Professional power completed the pattern in the late nineteenth and early twentieth centuries, as standardized examinations and licensing replaced guild inheritance and family apprenticeship. A surgeon’s daughter doesn’t inherit the scalpel. She takes the MCAT, survives medical school, matches into a residency, and passes board certification. The credential expires with the person who earned it.

Subscribe now

The principle was the same each time: power must be earned, not bequeathed. A title held by one generation conveys nothing about the competence of the next.

Of course, dynastic advantage persists in all three domains, and everyone knows it. A senator’s kid has name recognition, donor networks, and twenty years of dinner-table education in how power works. A general’s kid grows up on bases, absorbs military culture, and understands the institution before his first commission. A surgeon’s kid benefits from family wealth that can fund a decade of training, legacy preferences, and parents who know exactly which residency programs to target.

These advantages are real and significant. But the formal entitlement is gone. The senator’s kid still has to win the election. The general’s kid still has to pass the selection board. The surgeon’s kid still has to get licensed. Between the advantage and the power, there is a proving ground—a gate that won’t open on pedigree alone. The dynasty can tilt the odds. It cannot skip the test.

Economic Empires

Economic power has no such test.

The Walton heirs collectively hold roughly $250 billion. Sam Walton built Walmart. His children and grandchildren didn’t. They hold more wealth than the bottom 40% of American households combined, and the mechanism that transferred this power to them involved no election, no exam, no selection board, no credential check, no demonstrated competence of any kind. A will executed. A fortune moved.

In every other domain, inheritance is an unlawful advantage. In economics, it is the norm. A senator’s kid with every dynastic edge still has to win an election. An heir just has to have a pulse.

Biology and Society

Of course, parents want to leave their children what they built. That instinct is as natural as they come. But it was equally natural in every other domain. Kings wanted their sons to rule. Generals wanted their sons to command. Doctors wanted their sons to practice. The desire to pass power to your children is one of the oldest forces in human life. It is also one of the most consistently overridden by law, because the damage it does to society outweighs the comfort it provides to our biological urges.

Natural impulses get legally overridden all the time. If your kid commits tax fraud, you may want to help cover it up. The law says you can’t. If your kid fails the bar, you don’t get to practice law on their behalf, either. The instinct to protect and provide for your children is deep, real, and irrelevant. All of our laws are designed to override our base nature. That’s what a civilization is. In politics, the military, and the professions, the answer has always been to overrule this impulse—and we’re better off for it.

But the desire to provide for your children and the drive to build a billion-dollar business are not the same instinct. The people who create enormous fortunes aren’t doing it for their grandchildren. They’re doing it because they’re obsessed. Bezos didn’t grind through early Amazon dreaming of a trust fund. Musk isn’t sleeping at the factory for estate planning. The drive to build is intrinsic—that’s the entire capitalist argument for tolerating unequal rewards. The inheritance isn’t the motivator.

The real reason the exception persists is power, not instinct. The people who benefit from inherited wealth have the resources to keep the system in place. The Lords didn’t vote to abolish the Lords. The purchasers of commissions didn’t volunteer to end the purchase system. Every time, the change came not because the beneficiaries agreed but because something broke hard enough to override them. In 1990 the top 0.1% held 8.5% of the wealth. By the end of 2024, it had grown to 13.8%. The 19 richest U.S. households added about $1 trillion in wealth in 2024 alone.

Something is broken.

Estate Taxation

Here’s how the estate tax actually works, since most Americans have never had reason to learn. When someone dies, their estate is valued—everything they owned. The federal government exempts the first $15 million per individual from taxation.1 For a married couple, that’s $30 million. Everything above the exemption is taxed at 40%. Everything below it is untouched.

Most people can intuit the obvious loophole with this—just give it away on your deathbed. So our laws handle that too. Anyone can give $19,000 per year to any recipient, tax-free. But larger gifts count against the total estate exemption—give your daughter $1 million this year, and your estate exemption at death drops by $1 million.2 The system treats large gifts and inheritance as two draws from the same pool.

The median American estate is roughly $300,000. The current exemption is $15 million. Only about 0.1% of estates currently owe anything at all. And even those estates, after trusts and avoidance strategies, pay an effective rate of about 3.5%. The estate tax collects roughly $35 billion a year on over $1 trillion in transfers. Functionally, it’s more of a suggestion than a rule.

Every argument against raising taxes is an argument about incentives. Income taxes discourage work. Capital gains taxes discourage investment. Sales taxes discourage consumption. These objections have force because they describe real behavioral distortions imposed on living people making real decisions.

Dead people don’t make decisions. A dead person has no labor supply to reduce, no investment to defer, no business to relocate, no income to shelter. The entire economic case against taxation is a case about distorting behavior, and a dead person’s behavior cannot be distorted. The deadweight loss of an estate tax is zero, because the taxpayer is dead weight.

This makes the estate tax unique in the tax code—the only tax where the standard economic objections don’t apply, because the entity being taxed no longer exists. The only tax with no economic cost is the one we barely collect.

Democratic Principles

The correct rate is 100%, because that’s the principle we already agree with. Nobody inherits 60% of the king’s title. Nobody inherits half a general’s stars. The credential, the rank, the office—they either transfer or they don’t. In politics, the military, and the professions, they don’t. A small exemption—$5 million per person, $10 million per couple—handles the obvious: the family home, the Mustang dad lovingly restored, the good china, the heirlooms that represent a family, not a dynasty. For the vast majority of families, nothing changes.

For wealthy families, most of the real advantage continues uninterrupted, too. Children still inherit relationships, access, family name, reputation—the same dynastic advantages that persist in every domain where formal inheritance has been abolished. The senator’s kid still has the donor network. The general’s kid still has the institutional knowledge. The same advantages apply here.

The financial tools for taking care of your family are already in the tax code. Parents can give $19,000 a year to each child, each grandchild, each in-law—anyone they want, as many recipients as they want, every year they’re alive. A couple with three kids and six grandchildren can transfer over $170,000 a year without touching the exemption. Over twenty-five years, that’s $4.25 million on top of the $10 million that passes at death. Tuition paid directly to a university, medical bills paid directly to a provider—none of that ever enters the tax system. Families can, and should, continue to help each other.

What the estate tax should eliminate is the lump-sum transfer of a dynasty—the fortune so large it replicates itself across generations regardless of what anyone does with it. That’s not a tax, it’s a principle. It’s how every other form of power in this country already works.

The revenue goes where it should have been going all along—toward the budget, toward infrastructure, toward programs like universal opportunity accounts that give every American a real starting position instead of a lottery based on who their parents were. The point isn’t to destroy wealth. It’s to stop pretending that a system which transfers dynastic fortunes is consistent with the principles of democratic and meritocratic power.

The Last Holdout

The hereditary principle has been on a 250-year losing streak. Each time it was abolished, the beneficiaries of the old system predicted catastrophe. The aristocrats said democracy would produce mob rule. The officer class said meritocratic promotion would destroy military cohesion. The guild families said open licensing would flood the professions with incompetents. Each time, they were wrong. Each time, the system that replaced inherited power with earned power outperformed the one it replaced.

Economic power is the last holdout, and the biggest. A modern dynastic fortune concentrates more power than a medieval lordship, a purchased commission, and an inherited credential combined. The principle that applies to it is not new, not radical, and not untried. It has been tested at least three times, in three domains, across three centuries.

You get a lifetime to earn wealth, spend it, give it away, and use it however you see fit. That’s the deal. That’s what a free society offers. But the deal is with the living. When it’s over, it’s over. We abolished the inherited title. We abolished the purchased commission. We abolished the hereditary credential. There’s one last holdout. Let’s abolish it.

Both emerged from extraordinary science and extraordinary scientists. Both were classified at the highest levels. What happened next split the trajectory of the global economy in two.

Subscribe now

The codebreaker machine was classified Ultra Secret—a designation above Britain’s highest standard classification. The machine itself, its specific architecture and implementation, remained classified and closely guarded for decades after the war. But Alan Turing’s foundational work—his 1936 paper On Computable Numbers, the theoretical bedrock of every computer ever built—and his related research, remained in the open literature. You can read it today, just as you could have during the war.

The bomb got classified too. But unlike the computer science, the Atomic Energy Act of 1946 classified not only the weapon—it classified the entire scientific foundation underneath it. The Act created a legal doctrine unprecedented in the history of knowledge: “born classified.” Certain categories of nuclear physics were declared state secrets from the moment of discovery—by anyone. A university researcher with no government funding and no security clearance who independently derived restricted results had, by law, produced a state secret before anyone in government had seen it. The knowledge was illegal before the ink dried.

This wasn’t intentional, or at least, it wasn’t strategic. Governments simply understood the power of bombs better than the power of bits.

A bomb is visceral—the mushroom cloud over Hiroshima was photographic proof that the physics underneath it was dangerous. Generals and senators didn’t need to understand neutron chain reactions to understand that the knowledge enabling them should never reach Moscow. Turing’s work was abstract. Math and logic. Theory based on a hypothetical thought experiment in which a machine reads an infinitely long strip of tape with 1s and 0s on it. So they classified the codebreaking equipment—that part they understood the importance of—but the idea itself was allowed to flourish in the public domain.

The Divergence

Modern computing is the result of eighty years of compounding breakthroughs on Turing’s open foundations. Transistors, integrated circuits, personal computers, the internet, artificial intelligence—each generation building on the last, each published, peer-reviewed, and available to every researcher and inventor on the planet. And available to you. The iteration loop that drives scientific progress—publish, challenge, replicate, extend—runs uninterrupted.

Physics, meanwhile, flatlined.

The most celebrated physics breakthrough of the last twenty years was the 2012 detection of the Higgs boson—a particle first theorized in 1964. Gravitational waves, detected in 2015, confirmed a prediction Einstein published in 1916. Significant accomplishments. But also confirmations of very old ideas, rather than the discovery of new ones.

The pattern holds across applied physics, too. The Boeing 707 entered commercial service in 1958, cruising at Mach 0.85. The Boeing 787 entered service in 2011, cruising at... Mach 0.85. More fuel-efficient, but the same speed, the same basic airframe, the same fundamental technology—fifty-three years apart. The biggest upgrade to the passenger experience was switching from CRT TVs to seat-back screens. And now airlines are removing those too, because your phone does a better job, thanks to computer science. Fifty years of Boeing, a prime defense contractor, shipping essentially the same commercial products despite decades of military advancements.

Materials science. Energy storage. Propulsion. Electromagnetics. Incremental refinement in secret, decade after decade, while the domains whose science stayed open compounded exponentially.

The Easy Answer

There is a serious, well-researched argument that this scientific stagnation is natural.

Physics had a golden age—roughly 1900 to 1960—that produced relativity, quantum mechanics, nuclear physics, and the solid-state physics behind the transistor. These were foundational breakthroughs: deep, accessible, and world-changing. The argument is that what followed was inevitably harder. The low-hanging fruit had been picked. Newton needed an apple. Now we need supercolliders. Tyler Cowen called the broader phenomenon the Great Stagnation. Bloom, Jones, Van Reenen, and Webb published “Are Ideas Getting Harder to Find?” and concluded that, yes, they are—across the board, research productivity is declining as each new discovery requires more people, more expertise, and more capital.

These are serious economists looking at real data. And the story is internally consistent: physics matured, the easy breakthroughs were made, and what remains is incrementally harder. The plateau isn’t a mystery. It’s a natural life cycle.

The trouble is what the explanation has to ignore to stay comfortable, not least of which is describing what Einstein produced as “low-hanging fruit.”

What the S-Curve Can’t Explain

If diminishing returns are natural—a feature of the science itself—they should hit every scientific field as the easy discoveries are exhausted. But they don’t. They hit physics, materials science, propulsion, and energy. They skipped biology, computer science, and every other domain whose foundational knowledge stayed in the open literature.

The National Institutes of Health spend roughly $47 billion a year on publicly funded biomedical research—published, peer-reviewed, available to researchers worldwide. Over the same fifty years that physics stagnated, biology produced genomic sequencing, CRISPR, immunotherapy, mRNA vaccines, and a revolution in molecular biology. No plateau. No diminishing returns. The pace of discovery accelerated. And it didn’t accelerate in isolation. Biology drew on breakthroughs in computing, chemical engineering, optics, statistics—every open field feeding into every other open field. Open science doesn’t just compound within a discipline. It compounds across the entire network, because a breakthrough published anywhere is available to researchers everywhere. Classification doesn’t just slow one field. It severs nodes from the network.

The “experiments got expensive” argument explains particle physics—you do need a multi-billion-dollar collider to detect the Higgs boson. But it doesn’t explain why materials science stagnated. Or energy storage. Or propulsion. Or applied electromagnetics. These are fields where the experiments aren’t prohibitively expensive and the commercial demand for breakthroughs is enormous. The S-curve landed selectively on the domains whose underlying science overlaps with defense classification, and left the open domains untouched.

Then there’s the timing. The physicists who built the bomb were trained in the pre-classification world—open publication, international collaboration, rapid iteration. The next generation, mentored by Oppenheimer’s contemporaries, also came up in that tradition. Both cohorts carried the knowledge base of open science in their heads. Then they retired in the 1970s. After that, every working physicist had been trained entirely within the classification regime. The open-science culture that produced the golden age wasn’t just suppressed by law. It retired out of the workforce one career at a time.

The S-curve theorists date the plateau to the same decade and call it nature. But the plateau doesn’t map to the exhaustion of discoverable physics. It maps to the disappearance of the last generation that practiced physics in the open.

What Leaks Through

Occasionally, classified technology escapes into the civilian world.

GPS was a military positioning system beginning in 1973. Civilian access was granted a decade later, with intentional accuracy degradation. Full precision wasn’t available until 2000. Twenty-seven years from invention to unrestricted civilian use. It has since generated an estimated $1.4 trillion in economic value in the United States alone. Fiber optics, developed for classified military communications, became the backbone of the modern internet. Radar, declassified after the war, produced microwave ovens, air traffic control, weather forecasting, and the foundation of modern aviation safety.

These aren’t anomalies. They’re samples. When declassified technology reaches the civilian economy, it produces outsized returns—because it enters a market that has been systematically starved of the underlying knowledge. GPS didn’t generate a trillion dollars in value because it was uniquely brilliant. It generated that value because it was one of the few things that made it into the economy. But the economic impact is only part of the story. Even once it was commercially available, it lost twenty-seven years of subsequent technological and economic compounding.

The talent tells the same story from the labor-market side. A gifted physicist motivated by hard problems might accept a lower salary—plenty of brilliant people choose academia over finance. But classification doesn’t just pay less. It strips away every non-monetary incentive that draws the intellectually driven. No publication. No peer recognition. No watching your work enter the world and reshape it. The choice isn’t between money and recognition. It’s between money and recognition, or neither. The disciplines where you can publish, build on others’ work, and see your ideas tested in the open attract the best minds. The disciplines where the best work disappears into a classified archive lose more of them every decade.

The Externality Nobody Measures

National defense is the textbook case for collective funding. No individual can opt out of the nuclear umbrella, so the cost is shared through taxation. The benefit—security, sovereignty, the freedom to build an economy without fear of invasion—is shared too. The principle is sound.

But the classification program has a non-tax cost that never makes it onto the ledger or into the conversation. The way defense R&D is implemented—classifying the science, not just the weapons—creates a compounding negative externality running alongside the positive one.

The physics presumably still advances inside the classified world, albeit more slowly. But the knowledge never reaches the civilian economy—never gets published, challenged, or extended by the engineers and entrepreneurs who would build products, launch industries, and drive the productivity gains that show up as increased wages, improving standards of living, and a broader tax base to support more R&D. This compounds the way interest compounds. Every suppressed breakthrough is a missing foundation for the next generation of breakthroughs. The drag isn’t the classified research itself. It’s the entire tree of civilian applications, products, and industries that never grew from seeds locked in a vault.

The defense budget is a trillion dollars a year. That’s the number we debate. The compounding productivity loss—eighty years of missing civilian applications building on missing civilian breakthroughs—dwarfs that number the way compound interest dwarfs principal. But nobody can put a figure on it, because we can’t measure the value of discoveries that were never made and industries that were never built. It will never appear on an appropriations request, because the cost doesn’t look like a cost. It looks like stagnation. It looks like S-curves. It looks like physics just getting hard.

The False Choice

The standard defense of born-classified is that it worked. Nine countries have nuclear weapons. Dozens more could have pursued them. The classification regime—alongside treaties, diplomacy, and deterrence—helped hold that number down.

But “worked” overstates the case. Pakistan acquired nuclear capability through A.Q. Khan’s espionage and smuggling network. North Korea built a weapon under the heaviest sanctions regime on earth. The classification of nuclear physics did not stop either program. We’re in a hot war with Iran because knowledge suppression doesn’t stop nuclear development. Any sufficiently motivated country can figure it out—the knowledge leaks, gets independently derived, or gets stolen.

What the classification regime actually achieved was delay. And delay is genuinely valuable when the subject is civilization-ending weapons. But delay is a different proposition than prevention, and it demands a different cost-benefit analysis. If born-classified prevented proliferation permanently, the sacrifice of eighty years of civilian physics might be a price worth paying. If it delayed proliferation—bought decades of time while the knowledge inevitably spread—then the question is whether eighty years of compounding civilian stagnation was a reasonable price for a slightly less fast nuclear proliferation. It might be, if we used the time to build a durable solution, but that is a much harder case to make.

The slowdown didn’t require classifying the science, anyway. We know this because we watched the other technology take a different path.

The United States developed cryptography, signals intelligence, and cyber weapons — all classified applications built on Turing’s open foundations. The NSA runs some of the most sensitive programs in the intelligence community, all of them downstream of computer science. Nobody classified computer science. The applications were classified. The weapons were classified. The underlying science stayed in the open literature, compounding for eighty years, producing a civilian economy worth trillions—while simultaneously producing the most sophisticated classified capabilities on earth.

Defense research could be handled similarly. Classify the weapon designs. Classify the engineering. Classify the enrichment techniques. But leave the physics—the foundational science that also underlies civilian energy, materials, propulsion, and a hundred other productive applications—in the open, where it could compound the way every other open science has. The Atomic Energy Act didn’t draw that line. It classified the knowledge itself. And the fields downstream of that knowledge, and our economy, have been paying the compounding price ever since.

Two technologies won the war. We opened one and got the modern world. We classified the other and got excuses.

Subscribe now

The first kind inherits it. Roughly a quarter of American billionaire wealth is inherited. Dead people don’t own things. Dead people are things. Whatever you believe about the moral right to pass wealth to your children, the economic question is different: did the transfer create anything? Inherited billions are economically inert. They employ wealth managers and tax attorneys. The argument for taxing them more aggressively than earned wealth isn’t about envy—it’s that this money isn’t doing for the economy what money is supposed to do.

The second kind makes it through finance—trading, investing, leveraging assets into more assets. This one is harder to judge. There’s nothing inherently wrong with someone trading their way to a billion dollars. The world’s most sophisticated version of the paperclip game, where over the course of a career you iteratively trade your way up from a silver spoon to a private island. But a lot of what constitutes making money in finance is gating access—charging tolls on bridges that other people should be allowed to cross on their own.

The third kind builds something. They start a company, hire people, make a product, sell it to willing buyers, and do this at such a scale that the byproduct is a billion dollars. This is the kind we need more of. Not because billionaires are virtuous. Because the process of becoming one—through entrepreneurship—is the single most powerful force1 for raising the wages of everyone who isn’t one.

And wages need raising.

The Only Thing That Raises Wages

The Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks real wages for production and nonsupervisory workers—roughly 80% of the American workforce. In 1973, adjusted for inflation, those workers earned roughly what they earn today. Half a century. Functionally zero real growth. Meanwhile, productivity per worker roughly doubled. The economy got twice as efficient at producing output. The people who made it happen saw almost none of it.

From the Industrial Revolution through the early 1970s, wages rose almost every year—not just cost-of-living adjustments or the occasional promotion, but genuine upward price pressure on labor across the board. That era lasted a century. Then it stopped. The plateau has now lasted long enough that essentially no worker in the labor force today has ever experienced a sustained rising-wage economy. Entire careers have started and ended within the flatline. We’re losing sight of what wages are supposed to do as productivity improves.

The standard explanations—globalization, automation, declining unions—all contain some truth. They also all point in the same direction once we stop treating them as buzzwords. Globalization expanded labor supply beyond domestic borders. Automation reduced labor demand by replacing workers with machines. Declining unions weakened labor’s pricing power. That’s three ways of saying the same thing: labor is not a special product. It follows the same laws of supply and demand to set prices as copper, oil, or soybeans. More supply, less demand: price stays flat or drops. More demand, less supply: prices rise. For fifty years, labor supply has expanded while the creation of new enterprises—new sources of labor demand—has not kept pace. The result is printed on every paycheck in the country.

Every entrepreneur who steps out of the job market does two things simultaneously. First, they remove themselves from the supply side. One fewer person competing for a job. Second, if they’re even modestly successful, they start creating demand—hiring people, contracting services, buying supplies. One person shifts from a net seeker of jobs to net creator of them.

Even the entrepreneur who fails does this. Start a company, hire twelve people, run it for eighteen months, and fold. That’s twelve jobs that didn’t exist before—twelve units of labor demand that one person generated by stepping out of the labor supply. And here’s the part that matters: wages are sticky. When’s the last time you took a pay cut? When the market raises wages, those wages tend to stay raised. So every burst of labor demand ratchets wages up, and the ratchet doesn’t fully unwind when the company does.

Now scale it. Imagine 2% of the working population did this—roughly three million people. Not became billionaires—just started businesses. Three million people moving from the supply side of the labor market to the demand side. Tens of millions of new positions being created, even temporarily, putting durable upward pressure on wages for everyone.

The entire negotiation shifts, because employers can no longer rely on a surplus of applicants. Now we start interviewing them.

What a Billion Dollars Actually Takes

So what’s special about the billionaires specifically?

Scale. Getting three million people to start businesses would transform the labor market. It would also require convincing three million people to do one of the hardest jobs in the economy. A single founder building a company at billionaire scale creates the labor demand of thousands of ordinary entrepreneurs combined.

The arithmetic is concrete. To accumulate a billion dollars as a founder, you generally need to build a company worth at least $5 billion—after dilution, taxes, and the long road of funding rounds. To sustain a $5 billion valuation, you’re generating somewhere in the range of $500 million to a billion in annual revenue. And to generate that kind of revenue, you need a lot of people. Revenue per employee has a practical ceiling in most industries—roughly $300,000 to $500,000 at mature companies outside of pure software. A billion in revenue at $400,000 per head is 2,500 workers at minimum and usually far more, because the ratio includes every employee, not just the ones touching revenue.

The actual numbers are bigger. Microsoft employs 220,000 people. Google, 180,000. Oracle, 160,000. Amazon, 1.5 million. Meta runs leaner than most—about 70,000—and even that is the labor demand equivalent of 35,000 entrepreneurs each hiring one person2. At the other end of the spectrum, one Jeff Bezos created more labor demand than the entire small-business sector of most mid-sized American cities.

That’s what a billion-dollar fortune actually represents. Not wealth extracted from the economy. A receipt for the creation of massive labor demand that didn’t exist before one person decided to build something. The billions are a byproduct of all that activity. Not the cause of it—the receipt.

Not Trickle-Down

This doesn’t require any trickle-down economics to work.

Trickle-down says: enrich the people at the top, and the benefits will eventually flow downward. That’s a hope about second-order effects. Entrepreneurship creates first-order labor demand. It doesn’t trickle. It hires.

A company at billionaire scale doesn’t just hire executives. It hires warehouse workers, drivers, software engineers, HR managers, accountants, janitors, graphic designers, and a small army of people whose job titles didn’t exist ten years ago. When a company like that is growing, it’s competing for workers across the entire labor market simultaneously. Every position it fills is one more employer bidding for someone’s time, at every rung of the ladder at once.

And the pressure ripples. A warehouse worker who can get $22 an hour at Amazon won’t accept $16 down the street. The other warehouse raises its wages or loses its workers. A software engineer fielding three offers pushes all three companies to bid higher. When demand rises in one part of the labor market, it raises wages in adjacent parts too, because workers have options and employers have to compete. That kind of broad-spectrum pressure is something no minimum wage law or policy initiative can replicate. Not because policy is bad. Because policy targets one rung at a time, and demand hits all of them at once.

Why We Don’t Have More

If entrepreneurship is this good for the labor market, the obvious question is: why isn’t it happening more?

The U.S. startup rate has been declining for decades. The Census Bureau’s Business Dynamics Statistics show new firms as a share of all firms dropped from roughly 12–13% in the late 1970s to about 8% by the 2010s. Adjusted for population, fewer Americans start businesses today than in the 1980s. Something is actively suppressing the thing that would raise everyone’s wages.

Some barriers are structural. Entrepreneurs don’t qualify for unemployment insurance—leave a job to start a company and if you fail, you get nothing. The safety net offered to every other worker is null and void for entrepreneurs. Young Americans graduate with six figures of student debt and need a reliable paycheck just to make their monthly payments. The very population most likely to start businesses—young, energetic, willing to take risks—is entering the workforce pre-loaded with a financial constraint that pushes them toward the relative safety of the job queue and away from entrepreneurship.

And the dominant funding mechanism makes it worse. Most people imagine that starting a business means “raising money,” but the math of venture capital excludes most of the businesses the economy actually needs. A VC fund raises $100 million from institutional investors. The managers invest a couple million each into ten companies. Eight go to zero. One breaks even. They pour the remaining capital into the last one—which now has to return enough to make the whole fund profitable. The fund needs to return $200 to $250 million in seven years, so the managers can raise their next fund. Run the math backward and you land on a simple filter: unless a company has a plausible path to a billion-dollar valuation, it doesn’t get past the associate screening the pitch deck.

Think about what that excludes. An HVAC company doing $5 million a year and employing 40 people. A regional restaurant chain clearing $2 million in profit and creating 200 jobs. A SaaS company serving a niche market, making its founders wealthy, and employing 500 people. These are exactly the businesses the economy needs—profitable, stable, creating real labor demand across the entire spectrum—and the dominant funding mechanism won’t touch them. Not because VCs are snobs. Because the fund math doesn’t work unless the company can 100x in less than a decade.

But the other barrier isn’t structural. It’s cultural. In Japan, sumo wrestlers are revered. Boys dream of entering the dohyō. Grand champions are household names—treated the way Americans treat LeBron James. And Japan gets extraordinary sumo wrestlers. Societies produce what they celebrate. America doesn’t celebrate the founder who creates 50,000 jobs. It resents “billionaires”—undifferentiated, no modifier. A culture that can’t distinguish between an heir, a trader, and someone who just created tens of thousands of jobs is not going to produce more of the third one.

But we don’t just suppress billionaires, an outcome many may count as a moral victory. We suppress many of the attempted billionaires, too. The men and women who “only” create 100 jobs, instead of 100,000. Which is a shame, because the economy doesn’t just need more unicorns. It needs more horses, too.

Ask Which Kind

The next time someone tells you billionaires are the problem, ask them which kind. The heir who did nothing? Tax the estate. The financier who gated access to capital markets? Worth a conversation. But the founder who built a company, hired tens of thousands of people, and created billions in economic activity through voluntary exchange?

That person didn’t take anything from you. They made the thing that makes your wages go up. And the economy—your paycheck, specifically—needs about a thousand more of them.

That’s what you say.

Here’s what you sign:

Either party may end the marriage at any time, for any reason or no reason, unilaterally. On exit, marital assets are divided approximately equally regardless of who accumulated them or why. Children are often placed primarily with one parent in practice. The other parent may be ordered to make ongoing payments calculated on income, not need, and enforceable by the state. There is no meaningful mechanism for establishing breach. There is little consideration of who initiated the exit or why.

Subscribe now

The vows promise permanence, sacrifice, and mutual obligation. The legal structure guarantees none of it. You stand at the altar reciting terms with no legal force, while the terms with legal force are never read aloud. No other major contract in American life works this way. The ceremony says one thing. The law says another.

How We Got Here

In 1969, Ronald Reagan signed the Family Law Act, making California the first state to offer no-fault divorce. He would later call it one of the biggest mistakes of his governorship. Within fifteen years, every state had followed California’s lead.

The cultural case for no-fault was simple: the old system was cruel. And often it was. Abused spouses, especially women, were asked to prove private harm in systems poorly designed to recognize it. Judges dismissed credible claims. Evidence was hard to obtain from inside a controlled household. People remained trapped because the court demanded proof that was often impossible to produce.

That failure was real. But the reform that followed did more than remove a bad evidentiary burden. It removed accountability from the structure altogether.

The old system had an internal logic. One party—historically, the wife—often accepted career risk by leaving the workforce to raise children and manage the household. The other accepted a long-term obligation to provide financial security. If one party wanted out, breach mattered. Adultery, abandonment, cruelty. The exit terms reflected who had broken the arrangement, and the consequences fell on the breaching party.

You can argue about whether that system was fair. But it was economically coherent. Both parties accepted obligations. Both received consideration. Exit was tied to conduct.

No-fault didn’t refine that structure. It hollowed it out.

The Option You Didn’t Know You Sold

If your business partner offered a term sheet that said, “Either of us can walk away at any time, for any reason, and you may still owe me half plus ongoing payments on any income you make anywhere,” you would leave the room. We do not accept terms like that anywhere else because we understand what they are.

That is not a bilateral contract. It is an option.

And of course people want an option. Marriage involves real risk. For women, that has historically included pregnancy, childbearing, domestic labor, and career interruption. Wanting protection against a bad outcome is rational.

But protection and an option are not the same thing.

Protection says: if the other party fails to uphold the deal, you can exit with compensation for what you sacrificed in reliance on it.

An option says: you can exit for any reason or none, and still collect.

One enforces the agreement. The other makes the agreement optional—but not for both parties equally.

That is the trick at the heart of modern marriage law. We still speak as though marriage is a binding mutual commitment, while structuring it as a relationship one party may terminate without breach and with substantial legal claims intact.

Women initiate approximately 70% of divorces, a figure that has held for decades. In any other market, when one party exercises an exit option at roughly two and a half times the rate of the other, we call that a positive expected value. No one would describe the other side’s position as a rational investment.

The Rationale That Evaporated

The defense of the current system is familiar: alimony and asset division compensate real sacrifice. Fair enough. If one spouse stepped out of the workforce for fifteen years to raise children while the other built income and assets, that sacrifice created a legitimate claim. Compensation there is not just morally justified. It is economically coherent.

The problem is that the compensation regime outlived the conditions that justified it.

Women’s labor force participation surged after 1970. Women now earn the majority of bachelor’s and master’s degrees. In most households, both partners work. In many marriages, the premise that one party sacrificed all career capital for the other is no longer the norm. But the legal defaults still reflect that older world.

Support obligations are still often keyed primarily to the payer’s income rather than the recipient’s realistic earning capacity. Custody norms still carry assumptions inherited from an era when mothers were more often full-time caregivers because they overwhelmingly were.

Even when individual cases may be arbitrated differently, rational people do not evaluate contracts by average outcomes. They evaluate exposure.

If you earn enough, support obligations can last for years, even indefinitely. Your former spouse may share a home, expenses, and a life with a new partner without necessarily changing those obligations, so long as the arrangement avoids the legal trigger that would end them. The incentive is obvious. The system can reward dependency and penalize formal remarriage.

A structure that rewards the lower-earning party for remaining lower-earning is not built to restore independence. It is built to preserve claims.

And the losses it recognizes run in only one register. Economic sacrifice counts. The loss of daily access to your children, the collapse of the household you built, the destruction of the family unit around which you organized your life—those may be devastating, but they are not compensable. The law sees money. It is far less able, or willing, to see anything else.

The Retroactive Rewrite

One of the least discussed features of the no-fault transition is that it was applied to marriages already in existence.

People who married under one legal framework did not simply receive a new procedural rule. They saw the practical terms of the institution change while they were already bound by it. The difficulty of obtaining a unilateral divorce had been part of the bargain as they understood it. Then the state rewrote the exit terms without asking either party.

If your lender rewrote your mortgage fifteen years in, you would call it a material change. When the state rewrites the practical terms of marriage after the fact, we call it progress and move on.

Whatever else no-fault was, it was not merely prospective reform. It was retroactive restructuring.

The Downstream

The U.S. marriage rate has fallen more than 60% since 1970. The median age at first marriage for men has risen from 23 to 30. The mainstream explanation is cultural—masculinity in crisis, fragile egos, boys who never grew up.

But there is a simpler explanation: when the terms of an agreement deteriorate, fewer people sign it.

Men do not need to read family law treatises to understand the risk. They see divorced fathers, brothers, uncles, and friends. They infer the terms from observed outcomes. They do what rational actors do when exposure is large and downside is asymmetric: they become more selective, delay commitment, or avoid the contract entirely.

And this is treated as a moral failure in men even though similar selectivity is considered obviously rational in women. Women are told to be choosy because childbearing and childrearing are high-cost, high-risk investments. Correct. Men make a parallel judgment about a different form of exposure: long-term financial obligations, custody risk, and legal vulnerability after exit. That is not a failure to grow up. It is what people do once they’ve grown up.

And as marriage falls, fertility tends to fall with it. Declining fertility produces the worker-to-retiree ratios that make Social Security mathematically impossible. These are not disconnected developments. A society that makes marriage less attractive should not act shocked when fewer people build families inside it—or when the systems that depend on those families start to buckle.

The Fault in No-Fault

The theory behind no-fault is that courts should not have to decide who was the bad spouse. Marriage is too intimate, too emotional, too morally tangled for that kind of adjudication.

That sounds humane. It is also wrong as a matter of contract law and basic principle.

Fault in contract is not the same thing as moral condemnation. If someone breaks a lease, the court does not determine whether they are wicked. It determines whether they breached the lease agreement. Marriage is more intimate than a rental, but the legal question is just as legible: did one party terminate the agreement unilaterally, and if so, on what grounds?

Courts are already deep in the intimate wreckage of family life. They divide assets, evaluate custody, assign support, hear abuse allegations, and issue protective orders. We have somehow decided that the relationship is too personal for accountability but not too personal for compulsory financial transfer. That is an oddly selective form of jurisprudence.

And the irony is worse than that. Under a fault-based regime, abusive conduct could matter inside the dissolution itself. Under no-fault, the formal exit terms are less tied to conduct. The spouse who was betrayed and the spouse who betrayed may stand in much the same position. The spouse who was beaten and the spouse who did the beating may still exit through a framework built to sidestep responsibility.

What no-fault eliminated wasn’t the cruelty of adversarial proceedings—anyone with a divorce decree can tell you the cruelty survived just fine. It removed the enforcement principle that gave the agreement real meaning.

Without that, marriage is not a binding covenant in any serious legal sense. It is a ceremony followed by a state-administered financial regime.

Fixing Your Marriage

This is not an argument against marriage. It is an argument that marriage law has drifted so far from ordinary principles of obligation, breach, and reliance that the institution no longer functions like the commitment it claims to be. The demographic data increasingly reflect that.

A sane reform would not abolish no-fault divorce. It would limit it.

If both parties agree the marriage is over, no-fault dissolution should remain available—mutual termination is a standard feature of any agreement. But if one party wants out and the other does not, unilateral exit should require either cause or materially different financial treatment. Not because courts should police romance, but because a contract where either party can walk away unilaterally without consequence is a contract without an enforcement mechanism. Which is to say, not a contract.

Beyond that, support should account for earning capacity, not just current income. Cohabitation and shared living arrangements should matter. Dual-income marriages should recognize the reduced financial risk and sacrifice. Custody presumptions should be genuinely equal rather than rhetorically equal and practically lopsided.

These reforms are obvious as contract principles and nearly impossible as politics. Family law is state law. Reform means fifty separate fights. The beneficiaries of the current system are organized and morally legible. The people most exposed to its downside often do not understand the terms until they are already inside them. And any proposal to make unilateral divorce less frictionless will be caricatured as an attempt to trap women, regardless of what it actually says.

So the practical alternative is obvious: fewer people will sign.

They will still live together. They will still sleep together, have children, bicker, make up, cheat, break up, and leave dishes in the sink. They will simply do less of it inside of a marriage.

For fifty years, we have treated marriage as sacred when we want to celebrate it and contractual when we want to dissolve it. Sacred when we want to shield it from scrutiny. Contractual when we want courts to transfer assets and impose obligations. The result is an institution with the enforceability of a handshake and the financial exposure of a leveraged buyout.

How romantic.

And it’s wrong.

Subscribe now

If you actually measured the economy by the volume of transactions that are cooperative versus competitive, you’d have a hard time finding much competition at all. Cooperation would be almost the entire picture. We’ve named the whole system after the thin, selective edge of market rivalry, like naming the Gulf of Mexico America the “Coast of Texas,” which, honestly, Texas might be open to.

Inside the Machine

Pick any company. Inside it, the governing principle is coordination, not competition. Engineers build components that fit together. Sales teams celebrate each other’s deals. Production lines synchronize. Nobody runs a company by having the marketing department compete with IT for survival.

We actually know what happens when companies try to make their insides competitive, because Enron tried it. Jeff Skilling’s rank-and-yank system—fire the bottom 15% every year, force employees into zero-sum competition for survival—was celebrated as Darwinian genius, right up until it wasn’t. Traders hoarded information. Teams sabotaged each other. The company that was supposed to prove the power of internal competition became the most spectacular corporate collapse of its era. That wasn’t a coincidence. Within-group competition destroys between-group performance. Always has.

The irony is that the most successful “capitalist” enterprises on Earth are internally planned economies. Apple doesn’t let the iPhone division bid against the Mac division for engineering talent on an open market. It allocates resources by committee — who works on what, how much they’re paid, what gets built. So does Google. So does every company that’s ever functioned. The invisible hand is what happens between firms. Inside them, it’s coordination all the way down.

Think About Your Week

Even between firms, the competitive layer is thinner than the textbook suggests. You don’t price-shop which grocery store to visit every Saturday—you go to the same one, because it’s close, you know where your favorite chips are, and the checkout girl is cute. You don’t wake up and scour job boards to decide who to work for today. You commute to the same place on autopilot. You don’t renegotiate with your landscaper every spring, or run a competitive bid for who gets to cut your hair this month, or comparison-shop your mechanic against every other mechanic in the tri-state area. You have a dentist. You have a dry cleaner. You have a guy.

Almost all of your economic life is repeat relationships with people you trust, conducted on the basis of familiarity and habit rather than price competition. The textbook economy—anonymous buyers meeting anonymous sellers in open price-clearing markets—is something you dip into occasionally. The relationship economy is where you actually live.

And it didn’t happen by accident. Your barber earns your repeat business by remembering how you like it cut. Your mechanic earns it by not ripping you off when he could. The restaurant on the corner earns it by knowing your name. These aren’t sentimental observations. They’re economic ones. Trust is a capital asset. It compounds. Every honest transaction makes the next one cheaper, because you skip the due diligence, the comparison shopping, the contract negotiation. The cooperative economy isn’t just warm and fuzzy—it’s efficient. It’s where transaction costs go to die.

The Three Floors

The historian Fernand Braudel spent decades studying economic life from the fifteenth century to the eighteenth, and what he found was a three-layered structure that has never been seriously challenged.

The ground floor is what Braudel called material life—self-sufficiency, routine, household production. People sowing wheat as they always had, cooking food as they always had, making clothes and tools and shelter through patterns handed down across generations. Even today, the non-market economy—home cooking, childcare by parents, favors between neighbors, DIY repairs, the uncounted labor that holds daily life together—represents 30 to 40 percent of GDP-equivalent activity in industrialized countries. A third of the economy doesn’t even show up in the economy. It’s paid in pizza and beer, when it’s paid at all.

Above material life sits the market economy—the zone of transparent local exchange where producer meets consumer, prices are visible, and competition operates within known rules. The butcher, the baker, the candlestick maker. It’s real, and it functions roughly the way Adam Smith described, and it’s most of the tracked economy.

But Braudel’s most provocative claim is about the layer above that. What we call capitalism—the zone where a few powerful actors accumulate wealth, manipulate long-distance trade, and concentrate market power—is not the fulfillment of the market economy. It’s the opposite. Braudel calls it the “anti-market.” It operates by escaping competition, not by embodying it. The great merchant houses of Amsterdam, Genoa, and Venice didn’t seek perfect competition. They sought monopoly, information asymmetry, privileged access, opacity. The entire point was to get above the transparent market layer and stay there.

So the three floors of the economy are: routine cooperation at the base, trust-based exchange in the broad middle, and monopolistic escape from competition at the top. Competition—the thing we named the whole system after—doesn’t have its own floor. At best it’s a narrow hallway.

Why We Show Up

Your barber cuts your hair for twenty bucks. But he also likes seeing your reaction in the mirror when he’s done, because it’s a craft and he’s good at it. Your coworker stays late to help you fix the presentation not because her incentive structure rewards it but because she likes you and you suck at designing slides. You use your brother-in-law as a realtor because he’s family, sort of. You sponsor the local Little League team, and the logo on those jerseys isn’t a calculated ROI play—but Coach Davis asked and you’ve known him since high school.

People work for money, sure. But they also work for pride, for purpose, for identity, for the look on someone’s face when the thing they built actually works. They show up for each other in a thousand ways that never clear a market and never appear in a model. The cooperative economy isn’t an abstraction. It’s how communities get built. How neighbors become friends. How people find out what they’re good at and offer it to each other.

That’s capitalism in its ordinary form. Not the competitive baggage we’ve attached to it—the thing you actually experience. People showing up, building trust, solving each other’s problems, and accumulating the kind of capital that doesn’t show up on a balance sheet1 but determines almost everything about the quality of your life. The most productive system humans have ever built at scale, and it works so well that we’ve stopped noticing how much of it is pure, voluntary cooperation.

What the Mislabeling Costs

Which is why getting the name wrong isn’t just a semantic quibble. Call the system “competitive” and you produce a specific, predictable distortion: you tell people that competition is what they’re losing to.

When housing is unaffordable, healthcare bankrupts families, and a degree costs six figures, the narrative writes itself: capitalism did this. The ruthless, dog-eat-dog market did this. And the prescription follows naturally—if competition is the disease, restrain it, regulate it, replace it. Burn it down if you have to.

But the cooperative economy didn’t do any of that. Housing costs aren’t high because local homebuilders are competing too hard. Healthcare isn’t expensive because doctors are locked in cutthroat rivalry for patients. Tuition didn’t triple because universities are engaged in ruthless price competition. Those failures live on Braudel’s third floor—the anti-market, where regulatory capture, monopolistic rent-seeking, and institutional self-preservation have escaped both competition and cooperation.

The mislabeling collapses all three floors into one word and tells people to be angry at the whole building, instead of the upstairs neighbors. That’s how you get a narrative where participating in the market economy feels like complicity rather than cooperation—where showing up and being useful starts to feel naive. If someone tells you the ocean is poison, you won’t swim. And you won’t be wrong for staying on the beach. You’ll just be wrong about the ocean.

Aim at the Right Floor

The problems are real. Insurance companies adding 30% overhead to healthcare—real. Zoning boards protecting incumbents from new housing—real. The tax code capitalizing deductions into home prices and locking out first-time buyers—real. Credential inflation pricing a generation out of careers that don’t really require four-year degrees—real. We can point to dozens of stripped gears in the economic machinery, and we should.

But every one of those failures lives on the third floor. Every one is an instance of powerful actors escaping the cooperative economy—using regulation, complexity, and institutional capture to extract rent from people who are just trying to show up and be useful. The third floor is the part we should be tearing apart. That’s where the bathwater is. The rest of it is the baby.

The ground floor and the middle floor—the parts where you actually live—work. They work because people show up, build relationships, and honor commitments. They work because millions of ordinary transactions, conducted on trust and habit and mutual benefit, compound into something that looks from the outside like an economy but feels from the inside like a community. The plumber who answers his phone on weekends, the contractor who has a spare part in his truck, the freelancer who delivers what she promised—they’re not winning a Darwinian competition. They’re cooperating, iteratively, with a growing circle of people who trust them. And that trust is compounding into a life.

The cooperative economy doesn’t require capital. It doesn’t require credentials. It requires showing up and being useful, and the patience to let that usefulness compound. It’s a barn raising, not a cage fight—the most accessible game in the history of the species. The tragedy of the mislabeling isn’t just that it aims reform at the wrong floor. It’s that it convinces people that not showing up is the rational move.

We named our economic ocean after its coastline. But the ocean is where we swim.

Subscribe now

Despite what the gold bugs say, a growing economy needs a growing money supply. If you make more stuff with the same amount of money, each dollar buys more, prices fall, and every producer in the economy gets the same signal—stop building, start hoarding. At that point, your mattress outperforms your factory. That’s deflation—the mechanism that turns a financial crisis into a Great Depression.

If the economy grows 3%, you need roughly 3% more money. Print exactly that much and prices hold, savers keep their purchasing power, producers get paid fairly. No inflation. No deflation. No wealth transfer. The books balance.

In practice, there are reasons to overshoot slightly. The Fed targets 2% inflation—partly because a small buffer prevents the deflationary spirals the Depression demonstrated, partly because it gives the Fed room to cut rates during downturns, and partly because workers rarely accept wage decreases from their employers, so mild inflation lets the labor market adjust without requiring actual pay cuts. That 2% is defensible. The problem isn’t the 2%. It’s the additional 2-3 points beyond it.

The Gap

Since 1971—when the dollar’s last tether to gold was severed and money creation became a purely political decision—the US money supply has expanded at roughly 7% per year.1 The real economy has grown at roughly 3%.

The US gets a larger allowance than that domestic 3% alone would suggest. The dollar is the world’s reserve currency—oil trades in dollars, international debt is denominated in dollars, foreign central banks hold trillions in dollar reserves. When the global economy grows, demand for dollars grows with it, regardless of what American factories produced that year. That’s a genuine privilege, and it widens the non-inflationary window for money creation beyond domestic GDP.

Even so. Even granting the reserve currency bonus. Even granting the 2% inflation buffer. There is an enormous gap between how much money we’ve created and how much the economy earned the right to create. The rest was fiction. Dollars that say “someone created value” when nobody did. Not counterfeit in the legal sense. They cleared the same banks, spent at the same registers. But economically? A check drawn on an account with no deposits. The money is real. The production that would justify it never was.

The unearned dollars don’t vanish. Some show up in the consumer prices that CPI faithfully tracks—your 2-3% official inflation. The rest pour into asset prices: stocks, real estate, anything scarce enough to soak up excess money. Economists don’t call this inflation. They call it “appreciation.” If you own the assets, it feels like wealth. If you’re trying to buy them on a salary, it feels like the ladder being pulled up in front of you. Same show. Different seat in the theater.

Every monetary pathology we argue about traces back to this gap. Asset inflation. Wealth concentration. The impossibility of saving your way to a down payment. Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party. You don’t need a conspiracy theory. You need a calculator and two numbers: money created, value produced. The difference is the debasement.

The Actual Monetary Policy

From talk-show pundits to FOMC watchers, every speech about “the Fed” is arguing about the same thing: the numerator. How many dollars should we print? More? Fewer? Tighten or ease? The entire macroeconomic establishment has spent decades locked in a cage match over the speed of the printer.

But they rarely mention the denominator.

How much production earned those dollars? What did we actually build? Where’s the growth to justify all this expansion?

A company that obsesses over its spending while ignoring its revenue doesn’t have a cost problem. It has a business problem. The correct expense level is whatever your earnings can support. A company growing 20% can justify aggressive spending—even foolish spending. A company growing 2% cannot, and no amount of arguing about the budget changes that math.

If the economy grew at 5% instead of 3%, we could run the printer nearly twice as fast and nobody would get hurt. Wages would rise in real terms. Assets wouldn’t need to absorb the excess. The gap that’s been hollowing out the middle class for two generations would close on its own. The money question would answer itself.

Which means the most important monetary policy question in America has nothing to do with interest rates, quantitative easing, or Jerome Powell’s press conferences. It’s this: why does the economy only grow at 3%? What changed? And what would it take to fix it?

If the non-inflationary money supply is determined by productive growth, then everything that drives productive growth is—mechanically, not metaphorically—monetary policy. Education, regulation, infrastructure, tax policy, energy costs—they don’t just affect “the economy” in the vague way politicians mean it. They determine how many dollars the economy earns the right to create without debasement. They set the denominator. The Fed decides how much we print. This decides how much we earn.

The Doom Loop

When money creation consistently outpaces what the economy earns, capital flows toward whatever the expanding money supply makes profitable. And what excess money makes profitable is owning things, not building them. Why break ground on a factory—seven years of permitting, billions in capital, a decade to break even—when real estate appreciates automatically as the money supply expands? Why fund R&D with uncertain returns when financial engineering delivers reliable beats every quarter?

The gap is self-reinforcing. Low productivity means money creation outruns what’s earned, which inflates assets, which redirects capital from production to ownership, which drags productivity lower, which widens the gap further.

Labor productivity—output per worker per hour—averaged 2.8% annual growth from 1947 to 1973.2 The era when we built the interstate highways, the suburban middle class, and the industrial base that won the Cold War. Since then, it’s averaged roughly 1.5%. GDP still managed 3% growth, but only because the labor force kept expanding—women entering the workforce, immigration, population growth. The economy grew because more people were working, not because each worker was producing more. And that fig leaf is falling. As the population ages and birth rates collapse, the worker pipeline that subsidized GDP growth is drying up. Without a productivity resurgence, total output growth slows—and the earn-to-print gap widens from here.

The inflection in productivity coincides with the end of the gold standard—the moment money creation stopped requiring an external justification. That doesn’t mean gold is the answer, but it was a constraint. A system that lets you conjure wealth on paper without producing it in reality will, over time, produce less reality. The incentives guarantee it.

A Better Policy Debate

Why have millions of prime-age workers dropped out of the labor force entirely—not retired, not in school, just gone? Why does a semiconductor fab take five to seven years to permit in the US when Taiwan does it in two? Why does the tax code treat buying an existing asset identically to funding a genuinely new one, in an economy where the money supply inflates asset prices automatically? Why does the most technologically advanced civilization in history have lower productivity growth than it did when factories ran on steam?

These aren’t secondary questions. They are the monetary policy questions. Every point of productivity we recover is a point of non-inflationary money creation we earn. Every structural barrier we leave in place is a dollar we’ll print without earning, which will inflate an asset, which will redirect capital away from the production that would have earned it. The denominator is the whole game.

The Fed debate is comfortable because it has clear sides, familiar characters, and the illusion of a lever someone can pull. The productivity debate is uncomfortable because the answers are structural, slow, diffuse, and step on every entrenched interest in the economy. But the Fed debate, at best, optimizes the distribution of a gap that shouldn’t exist. The productivity debate is about closing it.

We did 2.8% productivity growth for a quarter century once, and those workers didn’t have computers. Now we have AI. The question isn’t whether the denominator can move. It’s whether we’ll notice it’s the variable that matters before the earn-to-print gap widens past the point of gentle correction.

The Real Printer

The printer was never the point. It was always supposed to be a receipt for production that already happened, not a substitute for production that didn’t. How much should we print? However much we earned. The answer is always that simple, and that inconvenient.

America doesn’t have a money-printing problem. It has a building problem. We print too much because we produce too little, and we produce too little partly because printing is easier.

We used to have an economy that made things worth printing money for. It’s worth asking what happened to it—and what we’d need to do to get it back.

And the rock was running out.

Subscribe now

Jevons wasn’t predicting mines would go dark next Tuesday. He was extrapolating. British coal consumption was growing at 3.5% per year, doubling every twenty years. Known reserves were large but finite. An exponential demand curve hitting a finite supply doesn’t end well. It just ends. Jevons concluded that Britain’s industrial preeminence had an expiration date—and Parliament took him seriously enough to convene a Royal Commission to investigate.

Oil had been discovered in Pennsylvania six years earlier, but in 1865 it was still a curiosity—good for kerosene lamps, not much else. The internal combustion engine was decades away. But oil turned out to be better than coal in nearly every dimension—more energy-dense, more portable, more versatile, lower emissions. Then came natural gas, cleaner still. Then nuclear fission, which packed more energy into a kilogram of uranium than a thousand tons of coal. Then solar, which harvests energy from a source that will burn for another five billion years.

Jevons saw a countdown. He assumed it was counting down to the end of industrial energy. It was counting down to the end of coal.

The Pattern

Jevons was the first to formalize the error, but hardly the last to make it.

Over a century later, in 1972, the Club of Rome commissioned a team of MIT researchers to do what Jevons had done—but bigger. Using a computer model called World3, Donella Meadows and her colleagues simulated the interaction of population growth, food production, industrial output, resource consumption, and pollution. The result was The Limits to Growth, one of the most influential publications of the twentieth century.

The conclusions were specific and stark. At prevailing rates of consumption, gold reserves would be exhausted in 9 years. Mercury in 13. Tin in 15. Petroleum in 20. Natural gas in 22. The model’s “standard run” projected global economic collapse beginning around 2020. The book sold thirty million copies. Its specific resource predictions were, almost without exception, wrong.

Not because the authors were careless — the methodology was serious enough to provoke fifty years of both qualified debate and unjustified policy. The problem was structural, and it was the same one Jevons had: the model could project consumption curves with great precision. It could not predict the inventions that would bend them.

In 1972, it was reasonable to project that population growth would outstrip agricultural capacity. Thomas Malthus had made essentially the same argument in 1798, and for most of human history, he’d been right—population pressed against the food supply, and the result was perennial famine. What neither Malthus nor the MIT model could anticipate was Fritz Haber, who figured out how to synthesize ammonia from atmospheric nitrogen—literally conjuring fertilizer from thin air. Or Norman Borlaug, whose semi-dwarf wheat varieties doubled and tripled yields across Mexico, India, and Pakistan. India’s wheat harvest jumped from 11 million tons to 20 million in six years. Borlaug won the Nobel Peace Prize for work that would eventually save over a billion lives. Today, the planet feeds eight billion people. Caloric production is now higher per-capita than in 1972, when there were fewer than four billion of us.

Proved petroleum reserves in 1972 were roughly 550 billion barrels. After fifty years of continuous extraction and presidential candidates campaigning to “drill baby drill,” proved reserves now stand at 1.7 trillion barrels—three times what the model treated as the total supply. Hydraulic fracturing, horizontal drilling, and deepwater exploration kept unlocking oil that no model had anticipated. The model assumed fixed resources consumed by growing demand. Capitalism disagreed.

In 1980, the economist Julian Simon made the pattern into a bet. He challenged Paul Ehrlich—author of The Population Bomb, which had predicted mass starvation in the 1970s and 80s—to pick any five commodity metals. If their inflation-adjusted prices rose over the next decade, Ehrlich wins. If they fell, Simon wins. Ehrlich chose chromium, copper, nickel, tin, and tungsten.

By 1990, every single one was cheaper. Ehrlich mailed Simon a check for $576.07.

Ehrlich looked at commodity prices and saw a countdown to zero supply. Simon looked at the same prices and saw a countdown to zero cost.

The countdown to zero cost won. It always does.

The pattern is so consistent that it implies something radical about how commodities actually work. Over the long run, the price of a commodity doesn’t rise, it trends toward zero.

The Price of Everything

A commodity is a product nobody really cares about. Not because it’s useless—because it’s undifferentiated. Nobody cares where their copper comes from, who mined it, or what the company’s mission statement says. Copper is copper. It doesn’t have a brand, it has a spot on the periodic table. Which means the only thing distinguishing one producer’s copper from another’s is the price. And when price is the only axis of competition, every producer on earth is doing the same thing: trying to deliver the same product for less money.

That’s a race with only one direction. Nobody is trying to make copper more expensive to produce. There’s no artisanal copper market. Every engineer, every process improvement, every new extraction technique pushes the cost down. These gains accumulate permanently across every commodity—you can’t un-learn electrolytic smelting, you can’t un-discover horizontal drilling. Each efficiency becomes the new floor, and the next improvement builds on top of it. Aluminum was once rarer than gold—Napoleon III served state dinners on aluminum plates while lesser guests ate off silver. Then Charles Martin Hall figured out electrolytic smelting in 1886 and collapsed the price by 98%. Today we wrap sandwiches in it and throw it away. The metal didn’t change. The engineering caught up to the geology.

But that’s only the first force. The second is more powerful: substitution. People don’t actually want copper. They want what copper does—conducts electricity, carries signals, moves heat. The commodity is just a delivery mechanism for a function. And delivery mechanisms get replaced. Fiber optics replaced copper in telecom. Aluminum replaced steel in manufacturing. The cost of a lumen-hour—the basic unit of being able to see after dark—has fallen by a factor of 500,000 since the Babylonians were burning sesame oil. A day’s labor in 1800 BC bought ten minutes of dim lamplight. A day’s labor today buys 20,000 hours of LED illumination. When the incumbent commodity can’t get cheap enough fast enough, something else delivers the same function for less.

Two forces. Both permanent. Both one-directional. Competition within a commodity pushes the cost down. Competition across commodities replaces the expensive one entirely. The long-run price of every commodity is zero—either extraction gets so efficient its only real cost is the shipping, or something better comes along and demand collapses. There is no third option.

Solar energy is the proof running in real time, fast enough to watch. In 1977, a watt of solar capacity cost $76. Today it costs roughly $0.20—a 99.7% decline, and the curve hasn’t flattened. Every time cumulative production doubles, cost falls by another quarter. The sun delivers 10,000 times current global energy demand to the planet’s surface continuously. It doesn’t send an invoice. The sand used to make the panels is so abundant, we sweep it out of our homes. The only real cost is the engineering, and engineering costs fall on a learning curve. They always have.

The scarcity of the old thing financed the new one. Solar was a novelty until fossil fuels got expensive enough to make it worth funding. By 2024, new solar installations generated electricity more cheaply than existing coal plants in most of the world—not new coal plants, but ones whose construction costs are already sunk. Jevons’ coal question answered itself. Not with a better mine, but with a technology he couldn’t have modeled because the photovoltaic effect wouldn’t be explained for another forty years.

Reading the Clock Backwards

Every generation faces a coal question—a resource it depends on, running out, with math to prove it. Every generation makes the same error: reading a countdown to replacement as a countdown to catastrophe. But there’s a subtler error, and it does more damage: responding to the countdown with restraint instead of invention.

Antibiotic resistance is a coal question—and a case study in getting the response wrong. Bacterial evolution is outrunning our pharmaceutical toolkit. The WHO projects 10 million annual deaths from resistant infections by 2050, up from 1.3 million today.

Paging Dr. Jevons.

The crisis isn’t biological. It’s economic. Our response to resistance has been to use fewer antibiotics—prescribe less, restrict access, steward carefully. Burn less coal. And the predictable result is that we’ve made antibiotic development one of the worst investments in pharmaceutical R&D. You can’t recoup billions in development costs on a drug doctors are told to use as sparingly as possible. So they stopped developing them. The entire global antibiotic pipeline—every drug being developed by every company on earth—contains roughly 45 candidates. For context, oncology has over 6,000. Major pharmaceutical companies have largely exited the don’t-die-from-infections space. We told the market to use less, and the market stopped making more.

Meanwhile, the alternatives exist. Phage therapy—using viruses that target specific bacteria—has been practiced for a century in Eastern Europe and is only now entering Western clinical trials. CRISPR-based antimicrobials can be programmed to kill specific resistant strains. AI-driven drug discovery has compressed candidate identification from years to weeks. None of these were in the WHO projection, because projections model the constraint, not the response. But they’ll only arrive at scale if we let the price signal do its job—reward the solution instead of rationing the problem.

The Condition

None of this is automatic. The countdown to zero cost only runs if the people solving the problem get to profit from solving it.

Britain didn’t answer the coal question by burning less coal—it developed the technologies that made coal obsolete. Borlaug didn’t feed a billion people by convincing them to eat less—he bred wheat that produced more grain per stalk. The mechanism that resolves constraints isn’t restraint. It’s invention. And invention requires an apparatus—universities, research labs, capital markets, legal frameworks—capable of converting problems into solutions.

The apparatus works when we fund it at the scale the problem demands. We landed on the moon eight years after deciding to try. The Manhattan Project took three years from inception to detonation. Fusion energy has been “thirty years away” for sixty years—but total global investment in fusion research over those six decades is roughly what the Pentagon spends in a single month. The timeline is a function of funding, not physics. When we actually commit, the timeline compresses in ways the skeptics never model—because they’re extrapolating from the underfunded version of the effort.

The real risk is never the constraint itself. It’s dismantling the apparatus that resolves constraints. Defund basic research. Politicize scientific institutions. Strangle nuclear energy in permitting for four decades. Restrict capital formation so only the already-wealthy can invest in transformative technology. Do these things and the other countdown wins—the one to zero supply. Not because the constraint was unsolvable, but because we took apart the machine that solves things.

Zero

The scarcity never goes away. It moves up the stack as each constraint is resolved by something better than what it replaced. The thing you’re worried about today will become essentially free. Then you’ll worry about the next thing. That’s what progress feels like from the inside.

But here’s the part we keep getting wrong. When the countdown appears—when the math says the resource is finite and the curve is exponential—every instinct says to slow down. Use less. Conserve. Ration. Buy time.

That instinct is exactly backward. The rising price isn’t the crisis. It’s the funding mechanism for whatever comes next. Solar didn’t get cheap because “Just Stop Oil” activists finally glued their hands to enough surfaces. It got cheap because fossil fuels got expensive enough to make the investment worthwhile. Every dollar of scarcity pricing that accrues to the old thing is a dollar of incentive to build the new one. Eli Lilly isn’t going to spend two billion dollars developing a novel antibiotic that doctors are told to prescribe as rarely as possible. But a company staring at a market where existing antibiotics don’t work anymore—where resistant infections are killing ten million people a year—will absolutely spend that money, if we let the price tell the truth.

Rationing the old thing and funding the new thing feel like the same policy. They are opposites. One stretches the countdown. The other ends it.

Running out isn’t a reason to cut back. It’s a reason to surge forward.

The word itself has been weaponized. “Austerity” sounds like deprivation—cold meals and shuttered schools. It’s deployed the way a protection racket deploys threats: nice economy you’ve got here, shame if something happened to it. But even under austerity, the government would still spend trillions. Just fewer trillions.

Subscribe now

What they’d rather you not notice is that threat contains its own rebuttal. If the spending were working—if the trillions allocated to poverty, healthcare, education, and housing were producing results proportional to their cost—the fiscal crisis demanding austerity wouldn’t exist. You don’t need to cut a budget that’s generating returns. Stable enterprises don’t hold going-out-of-business sales.

The need for austerity is itself the evidence that the spending already failed.

Money Pits and Cash Drains

Not all government spending is created equal, and the distinction that matters isn’t between “wasteful” and “efficient” spending, or between “liberal” and “conservative” priorities. It’s between spending that can end and spending that can’t.

Call the first category money pits. They’re expensive—sometimes enormously so—but they have a bottom. Rural electrification. The interstate highway system. The eradication of polio. Putting a man on the moon. You set an ambitious goal, throw mountains of money at it, and eventually voilà. The pit is filled in. The project completes. What remains is a civilizational unlock that pays dividends for generations. Nobody is still funding the Rural Electrification Administration because rural America has electricity. Mission accomplished.

The second category is cash drains—spending commitments whose very definitions guarantee they can never be completed. These aren’t pits with a bottom. They’re open pipes.

Take poverty. The federal poverty line isn’t a fixed measure of deprivation—it’s adjusted annually for the cost of living, which rises in lockstep with the economy it’s measured against. Lift every household in America by 20% tomorrow, and within a few years the threshold has followed them up. Worse, the spending is deficit-financed. Deficit spending is inflationary. Inflation raises the cost of living. And the cost of living is exactly what the poverty line tracks. That’s not filling a hole. It’s digging it.

Or consider healthcare. The federal government funds medical research through the NIH, which produces genuine breakthroughs in treatment and diagnosis. Wonderful. But each breakthrough redefines the standard of care—which Medicare and Medicaid are then obligated to provide. The spending funds the innovation that raises the costs that the spending must then cover. There is no bottom in this pit. There are always more ways to extend or improve human life, short of curing mortality itself, and each new capability becomes the new baseline that “adequate” healthcare must meet. The better we get at medicine, the more it costs to provide it universally—not because of failure, but because of success.

The critical difference: money pits produce something and stop. Cash drains produce an obligation to spend more forever. One is an investment with a terminal date. The other is a subscription with no cancel button.

America’s budget crisis isn’t driven by money pits. We’re not going broke building highways. We’re going broke because the overwhelming majority of federal spending—entitlements, open-ended healthcare commitments, poverty programs pegged to relative measures—is structurally incapable of completion. These programs don’t fail and end. They fail and expand.

The Visibility Trick

What makes the austerity threat so hollow is that the economy isn’t struggling under this weight. It’s thriving despite it. The private sector funds itself, voluntarily. No one compels the investment, forces the trades, or conscripts the workers. A hundred and thirty million people show up because the exchange works for them. They earn enough to support themselves and their families directly and still generate a tax base of trillions to fund everything else.

The giant sucking sound isn’t the economy failing. It’s the economy succeeding so thoroughly that it can finance staggering waste and keep going. When politicians warn that spending less would hurt the economy, they have it exactly backwards. The economy is the source of the money. Austerity means pouring less of it down the drains.

The standard political playbook for resisting spending cuts is called the Washington Monument Strategy, named after the National Park Service’s habit of threatening to close its most popular attraction whenever its budget faced reductions. The logic is transparent: make the public associate budget cuts with the loss of something they value, rather than with the elimination of something they’d never notice.

It works because most people reasonably assume that if a program exists, it must be doing something important. But this misunderstands the nature of government institutions. Programs don’t persist because they work. They persist because they employ people, service contractors, and generate the kind of activity that registers as GDP. A program can fail completely at its stated mission while succeeding entirely at its institutional one: perpetuation.

This is why threatened “cuts” almost never start with the back office. They start with teachers, firefighters, and air traffic controllers—the employees the public actually interacts with. The administrative layers, the compliance departments, the consultants who study whether the consultants are needed—those are never on the chopping block. They’re the ones drafting the press releases about how devastating the cuts will be.

The Austerity Paradox

The numbers confirm what the structure predicts. Federal spending on poverty has increased for sixty years while poverty rates remain largely unchanged. Education spending per pupil has roughly tripled in real terms since 1970 while test scores have fallen. Healthcare spending has grown at multiples of GDP growth while life expectancy lags every peer nation.

If these programs were working, the spending would be shrinking. Each dollar would solve a piece of the problem until the problem got smaller and the budget could follow it down. Instead, the spending grows because it isn’t working—and the programs’ structural design guarantees it never will.

So when the bill comes due and someone suggests spending less, we’re not being threatened with the loss of effective services. We’re being threatened with the reduction of a bureaucratic apparatus that has demonstrably failed to deliver on its promises.

What Austerity Actually Looks Like

Canada in the 1990s cut federal spending by roughly 20% over four years. The predicted catastrophe never materialized. The economy grew, the budget balanced, and the programs that survived were the ones that actually delivered value. Estonia after the 2008 crisis chose austerity over stimulus when every respectable economist called it suicide. Their economy recovered faster than their stimulus-spending neighbors.

Argentina offers the most recently vivid case. When Javier Milei took office in December 2023, annual inflation was approaching 300%. He took a chainsaw to the federal budget—literally, his iconic campaign prop—and every credible institution predicted collapse. Eighteen months later, monthly inflation had fallen below 3%, the government posted its first fiscal surplus in fourteen years, and the poverty rate dropped to its lowest level since 2018.

The pattern is consistent: forced discipline eliminates the lowest-value spending first, because that spending has the weakest constituencies and the least defensible outcomes. What survives is, almost by definition, what people actually need. The overhead burns off. The core remains.

This shouldn’t surprise anyone. It’s how every other institution on earth operates. When a company faces a revenue shortfall, it cuts the projects that aren’t working. When a household tightens its budget, the magazine nobody reads gets cancelled before the grocery bill. Only in government does the opposite logic prevail: threaten to cut the groceries, then use the natural outcry to protect the unread magazines.

The debate over austerity is always framed as: can we afford to spend less? The question it dodges: can we afford to keep spending like this—on programs structurally incapable of completion, funded by debt our children will service for the rest of their lives?

Austerity is not a policy choice. It’s what happens when the bond market loses patience. Spending cuts have real costs—people depend on these programs even when the programs fail at scale. But the alternative isn’t just to continue spending indefinitely. It’s forced restructuring under crisis conditions, with little control over what gets cut and no time to protect what works. Now that’s what a threat sounds like.

Money works the same way. It’s a tool. You use it to build the life you want. And yet somewhere between the invention of the 401(k) and the rise of the TikTok influencer, we convinced ourselves that accumulation was the point—that the person with the most hammers wins. That anyone who spends their tool on something that doesn’t generate a return is doing it wrong.

Which brings us to lottery tickets.

Subscribe now

The Two Dollar Verdict

Buying a lottery ticket is, according to the consensus of every financially literate person you’ve ever met, a uniquely stupid thing to do. The expected value is negative. The odds are astronomically stacked against you. You are, mathematically speaking, barely better off than simply setting your money on fire.

And they’re right. Mathematically.

They’re also applying a standard they don’t apply to anything else, including to themselves.

Is it rational to spend $400 on a wedding dress you’ll wear once? Is it rational to pay off your mortgage early when the stock market would almost certainly deliver a better return over the same period? Is it rational to spend $15 on a cocktail that takes three minutes to drink and leaves you marginally worse at everything you do for the rest of the evening?

Nearly all of our spending is irrational. That’s normal. We call it: human. We understand, implicitly, that people spend money on feelings, on meaning, on ritual, on the small daily pleasures that make the ordinary feel like it was worth showing up for. We extend that grace to almost every purchase a person can make.

But not lottery tickets.

The Dopamine Economy

Neuroscience has known for decades what personal finance hasn’t caught up to: the anticipation of a reward activates the dopamine system more reliably than the reward itself. You don’t get the rush when you win. You get it when you might.

A two-dollar lottery ticket, purchased on a Sunday night before a Wednesday drawing, buys three days of imagining a completely different life. Not a marginally better one. A different one. Three days of deciding whether you’d quit or give notice. Whether you’d tell anyone or disappear for a while. Whether you’d buy your mother a house or just pay off her car and never say where the money came from.

Most things you buy offer a slightly better Tuesday. The lottery ticket lets you rehearse a different future entirely. That’s not a minor distinction, and it’s not irrational. It’s the cheapest form of something that people with better options get for free. It’s hope.

When The Math Actually Changes

There’s a version of the lottery ticket critique that almost works. It goes like this: if you saved that money instead, it would compound into something meaningful.

This argument is correct for a certain kind of person. If you’re making $200,000 a year and you’re buying lottery tickets instead of maxing your retirement accounts, you’re leaving real money on the table. The opportunity cost is genuine.

But nobody actually cares if a lawyer making $200,000 buys a Powerball ticket. It’s the poors we’re talking about.

And that argument is even weaker than it sounds.

If you’re earning $28,000 a year and you skip the twice-weekly lottery ticket, you save sixteen bucks a month. At the end of a year you have around $200. After a decade, with optimistic market returns, you have maybe $2,500. That’s not a down payment. That’s not a retirement. It’s not even much of an emergency fund. That’s $2,500 after ten years of discipline—a number that does not materially change the trajectory of your life in any direction after a period of time that statistically outlasted the marriage the wedding dress was meant to celebrate.

The expected-value calculation that makes lottery tickets look stupid assumes you’re someone for whom small amounts of capital compound into large amounts of capital. For tens of millions of Americans, that assumption is simply false. The alternative to the lottery ticket isn’t a comfortable retirement. It’s the same life, minus the hope.

Against the plausible alternatives, a non-zero chance at transformation looks different than it does on a spreadsheet. Not smart, exactly. But not obviously dumb either. And seven days of genuine excitement per week, fifty weeks a year1, for $16 a month—that’s a price point a lot of therapists would struggle to match, whatever your copay.

But maybe you think it’s worse than irrational. Maybe you think it’s gambling.

The Shame

The line between a stupid purchase and an addiction has nothing to do with dollars. Someone funneling their entire paycheck into scratchers has a problem—but so does someone spending $300 a week on cocaine, regardless of how big a pile they can afford. The pathology isn’t the price. It’s the compulsion. We don’t evaluate Snickers bars by their worst-case consumer. We sell them to kids.

A young lawyer passes the bar and buys a Rolex. We call that a milestone. It’s not a good investment—most watches depreciate, and the money would perform better in an index fund by almost any measure. But we understand that he’s not buying a watch. He’s buying a feeling about his future. He’s buying a signal to himself and everyone around him that something has changed, that he’s arrived somewhere, that the work paid off. We find this not just acceptable but admirable.

A woman earning fourteen bucks an hour buys a lottery ticket on her way home from a double shift. We call that a tax on the poor. A failure of financial literacy. Evidence that some people just don’t understand how money works. That maybe they actually deserve what they get.

Both of them spent money they didn’t need to spend, on a feeling they wanted to have. One of those feelings is legible to the people doing the judging. The other isn’t.

The critique of lottery tickets is dressed in the language of financial rationality. But financial rationality, applied consistently, would also indict the Rolex, the destination wedding, the brand-name interview suit, the paid-off mortgage, and every other purchase humans make for reasons that can’t be reduced to a pro forma. We apply it selectively, and the selection is not random.

It’s poor.

The Point of a Hammer

People spend money on hope. They always have. They buy candles for altars, rounds for strangers, fireworks for the Fourth of July. They splurge on the good Champagne for the occasion that deserves it. They tip more than they should when the server reminds them of their kid. None of this maximizes utility. All of it is completely human, and we don’t judge any of it—because we understand, without needing it explained, that the point of money was never the fucking money.

The point was always to build something. A life that feels like yours. A Tuesday that felt worth showing up for. A moment, however brief, of genuine excitement about what might happen next.

Most of us are just trying to buy a little hope. A little something to look forward to. There’s nothing wrong with that. There never was.

The only thing worth questioning is why we reserve our judgment for the people buying it two dollars at a time.

And hey, if that’s you, good luck.

They didn’t have computers. They didn’t have stochastic models or PhD programs in financial engineering. What they had was a reed stylus, a piece of soft clay, and the compound interest formula—which they’d worked out roughly four millennia before the Bank of England opened its doors. Debts at standard rates doubled every five years. Harvests didn’t. The scribes could see where the math ended up. So they built a mechanism to deal with it.

Subscribe now

We treat financial crises like unsolved engineering problems. If only we had better models, smarter regulators, faster data feeds. The entire apparatus of modern financial regulation—Basel accords, stress tests, macroprudential surveillance. We assume the core challenge is diagnosis, like we just haven’t figured it out yet.

We figured it out before the alphabet.

The Barley-Silver Distinction

For roughly three thousand years—from ancient Sumer through Babylonia, the Hebrew kingdoms, Greece, and Rome—periodic debt cancellation was standard economic policy. Not utopian theory. Not a fringe religious practice. Documented, enforced, routine. The Sumerian word was amargi. The Babylonian term was misharum. The Hebrew version became the Jubilee. The tradition was old enough to be ancient by the time Rome was fighting over it. Different languages, same mechanism, same math.

The mechanism had three parts, repeated across centuries with remarkable consistency. Agrarian and subsistence debts—what we’d call household debt—were periodically cancelled outright. People who had fallen into debt bondage were freed. And pledged land was returned to its original holders, reversing the concentration that had accumulated since the last reset.

But here’s the part that should make every institution that’s ever claimed to be “too big to fail” nervous. Commercial debts between merchants were left intact.

The Babylonians called it the barley-silver distinction. Barley debts—subsistence borrowing, accumulated taxes, unpaid fees, the arrears of people whose obligations grew faster than their harvest—got cancelled. Silver debts—commercial credit between traders, self-liquidating loans extended for specific ventures—didn’t. The distinction isn’t complicated. A farmer who owes more grain than his field can produce ends up a debt slave—and a debt slave doesn’t run a farm. A merchant who borrows to ship copper and repays from the proceeds is just doing business. The Babylonians could tell the difference. So can you.

The debtor class wasn’t a collection of irresponsible borrowers who’d overextended themselves on Bronze Age McMansions. Most of these obligations weren’t even loans in the modern sense—credit preceded cash by millennia. They were families whose arrears accumulated faster than the harvest could cover. Compound interest doesn’t care about drought years. Enough time, enough families, same result every time.

The scribes knew this. The clean slate wasn’t charity. It was scheduled maintenance.

The Capture Sequence

If this system worked—and the archaeological record suggests it did, across multiple civilizations and millennia—the obvious question is: what happened to it?

It was destroyed. Specifically, it was destroyed by the people it constrained, using techniques that haven’t changed much in four thousand years.

The sequence is documented repeatedly—in fragmented clay tablets and fragile papyrus scrolls and yellowed parchment—and it is remarkably consistent:

First, an institutional mechanism protects the broad population from excessive wealth concentration. The clean slate, the Jubilee, Roman agrarian laws—the specific form varies, the function doesn’t.

Second, the beneficiaries of concentration develop workarounds. Fictive adoptions to circumvent inheritance rules. Contractual waivers where debtors “voluntarily” surrender their protections. Temple-precinct pledging to move assets beyond the reach of royal decrees. The loopholes are always more creative than the rules.

Third, the mechanism’s enforcers are killed, captured, or politically neutralized. Sparta’s kings Agis and Cleomenes were murdered for attempting debt cancellation. The Gracchi brothers were killed for pursuing land reform in Rome. Caesar was assassinated by a Senate heavy with creditor interests.1 The pattern isn’t subtle.

Fourth—and this is where it gets elegant—the mechanism is formally maintained but substantively gutted. The letter of the law survives. The spirit doesn’t. The single best example is Hillel’s prosbul, invented in the first century BC. Faced with the Torah’s Jubilee requirement to cancel debts every seven years, Rabbi Hillel created a legal clause allowing borrowers to “voluntarily” waive their protections. Sign here, and the sacred debt cancellation no longer applies to you. The ancient equivalent of clicking “I agree” to the Terms of Service—coercion dressed as consent, with just enough procedural formality to satisfy anyone not looking too hard.

Two thousand years later, we still use the same technique. Every credit card agreement, every adjustable-rate mortgage, every arbitration clause buried in the fine print of a contract nobody reads is a direct descendant of the prosbul. The innovation wasn’t financial. It was legal. Make the surrender of protections look like a choice, and nobody has to take them by force.

Fifth, and finally, wealth concentrates to the point of systemic failure. Rome is the endgame that played out completely. The early Republic had land distribution laws, debt limits, and a citizen-soldier class whose economic independence was the foundation of military power. Over several centuries, the creditor oligarchy dismantled every constraint. Public land was absorbed into private latifundia, industrial-scale farms worked by slaves and owned by the elite. The citizen-soldier was replaced by a professional army loyal to individual oligarchic generals. The tax base hollowed out. Military capacity degraded. Political legitimacy collapsed into factional warfare. The barbarians at the gates hadn’t changed. Rome’s internal structure had.

What makes Rome instructive isn’t the fall—empires fall. It’s that the people with the power to implement the correction were precisely the people who benefited from not implementing it. The solution existed. The political will to deploy it had been captured.

Why the Fix Never Comes From Below

There’s a tempting populist reading of all this: if the elites won’t cancel debts, the people should demand it. But this misreads the entire historical record. The clean slate was never a populist achievement. It was always an elite correction—one faction of the elite constraining another.

The Babylonian king cancelled debts not because the masses demanded it, but because the palace needed a functioning tax base and a military drawn from free citizens, not debt slaves. The king’s interests diverged from the creditor class’s interests. That divergence was the mechanism. The masses didn’t need to understand compound interest. They needed a ruler whose survival depended on not letting creditors cannibalize the productive base.

This maps uncomfortably well onto today. The people who feel the squeeze of wealth concentration want to “make billionaires pay their fair share”—but the mechanisms through which concentration actually operates are opaque enough that the policies voters demand often mechanically worsen the problem they’re trying to solve. This isn’t a failure of character. It’s the same structural mismatch the Babylonians identified: expecting the barley class to diagnose a silver disease.

The uncomfortable implication: the correction for financial capture has never come from below. It comes from elite fragmentation—when a faction within the ruling class has both the understanding and the motivation to build counterweights. It’s never the Occupiers versus Wall Street. It’s the Babylonian palace versus the creditor class. The Roman populares versus the optimates. When the elite is unified in its interests, there is no correction.

The rest of us just feel the squeeze.

The Complexity Defense

Modern finance has made the barley-silver distinction functionally impossible. When a mortgage is sliced into tranches, bundled into a collateralized debt obligation, insured by a credit default swap, and held as Tier 1 capital by a bank that clears every transaction in the economy—and then issues credit cards—there is no clean seam to cut along. The Babylonian palace could see every debt because debts were recorded on clay tablets in temple archives. In modern finance, the debt is the money supply. Cancel the debt, cancel the money.

In 2008, the banks really were too interconnected to let fail—not because bankers are special, but because the system had evolved to make the correction mechanism and the correction target the same thing. The clean slate presupposes that you can distinguish what to cancel from what to preserve. Structured finance has made that distinction impossible by design.

And there’s a deeper tradeoff that honest advocates of debt relief have to confront: making the barley-silver distinction doesn’t just reset bad debt. It means less barley credit gets extended in the first place. A lender who knows subsistence debt gets cancelled every cycle will lend less to subsistence borrowers. The Babylonians accepted this—and the economy functioned. The modern system chose the opposite: maximize credit availability, socialize the downside, and call it financial inclusion. More people get loans. More people get buried. The banks get bailed out. We call it a safety net.

Whether the complexity itself is a feature of capture—the system made opaque specifically to prevent correction—or a genuine emergent property of financial innovation is a question worth sitting with. Both are probably true. Financial systems do grow more complex over time for legitimate reasons. And complex systems are harder to reform, which benefits the people who’d rather not be reformed. The two dynamics reinforce each other until you get a financial system that is simultaneously too intricate to understand and too interconnected to reset.

Who Bears the Risk

The standard economics curriculum treats debt as a neutral instrument—a contract between willing parties, priced by the market, cleared by the legal system. Default is treated as an individual failure of the borrower. But four thousand years of evidence suggests something simpler: most people aren’t going to end up on the right side of the compounding equation. They never have. The question is whether we design systems that expect them to, or systems that accept it.

The Babylonians didn’t solve household debt by teaching farmers compound interest. They solved it by making the system absorb the reality that farmers would never beat compound interest. The barley-silver distinction wasn’t taught to barley debtors. It was imposed on silver creditors. The lender bore the risk of extending credit that wouldn’t always be repaid, because the system would periodically cancel it. That didn’t punish lenders. It made them careful. A creditor who knows the slate gets cleaned prices accordingly—extends less, charges less, or doesn’t extend at all.

We’ve built the opposite. Capital One will extend you $30,000 in revolving credit at 27% APR—not despite knowing you can’t sustainably service it, but because the system ensures you can’t escape it. Bankruptcy reform in 2005 made credit card debt harder to discharge. Student loans are effectively permanent. The entire consumer credit apparatus is engineered around the principle that barley debtors must pay, no matter what. This isn’t lending. It’s farming.

The mechanism doesn’t have to be a Jubilee. It doesn’t have to be a specific law. But the standard it points toward is clear: the entity extending credit should bear the cost when that credit can’t be repaid. Not as punishment—as systemic maintenance. Make the silver side eat the barley risk, and the silver side will figure out very quickly how much barley credit the system can actually sustain. They’ll do the math. That’s what they’re good at.

Babylonian scribes used clay tablets and concluded that periodic debt correction was necessary infrastructure, like irrigation. We run the same numbers on supercomputers and arrive at the same conclusion—but we’ve decided the answer is to make the borrowers smarter rather than the lending safer. The math hasn’t changed. The politics has.

Good news. Regulations are easy to cut. They’re written on paper. You can find the ones that don’t work and rip them up. You don’t need to invent new technology or change human nature. You just need a committee with some spine, and the willingness to tell a bureaucracy that the form it’s been stamping for thirty years no longer needs stamping. You can even suggest where they shove the stamp. Difficult politically. Trivial mechanically. The deregulation problem is a solvable problem, and we should solve it.

But that’s not the hard problem.

Subscribe now

The Invisible Gap

The hard problem is the regulations we don’t have.

Not in the progressively anti-progress sense—the reflexive demand for more rules on whatever feels dangerous on Bluesky this week. The Left wants more regulation on firearms and less on abortion access. The Right wants more regulation on immigration and less on energy production. Neither side is “pro-regulation” or “anti-regulation” in any consistent way. They’re pro-regulation for things they find threatening and anti-regulation for things they find acceptable. The entire debate is downstream of political coalition-building, which is why it never produces anything resembling a coherent principle.

The question upstream of that debate is simpler and more uncomfortable: what domains are currently ungoverned where realistic failure modes exist, whose failures spill externalities onto the rest of us, and what’s the cost of finding out the hard way?

That’s not ideology. It’s closer to what an actuary does. Map the territory, estimate the exposure, price the risk. And unfortunately, nobody’s doing it—not because it’s impossible, but because regulatory attention is a finite resource, and we’ve allocated most of ours to legislating which sports leagues should permit testicles.

The Known Unknown

After 2008, we rebuilt the banking system’s guardrails. Banks now hold more capital in reserve, submit to stress tests, and operate under oversight designed to ensure that a wave of bad loans can’t cascade into a global meltdown ever again. Whatever you think of Dodd-Frank, the basic logic was sound: if your lending blows up, and taxpayers are on the hook for the fallout, then someone needs to be watching the books.

Which is why the banks moved their money off the books.

Private credit—a term most people have never heard, which is itself the problem—is what happens when instead of lending directly and keeping loans on their balance sheets, banks redirect them into private, third-party investment funds that don’t have to follow banking rules. It started small. Over the past fifteen years, it’s grown to roughly $2 trillion. To put that in perspective, that’s larger than the entire subprime mortgage market was in 2007.

The mechanics are simple enough. A company needs to borrow money. It’s too leveraged or too risky for a traditional bank, which would have to hold capital against the loan and justify it to regulators. So instead, a private investment fund makes the loan. But the fund isn’t just the high-risk play money of the rich. No, it raised its investment capital from pension funds, insurance companies, endowments—institutions managing the retirement savings of teachers and firefighters and state employees. You know, the pensions that you’re already on the hook for. The loan sits on no bank’s balance sheet. No regulator stress-tests it. No public filing discloses the terms. The company gets its money, the fund earns a fee, and the risk settles quietly into the retirement accounts of people who have no idea it’s there. And if it goes bad? Well, heads they win, tails you lose. Remember too big to fail?

This is by design. The money moved specifically to escape oversight, and the oversight didn’t follow. When the default cycle comes—and it will, because that’s what cycles do—the losses won’t surface at a bank, where regulators can see them coming. They’ll surface in pension funds and insurance reserves, and the people holding the bag will be the last to find out.

Everyone who was around in 2008 remembers the sickening discovery that nobody knew who owed what to whom. We’re building that exact opacity again, in a market most people don’t know exists, supervised by no one in particular. The reason nobody is regulating it isn’t that someone weighed the risks and decided it was fine. It’s that it grew up in a space where the rules weren’t, and the people shouting for regulations don’t know what’s actually risky.

The Unknown Unknown

Private credit is at least a risk you can point at. Somebody knows what it is, even if most people don’t. The harder category is the risks nobody’s identified yet—not because they’re unidentifiable, but because we don’t know what we don’t know.

Facebook ran internal studies showing that Instagram was damaging teenage mental health, especially for young girls. This is usually told as a scandal: they knew and they hid it. But step back and notice the stranger part. Nobody required them to look. No regulation mandated the study. Facebook did the research on its own, and when the findings leaked, the reward for having investigated their own product was a congressional hearing and a billion-dollar PR crisis.

Now imagine you run the next platform. The lesson is unmistakable: if you study your product’s effects and find something bad, you’ll be punished for knowing. If you never look, you never knew. Which means you can never have concealed anything. The rational move is to not ask the question. The public flogging goes much easier that way.

That’s where we are with most of the technologies reshaping daily life. The companies that could study their own effects have every incentive not to, and nobody outside those companies has the data to do it instead. Many of them still study their own products. These are good people, trying to build good things. But we’re increasingly incentivizing against good behavior.

The obvious alternative is mandatory disclosure—force companies to hand over their data so researchers can look for harm. But think about what that actually means. It’s someone showing up at your door and saying “give me access to everything—all your proprietary research, all your internal metrics, all your user data.” You ask what they’re looking for. They say: “We won’t know until we find it.” That’s not a workable basis for policy in any domain. It’s a fishing expedition, and everybody knows it. Which is why it never gets past the hearing stage.

So the unknown unknowns stay... unknown. Not because they can’t be found, but because the incentives encourage us not to look too closely. Social media’s impact on adolescent mental health wasn’t some deep mystery that required a scientific breakthrough. It required having a teenager. But, presumably, we could’ve started asking the question before a generation of children had already served as the experiment. Nobody asked. Not because they couldn’t. Because nobody’s job depended on it, nobody had the authority to demand the data, and the people who did have the data learned that revealing what they found was more dangerous to them than not looking.

The Response Gap

Even when problems do surface, the response time is measured in decades.

The systemic overprescription of opioids was visible in the data by the early 2000s. Meaningful federal action didn’t arrive until 2018. By then, half a million Americans were dead. The internal research on social media-driven psychological harm existed by 2017. Congress is still holding hearings. The pattern is always the same—a problem emerges, a decade of committee testimony follows, legislation eventually passes, calibrated to reliably solve the crisis from twenty years ago, instead of the one developing next. And just like with private credit, by the time the rules arrive, the industry has already migrated to whatever the rules don’t cover.

The lag isn’t a failure of will. It’s structural. Regulatory agencies are organized around industries that existed before those agencies were created. The SEC watches securities. The FDA watches drugs. The FCC watches communications. When something new doesn’t fit into any existing bucket—and the interesting things never do—it lands in a jurisdictional gap. Nobody has clear authority. Nobody has allocated budget. Nobody’s career depends on figuring it out. Prediction markets sit somewhere between gambling, securities, and opinion polling, which means several agencies could plausibly claim jurisdiction and none of them clearly do.

The result is an institutional system built to perfectly fight the last war, every time, a decade after it’s been lost.

The Actual Opportunity

AI lands in the middle of all of this, and the familiar arguments have already started. Regulate it now, before we know what it does. Leave it alone until we do. Both positions are exactly how every previous technology was handled, and there’s no reason to expect different results from the same script.

But AI has one structural property that none of the previous technologies did, and it’s worth taking seriously rather than waving at. A chemical plant can’t simulate its own explosion before it happens. A social network can’t predict what it’ll do to teenagers before the teenagers sign up. The risk assessment for every previous technology had to happen after deployment, performed by humans, slowly, with incomplete data. That’s why the lag exists. Not because regulators are lazy—because the problem can’t physically be understood until after the damage starts.

AI systems can, at least in principle, model their own failure modes before deployment. They can stress-test scenarios at a speed and scale that no congressional committee or regulatory agency could match. In fact, they could do adversarial testing against each other, which would align the incentives toward revealing findings that much more quickly, all while racing to repair similar flaws in their own products. That doesn’t mean they will. But it’s a genuine structural difference—the first technology in history that could help write its own safety manual.

The opportunity isn’t “regulate AI proactively” in the usual hand-wringing sense. It’s narrower and more interesting than that. The question is whether AI gives us a tool to compress the response gap—to shrink the decade between “we discovered a problem” and “we have a framework for it” down to something closer to the speed at which problems actually develop. Not writing rules for hypothetical risks. Building the institutional capacity to react in months instead of decades when the next unknown becomes known.

The Constraint

Building that capacity would require something the American regulatory system has never once demonstrated: the willingness to pay attention to problems that haven’t yet produced a political crisis. Every major regulatory body was created in response to a disaster. The SEC after the 1929 crash. The EPA after rivers literally caught fire. OSHA after enough workers died that inaction became more politically costly than action. The institutional DNA is reactive. We build the fire department after the fire.

The deregulation crowd is right that we have too many rules. They’re wrong that the answer is simply fewer. The answer is better-allocated attention—less time relitigating whether the 872^nd rocket launch needs eighteen months of environmental review, more time asking whether anyone is watching the $2 trillion lending market that exists specifically because no one is.

That reallocation is harder than either side’s bumper sticker. Cutting rules is popular, at least when they’re rules you’d like to break. Building new capacity for risks that haven’t blown up yet is not—the beneficiaries are invisible, the costs are immediate, and no politician ever won an election by preventing a crisis nobody noticed was averted. Every incentive in the system points toward waiting for the disaster, then acting shocked.

We’ve run this experiment before. We know how it ends. The question is whether the tools exist, for the first time, to change the ending—and whether the institutions that could use those tools will be built before the next obvious-in-retrospect catastrophe that everyone saw coming and nobody prevented.

The regulations we have too many of are a nuisance. The regulations we don’t have are a risk. One of those problems is expensive. The other is dangerous.

They’re not alone—our greatest futurists and science fiction writers get it wrong too.

There are really only two models for what a post-scarcity future looks like in the popular imagination. The Star Trek model: energy is free, replicators produce whatever you need, and people spend their time pursuing knowledge, art, and self-actualization because material want has been eliminated. Or, the Star Wars1 model: technology is so advanced it might as well be magic, yet people are still poor, still struggling, still trading in black markets on desert planets. Neither of these models is right, but one’s closer. It’s not the one we want.

Subscribe now

People feel pinched today, but the average American lives better than a Roman emperor ever did. We have jumbo jets and Netflix. Open-heart surgery and Amazon Prime. Central heating, GPS navigation, and antibiotics—luxuries that no amount of gold could have purchased even two centuries ago. By any absolute measure, we are already living in a post-scarcity world for most of the goods that defined scarcity for the previous ten thousand years of civilization.

And yet nobody feels post-scarce. That disconnect isn’t a failure of gratitude or a limitation of science. It’s the tell.

The standard economic framework has the causality backwards. We’re taught that scarcity is an external condition—a feature of the physical world—and that value emerges from it. Things are valuable because they’re scarce. But that’s not quite what’s happening.

Cancer cells are scarce, but I bet you don’t want any. Scarcity isn’t a condition that produces value. It’s the other way around. Value produces scarcity.

Wherever people want more control over their lives than they currently have—which is everywhere, always—we value whatever would give it to us. More money, sure. More power, more influence, more attention, more acclaim. What we crave is inherently “scarce,” whatever form it takes, because if it were plentiful we wouldn’t want it. When was the last time you thought about how much you want air to breathe?

But the second we get what we want, we don’t suddenly stop wanting. We just notice the next constraint down the stack. The word for this process is “progress.” The thing people keep expecting to eliminate scarcity is precisely what drives it.

The End of History

The history of human progress is, at bottom, a history of solving one constraint only to immediately discover the next. Each solution doesn’t eliminate scarcity—it reveals a deeper one that was always there, masked by the more urgent problem above it.

For most of human history, the binding constraint was calories. You spent your waking hours trying to acquire enough energy to not die. Farming solved that, more or less, which immediately surfaced the next constraint: land. When calories come from soil, arable territory becomes the thing you’ll kill for—and people did, enthusiastically, for the next several thousand years.

Industrialization broke the land constraint. Suddenly, value creation decoupled from acreage. A factory on a half-acre could out-produce a thousand-acre farm in economic terms. But this merely revealed that the true bottleneck had shifted to labor—specifically, higher-productivity labor capable of operating increasingly complex systems. The scramble for human capital replaced the scramble for territory, and the nation-states that industrialized first didn’t just get richer. They conquered the ones that hadn’t. More killing ensued.

Then came the information age, which ostensibly solved the labor constraint by making knowledge infinitely reproducible at zero marginal cost. Wikipedia alone would have been worth more than the Library of Alexandria and every medieval university combined, measured by information density. We now distribute the sum of human knowledge to anyone with a phone, for free. Problem solved.

Except it wasn’t. Because the moment information became abundant, the bottleneck shifted again—to attention. It turns out that an infinite supply of knowledge is worthless without an infinite mind capable of processing it. You can lead a civilization to Wikipedia, but you can’t make it think. The scarcest resource in the information age isn’t information; it’s the twenty minutes of uninterrupted focus required to do something useful with it.

Calories, land, labor, information, attention—each time we solved the top constraint, we merely established a new “top”.

The Next Abundance

Which brings us to the breathless promises of our current moment. AI, robotics, and fusion energy represent the most potent bundle of scarcity-killing technologies since agriculture itself.

The implications are real and genuinely transformative. Vertical farming fed by fusion power could make food production independent of arable land and weather patterns entirely. Desalination at scale—powered by energy so cheap it’s not worth the cost of the meter—eliminates water scarcity for every coastal civilization on Earth, which is most of them. Robotic construction could crash the cost of homebuilding the way industrialization crashed the cost of textiles. AI-driven drug discovery and diagnostics could make personalized medicine as routine as the antibiotics we already take for granted. Climate management becomes tractable when you have the energy budget to actually do something about atmospheric carbon other than just measuring it.

This isn’t science fiction. The component technologies exist. The engineering challenges are formidable but finite. Within a generation, possibly two, the material constraints that currently define middle-class anxiety—housing costs, healthcare costs, food costs, energy costs—could plausibly fall by an order of magnitude.

And it won’t matter. Not in the way people think.

The Scarcity Stack

Here’s where the techno-optimists lose the plot. Grant them everything—every breakthrough, every timeline, every breathless promise fulfilled. It still doesn’t get us where they think it does.

Maslow’s hierarchy is useful here, not because it’s a perfect model of human motivation, but because it reveals how far we’d have to go before material abundance even touches the constraints people actually care about. The base of the pyramid is physiological: air, water, food, clothing, shelter, warmth, sleep. AI and fusion and robotics could plausibly solve all of that, for everyone, within a generation or two. Genuinely miraculous. And entirely insufficient—because all you’ve done is clear the ground floor and force everyone to notice that the building has more stories.

One level up from physiology are safety and security—health, employment, property, personal stability. Even with unlimited cheap energy and robotic construction, a man whose industry just got automated isn’t comforted by having nothing useful to do. Material plenty doesn’t solve the constraints that actually keep people up at night. And that’s only the second floor. Health sits on this level, and its logical endpoint is mortality itself—you’d have to solve death just to finish the bottom half of the “needs” ladder. Everything that actually constitutes human flourishing lives above that line.

Besides which, there are plenty of people who can already buy all of the energy they want. People who can eat what they want, access the best healthcare, fly private. Why aren’t they living the post-scarcity utopia already? They’re not self-actualizing on the holodeck. They’re competing for status, chasing meaning, and getting divorced.

Elon Musk is the richest man on earth, and all that means is that now he wants Mars.

Because scarcity isn’t a quantity. It’s a value judgment. It’s the permanent condition of wanting more from life than you currently have—which is just another way of describing what it feels like to be alive.

The Structure of Desire

This is why the Star Wars model is closer. Not because its economics make sense—they don’t.2

But it captures what post-material-scarcity actually feels like: miraculous technology, and people still struggling. Star Trek assumed that solving material want would solve wanting.

The trust-fund kid with a cocaine habit and no direction isn’t suffering from a lack of resources. He’s suffering from a lack of constraints. Remove the relationship between effort and outcome and you don’t liberate desire—you make it aimless. He has everything except something to work toward.

AI and fusion and robotics may very well solve the next level of the material layer—and they should. But it won’t deliver the transformation that post-scarcity evangelists promise, any more than indoor plumbing delivered spiritual enlightenment. What it will deliver is a shift in what’s competed over. You can build more houses. You can’t build more Malibu. You can manufacture cheaper drugs. You can’t manufacture trust in the pharmaceutical industry. You can generate infinite content. You can’t generate the wisdom to decide what’s worth paying attention to.

The shape of scarcity in 2075 will be as unrecognizable to us as ours would be to a subsistence farmer in 1300. And whatever our grandchildren face, they’ll be convinced it’s uniquely urgent, uniquely unfair, and surely solvable with the right technology.

They’ll be wrong about the last part. But they’ll solve it anyway. And discover the next constraint just underneath.

Now consider your neighbor. Same $150,000 in income. But they also borrow $40,000 a year—home equity lines, credit cards, an underwater auto loan rolled into the next one. They spend $190,000. By every government measure of economic activity, this household is more productive. More transactions. More consumption. More GDP, if households had a GDP.

They’re also broke as shit. And getting broker.

Subscribe now

You already know which household is actually prospering. You don’t need a degree in economics to see it. You need a kitchen table to update your balance sheet at.

Nations don’t use balance sheets. They use GDP.

What GDP Was Built For

GDP deserves more credit than its critics give it. When Simon Kuznets developed national income accounting in the 1930s, he was solving an urgent, specific problem: how much economic capacity can the United States mobilize right now? With the Depression grinding on and war looming, that was exactly the right question. FDR needed to know how many tanks, planes, and uniforms the economy could produce. Kuznets delivered a tool to answer it.

He also warned—explicitly, in his 1934 report to Congress—that national income figures should not be treated as a measure of welfare. The tool measured throughput: how much activity is the economy generating this quarter, this year? It was a flow metric, designed to capture immediate capacity. And for its intended purpose, it worked brilliantly. We saved the world.

The problem is what happened next. A wartime throughput gauge became, by institutional inertia and political convenience, the default measure of national prosperity. GDP growth became synonymous with progress. Quarters of positive GDP meant the economy was “strong.” Negative quarters meant crisis. An entire vocabulary of economic health was built on top of a metric that measures activity the way a tachometer measures RPMs—accurately, but with no indication of whether the car is actually going anywhere.

Name another investment that’s compounded for seventy years with as little to show for it. American GDP has grown nearly every year since the 1950s. Real, inflation-adjusted growth. Exposed to the magic of compounding across seven decades. And yet: real wages for the median worker have barely budged since the early 1970s. Homeownership rates for young adults are at historic lows. Household savings rates have collapsed. The national debt has exploded from concerning to existential. Personal debt has followed the same trajectory.

Seventy years of uninterrupted “growth.” And the median household is running harder to stay in the same place.

Why Nobody Fixed It

The obvious question—if GDP is the wrong metric, why hasn’t it been replaced?—has a boring answer, which is usually a sign it’s the right one.

Path dependence. International comparability. Institutional inertia. Treaty obligations pegged to GDP thresholds. The IMF. Careers built on interpreting GDP data. Government agencies structured around reporting it. Entire academic disciplines organized around modeling it.

But ultimately, a metric that rewards government spending will always outcompete a metric that rewards fiscal restraint.

Which is why nobody owns the whole picture. The Bureau of Economic Analysis measures output. The Bureau of Labor Statistics tracks employment and prices. The Federal Reserve monitors financial conditions. Treasury manages debt. Each agency does its job competently within its lane. None is tasked with assembling the pieces into a coherent answer to the question that actually matters: after all this activity, did we end up with more than we started with?1

The economy, meanwhile, shifted underneath the measurement system without anyone updating the dashboard. In the 1950s, economic output was overwhelmingly physical: steel, automobiles, housing starts, bushels of grain. Measuring throughput in that world captured something real about productive capacity, because physical goods are harder to fake and harder to finance with leverage than financial abstractions.

Over the following decades, the economy transformed in ways that made throughput an increasingly poor proxy for progress. Manufacturing gave way to services. Savings gave way to leverage. Ownership gave way to financialization—a world where the same underlying asset could generate dozens of transactions, each one counted as “output,” without a single new thing being produced. A house built in 1985 gets sold, refinanced, securitized, tranched, insured, derivatized, and traded—every one of those transactions registers as economic activity. Meanwhile, the roof starts to leak.

The nature of “investment” itself has shifted. In 1960, when a corporation spent a billion dollars, it was probably building a factory. The output was visible, durable, and productive for decades. Today, a billion dollars of corporate spending might mean stock buybacks, financial engineering, or acquiring a competitor to eliminate competition rather than create capacity. All recorded identically in the national accounts. All very different in what they leave behind.

The economic measurements didn’t adjust for any of this.

It’s not a conspiracy. It’s not even really incompetence. It’s just the way institutions work. They accrete. They don’t refactor. Nobody wakes up in the morning and decides to perpetuate a flawed metric. They just cite the number everyone else is citing, they fill in the cell in the spreadsheet it’s their job to fill in, because building a better one isn’t anybody’s job.

The Accounting Asymmetry

Of course, accretion doesn’t work in a competitive setting. Which is why the private sector solved this decades ago.

Any publicly traded company is required, by law, to distinguish between revenue and profit. Between operating expenses and capital investment. Between assets and liabilities. Between cash flow from operations and cash flow from financing. A company that reported only its top-line revenue and called it “growth” would be laughed out of every analyst meeting on Wall Street and delisted before lunch.

We don’t just require companies to report income. We require them to report what they did with it. Did they reinvest in productive capacity? Did they maintain existing assets? Did they return capital to shareholders? Did they borrow to fund operations? These distinctions matter, because revenue without context is meaningless. A company that grows revenue 20% by borrowing 30% more is not growing. It’s dying, with panache.

Governments face no equivalent reporting discipline. GDP counts the spending. It does not count the bill. It records the activity without distinguishing between a dollar spent building a bridge, a dollar spent replacing a bridge that fell down, a dollar spent on interest payments for the debt that financed the original bridge, and a dollar that simply moved from one government account to another. All four are GDP. None are equivalent.

The entity managing the most money on Earth operates with less financial transparency than a regional car dealership. The dealership has to file audited financials. The government files a press release.

First Principles

Strip away the institutional history and the political noise, and the accounting problem is elementary.

Every dollar of economic output does one of three things. It replaces something that wore out—depreciation, maintenance, the cost of keeping the lights on. It builds something new—productive capacity that didn’t exist before. Or it gets consumed—eaten, burned, enjoyed, and gone.

GDP treats all three equally. A dollar is a dollar is a dollar. But a dollar spent patching a pothole is not the same as a dollar spent building a road is not the same as a dollar spent on cigarettes for the work break. One keeps you where you are. One takes you somewhere new. One goes up in smoke.

This is where debt enters the picture, and where the measurement failure becomes actively dangerous.

Debt is a timing mechanism. It lets you pull future consumption into the present or push present investment into the future. Used well, it accelerates the conversion of savings into productive assets—borrow to build a factory, generate returns, pay back the loan. At the end, net savings are higher than before, and you have a new factory to boot.

But used poorly, debt lets consumption impersonate investment. You can borrow a trillion dollars, spend it entirely on digging holes and filling them back in, and GDP will faithfully record a trillion dollars of “growth.”

The activity was real. The output was not.

This is why a society can grow GDP for seventy consecutive years and still end up with crumbling infrastructure, insolvent entitlement programs, and a median household that can’t afford a home, an education, or a retirement. GDP recorded every dollar of spending. It never asked whether the spending left anything behind.

The Question We Never Ask

The data needed to answer the real question already exists. We track gross domestic product. We track capital depreciation. We track net investment. We track government debt issuance. We track household leverage. We track infrastructure quality indices. Every input is measured, somewhere, by someone.

We simply never assemble them.

The question is: After paying for upkeep, after servicing the debt used to finance it, did this year’s economic activity leave us with more productive capacity than last year’s?

That’s it. That’s economic growth. Not “how much did we spend?” Not “how fast did activity grow?” But: did we actually build anything, net of what we consumed and the financing cost?

Call it whatever you want. Net Productive Growth. Adjusted Capital Formation. The National P&L. The label doesn’t matter. What matters is the discipline of asking, at the end of every fiscal year, whether the nation’s balance sheet—its productive assets minus its obligations—got stronger or weaker. The way every lemonade stand with a cigar box full of quarters already does.

The Back of the Envelope

Even a crude attempt at this calculation is revealing.

In 2025, US GDP was approximately $31 trillion. Impressive, until you start subtracting. Capital depreciation—the cost of replacing worn-out equipment, infrastructure, and structures—consumed a little over $5 trillion. Net interest on government debt ate another $1 trillion. Household, corporate, and municipal debt service absorbed about $1.5 trillion. State and local maintenance backlogs—the deferred repairs on roads, bridges, water systems—is over $9 trillion in total, so maybe $700 billion in annualized terms.

That’s $8.2 trillion before anyone builds anything new. Call it $8 trillion, rounding graciously.

Of the remaining $23 trillion, how much represents genuine net investment in productive capacity—new factories, new infrastructure, new technology, new human capital? Gross private domestic investment was roughly $5 trillion, but much of that is replacement investment counted as “gross.” Net private investment—the portion that actually expands capacity—was closer to $2 trillion. Government investment, net of maintenance spending, adds perhaps another $800 billion on a generous reading.

So: approximately $2.8 trillion in net new productive capacity, from $31 trillion in activity. Under ten percent. The economy runs $31 trillion through the meter and less than a dime on the dollar comes out the other side as something new that will still exist next year.

And that’s before asking how much of even that $2.8 trillion was financed by adding to the $40 trillion national debt—whether the “investment” was funded by genuine savings or by pulling forward future claims.

The federal government added approximately $2.3 trillion in new debt in 2025. If even half of that funded consumption rather than investment, the net productive growth number shrinks further—potentially to low single digits as a percentage of GDP, possibly to zero.

Seventy years of “growth.” Nine cents on the dollar actually building something. And most of that was borrowed.

This is a napkin calculation. The real number could be a little better or worse. But the order of magnitude is what matters, and it explains something that GDP alone cannot: why all this activity doesn’t feel like progress. It doesn’t feel like progress because most of it isn’t. It’s maintenance, consumption, debt service, and the statistical echo of money changing hands.

Why It Feels Like This

You’ve felt this, even if you’ve never run the numbers.

Every time a headline announces “strong GDP growth” and you look around and think, strong for whom?—this is why. The metric is reporting motion. You’re experiencing a lack of direction.

When your wages rise 3% but your rent rises 5% and your retirement account buys a smaller share of the economy every year despite faithfully contributing—this is why. The flow is positive. The stock is not. You’re on a treadmill that reports your heart rate but not your distance.

When politicians from both parties claim the economy is either booming or on the verge of collapse and neither description matches your lived reality—this is why. They’re reading a tachometer and telling you about speed. One side says the engine is running hot and everything’s great. The other says it’s about to blow. Neither bothers to check whether the car has moved.

Asset prices are at all-time highs, and so is financial anxiety. Both things are true simultaneously, and they’re not contradictory—they’re complementary. Asset prices rise because money is chasing stores of value. Financial anxiety rises because wages can’t keep pace with the assets people need to acquire in order to achieve basic security. The economy is generating enormous activity. The activity isn’t generating prosperity.

This isn’t a populist complaint about elites cooking the books. The books aren’t cooked. They’re just reliably measuring precisely the wrong thing. GDP is an honest answer to a question nobody should be asking outside of a war-planning room.

The dissonance between reported economic performance and felt economic reality isn’t irrational. It isn’t ingratitude. It isn’t economic illiteracy. It’s the mathematically predictable result of chasing revenue at the expense of profitability. A society that measures activity instead of accumulation will always feel like it’s running in place—it is.

What Would Change

If we measured what matters—net productive growth rather than gross economic activity—several things would shift, and none of them are ideological.

Debt-financed consumption would show up as what it is: a drawdown on future capacity, not “stimulus.” A trillion-dollar spending bill that builds high-speed rail would look very different from a trillion-dollar spending bill that funds temporary transfer payments—even though GDP treats them identically today. Government spending that creates lasting infrastructure would be visibly distinguished from spending that simply moves money between accounts and calls it growth.

The perverse incentive to maximize throughput at the expense of durability—building cheap roads that need replacement in ten years instead of good roads that last forty—would become visible and, presumably, embarrassing. Under current measurement, the cheap road is better for GDP: you get to count the construction spending twice in twenty years instead of once in forty. A net productive growth metric would expose this as the accounting absurdity it is.

Most importantly, the political conversation would change. “GDP grew 1% this quarter” would become an input, not a conclusion. The follow-up questions—how much of that was maintenance? how much was borrowed? how much actually expanded our productive base?—would be inescapable once the framework existed to ask them.

We wouldn’t need to agree on what to do about the answers. We’d just need to start asking the questions. A nation that discovers it’s spending $31 trillion a year to generate $2.8 trillion in bottom line progress will have a very different policy debate than one that simply celebrates the headline.

The Point of Growth

The point of growth was never the growth itself.

Nobody wakes up in the morning wanting to maximize GDP. They wake up wanting to build something—a business, a home, a family, a life that’s a little more secure than the one they were born into. They want their kids to start farther ahead than they did. To inherit not just money but infrastructure, institutions, and productive capacity that compound across generations. To stand on the shoulders of giants, and to be those giants for whoever comes next.

That’s what an economy is for. Not activity. Not throughput. Not the frenetic circulation of dollars through a system that tallies transactions without asking what any of it built. An economy exists to convert human effort into durable prosperity—the kind that survives the people who created it.

When all of the numbers go up and to the right, but it now takes two full-time incomes to secure the lifestyle that our grandparents earned with one, the problem isn’t the lifestyle. It’s the numbers. You improve what you measure, and we’re not measuring prosperity.

Kids used to put themselves through college with summer jobs. Now they’re paying off student loans in their golden years. We once led the world in production, it’s how we won the Great War. Now we’re importing Temu plastic from our adversaries. A generation ago, a thirty-year-old could buy a house. Today they’re buying Labubus on installment plans.

This isn’t nostalgia for a time gone by. It’s an audit. For all of our effort, for all of the progress, for all the trillions flowing through the meter, are we better off?

A nation that can’t answer that question about itself isn’t being governed. It’s being managed—quarter to quarter, headline to headline, with no one keeping score on the only results that matter across generations.

We measure GDP, but we don’t keep it. It slips through our fingers, year after year. Real prosperity is built from what remains after our labor. And it’s the whole point.

The skepticism shows up in the data, too. Executives are bullish—AI is transformative, a paradigm shift, a major investment priority. Meanwhile, most employees report minimal impact on their actual work. This disconnect isn’t just corporate myopia. It reveals something important about what AI actually does well versus what we expect it should do well.

Subscribe now

What AI Actually Does

LLMs excel at executive processing tasks: deciding which approach to try, switching between contexts, weighing multiple solution paths simultaneously. These are activities that scale with scope, not depth—the work that benefits from being able to consider many possibilities simultaneously rather than mastering one thing through repeated iteration.

What LLMs don’t do is learn from experience and refine through practice. They can’t discover a lesson from iteration five and apply it systematically to iterations six, and onward. They don’t build expertise through repetition. They aren’t a “they” at all. Every response is essentially independent, generated from the same static training distribution with, at most, a modicum of extra context within a single thread.

The only way for them to get better at a specific task is for the commercial operator to load it into the data in advance. And there’s one big domain where they’re doing just that: writing code.

AI is good at writing software. Very good, and getting much, much better. Three years ago, GitHub Copilot was a glorified autocomplete. You’d accept maybe a third of its suggestions, correct another third, and reject the rest as useless nonsense. Functional, occasionally impressive, but wrong frequently enough to establish a baseline of reasonable skepticism in many developer circles.

Now? With sophisticated workflows, an experienced AI engineer can implement more in a day than they could in a week two years ago. Not incrementally better—categorically different productivity. Multiple agents running in parallel, one reviewing the code another wrote, a third refactoring for performance, a fourth auditing security, a fifth writing tests. Developers are orchestrating these systems the way an editor manages a publication, steering the direction rather than typing every character themselves.

Why does coding work so well, while other tasks don’t? Fundamentally, it’s because code has a tight feedback loop that doesn’t require iterative learning, just contextual decision making. The software either runs or it doesn’t. The tests pass or fail. The code compiles, or the build breaks. You don’t need to master any new lessons from previous attempts—you need to generate syntactically valid, logically correct text that satisfies formal constraints. That’s pure pattern matching at massive scale, which is exactly what LLMs are built for.

But that massive scale comes with a price tag.

The Infrastructure Toll

Here’s where it gets expensive.

To achieve that 5x productivity gain, which elite practitioners are already surpassing, you need to consume a lot of LLM usage. This isn’t occasional queries to answer a question. It’s dozens of agents running in parallel for hours, processing entire codebases, generating thousands of lines of suggestions, grinding through complex implementations.

Current usage limits make it impossible to maintain peak productivity for a full forty-hour week, even with top-tier subscriptions, so developers overflow into extra usage fees. Claude Code’s Max subscription runs $200 monthly, plus overages when rate limits are hit. And that’s just one tool. Sophisticated developers are using Cursor, Claude, GitHub Copilot, Codex, Grok, and specialized models for different tasks. Prosumer usage easily reaches $300-500 monthly, and often significantly more for the most intensive workflows.

For an engineer earning $200,000 annually, it’s worth it. To the company paying their salary, it’s an obvious investment—why wouldn’t you spend $500 monthly to get 5x output from a $200k employee?

But for the past decade, we’ve sold ‘learn to code’ as the great equalizer—the one skill that could lift anyone into the middle class regardless of background or credentials. And now we’re breaking our promise.

Learning that skill is no longer enough. Now it’s learn to code, plus pay $300-500+ monthly just to stay competitive, or get destroyed by peers who can.

The Democratization Inversion

The most excited, accelerationist AI advocates claim that soon anyone will be able to build software. They’re half right at best. The engineering skill requirement might become optional—it hasn’t yet. But the promised democratization isn’t coming.

The old model was straightforward: high barrier to entry, low barrier to compete. Learning to code was hard—really hard—but once you learned it, you learned it. The knowledge was yours. You could practice for free, build for free, compete for free. A kid in Bolivia with a $300 laptop and a spotty 3g connection could learn Python from open-source tutorials, build a portfolio on a free GitHub account, and compete for remote contracts on genuinely equal technical footing with developers in San Francisco. Zero marginal cost to deploy your skill. No monthly fees. No recurring expenses. Just you, your knowledge, and what you could build.

The new model inverts this completely: low barrier to entry, high barrier to compete. Even if they’re right, that anyone can build software with AI, no training required, they’re missing the point. For anyone trying to build a career or business in software, AI hasn’t removed the need for coding skills. It’s added an LLM tollbooth.

The person who “doesn’t need to code” because AI does it for them isn’t competitive with the developer who is orchestrating half a dozen AI agents in parallel. The gap isn’t small. It’s 5:1 productivity, minimum, and widening. We’ve traded a one-time knowledge investment for a permanent subscription tax, priced in Silicon Valley margins.

The Compounding Problem

This isn’t like previous technological transitions. When CAD software emerged, it became a new requirement—but you could meet it. The productivity gain plateaued once you got it. Learn SolidWorks, get a license: you’re competitive. The tool didn’t get dramatically better every six months.

LLMs are different. The tools improve with each release. The workflows evolve as developers discover that agents can review other agents, that sophisticated orchestration multiplies productivity beyond what any single tool provides. Developers keep discovering new prompting tricks and contextual techniques that improve accuracy and performance. The skill gap isn’t just can you use AI, but rather: how sophisticated is your AI workflow, and how much can you scale it with API credits, subscription fees, and the latest release version?

As each new model is trained with more data, on more GPUs, with more power, the costs keep rising. Commoditization might eventually bring prices down. They haven’t yet. This isn’t a race, it’s a treadmill.

The developer who can’t afford the tools isn’t just slower. They’re unemployed. Once management sees what’s possible with AI augmentation, that becomes the new baseline. Everyone else is irrelevant. Software development has always been competitive—a marketplace of skills. But the competition used to be who can solve this problem better. Now it’s who can afford to solve this problem at competitive speed.

The Bolivian Problem

In 2015, an aspiring programmer in La Paz could learn for free, build on outdated, modest equipment, and compete on equal technical footing. Their lower cost of living meant they could even undercut US developers on price while maintaining great margins. Access to a $300 laptop wasn’t trivial—it represented a real barrier to entry—but it was the only one. Solve it and you’ve got a real shot.

Now, they still need the laptop, plus reliable internet for their entire working day, which remains spotty or expensive in much of the world.

They need $200 monthly in subscriptions, minimum—$2,400 annually, eight times the cost of that one-time $300 laptop. And they need it every year. Top end usage is equivalent to two of those barrier-to-entry-laptops, a month.

That subscription cost might be 30-50% of gross income in many developing economies. Every month, forever, or you fall behind. It only looks democratic—anyone can talk to AI. But the barrier to performance has skyrocketed. “Talking to AI” isn’t the same as your competitors orchestrating multiple, parallelized AI agents, while you’re asking ChatGPT to debug your for-loop.

The skills are democratized. Free learning resources exist everywhere, better than ever. But the infrastructure is privatized. Expensive, recurring subscriptions that represent trivial costs for established professionals and prohibitive barriers for everyone else.

The Pattern We Keep Missing

This is the same playbook we’ve seen before, dressed up in the latest fashion. We told everyone they should own a home, then turned homes into tax vehicles and watched prices decouple from wages. We told everyone they should go to college, made degrees all-but-mandatory, and watched costs explode while relative value cratered. Now we’re telling everyone they should learn to code while simultaneously making it impossible to compete without paying monthly rent to AI megacorps.

The democratization rhetoric always obscures the infrastructure capture. We confuse access to training with access to opportunity. Anyone can learn Python for free on YouTube. But can they compete without the tools that multiply productivity 5x? The barrier isn’t knowledge anymore—it’s subscription fees.

What makes this particularly insidious is that in previous cases, you could at least finish. Get the degree, buy the house, learn the language. You paid the price and you were done. With AI subscriptions, you never finish. The treadmill never stops. Your competition will use the newest model, whatever the cost. Which means you will too, or you’ve already lost.

The Uncomfortable Economics

The structure is almost elegant. Free skill acquisition plus expensive skill deployment equals perfect conditions for wealth extraction. They’ve figured out how to let you build human capital for free, then charge rent on the ability to use it competitively. You can spend a thousand hours learning Python and JavaScript without spending a dollar. But to deploy those skills at professional levels? That’ll be hundreds of dollars a month in service fees, for the rest of your career.

This isn’t to say AI is bad. And it certainly won’t be an economic, or even employment, apocalypse. That’s always the prediction. And, predictably, it’s always wrong. Tractors didn’t end employment, they ended hunger. The old family farms got gobbled up, but the former farmers got cars and factory jobs. If people don’t have income, they won’t pay the AI companies, or buy the software that AI engineers create. The transition will be messy. Real people will struggle. But history rhymes, and it sounds like progress.

The risk isn’t whether AI will destroy everyone’s livelihoods. Some people are already 5x more productive with it. That productivity shows up somewhere—in higher pay for AI users, in corporate profits, in cheaper software, in all of the above. Someone benefits. The only question is who.

But what we should be skeptical of is the democratization. Because what we’re actually getting is stratification, between those who can pay the toll versus those who can’t. Not based on skill. Not based on merit. Based on whether you can afford the monthly fee to make your skills competitive in the marketplace. The end of the artisan engineer, and the dawn of factory farm coding. That’s what the real AI economy looks like.

Turns out, lots of places. And they’re going there. We have planes now.

Subscribe now

The fundamental miscalculation is a simple one that should be obvious to anyone with a laptop. If you can work from a couch in California, you can work from one in Brazil, just as easily. And this is a problem for anyone who’s still planning on “taxing the rich” in 2026, using a 1936 tax regime.

In 1936, when marginal rates hit 79%, you could actually enforce that—not because people loved paying taxes, but because wealth was physical and escape was hard. Your factory was bolted to the ground in Detroit. Your farmland wasn’t relocating to Panama. Moving gold across the Atlantic meant booking passage on a ship, a four or five day journey at best. Languages fragmented the world into distinct economic zones with very little mobility. The wealthy were, practically speaking, stuck.

Today’s wealth is a different species entirely. Equity portfolios transfer across borders in milliseconds. Intellectual property domiciles wherever the paperwork says it does. Cryptocurrency exists in a jurisdiction called “everywhere and nowhere.” A software consultant in Bali can serve the same clients as one in Boston—the work is identical, but the tax bill is not.

The kicker? Legally reducing taxes isn’t even particularly hard to execute. You don’t need to be a billionaire with Cayman Islands shell companies and Swiss banking secrecy. Senior software developers, social media consultants, and freelance designers are quickly learning that the same work product, for the same clients, can legally generate an 85% reduction in tax liability with nothing more exotic than a plane ticket and an afternoon of paperwork.

The American Disadvantage

Let’s start with the hardest case: American citizens. The US is one of only two countries on Earth that taxes based on citizenship rather than residence. Eritrea is the other, which should tell you something. This means Americans owe US taxes on their worldwide income regardless of where they live or work. Sounds airtight. It’s not.

The mechanics of American tax reduction are straightforward. Establish bona fide residence in a foreign country—meaning you live there, not just visit—and the Foreign Earned Income Exclusion shelters your first $130,0001. That’s not a deduction or a credit; it’s excluded entirely from taxable income.

But wait, you also get a housing allowance. Live somewhere expensive enough and that could be another $40,000 excluded. You haven’t done anything sophisticated yet—you’ve just moved and filled out Form 2555.

Self employed with a high income? Tack on a solo 401(k). You can contribute up to $72,000 pre-tax, in 2026. Unless you’re over the age of 50, in which case it’s a full $80,000 pre-tax deduction. High earners with more sophisticated setups can add “profit-sharing” plans to scale the deductions even higher.

Run the math: $130,000 (FEIE) + $40,000 (housing) + $72,000 (solo 401k) = $244,000 shielded from federal income tax, legally. And while still subject to Social Security and Self Employment taxes (the employer-side Social Security and Medicare matching), any decent CPA will likely get that portion down substantially by making you an employee of yourself, paying yourself a modest salary, and taking the rest as “business profits” instead of earned income.

From a beach in Bali, a consultant earning $300,000 could now pay US federal income tax on only $56,000. At a 32-35% marginal rate, that’s roughly $18,000 in US income taxes and maybe as little as $9,500 in Social Security and Self Employment taxes. On $300,000 in income. A 9% effective rate, in a country with postcard-perfect beaches, and where a penthouse apartment is $1,500 a month.

Compare that to staying in California: you’re paying 37% federal on income over $191k, plus 9.3-13.3% California state tax, plus payroll taxes, Self Employment taxes, sales taxes, and property taxes. Your effective rate on $300k is pushing 50%, or more. That’s half of your money, right off the top, for the privilege of sitting in Los Angeles traffic while burning gas at $7 a gallon.

For Americans, the system is designed to be inescapable. But inescapable is a spectrum, and the spectrum runs from 50% to 5%. That’s not a rounding error. That’s a different life.

The Everyone-Else Advantage

If you’re not American, it gets really absurd.

Most countries tax based on residence, not citizenship. Establish residence nowhere, pay taxes nowhere. This is not a loophole—it’s the explicit design of territorial tax systems encountering the reality of digital work.

The perpetual traveler strategy is beautifully simple: never stay in any country long enough to trigger tax residency. Most jurisdictions use 183 days as the threshold. Stay 180 days in Thailand, 120 days in Mexico, 65 days bouncing around the EU. You’re a tax resident of nowhere. You owe income tax to no one. Want to be really safe? Get a legal residency in an ultra-low tax jurisdiction and establish official tax residency there.

“But surely that’s illegal!” No, it’s just... how income taxes work. Countries designed their tax systems around the assumption that people live somewhere. Digital nomads do live somewhere—they live everywhere—they just don’t live there long. The systems never contemplated someone whose permanent residence fits in a laptop bag.

Your Estonian software company—which took 3 hours and €200 to incorporate online through e-Residency—bills your American clients. The revenue sits in a Wise business account, accessible from anywhere, convertible to any currency. Or register a C-Corp in Panama, where you only pay taxes on work actually conducted in Panama. So you just don’t go there. Panamanian banks are just as connected to the global banking system as any other bank.

This isn’t theory. Digital nomad communities have turned this into paint-by-numbers. Reddit forums are full of ordinary people comparing notes on visa runs, optimal country rotations, and which coworking spaces have the fastest internet. They’re not criminals. They’re responding rationally to a system that still thinks “where you work” and “where you live” are redundant questions.

The Corporate Shell Game

For those with more substantial operations, the optimization becomes trivial. Incorporate in Singapore (17% corporate tax, territorial system, global business hub). Or Ireland (12.5% corporate tax rate). Or the UAE (0% corporate tax for most activities). Or Estonia (0% on retained earnings). Or, ironically for non-Americans, Wyoming (no corporate income tax, no annual report requirements, full anonymity).

These aren’t exotic frontier zones. They’re legitimate jurisdictions with robust legal systems, actively competing for your business registration. And why wouldn’t they? Corporation registration fees, local employment, registered agent services, office leases—these generate revenue and boost local economies without requiring the corporation to pay tax on global operations or inflating the costs of local housing stock.

Your US clients pay your Irish company. Your developers work remotely from Portugal, Argentina, and the Philippines. Your servers are in AWS data centers spread across continents. The company pays Irish corporate tax on Irish-sourced income—which is minimal because the value creation happens elsewhere. The actual profits? They sit in the corporate account, undistributed, growing or reinvested back into the business. Eventually you move to somewhere low tax, establish residence, and take distributions for the rest of your life.

Every step is legal. Every step is well-documented on government websites. Every step is exactly what the respective jurisdictions intended. It’s just that no single jurisdiction designed their rules expecting them to be chained together quite this efficiently.

The Enforcement Asymmetry

The standard objection: “Can’t governments just crack down on this?”

On what, exactly? Following the law? The problem isn’t rule-breaking—it’s that the rules were written for a world where people and capital couldn’t move freely, and now they can.

Enforcement scales nonlinearly with global mobility. When wealth was a factory, you just walked in and counted the machines. When wealth is a portfolio of global equities, a crypto wallet, and IP rights to software, what exactly are you enforcing? Every enforcement mechanism requires international cooperation, and international cooperation requires every country to act against their own interest in attracting that tax base.

The OECD’s Base Erosion and Profit Shifting (BEPS) initiative and global minimum tax proposals are attempts at coordination. They’re failing for the obvious reason: coordination only works when defection isn’t profitable. Ireland isn’t going to torch its competitive advantage. Estonia isn’t going to close e-Residency. Dubai isn’t going to stop attracting digital businesses. They benefit from the capital flight, and capital will fly to whoever doesn’t coordinate on higher taxes. It only takes a few holdouts.

Meanwhile, the costs of implementing these tax optimization strategies are falling toward zero. Stripe Atlas will incorporate your company in Delaware for $500. E-Residency in Estonia is €200 and takes 72 hours. The Bank of Georgia will gladly accept your deposit and open your account online. International wire transfers are free or near-free through digital banks. Legal templates are available online. The infrastructure for optimization is now commoditized.

You’re asking governments to fight an asymmetric war against their own interests, where the attack surface is essentially infinite and defense costs scale exponentially.

The Marginal Taxpayer Problem

The one counterargument, that most people won’t move for tax reasons, is mostly true. And largely irrelevant.

Sure, people have family, friends, roots. But a flight costs a few hundred dollars, and taxes at these levels cost a hundred thousand. At a certain point, it’s cheaper to fly them to you. Or fly to them. Hell, fly private. You can afford it with all that extra money you have.

The point is, the problem is real even if most people don’t move. You only need the marginal taxpayer to move. And high earners are, definitionally, marginal in the distribution. The top 10% of households pay over 70% of the federal income taxes in the US. If even a fraction of them optimize internationally—and they represent the top-end distribution of that revenue—you’ve just blown a $300+ billion crater in the federal budget.

And here’s the thing about human behavior: people don’t move for a 2% difference. They move for a 20% difference. Tax rates operate as a step function in behavior, not a smooth curve. Most people absorb modest rate increases with grumbling. But when the gap between “stay and pay 50%” and “move and pay 5%” gets large enough, the calculus flips. And once it flips for your peers, the social cost of relocation drops to approximately zero. Your reference group isn’t the neighbors who stayed—it’s the network who left. When enough of your friends are drinking beers in Thailand, you might just find yourself transplanting your roots.

There’s a tipping point. And we’re approaching it faster than anyone in Washington, London, or Sacramento seems to realize.

The Incoherent System

Free people aren’t just captive revenue sources for the government. Short of a Berlin wall across Niagara Falls, and F-35s shooting down private jets, people are going to go where they want. If you want their tax revenue, you have to actually be the place where they want to go. That should be easy. For decades, millions of people have gladly lived in California and paid comparatively exorbitant state taxes to do so. They could have walked across the border to Nevada any time they wanted to. They didn’t, because California has a lot to offer.

The US has a lot to offer. As does the UK and the European Union. But quality of life isn’t a certification you get once that lasts forever. It’s something you have to deliver day after day, and year after year.

When people couldn’t easily up and leave, the pressure to innovate and compete on tax policy was modest. It’s not any more. Leaving is trivial now. The 20th-century model of high marginal rates funding expansive government assumes a captive tax base, or broad political consensus. Those assumptions are obsolete. The infrastructure for legal tax optimization is built, documented, and accessible to anyone with internet access and a plane ticket.

We can continue to insist that the wealthy should pay their “fair share.” We can pass laws raising rates to whatever feels satisfying. But the wealthy aren’t blindly accepting any one tax code anymore—they’re comparing Portugal’s and Panama’s. And the gap between what governments think they can extract and what they’ll actually collect is widening every year.

The tax competition isn’t some theoretical game we should start playing. We’re already in it. And we’re losing. Countries are competing for each other’s tax base whether they realize it or not. Some—Dubai, Estonia, Portugal—are competing intentionally. Others are watching capital flee and their tax bases shrink while chanting “tax the rich” at self-congratulation rallies.

10% of Americans pay 70% of the taxes. And they have passports. We might want to start thinking about what they want, and offering it to them. If we don’t, it’s the other 90% who will pay.

Either way, IQ plainly isn’t a universal score for human worth. It doesn’t measure creativity, artistry, charm, empathy, social grace, political instincts, discipline, wisdom, morality, or the ability to avoid lying to yourself. Entire categories of human excellence, and fields of professional achievement, depend on those traits, not pattern-matching under time pressure. Plenty of people with average IQ do extraordinary things; plenty of high-IQ people do nothing with it.

Subscribe now

But there are domains where IQ is brutally predictive. High scorers are more likely to earn advanced degrees, out-earn peers even controlling for education, and receive stronger on-the-job performance ratings from supervisors. They are also disproportionately responsible for patented invention. At the country level, Gelade (2008) reports a correlation of about r = 0.51 between national mean IQ and patents per million, rising to roughly r ≈ 0.64 when focusing on the top 5% alone. Whatever IQ is measuring, it maps tightly onto economically consequential output at a national scale.

Externalities

IQ is, in large part, a lottery. There’s a genetic component, for members of the lucky sperm and egg club, expressed like other complex traits: regression to the mean is real, siblings vary, and high-IQ parents can absolutely have average kids and vice versa. But all things considered, IQ does tend to run in the family like height or the size of your chin. Environment matters too—nutrition, toxins, illness, stress, and early development all have an impact. And sometimes it’s just bad luck: injuries, developmental anomalies, random setbacks. Nature is unevenly distributed.

By early adolescence, IQ is fairly stable. We can improve test performance through familiarity, coaching, and reduced anxiety, but the evidence for large, durable shifts in underlying capability is thin. In other words: we can’t count on “teaching IQ upward” at scale.

So the rational goal of public education isn’t to pretend everyone will end up equally capable. It’s to maximize real-world competence across the whole distribution, and to fully develop the high-end tail that produces outsized spillovers. These externalities—growth, invention, tax base, civic stability—are why society pays the bill.

But if that’s our goal, we’re doing a lousy job of it.

Our Education Priorities

America spends an enormous amount on K–12 public education—on the order of a trillion a year. In 2020–21, total US public elementary and secondary school expenditures were about $927B1. But “total spending” is the wrong headline, because the distribution is wildly uneven.

Take special education. Using district finance data from 24 states (covering ~41% of special-needs students), Bellwether found districts spent $38.8B on special education in FY20202. Scale that to the whole country and you’re quickly in the $90–100B neighborhood. And this is not discretionary: federal law (IDEA) requires schools to provide a “free, appropriate public education” to all students with disabilities, whatever the cost. In this case, “whatever the cost” is about $13,127 in dedicated spending per identified student.

Compare that to gifted education—the pipeline for the future engineers, founders, inventors, and scientists that our current social contract depends upon. There is no federal mandate to identify gifted students or serve them consistently; definitions and access vary by state. Worse, exactly zero federal agencies comprehensively track gifted-education expenditures, which itself hints at the lower priority and funding. At the federal level, the sole dedicated program is the Jacob K. Javits Gifted and Talented program—funded at just $16.5 million per year, nationwide. This minuscule amount (roughly 0.02% of the U.S. K‑12 federal education budget) allocates only $2.50–$4.00 for each gifted student in the country. Would you like fries with that?

Major Delay

When most people criticize the out-of-control costs of higher education, they’re focusing on the tuition, the student loan interest, and the depressingly low ROI between the cost of most degrees and the relative impact on career earnings. College is expensive. But the real cost is time.

The average student actually completes their four-year degree in five. That’s five years of forgone earnings. Five years of missed promotions, raises, and job experience. It’s five years of accumulated debt, instead of 401(k) contributions. And the compounding is immense.

They’re not giving up the first five years of income, they’ll still have to go through those. It’s the loss of the last five that they’re sacrificing. The highest paid, most senior, and most experienced years of a career. And since high-IQ students are most likely to obtain advanced degrees, often over as many as 8-12 years of post-secondary education, it’s also our most innovative and economically productive students whose productive years we’re maximally sacrificing at the altar of one-speed schools.

What if our most academically gifted students, the top 5-10%, were offered accelerated classes, instead. Classes whose pace was specifically tuned to their learning rate. If course material was covered at even a 25% faster rate, 1.25 grade levels per year, these students would complete their K-12 education by age 15. They’d complete an undergraduate degree in about the same amount of time as it takes for a traditional high school diploma, all with public funding. And it’s quite likely that the engagement rates would be markedly higher. Believe it or not, it’s painfully boring to sit in a public school classroom and listen to a teacher patiently repeat things that you already know to kids who aren’t interested anyway.

Most importantly, they’d enter their careers years earlier, and with far less debt. This isn’t just a personal boon for the already-privileged. These are the students who are most likely to cure cancer, send space probes to Proxima Centauri, develop breakthroughs in clean energy, in longevity, and in climate management. Whatever Herculean task you see before the human race, there’s a very high likelihood that the people who solve it will come from this particular subset of the population. And, these are the ones disproportionately bearing the tax load and funding the social programs we use to bridge the gap until we solve our biggest societal challenges.

Graduating Class

Education isn’t only an economic machine. Schools socialize kids. They function as childcare for working parents. For many students they’re a reliable source of meals, structure, and stable adult relationships—including mandated reporters when things go wrong at home. All true.

But none of that makes it irrational to differentiate instruction for high-aptitude students. We already accept differentiated schooling as normal when it’s framed as a need: special education, IEPs, individualized accommodations, specialized staffing. The principle is established. The controversy is selective.

In practice, “equity” objections often backfire. The kids who most need school as a ladder—capable students from low-income families—are the ones most likely to be left in a one-speed classroom. Affluent families simply opt out: private schools, tutors, test prep, enriched environments, and the Ivy League conveyor belt. If you want accelerated education to be less elitist, you provide it publicly and at scale.

And it doesn’t require doubling budgets. Most acceleration is pacing and grouping, not exotic content—at least until later in high school. Magnet schools already prove the model works; most states already have gifted programs, just inconsistent, under-resourced, and politically timid. You don’t need a new system. You need permission to take mastery seriously.

The bigger point is macro: we can’t math our way out of debt and entitlement pressure by redistributing a stagnant pie. We need faster growth. That means either more labor input—more hours, higher taxes—or more output per hour via innovation. If public education is justified by its externalities, then starving the cohort most likely to generate those externalities is self-sabotage and malinvestment. And if individualized education is a moral necessity for one tail of the distribution, it’s hard to argue it’s immoral for the other.

The establishment narrative is predictable: an unelected central bank must remain free from political pressure to maintain credibility and prevent monetary chaos. Long live the Technocrats. The populist response is equally cliché: unelected bureaucrats shouldn’t control the economy; elected officials should set policy that helps workers, not Wall Street.

Performative messaging that’s more aligned than either would admit. Neither is asking the question that actually matters: why is the price of money set by a Politburo committee vote at all?

Subscribe now

The Independence That Never Was

If you need evidence that Fed independence is theater, you don’t need to speculate about smoke-filled rooms or scry the FOMC minutes. You can just listen to the tapes. August 1971. Richard Nixon is facing reelection with inflation rising and growth slowing. He calls Fed Chairman Arthur Burns to Camp David. We have the recordings. Nixon isn’t subtle: “We’ll take care of you if you help us out.” Burns, according to his own diary entries published years later, knew exactly what was being asked. He understood that accommodative monetary policy would help Nixon’s campaign, at the cost of fueling significant inflation. In any conventional sense, the economic alarm signals were already blaring. He lowered rates anyway.

The Fed maintained this politically accommodative posture through 1972. Nixon won his reelection in a landslide. Inflation hit 11% by 1974, rivaling even the “transitory” Bidenomics. This isn’t ancient history or partisan conspiracy theory. These are Burns’s own words, recorded in real time, published after his death. The independence was fiction all along. The political influence was explicit.

But here’s what makes the Burns example so devastating: he’s retroactively cited as a cautionary tale about maintaining Fed independence; a warning about what happens when central bankers bend to political pressure. The lesson supposedly learned was that we needed more independence, stronger protections, better institutional safeguards.

Then came Paul Volcker, the supposed hero of Fed independence and the administrative-state wing of the left. Carter appointed him in 1979 with explicit instructions to break inflation. Volcker delivered—raising rates to 20% in the process, triggering a brutal recession, and accepting the political blame.

Then Reagan kept him in the role. Not because he couldn’t be removed, but because he couldn’t be promoted any further. You don’t dismiss the guy taking the heat for the painful medicine the economy needed. Volcker’s “independence” was actually perfect cover for pure bipartisan alignment: both administrations wanted the same outcome, they just preferred for the Fed to absorb the political cost. If these are examples of Fed independence—one where the chairman admits in his diary he caved to pressure, and another where “independence” meant doing exactly what both parties wanted—then independence has never existed. Which, of course, it hasn’t. The current outrage over Trump and Powell isn’t about some sacred norm being violated. It’s about whose team gets to run the machinery.

The Counter-Cyclical Con

The entire justification for central bank intervention rests on an argument for counter-cyclical policy: markets panic, the Fed steps in as the lender of last resort, stability returns, crisis averted. It’s the adult supervision theory of monetary policy—that markets are emotional children who need timeouts during tantrums.

But, if this theory is accurate, the Fed shouldn’t be printing money with presses, they should be printing money with trades. They’re buying assets when everyone else is panicking—stepping in as a price floor, definitionally at the bottom. They’re selling, or allowing their balance sheet to contract, when markets stabilize—exiting near the top to curtail irrational exuberance. They have perfect timing by design. Every crisis becomes an opportunity to buy low. Every recovery becomes an opportunity to sell high. If counter-cyclical intervention is stabilizing rather than distorting, profits aren’t the objective—but they should still be the inevitable side effect.

So where are the returns?

The Fed’s balance sheet expanded from under $1 trillion before 2008 to over $9 trillion at its peak. Some of this expansion fits the counter-cyclical story: nearly $2T in mortgage-backed securities bought during the 2008 panic, at fire-sale prices when liquidity had vanished. When markets normalized and default risk evaporated, those positions should have generated spectacular returns.

Instead, the Fed remits roughly $100 billion to Treasury in good years and currently operates at similar levels of loss. How? Because alongside those crisis purchases, they bought $6T in treasuries during QE programs—not during panics, but during expansions when yields were already near-zero. They paid peak prices for bonds during boom times. When Biden-era inflation pushed rates to high-single digits, those bonds crashed in value.

Counter-cyclical intervention means buying the panic and selling the recovery. The Fed bought the panic once, then bought the boom repeatedly, and held everything through the next crash.

The Fed has unlimited capital, perfect timing, zero competition, and gets to set the interest rates for the entire market, all while presumably buying bottoms and allegedly selling tops. They should be generating returns that make every hedge fund manager green with envy; profits which should flow back to Treasury. Instead they’re underperforming your savings account.

Adult supervision? This is a bottle of bourbon and a book of matches.

Three possibilities explain this, and none are reassuring.

If the Fed were genuinely stabilizing markets—buying during panics, unwinding into strength—profits would be the natural byproduct. More importantly, those exits would be deflationary: pulling liquidity out when the economy can absorb it, remitting gains to Treasury, shrinking the money supply during recoveries. That’s what “counter-cyclical” actually means. But the balance sheet only ratchets upward. They buy during crises and buy again during recoveries. The unwind never comes.

So either they’re incompetent—genuinely trying to stabilize but failing despite unlimited capital and perfect timing. Or they’re not trying to stabilize at all—they’re subsidizing—preventing price discovery, backstopping bad bets so connected institutions never face consequences for their failures, and socializing the losses through inflation. Or the simplest explanation: they were never independent in the first place. The Fed isn’t stabilizing markets; it’s financing government deficits that no one will vote to fund honestly, and intervening in private markets in whatever way is politically expedient.

Pick whichever you find least disturbing. All three arrive at the same place: what we call Fed open market activities are the systematic transfer of purchasing power from people who earn wages to people who own assets—and to a government that long ago gave up on using taxes as a budget for what it spends.

How Markets Actually Set Prices

In reality, the federal funds rate isn’t a policy tool. It’s a price control. We just use fancier language because admitting we’re running Soviet-style central planning for the most important price in capitalism would be embarrassing.

Interest rates set in an actual market—without a committee—work differently. When capital is scarce, borrowers compete for funds. Suppose there are 100 profitable projects requiring $10 million each, but only $500 million in available savings. Borrowers have to outbid each other, offering higher returns to attract the limited capital. Interest rates rise to, say, 12%. This high rate does two things: it attracts more savings (people defer consumption when returns are attractive) and eliminates marginal projects (only the most profitable ventures can justify 12% borrowing costs). Eventually, more savings arrive and less-profitable projects drop out until supply and demand balance—maybe at $700 million in available capital and 70 funded projects.

When capital is abundant, the dynamic reverses. Few profitable projects, lots of available savings. Lenders compete to deploy funds, offering lower and lower rates to attract borrowers that meet even minimal standards. Interest rates fall to, say, 3%. This encourages more borrowing (projects that couldn’t justify 12% suddenly pencil at 3%) and discourages excessive saving (why defer consumption for 3% returns?). The system self-corrects until supply and demand equilibrate.

The Fed short-circuits this entire mechanism. When they hold rates at zero during a boom, they’re telling savers “your capital isn’t wanted” while telling borrowers “borrow freely.” Both signals are false and distortionary. Capital is wanted—there are profitable projects—but savers can’t earn returns that justify deferring consumption. Meanwhile, borrowers fund projects that only work at artificial rates, which fail spectacularly when rates eventually normalize.

When the government controls bread prices, we get bread lines. When it controls labor prices, we get unemployment. When it controls the price of capital itself, we get exactly what we have: permanent financial instability masked as professional management.

The Cost of Money

You might be thinking this is an abstract debate about institutional design. It’s not. The Fed’s political capture creates specific, predictable distortions that show up everywhere you look.

When the Fed holds interest rates below the real market rates to help the Treasury service its debt, several things happen simultaneously—not as side effects, but as necessary mathematical consequences of suppressing the price of capital.

First, asset prices inflate. When borrowing costs 2% but productive investments return 6%, the gap gets arbitraged instantly. Investors borrow cheap money to buy anything that generates returns—stocks, real estate, commodities. We get an “everything bubble”. Asset owners see their net worth inflate automatically through this artificially generated buying demand. Their houses appreciate. Their portfolios grow.

Meanwhile, wage growth stays anchored to the supply and demand of real labor. Your salary increases with your productive output relative to the market, not with monetary expansion. The result is a growing gap between asset prices and incomes—one of the fundamental reasons 30-year-olds can’t afford the homes their parents bought at the same age. It’s not that houses got better or more scarce. It’s that asset prices inflated faster than the wages needed to buy them.

This creates the second-order effects you experience as permanent financial anxiety: Saving feels pointless when your “high-yield” account pays 3% while real assets inflate at 6-10% and you lose 4% to inflation. You’re getting poorer by being responsible. Homeownership becomes impossible when down payments require a decade of saving but prices rise 5% annually—you’re perpetually behind. Starting a family becomes a luxury good when housing costs are tied to inflated asset prices rather than wages.

The twenty-two-year-old starting her first job looks at this math and makes a perfectly rational decision: why save? The interest earned won’t keep pace with the asset inflation she’s trying to catch. Why have kids? She can’t afford housing stable enough to raise them in. She’s not being irresponsible or entitled. And she hasn’t suddenly reengineered a million years of evolutionary hardwiring. She’s responding rationally to the market signals being artificially broadcast by the Fed: the market doesn’t need your savings, it needs your spending.

This is why fertility rates are collapsing, why multigenerational households are returning, why Social Security faces insolvency as the wage base shrinks relative to obligations. Why more and more Americans are dependent on entitlement programs and state assistance, while the stock market is at all time highs. These aren’t separate problems requiring separate solutions. They’re all downstream consequences of the same cause: systematic suppression of politically driven interest rates, rather than market-discovered ones.

When you manipulate the price of capital—the foundational price on which every other economic decision rests—you don’t get isolated effects. You get cascading distortions that reshape the entire economy. The Fed’s political capture isn’t an abstract governance concern. It’s the mechanism converting your productivity into someone else’s asset appreciation while you pay higher grocery bills and wonder why you can’t get ahead.

And the worst part: the system isn’t broken. It’s working exactly as designed—it just wasn’t designed for you.

Exit Through the Gift Shop

The outrage over Trump and the Fed is cosplay. Both sides want the institution—they just want their team to run it. Democrats want technocratic PhD economists who read Bloomberg. Republicans want business-savvy appointees who read the Wall Street Journal. Neither wants to acknowledge that the political capture isn’t a bug—it’s what happens when you concentrate control over the most important price in the economy into a single, politically-appointed committee.

But here’s the thing: you should want the institution too. The Fed’s defenders have a coherent story. Markets panic. Liquidity freezes. A lender of last resort steps in, buys assets no one else will touch, injects liquidity, prevents contagion, and sells once calm returns. It’s not a crazy theory. Private market makers do exactly this and turn a profit. The function is legitimate.

So let’s take them at their word. If the Fed is genuinely providing independent, counter-cyclical stability—buying when markets are irrationally depressed and selling when they recover—there’s a simple way to prove it: show us the returns.

An institutional stabilizer buying genuinely undervalued assets during real market dysfunction would generate profits that no private investor could hope to match. Buy low, sell high, remit the gains to Treasury, repeat. That’s the model. That’s what “lender of last resort” should look like on a balance sheet.

Instead, we get billions in losses and a “deferred asset” that’s really just an IOU from future inflation. We get a Fed that bought trillions in MBS at crisis prices, watched default rates come in far below panic pricing, and somehow can’t turn a profit. We get an institution that sets both the rate it earns and the rate it pays—and still loses money.

The math doesn’t lie. If you’re buying low and selling high, profits are the natural byproduct. Not because profit is the goal—it’s not—but because if you’re losing money, you’re not stabilizing markets, you’re subsidizing them.

The Fed’s problem isn’t independence or governance or who sits on the board. The problem is they never exit. A genuine stabilizer would be in and out—crisis buyer, recovery seller. The Fed is a financial Hotel California. Assets go in. They never leave. And the bill for that asymmetry lands on everyone in the form of inflation, which the Fed then steps in to manage.

So here’s the test, simple enough that even Congress could understand it: generate market-rate returns on your crisis interventions, or admit you’re running a regressive subsidy program for asset owners funded through currency debasement.

The politics of money will continue as long as decisions are scored only by the crises that didn’t happen. Anyone can claim credit for preventing things that never occurred—there is no upper bound on imaginary counterfactuals. The real proof of a well-functioning Fed is simple: buy the crash, get out cleanly, return profits to the Treasury, and don’t create the inflation you claim to prevent.

Want to fix the Fed? Make them exit through the gift shop like everyone else. The profits—or their absence—tell us everything we need to know.

But set that aside. It’s unimportant. It would be inhumane to do anything other than to take from workers and give to people who have had sixty-plus years to build and plan their lives.

The real question we should be asking is: are we doing it well?

Subscribe now

The Backwards Logic of Inter-Generational Transfers

Social Security’s “Old Age & Survivors Insurance” (OASI) operates on a premise so backwards that were it a private company, it would be illegal. The money paid in is always paid right back out to people higher up on the pyramid. And the problem, as is the case with all pyramid schemes, is that you always need another, larger generation to follow. And we’re running out of those.

In 1950, there were 16.5 workers per retiree. Today it’s 2.7. By 2036, it will be 2.3. The math doesn’t get better from there. It gets worse, because we’ve spent the last fifty years systematically preventing the next generation from forming families by confiscating the capital they’d need to do so.

The system was designed for a population pyramid that no longer exists. When Social Security launched, life expectancy at birth was 61 and retirement age was 65. Today, life expectancy is 78. People collect for thirteen years on average, often longer. So we have more retirees, living for longer, with fewer relative workers in each subsequent generation. The actuarial assumptions that made the system remotely workable have been obsolete for decades.

But we don’t talk about this honestly, because every single part is radioactive to someone. Saying we need a higher birthrate is undermining women’s choice. Saying the system needs major reform is violating the social agreement with current retirees. And besides, nobody wants to take Grandma’s pension. Or piss off AARP’s lobbyists.

The Reform That Isn’t

But let’s talk about reform. Means-testing is the one that everyone loves because it sounds reasonable: why should we send checks to millionaires? If Warren Buffett doesn’t need Social Security, why are we paying him?

Fair question. Let’s run the numbers.

Even if you zeroed out benefits for the “wealthy” retirees—pick your cutoff, call it $1M in assets if you want—the savings are a slice, not a solution. You’re trimming at the margins of a $1.3 trillion program. Best case you buy yourself time. You don’t change the underlying math, you just slow the rate at which it blows up.

But unfortunately, means-testing doesn’t just fail to solve the problem—it actually makes it worse. In a means-tested program, we’ll have created a system where a lifetime of saving and investing gets you... nothing. The couple who scrimped and invested and built their way to $1.2 million gets zero benefits. Their neighbors who spent everything and arrived at retirement with $400,000 get full benefits.

You’ve just turned Social Security into a tax on responsibility. Save for retirement? Congratulations, you lose your benefits. Spend everything? Don’t worry, we’ll take care of you. The incentive structure is precisely backwards.

And here’s the awkward bit: those “wealthy retirees” we’re means-testing? They paid in the same 12.4% for forty years. Except now they get nothing back because they committed the sin of being financially responsible. That’s not a retirement program anymore—it’s punitive.

But this reveals the deeper problem. Whatever reform we discuss—means-testing, raising the retirement age, increasing payroll taxes—accepts the fundamental premise: we should confiscate money from young workers and transfer it to old retirees. We’re just arguing about the details.

What if the premise itself is wrong?

What If We’re Doing It Backwards?

Here’s a thought experiment: what if instead of confiscating money from twenty-five-year-olds to give to seventy-year-olds, we did the opposite?

Contribute to a trust account from birth to age 25. At current Social Security spending levels, that’s roughly $12,500 a year1. Compound at market rates. At 25, the account pays out approximately $685,0002. That’s your retirement stake. No more entitlement promises. You’re done.

Take that $685,000 and use $100,000 for a 20% downpayment on a house. Pay off your student loans with another $100,000. Invest the remaining $485,000. By retirement at 65, that $485,000 becomes $5 million at 6% real returns. The house doubles to $1,000,000 or more. The mortgage gets paid off at 55, freeing up $2,400 monthly that you invest for the final decade—another $400,000. Add in $500 a month in extra savings from eliminating the student loans, which by retirement has compounded to an additional $900,000. Total savings at retirement: $6.3 million. Plus a paid-off, million-dollar house. So, $7.3 million, including the home. Regardless of what you choose to do for a living.

Compare that to current reality: confiscate 12.4% of income for forty years, manage it at 2% real returns, deliver roughly $500,000 in present value through monthly checks in old age. And you’re still making mortgage and student loan payments in your 70s.

The differential isn’t close. Front-loading the capital delivers 14 times the wealth. And that’s before accounting for the lifetime of economic stability, earlier family formation, and actual independence that capital ownership enables.

This isn’t theory. It’s compound interest. The difference between giving someone capital at 25 versus 65 is the difference between forty years of compounding and zero years of compounding. It’s the difference between building wealth and destroying it.

So why are we destroying wealth?

The System Needs You Poor

Because a twenty-five-year-old with $685,000 is disruptive.

Not to themselves. To everything built around the assumption that most people won’t have capital until they’re old—if they ever do. A population with real assets at 25 doesn’t need politicians promising to “protect” their retirement. They don’t need AARP lobbyists to fight over benefit formulas. They don’t need a lifetime of payroll withholding as the price of not becoming destitute. They’re economically harder to corner. They have options. And options are the one thing institutions never voluntarily hand out.

That’s the part nobody says plainly: the current system doesn’t just fail to create wealth—it delays it past the window when it matters. It takes money out of the exact years when compounding turns a small edge into independence, and redirects it into consumption at the end of life. Same burden. Worse timing. Worse outcomes. It’s not that Social Security administrators can’t do the math. It’s that the math isn’t the only thing being optimized.

AARP is a massive political force because retirement dependence is a massive political constituency. When people are living check-to-check at 70, “protect Social Security” is a credible promise and a powerful lever. When people have capital instead of dependency, that lever weakens. The politics changes. The bargaining power changes. “Vote for me or your check gets cut” stops working when the check is no longer your lifeline.

And it’s not just politics. Whole sectors are adapted to a world where people rent longer, carry mortgages longer, and can’t risk walking away from a job. Financial products, HR policies, even workplace culture—everything assumes most workers need the next paycheck more than they need dignity. Give people capital early and you change behavior: less desperation, more mobility, more entrepreneurship, more willingness to say no.

None of this requires a smoky-room conspiracy. It’s path dependence and incentives. We built an economy around delayed ownership. A system that front-loads capital doesn’t just improve retirement. It rewires the leverage structure of American life. That’s why it’s not on the menu.

On Responsibility

Somewhere a Boomer is having a heart attack while reading this. “But they’ll squander it! We can’t trust a 25-year old with that much money!” Right. We can trust them to vote, buy a gun, drink alcohol, drive, join the military, and take on a quarter-million in student loan debt for a gender-studies degree, but you’re right, we can’t trust them with capital. They’ll squander it. Unlike the alternative, where the government squanders it before they even have a chance. Unlike the status quo, where birthrates are collapsing and there aren’t enough workers to cover retirees and the program hits reserve depletion in 2033. So very unlike the government’s deficit spending, and currency debasement, and fiscal doom loop, all managed into the ground by our wise, octogenarian elders.

You know what? I’ll take my chances on the kids.

The Transition

The mechanics aren’t complex. New workers get trust accounts from birth. The 12.4% payroll tax (plus employer matching) that currently funds Social Security gets redirected into those accounts instead. Contribute $12,500 annually for 25 years, compound at market rates, pay out at 25. Same tax burden for employers and employees. Different destination. 14x better outcome.

The real question is what we do with current retirees and current workers. And here’s the thing everyone misses: we’re already planning to spend this money.

Social Security isn’t some optional program we might fund if the budget allows. It’s a legal obligation to both current retirees and everyone who’s been paying in. We’re on the hook for those dollars whether we reform the system or not. The transition just changes the timing—we pay current retirees what we promised them while simultaneously capitalizing the next generation’s accounts.

Yes, for one generation you’re double-paying. That’s the cost of getting out of a pyramid scheme without defaulting on our promises. But we were always going to spend those dollars. The alternative is pretending the current system is sustainable when we know it hits reserve depletion in under a decade. At that point we either break promises to retirees, massively raise taxes on workers, or borrow even more. Pick your poison—they’re all more expensive than an honest transition.

Some modest reforms help during the crossover: phase in means-testing between $1-5M in assets, modestly raise retirement age for those 15+ years out, gradually trim benefit growth rates. These buy time and reduce the double-payment burden without breaking faith with people who planned around current rules.

The math is manageable because the expensive part is temporary. Current retirees age out. Once the transition completes, you’re funding $1.3 trillion in trust accounts instead of $1.3 trillion in benefit payments—but now you’re building actual wealth instead of perpetual dependency. Same cost, 14x better outcome, and a system that doesn’t require exponential population growth to stay solvent.

We’re going to spend the money either way. The only question is whether we keep pouring it into a demonstrably failing pyramid scheme, or redirect it toward something that actually works.

Here’s what nobody wants to say out loud: English is where the money is. Practically all of it. The world’s wealth doesn’t just correlate with English—it concentrates there with unsympathetic absolutism. The ten largest economies on Earth control over 60% of global GDP, and they’re either English-speaking or their business elites are English-fluent because they’d be economically irrelevant otherwise. The United States alone commands $27.7 trillion in annual output. Add the UK, Canada, and Australia and you’ve got another $6 trillion. Germany? Japan? Singapore? Their executives negotiate in English because that’s where the deals happen.

Subscribe now

This isn’t cultural preference. It’s not historical accident. It’s network effects operating at civilizational scale, and we all understand exactly how this works when we’re evaluating tech companies. Metcalfe’s Law: a network’s value grows proportional to the square of its users. Facebook isn’t worth hundreds of billions because it’s technically superior—it’s valuable because everyone’s already there, which makes everyone else join, which makes it more valuable, which makes more people join. It’s a self-reinforcing monopoly that becomes nearly impossible to breach once it achieves critical mass.

English hit that critical mass in global commerce at least fifty years ago, and the gap has only widened. Roughly 1.5 billion people speak English well enough to do international business. But the raw count understates the dominance. Between 67% and 80% of international business communication happens in English. Half of all website content is in English—more than the next ten languages combined. When you need to learn something technical, read cutting-edge research, or access global markets, the information exists in English or it likely doesn’t exist at all.

So here’s the question that breaks everyone’s brain: if joining this network would materially improve the lives of billions of people, and if the barrier to entry has collapsed to basically zero, why does suggesting they do it sound like something a xenophobe would say?

The Inversion

We’ve been trained to hear “foreigners should learn English” as advocacy for Americans at everyone else’s expense. But the economics run in the exact opposite direction, which is precisely why the people who would benefit most never hear this advice from anyone with a platform.

When that programmer in Ho Chi Minh City learns English, he doesn’t help Silicon Valley—he competes with it. Suddenly he can bid directly on international contracts, read technical documentation the day it’s published, collaborate in real-time with global teams, and bypass every local middleman who previously controlled his access to foreign clients. The American programmer who used to command $150/hour because he was one of the few people who could communicate with international clients? He’s now competing with someone equally talented charging $60/hour.

When that entrepreneur in Lagos becomes fluent, he doesn’t strengthen London’s economy—he threatens it. He can now pitch to Sand Hill Road directly, read the same business publications as his competitors, build relationships with foreign partners without translators, and access global supply chains without paying someone else to handle the interface. Every capability he gains is someone else’s rent-seeking opportunity eliminated.

If this were actually imperialism serving the interests of English-speaking nations, native speakers would be the primary beneficiaries. Instead, they’re the ones facing new competition from people who were previously locked out by language barriers. This is one of the vanishingly rare mechanisms by which someone born without advantages can compete directly with someone born into them—and the people who already have those advantages are fighting like hell to make sure nobody talks about it.

The Free Lunch

Here’s what makes this absolutely infuriating: English acquisition has never been cheaper or more accessible. Twenty years ago, learning English required expensive international schools, study abroad programs, or at minimum, imported textbooks and qualified teachers. Today it requires a smartphone.

Duolingo is free. YouTube hosts millions of hours of professional English instruction. AI tutors provide personalized practice at zero cost. Online communities connect learners with native speakers instantly. The barriers that once made English education an elite luxury have collapsed to next to nothing.

This is the only major economic advantage in human history that requires no natural resources, no infrastructure, no capital, no political connections, and absolutely no permission from gatekeepers. Singapore needed a deepwater port. Norway needed oil. Switzerland needed centuries of institutional stability. English requires none of that. It’s pure return on human capital investment, and the investment costs nothing but time and effort.

For any government remotely serious about economic development, universal English education should be the easiest policy win imaginable. The ROI dwarfs infrastructure spending, industrial policy, or trade negotiations. The barriers to entry have never been lower. The benefits compound over lifetimes. It doesn’t require betting on specific industries that might become obsolete or building physical infrastructure that depreciates and deteriorates.

Yet walk into a public school in Manila, Jakarta, or Lagos and you’ll find minimal English instruction. Meanwhile, the elite private schools in those same cities? Fully English-immersive, because the children of the powerful need to be globally competitive. Everyone else can stay linguistically trapped in domestic markets, dependent on those same elites to mediate their access to the global economy.

This isn’t an oversight. It’s a competitive advantage.

The Globalist Con

But the real villains—the ones whose hypocrisy reveals the whole rotten game—are the globalists who claim to want exactly what English would enable, then fight tooth and nail to prevent anyone from saying so out loud.

These are the people who advocate for:

• Borderless labor markets

• International cooperation on climate, health, and finance

• Multinational governance structures

• Universal human rights transcending national boundaries

• Breaking down barriers between peoples

And then they turn around and oppose the single most effective mechanism for achieving any of it: a shared, global language.

You want global labor markets? Workers need to speak the language those markets operate in. You want international cooperation? That requires eliminating communication barriers, not hiring armies of translators. You want ideas to flow across borders? They need to flow in a language everyone can access. You want democracy and transparency? Populations need to be able to read primary sources, not depend on elite intermediaries to tell them what documents say.

The EU spends over €1 billion annually on translation services. The UN burns hundreds of millions more. Multinational corporations waste uncounted billions on cross-language documentation. These aren’t investments in cooperation—they’re transaction costs that exist purely because we pretend linguistic fragmentation is somehow a feature rather than a bug. That €1 billion could fund scholarships, infrastructure, or research. Instead it pays for the privilege of disenfranchisement.

Meanwhile—and here’s where the mask slips completely—the people staffing these institutions already operate in a de facto English-only environment. Davos? Conducted in English. International finance? English. Academic publishing? Ninety percent English in STEM fields. Tech companies? English. Even the UN officials negotiating in six official languages do their actual work in English, then hire translators to maintain the fiction of multilateralism.

When you suggest that maybe, just maybe, we should make the coordination mechanism available to everyone instead of restricting it to elites, they call you a cultural imperialist. When you point out that linguistic barriers primarily benefit rent-seekers and gatekeepers, they invoke colonialism—as if the historical origins of English dominance somehow change whether learning it today benefits the learner.

The tell is in who benefits from the current arrangement. Not the workers locked in domestic markets earning a fraction of what they could in global ones. Not the entrepreneurs who can’t access international capital. Not the students who can’t read the latest research in their fields. The beneficiaries are the people who profit from mediating access—the consultants, the translators, the corporate bureaucrats, the local elites, and the international institutions whose entire business model depends on linguistic fragmentation creating the problems they then get paid to “solve.”

The Stakes

The Tower of Babel fragmented humanity’s language and scattered us across the earth. Whether you read that as theology or metaphor, the economic reality is that linguistic barriers function as coordination costs that make everyone poorer. The difference is that Babel’s curse was supposedly imposed from above. Ours is self-imposed.

We have free global communication infrastructure. We have unlimited educational resources. We have AI tutors available to anyone with a smartphone. The barriers that remain exist because certain people profit from maintaining them, and they’ve convinced everyone else that dismantling those barriers would somehow be oppression.

Meanwhile, the wealth concentrates in English all the same. The opportunities flow to English speakers. The knowledge accumulates in English. And billions of people remain locked out—not because they lack capability, but because the people who could help them access the network profit more from their exclusion.

So yes, foreigners should learn English. Not because English is superior, not because other languages don’t matter, not because anyone should abandon their native tongue. But because English is where the money is, access is free, and permission is not required. The network exists. You can join it or you can stay dependent on people who profit from your isolation.

Your racist uncle stumbled onto this truth accidentally while being wrong about everything else. The tragedy is that the people who claim to oppose everything he stands for are working overtime to ensure he stays accidentally correct, because admitting the economic reality would require acknowledging that some barriers aren’t imposed from outside—they’re maintained from within by people who benefit from them.

The math doesn’t care about your politics. English concentrates wealth. The barrier to entry has collapsed. And the only question is whether we want everyone to join the network, or will use “colonial history” as an excuse to keep them out.

Subscribe now

The Basket Case

The Consumer Price Index operates on a simple premise: track the cost of things people buy regularly, weight them by importance, compare them with last year, and you've captured a close approximation of real household inflation. Rent, food, transportation, energy, medical care—the stuff of daily life gets measured with admirable rigor. But household budgets aren't just consumption engines. At least, they're not supposed to be. Crack open any personal finance book and you'll be told time and again that you should be investing for retirement, squirreling away for a rainy day, and saving up for the down payment on a home. None of which shows up in CPI. In fact, the government treats these activities as net-neutral from an inflationary standpoint. They're not, though.

There's a bigger issue. Actual inflation—the way you probably think of it, how far your dollar stretches from one year to the next—is really three different kinds of inflation. If there aren’t enough things available to buy, like when supply chains grind to a halt during a pandemic, you get supply-side inflation. If everyone's preferences for what they want to buy changes suddenly, like with electric cars or homes with a work-from-home office, you get demand-side inflation. Both are set by the market; these are the ones you can blame on capitalism. But there's a third, devious kind of inflation, and it's not a market issue: monetary inflation. When government creates money faster than the economy creates value, that excess has to show up somewhere.

The Mathematics of Monetary Debasement

The United States is currently running deficits that add 7-9% to the money supply annually while achieving roughly 2% real economic growth. That leaves 6% of monetary inflation that needs to be accounted for somewhere. Official CPI claims 2.9%. Most households feel their actual consumption costs rising closer to 4% annually when they factor in shrinkflation, quality deterioration, and the groceries they actually buy rather than the statistical basket. But even acknowledging these costs, which don't show up in inflation numbers at all, we're still left with several percentage points unaccounted for—inflation that's not missing, just hiding in places the CPI doesn't look.

Predominantly, that place is: asset prices. When your dollar loses 6% of its purchasing power annually but only 2.9% shows up in consumer goods, the remaining 3% gets absorbed by everything else: stocks, real estate, collectibles, cryptocurrency, art, gold, and any store of value that can't be easily produced. Economists don't call this "inflation," they call it "asset appreciation." If you're wealthy, you experience it as portfolio gains, at least nominally. But for 90% of Americans, some 300,000,000 people, they experience it as something else entirely. Retirement anxiety, down payments they can never quite afford, and decades on the financial treadmill of keeping up without ever getting ahead.

This isn't academic hairsplitting. It's the difference between measuring the cost of living and the cost of living well.

The Asset Accumulation Penalty

The systematic problem emerges when you try to follow conventional financial advice in an era of asset inflation. You save 15% of your income for retirement, ideally in index funds that track the broad market. But each dollar of that 15% buys you a smaller ownership share of the economy every year. You're working the same hours, producing value with more experience, but able to afford fewer assets—the things that build and preserve wealth. Your account balance grows in dollars while the purchasing power of those dollars declines and your share of the pie shrinks.

The same dynamic plays out everywhere asset accumulation matters. Down payment goals that seemed achievable become moving targets. Emergency funds lose purchasing power as fast as you can build them. Every financial milestone requires more dollars to reach the same effective result.

This isn't financial illiteracy or a lack of discipline—it's the math of monetary inflation, when asset prices inflate faster than wages tied to CPI.

The Systematic Wealth Transfer

What we're witnessing is a massive, ongoing transfer of wealth from wage earners to asset owners. Those who already own stocks, real estate, and other appreciating assets see their net worth inflate automatically. Those dependent on wages—even professional wages—find themselves systematically falling behind in asset ownership.

The middle class gets caught in a particularly vicious trap. They earn too much to qualify for most government assistance but not enough to easily accumulate assets at their inflated prices. They're paying consumption inflation on their daily expenses while facing asset inflation on their long-term investments, while paying taxes to the same government whose deficit spending causes this very problem.

Meanwhile, the measurement system tells them everything is fine. CPI says inflation is manageable. Wage growth statistics suggest they're keeping pace. But their lived experience—feeling financially squeezed despite nominal income increases—tells a different story, and it's right.

The Missing Inflation

The Bureau of Labor Statistics isn't lying about CPI, but they're measuring the wrong thing. Consumer price inflation captures what it costs to maintain your current consumption, but it doesn't represent how many more dollars you actually need to achieve the same financial security as the generation before you.

When Jerome Powell announces that inflation is "under control," he's technically correct about grocery prices. But the math reveals a different story. If we measured inflation honestly—including the cost of building wealth, not just maintaining consumption—the number would be closer to 8% annually. That's the rate at which your dollars are losing purchasing power for the things that actually matter: your retirement account, buying a home, saving for your kids' college funds, and having enough set aside to handle the next economic downturn.

This has profound implications for wage negotiations, investment planning, and retirement projections. Workers asking for 3% raises are requesting real wage cuts. Conservative investors targeting 7% returns are barely treading water. Savers following traditional advice are watching their future security evaporate while being reassured by official government agencies. “Don’t believe your lying eyes.”

The Progressive Paradox

The cruelest irony lies in the political dynamics driving this wealth transfer. Progressive politicians champion deficit spending as compassionate policy—funding social programs, infrastructure investments, and stimulus payments to help struggling Americans. They correctly identify wealth inequality as a critical problem and demand we "tax the rich" to fund their vision of economic justice.

But here's the uncomfortable truth they'd prefer you not notice: the deficit spending they mobilize to help the poor simply enriches the wealthy through asset inflation. Every dollar of deficit spending requires monetary expansion that flows directly into asset prices, creating automatic wealth gains for those who already own stocks, real estate, businesses, and other appreciating assets. That’s why it survives partisan cycles: progressives justify it as compassion, conservatives as growth—but both funnel money upward.

The mechanism is elegant in its perversity. Deficit spending gets funded through money creation, which drives asset inflation, which concentrates wealth among existing asset owners, which creates more inequality, which justifies more deficit spending. It's a perfect closed loop that allows politicians to campaign against wealth inequality while implementing policies that mathematically guarantee its acceleration.

Consider the ultimate beneficiaries of quantitative easing and deficit-funded stimulus. Asset owners—disproportionately wealthy Americans—see their portfolios inflate while wage earners pay the regressive, hidden tax of monetary debasement. Imagine you're a hedge fund manager. You don't care if your gains come from clever picks or monetary inflation—you take your fee off the top, either way. The very programs designed to help working families end up subsidizing the investment portfolios of the affluent, all while maintaining the political cover of compassionate governance, and donations from Wall Street.

This isn't an accident or unintended consequence. It's the inevitable reality of how deficit spending works once you strip away the political theater. What emerges is a system so perfectly designed to concentrate wealth that if you'd set out to engineer elite enrichment while maintaining plausible deniability, you'd struggle to design anything more effective.

A Bite From The Apple

The solution starts with measurement honesty. We need an inflation index that includes essential asset accumulation costs—not just consumer prices. This "Total Inflation Index" would weight assets by their importance to financial security: housing down payments, retirement fund purchasing power, emergency savings adequacy, and healthcare and education costs.

Such an index would reveal what working Americans already know: their dollars buy less financial security each year, regardless of what CPI suggests. It would provide the information households need to demand appropriate wage increases and make rational investment decisions. And it would force honest conversation about the real trade-offs of deficit spending.

Until we acknowledge this measurement gap, we'll continue celebrating "low" consumer inflation while systematically pricing the middle class out of prosperity. The price of apples at the grocery store simply doesn't matter as much as the ones on the NASDAQ. CPI measures the first. Your financial future depends on the second.

The current system serves those who already own assets while misleading those who need to acquire them. That's not a measurement flaw—it's a lie. The largest wealth transfer in American history is being hidden behind the comforting fiction of 2.9% inflation.