To preserve American values (liberty, equality, democracy, rule of law, and pluralism), citizens must overcome attacks from both political extremes. This requires capacity stewardship: making evidence-based decisions about what markets provide versus what requires public provision, understanding the real tradeoffs of each mechanism, actively managing both to serve people, and demanding the institutional quality that makes informed stewardship possible. This means demanding Congress be active and accountable, politicians explain rather than perform, journalism investigate, universities produce valid knowledge, and science operate with integrity. This defends democratic capitalism by ensuring markets remain the primary engine of innovation and wealth creation while preventing market failures from undermining democratic values.
The far right attacks the legitimacy of collective action, claiming government is inherently coercive. The far left attacks the effectiveness of reform, claiming it’s futile collaboration with oppression. Despite opposing each other, both serve concentrated wealth by exploiting false beliefs about money and preventing you from understanding your actual role as a capacity steward.
Part 1: Defending Democratic Capitalism from the Extreme Right exposed how the extreme right prevents democratic collective action by attacking its legitimacy. “Taxation is theft” weaponizes libertarian philosophy to eliminate democratic accountability over markets, producing technofeudalism where concentrated wealth operates without democratic constraint.
Part 2: Defending Democratic Capitalism from the Extreme Left exposed how the extreme left prevents effective reform by declaring it futile collaboration. “Capitalism can’t be reformed” weaponizes revolutionary purity to fragment coalitions and abandon institutions, producing the same technofeudalism where concentrated wealth consolidates control while activists debate theory.
Part 3 reveals what both hide: as oligarchy consolidates power, you can preserve American values and expand middle class power through capacity stewardship. This requires removing the money mythology both extremes exploit, understanding your role managing market-public tradeoffs based on evidence, demanding the institutional quality that enables informed stewardship, and demanding the economic transitions needed to make democratic capitalism serve everyone.
I. The Pattern Both Extremes Share
For fifty years, you’ve been told to choose: free markets or government control, capitalism or socialism, individual liberty or collective welfare. This Cold War binary has become so embedded you can barely imagine alternatives.
As I explored in Beyond Capitalism vs. Socialism, this framing is obsolete. What matters is understanding how monetary systems work and designing institutions serving human needs. Singapore, Nordic countries, Germany, Japan, and Costa Rica don’t waste time on ideological purity. They build what works.
America’s political duopoly benefits from maintaining this false choice by keeping you economically illiterate. Republicans invoke “fiscal responsibility” to block social programs while ignoring deficits for military spending and tax cuts. Democrats accept budget constraints as real, arguing only about percentages rather than challenging the misconception that federal spending requires tax revenue.
The extremes weaponize this intellectually dead binary. The far right claims collective action is socialism, therefore illegitimate. The far left claims reform is capitalist collaboration, therefore betrayal. Both prevent you from understanding we’ve operated under a completely different monetary system since 1971. Government creates money when it spends, constrained by productive capacity, not budgets.
The pattern is systematic: the far right blocks economic security programs (“violent coercion”), coalition-building (“socialism”), and market regulation (“illegitimate interference”). The far left blocks institutional reform (“reformist betrayal”), federal resources (“hierarchical oppression”), and effective governance (“collaboration with capitalism”).
Neither allows democratic institutions that impose self-restraint on concentrated wealth and government power. Both make you give up on institutions serving you. The fifty-year assault through economic mythology worked: deinvestment in institutions made them stop working for Americans. When they stopped working, people lost faith they could ever work, forgetting they had worked for generations. When you stop demanding quality, institutions stop delivering it. The learned helplessness both extremes create becomes self-fulfilling.
II. What Both Extremes Hide
American values require democratic capitalism working through quality institutions. Quality institutions require you to demand and understand them.
American values are liberty, equality, democracy, rule of law, and pluralism. Liberty means freedom from arbitrary power. Equality means equal standing before the law and genuine opportunity, not merely formal rights without substance. Democracy means self-governance through consent of the governed, not theater where you vote while others decide. Rule of law means constitutional constraints binding everyone, including those who govern. Pluralism means accommodating genuine diversity of values, identities, cultures, and ways of life.
These values work together. Liberty without equality becomes privilege. Equality without liberty becomes oppression. Democracy without rule of law becomes mob rule. Rule of law without democracy becomes tyranny. Without pluralism, all four become tools for one group’s dominance.
Democratic capitalism provides the framework enabling these values. Democracy constrains both government power and oligarchy through competitive challenge. Competitive capitalism constrains concentrated wealth by making markets work for people, not for capital. Together they create dual competitive constraint that expands middle class power.
Democratic capitalism doesn’t require everyone to share the same values or live the same way. It provides a framework where people with different goals can pursue them through different means: wealth-building through markets, subsistence living focused on art or community, religious life, secular achievement. The dual competitive constraint prevents any one group from imposing their vision on everyone else.
Within this framework, markets remain the primary engine of innovation, wealth creation, and economic dynamism. Entrepreneurship, competition, and private enterprise drive technological progress, respond rapidly to changing preferences, and allocate resources efficiently when genuine choice exists. The vast majority of economic activity occurs through markets because markets excel at these functions. Public provision exists not to replace markets but to create the foundation enabling genuine market participation. When baseline needs are secured, markets become truly voluntary. People can take entrepreneurial risks, negotiate employment terms, and make consumption choices without coercion by desperation. Strong public provision for survival needs creates the conditions for strong, competitive, dynamic markets serving discretionary needs.
But democratic capitalism doesn’t work through abstract principles. It works through actual institutions with specific qualities: substantial capacity to govern at scale, structural checks providing self-restraint, transparency enabling oversight, accountability ensuring democratic control, and design features resisting capture.
This is what both extremes hide. The far right tells you institutions are inherently violent and coercive (minimize them). The far left tells you institutions are irredeemably captured (abandon them). Both create learned helplessness by presenting a false choice: either accept minimal government leaving you powerless against oligarchy, or accept strong institutions risking regulatory capture.
This is fraudulent. The actual solution is large-scale bureaucracies with meaningful transparency, democratic accountability, and structural checks on power. A substantial national bureaucracy is necessary both for protecting citizens rights and security domestically and maintaining geopolitical relevance and competitiveness. The question isn’t whether to have substantial institutions, but how to design them to resist capture while remaining democratically controlled.
Demanding this quality requires understanding how institutions should work. You can’t evaluate accountability without knowing what good governance looks like. You can’t recognize capture without understanding how systems operate properly. You can’t demand quality without epistemic quality, a reliable knowledge foundation that democracy requires.
Democracy needs good information to function. Bad information destroys democracy’s foundation. This is where both extremes’ attack becomes systematic.
III. How Economics Failed and Why That Matters
Economics as a discipline has failed its epistemic responsibility.
Epistemic quality means the reliability and truthfulness of knowledge. When a field has good epistemic quality, you can trust what it tells you because it follows rigorous standards for determining what’s true.
After 150 years, economics still maintains competing schools with fundamentally different answers to basic questions. It resolves disputes through institutional power rather than evidence. It teaches assumptions as facts. Unlike physics, biology, or chemistry, economics doesn’t meet its obligation to provide reliable knowledge. I write about this in detail in my essays Economics is Not a Science and How to Make Economics a Science.
This matters because you make political decisions based on what you think are economic facts. When those “facts” are actually unresolved theoretical disputes or demonstrably false assumptions, democracy is built on quicksand.
The mechanism of this failure is specific and systematic, not accidental.
In 1953, Milton Friedman published his instrumentalist defense of economic methodology. The argument goes like this: assumptions don’t need to be realistic, only predictions matter.
The problems emerge quickly:
- When assumptions are falsified (proven wrong): “Assumptions don’t matter, ignore them.”
- When predictions fail: “Refine the model, don’t replace the theory.”
This created an unfalsifiable framework. Economics could use known falsehoods in models and never be proven wrong.
A concrete example: When behavioral economics falsified rational actor assumptions (showing that people don’t actually make perfectly rational economic decisions), mainstream economics relegated behavioral economics to a sub-specialty. Meanwhile, it kept rational expectations in the policy models that influence government decisions.
When the 2008 crisis proved mainstream models wrong, economics added “financial frictions” to preserve equilibrium frameworks. It didn’t revise the foundational theories that had failed.
As I document in Economics is not a Science, this isn’t how science works. Science requires falsifiable theories (theories that can be proven wrong). It requires revision when evidence contradicts core assumptions. It requires a path toward truth rather than just instrumental utility.
Economics under Friedman’s defense operates differently. It treats falsified assumptions as permanently acceptable. It never revises foundational premises despite repeated failures. It claims scientific authority while avoiding scientific standards. In Why Economic Models Matter, I compare three major schools of macroeconomic thought and demonstrate how Austrian/monetarist frameworks systematically fail predictive tests while operational frameworks better explain actual outcomes.
Academia should have rejected instrumentalism in 1953 as incompatible with generating scientific knowledge. What should have happened:
- Philosophy departments should have challenged it.
- Economics departments should have required falsificationist standards (the requirement that theories be testable and disprovable) for tenure and publication.
- University administrators should have questioned why economics operates differently than other sciences.
- Peer review should have rejected papers using known falsehoods.
What actually happened? Instrumentalism was accepted as legitimate scientific methodology. Falsificationist challenges were marginalized. Heterodox economists (those using alternative approaches) using accurate models were systematically excluded from top journals and positions. And corporate funding shaped which frameworks were rewarded.
The timeline reveals the pattern.
- 1940s-1950s saw corporate funding of think tanks, endowed chairs, and research centers.
- 1953 brought Friedman’s framework to avoid falsification.
- 1970s-1980s saw corporate-funded economics become “mainstream.”
The result: frameworks serving corporate interests are protected from falsification through institutional power rather than evidence.
Endowed chairs allow donors to influence hiring. Research funding flows to orthodox approaches. Academic prestige rewards those working within protected frameworks. The economics you’re taught isn’t scientific discovery. It’s a multi-billion dollar corporate project, as I explored in the first essay of this trilogy, Defending Democratic Capitalism from the Extreme Right.
This is fraud. Economics claims scientific authority to constrain democratic possibilities (“we can’t afford it”). While avoiding scientific accountability to revise falsified theories. Using philosophical camouflage (instrumentalism) to legitimize the deception.
The societal consequences are severe. Bad policy based on false models caused the 2008 crisis that heterodox economists predicted but mainstream economics deemed impossible. Democratic constraints based on lies like deficit hysteria and “we can’t afford it” prevent policies that would serve broad prosperity. Loss of trust in expertise occurs when false models meet reality. And fifty years of this systematic failure made people believe institutions can’t serve them. Most critically, corrupted economics prevents you from being an effective capacity steward. Without valid models explaining how the economy actually works, you can’t make informed decisions about resource allocation, can’t distinguish real constraints from fictional ones, and can’t hold institutions accountable for results.
Beyond economics, the information environment itself faces systematic epistemic degradation. As I detailed in The Parasite’s Dilemma, digital platforms and AI systems are destroying the quality information supply chain that democracies depend on for shared evidence-based reasoning. This compounds the economics problem: you can’t demand epistemic quality from economics when the broader information infrastructure prevents you from distinguishing quality from manipulation. The degraded information environment makes stewardship impossible by destroying your ability to access, verify, and act on valid evidence about how institutions actually function.
IV. Money Mythology: The Weapon Both Sides Use
These epistemic failures enable and protect money mythology. This is the false belief that government is constrained by money like households.
Money mythology persists not despite economics but because of how economics operates. It’s protected from falsification through the same Friedman instrumentalism. “Assumptions don’t need to be realistic” means economics can ignore soft money reality in favor of preferred beliefs like hard money constraints (taxes fund the national government, the national debt is a liability to future generations, etc). The mythology serves corporate interests by constraining what you consider democratically possible. It’s not an accidental mistake but a systematically protected falsehood through corporate capture. As I detail in Why Monetary Systems Matter, these hard money misconceptions persist despite operational reality showing government creates money when it spends, constrained by capacity not budgets. For identifying the specific economic assumptions that constrain democratic imagination in political debates, see Your Mainstream Economics Decoder Ring.
Both extremes exploit this mythology differently. The far right accepts hard money myths and rejects collective action as “unaffordable.” The far left either accepts hard money myths and demands impossible things to “expose contradictions,” or rejects all economic analysis as “capitalist propaganda.”
The result is you remain passive. You can’t steward something you fundamentally misunderstand. Money mythology makes you think stewardship means “balancing budgets,” preventing you from demanding transparency about real constraints (capacity and resources, not money) and keeping you deferring to experts instead of making informed decisions about which mechanisms serve which needs.
So what are you actually managing?
Productive capacity: trained professionals (teachers, social workers, healthcare providers, engineers), construction labor and materials, institutional infrastructure, technical expertise, manufacturing capability.
Real resources: labor, land, energy, raw materials, existing infrastructure, time.
Government can fund whatever productive capacity exists to build. The question is never “can we afford it” but “do we have the capacity to build it, and should markets or public provision best direct that capacity toward meeting needs?”
When you demand public housing, you’re asking: do we have architects, construction workers, materials, and land? When you demand universal healthcare, you’re asking: do we have doctors, nurses, hospitals, and medical equipment?
That’s what capacity stewardship means: determining what productive capacity exists, what needs to be built, evaluating whether markets or public provision best directs it, then actively managing both mechanisms to serve people.
American values assert everyone should have a stake as citizen-stewards with genuine agency and responsibility. But universal stakeholding (a concept I cover in my essay, The Politics of Stakeholder Society: A New Way to Understand Left vs. Right) requires information:
- Clear understanding of how the system works, not household budget mythology
- Access to information about real constraints (capacity and resources, not fictional budget limits)
- Tools to evaluate institutional quality and prevent capture
- Knowledge of their role as stewards managing market-public tradeoffs
Both extremes prevent this. The far right keeps you thinking “we can’t afford it.” The far left keeps you thinking “reform is futile.” Both prevent you from understanding you can steward effectively.
V. Capacity Stewardship: Managing Market and Public Provision
Capacity stewardship requires a fundamental shift in understanding citizenship:
Current understanding (what both extremes want): “I vote, pay taxes, follow laws. Experts handle the rest.” This is passive citizenship that accepts ideological answers about markets or government.
Stewardship understanding (what both fear): “I evaluate which mechanisms serve which needs based on evidence. I ask: Where do markets work? Where do they fail? When is public provision needed? What are the real tradeoffs of each? How do I demand quality from both mechanisms?” This is active citizenship that rejects ideological purity.
This shift is profound. It means rejecting both extremes’ frameworks:
The far right claims markets always work better. This is ideological, not evidence-based. Markets fail for survival goods where information asymmetries, natural monopolies, positive externalities, and long time horizons prevent genuine competition.
The far left claims public institutions always work better. This is also ideological, not evidence-based. Government provision creates risks of monopoly power, bureaucratic inefficiency, regulatory capture, and reduced innovation when applied to discretionary goods where markets excel.
Capacity stewardship means understanding both mechanisms have real problems and real strengths. The question isn’t which ideology to follow. The question is which mechanism serves which needs based on evidence, then managing both to serve people.
This requires two distinct capabilities: managing government programs well and ensuring markets serve people. Both matter. Neither ideology captures the full picture.
I’ve worked inside government coordinating federal funding distribution to state, county, and city levels. The mechanisms for capacity stewardship already exist. OMB does capacity planning. GAO evaluates programs. Agencies track resources. Federal-to-local implementation structures operate daily across thousands of programs. The infrastructure isn’t theoretical. It’s operational. What’s missing is public awareness that these mechanisms could serve capacity stewardship rather than fiscal mythology. When citizens understand their role as stewards rather than passive voters, existing institutional machinery can be redirected to serve public purposes.
But capacity stewardship requires institutional infrastructure that enables informed decision-making. You can’t make evidence-based decisions about capacity allocation without quality information. You can’t evaluate market versus public provision tradeoffs without valid economic models. You can’t hold institutions accountable without transparency and investigation. As a steward, you must demand the institutional quality that makes stewardship possible:
Demanding Congress be active and accountable. Not the “do-nothing Congress” that demolished governing capacity and obstructs legislating at all. But legislators who are active, resource oversight, conduct investigations, produce reports explaining how systems work, and engage in genuine civic education rather than political theater.
Demanding politicians explain rather than perform. Politicians must resource the work to produce reports, surface mechanisms, source experts, and explain to citizens how institutions actually operate. This is what they used to do fifty years ago before sound bites replaced substance.
Demanding journalism investigate. Not entertainment or partisan narratives, but investigative reporting that exposes institutional capture, tracks resource flows, and holds power accountable. Without journalism revealing what institutions actually do, stewardship operates blind.
Demanding universities produce valid knowledge. Not corporate-funded mythology, but rigorous research subject to falsification and peer review. Economics, political science, and policy research must serve public understanding, not corporate interests.
Demanding science operate with integrity. Research must follow evidence rather than funding. Peer review must expose bad methodology. Academic institutions must resist capture by concentrated wealth.
The fifty-year assault didn’t just spread money mythology. It systematically destroyed the institutional capacity citizens need to steward democratically. Libertarian “small government” rhetoric gutted Congressional capacity. Corporate capture corrupted economic research. Media consolidation eliminated investigative journalism. University funding shifted from public to private interests. Each degradation made informed stewardship harder until people gave up believing institutions could serve them.
Demanding institutional quality is not separate from stewardship. It is foundational to stewardship. Without quality information, you can’t make informed decisions. Without active Congress, you can’t hold government accountable. Without investigative journalism, you can’t detect capture. Without valid research, you can’t distinguish mythology from reality.
Managing Government Programs
When evidence shows public provision is needed, government must be managed as a program constrained by productive capacity and resources, not money.
Programs have lifecycles: strategy, measurement, implementation, monitoring, optimization.
As a citizen managing government programs, you need these capacities.
Strategy asks: What capacity exists and how should we direct it toward public purposes?
This requires:
- Resource inventory: What workers, materials, technology do we have?
- Capacity utilization analysis: What’s being used versus what’s available?
- Strategic priorities: What public purposes should capacity serve?
- Institutional design: What prevents capture while enabling coordination?
Measurement asks: What information systems show whether programs work?
This requires:
- Clear metrics for program success, not just budget compliance
- Transparent data about capacity allocation and utilization
- Regular reporting accessible to citizens, not just experts
- Feedback mechanisms showing what’s working and what isn’t
Implementation asks: How do institutions actually direct capacity?
This requires:
- Professional systems that execute strategy (like OMB, GAO, and agencies)
- Quality institutional design preventing capture
- Accountability mechanisms ensuring democratic control
- Transparency enabling citizen oversight
A critical point about implementation: the bureaucracy doesn’t have to be and shouldn’t be all federal, though it relies on federal monetary support and strategic coordination. Implementation should be done through states and municipalities to ensure alignment, guidance, and accountability to localities.
Why this matters: What’s needed in Clarksdale, Mississippi is fundamentally different from what’s needed in Billings, Montana. Local administration keeps programs focused on genuine value while ensuring community accountability. Federal resources provide the capacity. State and local governments provide the implementation tailored to community needs.
As I explored in Why Progressives Are Accidentally Helping Authoritarians Win, this structure (federal funding with local implementation) has proven successful with programs like Superfund cleanup and has been part of Federal Funding for decades through block-grant programs. These ideas could work at scale through mechanisms like a federal job guarantee or UBA which I spoke about in my essay, Universal Basic Income (UBI) isn’t the right solution, the U.S. needs Universal Basic Assets (UBA). The money flows from national systems, but communities decide how to use it based on their specific needs and priorities.
Monitoring asks: Are programs achieving stated purposes efficiently?
This requires:
- Continuous evaluation of outcomes versus inputs
- Identification of capture, waste, or dysfunction
- Citizen-accessible reporting on program performance
- Mechanisms for raising concerns and demanding changes
Optimization asks: How do we improve based on what we learn?
This requires:
- Systematic review of what works and what doesn’t
- Institutional reforms addressing revealed problems
- Scaling successful approaches
- Eliminating or redesigning failed programs
Currently, budget narratives dominate while actual program management happens invisibly. Politicians talk about deficits. You debate fiscal responsibility. Meanwhile, the real work of capacity allocation happens in professional systems you can’t see and don’t understand.
Stewardship means demanding transparency about program management.
The questions change fundamentally:
Instead of: “Can we afford infrastructure?”
Ask: “Show me the OMB capacity analysis. What construction capacity exists? What’s the utilization rate? What’s the strategic priority? What institutional quality ensures the program achieves purposes efficiently? How do I monitor outcomes?”
Instead of: “Is the budget balanced?”
Ask: “What resources are being directed where? What’s the measurement system showing effectiveness? What’s the implementation quality? What monitoring reveals success or failure? What optimization improves outcomes?”
This is what it means to manage government programs based on capacity reality instead of fiscal mythology.
The federal government creates money when it spends. This is operational reality since 1971, as I detailed in Why Monetary Systems Matter. Real constraints are productive capacity and resources. Workers, materials, technology, organizational capability, and ecological limits. The questions aren’t fiscal. They’re strategic (what capacity do we have and how do we direct it). Measurement (what information shows effectiveness). Implementation (what institutional quality prevents capture). Monitoring (are we achieving purposes). Optimization (how do we improve).
Active resource management and strategic thinking about capacity direction is what citizenship becomes when you understand your stewardship role. Not passive voting and hoping. Not deferring to experts. But actively managing government programs with clear strategy, transparent measurement, quality implementation, rigorous monitoring, and continuous optimization.
This is harder. It requires sustained engagement. It requires understanding how programs actually work. It requires demanding information and accountability.
Ensuring Markets Serve People, Not Capital
Managing government programs is only half of capacity stewardship. The other half is ensuring competitive markets serve people rather than capital.
Markets work brilliantly when conditions are right: genuine choice exists, information is available, competition is real, failure doesn’t mean destitution. Under these conditions, markets drive innovation, respond to preferences, and allocate resources efficiently. This is why markets remain the primary engine of economic activity.
But markets fail when these conditions don’t hold. And even when markets work well, they require active management to stay competitive and serve people rather than capital. Capacity stewardship means demanding:
- Antitrust enforcement breaking up monopolies and preventing anti-competitive mergers. Concentrated market power destroys the competitive dynamics that make markets work.
- Labor rights and organizing ensuring workers can negotiate from genuine choice rather than desperation. Without the ability to organize and bargain collectively, labor markets become coercive.
- Consumer protection preventing fraud, manipulation, and exploitation. Information asymmetries let bad actors profit from deception.
- Environmental standards requiring markets internalize externalities instead of pushing costs onto communities and future generations.
- Financial regulation preventing extractive practices, predatory lending, and systemic risk that privatizes gains while socializing losses.
This isn’t anti-market. This is pro-market. Strong regulation makes markets work for people, not capital, by creating the conditions for genuine competition. Preventing monopoly power, ensuring informed choice, protecting workers and consumers all make markets work better at what they’re designed to do.
Democratic capitalism requires both: well-managed public programs for baseline needs and well-regulated competitive markets for discretionary goods. Not ideology picking one mechanism for everything, but evidence determining which mechanism serves which needs, then active management ensuring both serve people.
This is the obligation you accept if you believe in liberty, equality, democracy, rule of law, and pluralism as American values. Democracy doesn’t survive with passive citizens who vote and defer. It requires active stewards who understand market and public provision tradeoffs and demand quality from both mechanisms.
VI. The Moral Foundation: What Comes First
Before explaining which mechanisms work where, you need to understand the moral foundation grounding everything else.
Any good society eliminates poverty, mental illness, and desperation as hallmarks of civilization. People should not be allowed to fall into destitution. Dignified subsistence at baseline is a moral imperative, not an economic calculation about preparing workers for capital.
This requires building big bureaucracy to deliver it. Substantial permanent institutional infrastructure providing what people need to live with dignity.
Who needs this foundation?
Those who can’t work due to disabilities, chronic illness, cognitive limitations, or severe trauma. Not everyone can be made “productive” by market standards, no matter how much job training or counseling we provide. This doesn’t make their lives less valuable or worthy of dignity.
Those in geographies lacking private sector strength. Rural areas, declining industrial towns, and isolated communities lack the economic base for everyone to “just get a job” that pays enough to survive. Telling people to move ignores family ties, community roots, care responsibilities, and the reality that someone must live in these places for them to exist at all.
Those who choose subsistence living. Maybe they want to focus on art, community service, care work, spiritual development, or simply quiet existence without market competition. In a wealthy, productive society, why should this choice be unavailable or stigmatized? Pluralism means accommodating these different choices about how to live, not forcing everyone into market competition.
Anyone. No one should be allowed to fall into destitution regardless of circumstances.
This isn’t about productivity. It’s about human dignity in a society with abundant resources. The private sector creates more than enough surplus value to support this. America’s productivity has increased dramatically since the 1950s, yet wages have stagnated while corporate profits have soared. The surplus exists. The question is how we distribute it.
As I documented in How Corporate-Friendly Accounting Rules Create a $30 Trillion Transfer from Consumers into Wealthy Pockets, mechanisms have systematically transferred wealth upward for decades. Declining union membership from 35% to 10% of the workforce. Weakened labor laws and enforcement. Financialization rewarding shareholders over workers. Tax policy favoring capital gains over wages. Offshoring and automation threats suppressing wage demands. Elimination of defined-benefit pensions. Rising healthcare costs tied to employment that trap workers.
Markets are for people who want to live beyond subsistence. Not everyone needs or wants to compete for wealth, status, or power. Both paths deserve dignity and choice. This is what pluralism requires. Systems accommodating people who want different things from life, not forcing everyone into the same mold.
The capitalism versus socialism framing must go. This isn’t an ideological question of “more markets” or “more government.” It’s a practical question of which mechanisms serve which human needs and why. Grounded in evidence-based institutional design rather than ideological purity. Starting from the moral imperative of eliminating destitution.
What democratic capitalism actually means in this context:
- Public provision ensures no one falls into destitution. This is the moral floor and the primary purpose.
- Markets exist for those who want to build wealth beyond that floor.
- But markets only work when they’re genuinely competitive. Competition requires competitive labor, not just competitive capital. Labor can’t compete against capital without public support creating bargaining power.
Why labor needs public support is a secondary benefit, not the primary purpose. The primary purpose is eliminating destitution as a moral imperative. The secondary effect is that economically secure people have bargaining power.
Capital has structural advantages: mobility, organization, and resources. Without public provision eliminating desperation, labor negotiates from coercion.
What these phrases actually mean:
- “Work or starve” isn’t a voluntary transaction.
- “Accept these terms or lose healthcare” isn’t genuine choice.
- “Take this wage or your children go hungry” isn’t market competition.
Public provision of healthcare, education, and housing means people can reject bad deals. Job guarantees create a floor on wages and a ceiling on employer power. Strong unions supported by labor law enable organized labor to match organized capital.
This isn’t “making good workers for capital.” It’s preventing coercion through desperation.
The logic orders foundation to goal:
- Foundation: Moral floor preventing destitution.
- Enabler: Labor can compete without being coerced.
- Goal: Expand middle class power.
Concentrated wealth produces oligarchy because a few with power can buy or coerce many desperate people. A broad middle class produces democracy because you can’t individually buy or coerce people with economic security.
Economic security creates political independence, which enables democratic participation. A secure middle class with bargaining power can demand laws constraining capital through democratic processes.
Expanding middle class power is the goal that makes democratic capitalism work. The moral floor preventing destitution is the foundation enabling that goal. You build systems for people by ensuring no one falls into destitution, which creates the conditions for genuine market participation and democratic power. This is what capacity stewardship achieves: architecting systems that expand middle class power rather than concentrating wealth.
VII. Markets, Public Provision, and Evidence-Based Design
Understanding the moral foundation lets you see clearly which mechanisms work where and why.
Democratic capitalism means markets remain the primary engine of economic activity, innovation, and wealth creation. The vast majority of goods and services are produced through competitive markets. Technology, finance, retail, entertainment, professional services, consumer goods, manufacturing, and agriculture beyond subsistence represent the bulk of economic activity and employment. This is by design.
Markets excel at innovation and rapid adaptation when conditions are right. Competition drives companies to improve products, reduce costs, and respond to changing preferences faster than any planning system could. The profit motive channels entrepreneurial energy into creating value. Creative destruction eliminates inefficient producers. Investment flows to promising opportunities. Risk-taking gets rewarded when it succeeds.
All breakthrough innovation happens through markets. Entrepreneurs starting companies, established firms competing for advantage, investors backing new technologies, workers moving to better opportunities. The smartphone, the internet, renewable energy technology, medical devices, software, and logistics systems all came from markets driving innovation by creating incentives and enabling experimentation at scale.
Wealth creation happens through markets. Small businesses growing into large employers. Startups becoming industry leaders. Workers building skills and advancing careers. Investment compounding over time. None of this happens through public provision. Markets create the prosperity that makes everything else possible.
Public provision for baseline needs represents a small fraction of total economic activity: healthcare, housing, education, food security. These are critical but limited in scope. The vast majority of what people buy, sell, produce, and consume flows through competitive markets.
This matters because public provision for survival needs creates the conditions for markets that work for people. When people aren’t coerced by desperation, markets become genuinely voluntary. Entrepreneurs can take risks, workers can negotiate, consumers can choose, innovation accelerates. This is defending democratic capitalism, not transcending it. Strong public provision for baseline needs creates the foundation for strong, competitive, dynamic markets.
Markets work for discretionary goods where people build wealth, status, or power beyond the baseline. Where genuine choice exists, competition is real, and information is available. Examples: consumer electronics, entertainment, luxury goods, wealth-building activities. Nobody wants government-designed smartphones or restaurants. The profit motive and competitive pressure create powerful incentives for serving consumer desires.
Public provision works for survival goods that constitute the moral floor: healthcare, housing, food, education. These aren’t commodities to ration by ability to pay. Markets fail here because of information asymmetries (patients can’t evaluate medical procedures like comparing televisions), natural monopolies (competing electrical grids waste resources), positive externalities (education benefits all of society), and long time horizons (infrastructure lasts decades, markets optimize for quarters).
As I explored in Universal Basic Income (UBI) isn’t the right solution, the U.S. needs Universal Basic Assets (UBA), cash transfers into broken markets get captured by rent-seekers. Give everyone $1,000 monthly and landlords raise rent $1,000. But you can’t price-gouge what’s provided publicly at cost.
Building the bureaucracy requires honesty about what this means. This is big institutional work requiring substantial permanent capacity. Vienna houses 62% of residents in social housing that works at scale, maintains high quality, and integrates people into communities. Singapore provides public housing to 80% of citizens through well-maintained, mixed-income developments. Nordic systems provide comprehensive support through professional civil service and quality management.
This isn’t charity or temporary assistance. It’s permanent institutional infrastructure requiring professional civil service, quality management, and democratic oversight. Mixed-income design prevents stigma and segregation. Quality standards prevent degradation into “poverty housing.”
What does “building big bureaucracy” actually mean? Take public housing. Implementing subsistence housing isn’t just constructing apartments. It requires coordinated systems: social services infrastructure (case workers, mental health professionals, substance abuse counselors), family support systems (childcare, after-school programs, family counseling), healthcare integration (on-site clinics, mental health services), public safety coordination (community policing, crisis intervention), legal system capacity (family courts, tenant advocates), job training and placement (workforce development, skills training), and educational support (quality local schools, adult education).
Make no mistake: these are not small programs. You can’t build this piecemeal at the local level. A town can’t afford the integrated service infrastructure. A county can’t train enough social workers and counselors. A city can’t build the court capacity needed.
Federal monetary capacity enabling state and local implementation becomes essential. Federal resources fund the professional systems. State agencies coordinate across municipalities. Local governments implement based on community needs.
With proper management and long-term commitment, these complex integrated systems can be built into templates that communities can implement as appropriate. The first city figures everything out from scratch. But once you’ve developed working models, they become templates. Other communities adapt proven frameworks to their specific contexts. Rural Montana uses the same basic template as urban Massachusetts, but adjusts for population density and local industries. Communities customize implementation, not fundamental design.
Vienna’s public housing works because Austria spent generations developing integrated systems and now replicates proven models. Singapore’s success comes from systematic template development. This is program management at scale: build the capacity once, deploy it many times with local adaptation.
It’s hard, expensive, and takes decades to build the initial templates. But once built, deployment becomes manageable. The alternative is continued extraction, growing destitution, and systems that fail precisely because they’re under-resourced and perpetually reinventing basic solutions.
The moral ordering is clear:
- First: Eliminate destitution as the hallmark of a good society. This is the moral imperative.
- Then: This enables labor to compete by preventing coercion through desperation.
- Then: A secure middle class expands middle class power that constrains concentrated wealth.
- Then: Genuine markets work better because participation is voluntary, not coerced.
Not: “We need good workers prepared to work for capital.”
But: “We eliminate destitution because that’s what good societies do, which creates the foundation enabling everything else.”
Why this creates genuinely competitive markets shows the tertiary benefits. When survival is secured, markets become genuinely voluntary. People can reject exploitative jobs because they’re not coerced by desperation. Entrepreneurs can take risks because failure doesn’t mean destitution. Workers can negotiate because they’re not desperate for any wage.
Markets work better when participation is voluntary rather than coerced. Denmark has 30% higher business formation than the United States because their safety net enables risk-taking. A strong middle class with economic security drives genuine market innovation. This improves market efficiency by removing desperation-based coercion.
This moral ordering is essential for effective stewardship. Evidence-based decisions about market versus public provision require understanding that the moral foundation comes first. Evaluating institutional quality depends on knowing the actual purpose: expanding middle class power by preventing destitution, not preparing workers. Demanding accountability requires clear success metrics—no one in destitution and strong middle class power. Building coalitions requires explaining the goal: systems architected for people that expand middle class power. Stewardship works only with moral clarity about societal obligations and goals.
VIII. What This Means In Practice: Managing Major Economic Transitions
Capacity stewardship isn’t abstract theory. It requires managing major economic transitions, removing rent-extraction from baseline needs to enable genuine market capitalism throughout the economy. This deserves honest acknowledgment.
These sectors (healthcare, housing, education) currently don’t function as genuine markets. Healthcare has massive information asymmetries where patients can’t evaluate options. Housing faces natural monopolies where land location creates unavoidable scarcity. Education involves long-term investments with delayed payoffs that markets systematically underprovide. None have the conditions markets need to work: informed choice, genuine competition, ability to walk away.
Instead, these sectors operate as rent-extraction machines. Consolidated hospital systems charge whatever insurance covers. Private equity landlords buy housing and extract maximum rent. For-profit colleges charge far beyond education costs. This isn’t capitalism creating value. This is monopoly power extracting wealth from human needs.
Public provision removes the extraction layer while enabling genuine market capitalism elsewhere. When healthcare, housing, and education are secured, people can fully participate in discretionary markets. They can start businesses without fear of medical bankruptcy. They can change careers without losing housing. They can pursue education that matches interests rather than desperate job security. The entire economy becomes more dynamic, entrepreneurial, and genuinely competitive.
This is fundamental restructuring that defends market capitalism by removing its corrupted elements. That’s the point.
But this isn’t “destruction” in the way opponents claim.
What actually happens:
Same workers continue working. Healthcare workers still provide care. Construction workers still build housing. Teachers still educate students. Same skills get deployed. The work continues. Workers transfer employers rather than becoming unemployed. Insurance actuaries work for public programs instead of private companies.
We’re removing the parasitic extraction layer, not the productive capacity. The value was always in the work, not the rent-extraction. Building a house creates value. Landlords capturing 40% of tenants’ income extracts value. Providing healthcare creates value. Insurance companies denying claims to maximize shareholder returns extracts value. Educating students creates value. For-profit colleges charging $50,000 for degrees that cost $8,000 to provide extracts value.
Meanwhile, innovation and entrepreneurship remain entirely market-driven. Technology advances through competitive markets. New industries emerge through entrepreneurial risk-taking. Consumer goods improve through competition. Services proliferate through market incentives. Removing extraction from baseline needs doesn’t touch these wealth-creating market functions. It strengthens them by creating stronger consumer demand and more entrepreneurial freedom.
IX. Democracy Deepening: From Voting to Demanding
Everything above requires democracy deepening, not just expanding.
Conservatives say we’re a constitutional republic, not a pure democracy. The founders designed elite-controlled institutions: property requirements for voting, indirect elections, substantial power vested in educated elites. This worked when elites maintained commitment to the republic’s survival within shared governing principles.
But oligarchy has captured elite control. Billionaires corrupt institutions the founders designed to constrain power. The constitutional republic’s original design now serves concentrated wealth, not balanced governance. For the republic to survive, democracy must deepen. Not abandoning constitutional structure, but evolving oversight from corrupted elites to engaged citizens. The republic survives through expanded democratic participation, or falls to oligarchy using constitutional forms as cover.
This isn’t “more” democracy on top of existing structures. It’s democracy evolving its fundamental nature.
From “vote and hope” to “steward and demand.”
From fiscal management thinking to capacity management thinking.
From passive citizenship to active program management.
This expands middle class power, which is what concentrated wealth fears most.
Democracy deepening in practice means informed citizens understanding capacity reality instead of fiscal mythology, active oversight of national resources instead of deferring to experts, accessible government providing professional data through citizen-facing interfaces, and participatory architecture enabling stewardship through transparent program management.
This is evolution, not expansion. Quality change in citizen role from voters to stewards. Quality change in government from household budget logic to program management. Quality change in democracy from periodic voting to sustained oversight. This deepening expands middle class power and makes democracy functional even when representatives are corrupted.
Crucially, sustained oversight means generational commitment. Not demanding results within one administration, but sustaining pressure across decades beyond election cycles.
Democracy deepening requires a specific demand from politicians: explain how institutions actually work with epistemic authenticity. Politicians must resource the work to produce reports, surface mechanisms, source experts, and explain to the American people how systems operate. This is what they used to do fifty years ago before political theater replaced genuine civic education.
This raises a legitimate concern: what happens when entire branches of knowledge get hijacked? Economics demonstrates this exact risk. An entire discipline was compromised for fifty years through corporate capture while the public remained unaware. If academic economics can be systematically corrupted without citizens knowing, what prevents other institutions from similar capture? When knowledge production itself is corrupted, stewardship becomes impossible. You can’t make evidence-based decisions about capacity allocation when the evidence itself has been systematically falsified to serve concentrated wealth.
The actors driving institutional capture are billionaire oligarchs wielding concentrated wealth to corrupt democracy itself. They fund think tanks spreading mythology, capture regulatory agencies, purchase political influence, and extract rent from human needs. This is oligarchy threatening democracy. And oligarchy works by destroying the institutional infrastructure citizens need to steward democratically. Corrupted economics prevents informed decisions. Captured media prevents accountability. Passive Congress eliminates oversight. Each degradation makes effective stewardship harder until citizens give up entirely.
But the solution isn’t “tax the rich” or “make billionaires pay their fair share.” That reinforces the hard money mythology this essay exposes. Government doesn’t need billionaire tax revenue. It creates money constrained by capacity, not budgets. The problem isn’t insufficient tax collection. The problem is billionaires corrupting institutions that should constrain their power.
The solution is citizens understanding how institutions should work and demanding they work that way regardless of billionaire opposition. Oligarchs will keep corrupting institutions as long as institutions allow it. Your job isn’t rage against billionaires. Your job is demanding institutional quality that prevents capture.
There’s no perfect systemic answer to this problem. Demanding transparency and epistemic quality doesn’t guarantee institutions won’t be compromised. Vigilant citizens can still be deceived by sophisticated capture that operates at the level of knowledge production itself.
But consider the alternative. Continue accepting opacity. Keep deferring to corrupted expertise. Remain passive while extraction accelerates. At least demanding creates accountability pressure. Transparency makes capture visible when it occurs. Citizen oversight, while imperfect, beats blind trust in systems already serving concentrated wealth.
The risk of institutional hijacking is real. But learned helplessness guarantees capture succeeds. Demanding epistemic quality from institutions doesn’t prevent all corruption, but it’s the only mechanism available in democratic systems for citizens to fight back when corruption occurs. The question isn’t whether this approach is perfect. It’s whether you have a better alternative for preserving democratic capitalism when oligarchs actively work to capture every institution they can.
The fifty-year assault made people give up. Both extremes keep them passive. The far right says “we can’t afford it,” the far left says “reform is futile.” Overcoming this requires understanding that demanding is not separate from stewardship – demanding IS stewardship. You can’t steward institutions you don’t demand quality from. You can’t make informed decisions without demanding valid information. You can’t hold programs accountable without demanding transparency. Every stewardship function requires demanding the institutional infrastructure that makes stewardship possible.
The demanding framework in action:
- Demand epistemic quality from academia. Reliable knowledge rather than corporate-funded mythology.
- Demand institutional quality from government. Transparency, accountability, and structural checks.
- Demand governance architecture. Citizen-facing interfaces to OMB, GAO, and agencies translating technical systems for oversight.
- Demand capacity analysis when politicians claim “we can’t afford it.”
- Demand reforms restoring competitive constraint. Antitrust enforcement, labor rights, and democratic oversight.
- Demand managed transitions. Build capacity, transfer workers, maintain continuity.
- Build networks amplifying these demands together.
Wall Street won’t give you these tools voluntarily. Corrupted representatives won’t reform themselves. Captured institutions won’t become transparent without pressure. The republic survives by citizens demanding, not giving up.
This overcomes learned helplessness. Fifty years taught you institutions can’t serve you. The truth is institutions serve whoever demands effectively. Networks demanding together create political power that reforms institutions. This is what capacity stewardship means in practice: sustained, informed demanding that builds and maintains the institutional quality required for democratic constraint of both markets and government.
X. The Complete Mission
Part 1 showed how the right prevents you from legitimately demanding collective action by attacking its legitimacy.
Part 2 showed how the left prevents you from effectively reforming institutions by attacking reform’s effectiveness.
Part 3 shows what both hide: you can preserve American values through capacity stewardship.
American values require democratic capitalism working through quality institutions. Quality institutions require you to demand and understand them, not give up on them. Demanding requires epistemic quality providing reliable knowledge about how systems work. Economics failed this through systematic protection of mythology serving corporate interests. Mythology prevents universal stakeholding because you can’t steward what you misunderstand. Stakeholding requires capacity understanding, meaning evidence-based decisions about market versus public provision constrained by resources, not money. Capacity understanding reveals the moral foundation: eliminate destitution first, everything else follows. This requires evidence-based design distinguishing which mechanisms serve which needs. Markets remain the primary engine for innovation and wealth creation. Competitive capitalism must make markets work for people, not capital. Public provision for baseline needs enables genuine market participation. Evidence shows transitions are needed from rent-extraction to public benefit in sectors where markets fail. Transitions require stewardship through building capacity, managing change, and maintaining continuity. This requires democracy deepening through sustained demanding, not periodic voting. Democracy deepening expands middle class power while demanding quality from both market and public mechanisms and overcoming learned helplessness. The goal is systems architected for people that expand middle class power.
Therefore: preserve American values by teaching capacity stewardship to citizens who make evidence-based decisions about market versus public provision, demand markets work for people not capital, demand quality from both mechanisms, manage necessary economic transitions, and expand middle class power, enabled by removing the systematically protected money mythology both extremes exploit to keep you passive.
Conclusion: The Defense Both Extremes Hide
For fifty years, you’ve been trapped in a false choice.
The far right tells you collective action is theft.
The far left tells you reform is betrayal.
Both keep you passive while oligarchy consolidates power and prevents expansion of middle class power.
The far right prevents you from using democratic institutions to make markets serve people. The far left prevents you from reforming those institutions to make them work. Despite claiming opposition, both serve oligarchs by exploiting money mythology and creating learned helplessness that becomes self-fulfilling when you stop demanding quality.
What both hide is your actual power. You’re a capacity steward who makes evidence-based decisions about market versus public provision, demands markets work for people not capital, demands quality from both mechanisms, and expands middle class power to make democratic capitalism work.
This isn’t a middle ground between extremes. It’s rejecting their entire framework.
Understanding government creates money constrained by productive capacity, not budgets. Recognizing your role evaluating which mechanisms serve which needs based on evidence, not ideology. Starting from the moral foundation that good societies don’t allow destitution. Understanding markets remain the primary engine for most economic activity while public provision enables genuine market participation.
Demanding markets work for people, not capital. Demanding transitions from rent-extraction to public benefit where evidence shows markets fail. Building systems that expand middle class power.
The evidence proves this works. Singapore, Vienna, Nordic countries, and the UK managed these transitions successfully through sustained demanding, capacity building, and democratic deepening.
The professional systems for capacity management already exist. OMB does capacity planning, GAO evaluates programs, agencies track resources. The problem is they operate without citizen visibility or accountability. There’s no governance architecture translating them for democratic oversight. You don’t know to demand it because you’ve been taught fiscal mythology instead of capacity reality.
That’s the root cause: epistemic failure preventing effective stewardship. Corrupted economics doesn’t provide reliable knowledge about how money works. Degraded journalism doesn’t expose institutional capture. Passive Congress doesn’t produce the reports and explanations citizens need. Captured universities don’t generate valid models. Each institutional failure compounds, destroying your capacity to steward democratically. You can’t make informed decisions without valid information. You can’t hold institutions accountable without transparency. You can’t demand quality without understanding what quality means. Democracy degrades into theater while real program management and market regulation happen invisibly, serving concentrated wealth rather than public purposes.
Unless you learn to recognize this epistemic corruption and demand the institutional quality enabling real stewardship, the system will fall to internal collapse as extremists destroy it from opposite directions while corporatists hollow it out from within.
The choice is clear. Continue accepting the false binary, giving up on institutions while oligarchy consolidates power. Or reject their framework entirely, understand your role managing the market-public boundary, demand markets work for people not capital, demand quality from both mechanisms, expand middle class power, and make democratic capitalism serve American values.
The republic survives through citizens demanding, not giving up. Democracy deepens through stewardship, not passivity. American values persist through quality institutions you demand.
One final reality: this takes generational commitment. Not election cycles or presidential terms, but generations.
Americans have historically been poor at sustained commitment. Electing politicians promising quick fixes, abandoning programs before they mature, treating governance like quarterly earnings reports. Vienna, Singapore, and Nordic countries spent generations developing integrated systems across multiple administrations. The Baby Boomer wealth advantage came from programs their parents’ generation created. The GI Bill (1944) and Federal Housing Administration (1934) took decades to show full effects. The generation that fought for them didn’t fully benefit. Their children did.
But those programs didn’t emerge spontaneously. The American middle class was deliberately engineered by American politicians in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. Progressive Era reformers, New Deal architects, and postwar planners understood that broad prosperity required intentional policy. They built the institutional infrastructure, created the programs, established the regulatory frameworks, and directed federal resources specifically to expand middle class power. This wasn’t market forces producing natural outcomes. This was enlightened leadership recognizing that democracy required a prosperous middle class and systematically building the systems to create one.
We no longer have that enlightened leadership. Current political leadership has been compromised by oligarchs and autocrats who systematically dismantle the systems that created broad prosperity. They haven’t eliminated the mechanisms, they’ve redirected them to serve concentrated wealth. We stand on the verge of neo-feudalism where the institutional capacity built to expand middle class power now serves oligarchy instead. The mechanisms for capacity stewardship still exist because they were built for middle class empowerment. But without enlightened leadership, those mechanisms serve whoever demands they function. Nobody is coming to save us. Previous generations had leaders who built systems for broad prosperity. We have leaders serving oligarchy. The work of demanding falls to citizens now.
That’s the commitment required. You build capacity stewardship systems knowing your grandchildren will benefit more than you will. Building templates takes decades. Transitioning major sectors requires 10-15 years minimum for initial phases. The question isn’t whether you’ll see complete results. You probably won’t. The question is whether you care enough about American values to start building systems your children and grandchildren will inherit.
Both extremes prevent this commitment. The far right keeps you focused on quarterly thinking through market logic. The far left keeps you focused on revolutionary impatience through purity tests. Both prevent sustained, generational work. But they already got their 50 years of sustained deinvestment. Why shouldn’t you commit to 50 years rebuilding?
Americans can do this. We did it with the New Deal infrastructure, the Interstate Highway System, and the space program. But we’ve lost that capacity for sustained commitment. This makes us vulnerable to extremes who promise quick solutions while preventing the long-term work actually needed.
Capacity stewardship means recovering the ability to think generationally. Without this, the work remains theory. With it, you can build systems preserving American values for future generations.
That’s the defense. That’s the mission. For those who care about liberty, equality, democracy, rule of law, and pluralism.
The professional systems exist. The governance architecture is possible. Democracy can deepen through participation. The republic can embody American values.
But only if you become the capacity stewards making evidence-based decisions about market and public provision, demanding markets work for people not capital, demanding quality from both mechanisms, overcoming learned helplessness, managing necessary transitions, expanding middle class power, and making democratic capitalism work for everyone.
The work starts with conversation, not protest.
Talk to your family. Talk to your friends. Talk to your coworkers and neighbors. Explain money mythology: government creates money constrained by capacity, not budgets. Explain what this makes possible: high-quality institutions serving the American people, maintaining geopolitical influence, honoring our philosophical and governing legacy, delivering good lives to everyone regardless of oligarchy.
Nobody is coming to save us. The founding fathers didn’t wait for permission to build new systems when the old ones failed. They did it themselves through sustained commitment and shared purpose.
We face the same choice now. Build the institutions our moment requires, or watch oligarchy consolidate power while we debate which political team to support.
If we can’t align on building good systems that serve people, right versus left politics becomes meaningless. The question isn’t whether you’re conservative or progressive. The question is whether you’ll demand quality institutions or accept extraction. Whether you’ll spread these ideas or stay passive. Whether you’ll help build alignment or let oligarchy win by default.
This is how republics survive: through citizens who spread ideas, demand quality, and refuse to surrender institutions to concentrated wealth.
Get people on board. Share what capacity stewardship means. Explain why demanding quality matters. Build the understanding and alignment needed to make democratic capitalism work for everyone.
The work requires commitment. The results take generations. The question is whether you care enough about American values to start.