person breaking them appears powerful. But what they’re getting done is the destruction of the system that protects everyone, including the people cheering.

Why abandoning good faith leads somewhere dangerous. When you break the mechanism of democratic negotiation, you don’t get freedom from government. You get a power vacuum that authoritarianism fills. As I argued in Why Progressives Are Accidentally Helping Authoritarians Win, the dismantling of democratic collective action doesn’t lead to liberty. It leads to submission. The path from breaking good faith to authoritarianism isn’t hypothetical. We’re watching it happen.

Why the fear is real even when the strategies are cynical. Republican voters who feel afraid about the economy, their communities, or the pace of cultural change aren’t wrong to feel those things. The problem is that the political strategies offered to them, strategies built on hierarchy and bad faith, can’t actually solve those problems. You can’t build shared prosperity while denying some people’s legitimacy as participants. The voters who support bad faith strategies out of fear don’t get the security they’re looking for. They get culture war, dysfunction, and a government that can’t solve problems because it can’t negotiate solutions.

Why nobody is coming to save us. As I argued in Be a Builder, broken systems do not fix themselves, and nobody else is coming to fix them for us. No candidate, no court ruling, no election cycle is going to restore good faith from the top down. America once had political stewards who built the middle class through law: progressive taxation, Social Security, union protections, the GI Bill, public universities. That wasn’t natural. It was a political achievement, constructed through democratic negotiation. Then different legislators wrote different laws that systematically reversed those achievements. The stewards got replaced by people whose primary commitment was to concentrated wealth rather than broad prosperity. The strategies in Section 3 were the machinery of that transformation. Oligarchy doesn’t reform itself. The only cure is for people to take it back.

The reason to demand good faith isn’t altruism. It’s self-interest, correctly understood. Every period of broadly shared American prosperity had the same feature: participants accepted each other’s legitimacy and negotiated for mutual benefit. Every period of decline had the same feature too: some group tried to protect its interests at everyone else’s expense and ended up degrading the system that could have protected those interests in the first place. Protecting everyone’s interest is how you protect your own. Not as a slogan. As a structural fact about how democratic systems produce outcomes.

The path forward isn’t waiting for better leaders. It’s citizens, across the spectrum, demanding that their representatives negotiate in good faith on behalf of all Americans. Not hoping for it. Demanding it. Demanding good faith isn’t asking Republicans to become Democrats. It’s asking everyone to insist that their representatives govern for all Americans, not just their base. As I wrote in Defending Democratic Capitalism Through Capacity Stewardship, this means demanding evidence-based decisions, institutional quality, and accountability for stewardship of public capacity. That’s not a partisan agenda. That’s the baseline for functional American governance.

And here’s what good faith governance actually produces: fair competition. Not the libertarian fantasy where you strip away rules and let the strongest win. The opposite. Fair competition requires active governance. Someone has to maintain the playing field: enforce antitrust law, prevent fraud, ensure transparency, break up concentrations of power that rig the game before it starts. Every period of broadly shared American prosperity, every era when the middle class grew and ordinary people could build wealth, had that feature. The government kept the field level. When it stopped, the field tilted, and the wealth flowed upward.

This is historical record, not idealism. The GI Bill, antitrust enforcement, securities regulation, consumer protection, public investment in infrastructure and education: these weren’t constraints on competition. They were the conditions that made competition real. Bigger markets. More participants. More people with the resources to start businesses, buy homes, send their kids to college. Fair competition is the engine that builds a middle class, but only when someone is actively maintaining the machinery. Leave it unattended and the biggest players capture it. That’s not competition anymore. That’s extraction.

A rigged game where incumbents write the rules, where regulatory capture replaces regulation, where concentrated wealth buys the policy outcomes it wants, isn’t a free market. It’s a protection racket with better branding. The people defending deregulation as “freedom” are defending the freedom of the powerful to eliminate the competition that would hold them accountable. Good faith governance fights that. It insists that markets serve the public, not the other way around. That’s the direct connection between the democratic infrastructure this essay describes and the economic outcomes people actually care about.

None of this requires you to change your political beliefs. If you’re a conservative who wants smaller government, demand that your representatives argue for it honestly, on its merits, instead of hiding behind manufactured economic crises. If you’re a progressive who wants expanded social programs, demand that your representatives build those programs with outcome measures and accountability. The content of what you demand is your own. The insistence on good faith is what we all share. And when representatives actually negotiate in good faith, the policy frameworks that emerge look like Opportunity Economics: coalitions built around shared economic interests, broadly shared prosperity, and an honest accounting of who benefits and who pays. That’s not utopian. That’s what happened during every period of good faith negotiation described in this essay.

Section 7: What to Say

Everything above gives you the framework. This section gives you the language. Not talking points, not slogans, but phrases you can use in real conversations when someone is defending bad faith and you need to name what’s happening. These are organized by the situations where they come up most often.

When someone claims “both sides do it”

This is the most common deflection, and it works because it contains a grain of truth. Both sides do play hardball politics. Both sides spin and exaggerate. But that’s not what you’re talking about, and the person saying it knows that.

Try: “Both sides play hardball. Only one side refused to accept an election result. Only one side tried to prevent the peaceful transfer of power. Those aren’t equivalent.”

Or: “Show me when Democrats attempted a coup. Show me when Democrats told a Secretary of State to ‘find’ votes. The asymmetry is in the record.”

The goal isn’t to claim Democrats are perfect. The goal is to refuse the false equivalence that treats policy disagreement and the destruction of democratic processes as the same thing. They’re not. Name the specific violations. Make the person respond to what actually happened, not to an abstraction.

When someone defends Trump’s norm violations

People defend these violations in different ways. Some minimize them (“every president pushes boundaries”). Some justify them (“he had to because the system was rigged against him”). Some celebrate them (“finally someone who fights”). Each of these requires the same response: connect the violation to the infrastructure it destroys.

Try: “That’s bad faith. American democracy depends on processes that include everyone’s interests. When you support bypassing those processes, you’re fighting against American values.”

Or: “You’re dismantling the infrastructure that protects everyone, including you.”

Don’t get drawn into debating whether a specific violation was technically legal or whether previous presidents did something vaguely similar. The question isn’t legality. The question is whether you support a system where democratic processes constrain power, or whether you support a leader who operates without those constraints. There’s no middle ground on that question, and forcing clarity on it is more productive than arguing about details.

When someone uses economic mythology

This is the one that sounds like common sense but isn’t. “We can’t afford universal healthcare.” “The national debt is out of control.” “If you raise the minimum wage, businesses will close.” These aren’t economic arguments. They’re political choices wearing the costume of natural law.

Try: “That’s not economics. That’s a political choice disguised as a natural law. Say what you actually believe so we can have an honest argument.”

Or: “We can afford bank bailouts and tax cuts for billionaires but not healthcare? That’s not a budget constraint. That’s a priority list.”

The power of economic mythology comes from the assumption that regular people can’t challenge it. You can. You don’t need an economics degree. You just need to notice the selective application. The same people who say “we can’t afford” social programs never say “we can’t afford” military budgets or corporate subsidies. That inconsistency is the tell. Point at it. Make them explain it.

When someone calls for “unity” without accountability

After every violation of democratic norms, the call for “unity” follows like clockwork. Move on. Heal. Stop being divisive. This sounds reasonable until you notice what it’s actually asking: that the people whose democratic participation was attacked should pretend it didn’t happen, while the people who attacked it face no consequences. That’s not unity. That’s impunity.

Try: “Unity requires good faith. Good faith requires accepting everyone’s legitimacy as a participant. Start there.”

Or: “You want unity? Stop supporting leaders who call half the country enemies of the state.”

Real unity is possible. It’s what the New Deal coalition had, what the bipartisan compromises of the 1980s and 1990s had. But it requires the same thing every time: mutual recognition that everyone at the table is a legitimate participant. You can’t unify with someone who denies your right to be at the table. The demand for unity has to come with the demand for good faith, or it’s just a demand for silence.

When someone describes democratic participation as the problem

Sometimes the bad faith isn’t hidden at all. Someone tells you they’re tired of outsiders coming in, bringing new ideas, lobbying for change, building support, and winning. They think they’re describing an injustice. They’re describing democracy.

Try: “You just described how democracy works and called it a problem. Competition and new ideas is how this country grows. If you want your position to win, make the argument. Don’t try to lock the door.”

Or: “You want your status quo preserved without doing the work? That’s not conservative. That’s authoritarian.”

The Foundation

Here is the thing this essay has been building toward:

A democratic system that can be rigged to exclude some people is a system that can be rigged to exclude you. That’s not a warning about fairness. That’s a warning about mechanics. The system that protects your interests, whatever those interests are, is the same system that protects everyone’s interests. Not because that’s generous. Because that’s how the mechanism works. Break the mechanism for someone else and it’s broken for you too. You just haven’t found out yet.

This isn’t just smart strategy. It’s American. The foundational American idea was never that we’d all agree. It was that we’d work it out together through processes that protect everyone at the table. Human rights, inclusive participation, good faith negotiation. These aren’t soft liberal values bolted on after the fact. They’re the operating infrastructure of a country built on the radical premise that self-governance is possible. You can’t love the country and hate the foundation it’s built on.

So when you defend inclusive processes, you’re not being nice. You’re being American. When you call out bad faith, you’re not being divisive. You’re defending the system. When you refuse to let someone wrap the flag around the demolition of the thing the flag represents, you’re claiming the moral ground that belongs to anyone who takes this country seriously.

That’s the patriotic imperative right now. Not flag pins. Not anthem performances. Not slogans about greatness. The actual work of insisting that American democracy means what it says: that everyone’s interests matter, that power answers to process, that disagreement gets resolved through negotiation rather than domination. Defending good faith is defending America. The rest is decoration.

The foundation is cracking. Not someday. Now. The question is whether enough Americans care about the real thing to fight for it.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

For Steve: A Lifelong Builder.

The Antidote

My previous essay, The Broken Infrastructure of Hope: How Americans Lost Faith in Self-Governance, and How to Rebuild It, diagnosed the problem: American civic infrastructure has broken down, and the hopelessness spreading across the country is a predictable consequence of that breakdown. The information systems that once gave citizens a shared basis in fact have fragmented. The governance systems that once translated citizen engagement into political change have been captured, hollowed out, or abandoned. The feedback loop between informed public opinion and responsive government has been severed. And the result is exactly what you’d expect: millions of Americans have disengaged, concluded the system is beyond repair, and retreated into criticism, apathy, or outrage.

That essay was about what went wrong and what repair would require. But the breakdown I described was not an accident. It was not the natural entropy of aging institutions. It was the result of what 50 Years of Economic Myths Have Delivered Americans Into Technofeudalism lays bare: a fifty-year campaign by concentrated wealth interests to systematically dismantle democratic power in this country. And this attack came in many forms, not just against public policy institutions like laws and government, but against our knowledge systems themselves.

I want to be precise about what I mean by “campaign,” because getting this wrong leads to the wrong response. This is not a conspiracy. There was no secret room where billionaires drew up a master plan to dismantle American democracy on a whiteboard. That is not how oligarchy works. It has never been how oligarchy works. What happened, and what is still happening, is a confluence of aligned interests. Corporate executives, wealthy donors, ideological think tanks, captured academics, our political duopoly, and compliant politicians all pursued similar goals for similar reasons, independently and in loose coordination, because those goals served their interests. They didn’t need a secret plan. They needed the same incentives, and they had them.

This distinction matters because it changes what you’re fighting. A conspiracy can be exposed and dismantled. You find the plot, you reveal it, you prosecute the plotters. Aligned interests are harder. There is no single plot to expose. There are thousands of independent actors making rational decisions within a system that rewards the concentration of power. A billionaire funds an economics department that produces research favorable to deregulation. A politician accepts that research as credible because it comes from a prestigious university. A media outlet reports the research uncritically because it fits the conventional wisdom. A voter absorbs it as settled fact. No one in that chain is conspiring with anyone else. Each is simply operating within the incentive structure in front of them. And the result is indistinguishable from coordinated action.

This is the historical mechanism through which oligarchy has always embedded itself: not through coups or conspiracies, but through the slow alignment of institutional incentives toward concentrated power. The Roman Republic did not fall because senators hatched a secret plan. It fell because wealthy landowners, military commanders, and political elites all found it individually advantageous to hollow out republican institutions, and no one with power had sufficient incentive to stop them. The Gilded Age in America was not a conspiracy by Rockefeller and Carnegie. It was a system where every actor with capital found it profitable to capture regulation, suppress wages, and consolidate industries, and the political system rewarded them for doing so. The pattern repeats because it does not require coordination. It only requires a system where concentrated wealth can convert economic power into political power, and where no countervailing force exists to prevent it.

That is what we are living through now. And if you are looking for a villain to unmask, you will miss it. The threat is structural, not personal.

But here is what I believe, and it is why I write. What confronts us now is a question: can the people take this system back? Can we guide it toward what it was supposed to be, a country where the middle class grows and prospers, where people live good and safe and secure lives, where sometimes people who don’t like each other very much agree to live together and make a country anyway? I believe we can. I believe it is possible. I believe the America I grew up in, the one that welcomed my family, the one where pluralism was a strength and not a threat, can be restored and expanded. More freedom, not less. More room for difference, not less. A country where economic security replaces fragility, and where citizens are strong enough to govern themselves without fear. That is not nostalgia. It is a destination. And the reason I write is because I believe it is still within reach, that taking it back is not just possible but is the unfinished work this country was built for.

Which means the response has to be structural.

An entire branch of knowledge that should be grounded in the scientific method was coopted and steered away from empirical rigor. I made this case in Economics is not a Science. Mainstream economics abandoned falsifiability, started resolving disputes through institutional power rather than evidence, and shaped its conclusions to serve corporate funding sources. This wasn’t incidental. It was strategic. When you control what counts as “sound economics,” you control what policies the public believes are possible.

And the attack didn’t stop with academic knowledge systems. It went after the information supply chain itself. For most of the twentieth century, Americans had something that is easy to take for granted until it is gone: a physical information supply chain with built-in verification and accountability. Universities conducted peer-reviewed research. Newsrooms employed editors, fact-checkers, and reporters who could be sued for libel. Publishers had reputations that took decades to build and could be destroyed by a single fabrication. These institutions were not perfect. They had blind spots, biases, and failures. But they operated within a system where claims could be traced to sources, sources could be evaluated, and institutions paid real consequences for getting things wrong. That system produced something close to ground truth: not perfect truth, but a shared factual basis that citizens could use to reason about public life. Then came what I called The Parasite’s Dilemma: How AI Destroys the Quality Information Supply Chain It Depends On: the rise of big tech, big data, and AI systematically destroyed that supply chain. Digital platforms obfuscated provenance and lineage, making it nearly impossible to trace where information comes from or evaluate its credibility. AI-generated content flooded the information environment with synthesized material disconnected from any verifiable source. The old system said: here is a claim, here is where it comes from, here is who stands behind it. The new system says: here is content. No origin. No accountability. No way to know what you’re looking at or who benefits from you believing it. The result is not just misinformation. It is the complete collapse of the framework citizens once used to distinguish truth from manipulation. That is not an accident. It is the third front of the same war.

For five decades, oligarchs and corporate interests used captured economics, funded think tanks, the language of “fiscal responsibility,” and now algorithmic control of information itself to condition Americans across party lines to accept artificial limits on our collective power. They hollowed out public institutions and made the destruction of the middle class sound like prudent governance. What began as corporate capture in the Reagan era evolved through financial sector dominance to today’s tech and finance oligarchy. The result is what some call technofeudalism: a system where a shrinking number of technology-enabled elites control the platforms, the data, the labor markets, and increasingly the governance structures, while the rest of us become tenants on their digital estates. The hopelessness I described in the previous essay is not a bug. It is a feature of a system designed to make democratic participation feel pointless.

This essay is about the antidote: being a builder. Not as a nice idea, not as a motivational slogan, but as the only response that has ever actually worked when systems fail and people lose hope.

Here is the core of it. Broken systems do not fix themselves. They do not gradually self-correct through the passage of time or the goodwill of the powerful. And nobody else is coming to fix them for us. This is the argument at the heart of Defending Democratic Capitalism Through Capacity Stewardship: the work of preserving democratic capitalism falls to citizens, not leaders, not institutions operating on autopilot. No candidate, no court ruling, no viral moment is going to reverse the trajectory we are on. The consolidation of economic and political power into fewer and fewer hands is not a future risk. It is happening now. The institutions that once distributed power across millions of citizens are being hollowed out in real time. If we do not rebuild them, someone else will fill that vacuum, and they will not fill it with democracy. They will fill it with control.

The only thing that has ever reversed that kind of trajectory is people who decided to build. Not people who criticized, though criticism has its place. Not people who were outraged, though outrage can be a starting point. People who built. Who created institutions, organizations, coalitions, and systems where none existed before. Who did the unglamorous, long-timeline, often unrewarded work of constructing the infrastructure that makes self-governance possible.

That is the antidote. And to understand why it is the only antidote, it helps to be honest about what the alternatives actually are.

Criticizing is easy. I don’t say that to be dismissive. I say it because it’s true, and because recognizing it matters if the antidote is going to take hold. Criticism requires no risk. You identify what’s wrong, and you’re done. You never have to commit to a fix. You never have to propose something that might not work. You never have to put your name on an effort that could fail publicly. The critic occupies the safest position in any room: the person who evaluates what others have built without ever having to build anything themselves.

Apathy is even easier. It requires nothing at all. You check out. You stop reading the news. You stop going to meetings. You tell yourself the system is broken and your participation won’t change that, and then you go on with your life. Apathy doesn’t even ask you to form an opinion. In a country where the systems that once rewarded engagement have stopped working, apathy is the rational default. That is what makes it so dangerous.

And then there is outrage, which is the trickiest of the three because it feels active. Outrage feels like engagement. You’re angry. You’re sharing posts. You’re arguing with strangers. You’re performing all the motions of someone who cares deeply. But outrage, most of the time, is a reaction, not an initiative. It consumes energy without directing it anywhere. Social media has made outrage feel like participation while functionally substituting for it. You can spend four hours a day furious about the state of the country and never once do anything that changes it.

I am not trying to shame anyone. I have done all three of these things. I have criticized from the sidelines. I have checked out when it felt hopeless. I have been outraged on the internet in ways that changed absolutely nothing. None of those things rebuilt a single piece of the broken infrastructure I described in the previous essay. None of them will.

Building is what rebuilds. And building asks something of you. Your time. Your energy. Your willingness to fail. Your comfort with being wrong. Your patience with progress so slow you may not see the results in your own lifetime. But before it asks for any of that, building asks for something deeper: a shift in how you think. Being a builder is not just action, deed, or word. It is a mentality. It is the shift from “someone should fix this” to “I will build what is needed to fix this.” It is the move from passive consumer of political content to active producer of political infrastructure. It is the foundational decision that when you see something broken, your first instinct is not to criticize, not to despair, but to ask: what can I build to fix this?

That mentality, once adopted and sustained, turns into action. But the action without the mentality is just performance. And the mentality requires something else that most calls to action leave out: understanding. You cannot build effectively if you are operating from a false map. The economic orthodoxies that most people accept as settled science are not science at all (Economics is not a Science). The monetary myths that constrain our political imagination do not align with how our system actually works (Why Monetary Systems Matter). And the information environment that should give citizens a shared basis for reasoning is being systematically destroyed by the very platforms that promised to democratize knowledge, the dynamic I explored in The Parasite’s Dilemma: How AI Destroys the Quality Information Supply Chain It Depends On. A builder who does not understand these realities will build on sand. The mentality is what makes building the hardest posture to sustain, and it is the only one that produces lasting change.

This essay asks the harder question that follows from the diagnosis. What does it actually take to be the person who does the repair work? Not what policies should change. What disposition is required? What kind of person looks at broken systems and decides, against all the incentives pulling them toward criticism or apathy or outrage, to build?

What the Antidote Looks Like

I want to be careful here, because “be a builder” can sound like something you’d find on a motivational poster next to a stock photo of a sunrise. That is not what I mean.

The builder ethic in America is not about entrepreneurship in the commercial sense, though it includes that. It is about people who looked at something that didn’t exist, something the country needed, and made it exist. Not by asking permission. Not by waiting for conditions to improve. By building into resistance, into uncertainty, into systems that were never designed to support them.

But I want to be precise about what kind of building I’m talking about, because two words matter here: accumulation and extraction. Accumulation is when wealth and power concentrate into fewer and fewer hands. Extraction is how it happens: the process of pulling value out of communities, workers, and public systems and funneling it upward. (Even the tax code is designed to facilitate this upward transfer, something I documented in How Corporate-Friendly Accounting Rules Create a $30 Trillion Transfer from Consumers into Wealthy Pockets.) These are not building. They are the opposite of building. They hollow out the structures that make shared prosperity and self-governance possible. The kind of building I’m talking about is the kind that strengthens democratic infrastructure. The kind that distributes power rather than concentrating it. The kind that makes self-governance possible for more people, not fewer.

And here is the test that separates genuine building from accumulation dressed up as innovation: good systems have outcome measures, transparency, accountability, and disclosure built into them as institutional practices. Can you measure whether the system is actually working for the people it claims to serve? Can citizens see how decisions are made and money is spent? Can poor performance be identified and addressed? Are conflicts of interest and outside influences visible to the public? When systems have these features, they serve citizens. When they don’t, they serve whoever controls them. That distinction matters because there is another kind of building happening right now, and it fails every one of those tests.

The consolidation of control over markets, data, labor, and governance itself into the hands of a shrinking number of people and corporations. When a handful of tech platforms control the information environment, when a few corporations own the infrastructure of daily life, when billionaires can purchase political outcomes, what you have is not building. It is accumulation through extraction. It is the construction of a new feudalism with digital tools. And it operates precisely by eliminating outcome measures, transparency, accountability, and disclosure. Algorithms are opaque. Corporate lobbying is hidden. Outcomes are measured in shareholder returns, not citizen wellbeing. The machinery of extraction depends on nobody being able to see clearly how it works.

This concentration is enabled by something most Americans do not see. The title of my earlier essay says it plainly: 50 Years of Economic Myths Have Delivered Americans Into Technofeudalism. Five decades of economic mythology have conditioned all of us, across party lines, to accept artificial limits on our collective power. Republicans invoke “fiscal responsibility” to block social programs. Democrats accept budget constraints as real and argue only about percentages. Both use the same language to make destructive policies sound responsible. The myths create a devastating trap: economic insecurity makes people politically exploitable. When you are fragile, you cannot afford to resist bad deals. You accept worse conditions. You become more economically fragile. And you spiral downward toward what amounts to modern serfdom. Meanwhile, economic security creates the opposite: the foundation to take risks, reject exploitation, and spiral toward genuine self-determination. The policies that could create that security have been blocked for decades by myths that both parties promote as responsible governance.

The builder ethic I’m talking about is the one that fights that. It creates the countervailing institutions, the distributed power, the civic architecture that keeps a republic functioning as a republic. And it does so with clear eyes about the forces arrayed against it. The builders I’m describing don’t just build structures. They build structures with outcome measures, with transparency, with accountability, with disclosure. They build systems that citizens can see into, evaluate, and hold to account. That is what distinguishes democratic building from the accumulation and extraction it opposes.

Consider the labor organizers of the late 1800s and early 1900s. They didn’t just protest working conditions. They built. Unions. Mutual aid societies. Worker cooperatives. They created the institutional infrastructure that made collective bargaining possible. Before they built those institutions, workers had grievances. After they built them, workers had power. The difference was not attitude. It was architecture.

Consider the NAACP’s legal strategy that culminated in Brown v. Board of Education in 1954. That ruling didn’t arrive because someone gave a speech that moved the nation to tears. It arrived because lawyers spent decades, case by case, building a legal architecture that made the dismantling of segregation logically and constitutionally inevitable. It was patient, unglamorous, institutional work. Most of it happened in courtrooms and law offices, not on the evening news. The people who did that work were builders. They constructed something where nothing had existed before, and what they constructed changed the country.

Consider Horace Mann and the founders of public education. They didn’t just argue that schooling mattered. They built state education systems from nothing. They created curricula. They trained teachers. They established funding mechanisms. They saw a country that needed an educated citizenry and they built the infrastructure to produce one. That is the builder ethic in its purest form: seeing what’s needed and then doing the unglamorous work of making it real.

Consider the community organizers across every era who built the local infrastructure of civic life. Libraries. Settlement houses. Voter registration drives. Neighborhood associations. These are not famous people. Most of their names are lost. But they are the builders who made democracy function at the ground level, in the places where people actually live.

And consider something I know from personal experience: immigrant communities. My parents came to this country and they built. Businesses. Cultural institutions. Mutual aid networks. Connections within and across communities. I grew up in a time and a place and an America where my parents and I were always welcome, where our diversity was embraced, where we were allowed to be part of the community and build it. That matters. That welcoming context made building possible. This is what immigrants have done in every generation, in every wave of arrival, when given the chance. They built into the fabric of this country, and in doing so they expanded what the country was. The builder ethic is not an abstraction to me. I grew up watching it, and I grew up in a country that let my family do it.

The thread connecting all of these is simple but demanding. None of these people waited for permission. None of them waited for conditions to be favorable. None of them waited for the broken systems around them to repair themselves first. They built into resistance. They built into systems that were not designed to support what they were building. And what they built outlasted them. What they built was democracy itself, not as an ideal but as a functioning set of institutions that distributed power and created accountability. Every one of those examples was an act of democratic construction. Every one of them made self-governance more real for more people. Every one of them was the antidote to the breakdown of their era.

Why Building Is Hard, and Why People Avoid It

If building were easy, everyone would do it. It is not easy. And this essay loses all credibility if it pretends otherwise.

The risk of failure is real. Critics cannot fail. They are responding to what already exists, and if their criticism lands, they look smart. If it doesn’t, they move on to the next thing. Builders are exposed. The person who starts a civic organization, runs for local office, or launches a community initiative has put their name on something that might not work. Failure for a builder is public and personal. It is not a bad take that gets forgotten in two days. It is months or years of effort that everyone can see didn’t produce what you hoped. That exposure is why many capable people choose the safety of criticism instead.

The timelines are brutal. Building produces results on a scale of years and decades, not days. We live in an information environment optimized for immediate reaction. Every platform, every algorithm, every notification is designed to reward the instantaneous. Sustained effort toward distant goals feels unrewarded in that environment because it is unrewarded, at least by the metrics we’ve been trained to care about. The feedback loops that once told people their work was accumulating toward something have been compressed or severed entirely. You can spend three years building a voter education nonprofit and get less visible recognition than someone who tweets something clever about last night’s news.

The loneliness is real. The critic has an audience. The outraged person has a community of the equally outraged. The builder, especially in early stages, often works in relative isolation. There is no viral moment for the person quietly serving on a planning commission, or spending weekends knocking on doors for a school board candidate, or running an after-school civic education program that reaches forty kids at a time. Building is often invisible work, and invisible work is lonely work.

The temptation to retreat is constant. This is the one I want to spend extra time on, because it is the most dangerous. When building feels impossible at scale, the natural instinct is to shrink your ambitions. To focus only on what you can control. To retreat into the local and the personal and tell yourself that’s enough. This is precisely the pattern behind Why Progressives Are Accidentally Helping Authoritarians Win: progressives, frustrated by corporate capture of federal politics, have increasingly abandoned the work of building strong national systems in favor of local-only solutions. Community gardens. Neighborhood cooperatives. Personal lifestyle changes. These are valuable, but when they become substitutes for engaging with the systems that actually allocate power and resources at scale, they become a form of retreat dressed up as action.

This retreat is often driven by a specific misunderstanding: the belief that we cannot afford to build at scale. The persistent myth that ambitious national programs will “blow up the debt” or that transformative investment requires “finding the money” through higher taxes. These are hard money misconceptions left over from the gold standard era, the kind I traced in Why Monetary Systems Matter, and they constrain what builders believe is possible. In our actual monetary system, the constraint is not money. It is productive capacity: workers, materials, infrastructure, organizational capability. When builders accept false fiscal constraints as real, they retreat from national systems-building into whatever feels close and controllable. And that retreat is exactly what authoritarian and corporate interests want. Every builder who shrinks their scope to the purely local is one fewer person contesting power where power actually operates. The temptation to retreat feels responsible. It feels pragmatic. But it leaves the field open to people who are building at scale, and who are building things that concentrate power rather than distribute it.

The temptation of purity is constant. Building requires compromise. It requires working with imperfect allies. It requires accepting partial victories. It requires making decisions without full information and living with the consequences. The critical posture doesn’t require any of that. From the outside, you can maintain ideological purity indefinitely because you are never actually in the work. You never have to choose between two imperfect options. You never have to explain why you worked with someone whose views you find objectionable on some things in order to get something done on others. Building does not afford that luxury. And the people who have never built anything are often the first to condemn the compromises builders make.

The learned helplessness is real, and it is manufactured. The fifty-year assault on democratic institutions did not just weaken them. It taught Americans to stop believing institutions could ever serve them. The far right tells you collective action is theft, that government is inherently coercive, that the answer is to minimize institutions. The far left tells you reform is futile, that working within existing systems is collaboration with oppression. Despite opposing each other, both serve concentrated wealth by preventing you from understanding your actual power as a citizen, the central warning of Defending Democratic Capitalism Through Capacity Stewardship. Both create the same result: you give up on institutions. And when you stop demanding quality from institutions, institutions stop delivering it. The learned helplessness becomes self-fulfilling. This is the deepest obstacle to building, because it attacks the belief that building can work at all.

I want to be direct about this. The reason I’m spending time on why building is hard is that any honest call to action has to account for the cost. The cost is real. The cost is personal. And the cost is why most people, when given the choice, choose the easier things. Understanding that isn’t an excuse. It’s a prerequisite for doing it anyway. Because nobody else is going to do it for you. There is no cavalry. There is no institution powerful enough and benevolent enough to fix this without your participation. The only way democratic systems get rebuilt is by people who decide, individually, to be builders. And then find each other.

The Builder as American Ethic

Building is not just a useful disposition. It is the disposition that has actually moved this country forward whenever the country was broken. Across political orientations. Across historical eras. Across causes that had nothing in common except this: someone decided to build rather than accept the breakdown.

Every expansion of American democracy was built, not just demanded. The abolitionists built organizations, publications, and political coalitions over decades before emancipation became possible. The suffragists built a movement that sustained itself through seventy years of defeats before women won the vote. The labor movement built unions, built political alliances, built the institutional muscle that made the New Deal possible. The Civil Rights Movement built legal strategies, built coalitions, built organizational capacity that could sustain a decade-long campaign against entrenched segregation.

None of these movements succeeded through criticism alone. None of them succeeded through protest alone. They succeeded because, alongside the criticism and the protest, people built institutions that could sustain the work beyond any single moment of public attention.

And this is not just a pattern on the left. The conservative movement of the 1970s and 1980s is worth examining here, not as a political endorsement but as evidence. Conservatives in that era did not just criticize liberal governance. They built. The Heritage Foundation. The Federalist Society. Conservative media organizations. Political training programs. Grassroots networks that could mobilize voters and donors at scale. They constructed an entire institutional ecosystem, and that ecosystem made their political victories possible. Whether or not you agree with the goals, and I often don’t, the method is instructive. They were builders. And they changed the country because of it.

The contrast is Occupy Wall Street. In 2011, Occupy captured the national conversation. “We are the 99 percent” entered the vocabulary. The movement shifted discourse about economic inequality in ways that still echo today. But Occupy built nothing that persisted. No institution. No organization. No infrastructure that could translate the energy of that moment into sustained political change. When the encampments were cleared, the movement dissolved. The critique survived. The infrastructure didn’t.

Protest without institutional infrastructure is a shout into a room that empties when people leave. The builder ethic is not anti-protest. Protest is necessary. It generates the visibility, the urgency, the moral pressure that makes change feel possible. But protest that does not build anything behind it is temporary by nature. The shout has to become a structure, or it fades.

This is the pattern that runs through American history. The moments when the country actually changed, when it expanded who counted, when it corrected its own failures, when it became more of what it promised to be, those moments were built. By people who showed up, who did unglamorous work, who accepted the cost, and who kept going when the results were nowhere in sight.

And here is what makes this moment different from many of those previous ones: the threat is not just that we fail to expand democracy. It is that we lose the democratic infrastructure we already have. The concentration of economic power into a handful of corporations and individuals, the capture of political systems by private interests, the erosion of the institutions that once gave ordinary citizens a meaningful voice: this is not a hypothetical. It is the trajectory we are on. Some people call it technofeudalism, the idea that we are sliding toward a system where a few technology-enabled lords control the platforms, the data, the labor markets, and the governance structures, while the rest of us become tenants on their digital estates. Whether you use that word or not, the pattern is visible.

What makes this concentration possible is not just money or political power. It is the intellectual framework that prevents Americans from seeing alternatives. Mainstream economics, the discipline that shapes how politicians talk and how citizens think about what is possible, does not meet basic scientific standards. That was the core finding of Economics is not a Science. It resolves disputes through institutional power rather than evidence. It was shaped by decades of corporate funding that turned a particular ideology into what passes for objective analysis. And it constrains democratic possibilities by making policies that would create broad prosperity seem economically impossible. When politicians say “we can’t afford” universal healthcare or public infrastructure or economic security programs, they are applying what I called in Why Monetary Systems Matter hard money logic to a soft money system. The real constraint in our economy is not money. It is productive capacity: workers, materials, technology, organizational capability. The federal government creates money when it spends. That is not a radical claim. It is the documented operational reality of our monetary system since 1971. But most Americans have been systematically miseducated about this, and the miseducation serves a purpose: it keeps the range of what we believe we can build artificially narrow.

Part of being a builder is being willing to challenge these old frameworks. You cannot build effectively if you are operating from a false map. And the only thing that has ever reversed that kind of concentration, in any era, is people who built countervailing institutions. Who built power that was distributed rather than concentrated. Who built democracy from the ground up because nobody at the top was going to hand it to them.

Nobody is coming to save us from this. Previous generations had leaders who built systems for broad prosperity. The American middle class was deliberately engineered by politicians in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries. Progressive Era reformers, New Deal architects, and postwar planners understood that democracy required a prosperous middle class and systematically built the institutional infrastructure to create one. We no longer have that kind of leadership. Current political leadership has been compromised by oligarchs who have systematically redirected the mechanisms that once expanded middle class power to serve concentrated wealth instead. The work of preserving democratic capitalism falls to citizens now. That is the conclusion of Defending Democratic Capitalism Through Capacity Stewardship, and it bears repeating here. That is not pessimism. It is the lesson of every successful democratic movement in American history. The abolitionists did not wait for a sympathetic president. The suffragists did not wait for men to grant them rights. The labor organizers did not wait for factory owners to develop a conscience. They built. And the building is what made the difference.

What Building Looks Like Now

So what does this mean in practice? Not as an abstraction. Not as an argument about history. What does building look like right now, in this moment, for someone who has read this far and is willing to do something harder than criticize?

It starts with understanding what good systems actually look like. Throughout this essay I’ve distinguished between genuine building and accumulation dressed as innovation. The distinction comes down to four institutional practices: outcome measures that tell you whether the system is working, transparency that lets citizens see how decisions are made, accountability that allows poor performance to be addressed, and disclosure that makes conflicts of interest visible. These are not abstractions. They are the design criteria that separate systems built for citizens from systems built for control. Every area of building below should be measured against them.

Local governance. School boards. City councils. Water districts. Planning commissions. These are the institutions that most directly shape daily life, and they are dramatically understaffed and under-engaged. In many places, local offices go uncontested. Seats go unfilled. Decisions that affect your children’s education, your water quality, your neighborhood’s development, get made by whoever shows up. Running for local office is building. Volunteering for a local board is building. Attending a city council meeting is building, because you are putting your body and your time into the machinery of self-governance at the level where it matters most immediately. And when you show up, you bring with you the expectation that decisions will be explained, that budgets will be open, that performance will be measured, and that conflicts of interest will be disclosed. Your presence is the accountability mechanism. Your absence is how these systems get captured.

But, and this is critical, local building cannot be where it stops. Local governance is the foundation, not the ceiling. The temptation to treat local engagement as sufficient is exactly the retreat I described earlier. Local institutions need to connect to state and federal systems. Local builders need to build upward, not just outward. A school board member who also engages with state education policy is building at the scale that matters. A city council member who connects local needs to federal funding streams is building the kind of infrastructure that actually changes outcomes. Building locally while ignoring the systems that allocate power and resources nationally is building on sand.

Civic media and information. I wrote in the previous essay about how broken the information environment has become. The Parasite’s Dilemma: How AI Destroys the Quality Information Supply Chain It Depends On traced how three successive waves of digital disruption have cannibalized the quality information supply chain that democracy depends on. First, digital platforms captured advertising revenue from traditional media and optimized for engagement over accuracy. Then the creator economy built audiences by repackaging others’ reporting without compensation. Now AI systems synthesize vast amounts of information while providing no economic return to original creators. The result is an information ecosystem where virtually everyone lacks both the structural frameworks and the cognitive habits necessary to evaluate what they are seeing. Citizens lose the ability to trace information to its source, evaluate the credibility of different sources, and distinguish between evidence and manipulation. Without these skills, democratic self-governance becomes impossible.

You cannot build if you cannot see clearly, and in a world where the epistemic infrastructure of democracy is being dismantled, that is genuinely hard. Rebuilding the information environment is builder’s work. Starting or supporting local journalism. Contributing to fact-checking organizations. Running civic education programs. Teaching people not just what to think but how to evaluate sources, how to understand what their local government is actually doing, and how to distinguish between rigorous evidence and sophisticated manipulation. Good information systems have the same qualities that good governance systems have: transparent methods, measurable outcomes, disclosed funding sources, and accountability for accuracy. The information vacuum is not going to fill itself. Someone has to build what goes into it. And in an era when a few platforms control most of the information flow, building independent, civic-minded alternatives is not a nice-to-have. It is essential infrastructure for a functioning democracy.

Community infrastructure. Neighborhood associations. Mutual aid networks. Civic organizations. The informal institutions that make a community actually function. These are the structures that create the social cohesion on which political engagement depends. People don’t participate in democracy as isolated individuals. They participate as members of communities. And communities don’t just happen. Someone builds them. Someone organizes the block party. Someone starts the neighborhood watch. Someone creates the parents’ group or the tenants’ association or the local chapter of an organization that matters. That person is a builder.

Political participation beyond voting. Voting is necessary but it is the floor, not the ceiling. Organizing is building. Canvassing is building. Phone banking is building. Fundraising for candidates who represent your interests is building. Running for office yourself is building. These are the unglamorous, persistent activities that translate civic energy into electoral and legislative outcomes. Democracy is not a spectator sport, and it is not something that happens to you every four years in November. It is work, and the work is building.

Building at scale, not just locally. This is the part that most calls to action leave out. Yes, build locally. But also build the connections, the coalitions, the organizational infrastructure that links local efforts to state and national power. Build political organizations that can contest elections at every level. Build advocacy networks that can shape federal policy. Build the kind of institutional muscle that the conservative movement built in the 1970s and 1980s, but in service of democratic renewal rather than corporate consolidation.

Community wealth initiatives, worker cooperatives, local mutual aid networks: these are genuine alternatives to extractive capitalism, and they represent some of the most important building happening in America today. But they are fundamentally constrained by local economic capacity. A cooperative can only grow as large as the local economy can support. Without connection to national resource allocation systems, these initiatives will always be fragile. What they need is systematic federal support: access to zero-interest public loans, federal job guarantee programs that distribute national resources through state and local governments to address community needs, universal basic assets that give everyone access to healthcare, education, housing, and capital as economic building blocks. The GI Bill and the Federal Housing Administration proved what happens when systematic federal investment creates the foundation for broad prosperity: homeownership rates went from 43% in 1940 to 64% by 1960, and an entire middle class was created. That was not an accident. It was built. And the same kind of systematic support is what local building efforts need today to become genuinely competitive alternatives to corporate power.

Be open to new frameworks for doing it. We do not have to accept the existing two-party system that has been co-opted by the billionaire class and no longer serves the people. The Opportunity Economy Toolkit: What You Need to Unleash America’s Promise laid out other frameworks we can build against, other ways to organize economic and political life that put working people first. The legal framework that creates systematic wealth extraction can be changed through democratic action: updating gold-standard-era laws that impose artificial fiscal constraints, strengthening antitrust enforcement to restore genuine market competition, reforming tax rules that systematically transfer wealth upward. Because this system was built through laws, it can be dismantled through changing laws. The people who are concentrating power are not limiting themselves to local action. They are building at every scale simultaneously. Builders who care about democracy need to do the same.

And every one of these systems, from the local to the federal, should be built with the same institutional practices baked in from the start: outcome measures so citizens can tell whether it’s working, transparency so the process is visible, accountability so failure can be corrected, and disclosure so everyone knows who is influencing what. These are not nice-to-haves. They are what separate democratic systems from captured ones. They are what makes the difference between building for people and building for power.

Mentorship and civic education. This one is personal for me. I wrote in the previous essay about civic illiteracy, about how many Americans were never taught that living alongside people different from themselves is a core requirement of the entire project. That education has to come from somewhere. If the schools aren’t doing it well enough, the builders have to do it. Teaching younger people what the country actually is, the plurality, the compromise, the shared project of self-governance, is some of the most important building work available right now. It is slow. It is invisible. And it is how you change a country over a generation.

None of these things will get you followers. None of them will go viral. None of them will produce the dopamine hit of a perfectly worded critique that racks up likes. They will produce something else: something that exists in the world that didn’t exist before, something that will still be there when the next news cycle has moved on.

Closing

I want to end with the difficulty, not the inspiration.

The builder is not a hero in the dramatic sense. There is no montage. There is no crowd chanting your name. The builder is the person who shows up to the school board meeting on a Tuesday night when they could be home. The builder is the person who makes calls for a candidate they believe in, knowing they might lose. The builder is the person who starts something that might not work, and keeps going when it isn’t working yet. The builder is the person who does unglamorous work because the work needs doing and nobody else is doing it.

That last part is the whole point. Nobody else is doing it. Nobody is coming. No institution, no leader, no movement is going to arrive fully formed and fix what is broken. The democratic infrastructure of this country was built by ordinary people who decided to build, and it will be rebuilt the same way or it will not be rebuilt at all. That is not a rallying cry. It is a statement of fact. Every generation of Americans that successfully expanded self-governance did so because enough individuals decided to accept the cost of building and got to work. The ones who waited for someone else to do it are not remembered, because nothing happened while they waited.

That is the hardest thing to sustain. Not outrage, which burns hot and then burns out. Not criticism, which feeds on what others have done. Not apathy, which requires nothing. But the steady, patient, often unrewarded decision to build something, knowing the results may not arrive in your lifetime.

Every generation of Americans has faced a version of this choice. Some rose to it. Some didn’t. The people who built the labor movement, the civil rights infrastructure, the public education system, the community institutions that held towns and cities together, those people were not guaranteed success when they started. They built anyway.

This is what I believe: criticizing is easy. Building is hard. The country has always needed builders more than it has needed critics. It needs them now more than it has in a long time. The democratic processes that make this country a republic are weakening. The concentration of power into fewer hands is accelerating. The slide toward a world where a handful of people and corporations control the systems everyone depends on is not slowing down. And the mechanism of that slide is precise: economic insecurity makes people politically exploitable. When you are fragile, you cannot afford to take time off work to vote, cannot risk your job by organizing, cannot reject exploitative employment because you need any income. The concentration of wealth does not just create inequality. It creates compliance. It creates a population too precarious to resist. The only thing that reverses that is building the institutions that create economic security, because economic security is what creates political independence. When people have a foundation, they can take risks, reject bad deals, participate in democracy, and demand accountability. That is why the willingness to be a builder, to accept the cost and the loneliness and the slow timelines and the lack of recognition, is the most authentically American posture there is. Not because Americans have always lived up to it. They haven’t. But because every time this country has actually become better, it was because someone decided to build.

And the builders who last, the ones whose work outlives them, are the ones who build systems that can be seen into, measured, corrected, and held to account. Outcome measures. Transparency. Accountability. Disclosure. These are not bureaucratic checklists. They are what makes a system democratic rather than just powerful. They are the difference between building something that serves people and building something that controls them. The builders this country needs are the ones who build with those practices as the foundation, because systems without them always, eventually, get captured by the people with the most to hide.

More than anything else, to save democracy, you have to adopt and sustain a builder mentality and turn it into action. The mentality comes first. It is the shift from “someone should fix this” to “I will build what is needed to fix this.” It is the move from consumer of political content to producer of political infrastructure. It is the foundational orientation that makes all the other work possible. Without the mentality, the actions are scattered and unsustainable. With the mentality, the actions compound over time into institutions that last.

That decision is not a feeling. It is not an identity. It is a practice. And nobody is coming to make it for you. It starts with what you do tomorrow.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

What Hope Looked Like

I am a child of immigrants, born and raised in the United States. Growing up in the 1970s and ’80s, I absorbed an unwavering belief in certain truths about America. I believed the country could always be improved. I believed Americans worked together to make that happen. I believed our commitment to democracy, plurality, and accountability was unshakable. I believed the rule of law came first, and that improving the systems delivering transparency, value, and accountability was our governing focus. These weren’t abstract political concepts. They were the foundation of what it meant to be American.

It wasn’t until I traveled to my parents’ home country of Sri Lanka as a young person that I understood how unusual this confidence was. The lifestyle differences were striking, but what affected me most deeply was encountering a settled hopelessness I had never known in America. Not just poverty or political instability, but something more fundamental: a resignation that the system was what it was, that ordinary people were not its authors, and that the distance between the governed and the governing was simply a fact of life. People survived. They adapted. But they did not, in any widespread way, seem to believe they could change the architecture of their own societies.

America, by contrast, carried something I had not previously been able to name. Imperfect, contradictory, often frustrating, the country nonetheless embodied an active, almost combative conviction that it belonged to its people and that its people could reshape it. This was the American quality that struck me as genuinely exceptional, the one I had grown up inside without recognizing.

That quality was hope. Hope that carries an obligation to act.

In 2025, I felt like the country died. I felt I had been wrong about all of it.

For many Americans, that hope has eroded and evaporated. Understanding why matters more than mourning. American hope was never just a feeling. It was supported by systems: systems of governance that made citizen participation meaningful, systems of information that made informed participation possible. Those systems have broken down. And as they have broken, the hope they once sustained has broken with them.

This is my attempt to diagnose how that happened by examining the breakdown of civic infrastructure, the information and governance systems that once made democratic participation meaningful. I’ve written elsewhere about how 50 years of economic myths delivered Americans into technofeudalism. This essay examines the civic dimension of that collapse: how the systems that sustained hope in self-governance have broken down, and what rebuilding would require.

The Founding as Infrastructure

The American Revolution was an act of design, not just rebellion. The founders didn’t just declare independence. They built a system to make the relationship between citizens and government real and ongoing.

The Declaration of Independence, the 1776 document that announced America’s break from Britain, says governments get “their just powers from the consent of the governed.” The Constitution that followed was how they made that consent more than words. It was the machinery to make it work in practice.

Take the First Amendment. Free speech, free press, freedom to assemble and petition the government – these weren’t decorative. They were infrastructure. They were the channels citizens needed to stay informed, organize around shared problems, and hold power accountable.

The founders understood protest not as a threat to order but as essential feedback infrastructure. Thomas Jefferson wrote that “the spirit of resistance to government is so valuable on certain occasions, that I wish it to be always kept alive.” The right to assemble, to petition, to protest – these weren’t concessions. They were designed channels through which citizens could warn their government when it strayed from their consent. This is democracy’s feedback loop built into the architecture.

James Madison, one of the Constitution’s primary architects, understood that disagreement was inevitable in a free society. Federalist 10, one of a series of essays written to explain and defend the new Constitution, lays this out clearly: people will form factions, they will fight over competing interests, and that’s normal. The constitutional system was designed to handle that conflict productively rather than suppress it.

The checks and balances between branches. Representative democracy. Independent courts. These weren’t philosophical preferences. They were deliberate design choices meant to prevent any single interest from capturing government permanently.

Some infrastructure was built through precedent rather than written rules. When George Washington stepped down after two terms, the act was revolutionary – leaders simply did not voluntarily give up power. When John Adams lost the 1800 election and peacefully transferred power to his political opponent Thomas Jefferson, he established what would become foundational infrastructure: the peaceful transfer of power between rivals. This wasn’t in the Constitution. It became infrastructure through practice, through leaders choosing to honor the system over their own ambitions.

The system was also, from the beginning, built on compromise. The Constitution itself was a negotiated document: imperfect, requiring each side to give up something for a shared political life to be possible. The idea that a nation of profoundly different people, with different religions, different economies, different cultures, and different visions of the good life, could govern themselves together was never assumed to be easy. It was understood to be difficult, and the constitutional structure was the attempt to make that difficulty manageable. Pluralism – living alongside difference – was not an afterthought. It was the founding problem the entire system was designed to solve.

As I explored in The Politics of Stakeholder Society, this battle over who deserves stakeholder status has been woven into American society from the very beginning. The most fundamental expression of this divide was slavery, which represented the starkest possible version of conditional stakeholding: human beings categorically excluded from any form of social membership based on race. The founding generation’s compromise with slavery embedded conditional stakeholding into the Constitution itself. This foundational contradiction, between universal principles and conditional practice, has never been fully resolved.

The founders understood something essential: you cannot teach every citizen to think deeply about governance, but you can build that thinking into systems. The constitutional structure embeds their hard-won insights about competing interests, power, and accountability into systems that any citizen can use. You do not need to reinvent the wheel every generation. This is why they built infrastructure rather than just writing philosophy.

This is the infrastructure of hope: the systems that make action meaningful. Functioning systems give citizens reason to believe engagement matters. Broken systems take that reason away.

Hope in Action: What Functional Systems Looked Like

American history shows that sustained collective action has repeatedly achieved outcomes that seemed impossible when they started. But these achievements did not happen in a vacuum. They happened within a context where the basic infrastructure of self-governance, however imperfect, was still working.

The abolition movement succeeded in part because it could organize publicly, publish freely, and build coalitions across state lines. The information environment, for all its biases and limitations, allowed activists to make their case to a broad public and shift opinion over time. Women’s suffrage advocates sustained their campaign for decades, building organizations, publishing newspapers, and lobbying legislators, all within a system where those activities could add up to political change. The labor movement secured workplace protections through strikes, organizing, and political advocacy that connected directly to getting laws passed.

The Civil Rights Movement of the 1950s and 1960s, when Black Americans organized to end legal segregation and secure equal rights, provides the clearest example. Activists used sustained campaigns of protests, boycotts, sit-ins, and civil disobedience. The Montgomery Bus Boycott, a year-long refusal to use segregated public transit in Alabama, became a defining moment. The sit-in movement spread to dozens of cities. Freedom Riders, activists who rode interstate buses into segregated Southern states to challenge segregation laws, faced brutal violence.

But critically, these actions were visible. Television brought the violence of segregation into American living rooms. Newspapers carried the moral argument. The connection between citizen action and public awareness was intact: imperfectly, unevenly, but it worked. That visibility is what created the political pressure that made landmark legislation achievable: the Civil Rights Act of 1964, which outlawed discrimination based on race, and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which prohibited racial discrimination in voting.

Each of these movements succeeded, and they expanded the circle of who belonged to the American political project. They did not shrink the country. They made it larger. And they did so through the very mechanisms the founders built: citizens organizing, petitioning, protesting, and demanding that the gap between stated ideals and lived reality be closed. The systems worked, not perfectly, but well enough to translate sustained collective will into political change.

This same framework of economic security enabling political action remains central to any path forward. As I argue in Introducing Opportunity Economics, when people have healthcare, education, housing stability, and baseline income security, they’re freed to take meaningful risks: start businesses, pursue education, build community, or engage in sustained political action without being forced into survival mode.

The Break: How the Infrastructure Came Apart

The systems that once supported American civic engagement have not disappeared overnight. They have degraded through a combination of technological disruption, institutional erosion, and the deliberate actions of interests that benefit from a less informed, less engaged citizenry. Understanding this degradation is essential to understanding why so many Americans have lost faith in the possibility of political change.

The Information Environment

The pre-digital information landscape was no golden age. Yellow journalism (the sensationalist, often misleading newspaper reporting of the late 1800s), propaganda, and the gatekeeping power of wealthy media owners were all real features of American public life. But the structure of information created a rough shared reality that digitalization shattered.

A citizen reading a newspaper in 1960 might encounter bias, but they shared a common set of facts with their neighbors. Disagreements were about what those facts meant, not about whether basic realities existed.

The internet shattered that structure. Social media platforms did not simply add new channels for information. They changed the rules of the game entirely. Algorithms replaced editors. Clicks and shares, not accuracy or public value, became what mattered. The business model rewards content that provokes strong emotions: outrage, fear, tribal loyalty. The result is an information environment that actively works against the kind of shared facts that informed citizenship requires.

I detailed this dynamic extensively in The Parasite’s Dilemma, which examines how digital platforms, the creator economy, and AI are eating away at democracy’s knowledge foundation. The systems that once turned research and reporting into reliable public information have been dismantled by wave after wave of digital disruption.

The scale of extraction is staggering: Google and Facebook together captured approximately 60% of all digital advertising revenue by 2020, while newspaper advertising revenue fell from $49 billion in 2000 to under $9 billion by 2020. Newsroom employment dropped by more than half over the same period, from roughly 71,000 journalists in 2000 to around 31,000 by 2020.

The consequences are not abstract. Pew Research Center has documented a widening gap in basic factual knowledge between Americans who consume information primarily through traditional versus social media channels. Research from MIT’s Media Lab found that false news stories spread on social media six times faster than verified ones, and that the most viral misinformation tends to be emotionally charged political content.

Americans increasingly inhabit separate informational realities, not just holding different opinions but encountering different facts. When citizens cannot agree on what is true, they cannot meaningfully deliberate about what should be done. And when deliberation breaks down, the feedback loop between informed public opinion and responsive governance is severed.

Evidence and reasoning are not abstract intellectual luxuries. They are the decision-making tools that make democratic, diverse, inclusive societies possible. As I wrote in The Parasite’s Dilemma: “In diverse societies where people hold different values and competing interests, evidence-based reasoning provides the essential common language for productive disagreement and collective problem-solving.” This epistemic infrastructure – the foundation for knowing what is true – is what we are losing.

Governance Systems

The decay of government systems has been slower and less visible than the collapse of the information environment, but it matters just as much. Several failures have accumulated over decades to produce a system that feels, and in many ways is, less responsive to ordinary citizens than it once was.

Gerrymandering, the practice of drawing voting district boundaries to favor one party, has distorted democracy at the state and federal level. It allows politicians to choose their voters rather than voters choosing their representatives. The result is a legislature that systematically underrepresents large portions of the public and overrepresents narrow interests.

The influence of money in politics has deepened since the Supreme Court’s 2010 Citizens United decision, which allowed corporations and outside groups to spend unlimited amounts on political campaigns. The practical effect is that candidates increasingly shape their positions around what donors want rather than what voters need. Lobbying spending has grown enormously, and the revolving door between regulatory agencies and the industries they are supposed to oversee has made genuine oversight hard to sustain.

The cost of running for office has risen to levels that effectively exclude anyone without access to significant wealth or well-funded networks. This narrows the pool of candidates and, with it, the range of perspectives that enter governance.

The process by which laws get turned into actual rules has become opaque. Citizens affected by policy decisions often have no practical way to understand how those decisions were made, who influenced them, or how to challenge them.

The Loop

These two failures, in information and in governance, do not operate independently. They reinforce each other in a cycle that produces exactly the helplessness and disengagement we now observe.

When information is fragmented and unreliable, citizens cannot accurately assess how well their government is serving them. Without accurate assessments, they cannot make informed demands for change. Without informed demands, government becomes less responsive, not necessarily because officials are corrupt, but because the signal from citizens is too noisy to act on. And when government becomes less responsive, the belief that participation is futile deepens, which reduces participation further.

This loop attacks the very foundation of how we know what’s true. The information systems I described in The Parasite’s Dilemma once maintained the shared facts that democracy needs. Without reliable ways to tell solid evidence from clever manipulation, democratic societies lose their ability to make decisions based on reality.

The internet did not cause this cycle. But it accelerated every part of it. It destabilized the information environment. It amplified the voices of those who benefit when citizens check out. And it provided a convenient substitute: social media outrage, viral commentary, political identity as performance. These things feel like participation while actually replacing it.

The Consequence: Victimhood, Pluralism, and Civic Illiteracy

Understanding these structural failures changes how we interpret today’s political landscape. What looks like a widespread embrace of victimhood is actually a result of broken systems. When civic engagement stops producing results, people stop engaging. That’s predictable, not a character flaw.

When systems fail to deliver, people stop believing in them. That’s rational.

As I explored in 50 Years of Economic Myths Have Delivered Americans Into Technofeudalism, this creates what I call the “downward political cycle”: economic insecurity makes people politically exploitable, which leads to worse conditions, which creates more economic fragility, which makes people even more politically exploitable. The spiral continues toward what can only be described as modern serfdom.

Citizens who have watched their participation produce nothing will eventually conclude that engagement is pointless. The information they relied on was unreliable. The government they tried to influence had already been captured by other interests. The connections between action and outcome have been severed. The victimhood narrative and the helplessness that now pervade American political life are predictable outcomes. They are what happens when the infrastructure stops working and no one repairs it.

This learned helplessness is not irrational. As I wrote in Technofeudalism: “We can’t recognize that our economic fragility is being systematically manufactured because politicians from both parties have conditioned us to accept the same limiting beliefs about what’s economically possible.” Both Republicans and Democrats operate within a framework of economic myths, deficit reduction mythology, hard money deception, “crowding out” fiction, that constrain our imagination about alternatives. The bipartisan nature of this conditioning is what makes it so effective and so difficult to escape.

The Deeper Problem: Civic Illiteracy

But there is a layer beneath the systemic failure that deserves honest acknowledgment.

A significant number of Americans, most visibly on the political right but not only there, never learned that living alongside people different from themselves is a core American value. They were not taught it as such.

Civic education in America has long been shallow, focused on the mechanics of government: how a bill becomes a law, how many justices sit on the Supreme Court. What it has failed to teach is why: why a nation of profoundly different people agreed to be governed together, and what that agreement demands of each of them. The result is citizens who can recite the structure of government but cannot explain why coexistence with people unlike themselves is a requirement of the entire project, not a grudging concession.

The framework I developed in The Politics of Stakeholder Society helps explain why this matters so deeply. American politics today is a battle between two competing ideas about who belongs. One view says everyone affected by our collective decisions deserves a voice in making them. The other says belonging must be earned by meeting certain requirements.

When people do not understand that pluralism is foundational, any expansion of who counts feels like a loss. More voices in the public square become a threat rather than the system working as designed. As I wrote in Stakeholder Society: “Neither side sees itself as ‘exclusionary.’ Each believes they’re protecting inclusion, just different versions of it.”

The country, in this framing, is not a shared project but a possession. Any change to its composition is experienced as dispossession. This is not victimization. It is the experience of sharing space, misinterpreted by a citizenry that was never taught why sharing space is what America is.

The Civil Rights Misunderstanding

Among those in my generation who became conservatives, some view the Civil Rights era as a mistake outright. But even those who do not oppose it seem to have absorbed it as a mechanical, transactional event that simply happened, rather than understanding what it actually was: people demanding the ability to share space, to live their lives in a system that treated them the same way it treated everyone else, and the decades of work that followed to integrate them not as special cases but as ordinary citizens.

This misunderstanding is revealing. If you see the Civil Rights movement as just something that occurred in history rather than as a demonstration of how democratic participation is supposed to work, of course you will not recognize that same process as legitimate when it happens now. The work of organizing, mobilizing, and demanding change looks like disruption rather than democracy in action.

What the Conversations Reveal

I have had conservatives describe, with genuine frustration, how they dislike when people come to this country, don’t assimilate, and then use “the machinery of democracy” to advocate for changes that support their desires and views. When I pointed out that what they had just described is how democracy works, that this is what the country is, the response was not recognition but resistance.

Those conversations revealed something uncomfortable: many contemporary conservatives, particularly within the MAGA movement, don’t actually object to authoritarianism. They embrace it as a way to preserve their comfort and privilege against people they see as interlopers. They want their preferred outcomes without doing the hard work democracy requires – the organizing, mobilizing, and persuading that those “other people” actually did. They skip the effort and reach straight for authoritarian tools.

This is not a fringe position. It is a widespread misunderstanding of what democratic pluralism demands. It reflects a civic education that never taught them that the discomfort of coexistence and the labor of persuasion ARE the system.

The Reinforcing Dynamic

This civic illiteracy did not exist in isolation. It was sustained by an information environment that, for all its flaws, at least operated within a shared factual framework. The internet has replaced that environment with one that actively fragments understanding. It sorts citizens into information bubbles that confirm what they already believe, isolates them from challenging perspectives, and rewards outrage over comprehension.

The civic illiteracy and the broken information systems are mutually reinforcing.

Condemning Americans for losing faith in a system that has stopped working misses the point. The real question is: what would need to change for engagement to feel, and actually be, worthwhile again?

The Solution Path: Rebuilding the Infrastructure

If the problem is structural, the solution must be too. This is not about attitude adjustment or civic virtue campaigns, though both have their place. It is about rebuilding, or building for the first time, the systems that make self-governance possible. The path forward is not a single policy but a set of connected demands addressing both how we get information and how our government works.

Rebuilding Information Systems

The first and most urgent task is restoring a shared basis in fact. Citizens need reliable information they can trust when making political judgments. This does not require suppressing speech or eliminating disagreement. It requires changing the rules and incentives of the platforms through which most Americans now get their news.

Platform accountability is the starting point. Social media companies make money by keeping you on their sites as long as possible, which means rewarding sensationalism, outrage, and division. We need regulations that force platforms to reveal how their algorithms decide what to show you and how advertising money shapes those decisions. This would let citizens, researchers, and lawmakers understand and challenge how information gets distributed. This is the same kind of accountability we require of other industries that affect public welfare.

Algorithmic transparency would let people see why they are being shown what they are being shown. Right now, hidden systems decide what political information you see, and those systems are designed to keep you scrolling, not to keep you informed. We cannot have meaningful democratic debate if we do not know how our information is being filtered.

Investment in journalism and civic media is equally important. The collapse of local news has left enormous gaps in what people know about how their local and state governments actually work. Social media stole the advertising money that newspapers used to depend on. Rebuilding local journalism, whether through public funding, nonprofit structures, or new business models, is not a luxury. It is civic infrastructure.

Media literacy education, embedded in schools and sustained throughout civic life, prepares citizens to navigate an information environment that will never again be as simple as it once was. Understanding how algorithms work, how misinformation spreads, and how to evaluate sources is as fundamental a civic skill as understanding how a bill becomes a law.

Rebuilding Governance Systems

The second task is restoring the ways citizens hold power accountable: making government more transparent, more accessible, and more responsive to the people it serves.

Independent redistricting commissions, already adopted in a number of states, take the power to draw voting districts away from politicians. This restores the basic principle that voters choose their representatives rather than politicians choosing their voters. This is one of the most concrete and achievable reforms available, and it works.

Campaign finance reform, whether through public financing of elections, stricter disclosure of who gives money, or legislative responses to Citizens United, addresses the unfair advantage that wealth gives in politics. The goal is not to eliminate money from politics entirely, which may not be achievable, but to reduce how much policy gets shaped by what donors want rather than what voters need.

Expanding access to civic participation means lowering barriers to voting and running for office. Automatic voter registration, expanded early voting, and ranked-choice voting (where you rank candidates in order of preference, so voting for a third-party candidate does not help your least favorite win) all make participation easier without compromising election integrity.

Transparency in how laws and regulations get made, through open lobbying disclosures, public comment periods that are genuinely considered, and accessible records of how policy decisions happen, gives citizens the information they need to hold their representatives accountable. Democracy requires not just the ability to vote but the ability to know what you are voting on and why.

The Economic Foundation

What both rebuilding efforts require is a new way of thinking about what we can afford.

As I developed in Introducing Opportunity Economics, the real question is never “can we afford it” but whether we have the workers, materials, and know-how to build it. Politicians from both parties invoke “fiscal responsibility” to explain why we cannot have functioning civic infrastructure. But this is mythology, not economics. The federal government creates money when it spends. The real constraints are workers, materials, and organizational capacity, and we have all three sitting idle while our civic systems crumble.

Closing the Loop

These reforms are not independent proposals. They are components of a single system.

Better information enables more informed demands for governance reform. Better governance produces more responsive institutions, which give citizens reason to believe their participation matters, which sustains engagement, which sustains the demand for continued improvement.

This is the loop that digitalization broke. It is also the loop that can be rebuilt, but only if Americans demand its rebuilding. And that demand is itself an act of the engaged citizenship this essay has been describing.

The framework I outlined in Defending Democratic Capitalism Through Capacity Stewardship provides a model for what demanding looks like in practice. The idea is straightforward: we need to make evidence-based decisions about what markets should provide versus what government should provide, understand the real tradeoffs of each approach, actively manage both to serve people, and demand the institutional quality that makes good decisions possible.

This means demanding Congress be active and accountable, demanding politicians explain rather than perform, demanding journalism investigate, demanding universities produce valid knowledge, and demanding science operate with integrity.

As I wrote in that essay: “Demanding is not separate from stewardship. Demanding IS stewardship. You can’t steward institutions you don’t demand quality from.”

Addressing the Bootstrap Problem

There’s an obvious tension here.

This essay argues that citizens have disengaged because the systems no longer reward engagement, then proposes that citizens re-engage to fix those systems. This is a chicken-and-egg problem. You cannot wait for the systems to improve before demanding that they improve, because the systems will not improve without the demand.

That tension is the path. Look at what we’ve just outlined: platform accountability, independent redistricting, campaign finance reform, transparency in how laws get made. These aren’t abstract hopes. They’re concrete demands anyone who believes in self-governance can make right now, at every level of government. You don’t need to wait for the system to prove itself first. The bootstrap problem has an answer: start demanding.

Every reform movement has had to act before knowing whether the system would respond. Every significant reform in American history began with citizens acting before the system had proven itself responsive to their action, before the outcome was guaranteed, before the feedback loop was repaired. The Civil Rights Movement did not wait for the federal government to voluntarily dismantle segregation. The labor movement did not wait for corporations to voluntarily improve working conditions. They acted into the resistance, and the resistance eventually gave way.

The current moment is no different in kind. It is only different in the nature of the systems that need to change.

None of this is easy. Changing how social media works will face resistance from some of the most powerful companies in the world. Campaign finance reform will face resistance from those who benefit from the current system. These are not problems with clean, quick solutions. But the direction is clear. The alternative, accepting that the infrastructure of self-governance is permanently broken, is surrender, not realism.

Conclusion: Hope as a Demand, Not a Feeling

I return to where this essay began: the observation that hope was the thing that felt different about Americans. Hope as a posture toward the future carrying an obligation to act, not mere optimism.

That hope was never irrational. It was grounded in something real: a set of systems, however imperfect, that translated citizen engagement into political change. When those systems worked, Americans had reason to believe their participation mattered. When those systems began to fail, when information fragmented, when government became less transparent, when the connections between citizens and power were severed, the hope began to erode. Not because Americans changed, but because the ground they were standing on shifted beneath them.

Rebuilding that ground is the work of this moment: clear-eyed assessment of what is broken and concrete outline of repair, not sentiment or nostalgia.

The Americans who have lost faith in the system are not wrong to feel that something has gone wrong. They are wrong only in believing that the wrongness is permanent, that the systems cannot be rebuilt, that participation cannot again be made meaningful, that the country has passed beyond the reach of the people who live in it.

The path forward requires what I have elsewhere called “democracy deepening,” not just expanding who participates but transforming the quality of that participation. As I wrote in Defending Democratic Capitalism Through Capacity Stewardship: “From ‘vote and hope’ to ‘steward and demand.’ From passive citizenship to active program management.” This expands middle class power, which is what concentrated wealth fears most.

It has not passed beyond our reach. But it will, if enough Americans decide that the brokenness is someone else’s problem to fix.

I am not naive about who this essay is for. Some Americans, the true MAGA enthusiasts, are beyond reach in my lifetime. They have abandoned the foundational values of self-governance, plurality, and democratic accountability. But there are many others who voted for President Trump, who feel betrayed by the current system, who sense something has gone fundamentally wrong, yet still believe in the governing philosophy that founded this country. They still believe in America’s role as an example of government of the people, by the people, and for the people, as President Lincoln described it. This essay is for them.

The path forward is not about restoring America to some fantasy of global greatness. It is about building a country that is great for its people. A place where Americans can live lives that are free, safe, secure, prosperous, and comfortable. Together. Not as isolated consumers of personalized content streams, not as atomized individuals competing in rigged markets, but as citizens who share a common project of self-governance.

The framework for rebuilding exists. Opportunity Economics provides the economic vision: an economy where everyone has genuine opportunities to build wealth and control their economic lives, where economic security enables achievement rather than suppressing it, and where coalitions can form across traditional political lines around shared material interests. The political analysis in Stakeholder Society clarifies what is actually at stake: whether America returns to building systems that support human flourishing, treat everyone as equals, and cultivate tolerance and respect for difference, or continues down the path of authoritarianism, hierarchy, and fear. And Capacity Stewardship provides the model for what active citizenship looks like: citizens who understand how systems actually work, who demand quality from institutions, and who refuse to accept helplessness as the permanent condition of American life.

Hope is a demand, not a feeling. And the most American thing there is, the thing that has always set this country apart from the resigned and the governed, is the refusal to stop making it.

That refusal, when it moves from feeling to action, has a name. And it has always been the most difficult and most necessary thing Americans have been asked to do.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

The debate over the U.S. military operation in Venezuela follows predictable lines. Conservatives defend it through geopolitical necessity. Progressives condemn it through moral principle. Both sides debate whether it’s justified. Neither asks the diagnostic question: What does this operation reveal about America’s condition?

The paradox is stark: We claim we can’t afford to compete with China through infrastructure investment and development partnerships. But we can afford military operations seizing foreign assets while bypassing constitutional governance.

We can’t afford cooperation. But we can afford force.

We can’t afford to build. But we can afford to take.

This isn’t about foreign policy. It’s a symptom diagnosing systemic failure that threatens everything America claims to value: freedom, democracy, economic opportunity, and the middle class itself.

For fifty years, we’ve operated under a fundamental misunderstanding of our own economic system. We run a soft money economy where the federal government creates dollars when it spends, constrained only by productive capacity. But we’ve applied hard money mythology claiming government must balance budgets like households.

This systematic misapplication created artificial austerity preventing strategic investment. While China built 40,000 kilometers of high-speed rail, we let bridges collapse. While they expanded university enrollment from 1.4 million to 40 million students, we created student debt crisis. While they developed manufacturing capacity, we offshored production.

The mythology didn’t fail randomly. It was deployed selectively by extractive elites who captured our institutions. Austerity for public investment that builds middle-class wealth. Abundance for policies inflating asset values they own. The result: strategic weakness forcing us to use military force where we lack capacity for partnership, and accelerating wealth concentration destroying the middle class.

Venezuela diagnoses where this leads. Isolated empire abroad using force because we destroyed capacity for cooperation. Neo-feudalism at home where birth determines outcomes and democracy becomes theater. The people who profited from fifty years of prevented investment now consolidating authoritarian control.

But the diagnosis also reveals the cure: capacity stewardship grounded in understanding economic reality rather than accepting mythology. The choice being made right now determines whether we preserve democratic capitalism or accept neo-feudal decline.

How Hard Money Mythology Created Strategic Weakness

For fifty years, Americans have been told the federal government works like a household. It must collect taxes before spending. Deficits burden our children. The national debt will bankrupt us. Therefore, “we can’t afford” infrastructure, education, healthcare, or strategic investment in your future.

If you’re a fiscal conservative worried about government waste and debt, that concern is valid. The problem isn’t your instinct for fiscal responsibility. The problem is applying household budget logic to a government that operates completely differently. We’ve been having the wrong debate for fifty years.

This story is completely false for the United States federal government.

As I detail in Why Monetary Systems Matter, the U.S. operates a soft money system where the federal government creates dollars when it spends. Not metaphorically. Literally creates them through Federal Reserve keystrokes. Federal taxes don’t “fund” anything because dollars must exist before they can be taxed. Taxes remove money from circulation to manage inflation. The national debt isn’t a burden to repay. It’s the accounting record of dollars government spent that haven’t been taxed back yet: the financial savings of the private sector.

Federal Reserve Chairman Beardsley Ruml explained this in 1946: “Taxes for Revenue Are Obsolete.” Every Treasury operations manager knows this. It’s been operational reality since 1971 when we ended the gold standard.

The real constraint on federal spending isn’t money. It’s productive capacity: workers, materials, technology, organizational capability. If we have construction workers and materials sitting idle, we have capacity to build. The money is not the limiting factor.

For fifty years, we’ve applied household budget logic to a government that creates currency. We’ve treated real productive capacity we could deploy as if it were constrained by fictional budget limits. Every time we said “we can’t afford it,” we were making a choice based on false constraints.

The consequences were catastrophic for American strategic position.

While China invested in infrastructure, we said we couldn’t afford repairs. Bridges collapsed in Minneapolis and Pittsburgh. Roads deteriorated to C- grade. Water systems failed in Flint and Jackson. We had construction workers, materials, engineering expertise. We left that capacity idle because mythology convinced us we couldn’t afford to deploy it.

While China expanded education, we created debt crisis. University enrollment exploded from 1.4 million to 40 million students through sustained public investment. We made college unaffordable. Student debt passed $1.7 trillion, crippling young people at life’s start. We had teachers, facilities, organizational capacity. We starved them because mythology claimed we couldn’t afford investment.

While China developed manufacturing capacity and supply chains making them essential to global production, we offshored production and hollowed out industrial regions. Communities that built American manufacturing strength became economic disaster zones. We had workers, industrial knowledge, domestic capacity. We abandoned them because mythology justified the choice as inevitable.

While China invested in research generating today’s innovations from 1990s commitments, we cut funding forcing short-term thinking. Basic science generating breakthrough innovations got starved. We had world-leading scientists and institutions. We denied them resources because mythology claimed we needed immediate returns.

While China built Belt and Road partnerships across 150 countries through patient development finance, we applied sanctions and military pressure. They created influence through actual infrastructure and partnership. We tried countering with force because we didn’t build capacity for development cooperation.

The pattern is clear: China spent fifty years understanding what patient strategic investment means. We spent fifty years believing mythology that prevented us from competing. For forty years, we watched China’s methodical rise while convincing ourselves we couldn’t afford to compete. Not because we lacked advantages. We had more wealth, better technology, stronger institutions, global partnerships, and the world’s reserve currency providing unlimited capacity to mobilize productive resources.

We had every advantage China lacked. We chose not to use them because mythology convinced us we couldn’t afford what China built from a weaker starting position.

Now we face the consequences Venezuela diagnoses. We can’t compete through patient investment because mythology prevented building capacity. When China establishes influence through infrastructure and partnership, we resort to what mythology never prevented: military force.

But the mythology wasn’t deployed randomly or consistently. Understanding its selective application reveals who profited and how they maintain control.

The Selective Mythology: Austerity for You, Abundance for Them

We always “couldn’t afford” infrastructure, education, healthcare, research (anything building broadly shared prosperity and middle-class wealth). But we always could afford military spending ($800+ billion annually, more than the next ten countries combined), corporate tax cuts (the 2017 cuts alone added $1.5 trillion to debt mythology claims threatens us), bank bailouts (trillions materialized instantly when Wall Street collapsed), and quantitative easing inflating asset prices ($4+ trillion pumped into financial markets).

Austerity for public investment that would build competitive capacity and middle-class assets. Abundance for policies benefiting those who already own concentrated wealth.

This selective application reveals mythology’s actual purpose. Not fiscal responsibility but preventing public investment while enabling wealth concentration.

As I show in Why Economic Models Matter, this wasn’t accidental. Models based on hard money thinking consistently make wrong predictions yet dominate policy discussions because they serve political purposes.

The empirical failures are stark. When the Fed expanded its balance sheet 5x through quantitative easing (2008-2014), quantity theory predicted massive inflation. We got a decade of inflation averaging 1.5%, consistently below the 2% target. Japan ran massive deficits for three decades with debt exceeding 250% of GDP. Hard money models predicted funding crisis, runaway inflation, currency collapse. Japan faced persistent deflation, near-zero bond yields, and a strong currency instead. These aren’t minor prediction errors. They’re complete opposite outcomes sustained over decades.

The human cost of applying failed models is measured in suffering. When European policymakers imposed austerity (2010-2015) based on hard money thinking, Greece’s GDP contracted 27% and unemployment hit 28%. Spain saw unemployment reach 26%. Millions lost jobs, homes, futures because policymakers followed models claiming deficit reduction would restore growth. The models were wrong. The suffering was real.

Yet the models persist because they serve political purposes, not because they describe reality.

The models fail systematically. They persist because extractive elites captured institutions that should expose mythology.

Economics departments funded by corporate donors teach hard money thinking as fact. Media consolidation eliminated investigative journalism exposing capture. Universities shifted from public to private funding, serving donor interests over public understanding. Congress was gutted of capacity through “small government” ideology claiming we couldn’t afford legislative infrastructure (staff cut, research offices eliminated, investigative capacity destroyed).

Every institution that should expose mythology was captured to validate it. Every institution that should enable democratic understanding was neutered to serve concentrated power.

Who benefited from prevented investment?

Wall Street financiers profiting from offshoring, financial engineering replacing productive investment, quantitative easing inflating asset values, and deregulation enabling speculation. They funded think tanks teaching mythology, endowed economics department chairs, donated to Republicans and Democrats alike.

Silicon Valley monopolists benefiting from public research they didn’t fund, infrastructure they didn’t build, and educated workers they didn’t train, then lobbying for tax treatment letting them keep gains while avoiding obligations. They bought media companies, funded politicians across the spectrum, deployed mythology when public investment was discussed.

Fossil fuel executives extracting resources while externalizing environmental costs, lobbying against regulation while receiving subsidies, profiting from commodity price spikes while blocking alternative energy investment. They supported candidates from both parties, funded economic research defending their interests, invoked fiscal responsibility to prevent climate investment.

Pharmaceutical companies capturing patent systems, price-gouging captive markets, extracting billions from healthcare costs, then fighting universal coverage claiming we couldn’t afford it. They hired former regulators, donated across party lines, maintained mythology preventing affordable healthcare.

Private equity firms buying companies, loading them with debt, extracting fees, leaving workers and communities with wreckage, facing no accountability for destruction. They employed politicians from both sides after government service, funded research justifying methods, blocked regulation citing fiscal responsibility.

Defense contractors whose profits depended on military spending mythology never constrained. They captured Pentagon procurement, employed retired generals and admirals, spread campaign contributions widely, ensured budgets grew regardless of fiscal crisis rhetoric elsewhere.

The same extractive elites funding both parties. The donor class whose wealth exploded while American competitive capacity degraded and middle-class prosperity disappeared. As I documented in 50 Years of Economic Myths Have Delivered Americans Into Technofeudalism, this capture was systematic, not accidental.

Both parties maintained mythology because their donors profited from it. Republicans deployed it to block all public investment, invoking debt and deficits to prevent infrastructure, education, healthcare, research. Democrats accepted constraints while demanding “pay-fors” that validated mythology’s premise, proposing marginally less austerity rather than challenging false constraints. Neither explained that in a soft money economy, constraints are productive capacity, not money.

The result: fifty years of artificial austerity for public goods combined with abundance for asset owners produced the massive wealth inequality now destabilizing society. Not because inequality is inevitable in capitalism, but because mythology was weaponized to prevent investment in shared prosperity while enabling concentration.

Your community decays because mythology prevents infrastructure investment. Your children face crushing debt because mythology made education unaffordable. Your job disappeared because mythology justified offshoring. Your healthcare costs spiral because mythology blocked universal coverage. Your opportunities shrink because mythology prevented capacity building that would have competed for your labor and built your assets.

Meanwhile, those who already own assets watch wealth multiply through policies mythology never constrained. Stock portfolios inflated by quantitative easing. Real estate values boosted by restricted supply and financialization. Corporate holdings protected by bailouts and tax cuts.

This is how mythology creates neo-feudalism: permanent aristocracy where birth into connected families determines outcomes more than talent or effort. Where your children’s prospects depend on inheriting wealth rather than their abilities. Where education stratifies into systems for different classes. Where healthcare becomes affordable only for those born into families that can pay. Where political power reflects donations rather than votes. Where democracy becomes theater while real decisions happen in donor meetings.

Why retreat to “fiscal discipline” makes things worse

Some see this trajectory and reach for what seems obvious: more fiscal discipline. Balance the budget. Return to sound money. Impose austerity to restore responsibility.

This impulse is exactly backward. We didn’t get strategic weakness and inequality from too little hard money thinking. We got them from applying hard money mythology to a soft money economy for fifty years. More of what caused the disease won’t cure it.

Balanced budget requirements would force even deeper cuts to infrastructure, education, healthcare, research. The strategic weakness Venezuela reveals would accelerate. Sound money principles would prevent the public investment necessary to address inequality. The wealth concentration tearing society apart would intensify as austerity eliminated remaining mechanisms for building middle-class assets.

This pattern isn’t theoretical. During the 2010s, deficit hysteria reached fever pitch. The Tea Party demanded austerity. Simpson-Bowles proposed cuts. Sequestration forced reductions. Both parties competed to show fiscal responsibility. What happened? Infrastructure continued decaying. Education became more unaffordable. Research funding stagnated. China kept building. Strategic weakness accelerated precisely when hard money thinking was most influential. And inequality worsened as austerity hit working families while quantitative easing inflated asset prices the wealthy owned.

The people advocating loudest for hard money discipline are often those who profited most from mythology’s selective application. They want balanced budgets preventing infrastructure and education, but not tax increases reducing their wealth. They invoke fiscal crisis to prevent public investment, but not to constrain policies inflating assets they own. Retreat to hard money thinking means more of the disease, not the cure.

China’s Success Proves Patient Investment Works

The tragedy becomes undeniable when you see what China accomplished while we believed mythology.

China built 40,000 kilometers of high-speed rail connecting cities across the country through multi-decade commitment. We let bridges collapse and roads deteriorate to C- grade because mythology convinced us we couldn’t afford repairs, despite having abundant construction capacity sitting idle.

They expanded university enrollment 28x through sustained public investment in education. We made college increasingly unaffordable and created $1.7 trillion in student debt, despite having teachers, facilities, and organizational capacity to expand access.

They developed manufacturing capacity and supply chains making them essential to global production. We offshored production and hollowed out industrial regions, despite having workers, materials, and industrial knowledge to maintain domestic capacity.

They invested in research generating today’s innovations from 1990s commitments, understanding markets systematically underprovide basic science with decades-long payoffs. We cut funding forcing short-term thinking, despite having world-leading scientists and research institutions.

They built Belt and Road partnerships across 150 countries through patient development finance. We applied sanctions and military pressure, despite having more resources to compete through partnership.

We had every advantage they lacked when they started this journey. More wealth. Better technology. Stronger institutions. Global partnerships. The world’s reserve currency providing unlimited capacity to invest in our future.

We chose not to use those advantages because mythology convinced us we couldn’t afford what China built from a weaker starting position.

As I detail in Defending Democratic Capitalism Through Capacity Stewardship, this absolutely is about democracy versus authoritarianism. China’s success doesn’t prove authoritarianism works better. It proves patient strategic investment works. Moving forward requires more democracy, not less. Citizens must take a more active and informed role, advocating for capacity stewardship grounded in understanding how our economy actually works.

We pioneered this approach after WWII. The GI Bill. Federal Housing Administration. Interstate Highway System. These weren’t market outcomes. They were deliberate policy choices using public resources to build capacity that enabled postwar prosperity. Multi-decade investment coordinated across political transitions, enabled by informed democratic demand understanding government could deploy capacity for public good.

Then we abandoned it because mythology convinced us we couldn’t afford it. The same mythology that now has us launching military operations because we lack capacity for partnership.

Venezuela is the endpoint of fifty years applying hard money mythology to a soft money economy. We destroyed our capacity for strategic competition. When China offers development, we offer force. When we can’t compete through patient investment, we resort to military operations seizing what we can’t win through cooperation.

The people who profited from fifty years of prevented investment now point to the weakness they created as proof democracy can’t compete. They use Venezuela to demonstrate that force is America’s only remaining tool. They claim our strategic failure proves we need their authoritarian solutions, their consolidation of control, their management of decline.

But Venezuela actually diagnoses the opposite. Our strategic weakness results directly from mythology preventing investment that creates competitive strength. China’s success proves patient strategic investment works regardless of political system. Our failure proves mythology preventing such investment weakens nations regardless of their advantages.

The question isn’t whether democracy can compete. The question is whether democracies can free themselves from mythology that prevents competition.

The Choice: Capacity Stewardship or Neo-Feudal Decline

Venezuela forces a stark choice about America’s future.

You can accept the trajectory the operation reveals: isolated empire using force abroad because we destroyed capacity for partnership. Accelerating wealth concentration at home creating permanent aristocracy. Democracy degrading into theater while extractive elites consolidate authoritarian control. Neo-feudalism where birth determines outcomes and your children inherit decline justified by crises that don’t exist.

Or you can understand economic reality and demand strategic renewal based on capacity we have but mythology prevents deploying.

The answer isn’t retreat to more mythology. Balanced budgets. Fiscal discipline. Sound money constraints. That’s more of what caused the disease. We already applied hard money thinking to a soft money economy for fifty years. That created the strategic weakness and inequality Venezuela reveals. More mythology won’t cure problems mythology created.

The answer is capacity stewardship: understanding what kind of economy we actually have and using that understanding to demand different.

Start with foundational clarity: The United States operates a soft money economy where government creates dollars when it spends, constrained by productive capacity and real resources, not budgets or debt. We have abundant productive capacity (workers, materials, technology, organizational capability). The only thing preventing us from using that capacity is mythology convincing us we can’t afford it.

This means the real questions aren’t “can we afford it?” The real questions are: Do we have the capacity to build it? Do we have available workers, materials, engineering knowledge, organizational systems? Which mechanisms work better for which purposes (markets or public provision)? How do we prevent institutional capture while enabling strategic investment?

When someone says “we can’t afford infrastructure,” the response is: “Show me we lack construction workers, materials, engineering knowledge. You can’t? Then we have capacity. The question is whether we choose to deploy it.”

When they invoke the national debt as crisis, the response is: “The national debt is the financial savings of the private sector. Explain why dollars sitting in bank accounts and retirement funds threaten us. You can’t? Then stop using mythology to justify policies serving extractive elites.”

When they demand “pay-fors,” the response is: “Explain why our soft money system needs revenue before spending. Show me where the Constitution requires this. Show me where operational reality supports this claim. You can’t? Then stop accepting hard money constraints that don’t apply to our economy.”

This reframing transforms political discourse from debating within mythology’s constraints to demanding acknowledgment of reality.

Capacity stewardship means three concrete political actions:

First: Spread understanding of soft money reality. Every conversation where someone invokes hard money mythology is an opportunity. Explain that in a soft money economy, the constraint is productive capacity, not money. Point to operational reality: Treasury documentation, Federal Reserve explanations, the fact that we create trillions instantly when needed. Make it personal: your community’s roads decay not because America lacks construction capacity but because mythology prevents deploying it.

Second: Demand based on productive capacity. When politicians claim we can’t afford infrastructure, demand they explain the productive capacity constraint. When they invoke debt as crisis, demand they explain why private sector financial savings threaten us. Organize this demand collectively. Show up at town halls asking capacity questions. Coordinate with others confronting mythology across party lines. Make this demand of Republicans invoking debt to block investment and Democrats demanding pay-fors that validate false constraints.

Third: Prevent institutional capture. Economics departments teaching mythology as fact need transparency about corporate funding shaping research and teaching. Media amplifying rather than investigating mythology needs scrutiny pointing out validation of false constraints. Universities serving donor interests over public understanding need democratic pressure demanding accountability. Congress lacking capacity to investigate or explain reality needs resources restored.

As I lay out in Defending Democratic Capitalism Through Capacity Stewardship, the full framework shows how this works systematically: transparency enabling oversight, accountability ensuring democratic control, structural checks preventing capture, capacity enabling strategic thinking.

This transcends traditional left-right categories because it’s grounded in reality rather than ideology. It works for fiscal responsibility advocates who want real stewardship rather than false constraints leaving capacity idle. For limited government advocates who want accountability rather than the captured dysfunction that mythology enabled. For opportunity advocates who want competitive capacity expanding genuine opportunity rather than extraction justified by false constraints. For strength advocates who want strategic capability rather than the tactical desperation Venezuela diagnoses.

This isn’t about expanding government for its own sake. It’s about government doing what only it can do: creating the conditions for genuine competitive markets, protecting property rights with infrastructure and rule of law, and ensuring no oligarchs can rig the game against honest enterprise.

In Beyond Capitalism vs. Socialism, I explored how the debate isn’t between sound money and fiscal irresponsibility. It’s between understanding what kind of economy we actually have and accepting mythology that serves power. This is about reality versus mythology, understanding versus accepting false constraints, using our actual capacity wisely versus leaving it idle based on lies.

The Stakes: What We’re Actually Choosing

Venezuela isn’t warning of what might happen. It’s revealing what is happening right now.

Abroad: We’re withdrawing from diplomatic strength into isolated imperial stance using force. China offers development. We offer military operations. China thinks strategically over decades. We react tactically through violence. Six NATO nations publicly distanced themselves from U.S. assertions about Greenland (our closest allies hedging against our unpredictability). Alternative payment systems accelerate to route around dollar hegemony we weaponized. The rules-based international order we built persists, but without American leadership because we demonstrated rules only apply to the weak.

At home: The same mythology justifying Venezuela abroad justifies extraction at home. Republicans deploy it to eliminate public investment entirely. Democrats deploy it to limit ambition through means-testing and pay-fors. Both serve extractive elites who profited from prevented investment. Your children’s prospects increasingly depend on whether they’re born into connected families rather than their abilities. Education stratifies into systems for different classes. Healthcare becomes affordable only for those born into wealth. Political power reflects donations rather than votes. Democracy becomes theater while real decisions happen in donor meetings.

This is neo-feudalism consolidating: permanent aristocracy where birth determines outcomes, concentrated wealth operates without democratic constraint, and force substitutes for strategic capacity.

The people who profited from creating this trajectory now claim they’re the only ones who can manage it. They point to strategic weakness they created as proof democracy can’t compete. They invoke inequality they produced as justification for authoritarian solutions. They use mythology that served them for fifty years to justify consolidating the control that mythology enabled.

But understanding what Venezuela diagnoses reveals we can choose differently.

We can understand how monetary systems actually work. See that government creates money constrained by productive capacity we have in abundance, not budgets or debt. Recognize the fifty years of “we can’t afford it” were lies enabled by captured institutions serving extractive elites. Demand the strategic investments mythology prevented.

We can build infrastructure, expand education, provide healthcare, fund research, restore manufacturing, create partnerships, rebuild institutions. We can compete with China through patient strategic investment rather than reacting through military force. We can address inequality through building shared prosperity rather than accepting concentration justified by mythology.

The choice is yours to make right now through the understanding you spread, the demands you make based on reality rather than mythology, the pressure you put on institutions to serve democratic understanding rather than concentrated power.

Every conversation where you explain soft money reality is one less person accepting Venezuela as necessary. Every demand for productive capacity explanation is one less politician hiding behind mythology. Every challenge to institutional capture is one less validation of false constraints.

This is how political action builds. This is how mythology loses its power. This is how Americans reclaim the possibility of using abundant capacity wisely rather than accepting decline justified by lies.

The work starts now. Share the understanding. Make the demands. Challenge the capture. Build the movement. Refuse the trajectory Venezuela reveals. Choose strategic renewal based on reality rather than decline based on mythology.

Nobody is coming to save us from extractive elites consolidating control through mythology they maintained for fifty years. The choice is ours. The work is ours. The future is ours to build or surrender.

Will you accept the trajectory Venezuela diagnoses (isolated empire using force, permanent aristocracy at home, democracy degrading into theater, your children’s futures determined by birth rather than talent)?

Or will you understand economic reality and demand the strategic renewal that preserves democratic capitalism, expands genuine opportunity, and makes operations like Venezuela unnecessary?

That choice is being made right now. In the conversations you have. The demands you make. The understanding you spread. The political action you take based on reality rather than mythology.

Venezuela is showing you their playbook. Understanding shows you can choose differently.

Which future will you build?

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

To preserve American values (liberty, equality, democracy, rule of law, and pluralism), citizens must overcome attacks from both political extremes. This requires capacity stewardship: making evidence-based decisions about what markets provide versus what requires public provision, understanding the real tradeoffs of each mechanism, actively managing both to serve people, and demanding the institutional quality that makes informed stewardship possible. This means demanding Congress be active and accountable, politicians explain rather than perform, journalism investigate, universities produce valid knowledge, and science operate with integrity. This defends democratic capitalism by ensuring markets remain the primary engine of innovation and wealth creation while preventing market failures from undermining democratic values.

The far right attacks the legitimacy of collective action, claiming government is inherently coercive. The far left attacks the effectiveness of reform, claiming it’s futile collaboration with oppression. Despite opposing each other, both serve concentrated wealth by exploiting false beliefs about money and preventing you from understanding your actual role as a capacity steward.

Part 1: Defending Democratic Capitalism from the Extreme Right exposed how the extreme right prevents democratic collective action by attacking its legitimacy. “Taxation is theft” weaponizes libertarian philosophy to eliminate democratic accountability over markets, producing technofeudalism where concentrated wealth operates without democratic constraint.

Part 2: Defending Democratic Capitalism from the Extreme Left exposed how the extreme left prevents effective reform by declaring it futile collaboration. “Capitalism can’t be reformed” weaponizes revolutionary purity to fragment coalitions and abandon institutions, producing the same technofeudalism where concentrated wealth consolidates control while activists debate theory.

Part 3 reveals what both hide: as oligarchy consolidates power, you can preserve American values and expand middle class power through capacity stewardship. This requires removing the money mythology both extremes exploit, understanding your role managing market-public tradeoffs based on evidence, demanding the institutional quality that enables informed stewardship, and demanding the economic transitions needed to make democratic capitalism serve everyone.

I. The Pattern Both Extremes Share

For fifty years, you’ve been told to choose: free markets or government control, capitalism or socialism, individual liberty or collective welfare. This Cold War binary has become so embedded you can barely imagine alternatives.

As I explored in Beyond Capitalism vs. Socialism, this framing is obsolete. What matters is understanding how monetary systems work and designing institutions serving human needs. Singapore, Nordic countries, Germany, Japan, and Costa Rica don’t waste time on ideological purity. They build what works.

America’s political duopoly benefits from maintaining this false choice by keeping you economically illiterate. Republicans invoke “fiscal responsibility” to block social programs while ignoring deficits for military spending and tax cuts. Democrats accept budget constraints as real, arguing only about percentages rather than challenging the misconception that federal spending requires tax revenue.

The extremes weaponize this intellectually dead binary. The far right claims collective action is socialism, therefore illegitimate. The far left claims reform is capitalist collaboration, therefore betrayal. Both prevent you from understanding we’ve operated under a completely different monetary system since 1971. Government creates money when it spends, constrained by productive capacity, not budgets.

The pattern is systematic: the far right blocks economic security programs (”violent coercion”), coalition-building (”socialism”), and market regulation (”illegitimate interference”). The far left blocks institutional reform (”reformist betrayal”), federal resources (”hierarchical oppression”), and effective governance (”collaboration with capitalism”).

Neither allows democratic institutions that impose self-restraint on concentrated wealth and government power. Both make you give up on institutions serving you. The fifty-year assault through economic mythology worked: deinvestment in institutions made them stop working for Americans. When they stopped working, people lost faith they could ever work, forgetting they had worked for generations. When you stop demanding quality, institutions stop delivering it. The learned helplessness both extremes create becomes self-fulfilling.

II. What Both Extremes Hide

American values require democratic capitalism working through quality institutions. Quality institutions require you to demand and understand them.

American values are liberty, equality, democracy, rule of law, and pluralism. Liberty means freedom from arbitrary power. Equality means equal standing before the law and genuine opportunity, not merely formal rights without substance. Democracy means self-governance through consent of the governed, not theater where you vote while others decide. Rule of law means constitutional constraints binding everyone, including those who govern. Pluralism means accommodating genuine diversity of values, identities, cultures, and ways of life.

These values work together. Liberty without equality becomes privilege. Equality without liberty becomes oppression. Democracy without rule of law becomes mob rule. Rule of law without democracy becomes tyranny. Without pluralism, all four become tools for one group’s dominance.

Democratic capitalism provides the framework enabling these values. Democracy constrains both government power and oligarchy through competitive challenge. Competitive capitalism constrains concentrated wealth by making markets work for people, not for capital. Together they create dual competitive constraint that expands middle class power.

Democratic capitalism doesn’t require everyone to share the same values or live the same way. It provides a framework where people with different goals can pursue them through different means: wealth-building through markets, subsistence living focused on art or community, religious life, secular achievement. The dual competitive constraint prevents any one group from imposing their vision on everyone else.

Within this framework, markets remain the primary engine of innovation, wealth creation, and economic dynamism. Entrepreneurship, competition, and private enterprise drive technological progress, respond rapidly to changing preferences, and allocate resources efficiently when genuine choice exists. The vast majority of economic activity occurs through markets because markets excel at these functions. Public provision exists not to replace markets but to create the foundation enabling genuine market participation. When baseline needs are secured, markets become truly voluntary. People can take entrepreneurial risks, negotiate employment terms, and make consumption choices without coercion by desperation. Strong public provision for survival needs creates the conditions for strong, competitive, dynamic markets serving discretionary needs.

But democratic capitalism doesn’t work through abstract principles. It works through actual institutions with specific qualities: substantial capacity to govern at scale, structural checks providing self-restraint, transparency enabling oversight, accountability ensuring democratic control, and design features resisting capture.

This is what both extremes hide. The far right tells you institutions are inherently violent and coercive (minimize them). The far left tells you institutions are irredeemably captured (abandon them). Both create learned helplessness by presenting a false choice: either accept minimal government leaving you powerless against oligarchy, or accept strong institutions risking regulatory capture.

This is fraudulent. The actual solution is large-scale bureaucracies with meaningful transparency, democratic accountability, and structural checks on power. A substantial national bureaucracy is necessary both for protecting citizens rights and security domestically and maintaining geopolitical relevance and competitiveness. The question isn’t whether to have substantial institutions, but how to design them to resist capture while remaining democratically controlled.

Demanding this quality requires understanding how institutions should work. You can’t evaluate accountability without knowing what good governance looks like. You can’t recognize capture without understanding how systems operate properly. You can’t demand quality without epistemic quality, a reliable knowledge foundation that democracy requires.

Democracy needs good information to function. Bad information destroys democracy’s foundation. This is where both extremes’ attack becomes systematic.

III. How Economics Failed and Why That Matters

Economics as a discipline has failed its epistemic responsibility.

Epistemic quality means the reliability and truthfulness of knowledge. When a field has good epistemic quality, you can trust what it tells you because it follows rigorous standards for determining what’s true.

After 150 years, economics still maintains competing schools with fundamentally different answers to basic questions. It resolves disputes through institutional power rather than evidence. It teaches assumptions as facts. Unlike physics, biology, or chemistry, economics doesn’t meet its obligation to provide reliable knowledge. I write about this in detail in my essays Economics is Not a Science and How to Make Economics a Science.

This matters because you make political decisions based on what you think are economic facts. When those “facts” are actually unresolved theoretical disputes or demonstrably false assumptions, democracy is built on quicksand.

The mechanism of this failure is specific and systematic, not accidental.

In 1953, Milton Friedman published his instrumentalist defense of economic methodology. The argument goes like this: assumptions don’t need to be realistic, only predictions matter.

The problems emerge quickly:

• When assumptions are falsified (proven wrong): “Assumptions don’t matter, ignore them.”

• When predictions fail: “Refine the model, don’t replace the theory.”

This created an unfalsifiable framework. Economics could use known falsehoods in models and never be proven wrong.

A concrete example: When behavioral economics falsified rational actor assumptions (showing that people don’t actually make perfectly rational economic decisions), mainstream economics relegated behavioral economics to a sub-specialty. Meanwhile, it kept rational expectations in the policy models that influence government decisions.

When the 2008 crisis proved mainstream models wrong, economics added “financial frictions” to preserve equilibrium frameworks. It didn’t revise the foundational theories that had failed.

As I document in Economics is not a Science, this isn’t how science works. Science requires falsifiable theories (theories that can be proven wrong). It requires revision when evidence contradicts core assumptions. It requires a path toward truth rather than just instrumental utility.

Economics under Friedman’s defense operates differently. It treats falsified assumptions as permanently acceptable. It never revises foundational premises despite repeated failures. It claims scientific authority while avoiding scientific standards. In Why Economic Models Matter, I compare three major schools of macroeconomic thought and demonstrate how Austrian/monetarist frameworks systematically fail predictive tests while operational frameworks better explain actual outcomes.

Academia should have rejected instrumentalism in 1953 as incompatible with generating scientific knowledge. What should have happened:

• Philosophy departments should have challenged it.

• Economics departments should have required falsificationist standards (the requirement that theories be testable and disprovable) for tenure and publication.

• University administrators should have questioned why economics operates differently than other sciences.

• Peer review should have rejected papers using known falsehoods.

What actually happened? Instrumentalism was accepted as legitimate scientific methodology. Falsificationist challenges were marginalized. Heterodox economists (those using alternative approaches) using accurate models were systematically excluded from top journals and positions. And corporate funding shaped which frameworks were rewarded.

The timeline reveals the pattern.

• 1940s-1950s saw corporate funding of think tanks, endowed chairs, and research centers.

• 1953 brought Friedman’s framework to avoid falsification.

• 1970s-1980s saw corporate-funded economics become “mainstream.”

The result: frameworks serving corporate interests are protected from falsification through institutional power rather than evidence.

Endowed chairs allow donors to influence hiring. Research funding flows to orthodox approaches. Academic prestige rewards those working within protected frameworks. The economics you’re taught isn’t scientific discovery. It’s a multi-billion dollar corporate project, as I explored in the first essay of this trilogy, Defending Democratic Capitalism from the Extreme Right.

This is fraud. Economics claims scientific authority to constrain democratic possibilities (”we can’t afford it”). While avoiding scientific accountability to revise falsified theories. Using philosophical camouflage (instrumentalism) to legitimize the deception.

The societal consequences are severe. Bad policy based on false models caused the 2008 crisis that heterodox economists predicted but mainstream economics deemed impossible. Democratic constraints based on lies like deficit hysteria and “we can’t afford it” prevent policies that would serve broad prosperity. Loss of trust in expertise occurs when false models meet reality. And fifty years of this systematic failure made people believe institutions can’t serve them. Most critically, corrupted economics prevents you from being an effective capacity steward. Without valid models explaining how the economy actually works, you can’t make informed decisions about resource allocation, can’t distinguish real constraints from fictional ones, and can’t hold institutions accountable for results.

Beyond economics, the information environment itself faces systematic epistemic degradation. As I detailed in The Parasite’s Dilemma, digital platforms and AI systems are destroying the quality information supply chain that democracies depend on for shared evidence-based reasoning. This compounds the economics problem: you can’t demand epistemic quality from economics when the broader information infrastructure prevents you from distinguishing quality from manipulation. The degraded information environment makes stewardship impossible by destroying your ability to access, verify, and act on valid evidence about how institutions actually function.

IV. Money Mythology: The Weapon Both Sides Use

These epistemic failures enable and protect money mythology. This is the false belief that government is constrained by money like households.

Money mythology persists not despite economics but because of how economics operates. It’s protected from falsification through the same Friedman instrumentalism. “Assumptions don’t need to be realistic” means economics can ignore soft money reality in favor of preferred beliefs like hard money constraints (taxes fund the national government, the national debt is a liability to future generations, etc). The mythology serves corporate interests by constraining what you consider democratically possible. It’s not an accidental mistake but a systematically protected falsehood through corporate capture. As I detail in Why Monetary Systems Matter, these hard money misconceptions persist despite operational reality showing government creates money when it spends, constrained by capacity not budgets. For identifying the specific economic assumptions that constrain democratic imagination in political debates, see Your Mainstream Economics Decoder Ring.

Both extremes exploit this mythology differently. The far right accepts hard money myths and rejects collective action as “unaffordable.” The far left either accepts hard money myths and demands impossible things to “expose contradictions,” or rejects all economic analysis as “capitalist propaganda.”

The result is you remain passive. You can’t steward something you fundamentally misunderstand. Money mythology makes you think stewardship means “balancing budgets,” preventing you from demanding transparency about real constraints (capacity and resources, not money) and keeping you deferring to experts instead of making informed decisions about which mechanisms serve which needs.

So what are you actually managing?

Productive capacity: trained professionals (teachers, social workers, healthcare providers, engineers), construction labor and materials, institutional infrastructure, technical expertise, manufacturing capability.

Real resources: labor, land, energy, raw materials, existing infrastructure, time.

Government can fund whatever productive capacity exists to build. The question is never “can we afford it” but “do we have the capacity to build it, and should markets or public provision best direct that capacity toward meeting needs?”

When you demand public housing, you’re asking: do we have architects, construction workers, materials, and land? When you demand universal healthcare, you’re asking: do we have doctors, nurses, hospitals, and medical equipment?

That’s what capacity stewardship means: determining what productive capacity exists, what needs to be built, evaluating whether markets or public provision best directs it, then actively managing both mechanisms to serve people.

American values assert everyone should have a stake as citizen-stewards with genuine agency and responsibility. But universal stakeholding (a concept I cover in my essay, The Politics of Stakeholder Society: A New Way to Understand Left vs. Right) requires information:

• Clear understanding of how the system works, not household budget mythology

• Access to information about real constraints (capacity and resources, not fictional budget limits)

• Tools to evaluate institutional quality and prevent capture

• Knowledge of their role as stewards managing market-public tradeoffs

Both extremes prevent this. The far right keeps you thinking “we can’t afford it.” The far left keeps you thinking “reform is futile.” Both prevent you from understanding you can steward effectively.

V. Capacity Stewardship: Managing Market and Public Provision

Capacity stewardship requires a fundamental shift in understanding citizenship:

Current understanding (what both extremes want): “I vote, pay taxes, follow laws. Experts handle the rest.” This is passive citizenship that accepts ideological answers about markets or government.

Stewardship understanding (what both fear): “I evaluate which mechanisms serve which needs based on evidence. I ask: Where do markets work? Where do they fail? When is public provision needed? What are the real tradeoffs of each? How do I demand quality from both mechanisms?” This is active citizenship that rejects ideological purity.

This shift is profound. It means rejecting both extremes’ frameworks:

The far right claims markets always work better. This is ideological, not evidence-based. Markets fail for survival goods where information asymmetries, natural monopolies, positive externalities, and long time horizons prevent genuine competition.

The far left claims public institutions always work better. This is also ideological, not evidence-based. Government provision creates risks of monopoly power, bureaucratic inefficiency, regulatory capture, and reduced innovation when applied to discretionary goods where markets excel.

Capacity stewardship means understanding both mechanisms have real problems and real strengths. The question isn’t which ideology to follow. The question is which mechanism serves which needs based on evidence, then managing both to serve people.

This requires two distinct capabilities: managing government programs well and ensuring markets serve people. Both matter. Neither ideology captures the full picture.

I’ve worked inside government coordinating federal funding distribution to state, county, and city levels. The mechanisms for capacity stewardship already exist. OMB does capacity planning. GAO evaluates programs. Agencies track resources. Federal-to-local implementation structures operate daily across thousands of programs. The infrastructure isn’t theoretical. It’s operational. What’s missing is public awareness that these mechanisms could serve capacity stewardship rather than fiscal mythology. When citizens understand their role as stewards rather than passive voters, existing institutional machinery can be redirected to serve public purposes.

But capacity stewardship requires institutional infrastructure that enables informed decision-making. You can’t make evidence-based decisions about capacity allocation without quality information. You can’t evaluate market versus public provision tradeoffs without valid economic models. You can’t hold institutions accountable without transparency and investigation. As a steward, you must demand the institutional quality that makes stewardship possible:

Demanding Congress be active and accountable. Not the “do-nothing Congress” that demolished governing capacity and obstructs legislating at all. But legislators who are active, resource oversight, conduct investigations, produce reports explaining how systems work, and engage in genuine civic education rather than political theater.

Demanding politicians explain rather than perform. Politicians must resource the work to produce reports, surface mechanisms, source experts, and explain to citizens how institutions actually operate. This is what they used to do fifty years ago before sound bites replaced substance.

Demanding journalism investigate. Not entertainment or partisan narratives, but investigative reporting that exposes institutional capture, tracks resource flows, and holds power accountable. Without journalism revealing what institutions actually do, stewardship operates blind.

Demanding universities produce valid knowledge. Not corporate-funded mythology, but rigorous research subject to falsification and peer review. Economics, political science, and policy research must serve public understanding, not corporate interests.

Demanding science operate with integrity. Research must follow evidence rather than funding. Peer review must expose bad methodology. Academic institutions must resist capture by concentrated wealth.

The fifty-year assault didn’t just spread money mythology. It systematically destroyed the institutional capacity citizens need to steward democratically. Libertarian “small government” rhetoric gutted Congressional capacity. Corporate capture corrupted economic research. Media consolidation eliminated investigative journalism. University funding shifted from public to private interests. Each degradation made informed stewardship harder until people gave up believing institutions could serve them.

Demanding institutional quality is not separate from stewardship. It is foundational to stewardship. Without quality information, you can’t make informed decisions. Without active Congress, you can’t hold government accountable. Without investigative journalism, you can’t detect capture. Without valid research, you can’t distinguish mythology from reality.

Managing Government Programs

When evidence shows public provision is needed, government must be managed as a program constrained by productive capacity and resources, not money.

Programs have lifecycles: strategy, measurement, implementation, monitoring, optimization.

As a citizen managing government programs, you need these capacities.

Strategy asks: What capacity exists and how should we direct it toward public purposes?

This requires:

• Resource inventory: What workers, materials, technology do we have?

• Capacity utilization analysis: What’s being used versus what’s available?

• Strategic priorities: What public purposes should capacity serve?

• Institutional design: What prevents capture while enabling coordination?

Measurement asks: What information systems show whether programs work?

This requires:

• Clear metrics for program success, not just budget compliance

• Transparent data about capacity allocation and utilization

• Regular reporting accessible to citizens, not just experts

• Feedback mechanisms showing what’s working and what isn’t

Implementation asks: How do institutions actually direct capacity?

This requires:

• Professional systems that execute strategy (like OMB, GAO, and agencies)

• Quality institutional design preventing capture

• Accountability mechanisms ensuring democratic control

• Transparency enabling citizen oversight

A critical point about implementation: the bureaucracy doesn’t have to be and shouldn’t be all federal, though it relies on federal monetary support and strategic coordination. Implementation should be done through states and municipalities to ensure alignment, guidance, and accountability to localities.

Why this matters: What’s needed in Clarksdale, Mississippi is fundamentally different from what’s needed in Billings, Montana. Local administration keeps programs focused on genuine value while ensuring community accountability. Federal resources provide the capacity. State and local governments provide the implementation tailored to community needs.

As I explored in Why Progressives Are Accidentally Helping Authoritarians Win, this structure (federal funding with local implementation) has proven successful with programs like Superfund cleanup and has been part of Federal Funding for decades through block-grant programs. These ideas could work at scale through mechanisms like a federal job guarantee or UBA which I spoke about in my essay, Universal Basic Income (UBI) isn’t the right solution, the U.S. needs Universal Basic Assets (UBA). The money flows from national systems, but communities decide how to use it based on their specific needs and priorities.

Monitoring asks: Are programs achieving stated purposes efficiently?

This requires:

• Continuous evaluation of outcomes versus inputs

• Identification of capture, waste, or dysfunction

• Citizen-accessible reporting on program performance

• Mechanisms for raising concerns and demanding changes

Optimization asks: How do we improve based on what we learn?

This requires:

• Systematic review of what works and what doesn’t

• Institutional reforms addressing revealed problems

• Scaling successful approaches

• Eliminating or redesigning failed programs

Currently, budget narratives dominate while actual program management happens invisibly. Politicians talk about deficits. You debate fiscal responsibility. Meanwhile, the real work of capacity allocation happens in professional systems you can’t see and don’t understand.

Stewardship means demanding transparency about program management.

The questions change fundamentally:

Instead of: “Can we afford infrastructure?”

Ask: “Show me the OMB capacity analysis. What construction capacity exists? What’s the utilization rate? What’s the strategic priority? What institutional quality ensures the program achieves purposes efficiently? How do I monitor outcomes?”

Instead of: “Is the budget balanced?”

Ask: “What resources are being directed where? What’s the measurement system showing effectiveness? What’s the implementation quality? What monitoring reveals success or failure? What optimization improves outcomes?”

This is what it means to manage government programs based on capacity reality instead of fiscal mythology.

The federal government creates money when it spends. This is operational reality since 1971, as I detailed in Why Monetary Systems Matter. Real constraints are productive capacity and resources. Workers, materials, technology, organizational capability, and ecological limits. The questions aren’t fiscal. They’re strategic (what capacity do we have and how do we direct it). Measurement (what information shows effectiveness). Implementation (what institutional quality prevents capture). Monitoring (are we achieving purposes). Optimization (how do we improve).

Active resource management and strategic thinking about capacity direction is what citizenship becomes when you understand your stewardship role. Not passive voting and hoping. Not deferring to experts. But actively managing government programs with clear strategy, transparent measurement, quality implementation, rigorous monitoring, and continuous optimization.

This is harder. It requires sustained engagement. It requires understanding how programs actually work. It requires demanding information and accountability.

Ensuring Markets Serve People, Not Capital

Managing government programs is only half of capacity stewardship. The other half is ensuring competitive markets serve people rather than capital.

Markets work brilliantly when conditions are right: genuine choice exists, information is available, competition is real, failure doesn’t mean destitution. Under these conditions, markets drive innovation, respond to preferences, and allocate resources efficiently. This is why markets remain the primary engine of economic activity.

But markets fail when these conditions don’t hold. And even when markets work well, they require active management to stay competitive and serve people rather than capital. Capacity stewardship means demanding:

• Antitrust enforcement breaking up monopolies and preventing anti-competitive mergers. Concentrated market power destroys the competitive dynamics that make markets work.

• Labor rights and organizing ensuring workers can negotiate from genuine choice rather than desperation. Without the ability to organize and bargain collectively, labor markets become coercive.

• Consumer protection preventing fraud, manipulation, and exploitation. Information asymmetries let bad actors profit from deception.

• Environmental standards requiring markets internalize externalities instead of pushing costs onto communities and future generations.

• Financial regulation preventing extractive practices, predatory lending, and systemic risk that privatizes gains while socializing losses.

This isn’t anti-market. This is pro-market. Strong regulation makes markets work for people, not capital, by creating the conditions for genuine competition. Preventing monopoly power, ensuring informed choice, protecting workers and consumers all make markets work better at what they’re designed to do.

Democratic capitalism requires both: well-managed public programs for baseline needs and well-regulated competitive markets for discretionary goods. Not ideology picking one mechanism for everything, but evidence determining which mechanism serves which needs, then active management ensuring both serve people.

This is the obligation you accept if you believe in liberty, equality, democracy, rule of law, and pluralism as American values. Democracy doesn’t survive with passive citizens who vote and defer. It requires active stewards who understand market and public provision tradeoffs and demand quality from both mechanisms.

Leave a comment

VI. The Moral Foundation: What Comes First

Before explaining which mechanisms work where, you need to understand the moral foundation grounding everything else.

Any good society eliminates poverty, mental illness, and desperation as hallmarks of civilization. People should not be allowed to fall into destitution. Dignified subsistence at baseline is a moral imperative, not an economic calculation about preparing workers for capital.

This requires building big bureaucracy to deliver it. Substantial permanent institutional infrastructure providing what people need to live with dignity.

Who needs this foundation?

Those who can’t work due to disabilities, chronic illness, cognitive limitations, or severe trauma. Not everyone can be made “productive” by market standards, no matter how much job training or counseling we provide. This doesn’t make their lives less valuable or worthy of dignity.

Those in geographies lacking private sector strength. Rural areas, declining industrial towns, and isolated communities lack the economic base for everyone to “just get a job” that pays enough to survive. Telling people to move ignores family ties, community roots, care responsibilities, and the reality that someone must live in these places for them to exist at all.

Those who choose subsistence living. Maybe they want to focus on art, community service, care work, spiritual development, or simply quiet existence without market competition. In a wealthy, productive society, why should this choice be unavailable or stigmatized? Pluralism means accommodating these different choices about how to live, not forcing everyone into market competition.

Anyone. No one should be allowed to fall into destitution regardless of circumstances.

This isn’t about productivity. It’s about human dignity in a society with abundant resources. The private sector creates more than enough surplus value to support this. America’s productivity has increased dramatically since the 1950s, yet wages have stagnated while corporate profits have soared. The surplus exists. The question is how we distribute it.

As I documented in How Corporate-Friendly Accounting Rules Create a $30 Trillion Transfer from Consumers into Wealthy Pockets, mechanisms have systematically transferred wealth upward for decades. Declining union membership from 35% to 10% of the workforce. Weakened labor laws and enforcement. Financialization rewarding shareholders over workers. Tax policy favoring capital gains over wages. Offshoring and automation threats suppressing wage demands. Elimination of defined-benefit pensions. Rising healthcare costs tied to employment that trap workers.

Markets are for people who want to live beyond subsistence. Not everyone needs or wants to compete for wealth, status, or power. Both paths deserve dignity and choice. This is what pluralism requires. Systems accommodating people who want different things from life, not forcing everyone into the same mold.

The capitalism versus socialism framing must go. This isn’t an ideological question of “more markets” or “more government.” It’s a practical question of which mechanisms serve which human needs and why. Grounded in evidence-based institutional design rather than ideological purity. Starting from the moral imperative of eliminating destitution.

What democratic capitalism actually means in this context:

• Public provision ensures no one falls into destitution. This is the moral floor and the primary purpose.

• Markets exist for those who want to build wealth beyond that floor.

• But markets only work when they’re genuinely competitive. Competition requires competitive labor, not just competitive capital. Labor can’t compete against capital without public support creating bargaining power.

Why labor needs public support is a secondary benefit, not the primary purpose. The primary purpose is eliminating destitution as a moral imperative. The secondary effect is that economically secure people have bargaining power.

Capital has structural advantages: mobility, organization, and resources. Without public provision eliminating desperation, labor negotiates from coercion.

What these phrases actually mean:

• “Work or starve” isn’t a voluntary transaction.

• “Accept these terms or lose healthcare” isn’t genuine choice.

• “Take this wage or your children go hungry” isn’t market competition.

Public provision of healthcare, education, and housing means people can reject bad deals. Job guarantees create a floor on wages and a ceiling on employer power. Strong unions supported by labor law enable organized labor to match organized capital.

This isn’t “making good workers for capital.” It’s preventing coercion through desperation.

The logic orders foundation to goal:

• Foundation: Moral floor preventing destitution.

• Enabler: Labor can compete without being coerced.

• Goal: Expand middle class power.

Concentrated wealth produces oligarchy because a few with power can buy or coerce many desperate people. A broad middle class produces democracy because you can’t individually buy or coerce people with economic security.

Economic security creates political independence, which enables democratic participation. A secure middle class with bargaining power can demand laws constraining capital through democratic processes.

Expanding middle class power is the goal that makes democratic capitalism work. The moral floor preventing destitution is the foundation enabling that goal. You build systems for people by ensuring no one falls into destitution, which creates the conditions for genuine market participation and democratic power. This is what capacity stewardship achieves: architecting systems that expand middle class power rather than concentrating wealth.

VII. Markets, Public Provision, and Evidence-Based Design

Understanding the moral foundation lets you see clearly which mechanisms work where and why.

Democratic capitalism means markets remain the primary engine of economic activity, innovation, and wealth creation. The vast majority of goods and services are produced through competitive markets. Technology, finance, retail, entertainment, professional services, consumer goods, manufacturing, and agriculture beyond subsistence represent the bulk of economic activity and employment. This is by design.

Markets excel at innovation and rapid adaptation when conditions are right. Competition drives companies to improve products, reduce costs, and respond to changing preferences faster than any planning system could. The profit motive channels entrepreneurial energy into creating value. Creative destruction eliminates inefficient producers. Investment flows to promising opportunities. Risk-taking gets rewarded when it succeeds.

All breakthrough innovation happens through markets. Entrepreneurs starting companies, established firms competing for advantage, investors backing new technologies, workers moving to better opportunities. The smartphone, the internet, renewable energy technology, medical devices, software, and logistics systems all came from markets driving innovation by creating incentives and enabling experimentation at scale.

Wealth creation happens through markets. Small businesses growing into large employers. Startups becoming industry leaders. Workers building skills and advancing careers. Investment compounding over time. None of this happens through public provision. Markets create the prosperity that makes everything else possible.

Public provision for baseline needs represents a small fraction of total economic activity: healthcare, housing, education, food security. These are critical but limited in scope. The vast majority of what people buy, sell, produce, and consume flows through competitive markets.

This matters because public provision for survival needs creates the conditions for markets that work for people. When people aren’t coerced by desperation, markets become genuinely voluntary. Entrepreneurs can take risks, workers can negotiate, consumers can choose, innovation accelerates. This is defending democratic capitalism, not transcending it. Strong public provision for baseline needs creates the foundation for strong, competitive, dynamic markets.

Markets work for discretionary goods where people build wealth, status, or power beyond the baseline. Where genuine choice exists, competition is real, and information is available. Examples: consumer electronics, entertainment, luxury goods, wealth-building activities. Nobody wants government-designed smartphones or restaurants. The profit motive and competitive pressure create powerful incentives for serving consumer desires.

Public provision works for survival goods that constitute the moral floor: healthcare, housing, food, education. These aren’t commodities to ration by ability to pay. Markets fail here because of information asymmetries (patients can’t evaluate medical procedures like comparing televisions), natural monopolies (competing electrical grids waste resources), positive externalities (education benefits all of society), and long time horizons (infrastructure lasts decades, markets optimize for quarters).

As I explored in Universal Basic Income (UBI) isn’t the right solution, the U.S. needs Universal Basic Assets (UBA), cash transfers into broken markets get captured by rent-seekers. Give everyone $1,000 monthly and landlords raise rent $1,000. But you can’t price-gouge what’s provided publicly at cost.

Building the bureaucracy requires honesty about what this means. This is big institutional work requiring substantial permanent capacity. Vienna houses 62% of residents in social housing that works at scale, maintains high quality, and integrates people into communities. Singapore provides public housing to 80% of citizens through well-maintained, mixed-income developments. Nordic systems provide comprehensive support through professional civil service and quality management.

This isn’t charity or temporary assistance. It’s permanent institutional infrastructure requiring professional civil service, quality management, and democratic oversight. Mixed-income design prevents stigma and segregation. Quality standards prevent degradation into “poverty housing.”

What does “building big bureaucracy” actually mean? Take public housing. Implementing subsistence housing isn’t just constructing apartments. It requires coordinated systems: social services infrastructure (case workers, mental health professionals, substance abuse counselors), family support systems (childcare, after-school programs, family counseling), healthcare integration (on-site clinics, mental health services), public safety coordination (community policing, crisis intervention), legal system capacity (family courts, tenant advocates), job training and placement (workforce development, skills training), and educational support (quality local schools, adult education).

Make no mistake: these are not small programs. You can’t build this piecemeal at the local level. A town can’t afford the integrated service infrastructure. A county can’t train enough social workers and counselors. A city can’t build the court capacity needed.

Federal monetary capacity enabling state and local implementation becomes essential. Federal resources fund the professional systems. State agencies coordinate across municipalities. Local governments implement based on community needs.

With proper management and long-term commitment, these complex integrated systems can be built into templates that communities can implement as appropriate. The first city figures everything out from scratch. But once you’ve developed working models, they become templates. Other communities adapt proven frameworks to their specific contexts. Rural Montana uses the same basic template as urban Massachusetts, but adjusts for population density and local industries. Communities customize implementation, not fundamental design.

Vienna’s public housing works because Austria spent generations developing integrated systems and now replicates proven models. Singapore’s success comes from systematic template development. This is program management at scale: build the capacity once, deploy it many times with local adaptation.

It’s hard, expensive, and takes decades to build the initial templates. But once built, deployment becomes manageable. The alternative is continued extraction, growing destitution, and systems that fail precisely because they’re under-resourced and perpetually reinventing basic solutions.

The moral ordering is clear:

• First: Eliminate destitution as the hallmark of a good society. This is the moral imperative.

• Then: This enables labor to compete by preventing coercion through desperation.

• Then: A secure middle class expands middle class power that constrains concentrated wealth.

• Then: Genuine markets work better because participation is voluntary, not coerced.

Not: “We need good workers prepared to work for capital.”

But: “We eliminate destitution because that’s what good societies do, which creates the foundation enabling everything else.”

Why this creates genuinely competitive markets shows the tertiary benefits. When survival is secured, markets become genuinely voluntary. People can reject exploitative jobs because they’re not coerced by desperation. Entrepreneurs can take risks because failure doesn’t mean destitution. Workers can negotiate because they’re not desperate for any wage.

Markets work better when participation is voluntary rather than coerced. Denmark has 30% higher business formation than the United States because their safety net enables risk-taking. A strong middle class with economic security drives genuine market innovation. This improves market efficiency by removing desperation-based coercion.

This moral ordering is essential for effective stewardship. Evidence-based decisions about market versus public provision require understanding that the moral foundation comes first. Evaluating institutional quality depends on knowing the actual purpose: expanding middle class power by preventing destitution, not preparing workers. Demanding accountability requires clear success metrics—no one in destitution and strong middle class power. Building coalitions requires explaining the goal: systems architected for people that expand middle class power. Stewardship works only with moral clarity about societal obligations and goals.

VIII. What This Means In Practice: Managing Major Economic Transitions

Capacity stewardship isn’t abstract theory. It requires managing major economic transitions, removing rent-extraction from baseline needs to enable genuine market capitalism throughout the economy. This deserves honest acknowledgment.

These sectors (healthcare, housing, education) currently don’t function as genuine markets. Healthcare has massive information asymmetries where patients can’t evaluate options. Housing faces natural monopolies where land location creates unavoidable scarcity. Education involves long-term investments with delayed payoffs that markets systematically underprovide. None have the conditions markets need to work: informed choice, genuine competition, ability to walk away.

Instead, these sectors operate as rent-extraction machines. Consolidated hospital systems charge whatever insurance covers. Private equity landlords buy housing and extract maximum rent. For-profit colleges charge far beyond education costs. This isn’t capitalism creating value. This is monopoly power extracting wealth from human needs.

Public provision removes the extraction layer while enabling genuine market capitalism elsewhere. When healthcare, housing, and education are secured, people can fully participate in discretionary markets. They can start businesses without fear of medical bankruptcy. They can change careers without losing housing. They can pursue education that matches interests rather than desperate job security. The entire economy becomes more dynamic, entrepreneurial, and genuinely competitive.

This is fundamental restructuring that defends market capitalism by removing its corrupted elements. That’s the point.

But this isn’t “destruction” in the way opponents claim.

What actually happens:

Same workers continue working. Healthcare workers still provide care. Construction workers still build housing. Teachers still educate students. Same skills get deployed. The work continues. Workers transfer employers rather than becoming unemployed. Insurance actuaries work for public programs instead of private companies.

We’re removing the parasitic extraction layer, not the productive capacity. The value was always in the work, not the rent-extraction. Building a house creates value. Landlords capturing 40% of tenants’ income extracts value. Providing healthcare creates value. Insurance companies denying claims to maximize shareholder returns extracts value. Educating students creates value. For-profit colleges charging $50,000 for degrees that cost $8,000 to provide extracts value.

Meanwhile, innovation and entrepreneurship remain entirely market-driven. Technology advances through competitive markets. New industries emerge through entrepreneurial risk-taking. Consumer goods improve through competition. Services proliferate through market incentives. Removing extraction from baseline needs doesn’t touch these wealth-creating market functions. It strengthens them by creating stronger consumer demand and more entrepreneurial freedom.

IX. Democracy Deepening: From Voting to Demanding

Everything above requires democracy deepening, not just expanding.

Conservatives say we’re a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. The founders designed elite-controlled institutions: property requirements for voting, indirect elections, substantial power vested in educated elites. This worked when elites maintained commitment to the republic’s survival within shared governing principles.

But oligarchy has captured elite control. Billionaires corrupt institutions the founders designed to constrain power. The constitutional republic’s original design now serves concentrated wealth, not balanced governance. For the republic to survive, democracy must deepen. Not abandoning constitutional structure, but evolving oversight from corrupted elites to engaged citizens. The republic survives through expanded democratic participation, or falls to oligarchy using constitutional forms as cover.

This isn’t “more” democracy on top of existing structures. It’s democracy evolving its fundamental nature.

From “vote and hope” to “steward and demand.”

From fiscal management thinking to capacity management thinking.

From passive citizenship to active program management.

This expands middle class power, which is what concentrated wealth fears most.

Democracy deepening in practice means informed citizens understanding capacity reality instead of fiscal mythology, active oversight of national resources instead of deferring to experts, accessible government providing professional data through citizen-facing interfaces, and participatory architecture enabling stewardship through transparent program management.

This is evolution, not expansion. Quality change in citizen role from voters to stewards. Quality change in government from household budget logic to program management. Quality change in democracy from periodic voting to sustained oversight. This deepening expands middle class power and makes democracy functional even when representatives are corrupted.

Crucially, sustained oversight means generational commitment. Not demanding results within one administration, but sustaining pressure across decades beyond election cycles.

Democracy deepening requires a specific demand from politicians: explain how institutions actually work with epistemic authenticity. Politicians must resource the work to produce reports, surface mechanisms, source experts, and explain to the American people how systems operate. This is what they used to do fifty years ago before political theater replaced genuine civic education.

This raises a legitimate concern: what happens when entire branches of knowledge get hijacked? Economics demonstrates this exact risk. An entire discipline was compromised for fifty years through corporate capture while the public remained unaware. If academic economics can be systematically corrupted without citizens knowing, what prevents other institutions from similar capture? When knowledge production itself is corrupted, stewardship becomes impossible. You can’t make evidence-based decisions about capacity allocation when the evidence itself has been systematically falsified to serve concentrated wealth.

The actors driving institutional capture are billionaire oligarchs wielding concentrated wealth to corrupt democracy itself. They fund think tanks spreading mythology, capture regulatory agencies, purchase political influence, and extract rent from human needs. This is oligarchy threatening democracy. And oligarchy works by destroying the institutional infrastructure citizens need to steward democratically. Corrupted economics prevents informed decisions. Captured media prevents accountability. Passive Congress eliminates oversight. Each degradation makes effective stewardship harder until citizens give up entirely.

But the solution isn’t “tax the rich” or “make billionaires pay their fair share.” That reinforces the hard money mythology this essay exposes. Government doesn’t need billionaire tax revenue. It creates money constrained by capacity, not budgets. The problem isn’t insufficient tax collection. The problem is billionaires corrupting institutions that should constrain their power.

The solution is citizens understanding how institutions should work and demanding they work that way regardless of billionaire opposition. Oligarchs will keep corrupting institutions as long as institutions allow it. Your job isn’t rage against billionaires. Your job is demanding institutional quality that prevents capture.

There’s no perfect systemic answer to this problem. Demanding transparency and epistemic quality doesn’t guarantee institutions won’t be compromised. Vigilant citizens can still be deceived by sophisticated capture that operates at the level of knowledge production itself.

But consider the alternative. Continue accepting opacity. Keep deferring to corrupted expertise. Remain passive while extraction accelerates. At least demanding creates accountability pressure. Transparency makes capture visible when it occurs. Citizen oversight, while imperfect, beats blind trust in systems already serving concentrated wealth.

The risk of institutional hijacking is real. But learned helplessness guarantees capture succeeds. Demanding epistemic quality from institutions doesn’t prevent all corruption, but it’s the only mechanism available in democratic systems for citizens to fight back when corruption occurs. The question isn’t whether this approach is perfect. It’s whether you have a better alternative for preserving democratic capitalism when oligarchs actively work to capture every institution they can.

The fifty-year assault made people give up. Both extremes keep them passive. The far right says “we can’t afford it,” the far left says “reform is futile.” Overcoming this requires understanding that demanding is not separate from stewardship - demanding IS stewardship. You can’t steward institutions you don’t demand quality from. You can’t make informed decisions without demanding valid information. You can’t hold programs accountable without demanding transparency. Every stewardship function requires demanding the institutional infrastructure that makes stewardship possible.

The demanding framework in action:

• Demand epistemic quality from academia. Reliable knowledge rather than corporate-funded mythology.

• Demand institutional quality from government. Transparency, accountability, and structural checks.

• Demand governance architecture. Citizen-facing interfaces to OMB, GAO, and agencies translating technical systems for oversight.

• Demand capacity analysis when politicians claim “we can’t afford it.”

• Demand reforms restoring competitive constraint. Antitrust enforcement, labor rights, and democratic oversight.

• Demand managed transitions. Build capacity, transfer workers, maintain continuity.

• Build networks amplifying these demands together.

Wall Street won’t give you these tools voluntarily. Corrupted representatives won’t reform themselves. Captured institutions won’t become transparent without pressure. The republic survives by citizens demanding, not giving up.

This overcomes learned helplessness. Fifty years taught you institutions can’t serve you. The truth is institutions serve whoever demands effectively. Networks demanding together create political power that reforms institutions. This is what capacity stewardship means in practice: sustained, informed demanding that builds and maintains the institutional quality required for democratic constraint of both markets and government.

X. The Complete Mission

Part 1 showed how the right prevents you from legitimately demanding collective action by attacking its legitimacy.

Part 2 showed how the left prevents you from effectively reforming institutions by attacking reform’s effectiveness.

Part 3 shows what both hide: you can preserve American values through capacity stewardship.

American values require democratic capitalism working through quality institutions. Quality institutions require you to demand and understand them, not give up on them. Demanding requires epistemic quality providing reliable knowledge about how systems work. Economics failed this through systematic protection of mythology serving corporate interests. Mythology prevents universal stakeholding because you can’t steward what you misunderstand. Stakeholding requires capacity understanding, meaning evidence-based decisions about market versus public provision constrained by resources, not money. Capacity understanding reveals the moral foundation: eliminate destitution first, everything else follows. This requires evidence-based design distinguishing which mechanisms serve which needs. Markets remain the primary engine for innovation and wealth creation. Competitive capitalism must make markets work for people, not capital. Public provision for baseline needs enables genuine market participation. Evidence shows transitions are needed from rent-extraction to public benefit in sectors where markets fail. Transitions require stewardship through building capacity, managing change, and maintaining continuity. This requires democracy deepening through sustained demanding, not periodic voting. Democracy deepening expands middle class power while demanding quality from both market and public mechanisms and overcoming learned helplessness. The goal is systems architected for people that expand middle class power.

Therefore: preserve American values by teaching capacity stewardship to citizens who make evidence-based decisions about market versus public provision, demand markets work for people not capital, demand quality from both mechanisms, manage necessary economic transitions, and expand middle class power, enabled by removing the systematically protected money mythology both extremes exploit to keep you passive.

Conclusion: The Defense Both Extremes Hide

For fifty years, you’ve been trapped in a false choice.

The far right tells you collective action is theft.

The far left tells you reform is betrayal.

Both keep you passive while oligarchy consolidates power and prevents expansion of middle class power.

The far right prevents you from using democratic institutions to make markets serve people. The far left prevents you from reforming those institutions to make them work. Despite claiming opposition, both serve oligarchs by exploiting money mythology and creating learned helplessness that becomes self-fulfilling when you stop demanding quality.

What both hide is your actual power. You’re a capacity steward who makes evidence-based decisions about market versus public provision, demands markets work for people not capital, demands quality from both mechanisms, and expands middle class power to make democratic capitalism work.

This isn’t a middle ground between extremes. It’s rejecting their entire framework.

Understanding government creates money constrained by productive capacity, not budgets. Recognizing your role evaluating which mechanisms serve which needs based on evidence, not ideology. Starting from the moral foundation that good societies don’t allow destitution. Understanding markets remain the primary engine for most economic activity while public provision enables genuine market participation.

Demanding markets work for people, not capital. Demanding transitions from rent-extraction to public benefit where evidence shows markets fail. Building systems that expand middle class power.

The evidence proves this works. Singapore, Vienna, Nordic countries, and the UK managed these transitions successfully through sustained demanding, capacity building, and democratic deepening.

The professional systems for capacity management already exist. OMB does capacity planning, GAO evaluates programs, agencies track resources. The problem is they operate without citizen visibility or accountability. There’s no governance architecture translating them for democratic oversight. You don’t know to demand it because you’ve been taught fiscal mythology instead of capacity reality.

That’s the root cause: epistemic failure preventing effective stewardship. Corrupted economics doesn’t provide reliable knowledge about how money works. Degraded journalism doesn’t expose institutional capture. Passive Congress doesn’t produce the reports and explanations citizens need. Captured universities don’t generate valid models. Each institutional failure compounds, destroying your capacity to steward democratically. You can’t make informed decisions without valid information. You can’t hold institutions accountable without transparency. You can’t demand quality without understanding what quality means. Democracy degrades into theater while real program management and market regulation happen invisibly, serving concentrated wealth rather than public purposes.

Unless you learn to recognize this epistemic corruption and demand the institutional quality enabling real stewardship, the system will fall to internal collapse as extremists destroy it from opposite directions while corporatists hollow it out from within.

The choice is clear. Continue accepting the false binary, giving up on institutions while oligarchy consolidates power. Or reject their framework entirely, understand your role managing the market-public boundary, demand markets work for people not capital, demand quality from both mechanisms, expand middle class power, and make democratic capitalism serve American values.

The republic survives through citizens demanding, not giving up. Democracy deepens through stewardship, not passivity. American values persist through quality institutions you demand.

One final reality: this takes generational commitment. Not election cycles or presidential terms, but generations.

Americans have historically been poor at sustained commitment. Electing politicians promising quick fixes, abandoning programs before they mature, treating governance like quarterly earnings reports. Vienna, Singapore, and Nordic countries spent generations developing integrated systems across multiple administrations. The Baby Boomer wealth advantage came from programs their parents’ generation created. The GI Bill (1944) and Federal Housing Administration (1934) took decades to show full effects. The generation that fought for them didn’t fully benefit. Their children did.

But those programs didn’t emerge spontaneously. The American middle class was deliberately engineered by American politicians in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Progressive Era reformers, New Deal architects, and postwar planners understood that broad prosperity required intentional policy. They built the institutional infrastructure, created the programs, established the regulatory frameworks, and directed federal resources specifically to expand middle class power. This wasn’t market forces producing natural outcomes. This was enlightened leadership recognizing that democracy required a prosperous middle class and systematically building the systems to create one.

We no longer have that enlightened leadership. Current political leadership has been compromised by oligarchs and autocrats who systematically dismantle the systems that created broad prosperity. They haven’t eliminated the mechanisms, they’ve redirected them to serve concentrated wealth. We stand on the verge of neo-feudalism where the institutional capacity built to expand middle class power now serves oligarchy instead. The mechanisms for capacity stewardship still exist because they were built for middle class empowerment. But without enlightened leadership, those mechanisms serve whoever demands they function. Nobody is coming to save us. Previous generations had leaders who built systems for broad prosperity. We have leaders serving oligarchy. The work of demanding falls to citizens now.

That’s the commitment required. You build capacity stewardship systems knowing your grandchildren will benefit more than you will. Building templates takes decades. Transitioning major sectors requires 10-15 years minimum for initial phases. The question isn’t whether you’ll see complete results. You probably won’t. The question is whether you care enough about American values to start building systems your children and grandchildren will inherit.

Both extremes prevent this commitment. The far right keeps you focused on quarterly thinking through market logic. The far left keeps you focused on revolutionary impatience through purity tests. Both prevent sustained, generational work. But they already got their 50 years of sustained deinvestment. Why shouldn’t you commit to 50 years rebuilding?

Americans can do this. We did it with the New Deal infrastructure, the Interstate Highway System, and the space program. But we’ve lost that capacity for sustained commitment. This makes us vulnerable to extremes who promise quick solutions while preventing the long-term work actually needed.

Capacity stewardship means recovering the ability to think generationally. Without this, the work remains theory. With it, you can build systems preserving American values for future generations.

That’s the defense. That’s the mission. For those who care about liberty, equality, democracy, rule of law, and pluralism.

The professional systems exist. The governance architecture is possible. Democracy can deepen through participation. The republic can embody American values.

But only if you become the capacity stewards making evidence-based decisions about market and public provision, demanding markets work for people not capital, demanding quality from both mechanisms, overcoming learned helplessness, managing necessary transitions, expanding middle class power, and making democratic capitalism work for everyone.

The work starts with conversation, not protest.

Talk to your family. Talk to your friends. Talk to your coworkers and neighbors. Explain money mythology: government creates money constrained by capacity, not budgets. Explain what this makes possible: high-quality institutions serving the American people, maintaining geopolitical influence, honoring our philosophical and governing legacy, delivering good lives to everyone regardless of oligarchy.

Nobody is coming to save us. The founding fathers didn’t wait for permission to build new systems when the old ones failed. They did it themselves through sustained commitment and shared purpose.

We face the same choice now. Build the institutions our moment requires, or watch oligarchy consolidate power while we debate which political team to support.

If we can’t align on building good systems that serve people, right versus left politics becomes meaningless. The question isn’t whether you’re conservative or progressive. The question is whether you’ll demand quality institutions or accept extraction. Whether you’ll spread these ideas or stay passive. Whether you’ll help build alignment or let oligarchy win by default.

This is how republics survive: through citizens who spread ideas, demand quality, and refuse to surrender institutions to concentrated wealth.

Get people on board. Share what capacity stewardship means. Explain why demanding quality matters. Build the understanding and alignment needed to make democratic capitalism work for everyone.

The work requires commitment. The results take generations. The question is whether you care enough about American values to start.

Leave a comment

You’ve heard it: “Capitalism can’t be reformed.” Maybe from activist friends, maybe at organizing meetings, maybe in leftist spaces online. It sounds principled. Who wants to collaborate with an exploitative system?

Here’s what’s actually happening: that position is strategic paralysis. While you debate revolutionary purity, concentrated wealth consolidates control through the democratic institutions you’ve abandoned.

This is Part 2 of a 3-part series exploring how to advocate for political systems that blend Democratic control with Capitalism, what I refer to as Democratic Capitalism. Part 1 examined far-right attacks on democratic legitimacy. This essay examines far-left attacks on democratic effectiveness. Part 3 will provide the positive case: understanding money as public utility enabling democratic capitalism to serve everyone.

For decades, far-left positions have been accidentally enabling the same technofeudalism they claim to oppose. Every time someone says “working within the system is collaboration,” oligarchs operate without democratic constraint. When all reform becomes “propping up capitalism,” corporate monopolies face no organized opposition. When federal power becomes “hierarchical oppression,” communities remain resource-poor while corporations dominate nationally.

This essay defends democratic capitalism by exposing how far-left arguments actually function. You’ll learn the structural absolutism that makes reform appear futile, common arguments and their strategic flaws, how these positions share the same economic myths as the far-right, and response templates for building effective coalitions.

This defense matters because democratic capitalism (markets with democratic oversight, genuine competition with economic security, community control with federal resources) represents our best path to broad prosperity. As I detail in Opportunity Economics, we can use democratic reform to make capitalism work for everyone.

But only if we recognize how far-left paralysis prevents the coalition-building and institutional reform that could actually constrain concentrated wealth.

What’s at Stake: The Future of Democratic Reform

This isn’t academic theory. Far-left attacks on democratic effectiveness threaten both democracy and capitalism’s ability to serve broad prosperity.

Democracy requires working within existing institutions. Democratic change happens through elections, legislation, and institutional reform. If all existing institutions are irredeemably corrupt and working within them is collaboration with oppression, democratic transformation becomes impossible. The far-left framework doesn’t just oppose specific policies. It denies that democratic processes can create meaningful change.

Capitalism requires democratic reform to function fairly. Markets don’t naturally produce equitable outcomes. They produce the outcomes they’re designed to produce. Making capitalism serve broad prosperity requires continuous democratic reform of market rules, labor protections, and regulatory frameworks. If all reform is futile because capitalism is inherently unreformable, we abandon the project of making markets work for everyone.

Without democratic reform capacity, capitalism becomes what I’ve called technofeudalism. Platform monopolies and financial oligarchs ruling economically fragile populations. This isn’t reformed capitalism serving everyone. It’s corporate extraction without democratic accountability.

Pluralism requires pragmatic coalition-building. A diverse society requires building coalitions around shared interests despite different worldviews. If only revolutionary transformation is legitimate and anyone supporting reform is a class traitor, coalition-building becomes impossible. Far-left purity politics fragments opposition to concentrated wealth while concentrated wealth consolidates power unopposed.

The choice is clear: democratic reform that constrains concentrated wealth, or revolutionary purity that accomplishes nothing while oligarchs consolidate control.

This is what we’re defending.

What We’re Defending: Democratic Reform That Works

When I talk about “democratic capitalism,” I mean using democratic institutions to make markets serve broad prosperity. This is what Opportunity Economics provides: genuine competition (not monopolies), economic security enabling opportunity (not desperation forcing exploitation), community control with federal resources (not resource-starved local communes), and democratic oversight ensuring markets serve everyone (not just concentrated wealth).

Far-left positions specifically attack this vision.

“Capitalism can’t be reformed” prevents the democratic market reform that could constrain wealth concentration.

“Working within the system is collaboration” prevents the institutional change that could make capitalism serve everyone.

“We need revolution, not reform” ensures nothing gets accomplished while concentrated wealth operates unopposed.

Understanding their attacks helps you defend the alternative: democratic institutions that make markets actually work through continuous reform, genuine competition through anti-monopoly enforcement, and community development through federal resources with local control.

This is what we’re fighting for. Let’s see how far-left positions undermine it.

The Core Vulnerability: Strategic Paralysis Disguised as Principle

Here’s the fatal flaw in far-left revolutionary positions: they declare reform futile while offering no realistic path to revolution, ensuring nothing gets accomplished while concentrated wealth consolidates control.

Think about what this means practically. Universal healthcare becomes “reformist betrayal” rather than achievable improvement. Job guarantees become “propping up capitalism” rather than economic security creating political power. Breaking up monopolies becomes “still capitalism” rather than constraining concentrated wealth. Community development with federal support becomes “hierarchical” rather than enabling genuine local capacity.

Every reform rejected as insufficiently radical is a victory for technofeudal interests. They don’t need to defeat progressive policy. Progressives defeat themselves through purity politics.

The framework needs revolutionary transformation but offers no realistic path to achieve it. When defenders claim “reform maintains oppression,” watch what happens: Who builds the revolutionary movement? How do you organize without working within existing systems? What happens to working people while you wait for conditions that enable revolution?

Any honest answer requires exactly the institutional engagement the framework calls collaboration with oppression.

This paralysis isn’t a bug. It’s how the system works: declare democratic reform illegitimate while offering revolutionary transformation that has no realistic implementation path, ensuring nothing constrains concentrated wealth.

Understanding this vulnerability gives you immunity to far-left paralysis. Every argument rests on this foundation. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it.

Far-left positions claim reform is futile while offering no realistic path to revolution. The result isn’t revolutionary transformation. It’s strategic paralysis that serves concentrated wealth perfectly while activists debate ideological purity.

The Foundational Confusion: How Far-Left Accepts Hard Money Myths

Most far-left positions share the same foundational confusion with far-right arguments: both often misunderstand post-1971 monetary operations, just with different responses.

As I detail in Why Monetary Systems Matter, this matters enormously:

Hard money thinking (gold standard logic): Money is scarce, government must acquire money before spending, creating money causes inflation, we “can’t afford” ambitious programs.

Soft money reality (fiat currency since 1971): Government creates money when spending, real constraints are resources not money, inflation comes from capacity limits not money creation, we can fund any program we have resources to implement.

Here’s the crucial difference in how extremes respond:

Far-right response: Accepts hard money myths as truth, therefore rejects collective action as “unaffordable”

Far-left response: Either accepts hard money myths but demands spending anyway to “expose contradictions,” OR rejects all economic analysis as “capitalist propaganda” and bases policy on moral principles alone

Both responses are strategically catastrophic.

When far-left positions accept mainstream economics’ false claim that programs are “unaffordable,” then frame demands as deliberately impossible to “expose contradictions,” they transform achievable reforms into utopian demands. This ensures nothing gets accomplished.

When far-left positions reject all economic analysis as serving capitalism, they lose the ability to design effective policy. Understanding monetary operations, credit systems, supply chains, and incentive structures matters for designing policy that actually works.

The irony is profound: far-left positions that claim to oppose capitalism often accept capitalism’s own myths about what’s economically possible, then use those myths to justify avoiding practical reform.

Far-left activists often accept the same “we can’t afford it” myths as the far-right, then use those myths to justify demanding impossible things “to expose contradictions.” This transforms achievable reforms into utopian demands while concentrated wealth consolidates control unopposed.

Who Enables These Arguments: The Structural Forces

These positions don’t emerge from nowhere. They’re shaped by specific historical experiences and intellectual traditions.

The Marxist heritage contributes valuable analysis of exploitation and class conflict. But some interpretations lead to strategic dead ends. The “internal contradictions” theory holds that capitalism will inevitably destroy itself, so we should let these contradictions play out rather than reforming the system.

Why this fails: Capitalism has proven remarkably adaptable. The Great Depression spawned both the New Deal and fascism. The 2008 crisis led to Trump, not socialist transformation. Waiting for collapse means abandoning working people to suffering while concentrated wealth adapts and consolidates power.

The anarchist heritage contributes valuable critiques of hierarchy and centralized power. But taken to extremes, these prevent effective collective action. The position that all hierarchy is inherently oppressive, including democratically accountable government, makes large-scale coordination impossible.

Why this fails: Some hierarchies are exploitative, but others enable coordination at scale. Democratic government and well-designed organizations require some forms of hierarchy to function. Rejecting all hierarchy makes addressing problems at scale impossible.

The degrowth absolutism from environmental movements provides valuable sustainability insights. But the position that all economic growth is environmentally destructive leads to strategic paralysis.

Why this fails: Growth isn’t inherently destructive. What matters is what we grow and how. Investment in clean energy, sustainable infrastructure, and environmental restoration is growth that improves environmental outcomes while creating employment. Demanding immediate degrowth alienates working people who need economic opportunity.

What unites these traditions is treating systemic contradictions or historical failures as proof systems are irredeemably unreformable. This structural absolutism prevents recognizing that systems can be reformed to serve different purposes through strategic democratic action.

The common thread: treating any system with contradictions or historical failures as irredeemably unreformable. This absolutism makes democratic reform appear as collaboration by principle, ensuring nothing gets accomplished while concentrated wealth operates unopposed.

Eight Common Arguments and Strategic Flaws

Argument 1: “Capitalism Is Inherently Exploitative and Can’t Be Reformed”

The claim: Any system with private ownership and markets necessarily exploits workers. Reform is futile because exploitation is built into capitalism’s structure.

Why it fails: This treats “capitalism” as monolithic when vastly different systems exist under that label. Denmark has private ownership and markets plus strong labor protections, universal healthcare, and broad prosperity. The difference is policy design and democratic oversight, not whether markets exist.

Your response: “Capitalism encompasses vastly different systems. Compare outcomes in Denmark versus the U.S. The differences are enormous. Rather than rejecting all market systems as equally bad, we should analyze which policies create which outcomes. Opportunity Economics shows how to design capitalism to serve broad prosperity. Saying reform is futile ignores historical evidence of successful democratic reform creating better outcomes.”

Argument 2: “Working Within the System Is Collaboration With Oppression”

The claim: Democratic institutions are captured by capital. Working within them legitimizes oppression. True progressives must reject reformism and work toward revolution.

Why it fails: This accomplishes nothing while concentrated wealth consolidates control through the democratic institutions activists have abandoned. As I explain in Why Progressives Are Accidentally Helping Authoritarians Win, retreating from federal power serves concentrated wealth perfectly.

Your response: “While you wait for revolution, working people suffer under policies you refused to fight. Concentrated wealth doesn’t retreat from institutions. They invest heavily in controlling them. Your refusal to engage doesn’t make institutions more progressive. It ensures they serve corporate interests unopposed. Democratic reform isn’t collaboration. It’s the only realistic mechanism for constraining concentrated wealth.”

Argument 3: “All Reform Just Props Up the Failing System”

The claim: Reforms like universal healthcare or job guarantees just make capitalism more sustainable, delaying its inevitable collapse. We shouldn’t fight for improvements that prolong oppression.

Why it fails: This accelerationist logic abandons working people to suffering while waiting for collapse that may never come or may produce reactionary outcomes. The 2008 crisis led to Trump, not socialism.

Your response: “So working people should suffer now in hopes things get bad enough to produce revolution? That’s morally bankrupt and strategically stupid. Crises don’t automatically produce progressive outcomes. They often produce reactionary backlash. Economic security gives working people political power to demand better conditions. As the Opportunity Economy Toolkit explains, economic security creates political independence. This is how you build power, not how you get bought off.”

The question isn’t whether reform “props up capitalism” but whether it’s designed to serve people or concentrated wealth. As I demonstrate in Universal Basic Income vs. Universal Basic Assets, cash transfers into broken markets get captured by rent-seekers. Landlords raise rents, healthcare raises premiums, education raises tuition.

But well-designed institutional reform with accountability and transparency escapes this capture. Public provision of housing at cost, healthcare free at point of service, education without debt can’t be price-gouged by rent-seekers. Program design determines outcomes, not whether it’s reformist versus revolutionary.

Far-left accelerationism: “Let working people suffer now so things get bad enough for revolution.” This is strategic paralysis disguised as principle. Crises produce reactionary backlash as often as progressive change. The 2008 crisis gave us Trump, not socialism.

Argument 4: “We Need Degrowth, Not Sustainable Growth”

The claim: All economic growth is environmentally destructive. We must actively shrink the economy. Sustainable growth is a capitalist lie.

Why it fails: This treats growth as monolithic when what matters is what we grow and how. Investment in clean energy, environmental restoration, public transit, and sustainable infrastructure is growth that improves environmental outcomes.

Your response: “You’re accepting mainstream economics’ myth that growth necessarily means environmental destruction. What matters is what we grow and how. Investing in clean energy creates jobs while reducing emissions. Building public transit creates employment while reducing car dependence. As Why Monetary Systems Matter explains, we have capacity to invest in sustainable development. The challenge is directing growth toward sustainable outcomes, not rejecting growth entirely. Your position alienates working people who need economic opportunity.”

Argument 5: “Federal Power Is Inherently Oppressive”

The claim: Large-scale coordination is inherently hierarchical and oppressive. Only local, decentralized systems respect autonomy. Federal programs concentrate power and should be resisted.

Why it fails: As I detail in Why Progressives Are Accidentally Helping Authoritarians Win, purely local solutions are fundamentally constrained by local income. While concentrated wealth accesses national resources, communities limited to local capacity remain weak.

Your response: “Your position accepts that corporate structures can organize at national scale to extract wealth, but democratic structures organizing at national scale to build wealth is oppressive? That’s a recipe for permanent powerlessness. Federal resources with community control, as described in Opportunity Economics, enables local autonomy rather than constraining it. Your framework guarantees communities remain resource-poor while corporations dominate with national-scale capacity.”

Argument 6: “We Can’t Afford Programs So We Should Demand Them Anyway”

The claim: Since mainstream economists say we can’t afford bold programs, we should demand them anyway to expose capitalism’s contradictions and hasten its collapse.

Why it fails: This accepts the false premise that programs are unaffordable, then uses it to justify strategic paralysis. As Why Monetary Systems Matter explains, sovereign currency issuers can fund any program they have real resources to implement.

Your response: “You’re accepting mainstream economics’ hard money myths, then using those myths to justify accomplishing nothing. The truth is we CAN afford these programs. The constraint isn’t money but political will. By framing achievable reforms as deliberately impossible ‘to expose contradictions,’ you transform practical policy into utopian demands. This guarantees nothing gets built while concentrated wealth consolidates control.”

Argument 7: “Reformism Betrays True Leftist Principles”

The claim: True leftists demand revolutionary transformation. Anyone supporting incremental reform is a class traitor. Purity matters more than effectiveness.

Why it fails: This purity politics fragments coalitions while accomplishing nothing. As Opportunity Economics explains, building broad coalitions around shared economic interests is essential for constraining concentrated wealth.

Your response: “While you debate ideological purity, concentrated wealth consolidates control unopposed. They don’t care about your principles. They care about policy outcomes. Every improvement you reject as ‘not radical enough’ is a victory for corporate interests. Building coalitions requires accepting that people support better policies for different reasons. Your purity politics guarantees fragmentation and powerlessness.”

Argument 8: “Economic Analysis Is Capitalist Ideology”

The claim: All economic analysis serves capitalist interests. Understanding how current systems work means accepting capitalist framing. We should base policy on moral principles alone.

Why it fails: You need to understand how systems work to change them effectively. Understanding monetary operations, credit systems, supply chains, and incentive structures enables designing effective policy.

Your response: “As Economics is not a Science demonstrates, mainstream economics has severe ideological biases. But rejecting all analytical tools means designing policy with no understanding of how systems function. We should reject mainstream economics’ ideological assumptions while using valuable analytical tools. Strategic competence requires analytical understanding, not just moral conviction.”

Far-left purity politics: “Every reform insufficiently radical is betrayal.” This fragments coalitions while concentrated wealth consolidates control unopposed. They don’t need to defeat progressive policy when progressives defeat themselves through purity demands.

How Far-Left Positions Enable Technofeudalism

The connection between far-left positions and technofeudalism mirrors how far-right libertarianism enables it, but through different mechanisms.

Strategic paralysis through revolutionary demands. By insisting only revolutionary transformation is legitimate, far-left positions abandon democratic reform. While activists debate theory, concentrated wealth consolidates control through the democratic institutions far-left has abandoned.

Universal healthcare becomes “reformist betrayal.” Job guarantees become “propping up capitalism.” Community development becomes “capitalist collaboration.” Every reform rejected as insufficiently radical is a victory for technofeudal interests.

Retreat from federal power. As I explain in Why Progressives Are Accidentally Helping Authoritarians Win, far-left emphasis on local autonomy and rejection of federal power serves concentrated wealth perfectly.

While progressives retreat to local communes constrained by local resources, corporate structures organize nationally to extract wealth. Federal capacity that could provide systematic support for community wealth-building is rejected as “hierarchical.”

The result: weak, resource-poor local initiatives that can’t compete with national-scale corporate extraction. This is exactly what technofeudal interests want.

Rejection of economic security programs. Far-left positions often reject economic security programs as reformist compromises. Job guarantees are “wage slavery.” Universal basic assets are “buying off the working class.”

But as the Opportunity Economy Toolkit explains, economic security creates political independence. By rejecting these programs, far-left positions maintain the economic fragility that makes people politically exploitable. This serves concentrated wealth perfectly.

Fragmenting coalitions. Perhaps most damagingly, far-left purity politics fragments coalitions that could constrain concentrated wealth. Small business owners, suburban families, rural communities, and urban workers all benefit from genuine competition and economic security. But they have different values.

Far-left positions reject coalition-building as betraying principles. If someone supports better policy for “wrong” reasons, they’re class traitors. If someone doesn’t share full revolutionary vision, they’re the enemy.

The result: maximum fragmentation of opposition to concentrated wealth. This is exactly what technofeudal interests want. They don’t need to defeat unified opposition when progressives fragment themselves through purity politics.

While far-left activists wait for revolutionary conditions that never come, concentrated wealth consolidates control through democratic institutions progressives have abandoned. Strategic paralysis disguised as principle serves oligarchs perfectly.

The Alternative: Democratic Reform That Actually Works

What’s the alternative to both far-left revolutionary paralysis and far-right rejection of collective action?

Democratic capitalism using democratically accountable institutions to organize markets for broad prosperity while enabling pluralistic society.

Historical evidence demonstrates reform works. The New Deal transformed American capitalism. Social Security, unemployment insurance, labor protections, financial regulation, and massive infrastructure investment created broad-based prosperity. This wasn’t revolution. It was democratic reform.

Scandinavian social democracy shows capitalism can be organized to serve broad prosperity. Strong labor protections, universal healthcare, generous social programs, and high living standards coexist with private ownership and markets. The difference is democratic oversight and policy design.

The GI Bill created America’s middle class boom through systematic federal support. As Why Monetary Systems Matter documents, this used federal government’s capacity to create money for broad-based wealth building. This wasn’t revolutionary transformation. It was strategic use of federal resources.

Institutional quality matters more than ideological purity. As I explain in Universal Basic Income vs. Universal Basic Assets, the same amount of spending produces completely different outcomes depending on institutional design. Poorly designed programs enrich rent-seekers. Well-designed programs with accountability and transparency escape capture and serve people directly.

Historical evidence shows well-designed democratic reform creates better outcomes than either unregulated markets or revolutionary upheaval. Scandinavian countries, Germany’s social market economy, and America’s post-war expansion all demonstrate that institutional quality determines whether ordinary people prosper.

Economic security enables political power. Far-left positions correctly identify how economic insecurity makes people exploitable. But rejecting economic security programs as “reformist” maintains this exploitation.

Denmark has 30% higher business formation than the U.S. because their safety net enables risk-taking. Security enables achievement rather than suppressing it. This is how you build power to demand more, not how you get bought off.

Federal resources enable genuine local capacity. As Why Progressives Are Accidentally Helping Authoritarians Win explains, connecting community wealth-building to federal resources enables genuine local autonomy rather than constraining it.

Germany’s Sparkassen system demonstrates this. Roughly 400 local savings banks representing 15% of banking assets operate with public mandates for regional development, measuring success by community impact rather than just profit.

The New Deal, Scandinavian social democracy, and the GI Bill all demonstrate that democratic reform works. The question isn’t whether capitalism can be reformed, but whether we have political will to build coalitions and implement effective institutional design.

Your Response Toolkit: Building Effective Coalitions

You now understand the philosophy and strategic flaws behind far-left positions. Here’s your toolkit for building effective coalitions despite these arguments.

The key move: Don’t attack allies or debate ideological purity. Redirect to strategic effectiveness and coalition-building around shared interests.

When Someone Says “Capitalism Can’t Be Reformed”

Don’t say: “You’re being unrealistic!”

Do say: “Capitalism encompasses vastly different systems. Compare Denmark’s outcomes with strong labor protections to the U.S. The differences are enormous. Rather than rejecting reform as futile, we should analyze which policies create which outcomes and build coalitions to implement them. Historical evidence from the New Deal to Scandinavian social democracy shows democratic reform works. The question is whether we organize effectively to implement it.”

Why this works: Shifts from abstract ideology to concrete evidence and strategic action.

When Someone Says “Working Within the System Is Collaboration”

Don’t say: “But we have to be practical!”

Do say: “Concentrated wealth doesn’t retreat from institutions. They invest heavily in controlling them. Your refusal to engage doesn’t make institutions more progressive. It ensures they serve corporate interests unopposed. As Why Progressives Are Accidentally Helping Authoritarians Win explains, retreating from federal power serves concentrated wealth perfectly. Democratic reform is how we constrain corporate power, not collaboration with it.”

Why this works: Shows how their position serves the interests they oppose.

When Someone Says “Reform Just Props Up the System”

Don’t say: “But reform helps people!”

Do say: “So working people should suffer while you wait for revolution? Economic security creates political power to demand more. As the Opportunity Economy Toolkit explains, this is how you build power, not how you get bought off. The question isn’t whether reform ‘props up capitalism’ but whether it’s designed with accountability and transparency to serve people rather than concentrated wealth. Well-designed institutional reform escapes rent-seeker capture.”

Why this works: Reframes reform as power-building rather than compromise.

When Someone Demands Revolutionary Purity

Don’t say: “You’re being divisive!”

Do say: “While you debate ideological purity, concentrated wealth consolidates control unopposed. They don’t care about your principles. They care about policy outcomes. Building effective opposition requires coalitions around shared interests. People support better policies for different reasons. That’s fine. What matters is whether we constrain concentrated wealth or fragment ourselves through purity demands. Your approach guarantees fragmentation and powerlessness.”

Why this works: Focuses on strategic effectiveness versus ideological correctness.

When Someone Rejects Federal Resources as “Hierarchical”

Don’t say: “But we need federal support!”

Do say: “Your position accepts that corporate structures organize at national scale to extract wealth, but democratic structures organizing to build wealth is oppressive? Federal resources with community control enables local autonomy. As Why Progressives Are Accidentally Helping Authoritarians Win demonstrates, purely local solutions are constrained by local income. Your framework guarantees communities remain resource-poor while corporations dominate nationally.”

Why this works: Exposes how the position serves concentrated wealth.

When Someone Says “We Can’t Afford It So Demand It Anyway”

Don’t say: “Actually, we can afford it!”

Do say: “You’re accepting mainstream economics’ false premise, then using it to justify accomplishing nothing. As Why Monetary Systems Matter explains, sovereign currency issuers create money through spending. Real constraints are resources, not money. By framing achievable reforms as deliberately impossible, you transform practical policy into utopian demands. This guarantees nothing gets built while concentrated wealth consolidates control.”

Why this works: Breaks the hard money myth enabling their paralysis.

Building effective opposition requires accepting that people support better policies for different reasons. Coalition-building around shared economic interests constrains concentrated wealth. Purity politics fragments opposition and serves oligarchs perfectly.

Successfully Defending Democratic Reform

You now have everything needed to defend democratic reform against far-left paralysis.

The vulnerability in their position: They declare reform futile while offering no realistic path to revolution, ensuring nothing gets accomplished while concentrated wealth consolidates control.

The strategic flaws: Accepting hard money myths, rejecting coalition-building, abandoning federal power, fragmenting through purity politics, and treating all reform as collaboration.

The economic myths they share: Hard money thinking, capitalism/socialism conflation with monetary reality, growth as inherently destructive, and economic analysis as ideology.

Your response toolkit: Redirect to strategic effectiveness, expose how positions serve concentrated wealth, focus on coalition-building around shared interests, and emphasize institutional quality over ideological purity.

What you’re protecting: The principle that democratic reform works. Evidence from the New Deal, Scandinavian social democracy, and the GI Bill. The reality that economic security creates political power. The truth that federal resources enable genuine local capacity. The necessity of coalition-building for constraining concentrated wealth.

This defense matters because the alternative to democratic reform isn’t revolutionary transformation. It’s strategic paralysis that enables technofeudal consolidation. When far-left positions fragment coalitions and abandon institutions, concentrated wealth operates without organized opposition.

Democratic reform works when properly designed. Competitive markets with democratic oversight. Economic security enabling achievement. Community control with federal resources. Coalition-building around shared interests despite different values.

As Opportunity Economics demonstrates, we can build this. But only if we reject revolutionary purity in favor of strategic effectiveness and coalition-building.

You now have the tools to build effective opposition. Use them.

The future of democratic capitalism depends on people like you who can recognize extremist paralysis from any direction and focus on what actually constrains concentrated wealth: democratic reform, institutional quality, economic security, and broad coalitions.

If you believe in democratic reform to build a more prosperous, inclusive, secure America with opportunity for all, build coalitions for democratic reform despite far-left purity politics. That’s how you actually constrain concentrated wealth rather than debating theory while oligarchs consolidate control unopposed.

The antidote to far-left paralysis isn’t attacking allies. It’s building coalitions around shared interests, focusing on institutional quality over ideological purity, and recognizing that democratic reform has worked historically and can work again. Strategic effectiveness beats revolutionary purity every time.

Leave a comment

You’ve heard it before. “Taxation is theft.” Maybe from a libertarian uncle at Thanksgiving, a political podcast, or online debates. It sounds principled. Who likes being forced to pay for things they don’t support?

Here’s what’s actually happening: that phrase is a weapon. A corporate-funded weapon designed to eliminate the only tool (democratic government) capable of constraining concentrated wealth.

For fifty years, far-right rhetoric has been dismantling democratic capitalism. Every time someone says “taxation is theft,” they’re attacking the legitimacy of democratic collective action itself. When all collective action becomes “violence,” oligarchs and corporate interests operate without democratic accountability.

This essay defends democratic capitalism by exposing how these far-right arguments actually work. You’ll learn the core contradiction that makes libertarian philosophy self-defeating, six rhetorical techniques designed to make you accept oligarchy, five economic myths that make collective action seem impossible, and specific response templates for real conversations.

This defense matters because democratic capitalism (markets with democratic oversight, genuine competition with economic security, community control with federal resources) represents our best path to broad prosperity. As I detail in Opportunity Economics, we can use democratic collective action to make capitalism work for everyone.

But only if we recognize and counter the far-right attacks designed to make that impossible.

What’s at Stake: The Future of Democratic Capitalism

This isn’t academic philosophy. Far-right attacks on collective action legitimacy threaten the foundations of democratic capitalism itself.

Democracy requires collective decision-making. If every policy needs unanimous consent, democratic governance becomes impossible. Far-right philosophy doesn’t just oppose specific policies. It denies that pluralistic societies can legitimately make binding collective decisions.

Capitalism requires democratic oversight. Markets don’t naturally produce fair outcomes. They produce the outcomes they’re designed to produce. Genuine competition requires preventing monopolies, ensuring fair practices, and maintaining infrastructure. All of this requires collective action. Without democratic oversight, capitalism creates economically weak populations who are politically exploitable, as I’ve discussed in my essay 50 Years of Economic Myths Have Delivered Americans Into Technofeudalism.

Pluralism requires collective provision of security. A diverse society where people can pursue different values requires everyone having access to basic economic foundations. Without collective healthcare, education, and security, pluralism becomes hollow. Only those born into wealth have genuine freedom to choose their path.

Far-right rhetoric enables this transformation by declaring democratic market regulation as “illegitimate violence” while corporate domination appears as “voluntary exchange.”

The choice is clear: democratic capitalism where markets serve everyone through democratic accountability, or technofeudalism where concentrated wealth operates without constraint.

What We’re Defending: Democratic Capitalism That Works

When I talk about “democratic capitalism,” I mean using properly designed democratic institutions to make markets serve broad prosperity. This is what Opportunity Economics provides: genuine competition (not monopolies), economic security enabling opportunity (not desperation forcing bad deals), community control with federal resources (not corporate extraction), and democratic oversight ensuring markets serve everyone (not just concentrated wealth).

Far-right libertarian rhetoric specifically attacks this vision.

“Taxation is theft” prevents the economic security that makes real opportunity possible.

“Regulation is violence” prevents the anti-monopoly enforcement that enables genuine competition.

“Government is coercion” prevents the democratic oversight that keeps markets serving people.

Understanding their attacks helps you defend the alternative: markets that actually work because democratic institutions maintain competition, prevent extraction, and ensure everyone has the foundation to participate.

This is what we’re fighting for. Let’s see how they’re attacking it.

The Core Vulnerability: They Need What They Call Illegitimate

Here’s the fatal flaw in far-right libertarian philosophy: it claims all coercion is wrong, but requires coercion to function.

Think about property rights. You own land. Someone trespasses. You call police who forcibly remove them. That’s coercion, using force against someone for using “your” land.

You sign a contract. Someone breaks it. Courts enforce compliance. That’s coercion, forcing someone to honor an agreement.

The framework needs enforcement while declaring all enforcement illegitimate.

When defenders claim “defensive force isn’t coercion,” watch what happens: Who decides what counts as legitimate property? Who determines contract violations? Who enforces these decisions?

Any answer requires exactly the collective coordination the framework calls violent aggression.

This contradiction isn’t a bug. It’s how the system works: declare democratic collective action illegitimate while requiring non-democratic enforcement of property and contracts that serve existing wealth.

Understanding this contradiction gives you immunity to every “taxation is theft” argument. They all rest on this foundation. Once you see it, you can’t unsee it.

Anatomy of the Attack: Five Building Blocks

To defend democratic capitalism, you need to understand the philosophical structure underlying these arguments. These five building blocks all lead to the fatal contradiction I just showed you. Each one sounds reasonable in isolation but creates impossible contradictions when combined.

Building Block 1: You Only Have Obligations You Personally Choose

The claim: Democratic processes cannot create binding obligations. If you didn’t personally agree to a rule, it has no authority over you.

The problem: Did you consent to property rights? Traffic laws? Using dollars? No. You were born into society with these rules. Yet you benefit from all of them daily. The framework cannot explain how any social coordination happens without impossible unanimous agreement.

What this means for your life: Your neighbor refuses vaccination during a pandemic outbreak. Your employer removes safety equipment to cut costs. A factory upstream dumps chemicals into your drinking water. When someone claims you have no obligations you didn’t choose, they’re eliminating every rule that protects you from these harms. You lose every collective shield while concentrated wealth gains total freedom to exploit you.

The quick counter: “If only personally-chosen obligations count, how do we coordinate anything? Who builds highways if anyone can opt out?”

Building Block 2: Your Property Rights Exist Before Government

The claim: Property rights exist naturally, before any government. You own what you produce through your labor. Government taxation takes what’s rightfully yours.

The problem: How do you know what’s “yours” without a legal system to define and enforce property rights? If I claim this land is mine and you claim it’s yours, who decides? We need collective institutions (courts, police, property records) to make ownership work.

What this means for your life: You work 50 hours a week. Without government-enforced contracts, your employer doesn’t pay you. Without government-created currency, you can’t buy food. Without government-maintained courts, you can’t enforce deals. The income you earned exists only because government creates the system that makes earning possible. Far-right philosophy declares this system illegitimate while depending on it completely.

The quick counter: “Property rights require enforcement systems. Who enforces them in your system, and how do you fund that enforcement without collective resource pooling?”

Building Block 3: All Enforcement of Collective Decisions Is Violence

The claim: Any law that might eventually be enforced through physical force counts as violence. This makes democratic governance morally equivalent to assault.

The problem: Your property rights require enforcement. If someone trespasses, you’ll eventually call police who may use physical force. Your contracts require enforcement. Courts will eventually enforce compliance. If all enforcement is violence, then the far-right system requires violence too. They’ve defined the term so broadly that everything becomes violence, which makes the term meaningless.

What this means for your life: When they equate democratic taxation (with legal processes, appeals, graduated enforcement) with violent assault, they’re using emotional manipulation to make you reject the only tool capable of constraining concentrated private power. You’re supposed to feel like a victim when you’re actually being robbed of your political power.

The quick counter: “You’re using ‘violence’ to mean any enforcement, then treating it as morally equivalent to assault. Those are fundamentally different things.”

Building Block 4: Markets Work Without Collective Rules

The claim: Markets emerge naturally from voluntary exchange, requiring no institutional framework or collective coordination.

The problem: Markets need someone to define what can be owned (intellectual property laws), enforce contracts when people break promises (courts), prevent fraud (consumer protection), maintain infrastructure (roads, utilities), and create standards so products work together (electrical outlets, building codes). Markets don’t emerge from the wilderness. They’re human-designed systems requiring extensive collective coordination.

What this means for your life: The “free market” you’re told to worship is actually a carefully designed system that currently serves concentrated wealth. Understanding that markets are designed means we can redesign them to serve everyone through democratic collective action. The question isn’t whether markets should exist, but who they should serve.

The quick counter: “Markets require property rights, contract enforcement, fraud prevention, infrastructure, and standards. All of these require collective coordination.”

Building Block 5: Economic Transactions Are Always Voluntary

The claim: If no one initiates physical force, transactions are voluntary. Economic desperation doesn’t count as coercion.

The problem: “Work or starve” isn’t meaningfully voluntary. When you need healthcare, housing, and food to survive, market transactions involve structural coercion. Economic power constrains choices just as surely as political power.

What this means for your life: You’re diabetic. Insulin costs $300 per month to buy, $10 to produce. You pay or you die. Is this voluntary? You need a job. The only employer in your town pays poverty wages with dangerous conditions. You accept or your children go hungry. Is this voluntary? Far-right philosophy calls this freedom while declaring democratic minimum wage laws “violent coercion.” They’ve got it exactly backward.

The quick counter: “When someone needs insulin to survive and you charge 30 times the production cost, that’s not a voluntary transaction. That’s exploiting desperation for profit.”

Who Funds These Arguments

These aren’t emerging from philosophical truth-seeking. They’re part of a deliberate corporate-funded project.

Starting in the 1940s, groups like the American Liberty League (funded by the DuPont family and major corporations) and Mont Pelerin Society (founded by Friedrich Hayek in 1947) promoted free-market ideology. The real transformation came through systematic corporate funding of university economics positions.

Corporations began funding endowed chairs costing $1-5 million each, giving donors significant influence over hiring and research priorities. Over decades, this shifted economics faculties toward market-friendly approaches that minimize collective action. The Koch network alone has spent over $1.3 billion on academic programs and advocacy since 2000.

Far-right libertarian arguments represent the extreme version: mainstream economics claims government might be inefficient; far-right philosophy declares it inherently violent.

This matters because it reveals these arguments aren’t scientific discoveries. They’re deliberate products designed to prevent democratic societies from constraining concentrated wealth. As I document in Economics is not a Science, what presents as economic wisdom often functions as corporate-funded ideology.

Now that you know these arguments are corporate-funded, let me show you the specific rhetorical weapons they use.

Six Rhetorical Weapons: How the Attack Works

Once you recognize these six techniques, far-right arguments become transparent. You’ll start seeing them everywhere. This is your decoder ring.

Weapon 1: Definitional Manipulation (The Core Trick)

Watch how terms get redefined.

“Violence” normally means direct physical harm intentionally initiated against someone. In far-right usage, it means any enforcement mechanism behind laws, including legal processes and democratic collective decisions.

By switching between these definitions, the argument performs sleight of hand. The moral weight and emotional response come from the first definition (assault, battery, initiated harm). But the speaker applies it to the second definition (taxation, democratic governance, enforcement of collectively-decided rules).

This is the equivocation fallacy. Use one definition to generate emotional response, then apply it to a completely different situation.

The same trick works with “coercion” (redefined from “forced against your will with threats” to “any collective decision I disagree with”), “aggression” (redefined from “initiating harm” to “enforcing democratically-enacted laws”), and “innocent people” (redefined from “haven’t harmed anyone” to “anyone who disagrees with the law”).

Weapon 2: Moral Loading

Notice the language choices.

For government: violence, coercion, aggression, force, punish, take, deprive, theft

For their position: voluntary, peaceful, freedom, choice, tolerance, kindness, legitimate

This isn’t neutral description. It’s loading the deck. Taxation becomes “violence against innocent people.” Enforcement becomes “punishment.” Democratic decisions become “aggression.”

Meanwhile, their preferred system is “voluntary cooperation” and “peaceful interaction,” even though it also requires enforcement of property rights, contracts, and defense.

The emotional valence does the arguing. If you accept the terminology, you’ve already lost.

Weapon 3: False Equivalence

The arguments equate taxation with assault, regulation with violence, being outvoted with being victimized, and contributing to collective needs with being robbed.

These aren’t equivalent. Democratic taxation with legal processes, graduated enforcement, and appeals is fundamentally different from someone initiating physical harm against you. By treating them as the same, the argument makes democratic governance sound like criminal assault.

Weapon 4: Cherry-Picking Enforcement Extremes

“What happens if you refuse to pay taxes?”

The answer jumps immediately to property seizure, imprisonment, or force. This ignores warning notices, fines and penalties, payment plans, liens, court proceedings, appeals, and years of process.

The slippery slope presents the final extreme outcome as the immediate consequence, when reality involves extensive graduated responses and legal protections.

Weapon 5: Superficial Agreement Trap

“We both see the problems. We both want people to be happy, healthy, prosperous, and free. We just disagree on methods.”

This sounds reasonable but it’s a trap. The “method” isn’t a neutral tool choice. It’s a philosophical commitment that determines what’s possible. If your method cannot solve collective action problems, cannot provide public goods, and cannot address large-scale coordination challenges, you’re not offering a different route to the same destination. You’re saying we shouldn’t try to reach the destination at all.

Weapon 6: The Conversion Story

Far-right arguments often include anecdotes of educated people (PhDs, professors) who “never thought of it this way” before having an epiphany. These stories create unprovable claims, position the speaker as enlightened teacher, suggest opponents simply haven’t considered these ideas, and provide social proof.

The reality: Political philosophers have debated these exact questions for centuries. Social contract theory, collective action problems, democratic legitimacy, and the relationship between individual rights and collective obligations are foundational topics in political philosophy. These aren’t new insights. They’re old arguments repackaged.

The Economic Myths Enabling the Attack

Far-right rejection of collective action gains credibility from widespread economic myths. Understanding and debunking these myths is essential for defending democratic capitalism.

The Foundational Confusion: Hard Money vs. Soft Money Thinking

Most Americans still think about money using pre-1971 gold standard logic even though we’ve operated under a completely different system for over fifty years.

As I detail in Why Monetary Systems Matter, this “hard money thinking” versus “soft money reality” distinction is crucial for understanding both how far-right arguments gain traction and why they’re fundamentally wrong about economic constraints.

Hard money thinking (gold standard logic): Money is a scarce commodity that must be “backed” by something tangible. Government must acquire money through taxes or borrowing before spending. Creating money causes automatic inflation. Government debt is dangerous and must be paid back. Federal budgets work like household budgets.

Soft money reality (fiat currency since 1971): Money is created by government spending, destroyed by taxation. Government creates money when it spends, doesn’t need to “find” it first. Inflation comes from resource constraints, not money creation. Government debt is simply dollars created but not yet taxed back. Federal government is currency issuer, not currency user like households.

This distinction matters enormously. Far-right arguments exploit hard money misconceptions to make democratic collective action appear economically impossible. When people believe government must “find money” before spending, programs benefiting working people seem unaffordable while corporate subsidies somehow never face the same scrutiny.

Understanding that we’ve operated under soft money reality since 1971 reveals that most constraints we accept are artificial. The real constraints are workers, materials, and organizational capacity, not government “running out of money.”

This foundational confusion enables far-right arguments to sound plausible even when they’re completely wrong about how our monetary system actually operates.

Five Economic Myths Exploited by Far-Right Rhetoric

Myth 1: “Government Budgets Work Like Household Budgets”

The myth claims government must collect taxes before it can spend, just like households must earn money before spending.

The reality: Since 1971, the U.S. has operated on a fiat currency system. The federal government is the currency issuer. It creates dollars through spending. You and I are currency users. We must obtain dollars before spending them. The operational reality is that government spends money into existence first, then taxes it back.

How far-right arguments exploit this: By accepting household budget logic, people believe government programs require “finding money” through taxes or borrowing. This makes collective action appear unaffordable, supporting far-right claims that such programs are impossible to fund legitimately.

The truth: The real constraints are actual resources (workers, materials, organizational capacity), not money. When far-right activists claim government programs are “unaffordable,” they’re perpetuating hard money myths that make collective action seem impossible when it’s actually limited only by our real productive capacity.

Myth 2: “Money Creation Causes Inflation and Economic Collapse”

The myth claims creating money automatically causes inflation, so sound policy requires hard money constraints.

The reality: This hard money misconception confuses money creation with resource constraints. Japan created money for decades with minimal inflation. Massive U.S. money creation after 2008 didn’t cause hyperinflation. Countries imposing austerity based on hard money thinking saw deflation and economic collapse.

Inflation happens when demand exceeds productive capacity. If 100 people want cars but you can only produce 80, prices rise. But if you train more workers, build better factories, and improve supply chains to produce 120 cars, prices stabilize.

How far-right arguments exploit this: Fear of inflation from money creation makes government spending appear dangerous, supporting claims that collective provision of economic security will cause economic collapse.

The truth: Inflation comes from resource constraints, not money creation. The 2021-2022 inflation episode came from semiconductor shortages, port congestion, energy price spikes, and corporate pricing power, not government spending. Opportunity Economics expands productive capacity through job guarantee programs, infrastructure development, and community wealth building.

Myth 3: “Taxation Takes ‘Your’ Money”

The myth claims you earned your income through your labor and talent, so taxation takes what’s rightfully yours.

The reality: Your pre-tax income isn’t “yours” in some state of nature. Income distribution is determined by tax policy, labor law, market structure, and collective decisions about resource allocation. Property rights are created and enforced by government. Your income reflects a particular set of policy choices about how markets are structured and resources are distributed.

How far-right arguments exploit this: Framing taxation as “taking your property” begs the question of what constitutes “your property” in the first place. It makes taxation appear as theft rather than as democratic decisions about resource allocation.

The truth: Your tax dollars don’t fund federal programs. The federal government creates money for spending first, then uses taxes to manage inflation and resource allocation. Federal taxation serves to create demand for the currency and remove excess money from circulation when necessary, not to “fund” spending.

Myth 4: “Markets Are Natural, Government Is Artificial”

The myth claims markets emerge naturally from voluntary exchange, so government interferes with this natural order.

The reality: Markets are human-designed institutions requiring extensive legal infrastructure. As I detail in Your Mainstream Economics Decoder Ring, this is one of mainstream economics’ most damaging myths. Property rights, contract enforcement, dispute resolution, standards, and regulations are all government functions that make markets possible. There is no “natural” market separate from government.

How far-right arguments exploit this: Treating markets as natural makes government appear as artificial interference rather than as the institutional framework that enables markets to function.

The truth: The question isn’t whether government shapes markets, but how and for whose benefit. Far-right arguments against government intervention actually serve concentrated wealth by preventing democratic oversight of market structure.

Myth 5: “Private Charity Can Solve Collective Problems”

The myth claims voluntary charity is morally superior to government programs and can address social needs.

The reality: Private charity faces the free rider problem. If helping flood victims is voluntary, rational individuals wait for others to contribute while enjoying the benefits. Result: systematic underprovision. Historical evidence is clear. Before Social Security, elderly poverty was endemic. Before public health systems, epidemics killed millions. Before public education, most children received no schooling.

How far-right arguments exploit this: By claiming voluntary charity can replace government programs, far-right activists make collective action appear unnecessary.

The truth: Voluntary charity works for some local needs. It cannot replace systematic collective action for infrastructure, disease control, basic research, environmental protection, or national defense. The scale and coordination required exceed what voluntary action can provide.

What Happens When They Win: From Democratic Capitalism to Technofeudalism

Understanding the connection between far-right libertarian philosophy and technofeudalism is crucial for defending democratic capitalism.

Technofeudalism is the system where platform monopolies and financial oligarchs rule over economically fragile populations. It’s not a free market. It’s a system where concentrated wealth sets rules that extract value from working people while preventing democratic accountability.

Far-right libertarian philosophy enables this transformation in three ways.

It prevents economic security programs. Economic security is political power. When people have healthcare, education, housing stability, and baseline income guaranteed, they can reject exploitative deals and organize for better conditions. As I explain in Opportunity Economics, economic security creates political independence.

Far-right philosophy prevents this by declaring ALL collective provision of economic security as “violence against innocent people.” Job guarantees become coercion. Universal healthcare becomes theft. The result: economic insecurity that makes people politically exploitable.

Denmark has 30% higher business formation than the U.S. precisely because their safety net allows entrepreneurial risk-taking. But far-right arguments prevent Americans from building similar security by calling it violence.

It prevents market structure reform. Genuine competition requires preventing monopolies. Platform giants like Amazon, Google, and Facebook have created network effects that eliminate meaningful competition. Financial institutions have become “too big to fail,” privatizing gains while socializing losses.

Breaking up these concentrations and regulating finance requires democratic collective action. Far-right philosophy declares such intervention illegitimate regardless of how concentrated private power becomes.

The principle “competition cures all” only works when markets are actually competitive. Far-right arguments prevent the democratic oversight needed to maintain competition, guaranteeing that markets become dominated by concentrated wealth.

It prevents community economic development. As Opportunity Economics demonstrates, communities need federal resources to become genuinely competitive. Right now, local wealth-building is constrained by local economic capacity. But connecting community initiatives to federal resource flows (with local control over usage) could make them competitive alternatives to corporate extraction.

Far-right philosophy rejects this as “coercion,” preventing the federal capacity communities need to build real alternatives.

The pattern is clear. Far-right philosophy prevents every form of democratic accountability over private economic power. It declares illegitimate exactly those collective actions that could constrain concentrated wealth.

This isn’t an accident. As I document in Economics is not a Science, libertarian think tanks receive massive corporate funding not because wealthy donors believe in individual freedom, but because libertarian philosophy prevents the democratic collective action that could constrain their power.

Far-right arguments enable technofeudalism by eliminating democratic capacity to shape economic outcomes while making corporate domination appear as voluntary market outcomes.

The stakes: whether democratic capitalism survives or we complete the descent into technofeudalism.

Shareable moment: Far-right philosophy prevents both economic security programs AND institutional reforms that could constrain wealth extraction. This is why it serves concentrated wealth perfectly. It eliminates democratic accountability while making corporate domination look like voluntary markets.

Your Defensive Toolkit: Protecting Democratic Capitalism in Conversation

You now understand the philosophy, rhetoric, and myths behind far-right attacks on democratic collective action. Here’s your defensive toolkit for real conversations.

These responses don’t just counter individual arguments. They defend the legitimacy of democratic capitalism itself. When someone says “taxation is theft,” you’re not just arguing about tax policy. You’re defending the principle that democratic societies can make collective decisions to shape market outcomes for broad prosperity.

The key defensive move: Don’t defend specific policies. Expose the philosophical assumptions that make their entire framework self-defeating, then redirect to what democratic capitalism actually enables.

When Someone Says “Taxation Is Theft”

Don’t say: “But we need taxes for roads and schools!”

Do say: “Taxation is how democratic societies coordinate resources for collective needs. Calling it theft assumes property rights exist before government, but property requires enforcement systems. Who enforces property rights in your system, and how do you solve the collective action problems that require coordination?”

Why this works: It exposes the foundational assumption and forces them to explain how their system actually functions.

When Someone Says “Government Programs Are Coercion”

Don’t say: “But government helps people!”

Do say: “All enforcement involves some element of force, including enforcing property rights and contracts. The question isn’t whether force exists, but whether it’s legitimate. Do you accept democratic legitimacy or only individual consent? If only individual consent, how do you coordinate collective action for things like infrastructure, defense, or public health?”

Why this works: It clarifies the real disagreement and shows how their position makes collective coordination impossible.

When Someone Says “If You Don’t Pay Taxes, Men With Guns Will Force You”

Don’t say: “That’s not how it works!”

Do say: “You’re describing what happens after years of refusal and legal process. This is like saying stop signs are violent because if you run enough of them while resisting arrest, police might use force. The question is whether the underlying obligation (traffic safety, collective provision of public goods) is legitimate, not whether enforcement eventually involves compulsion if you refuse legal processes.”

Why this works: It exposes the slippery slope fallacy and refocuses on legitimacy rather than enforcement mechanisms.

When Someone Says “Voluntary Charity Is Better”

Don’t say: “But charity isn’t enough!”

Do say: “Can voluntary charity build interstate highways? Control epidemics? Fund basic research with 50-year payoff horizons? If not, how do those things get done in your system? If they don’t happen at all, how does modern civilization function? And why should we accept a system that makes solving collective problems impossible?”

Why this works: It forces them to confront the practical impossibility of their framework.

When Someone Claims “We Can’t Afford Government Programs”

Don’t say: “Rich people should pay more!”

Do say: “As I explain in Why Monetary Systems Matter, the federal government creates money when it spends. Since 1971, we’ve operated on a fiat currency system where government is the currency issuer, not a currency user like households. The constraint isn’t money, but real resources: workers, materials, organizational capacity. Do we have enough doctors, nurses, and hospitals for universal healthcare? Yes. The question is organizing resources, not finding money.”

Why this works: It directly challenges the hard money myth and redirects to real resource constraints.

When Someone Uses Loaded Language

Don’t say: “Taxation isn’t really violence!”

Do say: “You’re redefining violence to include democratic enforcement, then treating it as morally equivalent to assault. But democratic taxation with legal processes, graduated penalties, and appeals is fundamentally different from initiating physical harm. Are you using ‘violence’ to mean any enforcement, or specifically initiated harm? Because those are very different, and conflating them is intellectually dishonest.”

Why this works: It exposes the equivocation fallacy and forces clear definitions.

Successfully Defending Democratic Capitalism

You now have everything needed to defend democratic capitalism against far-right attacks.

The vulnerability in their attack: They need the coercion they call illegitimate (property enforcement, contract enforcement) while declaring all collective coercion invalid. This contradiction makes their entire framework self-defeating.

The six attack patterns: Definitional manipulation, moral loading, false equivalence, cherry-picking extremes, superficial agreement, and conversion stories. Once you recognize these, their arguments become transparent.

The economic myths they exploit: Hard money thinking, government budget constraints, and “we can’t afford it” rhetoric, all designed to make democratic collective action appear economically impossible when it’s actually limited only by real resources.

Your defensive arsenal: Response templates that expose assumptions, force them to explain how their system functions, and redirect to what democratic capitalism actually enables.

What you’re protecting: The principle that democratic societies can use collective action to shape market outcomes. Genuine competition through anti-monopoly enforcement. Economic security enabling real opportunity. Community control with federal resources. Democratic oversight ensuring markets serve everyone.

This defense matters because the alternative to democratic capitalism isn’t libertarian freedom. It’s technofeudal subjugation. When far-right rhetoric eliminates democratic accountability over markets, concentrated wealth operates without constraint. That’s not freedom. That’s oligarchy.

Democratic capitalism works when properly designed: competitive markets with democratic oversight, economic security enabling achievement, genuine opportunity through collective provision of foundations, and community control over development with federal resources.

As Opportunity Economics demonstrates, we can build this. But only if we successfully defend the legitimacy of democratic collective action against far-right attacks designed to make it impossible.

You now have the tools to mount that defense. Use them.

The future of democratic capitalism (markets serving everyone through democratic accountability) depends on people like you who can recognize extremist attacks and defend the principles that make broad prosperity possible.

Part 2 of this series examines how far-left positions create different constraints on democratic capitalism. Part 3 makes the positive case for public money as the tool enabling democratic capitalism to serve everyone.

But first: successfully defend democratic capitalism from far-right attacks designed to destroy it. That’s the foundation everything else builds on.

Leave a comment

The Affordable Care Act succeeded at what it was designed to do. It expanded insurance coverage to millions of previously uninsured Americans. It eliminated pre-existing condition exclusions that had denied coverage to people who needed it most. It created regulated insurance marketplaces with subsidies for middle-income families. It allowed young adults to stay on parents’ plans until age 26. By the metrics of insurance expansion, Obamacare achieved remarkable success.

But by the metrics that actually matter for human health and wellbeing, America continues failing at healthcare, and Obamacare perpetuated that failure. Medical bankruptcies still destroy family wealth even with insurance. Healthcare costs keep rising faster than wages. Millions remain uninsured or underinsured. Workers stay trapped in jobs they hate because they need employer coverage. Healthcare providers spend increasing hours on administrative tasks rather than patient care. People still delay or avoid necessary care because of cost.

This was not a policy failure. It was inevitable.

American healthcare philosophy is constrained by two interlocking mythologies that determine what is imaginable. The first is economic: a captured discipline presenting theoretical beliefs as natural laws, making fiscal constraints appear real when they are political choices. The second is political: a Cold War-era binary that frames any universal program as “socialist” and therefore ideologically suspect. Together, these mythologies made Obamacare’s failure at actual healthcare inevitable from the start. They also make genuine reform invisible, not just to policymakers, but to voters who cannot demand what they cannot imagine.

This creates intellectual gridlock. Voters internalize the mythology and self-limit their demands. Politicians reinforce mythological “conventional wisdom” because it is safe and popular. Voters hear the mythology repeated by leaders, further constraining their imagination. No one demands more because no one can envision more. No one offers more because there is no political reward for challenging beliefs voters already accept as truth.

This essay deconstructs these mythologies. By taking apart each piece of the belief system that constrained Obamacare and continues to constrain American healthcare, you can see the machinery that has limited your imagination. Once you see how the mythology works, you can break free from it. And once you break free, you can finally demand better.

Obamacare’s success at insurance expansion is not a partial victory to build on. It is the mechanism by which the broken framework perpetuates itself. Each success within the mythology reinforces the assumption that this is what healthcare reform can look like. Each person who gains insurance coverage while still facing medical bankruptcy, each regulated marketplace that still enriches shareholders, validates the framework’s assumptions. The mythology survives precisely because it delivers enough visible wins to appear functional while systematically failing at what actually matters.

Obamacare proved that market-based, means-tested, fiscally “responsible” insurance expansion is achievable. That proof now constrains future reform. The next proposal must work within the same framework or face accusations of being unrealistic, unaffordable, or socialist. Success within the prison strengthens the walls.

This is a distinctly American failure. Germany, Japan, Singapore, Costa Rica, and dozens of other nations provide universal healthcare at half our cost with better outcomes. They are not smarter or more virtuous. They simply operate outside the mythologies that constrain American imagination. What other countries see as obvious, that healthcare is a universal basic asset rather than a consumer good, remains invisible to Americans trapped within both a captured economic discipline and an obsolete political binary.

The question is not whether universal healthcare is possible. It is why America, alone among wealthy nations, cannot see that it is.

Let’s deconstruct the mythology and find out.

Deconstructing the Economic Mythology

America’s approach to healthcare rests on assumptions presented as economic law. Government has limited money available, so healthcare expansion must be “budget neutral” over ten years. Every dollar spent requires finding a dollar elsewhere through taxes or spending cuts. Deficit spending is fiscally irresponsible and economically dangerous. Private insurance companies provide valuable services that competition makes efficient. Means-tested programs are more “efficient” than universal programs.

These beliefs function like a lens. They determine what healthcare possibilities come into focus and which remain blurred, hidden, invisible. Through this lens, universal Medicare appears fiscally impossible. Single-payer appears economically naive. Healthcare as a right appears utopian rather than practical.

When politicians say “we can’t afford universal healthcare,” they are not reporting economic facts, they are speaking a coded language. As I detail in Your Mainstream Economics Decoder Ring, this language is designed to limit what you can imagine. “We can’t afford it” actually means “We choose not to prioritize it.” “Fiscal responsibility” means responsibility to wealthy donors, not working people. “Budget neutral” means maintaining artificial limits while corporate welfare faces no such constraints.

This coded language does not just constrain policy options. It constrains your ability to see alternatives. You hear it repeated so often by politicians, pundits, and economists that it becomes the water you swim in. The mythology becomes your own internal voice telling you what is “realistic” before you even articulate a demand. You self-censor. You accept less. You vote for candidates who promise only what the mythology permits.

To me the evidence points towards the Technofeudalism strategy that has gripped the U.S. for 50 years. However, once you see this pattern and the capture, you can start to break free from it.

The deeper problem is that economics is not a science. Real science requires three characteristics:

1. willingness to test and abandon basic assumptions when evidence contradicts them

2. ability to make reliable predictions

3. and openness to alternative explanations resolved through evidence rather than institutional power.

Mainstream economics exhibits none of these characteristics. Instead of expanding what we can see, it contracts our vision to what existing power structures find acceptable.

The claim that mainstream economics is demonstrably false is not rhetorical. It is an empirical statement. The 2008 financial crisis that mainstream models said was virtually impossible. The European austerity policies that models predicted would restore growth but produced 27% GDP contraction in Greece. The quantitative easing that models predicted would cause runaway inflation but did not. The repeated failure of Phillips Curve predictions about the relationship between unemployment and inflation.

Each failed prediction is a demonstration. A scientific discipline would revise theories that fail this consistently. Economics does not. The demonstration is complete: the framework is false, and Obamacare was built on it. Its failure was baked in from the start.

Each failure of economics as science produced a concrete healthcare policy failure. Economics does not abandon failed assumptions, so Obamacare was built on the assumption that competition among private insurers produces efficiency, despite Medicare’s 2% administrative costs proving otherwise. Economics does not make reliable predictions, so Obamacare projected cost curves based on models that missed the 2008 crisis. Economics excludes heterodox alternatives through institutional power, so single-payer was “off the table” before negotiations began. Not because evidence showed it would fail, but because it challenged the mythology.

The discipline’s dysfunction is not abstract. It is inscribed in the Affordable Care Act’s 2,000 pages.

Deconstructing the Political Mythology

Economic mythology alone does not explain American healthcare’s unique failures. Other nations have economists trained in the same mainstream tradition, yet they achieve universal coverage regardless. What makes America’s economic mythology so sticky is that a second political mythology is layered on top: the capitalism versus socialism binary inherited from Cold War politics.

As I explore in Beyond Capitalism vs. Socialism, this binary is a zombie ideology. Intellectually dead but still shambling through American political discourse. It frames every policy question as a choice between “free markets” and “government control,” between individual liberty and collective welfare. Within this framework, universal healthcare automatically registers as “socialist” regardless of how it is structured, funded, or delivered.

This political mythology operates independently of evidence. Medicare is a government-run single-payer program that remains wildly popular among Americans who simultaneously oppose “socialized medicine.” The Veterans Administration provides government-run healthcare that recipients largely support. Yet the same people who benefit from these programs often reject extending similar coverage to everyone because of the labels attached.

The contradiction reveals that labels matter more than substance. Once something is categorized as socialist, it becomes ideologically impossible regardless of whether it works.

The mythology is so deeply internalized that voters police themselves before politicians even need to. Propose universal healthcare and watch Americans object on behalf of insurance companies they despise. They have absorbed the mythology so completely that they argue against their own interests, using language they learned from those who profit from the current system.

Recognizing this self-policing is the first step toward stopping it.

The two mythologies reinforce each other in a way that creates an almost impenetrable barrier. Economic mythology says universal healthcare is unaffordable. Political mythology says attempting it is ideologically dangerous. Together they create a double barrier: even if someone breaks through the fiscal illusion and understands that the federal government creates money through spending, they still face the socialist accusation. Even if someone recognizes that other capitalist democracies provide universal healthcare without becoming socialist states, they still face claims that “we can’t afford it.”

Each mythology provides backup when the other fails. Deconstructing one is not enough. You must see through both.

Countries not trapped in this American ideological framework simply build what works. Singapore combines aggressive government intervention with private enterprise. The government owns 90% of land and provides universal healthcare and public housing, yet hosts thriving private markets. Germany achieves universal coverage through non-profit “sickness funds” with private providers. Japan uses heavily regulated employer and community pools with government-set prices. Nordic countries blend competitive markets with comprehensive welfare states.

None of these countries debate whether their systems are “capitalist” or “socialist.” They evaluate whether citizens get healthcare. They adjust based on evidence about results. America alone remains trapped in a binary that makes pragmatic solutions invisible.

How the Mythology Made Obamacare’s Failure Inevitable

Look at Obamacare through this deconstructed lens and its design becomes inevitable rather than accidental. The mythology made certain choices visible and others invisible to its designers. But the designers were also constrained by what voters could accept. They could not offer what voters could not imagine demanding.

Premium tax credits phase out at different income levels. Why? Because the mythology says means-testing “efficiently targets” subsidies. Universal coverage was invisible as an option, both to policymakers and to voters who would have called it “unrealistic.”

Cost-sharing reductions exist as separate programs. Why? Because providing full coverage appeared “too expensive” through the mythological lens. The possibility that full coverage costs less in total was invisible.

The individual mandate forces healthy people into risk pools. Why? Because adverse selection must be corrected through market mechanisms. The possibility of simply covering everyone, eliminating adverse selection entirely, was invisible.

Insurance exchanges create competitive markets. Why? Because competition between private insurers appeared to drive “efficiency” through the mythological lens. The evidence that Medicare operates at one-sixth the administrative cost was invisible.

The employer mandate preserves workplace insurance. Why? Because the mythology could not see beyond the existing structure. The possibility that decoupling healthcare from employment might unleash entrepreneurship was invisible.

To readers outside the United States, this last point requires explanation. Unlike virtually every other developed nation, most Americans receive health insurance through their employers rather than through government programs or individual markets. If you work for a company that offers health benefits, your employer selects the insurance plan, pays a portion of the premium, and deducts the remainder from your paycheck. If you lose your job, you typically lose your health insurance. If you want to start a business, you must first solve the problem of how to insure yourself and your family, often at costs exceeding $20,000 per year for a family plan on the individual market.

This arrangement strikes citizens of other developed nations as bizarre, and it should. It is not the product of deliberate policy design or market evolution. It is a historical accident.

During World War II, the U.S. government imposed wage controls to combat inflation. Employers could not compete for scarce workers by offering higher pay, so they began offering health benefits instead. The IRS ruled these benefits tax-exempt, creating a massive subsidy for employer-provided insurance that persists today. After the war ended, the temporary workaround calcified into permanent structure. Unions negotiated for better benefits rather than pushing for universal coverage. The insurance industry built its business model around employer groups. Decades of path dependency followed.

What began as a wartime workaround is now defended as the natural order. A perfect example of mythology making historical accident appear inevitable. The employer mandate in Obamacare did not just preserve workplace insurance. It enshrined a system that gives employers leverage over workers, suppresses entrepreneurship, and ties Americans’ access to healthcare to their employment status. The designers could not see decoupling as an option because the mythology had made this accidental structure invisible as a choice. And voters, having internalized the same mythology, never demanded decoupling.

Each piece of Obamacare reflects what the mythology made visible:

1. preserve private insurance

2. expand coverage at the margins, work within fiscal constraints.

The result is a system that expands insurance coverage while maintaining insurance company profits, employer-based coverage, and massive administrative complexity. Given the mythology, this outcome was inevitable.

This is not a Democratic Party failure. Every Republican healthcare proposal operates within identical mythological constraints. Health savings accounts, association health plans, block-granted Medicaid, high-risk pools: Republicans accept the same economic mythology. Healthcare must be “budget neutral,” markets are efficient, fiscal constraints are real. They accept the same political mythology in reverse: government programs are socialist and therefore dangerous, private markets are capitalist and therefore virtuous.

The debate between Obamacare and its Republican alternatives is a debate about how to preserve private insurance, which means-testing approaches to use, how much to subsidize versus deregulate. Neither party’s vision can see beyond the shared mythology because both parties’ economists emerged from the same captured discipline and both parties’ strategists operate within the same obsolete political binary. And neither party’s voters demand more, because they have absorbed the same limitations.

The partisan healthcare wars are fights over details within a shared prison of imagination.

What Becomes Visible When the Mythology Lifts

Once you deconstruct the mythology, you can begin to see what it hides. The possibilities that appeared impossible become visible. The constraints that appeared natural reveal themselves as choices. And once you can see, you can finally demand better.

As I explain in Why Monetary Systems Matter, since August 15, 1971, when President Nixon ended dollar convertibility to gold, the United States has operated on a pure fiat currency system. This is not controversial theory. It is the documented operational structure of our monetary system.

In a fiat currency system, the federal government creates money when it spends and destroys money when it taxes. The government must spend money into existence before it can tax it back. The operational sequence is: government spends first (creating money), then taxes (destroying money).

This distinction, invisible through the mythological lens, changes everything. Your household budget works differently than the federal government’s budget. You and your community are currency users who must earn or borrow before spending. The federal government is the currency issuer who creates dollars through spending. When politicians compare the federal budget to a household budget, they are either confused about basic monetary operations or deliberately keeping you from seeing the truth.

Former Federal Reserve Chairman Beardsley Ruml stated explicitly in 1946 that “taxes for revenue are obsolete” for sovereign currency issuers. The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis confirms: “As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent.” This is mechanically how the system works.

This understanding allows us to separate real constraints from mythological ones.

Real constraints are physical resources. Do we have enough doctors and nurses? Enough hospitals and clinics? Enough medical equipment and pharmaceutical production capacity? Can we train more healthcare workers if demand exceeds current supply?

These are real. You cannot treat patients without doctors. You cannot perform surgery without hospitals. You cannot prescribe medication that does not exist.

Mythological constraints are political choices presented as natural laws. “Budget neutrality” requirements for legislation. Statutory debt ceiling limits. “Pay-for” rules requiring revenue offsets. Assumptions about “fiscally responsible” deficit levels.

These constraints are laws we wrote and can rewrite. Once you see them as choices rather than facts, the possibility of choosing differently becomes visible.

The United States has abundant real resources for healthcare. We have hospitals operating below capacity, medical schools that could train more doctors if funded, nurses who could work more hours if compensated fairly, pharmaceutical factories capable of producing more medication.

The constraint is not real resources. It is political will to deploy those resources for universal healthcare. The “fiscal constraint” that dominated Obamacare’s design was entirely self-imposed through legislation we chose to pass based on mythological economics.

The real constraint is inflation, which happens when demand for real goods and services exceeds the economy’s capacity to produce them. Will universal coverage push demand beyond our capacity to deliver healthcare services? The answer is no. We have substantial unused capacity and can expand it through training programs and infrastructure investment.

The question changes from “how do we pay for it?” to “do we have the resources to do this?” And we do.

Why Markets Fail for Healthcare

The mythology presents markets as the natural, efficient way to organize economic activity. Through this lens, market-based healthcare appears sensible. Once the mythology lifts, you can see why markets systematically fail for survival goods.

Markets excel at discretionary goods where consumers can walk away, competition is genuine, information is available, and failure does not mean death. Nobody wants government-designed smartphones. Markets drive innovation and efficiency for optional consumption.

But markets systematically fail for survival goods where people cannot walk away. You cannot decline to have a heart attack because prices are too high. You cannot shop around when you are unconscious in an ambulance. You cannot negotiate with a monopoly hospital in a medical emergency. These are not optional consumer choices. They are survival necessities.

Patients cannot evaluate medical procedures like they compare televisions. Medical knowledge requires years of specialized training that patients do not have. Information asymmetries are inherent and unavoidable. True market competition requires informed choice, which is impossible in healthcare.

Many healthcare services tend toward monopoly. Hospitals need scale for specialized equipment and expertise. In many communities, there is one hospital system with effective monopoly power. Competition may be inefficient or impossible.

Markets optimize for quarterly profits, but healthcare requires generational thinking. Preventive care pays off over decades. Chronic disease management requires lifetime commitment. Market timeframes do not match social needs.

As I detail in my essay on why the U.S. needs Universal Basic Assets, when you provide healthcare subsidies or vouchers, insurance companies and healthcare providers capture that value through higher premiums and prices. The mythology made this invisible. It could only see subsidies as helping people, not as feeding rent-seekers.

This is precisely what happened with Obamacare. Medicare and Medicaid expansion led to healthcare costs rising faster than general inflation. Obamacare subsidies resulted in insurance premiums increasing to capture subsidy value. The pattern mirrors student loans inflating tuition and housing vouchers inflating rents.

Healthcare is an inelastic market where people must purchase the service, supply is constrained by powerful interests, switching costs are high, and information asymmetries favor sellers. In these markets, any purchasing power increase gets captured by price increases. You cannot decline treatment for life-threatening illness.

Your healthcare subsidy does not increase your real access. It becomes a subsidy for insurance companies and healthcare systems. The mythology said market mechanisms with subsidies would solve the problem. Once the mythology lifts, you can see that subsidies just feed the wealth extraction machine.

The efficiency mythology collapses entirely on evidence. Medicare administrative costs run approximately 2% of total spending. Medicaid administrative costs run approximately 5-7%. Private insurance administrative costs run approximately 12-18% of total spending.

These are measured costs from actual programs. Private insurance spends six to nine times as much on administration as Medicare does per dollar of healthcare delivered.

Why the massive difference? Private insurance administrative costs include marketing and advertising, underwriting and risk assessment, profit margins for shareholders, executive compensation (insurance CEOs often make $10-20 million annually), claims denial operations, network management and contract negotiation with thousands of providers, broker commissions, and multiple billing systems.

But the true cost appears in provider offices. Doctors and nurses spend hours daily on insurance-related paperwork instead of treating patients: prior authorization requests for routine procedures, appeals of denied claims, different billing codes for different insurers, documentation requirements that serve insurance companies rather than patient care.

The mythology could only see “private sector efficiency.” The evidence shows government-run Medicare delivers healthcare at dramatically lower administrative cost than private insurance markets. The efficiency argument for private insurance fails completely on actual evidence. The mythology persists not because evidence supports it but because institutions protect the limited vision.

What Other Countries See

While America debates healthcare using mythology, successful countries worldwide quietly abandoned ideology for pragmatic approaches based on what actually works. They can see possibilities that America’s mythology hides.

Successful healthcare systems mix public and private elements pragmatically rather than adhering to ideological purity. The UK combines tax-funded universal NHS with thriving private markets for those who want them. Germany achieves universal coverage through non-profit “sickness funds” with private providers. Japan uses heavily regulated employer and community pools, government-set prices, and private providers to achieve the world’s best outcomes at 60% of American costs. Singapore mixes aggressive government intervention with private competition, achieving higher life expectancy while spending 76% less per capita than America. Costa Rica abolished its military in 1948 and invested those resources into education and healthcare, achieving higher life expectancy than the United States at a fraction of the cost.

The pattern is clear once you can see it: successful countries provide healthcare as a universal basic asset, organize around real constraints like capacity and workforce rather than mythological fiscal limits, and create economic security that enables opportunity.

These nations do not debate whether their systems are “capitalist” or “socialist.” They evaluate whether citizens get healthcare. They adjust based on results. They build what works.

Denmark has higher business formation rates than the United States precisely because their comprehensive safety net allows people to take entrepreneurial risks without catastrophic downside. When survival is not at stake, people can think long-term, take creative risks, and build for the future. Economic security is not the enemy of opportunity. It is the foundation that makes real opportunity possible.

The Opportunity Economics Alternative

Now that we have deconstructed what limits American healthcare vision, we can see the alternative clearly. It is not just “better healthcare policy.” It is a fundamentally different way of seeing economic possibility. As I outline in Opportunity Economics, this framework recognizes that economic security is not the enemy of opportunity. It is the foundation that makes real opportunity visible and achievable.

The Opportunity Economics policy framework rests on three core principles that become visible once the mythology lifts.

1. First, Universal Basic Assets over means-tested subsidies. Provide everyone with foundational assets like healthcare, education, and housing rather than cash subsidies that get captured by rent-seekers. This becomes visible once you can see how markets work for survival goods. Giving people healthcare dollars through subsidies, vouchers, or tax credits just inflates insurance premiums. Giving people healthcare itself through universal Medicare actually delivers healthcare.

   The core insight: in markets where people cannot walk away, provide the asset directly rather than money to purchase the asset. For discretionary goods, give people money and let markets work. For survival necessities, provide the asset universally and let people supplement through markets if they choose.

2. Second, real constraints over mythological constraints. Organize policy around actual resource availability rather than artificial fiscal limits based on mythology. The question is whether we have doctors, hospitals, and equipment, not whether we have satisfied arbitrary budget rules designed to limit democratic choice.

3. Third, economic security enables opportunity. When survival is not at stake, people can take entrepreneurial risks, invest in education, participate in democracy, and build for the future. This becomes visible once you can see economic security as foundation rather than hammock.

Universal Medicare for All is the healthcare application of these principles. Everyone covered from birth, no exceptions. Comprehensive benefits including medical, dental, vision, mental health, and long-term care. No premiums, deductibles, or co-pays for covered services. Single-payer administrative simplicity with one system and one set of rules. Negotiated drug pricing using monopsony power like other countries. Healthcare completely decoupled from employment.

This is not socialism. It is recognition that markets fail for survival goods, which is why every successful society uses non-market mechanisms for healthcare while letting markets handle discretionary consumption.

Universal Medicare is a baseline, not a mandate. Think of it as “Medicare for All Who Want It.” If you prefer to pay cash or maintain private insurance, the system accommodates that choice. If you want public coverage plus supplemental private insurance for additional services, that option exists. Everyone has support, but people have choice.

As for innovation: our current system dramatically hampers it. The private insurance model constantly denies care and only rewards innovations that make existing treatments cheaper, not exploration of new and experimental approaches. Resources flow to optimizing billing codes and claims denial rather than medical breakthroughs. A robust public system providing baseline care could actually free up resources for genuine medical innovation by removing the profit-driven gatekeeping that currently constrains what treatments get developed and approved.

Medicare’s 2% administrative cost versus private insurance’s 12-18% cost means roughly $400-500 billion in annual savings from eliminating insurance company overhead. Total current healthcare spending is roughly $4.3 trillion. Medicare for All would not require creating $4.3 trillion in new government spending capacity. It would reorganize how we deliver the healthcare we are already providing, eliminating waste in the current system.

Once you can see this, the question changes. It is no longer “can we afford universal healthcare?” It becomes “why are we paying twice as much for worse outcomes?”

The Opportunity Economy Toolkit provides practical tools for understanding these mechanisms and building coalitions for change.

What We Must Demand

Understanding how mythology limits vision is necessary but not sufficient. Knowledge without action changes nothing. The mythology persists because it serves powerful interests, and those interests will not voluntarily expand what we can see. Universal healthcare, universal basic assets, and economic security will not be given to us. They must be demanded.

But here is the crucial point: having deconstructed the mythology, you now have the understanding to break the intellectual gridlock. You can see beyond what you were taught was possible. You know that “we can’t afford it” is a political choice, not an economic fact. You know that “socialist” is a label designed to prevent you from evaluating evidence. You know that every other wealthy nation has solved this problem.

You can finally demand better.

Demand universal healthcare as a universal basic asset. Healthcare is a survival necessity where market mechanisms produce extraction, not efficiency. Universal Medicare for All provides foundational security that enables people to take productive risks. Everyone covered from birth. Comprehensive benefits. No premiums or deductibles. Healthcare completely decoupled from employment.

This is not socialism. It is recognition that markets fail for survival goods, which is why every successful society uses non-market mechanisms for healthcare. The evidence is clear: Medicare delivers healthcare at 2% administrative cost while private insurance runs 12-18%. Other countries achieve better outcomes at half the cost through universal systems.

This is not radical. It is what becomes visible once you see beyond the mythology. The only thing radical is continuing to accept a system that costs twice as much and delivers worse outcomes because the mythology says markets must be preserved.

Demand we transcend obsolete political categories. We must refuse the capitalism versus socialism framing that makes pragmatic solutions ideologically impossible. Universal healthcare is neither socialist nor capitalist. It is what works. The question is not whether a policy fits predetermined ideological categories but whether it mobilizes resources effectively to meet human needs.

Dozens of capitalist democracies provide universal healthcare. The binary that says we cannot is a political mythology, not an economic constraint. We must demand that economics function like other sciences: testing theories against evidence, abandoning theories that fail, and remaining open to alternatives that better explain how economies actually work.

Demand change through political organization. As I argue in Why Progressives Are Accidentally Helping Authoritarians Win, retreating from national politics into local solutions plays directly into the hands of those who benefit from our limited vision. Real power comes from controlling federal resources, monetary policy, and regulatory frameworks. We must engage at that level or accept permanent subordination to those whose vision serves only themselves.

This means building coalitions across traditional political lines. A Republican small business owner struggling against corporate monopolies and a Democratic worker wanting genuine opportunity share the same interest in an economy that works for everyone. As I explore in The Politics of Stakeholder Society, the deeper political divide is between universal stakeholding, where everyone affected by collective decisions deserves a voice, and conditional stakeholding, where only those meeting certain criteria deserve full membership. Economic insecurity enforces conditional stakeholding by making people too precarious to participate fully in democracy.

The forces benefiting from limited vision are organized, funded, and politically active. They control think tanks, fund academic departments, staff regulatory agencies, and lobby legislators. They will not expand our vision voluntarily. Change happens because organized people demand it and hold power accountable when it resists.

The Choice Before Us

America could have adopted this approach in 2010. We could have succeeded at healthcare, not just insurance. The doctors existed. The hospitals existed. The monetary sovereignty to fund it existed. What did not exist was the vision to see beyond economic and political mythology.

We can still expand that vision now. Universal Medicare as a universal basic asset. Economic security enabling opportunity for workers, entrepreneurs, and families. Healthcare philosophy grounded in evidence rather than mythology. A commitment to transcending the capitalism versus socialism binary for pragmatic evaluation of what works.

The alternative to America’s limited healthcare vision exists. It is called Opportunity Economics. It rests on core principles: Universal Basic Assets over means-tested subsidies that get captured by rent-seekers. Real resource constraints over mythological fiscal limits. Economic security as the foundation for opportunity rather than its enemy. Pragmatic evaluation of what works rather than ideological categorization.

But frameworks do not implement themselves. Policies do not pass because they are correct. Change happens because organized people demand it and hold power accountable when it resists.

The question is not whether universal healthcare is possible. Once you see beyond the mythology, you can see that it is. The question is not whether we can afford it. Once you understand how fiat currency works, you can see that we can.

The question is whether enough of us will see clearly enough to demand what the mythology has hidden. Whether we will break the intellectual gridlock that keeps voters accepting less and politicians offering less. Whether we will organize, mobilize, and insist on what becomes visible once the mythology lifts.

That is a political question. And only political action can answer it.

You have deconstructed the mythology. You can see what was hidden. You can finally demand better.

What will you demand?

Leave a comment

In 1946, while America was still celebrating victory in World War II, a prominent figure in American finance stood before the American Bar Association and made a statement so radical it should have transformed economic policy forever.

The man who said this wasn’t some fringe academic or political agitator. He was Beardsley Ruml, Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, one of the most powerful positions in American finance. He was also chairman of R.H. Macy & Co., a participant in the Bretton Woods Conference that established the postwar international monetary system, and the architect of the modern tax withholding system we still use today.

In January 1946, in an article published in American Affairs journal, he told America a truth that should have changed everything: the federal government doesn’t need tax revenue to fund its spending.

Ruml was careful to distinguish the federal government from state and local governments. States and cities genuinely need tax revenue or borrowing to fund their operations because they don’t issue their own currency. But the federal government, he explained, operates under entirely different rules. It creates the currency itself.

So why are you hearing about this for the first time? And why did it take the emergence of Modern Monetary Theory nearly 80 years later for us to rediscover what Ruml explained in 1946?

Who Was Beardsley Ruml?

To understand why Ruml’s statement matters, you need to understand who he was. This wasn’t some radical outsider. This was the establishment speaking.

Beardsley Ruml (1894-1960) was a statistician, economist, and businessman who moved in the highest circles of American power. After earning his PhD from the University of Chicago in 1917, he became a pioneer in intelligence testing for the U.S. Army. He later directed the fellowship program of the Rockefeller Foundation, became dean of Social Sciences at the University of Chicago, and rose to become an executive and eventually chairman of R.H. Macy & Co. in 1945. He served as a director of the New York Federal Reserve Bank from 1937 to 1947, and as its chairman from 1941 to 1946.

During World War II, Ruml proposed something that would change American life forever: the withholding tax system. Before 1943, Americans paid their income taxes annually in one lump sum. Ruml convinced Congress to adopt “pay-as-you-go” withholding, where employers deduct taxes from each paycheck. This system, which we still use today, made income taxation far more efficient. People barely notice money they never see.

But Ruml’s most important contribution wasn’t administrative. It was intellectual. It came in his 1945 speech to the American Bar Association, published in January 1946.

What Ruml Actually Said

In his address to the American Bar Association, later published as “Taxes for Revenue Are Obsolete,” Ruml started with a seemingly simple question: “Why does the government need to tax at all?”

The obvious answer, he noted, is that “taxes provide the revenue which the government needs in order to pay its bills.”

But then Ruml dropped his bombshell. He explained that this answer, while intuitive, was fundamentally wrong for the federal government with two specific characteristics:

1. Control of a central banking system (like the Federal Reserve)

2. An inconvertible currency (money not tied to gold or any other commodity)

Here’s Ruml’s key passage, which the journal editors considered so important they italicized it:

In other words: The federal government doesn’t need to collect taxes before it can spend. It can simply create the money it needs.

Ruml was explicit about the distinction: “The necessity for a government to tax in order to maintain both its independence and its solvency is true for state and local governments, but it is not true for a national government.” State and local governments don’t create currency. They genuinely need tax revenue or borrowing to spend. The federal government faces no such constraint.

This might sound insane. But Ruml was describing the actual mechanics of how sovereign currency systems work after leaving the gold standard, a process that had begun in 1933 when FDR took the U.S. off the domestic gold standard, and would be completed in 1971 when Nixon ended international gold convertibility.

What Ruml understood (and what we’ve spent decades forgetting) is that our money system fundamentally changed. Before, dollars were like gold coins, scarce objects that got moved around. After 1971, the federal government creates and manages dollars to coordinate economic activity. Money became more like a measurement system than a commodity. But our entire political discourse still operates as if we’re on the gold standard.

If Not for Revenue, Then Why Tax at All?

If the federal government doesn’t need tax revenue to spend, why have federal taxes at all?

Ruml identified four crucial functions of taxation:

1. To stabilize the purchasing power of the dollar (controlling inflation)

This is the primary function. Taxation removes money from the economy, preventing too much money from chasing too few goods. When the government spends money into existence, it needs a mechanism to remove money to prevent inflation. That mechanism is taxation.

2. To express public policy in the distribution of wealth and income

Progressive taxation, estate taxes, and other policies can reduce inequality and shape the distribution of economic resources according to democratic values.

3. To subsidize or penalize various industries and economic groups

Tax incentives and penalties can encourage or discourage specific economic behaviors: renewable energy, tobacco use, real estate investment, and so on.

4. To isolate and assess directly the costs of certain benefits

Sometimes linking taxes to specific benefits (like highway taxes funding roads) helps create public accountability and appropriate usage.

Notice what’s absent from this list: raising revenue to fund government operations.

As Ruml put it: “The public purpose which is served should never be obscured in a tax program under the mask of raising revenue.”

The Two Changes That Made This Possible

Ruml was careful to explain why this represented a fundamental shift. Two historical developments had transformed government finance:

First, the rise of central banking. Before central banks, governments that wanted to borrow faced the constraints of financial markets. If they borrowed too heavily, interest rates would rise, making further borrowing prohibitively expensive. This forced governments to rely primarily on tax revenue.

Second, the abandonment of the gold standard. When currency was convertible into gold, governments faced real resource constraints. They needed gold reserves to back their currency. But with an inconvertible fiat currency, that constraint disappeared.

This shift fundamentally transformed what government debt means. Before 1971, Treasury bonds were IOUs backed by gold the government might not have. After 1971, Treasury bonds became IOUs payable in dollars that only the government can create. The federal government can always pay its debts, yet our entire political discourse still operates as if we’re living under the gold standard.

Together, these changes meant that the federal government achieved “final freedom from the money market.” It could no longer be held hostage by bond vigilantes or gold reserves.

State and local governments, Ruml carefully noted, still faced these constraints because they don’t issue their own currency. They genuinely do need tax revenue or borrowing to fund their operations. But the federal government operates under entirely different rules.

Why This Matters: The Real Sequence of Money

Here’s the part that breaks most people’s brains: The federal government must spend money into existence before anyone can pay taxes.

Think about it. Where do dollars come from originally? They don’t grow on trees. They’re not mined from the ground. Private individuals and businesses can’t create U.S. dollars. That’s counterfeiting.

Dollars can only come into existence through:

1. Federal government spending (the government credits bank accounts)

2. Federal Reserve lending through the banking system

3. Bank lending (which creates deposit money, but this still requires government-issued reserves in the banking system)

This is how the system actually works, not theory. When Congress appropriates funds, the Treasury instructs the Federal Reserve to credit bank accounts. New money comes into existence through keystroke entries. This is the documented operational sequence.

This means the logical sequence is:

1. Federal government spends money into existence

2. Money circulates through the economy

3. Federal government collects some back through taxation

The conventional wisdom has it backwards. We think of it as:

1. Government collects taxes

2. Government spends tax revenue

But that isn’t how it works at the fundamental level, because the money wouldn’t exist to tax if the government hadn’t created it in the first place.

As Ruml understood, taxation doesn’t fund federal spending. Taxation destroys money that the government already spent into existence, helping to control inflation and achieve the other policy objectives he identified.

The Controversy: What Ruml Really Wanted

While Ruml’s analysis of how government finance works was largely correct (at least for the post-gold-standard era), his political agenda was less noble.

The bulk of his 1946 article wasn’t actually about the fundamental nature of taxation. It was a lobbying effort to eliminate the corporate income tax.

Ruml argued that since government doesn’t need tax revenue, and since corporate taxes ultimately get passed on to consumers anyway, we should abolish them. This was, not coincidentally, exactly what the business community wanted.

Some Modern Monetary Theory economists, like Professor Bill Mitchell, have pointed out that if you read Ruml’s complete work carefully, he wasn’t really a proto-MMT thinker. He still believed government debt needed to be paid back with future taxes. He was using the “taxes are obsolete” argument strategically to benefit his corporate allies.

You can acknowledge Ruml’s political agenda while still recognizing that his core insight about how sovereign currency systems work was correct.

A stopped clock is right twice a day. Ruml may have been pushing a pro-business agenda, but in making his argument, he accurately described the mechanics of modern fiat currency that most economists and policymakers still refuse to acknowledge today.

The Lost Decades: Why We Forgot

If a Federal Reserve chairman explained all this in 1946, why did we forget?

Several factors contributed to this collective amnesia:

The Bretton Woods System (1944-1971) maintained a modified gold standard for international transactions, obscuring the full implications of fiat currency. The U.S. dollar was convertible to gold for foreign governments, creating some constraint on money creation, though these constraints largely applied to international, not domestic, policy. Nixon ended convertibility not as some reckless experiment but because we faced the prospect of literally running out of gold reserves as countries like France exercised their right to convert dollars to gold. Since 1971, we’ve operated in what economists call a “soft money” or “fiat currency” system, fundamentally different from the “hard money” gold standard. But most Americans still apply hard money logic to soft money reality.

The Cold War political climate made any economic ideas that questioned conventional wisdom about government finance seem dangerously radical or “socialist.” Ruml’s insights were particularly easy to ignore because they came wrapped in a pro-corporate agenda that business didn’t actually need explained to pursue their interests.

The rise of monetarism and neoliberalism in the 1970s and 1980s pushed economics in exactly the opposite direction. Economists like Milton Friedman (ironically, someone who actually understood that governments create money) focused on constraining government rather than explaining its actual capabilities. As I document in “50 Years of Economic Myths Have Delivered Americans Into Technofeudalism,” this wasn’t accidental. For fifty years, powerful interests have systematically conditioned Americans to accept artificial limits on our collective power. Politicians from both parties, from Reagan’s “fiscal conservatism” through Clinton’s “Third Way” to Obama’s deficit reduction, used the same economic myths to justify policies that concentrated wealth upward.

The household budget metaphor proved incredibly sticky. Politicians and media found it easier to explain government finance using analogies to household budgets, even though the analogy is fundamentally misleading. Governments that issue their own currency are nothing like households. This wasn’t innocent simplification. It was systematic miseducation designed to prevent us from recognizing the economic tools that could transform our collective political power.

Professional incentives in economics favored models that treated government finance as similar to private finance. Grants, positions, and influence flowed to economists who reinforced conventional wisdom, not those who challenged it. This conditioning ran so deep it captured even universities, with academic economics continuing to teach these myths despite their failure to meet basic scientific standards.

Most importantly, powerful interests benefited from the confusion. If the public believes the government “can’t afford” social programs, healthcare, education, or infrastructure, then demanding these programs seems irresponsible. But if people understood that the constraint isn’t money but real resources (labor, materials, technology) the political debate would shift dramatically.

Economic insecurity makes us politically exploitable. When we’re economically fragile, we can’t resist bad deals. We accept worse conditions, which makes us more fragile and even more exploitable. It’s a downward spiral. Meanwhile, economic security creates political independence. It gives us the foundation to take risks, reject exploitation, and build genuine self-determination.

This misunderstanding has geopolitical consequences. China builds high-speed rail networks and green energy infrastructure. European nations invest heavily in education and healthcare. Meanwhile, America debates whether we can “afford” to fix crumbling bridges or address climate change. Other countries have figured out these monetary realities while America stagnates in debt panic.

The Rediscovery: Modern Monetary Theory

It would take decades for economists to rediscover and systematize what Ruml had observed in 1946.

The development of Modern Monetary Theory began in the 1990s, primarily through the work of economists Warren Mosler, L. Randall Wray, Bill Mitchell, Stephanie Kelton, and others. They built on earlier foundations:

• Georg Friedrich Knapp’s Chartalism (1905): The state theory of money, arguing that money derives its value from government acceptance, not from precious metals

• Abba Lerner’s Functional Finance (1943-1947): The idea that government budgets should be judged by their economic effects, not by arbitrary rules about deficits

• Alfred Mitchell-Innes’s Credit Theory of Money (1913-1914): The understanding that money is fundamentally about credit relationships, not commodity exchange

• Hyman Minsky’s financial instability hypothesis: Understanding how bank credit and money creation work in modern economies

These theoretical foundations existed in the economics literature, but they remained marginalized. MMT synthesized them into a coherent framework for understanding how modern monetary systems actually operate.

The key insight (the same one Ruml had articulated in 1946) is that currency-issuing governments face no financial constraints, only real resource constraints.

The government cannot “run out” of money in any meaningful sense. It can always create more dollars. The relevant question is whether creating more dollars will cause inflation by trying to purchase more real resources (goods, services, labor) than the economy can produce.

Why This Changes Everything

Understanding that federal taxes don’t fund federal spending transforms every major political debate:

On Social Security and Medicare: These programs cannot “go bankrupt” in any meaningful sense. The federal government can always make the payments. The real question is whether the real resources will exist to provide the goods and services (medical care, nursing homes, and more) that seniors need. That’s a question about healthcare capacity and real economic productivity, not about “trust fund” accounting.

On the national debt: The so-called national debt isn’t really debt in the household sense. It’s mostly just the accounting record of dollars the federal government spent but hasn’t yet taxed back. Most of it represents the private sector’s savings held in Treasury securities. “Paying off” the national debt would mean destroying a large portion of private sector savings.

Treasury bonds aren’t debts the government owes. They’re investment products the government creates. They provide safe assets for the financial system, create a foundation for credit markets, and represent private sector wealth. Every dollar of government debt is a dollar of private savings. This confusion between outdated gold-standard thinking and modern monetary reality has led Americans to support policies that actively harm them, as I explore in Why Monetary Systems Matter.

The political consequences of misunderstanding this are severe. “Fiscal responsibility” rhetoric enables systematic wealth transfer. It cuts programs that provide economic independence while preserving systems that create economic dependence. Meanwhile, technical policies like depreciation rules systematically transfer wealth from working people to asset owners through seemingly neutral tax code provisions that most Americans never learn about.

On deficit spending: Deficits aren’t inherently good or bad. What matters is whether the spending drives inflation (meaning we’re hitting real resource constraints) or achieves important public purposes. A deficit during a recession with high unemployment is completely different from a deficit when the economy is at full capacity.

Much of the growth in the national debt comes not from new spending programs but from a peculiar budgeting practice. When bonds mature, Congress only budgets for the interest payments, not the principal. This forces the principal to be “rolled over” into new debt, making the total debt grow. This is a deliberate choice, not an economic necessity. I explore this mechanism in detail in The U.S. National Debt is Caused by UNDERSPENDING.

On “how will you pay for it?”: This question, asked of every progressive policy proposal, fundamentally misunderstands government finance. The federal government will pay for it the same way it pays for everything: by spending money into existence. The real questions are: (1) Are the real resources available? (2) Will it cause inflation? (3) Does it serve important public purposes?

This mismatch between old thinking and new reality prevents us from using our full economic potential. Money is never the constraint. The constraints are real resources and political will. While we debate imaginary debt crises, we miss real opportunities like infrastructure investments, educational improvements, climate adaptation, and healthcare efficiency. The real crisis is wasting our potential fighting imaginary constraints.

On inflation: MMT doesn’t claim governments can spend unlimited amounts without consequence. It explicitly acknowledges inflation as the key constraint. But it shifts the debate from “can we afford it?” to “will it cause inflation?” That’s a better, more empirically answerable question.

On wealth concentration: From 1979 to 2019, productivity grew 60% while median worker compensation grew only 16%. Workers produce more value but capture less of it. This wasn’t caused by monetary factors but by policy choices justified through outdated economic thinking. We “can’t afford” minimum wage increases. We must keep taxes low to “encourage investment.” We must accept inequality to maintain “fiscal responsibility.” These wealth transfers hide behind seemingly neutral economic rules that most people don’t understand. For instance, as I detail in How Corporate-Friendly Accounting Rules Create a $30 Trillion Transfer, even technical accounting structures systematically channel wealth from working families to corporate executives and shareholders.

The Politics of Economic Understanding

There’s a reason this knowledge has been suppressed, ignored, and forgotten for 80 years. Understanding how government finance actually works is politically explosive.

If citizens understood that federal spending doesn’t require “finding the money” in some pre-existing pot, they might demand better schools, healthcare, infrastructure, and social programs. They might question why we “can’t afford” these things but can always seem to afford tax cuts, bank bailouts, and military budgets.

The mythology that government finance works like household finance serves a powerful political function: it constrains the political imagination. It makes transformative public programs seem fiscally irresponsible before we even debate whether they’re good policy.

The persistence of these myths despite their failures reveals their true purpose. Economic theories that consistently make false predictions continue to dominate policy. Every sustained surplus in American history preceded recession (1920s to Great Depression, 1990s to dot-com crash). Politicians from both parties praised these surpluses as responsible governance, then blamed “external factors” when the inevitable crashes occurred.

These theories fail basic tests. Japan’s massive money creation produced minimal inflation. Countries imposing austerity saw deflation and collapse. Yet the theories persist. As I explore in “Economics is not a Science,” mainstream economics functions more like ideology than science. It’s shaped by corporate capture of academia, professional incentives that reward orthodoxy, and institutional structures that marginalize alternative approaches regardless of their predictive success. The field treats failed theories as settled science because they serve political purposes, not because they explain reality.

Historical examples prove the power of this understanding. After World War II, the GI Bill and Federal Housing Administration took homeownership rates from 44% in 1940 to 62% by 1960. The government created money for no-down-payment loans through these programs. This wasn’t “fiscal irresponsibility.” It was using monetary capacity to build the most prosperous middle class in history. Younger generations can own homes too if we choose policies that make homeownership achievable.

This is why Beardsley Ruml’s 1946 insight was so dangerous. And why it had to be forgotten.

What We Can Learn from Ruml Today

Ruml’s analysis wasn’t perfect. He wasn’t a full MMT thinker. He had his own biases and agenda. But he understood something crucial that we’ve spent 80 years trying to forget:

Currency-issuing governments like the federal government are not financially constrained in the way households, businesses, or state and local governments are constrained.

This doesn’t mean they face no constraints. Real resource constraints matter immensely. Inflation matters. The productive capacity of the economy matters. But these are fundamentally different questions from “where will we find the money?”

Understanding our actual monetary system means asking different questions. Instead of “how will we pay for it?” we ask “do we have the resources?” Instead of “is the debt too high?” we ask “is wealth concentrating too much?” Instead of “are we printing too much?” we ask “are we mobilizing capacity effectively?”

The constraints are real (inflation, resource limitations, productive capacity) but they’re different from the imaginary constraints of “running out of money” or “unsustainable debt.” Understanding these real versus imaginary constraints changes everything. Breaking free from outdated thinking isn’t just about getting the economics right. It’s about reclaiming our democratic capacity to build the future we want.

We don’t need to wonder whether Ruml would have supported modern progressive policies. He probably wouldn’t have. He was a corporate executive advocating for eliminating business taxes. What matters is that his technical analysis was largely correct, and we’ve been pretending otherwise ever since.

The rediscovery of these insights through Modern Monetary Theory represents one of the most important intellectual developments in economics in recent decades. Not because MMT invented new ideas, but because it recovered, systematized, and explained old truths that were always hiding in plain sight.

When a Federal Reserve chairman tells you that taxes for revenue are obsolete, perhaps we should have listened. It’s taken us 80 years to begin relearning what Ruml explained in 1946.

How many more decades will we waste before we let this knowledge transform policy? The real question isn’t whether we can afford to invest in prosperity for working families. It’s whether we can afford another forty years of artificial scarcity based on imaginary constraints while real wealth continues concentrating among those who understand how the system actually works.

The path forward requires collective economic literacy. Understanding how economic systems actually work is the foundation of political independence. When enough of us understand how economic myths function as weapons, we can see why we’ve lost control over our economic lives and political futures. The solution isn’t accepting artificial constraints. It’s learning about the economic tools that could restore genuine choice and democratic power for everyone. I’ve developed a comprehensive framework for how these monetary insights translate into specific policies in Opportunity Economics.

The choice is ours. But first we must understand what choices are actually available.

Further Reading

Primary Sources and Contemporary Analysis:

• Ruml, Beardsley. “Taxes for Revenue Are Obsolete.” American Affairs, January 1946.

• “Opportunity Economics: How to Make Capitalism Work for Everyone.” June 24, 2025.

• “Economics is not a Science.” June 24, 2025.

• “Why Monetary Systems Matter: A Response to Hard Money Misconceptions About Money, Debt, and Government Spending.” November 9, 2025.

• “The U.S. National Debt is Caused by UNDERSPENDING. We Can Pay it Off Anytime, But We Don’t Have To, Because We Have a Soft Money Economy.” June 14, 2025.

• “How Corporate-Friendly Accounting Rules Create a $30 Trillion Transfer from Consumers into Wealthy Pockets.” June 24, 2025.

• “50 Years of Economic Myths Have Delivered Americans Into Technofeudalism.” July 3, 2025.

Modern Monetary Theory Foundations:

• Mitchell, William, L. Randall Wray, and Martin Watts. Macroeconomics. Red Globe Press, 2019.

• Kelton, Stephanie. The Deficit Myth: Modern Monetary Theory and the Birth of the People’s Economy. PublicAffairs, 2020.

• Wray, L. Randall. Modern Money Theory: A Primer on Macroeconomics for Sovereign Monetary Systems. Palgrave Macmillan, 2015.

Note on Federal Reserve Confirmation: The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis has confirmed the fundamental principle underlying Ruml’s analysis, stating: “As the sole manufacturer of dollars, whose debt is denominated in dollars, the U.S. government can never become insolvent.” This affirms Ruml’s core insight that sovereign currency issuers face fundamentally different constraints than households, businesses, or state and local governments.

On the Path Forward: Reversal remains possible through collective action. The first step is collective education: understanding how economic systems actually work rather than accepting mythology designed to exploit us. Learning to decode economic language reveals how phrases like “fiscal responsibility” function as weapons rather than wisdom. Understanding how government finance actually operates shows why the constraints we’ve been taught to accept are artificial rather than real. Individual understanding becomes collective power when enough people recognize we’ve been systematically deceived about what’s economically possible.

Leave a comment

In my previous essay “Economics is not a Science”, I argued that mainstream economics fails to meet the basic criteria we would expect from a genuine science. The response to that piece has been interesting. Some readers pushed back, arguing that economics clearly is a science because it uses scientific methods. Others agreed with my critique but wanted a more precise framework for understanding when economic work crosses the threshold into genuine scientific inquiry.

Both responses point to something I left underexplored: What exactly would it take for economics to be a science? Not whether it uses scientific tools (it does), but whether it functions as an actual science in the way physics, chemistry, or biology do.

This essay attempts to answer that question. I’ve developed a framework for assessing scientific status that I believe clarifies the debate and, importantly, offers a path forward. The conclusion may surprise readers of my earlier piece: economics is not inherently incapable of being a science. The problem is that large portions of the discipline have chosen not to behave scientifically, even while claiming scientific authority.

The Distinction That Matters: Using Science vs. Being a Science

The core confusion in debates about economics’ scientific status comes from conflating two very different things. A discipline can use scientific methods without being a science. Engineers use physics, but engineering is not physics. Physicians use biology, but medicine is not biology. The use of scientific tools is necessary but not sufficient for scientific status.

What distinguishes a genuine science from a discipline that merely uses scientific methods? I propose six necessary attributes, drawing on the philosophy of science tradition from Karl Popper through Thomas Kuhn and Robert Merton.

The Six Necessary Attributes

1. Subject Matter Primacy. A science has a defined domain of investigation. For economics, this means the study of production, distribution, exchange, and consumption as the primary intellectual focus, not as a vehicle for some other project (political advocacy, moral philosophy, or ideological promotion).

Economics has always been capital-centric, concerned with how societies accumulate, allocate, and deploy resources for productive purposes. This focus distinguishes it from other social sciences. But scientific study of capital requires accurate understanding of the financial systems through which capital flows. Modern capital moves through digital networks, across global markets, with near-instantaneous settlement. This is a fundamentally different dynamic than capital formation 150 years ago, when physical commodity money constrained transactions and international flows took weeks to clear. A discipline claiming scientific authority over economic phenomena must have accurate theory of how these systems actually operate, from macro-level monetary policy down to micro-level payment clearing and credit creation.

Here mainstream economics reveals a significant gap. Standard macroeconomic models often exclude banks, debt, and money entirely. As Steve Keen observes, this is like an ornithologist studying bird flight while ignoring that birds have wings. The 2008 financial crisis exposed this gap catastrophically: models used by the Federal Reserve, the ECB, and central banks worldwide could not accommodate a major financial crisis because they did not include the financial sector in any meaningful way. A discipline that excludes the primary mechanisms through which its subject matter operates cannot claim scientific status over that domain.

2. Scarcity and Allocation. Economics specifically addresses how societies manage limited resources relative to competing wants. This is the Robbins definition from 1932, and it remains the analytical core that distinguishes economic analysis from other social sciences.

But scientific analysis of allocation requires understanding what is actually scarce. Orthodox economics treats government money as scarce, assuming governments must acquire money before spending it, either through taxation or borrowing. This framework, which I explored in detail in “Why Monetary Systems Matter”, gets the operational sequence exactly backward.

The documented operational sequence for sovereign currency issuers is: government spends first (creating money), then taxes (destroying money). Former Fed Chairman Beardsley Ruml stated explicitly in 1946 that “taxes for revenue are obsolete” for sovereign currency issuers. The Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis confirms that the U.S. government, as the sole manufacturer of dollars, can never become insolvent. The Bank of England’s 2014 paper “Money Creation in the Modern Economy” confirmed that commercial banks create money when they make loans, not by lending out deposits.

These are operational facts, documented by central banks themselves. For sovereign currency issuers, money is not the scarce resource. The actual constraints are real: labor, materials, productive capacity, environmental limits. A scientific economics would distinguish real constraints from nominal constraints and build theory accordingly. Instead, mainstream economics treats nominal constraints as if they were real, producing systematic errors in policy analysis. When economists claim we “cannot afford” public investment, they are confusing nominal scarcity (government budget) with real scarcity (productive resources). This confusion is not scientific error but category mistake.

3. Quantification and Measurement. Science requires systematic engagement with measurable phenomena. This does not mean everything must be mathematical, but it does mean that claims must be capable of empirical assessment. The commitment to quantification enables testing, comparison, and cumulative progress.

Economics excels at quantification in some domains. National accounts, price indices, employment statistics, financial market data: these provide rich empirical material. The discipline has developed sophisticated econometric techniques for analyzing this data and testing hypotheses.

But quantification serves science only when measurements correspond to the phenomena being studied. Here monetary economics reveals problems. The Quantity Theory of Money (MV=PY), dating to at least the 16th century, assumes that increases in money supply lead proportionally to increases in prices when velocity is stable. This framework treats “money supply” as a well-defined quantity that can be measured and controlled.

In modern financial systems, this assumption fails. Money is created continuously through bank lending, destroyed through loan repayment, and flows globally through complex financial networks. The “money supply” measured by M1, M2, or other aggregates captures only a portion of credit creation and financial activity. Velocity, which the Quantity Theory assumes is stable, collapsed by 35% from its 2007 peak in the U.S., rendering the theory’s predictions meaningless.

The Fed expanded its balance sheet from $870 billion to $4.5 trillion between 2008 and 2014. Quantity Theory predicts substantial inflation. Actual inflation stayed below 2%. Japan’s central bank expanded its balance sheet to over 130% of GDP with continuous deficits for three decades. Quantity Theory predicts runaway inflation and currency collapse. Japan experienced deflation and a strong yen.

These are not minor discrepancies. They represent complete failure of the theory’s central predictions across multiple countries and time periods. A scientific discipline would abandon or fundamentally revise a framework that fails this consistently. Instead, mainstream economics continues teaching the Quantity Theory while explaining away contradictory evidence. This is the behavior pattern of ideology, not science.

4. Modeling and Abstraction. Sciences proceed through simplified representations that isolate key relationships. Economic models (whether verbal, mathematical, or computational) are legitimate scientific tools when they serve explanation and prediction rather than mere mathematical elegance.

The test is whether models include the mechanisms that actually matter for the phenomena being studied. Here mainstream macroeconomics fails conspicuously. Dynamic Stochastic General Equilibrium (DSGE) models dominate academic macroeconomics and central bank forecasting. These models are mathematically elegant, technically sophisticated, and built on assumptions that have been empirically falsified.

Most critically, standard DSGE models exclude banks, private debt dynamics, and realistic treatment of money creation. When you exclude the mechanisms through which financial crises actually unfold, you cannot predict financial crises. In 2003, Nobel laureate Robert Lucas declared that “the central problem of depression prevention has been solved.” In 2007, Fed Chairman Bernanke stated that subprime problems would be “contained.” The profession’s dominant models could not accommodate what was about to happen because they did not include the mechanisms causing it.

The heterodox economists who did predict the 2008 crisis (Steve Keen, Wynne Godley, Michael Hudson, Dean Baker) worked from models that included banks, debt dynamics, and financial fragility. Their models made better predictions because they included the mechanisms through which crises actually unfold. A scientific discipline would compare predictive accuracy across frameworks and adopt those that perform better. Instead, mainstream economics marginalized these approaches institutionally while preserving failed models.

The modeling problem extends to government finance. Standard models treat government as a large household that must acquire money before spending it. This produces predictions (crowding out, interest rate spikes from deficits) that consistently fail empirically. The 2020 deficit reached $3.1 trillion (14.9% of GDP). Standard models predicted rising interest rates and crowding out of private investment. Actual results: 10-year Treasury yields remained below 1.5%, corporate bond issuance reached records, private investment grew. When models consistently generate wrong predictions because they misrepresent how the system actually operates, continuing to use those models is not scientific behavior.

5. Falsifiability and Empirical Testing. This is the heart of the matter. Following Popper, scientific propositions must be formulated in ways that permit refutation. A theory that cannot be wrong is not scientific. More importantly, when theories are falsified, scientists must be willing to abandon or revise them.

Economics faces distinctive challenges in falsification. Controlled experiments are often impossible. Ceteris paribus clauses complicate testing. But these challenges do not excuse the discipline’s systematic failure to abandon falsified theories.

Consider the track record as I documented in “Why Economic Models Matter”:

The Quantity Theory predicted that quantitative easing would cause runaway inflation. It did not happen. The theory persists.

Crowding out theory predicted that large deficits would raise interest rates and reduce private investment. Japan and the U.S. demonstrated the opposite. The theory persists.

Mainstream models predicted that the 2008 crisis was virtually impossible. The crisis happened. The models were adjusted slightly rather than abandoned.

European austerity was imposed based on theories predicting that deficit reduction would restore confidence and growth. Greece’s GDP contracted 27%, unemployment hit 28%, similar devastation struck Spain and Portugal. The IMF eventually acknowledged their multiplier estimates were wrong. The underlying theory persists in textbooks and policy debates.

In genuine science, such repeated failures trigger fundamental reconsideration of basic assumptions. In economics, they are treated as anomalies while core frameworks remain untouched. This pattern reveals that mainstream economics is not practicing science but maintaining theoretical commitments through institutional power rather than evidence.

The 2021-2022 inflation episode provides a contemporary test. Using the monetary definition of inflation, policymakers initially diagnosed “too much money printing” and prescribed interest rate increases. But detailed analysis revealed different causes: Economic Policy Institute found corporate profits accounted for over 50% of price increases versus 11% historically. The Federal Reserve Bank of Kansas City documented supply chain bottlenecks as primary drivers: semiconductor shortages, port congestion, labor force disruptions, energy price spikes from the Ukraine invasion.

This was supply-side inflation requiring targeted responses, not monetary inflation requiring blanket demand destruction. The misdiagnosis risked creating both inflation (from unaddressed supply constraints) and recession (from interest rate increases) simultaneously. A scientific approach would distinguish types of inflation and calibrate responses accordingly. The monetary framework, which treats all inflation as monetary, cannot make these distinctions.

6. Emergent Order and Unintended Consequences. Economics characteristically investigates how individual decisions aggregate into systemic patterns that nobody intended. This distinguishes economic analysis from engineering (which assumes designed systems) and from purely descriptive social science.

This attribute represents economics at its best. Adam Smith’s invisible hand, Hayek’s spontaneous order, Minsky’s financial instability: these are genuine insights about how decentralized decisions produce systemic outcomes. The paradox of thrift (individually rational saving becomes collectively destructive), bank runs (individually rational withdrawal triggers collective collapse), speculative bubbles (individually rational investment aggregates into systemic fragility): these represent economic analysis contributing genuine understanding.

But emergent order analysis requires accurate understanding of the systems through which emergence occurs. When mainstream economics excludes banks, debt, and realistic monetary operations from its models, it cannot analyze the emergent dynamics that actually produce crises, cycles, and systemic instability. Minsky’s Financial Instability Hypothesis succeeds precisely because it models the actual mechanisms (hedge, speculative, and Ponzi financing) through which stability breeds instability. DSGE models fail because they exclude these mechanisms and assume markets clear automatically.

Modern financial systems create new forms of emergent dynamics. Digital trading systems, algorithmic decision-making, global capital flows with near-instantaneous settlement: these produce emergent patterns qualitatively different from pre-digital markets. The 2010 Flash Crash, when the Dow dropped nearly 1,000 points in minutes before recovering, illustrated emergent dynamics in modern financial systems that 19th-century theory cannot capture. A scientific economics would develop theory adequate to the systems it studies. Instead, mainstream economics continues applying frameworks developed when telegraph communication was cutting-edge technology to systems operating at millisecond speeds across global networks.

Applying the Framework: Where Economics Stands

When I apply this framework rigorously, I find that economics as a whole is not a science, but significant portions of economic work meet every criterion. The discipline contains genuine science alongside ideology, advocacy, and intellectual cargo cult behavior.

The Scientific Core

Certain domains of economics clearly function scientifically:

• Experimental economics runs controlled experiments on economic behavior, tests hypotheses, publishes results, and revises theories based on evidence. The replication crisis in this field (approximately 39% of studies fail to reproduce) is actually evidence of scientific practice: you cannot have a replication crisis if you never attempt replication. The crisis reveals underinvestment in scientific norms, but the norms themselves are present.

• Empirical industrial organization tests theories of firm behavior against data, using increasingly sophisticated identification strategies to establish causal relationships. When theories fail to match data, researchers revise them.

• Development economics has increasingly embraced randomized controlled trials, bringing genuine experimental methodology to questions about poverty, education, and health interventions. Esther Duflo and Abhijit Banerjee won the Nobel Prize for this work.

• Financial economics contains both scientific and ideological elements. Eugene Fama’s Efficient Market Hypothesis generated testable predictions that have been subjected to decades of empirical scrutiny. The fact that Joseph Stiglitz and Sanford Grossman demonstrated logical problems with the hypothesis, and that the 2008 crisis raised empirical challenges, represents scientific discourse as it should function.

The Pre-Scientific Mainstream

Much of mainstream macroeconomics operates in what Steve Keen aptly calls a “pre-scientific” mode. DSGE models that dominate academic macroeconomics are elegant mathematical constructions built on assumptions that have been empirically falsified.

The rational expectations hypothesis assumes that economic agents correctly anticipate future prices using the same model that economists use to analyze them. This assumption is not treated as a testable hypothesis but as an axiom. When real humans consistently violate rational expectations (as behavioral economics has documented for decades), DSGE modelers do not abandon the framework. They add epicycles.

The problem is not that these economists use mathematics. The problem is that they have immunized their core assumptions from empirical challenge, excluded the mechanisms (banks, debt, money creation) through which financial dynamics actually unfold, and continue applying frameworks developed for commodity-money systems to modern fiat currency economies with digital global capital flows.

The Heterodox Traditions

What about the heterodox schools I discussed in my earlier essay?

Post-Keynesian economics focuses on uncertainty, financial instability, and the role of money and debt. Hyman Minsky’s Financial Instability Hypothesis predicted that capitalist economies would endogenously generate financial crises through the evolution from stable to fragile financing structures. The 2008 crisis provided substantial corroboration. This is falsifiable theory that made risky predictions and was vindicated by events.

• Modern Monetary Theory challenges orthodox views about government deficits and monetary operations. Its core claims are testable: sovereign currency issuers face real resource constraints but not financial constraints; interest rates are a policy variable; inflation results from spending beyond productive capacity, not from deficits per se. Whether you find MMT persuasive or not, it is making scientific claims that permit empirical assessment and that correspond to documented monetary operations.

• Ecological economics treats the economy as a subsystem of the biosphere, subject to thermodynamic constraints. Herman Daly’s work generates testable propositions about the relationship between economic growth and environmental degradation.

• Feminist economics examines how gender biases shape economic theory and outcomes. Julie Nelson’s empirical work has refuted widely held assumptions about gender differences in economic behavior.

The heterodox traditions are not uniformly scientific. But the best heterodox economics meets scientific criteria at least as well as the best mainstream work, and often better, precisely because it includes the mechanisms (banks, debt, financial dynamics, real resource constraints) that mainstream models exclude.

Why “Schools of Thought” Are a Problem

The persistence of competing schools reveals something important about economics’ scientific status. The problem is not that competing paradigms exist. Physics has competing interpretations of quantum mechanics. Biology had debates about punctuated equilibrium versus gradualism. Disagreement at the frontier is normal in science.

The problem is how economics resolves these disagreements. In genuine sciences, competing theories are eventually adjudicated through evidence and experimentation. The disagreements move to the frontier as core questions get settled. We no longer debate whether atoms exist or whether evolution occurs.

Economics, after more than a century, has not resolved basic questions. Do free markets tend toward equilibrium or instability? Does monetary policy affect real output in the long run? Are financial crises inevitable features of capitalism? How do sovereign currency systems actually operate? These are not frontier questions. They are foundational questions, and economists still disagree fundamentally about them.

The reason these questions remain unresolved is that economics has not developed institutional mechanisms for allowing evidence to adjudicate between competing theories. Publication in top journals correlates with working within the dominant paradigm, not with empirical success. Failed predictions do not result in theory abandonment. Heterodox approaches with better predictive records are marginalized institutionally rather than refuted empirically.

This is the behavior pattern that prevents economics from being a science. Not the existence of disagreement, but the resolution of disagreement through institutional power rather than evidence.

What Would Scientific Economics Look Like?

If economics were to function as a genuine science, what would we observe?

Theories would specify their falsification conditions. Every economic model should be accompanied by a statement of what empirical findings would lead its proponents to abandon it. If no such findings can be specified, the model is not scientific.

• Failed predictions would have consequences. The economists who confidently predicted that the 2008 crisis was impossible should have faced professional consequences. Their models should have lost credibility.

• Replication would be routine. Currently, approximately 0.9% of papers in top economics journals attempt replication. This is embarrassingly low for a discipline claiming scientific status.

• Heterodox alternatives would be tested, not marginalized. If Minsky’s Financial Instability Hypothesis makes better predictions than DSGE models, that should matter for which approach receives resources and recognition.

• Models would include the mechanisms that matter. Banks, debt dynamics, money creation, financial fragility: these cannot be excluded from models claiming to explain financial crises or monetary policy.

• The positive/normative distinction would be maintained. Economic analysis would be clearly separated from policy advocacy.

• Schools of thought would gradually dissolve. As evidence accumulated, economists would converge on answers to basic questions. Remaining disagreements would concern genuinely uncertain frontier issues.

• Monetary operations would be taught accurately. Textbooks would describe how banks actually create money, how government spending actually works, and how central banks actually conduct policy. The gap between what practitioners at the Fed know and what students learn would close.

• Real constraints would replace nominal constraints. Policy debates would focus on whether we have the workers, materials, and productive capacity to accomplish goals, not on whether we can “afford” things in nominal terms.

None of this is impossible. Economics has the tools to be a science. The question is whether the discipline chooses to use them.

The Stakes

Why does this matter? Because economic ideas have enormous consequences for human welfare.

The belief that government deficits are inherently dangerous has constrained public investment in education, infrastructure, and healthcare. The belief that markets are inherently efficient has justified financial deregulation that contributed to devastating crises. The belief that unemployment is a voluntary choice has shaped policies that treated jobless workers as moral failures rather than victims of systemic forces.

As I documented in “Why Monetary Systems Matter”, the misunderstanding of monetary systems has particularly severe consequences. When politicians claim we “cannot afford” universal healthcare or infrastructure investment, they are applying hard money logic to a soft money system. The real question is not whether we can create the money but whether we have the real resources to accomplish the goal without causing inflation.

The “national debt narrative” that governments must operate like households is demonstrably false. Mainstream economists know this. Unlike households, governments that control their currency create money and cannot “run out.” Yet this framework dominates discourse because it serves those who prefer limited government while avoiding political debate about values. Framing spending as constrained by debt removes entire categories of social investment from democratic consideration.

These beliefs are not scientific findings. They are ideological commitments dressed up in mathematical formalism. And they have been imposed on democratic societies as if they were natural laws rather than contested claims.

A Path Forward

My earlier essay concluded that economics is not a science. This essay refines that conclusion: economics as currently practiced is largely not a science, but it contains scientific elements and has the potential to become genuinely scientific.

The path forward requires several things:

Institutional reform. Journal publication, hiring, and promotion decisions should weight empirical success and predictive accuracy more heavily than mathematical sophistication or conformity to dominant paradigms.

• Methodological pluralism within scientific constraints. Diverse methods (verbal, mathematical, statistical, computational) are legitimate when they serve scientific goals of explanation, prediction, and falsification.

• Organized skepticism. Following Robert Merton’s norms, economics needs more replication, more transparent data sharing, more pre-registration of hypotheses, and real consequences for failed predictions.

• Honest boundary-drawing. Economists should be clear about what they know, what they suspect, and what they are merely assuming. The discipline should stop presenting ideological commitments as scientific findings.

• Engagement with heterodox alternatives. Instead of marginalizing Post-Keynesian, ecological, feminist, and institutional approaches, mainstream economics should subject them to the same empirical tests it applies (or should apply) to its own theories. The best ideas should win, regardless of their provenance.

• Accurate monetary education. Economics curricula must teach how monetary systems actually operate, not how 16th-century theorists imagined they work. Students should learn the operational sequence of government spending and taxation, how banks create money through lending, and why the Quantity Theory fails empirically. The gap between what central bank practitioners know and what textbooks teach must close.

• Theory adequate to modern systems. Capital now flows through digital networks, across global markets, with near-instantaneous settlement. Economic theory developed for commodity-money systems with physical settlement cannot simply be assumed to apply to fiat currency systems with electronic capital flows. A scientific economics would develop theory adequate to the systems it studies.

• Reframe constraints honestly. Economic debates should distinguish real constraints (labor, materials, productive capacity, environmental limits) from nominal constraints (budget rules, debt limits, “affordability”). The question is never whether a sovereign currency issuer can create money but whether doing so would cause inflation by exceeding real productive capacity.

Conclusion

Is economics a science? The honest answer is: not yet, but it could be.

Economics meets some scientific criteria and violates others. It has the subject matter, the quantitative orientation, and the modeling tools of a science. What it lacks is consistent commitment to falsification, organized skepticism, accurate understanding of monetary operations, and the resolution of disputes through evidence rather than institutional power.

The discipline uses science without being a science. This distinction matters because it identifies what needs to change. The problem is not that economics studies human behavior, which is complex. The problem is not that economics uses mathematics, which is appropriate. The problem is that economics has developed institutional structures that insulate core theories from empirical challenge while teaching operational falsehoods about how monetary and financial systems work.

Economics has always been capital-centric, and rightly so. But capital formation and allocation in the era of digital global finance differs fundamentally from capital formation under commodity money with physical settlement. A scientific economics would develop theory adequate to the systems it studies, test predictions against outcomes, and revise frameworks that fail. Instead, mainstream economics continues applying 16th-century monetary theory and 19th-century equilibrium assumptions to 21st-century financial systems, preserving failed models through institutional power while marginalizing approaches with better predictive records.

Until economists start from operational reality rather than convenient assumptions, revise theories that fail empirically, and teach students how monetary systems actually work, the discipline cannot claim scientific status. Physics is a science because physicists behave scientifically. Economics will become a science when economists do the same.

Until then, we should be skeptical of economic claims presented with scientific authority. We should ask: What would falsify this theory? What predictions does it make? Has it been tested against alternatives? Does this model include banks, debt, and money, or does it assume these can be ignored? Does it distinguish real constraints from nominal constraints? If the answers are unsatisfactory, we are not dealing with science, however many equations are involved.

Economics matters too much for us to accept scientific pretension without scientific substance. The discipline has the tools to do better. The question is whether it will choose to use them.

This essay develops ideas from my earlier pieces “Economics is not a Science”, “Evolution of Economic Ideas: Insights into Major Schools of Thought”, “Why Monetary Systems Matter”, “Why Economic Models Matter”, and “Evolution of Economic Ideas: Insights into Major Schools of Thought”. The framework for assessing scientific status draws on Popper’s falsificationism, Kuhn’s paradigm theory, and Merton’s norms of science, as well as recent work on the replication crisis in economics and the operational approach to monetary systems developed by Post-Keynesian and MMT economists.

Leave a comment

Subscribe now

Every conversation about Universal Basic Income hits the same wall: “How do we pay for it?”

Wrong question. Here’s the right one: “Will giving people cash actually help them, or just make their landlords richer?”

I don’t support UBI. Not because we can’t afford it: we can. Not because I oppose helping people; quite the opposite. I oppose UBI because cash transfers into broken markets get captured by rent-seekers before they help anyone.

Give everyone $1,000 monthly and landlords raise rent $1,000. The purchasing power vanishes. The inequality remains. We’ve subsidized property owners with public money while pretending it’s progressive policy.

This is why the United States needs Universal Basic Assets: providing what people need directly (housing, healthcare, education) and removing these necessities from extractive markets entirely.

But this isn’t about choosing between capitalism and socialism. As I explore in “Beyond Capitalism vs. Socialism,” that’s a false choice that constrains our imagination. For seventy years, American political discourse has been trapped in a binary from the 1950s Cold War: free markets versus government control, individual liberty versus collective welfare.

Meanwhile, successful economies worldwide have abandoned this ideological purity for pragmatism. Singapore combines state capitalism with private enterprise. Nordic countries blend comprehensive welfare states with competitive markets. Germany merges worker representation with industrial leadership. These nations don’t debate capitalism versus socialism, they build what works for their cultures and contexts.

The real question isn’t which ideology to choose. It’s how do we use our understanding of monetary systems to build institutions that serve everyone in a pluralistic, diverse society? How do we create an economy where someone can choose a quiet, subsistence-level life without stigma, while their neighbor pursues wealth-building in competitive markets. Both can have dignity, security, and genuine opportunity?

Universal Basic Assets provides that framework. But first, we need to understand what actually constrains government spending.

Part I: There Is No Spending Constraint

Before comparing UBI and UBA honestly, align on one fundamental reality: the federal government has no spending constraint.

The federal government doesn’t “get money” from anywhere. When Congress authorizes spending, the Treasury instructs the Fed to credit bank accounts. Money is created by keystrokes. No vault. No pile of tax dollars. No Chinese credit card.

This isn’t political spin, it’s operational reality. Ask Fed officials, Treasury officials, or banking system operators. The government spends first (creating money), then taxes later (destroying money). Taxation doesn’t fund spending. It removes money from the economy to control inflation and redistribute purchasing power.

Still thinking “but where does the government GET the money?” You’re using the wrong mental model (you can find more detail about models in my essay, Why Economic Models Matter). The government creates currency. That’s what it means to be a currency issuer rather than a currency user.

This doesn’t mean unlimited spending is wise. Real constraints exist but they’re not financial. Understanding this difference changes everything.

Part II: The Real Constraint Is Inflation (Resources, Not Money)

Can the government create infinite money? Yes, operationally.

Should it? No, because real resources and productive capacity are finite.

As I discuss in “Beyond Capitalism vs. Socialism,” the constraint isn’t “running out of money.” The constraint is inflation. When you try buying more real stuff than the economy can produce.

Inflation happens when demand for real goods and services exceeds the economy’s capacity to produce them. That’s it. It’s a real resource constraint, not a money constraint.

Think about it: if the government spent $10 trillion building a bridge to Mars requiring materials that don’t exist and workers who aren’t available, you’d get massive inflation because you’re commanding real resources that aren’t there. But if the government spent $10 trillion mobilizing unemployed workers and idle factories to build needed infrastructure? Different story entirely.

What Actually Causes Inflation

Here’s what creates inflationary pressure:

1. Supply shocks (COVID breaking supply chains, OPEC restricting oil)

2. Monopoly pricing power (four companies control 80% of beef processing and coordinate increases)

3. Bottlenecks (semiconductor shortage, port congestion, labor shortages in sectors)

4. Sometimes excess demand (rarer than believed and when it does happen we should ask: for what, from whom, why?)

Notice what’s NOT on this list: “the money supply.”

The Evidence

The “too much money chasing too few goods” story is mythology:

• Federal Reserve created $4 trillion in quantitative easing after 2008 → Inflation stayed below target for a decade

• Japan ran massive deficits for 30+ years → Still fighting deflation

• US increased money supply dramatically 2020-2021 → Inflation appeared when supply chains broke and energy spiked, not proportionally to money creation

What actually happened in 2021-2022:

• Supply chains broken globally (COVID shutdowns)

• Energy shock (Ukraine war)

• Corporate profit margins hit record highs (pricing power, not cost pressure)

• Demand shifted from services to goods (creating bottlenecks)

• Housing costs soared (corporate investors buying properties, not “too much money”)

These are real economy factors: production, distribution, and market power problems. Not “too much money.”

Understanding this difference changes every policy conversation, including UBI versus UBA.

Part III: Why Cash UBI Fails: The Rent-Seeking Capture Problem

Now that we’ve established the real constraints (resources and production capacity, not money), let’s examine why Universal Basic Income doesn’t work.

Here’s the fundamental problem: if everyone receives $1,000/month for basic living expenses, landlords know this and raise their rent accordingly. The purchasing power gets captured by rent-seekers.

Give everyone $1,000/month and landlords raise rent $1,000. Give everyone healthcare vouchers and insurance companies raise premiums. Give everyone education grants and universities raise tuition.

This isn’t hypothetical, we’ve watched it happen:

• Student loans → tuition exploded 180% (inflation-adjusted) between 1980-2020

• Housing vouchers → landlords capture approximately 50% through rent increases

• Medicare/Medicaid → healthcare costs rising faster than general inflation

• Childcare subsidies → providers raised prices 8-15% in states with universal pre-K

Why This Happens: Inelastic Markets

You’re transferring cash into markets with inelastic demand where:

1. People MUST purchase the good/service (housing, healthcare, food, education)

2. Supply is constrained or controlled by powerful interests

3. Switching costs are high or alternatives don’t exist

4. Information asymmetries favor sellers

In these markets, any purchasing power increase gets captured by price increases. You’re not increasing people’s real consumption, you’re inflating asset prices and enriching rentiers (people extracting wealth through ownership rather than production).

The practical term: your UBI just became a subsidy for landlords, hospital systems, and monopolies.

UBI Doesn’t Solve Poverty: It Subsidizes Rent-Seekers

Here’s the brutal reality: UBI in the current market structure doesn’t lift people out of poverty. It transfers public money to private rent-seekers while maintaining the same relative deprivation.

If everyone gets $1,000/month:

• Landlords capture it through higher rents

• Grocery chains capture it through higher food prices

• Healthcare systems capture it through higher premiums

• For-profit colleges capture it through higher tuition

You’ve increased money flowing through these sectors without increasing the real supply of housing, healthcare, education, or food. Prices rise to meet the new purchasing power, and everyone ends up in the same relative position, except now the numbers are bigger and asset-owners are richer.

Why Local UBI Makes It Even Worse

Some propose implementing UBI at local or state levels to avoid federal political gridlock. But as I detail in “Why Progressives Are Accidentally Helping Authoritarians Win,” this makes the capture problem worse. Local UBI programs face:

• Resource exhaustion – Cities can only sustain cash transfers while tax bases hold up. Economic downturns gut local revenues precisely when programs are most needed.

• Business flight – Local businesses facing increased labor costs (due to UBI reducing desperation) can relocate to jurisdictions without UBI, taking the tax base.

• Faster rent capture – Landlords in local UBI programs know exactly how much money entered the market and can coordinate price increases more easily.

• No alternatives – Without federal resources to build public housing or healthcare alongside cash transfers, people remain trapped in rent-seeking markets with zero exit options.

Cash transfers need either federal scale or must be paired with public asset provision. Otherwise, you’re creating expensive subsidies for asset-owners funded by fragile local tax bases.

Part IV: Beyond the Protestant Work Ethic: Meeting Diverse Human Needs

Before explaining Universal Basic Assets, we need to reject a pernicious assumption underlying most policy debates: the Protestant work ethic philosophy that everyone must work to deserve basic dignity.

I don’t subscribe to this outdated idea. It discriminates against those with less access to resources or personal endowments. It punishes victims. In our modern world where we’ve privatized everything into markets and dismantled informal support networks and communities, it leaves people hopeless, politically exploitable, and economically fragile, rendering them incapable of the very “bootstrapping” they’re told to do. You can’t pull yourself up by your bootstraps if you don’t have boots.

The Reality of Diverse Human Situations

Consider the actual diversity of human circumstances:

Some people live in geographies that simply don’t have private sector strength to support minimum living standards. Rural areas, declining industrial towns, isolated communities are all places that lack the economic base for everyone to “just get a job” that pays enough to survive. Telling people to move ignores family ties, community roots, care responsibilities, and the reality that someone must live in these places for them to exist at all.

Some people lack the skills and capabilities to sustain themselves even with training and therapy. Disabilities, chronic illness, cognitive limitations, severe trauma are some examples of why not everyone can be made “productive” by market standards, no matter how much job training or counseling we provide. This doesn’t make their lives less valuable or worthy of dignity.

Some people may elect to live a simple life at a subsistence level. Maybe they want to focus on art, community service, care work, spiritual development, or simply enjoy quiet existence without market competition. In a wealthy, productive society, why should this choice be unavailable or stigmatized?

These situations shouldn’t be stigmatized but reflect living in a diverse country. The question is: how do we ensure we can ethically, sustainably, and in a dignified manner enable these situations while maximizing opportunity for people to climb up and compete in markets if they want to build prosperity and wealth?

Dignified Subsistence as a Human Right

We should provide a dignified minimum subsistence life for those who can’t or won’t work. Not as charity. Not as temporary assistance until they “get back on their feet.” As a basic guarantee of human dignity in a society with abundant resources.

This isn’t radical, it’s pragmatic. The private sector creates more than enough surplus value to support this. America’s productivity has increased dramatically since the 1950s, yet wages have stagnated while corporate profits have soared. The surplus exists. The question is how we distribute it.

Providing economic security also gives labor genuine negotiating power. When people aren’t desperate, they can reject exploitative jobs, demand better conditions, and pursue education or retraining safely. This shifts surplus value back to ordinary people from capital, reversing decades of mechanisms that transferred wealth upward (I talk about this in my essay How Corporate-Friendly Accounting Rules Create a $30 Trillion Transfer from Consumers into Wealthy Pockets).

What shifted surplus value from labor to capital since the 1950s:

• Declining union membership (from 35% to 10% of workforce)

• Weakened labor laws and enforcement

• Financialization rewarding shareholders over workers

• Tax policy favoring capital gains over wages

• Offshoring and automation threats suppressing wage demands

• Elimination of defined-benefit pensions

• Rising healthcare costs tied to employment (trapping workers)

Economic security through Universal Basic Assets reverses these dynamics. When survival isn’t at stake, labor has power.

Safety Nets for Ordinary People

Beyond subsistence for those who can’t or won’t work, ordinary people should have safety nets enabling bargaining power and opportunities:

Unemployment insurance that actually replaces income adequately and lasts long enough for genuine retraining or career transition: not the current system that barely covers expenses and runs out in months.

Supplemental basic income for workers in transition, care providers, students, artists, entrepreneurs building businesses, or anyone pursuing valuable work that markets don’t immediately reward.

Retraining and education support that covers living expenses while learning new skills, so people can adapt to changing economies without falling into poverty during transitions.

The point isn’t to eliminate work or market competition. It’s to ensure that participation in markets is genuinely voluntary and empowered rather than coerced by desperation. This makes both markets and democracy function better.

Part V: What Universal Basic Assets Actually Is

Universal Basic Assets solves the capture problem by removing necessities from rent-seeking markets entirely.

Instead of giving people money to buy housing in broken markets, provide public housing directly. Instead of vouchers for overpriced healthcare, provide healthcare free at point of service. Instead of student loans that inflate tuition, provide free public education.

You can’t price-gouge what’s provided publicly at cost.

What Are Universal Basic Assets?

UBA means guaranteeing access to essential resources through public provision:

Housing: Public housing… not segregated poverty concentration, but high-quality, mixed-income housing available to all. Vienna houses 62% of residents in social housing while maintaining one of Europe’s highest living standards. Singapore provides public housing to 80% of citizens. When I lived in White Plains, New York, I saw this model work in America: well-designed, mixed-income developments that integrated residents into the community and provided genuine pathways to opportunity. Germany’s extensive social housing demonstrates this approach at scale.

Healthcare: Single-payer, free at point of service. Nobody can charge you $1,000 for insulin if the public system provides it. Remove healthcare from profit extraction entirely.

Education: Free public education from pre-K through university, including trade schools and technical training. Remove education debt and barriers to advancement.

Transportation: Free or nominal-cost public transit. Remove transportation as a poverty trap.

Utilities: Public broadband, electricity, water at cost or free. Remove utility profiteering from natural monopolies.

Food Security: Expanded SNAP, universal school meals, community food programs. Ensure baseline nutrition outside grocery market dynamics.

Why Quality Implementation Matters

A critical objection: won’t public housing become slums? Won’t public services be terrible?

This is an implementation choice, not an inherent flaw.

In the past, U.S. public housing was often designed almost as segregated imprisonment of poor people. It wasn’t designed to integrate people into society and give them opportunities to build networks and rise into opportunity if they chose. This was a deliberate policy failure, not proof that public housing can’t work.

The contrast is stark:

Vienna’s social housing is so attractive that middle-class and even wealthy residents choose it. High-quality architecture, excellent maintenance, integrated amenities, mixed-income developments. It’s not “housing for the poor,” it’s community housing available to all.

Singapore’s HDB flats house 80% of the population in well-maintained, integrated developments with parks, markets, and community centers. Mixed-income by design. Pride of ownership through long-term leases. Maintenance funded from rents set at cost-recovery levels.

Germany’s social housing demonstrates this at scale across hundreds of cities. Quality construction, ongoing maintenance, integrated into neighborhoods, available across income levels with sliding rents.

White Plains, New York showed me this model can work in America. The mixed-income developments I saw there integrated residents into the broader community, provided quality housing without stigma, and created genuine opportunities for people to build networks and pursue advancement if they chose.

The lesson: Public provision doesn’t have to fail and become slums and overused. That’s an implementation choice. When we design UBA properly, high quality, mixed-income, integrated, well-maintained housing works.

UBA Creates the Foundation for Everything Else

Here’s what changes when your basic needs are met through public provision:

1. You can take risks – Start a business, change careers, leave an abusive relationship, because you won’t lose housing or healthcare

2. Labor markets rebalance – Employers can’t exploit workers with threats of homelessness and healthcare loss

3. Entrepreneurship flourishes – As I detail in “Opportunity Economics,” when survival isn’t at stake, people can pursue innovation

4. Education becomes about learning – Not about maximizing income to pay off debt

5. Health improves – Preventive care, mental health, chronic condition management all become accessible

6. Democracy strengthens – As I explore in “The Politics of Stakeholder Society,” people with secure foundations can engage civically rather than just surviving. When everyone has genuine economic security, they become full stakeholders in democratic society rather than being politically exploitable through economic desperation.

And here’s the kicker: Now cash UBI on top might actually work.

When your basic needs are met through public provision, cash supplements become discretionary income that actually increases consumption choices rather than just getting captured by rent-seekers. That $1,000/month isn’t going straight to your landlord, it’s actual purchasing power you can use.

Part VI: The “Soft-Money” Framework: Why UBA Makes More Economic Sense

Both UBI and UBA are “affordable”: we know the government can create the money for either. But they have very different effects on the real economy:

UBI’s Effect: Inflationary by Design

Cash UBI increases aggregate demand immediately:

• Everyone has more money to spend

• Demand surges across all sectors

• If the economy has slack (unemployment, idle capacity), this might boost production

• If the economy is near capacity, this creates inflationary pressure

• In rent-seeking sectors with inelastic supply, this just inflates prices

UBI is inflationary by design when there’s no corresponding increase in productive capacity. You’re increasing purchasing power without increasing real goods and services available.

UBA’s Effect: Building Capacity

Universal Basic Assets works differently:

1. Builds productive capacity while distributing it – Public housing construction employs workers, creates housing stock, reduces homelessness, and removes housing from speculation

2. Potentially anti-inflationary – UBA increases productive capacity (more housing, more healthcare capacity, more education) while meeting demand

3. Stabilizes prices – Public provision of necessities at cost creates a price ceiling in those markets

4. Mobilizes idle resources – Unemployed construction workers building housing, idle factories producing materials for infrastructure

5. Addresses wealth inequality, not just income – UBA distributes productive assets, not just cash flows

The Job Guarantee Alternative

There’s another strategy that works within this framework: the Job Guarantee (JG).

A Job Guarantee means the federal government offers a job at a living wage to anyone who wants one. It functions as:

• An automatic stabilizer – Hiring expands when private sector contracts, shrinks when private sector expands

• A wage floor – Private employers must compete with JG wages and benefits

• A skills builder – Jobs include training and development

• Community focused – Local projects addressing community needs

The Job Guarantee addresses income security while building productive capacity (infrastructure, care work, environmental restoration, public services). It’s compatible with UBA. In fact, JG workers could build public housing, staff public clinics, teach in public schools.

The key commonality: Both UBA and JG organize real resources for public benefit rather than just transferring cash into broken markets.

Part VII: The Freedom Objection: Why Public Provision Expands Choice

“Public provision removes choice. People should decide what they want.”

Let me be clear: Freedom to choose between dying and going bankrupt isn’t freedom. It’s coercion.

The current system doesn’t offer real choice:

• You “choose” your health insurance (from whatever your employer offers, or bankruptcy)

• You “choose” your housing (from whatever you can afford, or homelessness)

• You “choose” your education (from whatever won’t drown you in debt, or economic immobility)

These aren’t choices. These are poverty traps dressed up as free markets. As I argue in “The Politics of Stakeholder Society,” this reflects a fundamental divide in how we think about who deserves to be a full stakeholder in American society… with real choice and real power, not just survival options.

UBA Expands Real Freedom

Universal Basic Assets actually expands choice:

• More career freedom – Take a job you love that doesn’t pay well, because survival is guaranteed

• More geographic freedom – Move for opportunities without worrying about losing healthcare or finding affordable housing

• More entrepreneurial freedom – Start that business without risking your family’s survival. As I argue in “Opportunity Economics,” economic security isn’t the enemy of opportunity… it’s the foundation that makes real opportunity possible.

• More educational freedom – Study what interests you, not just what maximizes income for debt repayment

• More relationship freedom – Leave bad relationships without facing homelessness

• More life freedom – Choose a simple, subsistence-level existence without stigma if that’s what brings you meaning and contentment

And here’s the important part: Public provision doesn’t eliminate private markets. You can still buy private housing if you want. Private insurance if you prefer. Private schools if you choose. Public provision creates a floor, not a ceiling.

Vienna has excellent public housing and people still buy private homes. Britain has NHS and people still buy private insurance. The difference is you’re not coerced by desperation into whatever exploitative arrangement rentiers offer.

Part VIII: Implementation: How Do We Actually Do This?

The good news: we already know how. We’ve done this before. Other countries are doing it now.

A Flexible, Multi-Level Approach

Universal Basic Assets can be implemented at federal, state, or local levels. You don’t need to wait for perfect alignment.

But here’s crucial context: While UBA can be implemented locally, it works best connected to national financial resources. As I explore in “Why Progressives Are Accidentally Helping Authoritarians Win,” purely local solutions face hard constraints. A community can only support as many public assets as local economic activity sustains. Without connection to national resource systems, local initiatives remain fragile and vulnerable to downturns.

This is why the most successful implementations combine local control with federal resources: communities decide what they need and how to implement it, but they aren’t artificially limited to local tax bases. Federal funding enables ambitious local programs that would be impossible with purely local resources. Think of it as national funding, local implementation: the best of both approaches. This is not new, it has been done for decades in the U.S. through Federal block-grant programs.

Federal implementation provides the most comprehensive approach with the greatest resources. As the currency issuer, the federal government can mobilize resources at scale without financial constraints, funding national programs like Medicare for All, universal public housing construction, or free public universities.

State-level implementation allows for experimentation and regional adaptation. States can create their own public option healthcare systems (as some are exploring), fund state university systems, build public housing, or provide universal pre-K. While states are currency users (unlike the federal government), they still have significant capacity, especially with federal support.

Local implementation enables communities to start immediately with programs tailored to local needs and values. Cities and counties can create municipal broadband, expand public transportation, build community housing, establish public banks, or provide universal school meals. Local action proves concepts and builds political support for broader implementation.

The key insight: you don’t need to wait for all three levels to act. Cities can start now. States can build on local successes. Federal programs can scale what works. This multi-level approach means UBA isn’t an all-or-nothing proposition: it’s a flexible framework that can begin wherever political will exists and expand as people experience the benefits.

Examples Across Levels

Housing:

• Federal: Direct funding for public housing construction nationwide, national standards

• State: State housing authorities building public housing, zoning reform enabling higher density

• Local: Municipal housing authorities (many cities already have these), community land trusts, inclusionary zoning. Cities like Vienna and the developments I saw in White Plains, NY show this works.

Healthcare:

• Federal: Medicare for All covering all services

• State: State public option healthcare (several states exploring this)

• Local: Municipal clinics providing free primary care, county hospitals expanding services

Education:

• Federal: Free public universities and trade schools, cancel existing student debt

• State: Free state university systems (already done in some countries for state residents)

• Local: Universal pre-K (many cities already provide this), expanded after-school programs

Transportation:

• Federal: Funding for state/local transit systems, high-speed rail between cities

• State: State transit authorities, regional rail systems

• Local: Free or low-cost municipal transit (Kansas City offers free buses), expanded bus and light rail

Utilities:

• Federal: National broadband infrastructure investment, regulation of natural monopolies

• State: State utility authorities, public power companies (many states already have these)

• Local: Municipal broadband (Chattanooga, TN: gigabit internet for $60/month), city-owned utilities (over 2,000 US cities already have municipal utilities)

Food Security:

• Federal: Expanded SNAP covering all food costs for low-income households

• State: State food assistance programs, farm-to-school programs

• Local: Universal school meals (already exists in some cities), community kitchens, farmers market subsidies

The Power of Multi-Level Implementation

Change doesn’t require waiting for perfect federal alignment. Cities can start now. States can build comprehensive systems within years. Federal programs can scale proven models nationwide. The winning formula: local control + federal resources = enabling ambitious programs that transcend local economic constraints.

Start wherever you can influence. Cities like Vienna (housing), Chattanooga (broadband), Kansas City (transit), and the developments in White Plains, NY prove local action works. States can experiment and adapt. Local success builds political support for state expansion. State victories create momentum for federal programs, which provide the resources to transform fragile experiments into robust alternatives.

This multi-level approach addresses conservative concerns about federal overreach. Communities implement UBA according to their values and circumstances. Rural areas prioritize different assets than cities. Conservative states structure programs differently than progressive ones. The framework is flexible while maintaining the core principle: everyone deserves access to basic assets for genuine opportunity.

As I discuss in “Opportunity Economics,” this federalist approach strengthens both democracy and markets through experimentation, jurisdictional competition, and local adaptation. And as I argue in “Why Progressives Are Accidentally Helping Authoritarians Win,” connecting local implementation to national resources transforms fragile experiments into resilient alternatives to corporate control.

Part IX: The Politics: Why Hasn’t This Happened?

If we have the real resources and the capacity to create the money, why haven’t we built Universal Basic Assets?

Politics. Power. Ideology.

1. Rentier interests oppose it – Landlords, insurance companies, hospital systems, pharmaceutical companies, student loan servicers all profit from the current system. They lobby hard to maintain it.

2. Deficit mythology – The pervasive belief that government debt is like household debt keeps people thinking we “can’t afford” things we absolutely can do.

3. Fear of socialism – Public provision gets labeled “socialist” and associated with authoritarianism, even though many democracies provide these things.

4. Just-world fallacy and Protestant work ethic – The belief that people must work to deserve basic dignity, that those who can’t or won’t work don’t deserve support. As I explore in “The Politics of Stakeholder Society,” this reflects conditional stakeholding the idea that stakeholder status must be earned through meeting specific criteria rather than being guaranteed based on humanity and presence in the community.

5. Racial and class divisions – Opposition to universal programs often coded in racial terms (“welfare,” “inner-city,” etc.)

6. Market fundamentalism – The ideological commitment to markets as not just useful but sacred, even where they demonstrably fail.

The question isn’t economic, it’s political. Do we want an economy organized around human flourishing or around extracting maximum profit from human needs?

As I outline in “Opportunity Economics,” building a coalition to overcome these obstacles requires moving beyond failed left-right divisions to unite people around policies that create genuine economic opportunities for everyone.

Conclusion: Beyond False Choices

Universal Basic Income asks: “How much cash do people need to survive?”

Universal Basic Assets asks: “What do people need to thrive, and how do we provide it?”

The difference isn’t semantic. The difference is structural.

• UBI treats poverty as a cash shortage. UBA treats it as lack of access to essential resources.

• UBI tries to patch a broken system. UBA rebuilds it.

• UBI gives people money to participate in extractive markets. UBA removes necessities from extractive markets entirely.

The evidence is clear:

• Financially, both are affordable, money isn’t the constraint

• Economically, UBI is inflationary (increases demand without capacity); UBA can be anti-inflationary (builds capacity while meeting demand)

• Empirically, UBI gets captured by rent-seekers; UBA escapes capture through public provision

• Socially, UBI maintains inequality with bigger numbers; UBA addresses wealth distribution directly

• Practically, UBI creates coercion with higher prices; UBA creates real freedom

As I explore in “Beyond Capitalism vs. Socialism,” the choice isn’t about capitalism versus socialism, markets versus government, or individual versus collective. These are false binaries that constrain our imagination.

The real choice is how we use our understanding of monetary systems to build institutions that serve a pluralistic, diverse society where anyone can choose quiet subsistence without stigma while their neighbor pursues wealth-building, personal power, presetige- whatever their motivation is for being in the markets… both lifestyles have dignity, security, and genuine opportunity.

Markets excel at many things. But rationing human survival and dignity by ability to pay isn’t one of them. Some things are too important to leave to profit motives.

Universal Basic Assets provides the framework for this pluralistic vision:

• Those who can’t work get dignified subsistence

• Those who won’t work in traditional markets get basic security

• Those in geographies lacking private sector strength get genuine opportunities

• Those pursuing education, care work, art, community service, or entrepreneurship get real support

• Those competing in markets for wealth-building get fair conditions and genuine choice

• Everyone gets stakeholder status, democratic participation, and pathways to contribute

This isn’t charity or temporary assistance. It’s the foundation for a society that works for everyone using our abundant productive capacity to ensure everyone has what they need to live with dignity, while preserving and enhancing freedom for those who want to compete and build.

We have the resources. We have the capacity. We have the knowledge.

What we need, as I discuss in “Opportunity Economics,” is the political will to choose solidarity over extraction, long-term flourishing over short-term profit, and human dignity over market fundamentalism.

The best part? You don’t have to wait.

Universal Basic Assets can start at any level. Your city can provide universal broadband or free transit. Your state can create public healthcare options or free public universities. Local successes build pressure for state action. State victories create momentum for federal programs. Change begins wherever political will exists.

The question isn’t “Can we afford Universal Basic Assets?”

The question is: In a society with unprecedented productive capacity, how much longer will we tolerate organizing our economy around artificial scarcity and extractive markets when we could ensure everyone’s basic needs while maximizing genuine freedom and opportunity?

We’re not choosing between capitalism and socialism. We’re choosing what kind of capitalist democracy we want to be: one that rations survival by market power, or one that guarantees basic security while enabling genuine opportunity for all.

The framework is here. The resources exist. The only question is whether we have the political courage to build it.

Appendix A: The Mathematics: Why Mainstream Models Fail and What Actually Works

Note: This appendix provides formal economic analysis for readers interested in the mathematical case for UBA over UBI. The main essay stands independently without requiring this technical detail.

Mainstream economists who focus on “hard-money” theories dismiss “soft-money” solutions as theoretically unsound. Fair enough. Let’s use their own models instead.

Here’s the problem: mainstream predictions have failed spectacularly and repeatedly for decades. When models can’t predict reality, you question the models: not reality. Mainstream Economics simply does not have that kind of basic institutional introspection, which is why I argue that Economics is Not a Science.

Let’s examine three major failures, then show which models actually explain what we observe.

When Mainstream Models Predicted Disaster (And Got It Wrong)

Mainstream economic theory makes specific, testable predictions. When reality contradicts these predictions repeatedly, we should question the models not ignore the evidence.

Prediction 1: Quantitative Easing → Hyperinflation

The Quantity Theory of Money states: MV = PY

Where M = money supply, V = velocity, P = price level, Y = real output

This theory predicts that increasing M (money supply) with constant V and Y should proportionally increase P (inflation). When the Federal Reserve created $4 trillion through quantitative easing after 2008, mainstream economists predicted massive inflation.

What happened: Inflation stayed below the Fed’s 2% target for over a decade. The model failed.

Prediction 2: Large Deficits → Crowding Out

Mainstream “crowding out” theory predicts: G↑ → r↑ → I↓

(Government spending increases → interest rates rise → private investment falls)

Japan ran enormous fiscal deficits for 30+ years, sometimes exceeding 10% of GDP. Mainstream models predicted skyrocketing interest rates that would crowd out private investment.

What happened: Japanese interest rates stayed near zero or went negative. Private investment was constrained by lack of demand, not lack of available credit. The model failed.

Prediction 3: Low Unemployment → High Inflation (Phillips Curve)

The traditional Phillips Curve predicts: π = f(u) where inflation (π) is a decreasing function of unemployment (u).

Between 2015-2019, U.S. unemployment fell from 5.3% to 3.5% well below what mainstream economists considered the “natural rate.” They predicted accelerating inflation.

What happened: Inflation remained low and stable. The model failed.

The Pattern: Mainstream models consistently fail because they’re based on incorrect assumptions about how monetary systems work. They assume money is scarce, government spending crowds out private activity, and inflation is primarily monetary. Reality shows otherwise.

The Capacity Utilization Model: What Actually Drives Inflation

If mainstream models fail, what explains the data? A capacity-focused approach:

π = β(Y – Y)/Y**

Where:

• π = inflation rate

• Y = actual output (aggregate demand)

• Y* = potential output (productive capacity)

• β = sensitivity parameter (how quickly prices respond to demand pressure)

The key insight: Inflation occurs when demand (Y) exceeds capacity (Y*), creating an “output gap.” This explains all the empirical anomalies:

• QE didn’t cause inflation because the economy had massive slack (Y << Y*). More money didn’t increase Y enough to exceed Y*.

• Japanese deficits didn’t cause inflation because Japan had persistent excess capacity. Government spending increased Y but never exceeded Y*.

• Low unemployment didn’t cause inflation (2015-2019) because capacity had expanded better technology, higher productivity, more efficient supply chains increased Y*.

This model makes different predictions for UBI versus UBA:

UBI’s Inflationary Effect

Universal Basic Income increases aggregate demand without increasing productive capacity:

Initial state: Y₀ < Y*₀ (economy has some slack)

UBI implemented:

• Everyone receives income U

• Aggregate demand increases: Y₁ = Y₀ + (U × MPC)

• Where MPC = marginal propensity to consume

• Capacity unchanged: Y₁ = Y₀

Result: If (Y₀ + U×MPC) > Y*₀, then inflation increases: π₁ > π₀

Even if the economy has initial slack, UBI creates inflationary pressure as demand approaches or exceeds capacity. And this is the best case scenario where slack exists. In sectors with no slack (housing, healthcare), the effect is immediate.

UBA’s Capacity-Building Effect

Universal Basic Assets increases both demand AND capacity:

Initial state: Y₀ < Y*₀

UBA implemented:

• Government builds public housing → employs construction workers (↑Y) + increases housing stock (↑Y*)

• Government expands healthcare → employs medical workers (↑Y) + increases care capacity (↑Y*)

• Government funds education → employs teachers (↑Y) + increases skilled workforce (↑Y*)

Result: Y₁ = Y₀ + ΔUBA and Y₁ = Y₀ + ΔUBA

If capacity increases match or exceed demand increases, inflation remains stable or even decreases: π₁ ≤ π₀

This is why UBA can be anti-inflationary while UBI is inherently inflationary. UBA mobilizes unemployed resources to build productive capacity, while UBI just increases purchasing power chasing existing capacity.

The Rent Capture Problem: Price Elasticity in Essential Markets

Mainstream economists should understand this problem, after all, it’s their own theory of price elasticity.

Price elasticity of demand: ε = (ΔQ/Q)/(ΔP/P)

Where Q = quantity demanded, P = price.

• When ε > 1 (elastic): Consumers respond to price changes by significantly changing quantity purchased

• When ε < 1 (inelastic): Consumers cannot significantly change quantity even as prices rise

• When ε → 0 (perfectly inelastic): Consumers must purchase regardless of price

Essential goods have low elasticity:

• Housing: ε ≈ 0.3-0.5 (you need somewhere to live)

• Healthcare: ε ≈ 0.1-0.3 (you can’t decline treatment for life-threatening illness)

• Education: ε ≈ 0.3-0.5 (credentials required for economic mobility)

• Food: ε ≈ 0.5-0.8 (you must eat)

The UBI Capture Model

When cash transfers enter inelastic markets, suppliers capture the transfers through price increases:

Initial state:

• Equilibrium price: P₀

• Equilibrium quantity: Q₀

• Consumer income: I₀

UBI implemented: Everyone receives U

New equilibrium:

• Consumer income: I₁ = I₀ + U

• Price increases: P₁ = P₀ + αU

• Where α = capture coefficient (0 ≤ α ≤ 1)

For inelastic goods (ε → 0):

• Quantity barely changes: Q₁ ≈ Q₀

• Suppliers raise prices to capture income: α → 1

• Consumer real gain: U – αU → 0

The formula for rent capture:

Real purchasing power gain = (1 – α)U

In perfectly inelastic markets where suppliers have pricing power, α approaches 1, meaning consumers gain almost nothing in real terms.

Empirical Evidence of Capture

We’ve observed this capture mechanism repeatedly:

Student loans: Government increased loan availability → tuition rose to capture it

• Average tuition increased 180% (inflation-adjusted) between 1980-2020

• Loan availability: strong positive correlation with tuition increases

• Real education quality: minimal improvement

Housing vouchers (Section 8): Government provides housing assistance → rents rise in qualifying areas

• Studies show landlords raise rents by approximately 50% of voucher value

• α ≈ 0.5 for housing vouchers

Childcare subsidies: Government subsidizes childcare → providers raise prices

• States with universal pre-K saw private childcare prices rise 8-15%

• The subsidy gets partially captured by providers

UBA Escapes the Capture Problem

Public provision solves this mathematically by removing goods from price-setting markets:

Public housing provision:

• Rent set at cost-recovery: R = C/N (where C = total costs, N = number of units)

• No profit maximization: α = 0

• Real benefit to consumers: Full value of housing

Public healthcare:

• Price at point of service: P = 0

• Funded through progressive taxation

• No rent capture possible: α = 0

The general principle:

When goods are provided publicly at cost, the capture coefficient α equals zero, meaning consumers receive the full value rather than transferring wealth to rentiers.

Combining the Models: Why UBA Dominates UBI

Let’s combine capacity and elasticity models:

UBI scenario:

1. Increases demand: Y↑

2. Capacity unchanged: Y*→

3. Inflationary pressure: π↑

4. In inelastic markets: prices capture transfers (α → 1)

5. Real benefit approaches zero in essential goods

UBA scenario:

1. Increases demand: Y↑

2. Increases capacity: Y*↑

3. Inflationary pressure: π → or π↓

4. Public provision: no rent capture (α = 0)

5. Real benefit equals full value of assets provided

The Formal Comparison

Let’s compare total welfare effects:

UBI welfare gain:

W_UBI = Σᵢ(1 – αᵢ)Uᵢ – πU

Where:

• i indexes different goods (housing, healthcare, food, etc.)

• αᵢ = capture coefficient for good i (high for inelastic goods)

• Uᵢ = portion of UBI spent on good i

• π = inflation induced by aggregate demand increase

For highly inelastic essential goods where αᵢ → 1, welfare gain approaches zero or negative.

UBA welfare gain:

W_UBA = Σⱼ(Vⱼ) + ΔY – Costs*

Where:

• j indexes different public assets

• Vⱼ = value of public asset j to consumers

• ΔY* = increase in productive capacity (reduces future inflation)

• Costs = real resource costs of building assets (labor, materials)

Since public assets are provided at cost with no rent capture:

• Full value delivered: no α reduction

• Capacity expands: reduces inflation

• Future production enabled: increases Y* permanently

What This Means

The mathematics is unambiguous. UBA dominates UBI:

1. UBI faces double erosion: Rent capture (α → 1) reduces nominal gains, then inflation (π) erodes what remains

2. UBA escapes both: No rent capture (α = 0), plus capacity expansion (↑Y*) prevents inflation

This isn’t ideological preference. It’s what formal models predict when using frameworks that explain observed behavior rather than assuming frictionless markets and neutral money.

Mainstream economists already use these tools. They analyze capacity utilization (though they ignore it in policy prescriptions). They understand price elasticity (though they rarely apply it to welfare programs). The difference: capacity and elasticity models predict what we observe. Monetary models consistently fail.

The question isn’t whether government can create money for either program, we have already discussed the ansewr to that: they can. The question is which program delivers real benefits rather than transferring wealth to rentiers. The mathematics clearly favors UBA.

Appendix B: From Theory to Policy: Implementing the Capacity and Anti-Capture Framework

Note: This appendix translates the mathematical models from Appendix A into concrete policy design principles and implementation mechanisms.

Using the Capacity Utilization Model in Policy Design

The capacity model π = β(Y – Y)/Y** provides clear guidance for policy sequencing and scale:

Policy Principle 1: Measure Slack Before Scaling

Before expanding UBA programs, assess sector-specific capacity utilization:

• High unemployment in construction? → Scale public housing construction

• Idle healthcare facilities? → Expand public healthcare access

• Underutilized educational capacity? → Expand free public education

Implementation: Require quarterly capacity utilization reports before program expansion. When sector capacity < 80%, green-light expansion. When capacity > 90%, slow expansion and invest in building capacity first.

Policy Principle 2: Sequence for Capacity Building

Don’t just provide assets, build the productive infrastructure to sustain them:

Phase 1 (Years 1-3): Train workers and build initial facilities

• Expand medical school funding and residency programs

• Create apprenticeship programs for construction trades

• Fund teacher training and credential programs

Phase 2 (Years 3-7): Scale asset provision as capacity grows

• Open new public housing using newly trained construction workers

• Expand public clinics as new doctors complete training

• Add public university seats as new faculty are hired

Phase 3 (Years 7+): Maintain capacity growth ahead of demand

• Continuous training pipelines ensure capacity expansion outpaces demand

• Result: π remains stable or decreases (anti-inflationary)

Using the Rent Capture Model to Design Anti-Capture Policies

The capture coefficient α (where Real Gain = (1 – α)U) shows how to prevent rent-seeking:

Policy Principle 3: Public Provision Where α Is High

Target public provision at sectors with highest capture coefficients:

Priority 1 (α > 0.7): Full public provision

• Healthcare (ε ≈ 0.1-0.3, α → 0.9)

• Housing in tight markets (ε ≈ 0.3-0.5, α → 0.8)

• Higher education (ε ≈ 0.3-0.5, α → 0.7)

Priority 2 (0.4 < α < 0.7): Public option competing with private

• Transportation

• Utilities

• Childcare

Priority 3 (α < 0.4): Market provision with regulation

• Most consumer goods

• Discretionary services

Implementation: Annual studies measuring α by sector. When α exceeds 0.6 for essential goods, trigger policy review for public provision.

Policy Principle 4: Design to Minimize α

When implementing UBA programs, design to prevent capture:

For Public Housing:

• Set rents at cost-recovery only: R = C/N (zero profit margin)

• Mixed-income design: Prevent market segmentation that enables price discrimination

• Integrate geographically: Prevent isolated locations where private landlords can charge premiums

• Quality parity with market: Ensure public option competes on quality, preventing “prestige premium” capture

For Public Healthcare:

• Free at point of service: P = 0 (eliminate ability to charge)

• Negotiate drug prices centrally: Monopsony power prevents pharmaceutical α

• Prohibit balance billing: Prevent providers from charging above public rates

• Cover comprehensively: Gaps create opportunities for supplementary insurance capture

For Public Education:

• Zero tuition: Eliminate price mechanism entirely

• Cover living expenses: Prevent private student loan α capture

• Quality investment: Ensure public universities compete with private on outcomes

• Geographic coverage: Commuting-distance public options prevent relocation costs enabling α

Monitoring and Adjustment Mechanisms

Policy Principle 5: Build Feedback Loops

Create institutional mechanisms to measure and respond to capture attempts:

Quarterly Monitoring:

• Track private market prices in sectors with UBA provision

• Calculate effective α: (Private Price Increase)/(UBA Value) after program launch

• If α > 0.3 in adjacent markets, investigate and adjust policy

Example: Public Housing Launch

• Month 0: Launch public housing program in city

• Month 3: Measure private rental price changes in same area

• If private rents increased > 30% of public housing value → private landlords attempting capture through location premium

• Response: Accelerate public housing geographic coverage to eliminate location advantage

Annual Reviews:

• Measure Y/Y* by sector to ensure capacity growing ahead of demand

• Assess program quality to prevent degradation driving people back to private markets (which enables α)

• Survey beneficiaries about unmet needs indicating gaps where α could emerge

Concrete Policy Proposals Using This Framework

Example 1: Public Housing Implementation

Year 1-2: Build Capacity

• Fund 50,000 new construction apprenticeships

• Establish federal-local partnerships identifying sites

• Set design standards: mixed-income, integrated, high-quality

Year 3-5: Initial Provision (Low α Design)

• Build 500,000 units in 50 cities

• Rent = operating costs only (α = 0 by design)

• Geographic distribution prevents private landlord location premiums

• Quality standards prevent “luxury premium” capture

Year 6-10: Scale

• Add 1 million units annually

• Continuous capacity building keeps Y* > Y

• Monitor private rent changes; if increasing, accelerate public construction

Year 10+: Steady State

• 30-40% of housing stock public

• Private market cannot charge premiums (too much public competition)

• α maintained near zero through adequate public supply

Example 2: Medicare for All Implementation

Year 1: Capacity Assessment

• Measure current healthcare utilization vs. capacity

• Identify bottlenecks (primary care, specialists, facilities)

• Fund medical school expansion for 5-year pipeline

Year 2-3: Gradual Rollout (Preventing Capacity Constraints)

• Year 2: Cover all children and 55+ (highest need, known capacity)

• Year 3: Add 45-54 age group

• Monitor Y/Y* in healthcare: ensure capacity adequate before next expansion

Year 4: Full Coverage

• Universal coverage once capacity confirms Y* > projected Y

• α = 0 by design (free at point of service, no balance billing)

• Drug price negotiation eliminates pharmaceutical α

Ongoing:

• Continuous medical training pipeline

• Facility expansion funded as needed

• Quality monitoring prevents degradation that would push people to private supplementary insurance (preventing α emergence)

Key Implementation Principles Summary

1. Measure before expanding: Know your Y/Y* to prevent inflation

2. Build capacity first: Invest in training and facilities before demand

3. Design for α = 0: Public provision at cost, no profit opportunities

4. Monitor for capture: Track private market responses, adjust quickly

5. Quality matters: Poor quality public provision creates opportunities for private α capture

6. Geographic coverage: Gaps enable location-based rent-seeking

7. Comprehensive coverage: Gaps enable supplementary market α

8. Continuous capacity investment: Keep Y* growing ahead of Y

Political Economy Considerations

Transitional Policies to Reduce Opposition:

The models suggest phasing strategies that minimize disruption while preventing capture:

For housing:

• Don’t expropriate existing landlords

• Instead, build enough public housing that private landlords must compete on quality/price

• As public supply grows, private rents stabilize (reducing α naturally)

• Voluntary program reduces political opposition

For healthcare:

• Allow existing private insurance for non-covered services initially

• As public coverage expands and proves superior, private insurance market naturally shrinks

• Providers transition voluntarily as patient base shifts

• Less disruption than forced transition

The key insight from the models: You don’t need to eliminate private markets. You just need to build enough public capacity that α approaches zero because rent-seekers can’t charge premiums when high-quality public alternatives exist.

This transforms UBA from “government takeover” to “effective competition that forces private markets to actually serve consumers.”

Leave a comment

The final part of my three-part series following: Why Economic Models Matter and Why Monetary Systems Matter

Subscribe now

The False Choice That Constrains Our Imagination

For seventy years, American political discourse has been trapped in a binary from the 1950s: capitalism versus socialism, free markets versus government control, individual liberty versus collective welfare. This framing, born from Cold War politics, has become so embedded in our thinking that we can barely imagine alternatives.

Meanwhile, countries not mired in American cultural dogma have leaned into their own values and understanding of capabilities to build systems enabling their acceleration and growth. Singapore combines Confucian communitarian values with strategic state capitalism. Nordic countries blend Lutheran work ethics with comprehensive welfare states. Germany merges ordoliberalism with stakeholder capitalism. Japan harmonizes collective responsibility with corporate innovation. China adapts “socialism with Chinese characteristics” to create the world’s fastest-growing major economy. Costa Rica abolished its military in 1948 and invested those resources into education and healthcare, achieving higher life expectancy than the United States at a fraction of the cost through pragmatic public-private healthcare delivery. These nations don’t debate ideological purity; they build what works for their cultures and contexts.

The free market mentality tells us that unfettered markets naturally produce optimal outcomes, that government intervention only distorts efficiency, and that private enterprise always outperforms public programs. But this ideology crumbles when confronted with reality. Markets failed to prevent the 2008 financial crisis. They’ve failed to provide affordable healthcare, housing, or education. They’ve failed to address climate change or infrastructure decay. Most fundamentally, they’ve failed to translate massive productivity gains into broad prosperity.

The socialist response, calling for government ownership of production, misses the mark equally. The issue isn’t who owns the factories but how we organize monetary flows to mobilize resources effectively. State ownership without understanding monetary operations leads to the same artificial scarcity as market fundamentalism, just distributed through different mechanisms.

What matters isn’t choosing between markets and government but understanding how monetary systems actually function and using that knowledge to design institutions that serve human needs. This isn’t centrism or triangulation. It’s recognition that the capitalism versus socialism debate obscures more fundamental questions about how we create and distribute money in modern economies.

The Political Duopoly That Perpetuates Ignorance

This false binary persists partly because America’s political duopoly benefits from limiting choices and keeping the public economically illiterate. Both major parties have incentives to maintain misconceptions about monetary operations because it constrains what voters consider possible, allowing politicians to avoid hard choices about priorities.

Republicans invoke “fiscal responsibility” and “free markets” to block social programs while ignoring deficits for military spending and tax cuts. Democrats accept the premise of budget constraints, arguing merely about percentages rather than challenging the fundamental misconception that federal spending requires tax revenue. Both parties pretend the federal government faces household-like budget constraints because it’s politically easier than explaining monetary reality.

As I explored in “Economics is Not a Science,” this isn’t just political convenience but systematic gatekeeping. Economics departments funded by corporate donors teach orthodox theories that consistently fail empirical tests yet persist because they serve political functions. The public never learns how monetary systems actually work because neither party has incentives to teach them, and the economics profession maintains theories through institutional power rather than evidence.

This duopoly creates a vicious cycle: Limited political competition means limited policy options. Limited options reinforce limited understanding. Limited understanding enables continued political manipulation. The public remains trapped in frameworks that, as I documented in “Why Monetary Systems Matter,”, fundamentally misunderstand the shift from hard money to soft money systems that occurred over fifty years ago.

The danger intensifies when democratic institutions themselves face threat. Autocratic movements exploit economic anxiety caused by artificial scarcity, blaming immigrants, minorities, or foreign competition rather than monetary misconceptions. They promise restoration of past prosperity through strongman rule rather than democratic redesign of economic institutions. When people believe prosperity is impossible through democratic means, they become susceptible to authoritarian promises.

The current moment demonstrates this danger starkly. Economic insecurity from forty years of wage stagnation and wealth concentration creates desperation. That desperation gets channeled not toward understanding and fixing monetary systems but toward political extremism. Politicians who benefit from economic illiteracy also benefit from democratic decay, creating a feedback loop threatening both prosperity and freedom.

Breaking this cycle requires not just new policies but new politics: competitive democracy with multiple parties offering genuine alternatives, civic education that includes monetary operations, and transparency about how economic policy actually works. Without democratic renewal, economic renewal becomes impossible.

America’s Unprecedented Advantages

While we waste time on ideological battles and political theater, America possesses resources and advantages unprecedented in world history:

Human Capital: The United States has the most diverse population of any major economy, bringing together talent, perspectives, and innovations from every corner of the globe. Our universities attract the world’s best minds. Our entrepreneurial culture generates more startups and patents than any other nation. This diversity of thought and capability is our greatest asset, yet we constrain it with artificial scarcity.

Institutional Strengths: We have 250 years of representative governance and democratic accountability, creating stable institutions that, while imperfect, provide frameworks for peaceful change. Our federalist system distributes power across national, state, and local levels, enabling experimentation and adaptation. Our independent judiciary and free press, despite challenges, provide checks on concentrated power.

Economic Foundation: America maintains the world’s largest middle class by absolute numbers, though it’s been shrinking. We have the most developed capital markets, deepest pools of investment capital, and most sophisticated financial infrastructure. Our corporations, despite their excesses, possess tremendous productive capacity and organizational capability.

Monetary Sovereignty: Most crucially, the dollar serves as global reserve currency, giving us monetary capabilities other nations can only dream of. We can create dollars to mobilize resources without foreign exchange risk. International trade happens in our currency. Global investors seek our bonds as safe havens. This “exorbitant privilege” means we face fewer constraints than any other nation, yet we act as if we’re broke.

Physical Resources: America has abundant natural resources, extensive infrastructure (though deteriorating), advanced technology sectors, and the world’s most powerful military protecting these assets. We have the space, resources, and technological capability to address any challenge.

Yet we squander these advantages arguing about whether government should be 15% or 25% of GDP instead of asking how to mobilize our full potential for shared prosperity.

Why Markets Excel at Some Things and Fail at Others

Markets are extraordinary mechanisms for producing discretionary goods and services. When consumers can walk away, when competition is genuine, when information is available, and when failure doesn’t mean death or destitution, markets drive innovation, efficiency, and variety. Nobody wants government-designed smartphones, fashion, or restaurants. The profit motive and competitive pressure create powerful incentives for serving consumer desires.

But markets systematically fail for survival goods and services where people can’t walk away. Healthcare, housing, education, and basic utilities aren’t true markets because:

No Exit Option: You can’t decline to have a heart attack because prices are too high. You need shelter regardless of cost. Children must be educated. These aren’t optional consumer choices but survival necessities.

Information Asymmetries: Patients can’t evaluate medical procedures like they compare televisions. Students can’t know education quality until after they’ve paid. Home buyers face once-in-a-lifetime decisions with limited information. True market competition requires informed choice, which is impossible in many essential services.

Natural Monopolies: Many essential services tend toward monopoly. You can’t have competing electrical grids or sewer systems. Hospitals need scale for specialized equipment. Universities require massive fixed investments. Competition might be inefficient or impossible.

Positive Externalities: Education benefits all of society, not just students. Public health protects everyone. Infrastructure enables all economic activity. Markets underprovide goods with positive spillovers because producers can’t capture all benefits.

Time Horizons: Markets optimize for quarterly profits, but essential services require generational thinking. Infrastructure lasts decades. Education pays off over lifetimes. Climate stability matters for centuries. Market timeframes don’t match social needs.

This is why every successful society uses non-market mechanisms for survival goods while letting markets handle discretionary consumption. It’s not ideological but practical recognition of what works where.

The Free Market Fallacy

The free market ideology rests on assumptions that simply don’t match reality. It assumes perfect information, rational actors, and natural equilibrium. It treats money as neutral, a mere veil over “real” economic activity. It pretends government and markets are separate spheres rather than interdependent systems.

Consider how markets actually work in practice. Every market transaction depends on government infrastructure: property rights enforced by courts, contracts upheld by law, currencies maintained by central banks, and networks of trust backed by regulatory systems. The “free” market has never existed independently of government. Even black markets rely on government currencies and operate in the shadow of legal systems.

More fundamentally, markets in a fiat currency system cannot function without government spending creating the money that circulates through them. As I explored in “Why Monetary Systems Matter,”, the government must spend money into existence before the private sector can use it. The sequence is inescapable: government creates money through spending, that money circulates through private markets, then some returns as taxes. Without the initial government creation, there would be no money for markets to use.

The 2008 financial crisis definitively proved markets don’t self-regulate toward stability. Rational actors created elaborate financial instruments that nobody fully understood. Information asymmetries allowed massive fraud. Instead of equilibrium, we got cascading collapse requiring unprecedented government intervention. The very banks preaching free market discipline begged for and received trillions in public support.

Yet rather than abandoning failed ideology, free market advocates simply added epicycles: the crisis resulted from too much regulation, or the wrong kind, or government distortion of natural market processes. This is ideological protection, not scientific thinking. As I documented in “Economics is Not a Science,”, when evidence contradicts theory, science updates theory. Economics, however, maintains theories through institutional power regardless of empirical failure.

The Socialist Trap

Traditional socialism makes the opposite error, assuming government ownership automatically serves public interest. But ownership structures matter less than monetary understanding and institutional design. A government that doesn’t understand monetary operations will create artificial scarcity whether it owns enterprises or not.

The Soviet Union demonstrated this. Despite controlling all production, it regularly faced shortages not from lack of productive capacity but from monetary mismanagement and institutional dysfunction. State ownership without effective monetary coordination produced the same pathologies as unregulated markets: inequality, inefficiency, and human suffering.

Modern democratic socialist proposals often fall into similar traps. Calls for government job guarantees, universal basic income, or public ownership sound progressive but can perpetuate artificial scarcity if implemented without understanding monetary operations. If you believe government faces budget constraints like a household, you’ll underfund programs whether they’re public or private. If you think taxes fund spending, you’ll impose unnecessary austerity even on publicly owned enterprises.

The real question isn’t whether government or private enterprise should control production but how we design monetary flows to mobilize resources effectively. A well-designed public option can coexist with private alternatives. Public infrastructure can enable private innovation. Government spending can create markets that wouldn’t otherwise exist. These aren’t compromises between capitalism and socialism but recognitions that the binary itself is meaningless.

What Actually Successful Economies Do

While America debates free markets versus socialism, successful economies worldwide have quietly abandoned ideology for pragmatism. They use whatever combination of public and private institutions delivers results, guided not by dogma but by understanding of monetary operations.

Singapore combines aggressive government intervention with private enterprise. The government owns 90% of land, operates massive sovereign wealth funds, and provides universal healthcare and public housing. Yet it also hosts thriving private markets and multinational corporations. This isn’t socialism or capitalism but pragmatic institutional design based on what works.

Germany’s Mittelstand demonstrates how public and private can reinforce each other. Regional public banks provide patient capital to small manufacturers. Vocational education systems (publicly funded, privately delivered) create skilled workers. Labor representation on corporate boards balances stakeholder interests. The result: sustained prosperity and industrial leadership without ideological purity.

Nordic countries achieve high living standards through pragmatic mixing: private ownership of business with strong public services, competitive markets with comprehensive welfare states, and high taxes with business-friendly regulations. They don’t debate whether something is “socialist” or “capitalist” but whether it improves citizens’ lives.

Japan’s response to demographic challenges shows pragmatic adaptation. Facing deflation and aging population, the Bank of Japan bought stocks directly, implemented negative interest rates, and ran massive deficits for decades. Orthodox economics said this should cause disaster. Instead, Japan maintained stability and living standards by ignoring ideology and doing what worked.

Crucially, these successful economies also have more competitive political systems that enable pragmatic adaptation. Multiple parties offer genuine alternatives. Coalition governments force compromise and innovation. Proportional representation ensures diverse voices. This political competition drives policy innovation rather than ideological stagnation.

Designing Systems That Serve People

Once we abandon the capitalism versus socialism framework and understand monetary operations, we can design systems based on evidence rather than ideology. The question becomes not “is this too much government?” or “is this socialist?” but “does this mobilize resources effectively to meet human needs?”

In healthcare, this might mean single-payer insurance (government financing) with private providers, or public options competing with private insurance, or regulated markets with universal subsidies. The optimal design depends on specific conditions, not ideological prescriptions. What matters is achieving universal coverage at sustainable cost, not whether the solution fits predetermined categories.

For housing, understanding that government can create money to fund construction without taxation opens possibilities: public housing development that increases supply, government-backed mortgages that enable ownership, and social housing that provides alternatives to private rental markets. Vienna houses 60% of residents in social housing while maintaining some of Europe’s highest quality of life. Singapore provides public housing to 80% of citizens while maintaining vibrant property markets. These aren’t socialist or capitalist solutions but practical responses to housing needs.

In education, recognizing that federal spending isn’t constrained by tax revenue means we could fully fund public universities, provide universal pre-K, or offer lifelong learning accounts. Whether education is delivered through public institutions, private schools with public funding, or hybrid models matters less than ensuring universal access to quality education.

As I documented in “How Corporate-Friendly Accounting Rules Create a $30 Trillion Transfer from Consumers into Wealthy Pockets,” even seemingly technical regulations embed massive wealth transfers. Understanding monetary operations lets us redesign these systems to serve broader prosperity rather than concentrated wealth.

The Monetary Understanding That Changes Everything

The key insight that transcends the capitalism versus socialism debate is this: in a sovereign fiat currency system, the federal government faces no operational financial constraints. It can create whatever money is needed to mobilize available resources. The only real constraints are inflation (when spending exceeds productive capacity) and real resources (workers, materials, technology, and ecological limits).

This doesn’t mean unlimited spending without consequences. It means the consequences are different than commonly believed. Instead of asking “how will we pay for it?” we should ask “do we have the resources to do this?” Instead of worrying about balanced budgets, we should worry about balanced economies. Instead of fearing national debt, we should fear underutilized potential.

As explored in “Why Economic Models Matter,” mainstream economic models consistently fail because they embed assumptions from the gold standard era. They treat money as scarce, government as constrained, and markets as naturally equilibrating. These models serve ideological functions, limiting what we consider possible rather than describing what actually is.

Understanding monetary reality reveals that most economic suffering stems from policy choices, not natural constraints. Unemployment isn’t necessary for price stability. Government deficits don’t crowd out private investment. Public spending doesn’t automatically cause inflation. These are ideological assertions disguised as economic laws, maintained through what I describe in “Economics is Not a Science” as institutional gatekeeping rather than empirical validation.

Building the Future: Pragmatic Design for Human Flourishing

The path forward isn’t choosing between markets and government but designing systems that use both effectively. This requires abandoning ideological purity for evidence-based pragmatism, understanding monetary operations rather than assuming constraints, and focusing on outcomes rather than ownership structures.

Consider climate change. Market fundamentalists insist carbon pricing and private innovation will solve everything. Socialists demand public ownership of energy production. But effective response probably requires both: massive public investment in research and infrastructure, regulated markets that price externalities, public options that ensure universal access, and private innovation within public frameworks. The mix matters less than the result: rapid decarbonization while maintaining living standards.

Or take innovation policy. The iPhone exists because of decades of public research into touchscreens, GPS, internet, and battery technology. Private companies assembled these components into consumer products. This isn’t victory for either markets or government but demonstration that they’re complementary. Understanding this complementarity, rather than debating ideological ownership, enables effective policy.

The real political divide isn’t between capitalism and socialism but between those who understand monetary reality and those still trapped in gold standard thinking. Once we recognize that federal spending isn’t constrained by tax revenue, that government debt is private savings, and that money is created through public spending, entire categories of previously impossible policies become achievable.

But achieving this requires democratic renewal alongside economic understanding. A political system that limits choices to two parties, both accepting false economic constraints, cannot deliver prosperity. We need competitive democracy that enables policy innovation, civic education that includes monetary reality, and institutions that serve citizens rather than protecting incumbent power.

Conclusion: Beyond Failed Dichotomies

The capitalism versus socialism debate is a zombie ideology, intellectually dead but still shambling through political discourse. It obscures rather than illuminates our actual choices. The free market mentality that government should minimize intervention is as misguided as socialist faith in government ownership. Both rest on misunderstanding how monetary systems actually function.

What matters now is recognizing that we operate in a fiat currency system with capabilities our grandparents couldn’t imagine. Government can create money to mobilize unused resources. Public and private institutions can reinforce rather than oppose each other. Markets can serve human needs when properly structured and regulated. Government programs can deliver efficiently when properly designed and funded.

The question isn’t whether to choose markets or government but how to use both within proper monetary understanding to build broadly shared prosperity. This isn’t ideological compromise but recognition that the ideologies themselves are obsolete, artifacts of a different monetary era that no longer exists.

Other countries have figured this out, building successful economies through pragmatic combination rather than ideological purity. America can too, but first we must abandon the false choices that constrain our imagination. This requires not just economic understanding but political transformation: breaking the duopoly that perpetuates ignorance, strengthening democratic institutions against authoritarian threat, and creating genuine political competition that drives policy innovation.

The real choice isn’t between capitalism and socialism but between artificial scarcity based on monetary misunderstanding and shared prosperity based on using our full monetary capacity for public good. And increasingly, it’s a choice between democratic renewal that enables economic transformation or continued decline into both economic stagnation and political authoritarianism.

The future belongs not to market fundamentalists or socialist ideologues but to those who understand how money actually works and use that understanding to design systems that serve humanity. That’s not a political position but an operational necessity. And it starts with recognizing that most of what we’ve been told about markets, government, money, and even democracy itself is wrong, not by accident, but by design.

Leave a comment