The Metaeconomic Order: Audio Essays

See the Substack (2) Hungary’s Frog Finally Jumped - by MetaEconGary This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit metaeconomics.substack.com

(Note: My academic expertise is in Behavioral and Institutional Economics, and especially in the use of Dual Interest Theory – DIT – in Metaeconomics. DIT points to the key role of our shared with the other-interest, our empathy-based “We.” So, the following demonstrates an application of DIT to the question of what the current assault on our American Universities --- who help us form the “We” --- by our own Administration is all about. Everyone needs to be aware, and work to counter the assault before it is too late. The following reflects a dialogue with both ChatGPT 5.2 and Claude Sonnet 4.6; it has been corrected and modified to be consistent with my deeper understanding of DIT).Something important is happening right now in our Universities, and most people are missing it.Thanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.The federal government has filed two lawsuits against Harvard University in two months (see The Trump Agenda: Justice Dept. Again Sues Harvard, Alleging ‘Failures’ to Combat Antisemitism ). It froze over two billion dollars that Harvard uses for medical research and scientific discovery. Nine other universities have already given in to similar pressure.The official reason? The government says universities have not done enough to stop antisemitism on campus. Antisemitism is real and it is wrong. But that is not actually what this fight is about.Here is what it is really about, made clear using Dual Interest Theory (DIT) in Metaeconomics.Two Forces Every Healthy Society NeedsEconomists who study human behavior have documented in empirical research there are two forces that influence our choices. We have evolved with a dual interest -- as people, and as a society.The first is self-interest, the primal driver -- the “I.” What do I want? What benefits Me? This is normal and necessary. But left alone, pure ego-based self-interest becomes predatory. The strong simply take from the weak.The second is shared other-interest, the capacity for tempering our primal excesses -- the “We.” What do We owe each other? What do We value together? This is the sacred side of life in a community -- the commitments to which we mutually agree ---- empathy-with going every direction --- working to temper our tendencies to go to excess.This framework is called Dual Interest Theory, or DIT, and it is the theory of a kind of Humanomics known as Metaeconomics. The key insight is simple, and it helps make sense of the assault on our universities: Healthy democracy needs both forces in balance. It needs the “I” and the “We” working together. When the “I” -- the profane, self-serving side -- takes over completely and crowds out the sacred “We,” democracy breaks down. We need to balance the I & We, the Profane & Sacred.Universities are one of the most important places where a society figures out the content of that “We.” What do we mutually agree we owe each other? What can we as reasoned people go along with? What is true? What does the evidence show? Universities exist to help answer such questions -- honestly, independently, in the search of fact-based truth, without being told what questions to ask and what answers to find.A University That Cannot Tell the Truth Is Not a UniversityThat is the deal universities have always had with society. The public funds research. Universities do the research honestly -- even when the results are uncomfortable for powerful people.A medical study does not change its numbers on such things as vaccines because a politician wants different results. A history department does not rewrite the past on how a country used to support slavery because the current government prefers a cleaner story. An economics department does not support a bogus, ideology based theory about what makes for economic viability. That independence is not a bonus feature. It is the point.When universities can only ask the questions the government approves, and only reach the conclusions --- claims made without any regard for the truth --- the government wants, they stop being universities. They become what you might call a ministry of approved conclusions -- a machine that produces whatever “truth” those in power find useful.That is the profane crowding out the sacred. Self-serving power replacing shared honest, fact-based inquiry.This Is What Autocracies DoAn autocracy -- a government where one person or group holds unchecked power -- cannot survive alongside democracy based institutions that tell the truth independently.Here is why. Autocracies run on manufactured truth. They need to control the story. A university that can stand up and say, the evidence shows this government policy is wrong -- backed by real research, real methods, real credibility -- is a permanent threat to that control. It must be neutralized.Viktor Orban understood this perfectly when he built his authoritarian government in Hungary. Universities were among his first targets -- not because they were loudly political, but because they represented an independent source of truth. Central European University refused to comply and was forced out of the country entirely.Orban’s playbook was careful and sequential:* First, take control of the courts -- so universities cannot successfully appeal to them.* Then, pressure the universities with funding cuts and legal threats.* Then, have wealthy supporters quietly buy up the news media -- so the story gets told his way.The result? Hungarian universities today do not challenge the government. They cannot afford to. And the press is controlled. The sacred “We” -- the shared honest search for truth -- has been replaced by whatever the state declares to be true.The Same Playbook, Running Now in AmericaWhat is happening to Harvard follows the same logic, step by step. In the language of Dual Interest Theory, the strategy works like this:Step one: Strip the university of its independent standing. Freeze $2.2 billion in grants. File repeated lawsuits. Demand settlement agreements that hand internal control to the federal government.Step two: Replace the content of our shared “We” with state-defined content. The settlements signed by Columbia, Brown, and eight other universities are not just financial deals. They are agreements about who gets to define the rules of thought and inquiry inside those institutions.Step three: Use a real and legitimate shared value as the weapon. Antisemitism is genuinely wrong -- that is a real part of our shared other-interest, our sacred “We.” But by using it as the instrument of attack, the administration makes resistance look like a defense of antisemitism. It is a brilliant and ruthless move of an autocrat: Colonize the language of the sacred to destroy the institutions that protect it.Step four: Let self-interest do the rest. Each university looks at the cost of fighting and decides: Not worth it. Columbia settles. Brown settles. Eight more settle. Harvard stands nearly alone. The “I” -- institutional self-preservation -- defeats the “We” -- collective defense of independent truth-seeking.Why Should You Care?You may not attend Harvard. You may never have set foot on a university campus. Here is why this is still your fight.Universities produce the medical research on things like vaccines that saves lives -- including yours. They train the doctors, engineers, and scientists (like the greenhouse gas scientists who have found excess releases of gas need to be tempered, or that the point on the LGBTQ spectrum is not chosen but just born-to genetics) your community depends on. They are the places where someone is still allowed to say, the evidence shows this is dangerous -- even when powerful people would rather they stay quiet.When that independence is gone, dangerous things stop getting caught. Bad policies stop getting challenged. History gets rewritten. And the people in power get to define what counts as true -- for everyone.That is the profane -- raw, unchecked self-interest and the pursuit of power -- crowding out the sacred: Our shared commitment to truth, to each other, to an honest accounting of what we owe one another, and what we believe a reasoned We the People are all about.The Simplest Way to See ItIn a healthy democracy, no single institution controls what counts as true. Courts, universities, a free press, open-minded religions, and civil society all work independently. They check each other. They check the government. The sacred “We” gets its content from many sources, not one.In an autocracy, which sometimes gets mixed with theocracy, the government controls the story. It decides what is true, what can be studied, and what questions are too dangerous to ask. The profane “I” -- the self-interest of those in power -- becomes the only voice allowed to define the sacred “We.”What is happening to American universities right now is a contest over exactly that question: Who gets to define what we see as our shared with the other-interest? Our ethic? What is sacred to We --- All --- the People?In a democracy, that question belongs to all of us -- and our universities are one of the key places where we work out the answer together.The day that question and the answer belong only to the state, democracy is already over. What we relied on to prevent it -- our universities, our courts, our free press, our honest search for truth -- were the institutions we failed to defend.The shift from the sacred to the purely profane, from truth-seeking to power-serving, is the signature of autocracy. Only a democracy can hold that balance. And it can only hold it if we pay attention now.What You Can Do* Pay attention, be aware. This story gets buried under daily news. That is not an accident.* Ask your representatives where they stand on university independence.* Support universities holding the line -- even if you never attended one.* Talk about it. Most people do not know this is happening. Now you do.Also, see the V-Dem Institute Resource Guide for how to combat Autocratization in general, with general ways to combat the take-over of Universities.Going DeepFor the actual Compact issued by the Administration, initially sent to 6 private and 3 public universities — more to come? We don’t know for sure, see Compact For the Knight Institute on First Amendment Rights, in effect a legal brief on how the Compact violates the First Amendment, see Brief.Thanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit metaeconomics.substack.com

(Note: For a more detailed analysis, click here, which takes you to the Metaeconomics Blog. And, this is a work in progress, and I sought help from Claude Sonnet 4.6 Anthropic AI, so help me refine it even further. Also, Paul Krugman’s Substack is relevant here: See The Psychology of Military Incompetence. Krugman points to a study of the British military, and what had led to incompetence in several wars in which the British were involved. That study found incompetence characterized by 1) the “epic fury” mentality, on the edge of war crimes, and 2) anti-intellectual, anti-education, anti-research based reasons mentality, in this case not understanding or caring to understand that it is a holy war — and even our Secretary of War (not Defense, because it is not defensive) praying to a Christian God for the power to win it. It is a war over religious claims using violence without limit — even proposing to go after water distillation plants to cut off water supply to Iranians, an absolute war crime — such wars against religion have never been won with bombs. The Administration is doing both: Incompetence, it is, as well as immoral and unethical to the core). Everyone is asking who is winning the war between US-Israel and Iran. Nobody is asking the more important question: Can bombs even solve this kind of fight?The short answer, based on solid research and a powerful economic theory called Dual Interest Theory (DIT), is no. Here is why — and what might actually work.We Are Built for Two Things at OnceDIT starts with one big idea: every human being has two drives built into their brain.Drive #1 is self-interest. This is the urge to survive, compete, and get ahead. It is the engine of markets and economic life. DIT calls this the Profane — the world of money, trade, and material goods.Drive #2 is other-interest. This is the urge to care about other people, to belong to a group, and to live by shared values. DIT calls this the Sacred — the world of faith, community, and meaning.Here is the key point: you need both. They are not enemies. They work together, like two legs you need to walk. In DIT, we write this as the Profane & Sacred — the “&” meaning they are joined at the hip.Two Ways to Connect ThemThere are two ways to connect the Profane & Sacred. One is healthy, called the Soft-&. One causes wars — the Hard &.The healthy way is what DIT calls the Soft-&. In a Soft-& system, faith and values influence how people live and treat each other. But they do not control everyone by force. You choose your religion. Your religion shapes your values. But your neighbor’s rights are still protected by law, even if they believe something different. This is what democracy and the rule of law look like.The dangerous way is the Hard-&. In a Hard-& system, one group’s faith commands everyone else — whether they agree or not. There is no vote. There is no negotiation. There is only divine rule. And here is what research shows happens every time: the Hard-& destroys the very faith it claims to protect. When religion becomes a tool of political power, it loses its real meaning.A real-world example: Hungary’s leader Viktor Orbán has claimed to make Christianity central to his country’s national identity. But church attendance in Hungary has not gone up. Christianity became a political brand, not a faith. The Hard-& hollowed it out.Europe Already Learned This — the Hard WayEurope tried the Hard-& for thirty years, from 1618 to 1648. Catholics and Protestants each believed God was on their side and that their religion should rule everyone. About one-third of the German-speaking population died in the fighting.After all that death, the survivors made a deal called the Peace of Westphalia in 1648. It said: no single religion gets to command the whole political order. Faith can still guide people. But the state and the church stay separate. Your neighbor gets rights too. This deal eventually grew into democracy, free speech, and the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.But there was a big problem. That deal was only made among European Christians. The rest of the world — including the Islamic world and Jewish communities — was not at the table. European colonialism then imposed those rules on other civilizations without asking. The anger from that imposition is still driving conflicts today.Three Hard-& Movements. One Big Mistake.Here is the surprising thing that DIT reveals: the extreme Islamic, Jewish, and Christian factions driving this conflict have more in common with each other than with the peaceful majority in their own religions. They are all making the same mistake — just with different sacred content.The Islamic Hard-& factions (Al Qaeda, ISIS, Hezbollah, Hamas, Houthis) were shaped by an Egyptian thinker named Sayyid Qutb. He correctly saw that Western materialism had pushed money and markets into every corner of life, crowding out faith and community. His diagnosis was right. His solution was wrong: impose Islamic Sacred rule on everyone by force. Al Qaeda bombed the World Trade Center — the biggest symbol of the global Market — as an act of sacred war. ISIS tried to build a complete Sacred state and collapsed economically, just as DIT predicts when the Sacred tries to replace rather than balance the Profane.The Jewish Hard-& factions (the settler movement, Kahanism) believe the biblical land is as sacred as the Bible itself. That means no political compromise over territory is religiously allowed. Members of this movement now hold cabinet positions in Israel’s government with direct power over the West Bank.The Christian Hard-& factions (Catholic integralists like Patrick Deneen, Protestant Christian nationalists, Orbán’s movement) say that separating church and state was a mistake. They want religious authority back in command of government. These groups are now connected in an international network linking thinkers in the US, Hungary, and Israel.All three reject international law as an outside imposition. All three claim their Sacred tradition should rule the Profane world. All three are running the Hard-& playbook. See the Blog for more details.The Most Religious People Reject the Hard-&Here is one of the most important research findings in this whole story: the people who take their faith most seriously are also the most likely to reject its use as a political weapon.A major Oxford University Press study found that the more often American Christians pray, attend church, and read the Bible, the less they support Christian nationalism. Egypt’s top Islamic scholars have publicly called the Hard-& factions’ religious claims invalid. Serious Jewish scholars say that using God’s name to justify taking land from others violates the Torah’s core teachings.In short: the Hard-& minority is imposing its will on the Soft-& majority. The loud faction does not speak for the whole tradition. The silent majority of Soft-& needs to reel the minority in the Hard-&, and stop the tyranny of the minority.Why Bombs Make It WorseMilitary force can blow up buildings. It cannot change what people believe. When a bomb kills civilians, it gives the Hard-& factions exactly the story they need: “See? The enemy is attacking our sacred community. God demands we fight back.” Every bomb dropped is a recruiting poster for the next generation of fighters.This is not a new insight. It is what history shows every time a war is fought over sacred beliefs. The Thirty Years’ War ended not because one side won militarily. It ended because both sides were so exhausted that they finally agreed to talk and make a deal.We cannot wait for that level of exhaustion today. Not with nuclear weapons available. The talking has to start now.What Might Actually WorkDIT points to what it calls Other Forums — the spaces where people from different backgrounds actually talk to each other. Not just formal peace negotiations, but the smaller, everyday spaces: interfaith groups, civic associations, shared community projects, schools, and local governments where people build trust over time.Every major peaceful settlement in history was built this way. Westphalia happened because people talked. The US Constitution happened because people talked — and argued, and compromised, and talked some more. The same process is the only one that works here.It is slow. It is not dramatic. But it is the only tool that has ever resolved a conflict over competing sacred beliefs. The talk, talk, talk is not weakness. It is the real work.The “&” Is Not OptionalThink of Earth as a spaceship we all share. The Profane — markets, trade, material goods — keeps the engine running. The Sacred — faith, community, meaning — gives us a reason to keep flying. You cannot run the spaceship on just one of them.The Hard-& factions are not wrong that modern life has pushed the Profane too far — that markets and money have crowded out community and faith. That is a real problem worth solving. But their solution — forcing everyone to live under their particular Sacred — makes things worse. It kills the very faith they are trying to protect. And it makes the Profane side of life collapse too, as ISIS proved.The answer is the Soft-&. Let the Sacred influence the Profane freely and genuinely. Protect people’s freedom to choose their own faith — or no faith. Build the community spaces where people talk across their differences. Uphold the rule of law so that no single faction can impose its sacred vision on everyone else.That is not a new idea. It is the golden rule, the oldest teaching in all three Abrahamic traditions: treat others the way you want to be treated. Every tradition already has the answer. The question is whether their Hard-& factions will be allowed to bury it — or whether the Soft-& majority will find the voice and the courage to claim it.On this Spaceship Earth, all 8 billion of us are going the same direction. The “&” is not a compromise. It is the only way we get there together.Thanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit metaeconomics.substack.com

Note: Once again, I have taken to using AI to help write the Substack posts. The approach is: I use Dual Interest Theory (DIT) to frame the questions, suggest ways to answer the questions — then, I turn to AI to help me communicate same. Also, recently added the subscription version of Gemini, which I used here — now using the paid-for versions of both Gemini and ChatGPT to help in making the Substacks more accessible … helping translate my “academic gibberish” into readable prose!)The escalating military campaign involving Israel-US vs Iran, now entering its second week of intense strikes under Operation Epic Fury, has fundamentally altered the geopolitical landscape. With the death of Supreme Leader Ali Khamenei and the selection of his son Mojtaba as his successor, the region is at a historical crossroads.As we try to make sense of said “interaction problems,” a Metaeconomic perspective reveals that the current strategy is attempting to solve a joint problem with separated tools.Thanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.The headlines are filled with talk of the Israel-US coalition focused on Iran-Hezbollah-Hamas in terms of “finishing the job,” “unconditional surrender,” and “regime change from the skies.” We are watching a 21st-century war being fought with 15th-century logic. We are being told that to be safe, the “Other” must be neutralized if not outrightly destroyed.But there is a missing piece of the puzzle—a tiny symbol that changes everything: The “&”.Two Interests, One RealityIn standard economics and political science, and often in the real world of politics, we are taught that countries only have one interest: Self-Interest. It’s a “Self vs Other, Us vs Them” world. If I win, you lose.But Metaeconomics tells a truer story, based in scientific reality about human evolution and the way the human brain is wired. It says every person (and every nation) actually has a jointly arising Dual Interest. It is about “Me & We, an integrated Us & Them, Self & Other.” We have a Self-Interest (looking out for number one, the Me), & we have an Other-interest (joining in a community of shared interest, the We, looking out for the community/shared interest on the Spaceship Earth on which we Travel, together, around the Sun).The Self & Other are like two sides of the same coin. You can’t have a heads without a tails. They are nonseparable. It is like a Me Needs a We to Be, yet acknowledging that Without a Me there is no We. It is like a solid, viable, healthy marriage… each Me working to support a joint We, and the We supporting each Me.The “Bombing a Disagreement” TrapYou might ask: “Why is bombing a country to solve a religious and/or ideological disagreement so outdated?” It’s because bombing is a “Single Interest” --- a “Me-only” tool used by an “Us” defined on flawed ground. It tries to maximize the “Me-Security” (Self-interest) by completely neutralizing, perhaps even deleting “Your-Existence,” and denying the key role of the “We-Interest.” Yet, the reality is: On a Spaceship, our interests are joint, nonseparable, interdependent.* Economic Blowback: When we bomb the “Other,” the price of oil at home increases dramatically, and all manner of economic and social instability emerges.* Safety Paradox: When we destroy the “Other’s” stability, we create a vacuum that breeds more chaos, which eventually reaches our own shores.By ignoring the Other-interest (the shared interest in a stable, functioning Spaceship Earth system), we actually end up hurting our own Self-Interest. Again, the Me Needs a We to Be.Empathy: The 21st Century “High Tech”In Metaeconomics, Empathy isn’t just a “nice feeling.” It is the practical bridge that connects Self & Other, Me & We, turning Us vs Them into Us & Them. Empathy gives “content” to our shared interests.A truly 21st-century solution wouldn’t just use smarter bombs; it would use smarter (empathy-based) ethics. It would recognize that Israel’s --- intertwined with the US --- security and Iran’s stability are joint products. You can’t actually produce one without the other.The Bottom LineWe are currently “undershooting” what it means to be a modern civilization. We are acting like we can separate “Us” from “Them” using fire and steel to in effect destroy “Us & Them, greatly damage if not outrightly destroy the Me & We.” But the reality is that we are stuck in a Shared Interest whether we like it or not.If we want a world that works reasonably well, we have to stop trying to solve “vs” problems and start working on the “Self & Other” --- the “Me & We” joint reality. Until we put the “&” back into our strategy… seeing the jointness, nonseparability, absolute interdependence among all Travelers on the Spaceship Earth, we aren’t moving forward—we’re just repeating the 15th century with better cameras.Metaeconomics Glossary for the Week* Dual Interest Theory (DIT): The idea that we balance “Me” and “We” at the same time. Me & We cannot be separated.* The Human Frontier: The point where we successfully balance our own needs with our shared needs in community.* Jointness: The fact that my success and our success are actually not separable. We are in it all together.* FAQ: See FAQ - Frequently Asked Questions | Metaeconomics What drives the U.S. and Iran conflict?This video provides a deep dive into the current military escalation and the strategic motivations behind the coalition’s actions, which helps ground the Metaeconomic Dual Interest Theory in today’s headlines, all about the “vs” frame being implemented. What think? Thanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit metaeconomics.substack.com

(This essay applies Metaeconomics and Dual Interest Theory (DIT). Concise definitions and core concepts are available at:https://www.metaeconomics.info/faq-frequently-asked-question. And, again, the essay comes from using DIT to first write the story in academic prose; then asking ChatGPT 5.2 to help make it more readable, which is then edited for substantive content and accuracy).The Question is:Can any form of fascism—old, new, or emerging—ever support a moral and ethical society?Thanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.Using Dual Interest Theory (DIT) in Metaeconomics, which asks about the content of the shared-with-the-other-interest as to which content works better, the answer from serious research in ethics, religion, political economy, and political science is clear:No. Fascism fails morally at the individual level and fails ethically at every level beyond that—from communities to institutions to the nation-state.This is not name-calling.It is an ethical diagnosis, based in serious and systematic inquiry using science & humanities, searching for the empirical credentials under the claims.A simple DIT starting pointDIT begins with a basic claim about human behavior:* Every person has ego-interest (self-interest, status, security, certainty).* Every person also has the capacity for shared-with-the-other empathy-interest (empathy-with, reciprocity, dignity, cooperation, ethic).* A healthy society builds institutions that see the jointness and the need to balance the two, the empathy-based ethic tempering the ego-based self-interestMorality begins when each person recognizes the other as fully human.Ethic emerges when that recognition is built into shared rules, norms, and institutions.As the Institutional and Behavioral Economists say, “The ethic is key.”What fascism is (in ethical terms)Fascism is not just a historical costume or a political insult.At its core, it is a system of vertical power built on:* Loyalty over law* Identity over individual dignity* Hierarchy over reciprocity* Force over consentOld fascism did this openly.New and emerging forms --- neofascism --- often do it quietly—through quietly taking over the arts and culture, loading the courts, suppressing the media, controlling the universities, and then quietly asserting outright executive power (often hidden by distraction, so nobody notices), vertical power rule —while keeping democratic symbols, a make-believe democracy intact.But the moral and ethical structure is the same, whether with the more nuanced neofascism or the old fascism, and, it is not a good structure.Why fascism is immoral at the individual levelAt the individual level, morality requires moral agency:* the ability to judge right from wrong* the freedom to say “no”* responsibility for one’s actionsFascism undermines this directly.It tells individuals:* Loyalty matters more than conscience* Obedience matters more than judgment* The group decides who deserves empathyPeople are valued not as persons, choosing their own moral compass, but as tools for the cause.From a DIT perspective:* Ego-interest is redirected upward toward the leader of the movement represented in the “us”* Empathy-with is restricted to the in-group, the “us”* Moral responsibility dissolves into obedience in “us” over “them, who is anyone opposed”A system that requires people to suspend moral judgment cannot be morally defensible.Why fascism is unethical at the community levelEthics goes beyond individual behavior.It asks whether the rules of the system are legitimate.Healthy communities require:* mutual trust* shared rules that apply to everyone* fair treatment across differences* the ability to correct mistakes* horizontal rule of law representing the shared ethicFascist systems destroy these conditions.They introduce:* “Us vs. Them” morality* dual rules and dual law as in one for allies, one for enemies* fear as a governing tool* punishment for dissentFrom a DIT view:* Shared-with-the-other interest collapses* Ethics is replaced by enforced conformity* Trust is replaced by surveillance and fearThat is not an ethic.It is coercion dressed as unity.Institutions under fascism: Ethics hollowed outInstitutions are ethical when they:* constrain power* apply rules consistently* allow contestation and correction* reduce domination over time* people working together to find sufficient reasonFascism does the opposite:* Power is concentrated vertically* Law bends to the will of leaders* Institutions become weapons* Accountability disappears* Leaders make-up reason most often with total disregard for the truthThis is why fascist and fascistic systems inevitably become corrupt, and, incompetent.Without ethical constraints, ego-interest and a kind of narrow “dark empathy” within the “us” dominates:* favoritism replaces fairness* loyalty replaces competence* punishment replaces justiceThe system stops serving society and starts serving itself.At the nation-state level: Why fascism always failsAt the level of the nation-state, ethics requires:* legitimacy rather than fear* stability without repression* peace rather than permanent conflict* freedom and liberty, dignity and opportunity for all the peopleFascist systems cannot meet these requirements because they depend on enemies:* made-up, non-existent internal enemies to justify repression* external enemies to justify powerAs a result:* violence, being cruel and mean, becomes normalized* scapegoating becomes routine* truth becomes optional while even denying facts exist at all* “noble” lies are claimed to be justified* long-term stability disappearsFrom a DIT perspective:A nation-state dominated by ego-interest and dark empathy just within the “us” cannot sustain a shared ethic among “we(all)-the-people” —and therefore cannot sustain legitimacy.“But isn’t fascism efficient?”Efficiency is not an ethic.Slavery was efficient.Forced labor is efficient.Fear is efficient.Ethics is about how power is exercised, not how fast decisions are made.DIT does not suggest a utopia. It does not assume perfect people or perfect systems.It only asks for serious and systematic inquiry to find sufficient reason.It insists:Power must be tempered and constrained when it does not self-correct, empathy must matter, and the same rules must apply to all.Fascism rejects all three.Where the “best ethic” actually livesSerious research across ethics, religion, political economy, and political science converges on this insight:The most ethical systems are not extreme systems.They are systems that:* allow incentives without domination* protect dignity without uniformity* balance markets with moral constraints* enable correction rather than enforcing purity* seek sufficient reason based on facts* find that which the reasoned other can go along withThis is why democracy based horizontal rule of law systems consistently outperform vertical power rule of men authoritarian ones—morally, ethically, and practically.It is also why fascism—old, new, or emerging—fails every serious moral and ethical test.A final DIT warningFascism does not begin with cruelty.It begins with the narrowing of empathy.When shared-with-the-other interest is replaced by enforced loyalty within a smaller “us,”when ethics is replaced by obedience,when power is no longer restrained—the moral and ethical foundations of society are already gone, even if make-believe elections, flags, and slogans remain.That is the lesson history keeps teaching.It has been learned in other places on this Spaceship Earth.Especially in 1930s Europe. Never again, the Europeans vow. Lesson learned.Americans need to learn it.Metaeconomics is an empathy-based alternative to mainstream Microeconomics. It is built on Dual Interest Theory (DIT), integrating ego-based self-interest (exclusive focus of Single Interest Theory SIT in Microeconomics) and empathy-based shared other-interest. For definitions, terminology, and core concepts, see the Metaeconomics FAQ hub: https://www.metaeconomics.info/faq-frequently-asked-questionThanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit metaeconomics.substack.com

Many Americans were surprised by the jeering and booing directed at the U.S. delegation — and Vice President JD Vance — during the 2026 Winter Olympics Opening Ceremony.Why? I suspect that Europeans have not forgotten Vance’s February 2025 speech at the Munich Security Conference, where he argued that the main threat to democracy does not come from authoritarian states, but from efforts within democracies to limit misinformation and disinformation.Thanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.To many Europeans, that claim landed badly.Europe Has Lived Through Disinformation BeforeAcross Europe, there is deep historical memory of how systematic propaganda — what the Soviets later called political technology — hollowed out democratic institutions in the 20th century and enabled authoritarianism.From fascism in the 1930s to Cold War disinformation campaigns, Europeans learned the hard way that:Unregulated falsehoods --- the total disregard for truth in unfounded claims like 2020 Election Stolen --- don’t expand freedom — they undermine it.So when Vance framed firewalls against disinformation as attacks on free speech, many Europeans heard something different:They heard a defense of precisely the tools that autocracies use to weaken democracies from within.That helps explain the reaction in Milan.The Core Disagreement: What Counts as “Free Speech”?Everyone in small-d democracy agrees that free speech matters.The disagreement is over what kind of speech sustains democracy.From a Metaeconomic (DIT) perspective:* Healthy free speech is grounded in facts, accountable to evidence, and open to correction. It is essential to a We the People Democracy.* Weaponized speech — systematic lies, coordinated misinformation, and “Big Lie” strategies, framed in total disregard for truth claims — is something else entirely. It is a total violation of the ethic that works in the shared with the other-interest of We the People.Calling out organized disinformation is not censorship.It is maintenance of the democratic commons.Europe understands this viscerally because it has already seen what happens when societies fail to draw that line.“The Enemy Within”Perhaps most troubling to European ears was the recurring implication that the real “enemy within” consists of journalists, educators, civil servants, or anyone trying to slow the spread of demonstrably false claims. It is said entities that bring fact to real truth claims.Historically, that has been a classic authoritarian move about the supposed enemy within:Shift attention away from concentrated power built on faulty truth claims and toward internal critics.Europeans recognize that pattern.A DIT TakeDual Interest Theory reminds us that stable societies depend on balancing:* ego-based self-interest* empathy-based shared other-interestFree speech that respects only ego (power, persuasion, winning) but ignores empathy (truth, responsibility, social trust) eventually destabilizes democracy.Ethical free speech — speech the reasoned other can accept — requires fact-content and good faith.Without that, elections become contests of manipulation rather than expressions of collective wisdom.So Why the Booing?Not because Europeans oppose America.But because many Europeans heard in Vance’s Munich speech an argument that minimizes disinformation at precisely the moment when democracies everywhere are struggling against it.They have lived this movie before.And they don’t want a sequel.Americans need to not want to live that movie.Thanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit metaeconomics.substack.com

Laura K. Field’s book Furious Minds is packed with empirical detail (see the Review).Names.Dates.Organizations.Quotes.Books.Academic papers.Strategy memos.Thanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.Field carefully documents how a network of activists, intellectuals, religious leaders, media figures, and political operatives has worked—over many years—to impose the ideology and theology of the MAGA New Right on the American population.It’s impressive scholarship.But as I worked through the book, one question kept nagging at me:How many Americans are actually all-in on the MAGA New Right project, which is evermore an Anti-Democracy push?In other words, how big is the “us, MAGA” group—and how big is the “them,” those opposed to it? Asked somewhat differently, what proportion of Americans are prone to being in effect anti-Democracy and working to build an Autocracy as framed by the MAGA New Right (and, another really important question, Why? … the answer left for other posts here in The Metaeconomic Order)?The surprising answerPolling gives us a clearer picture than cable news ever does.Across repeated surveys by organizations like YouGov, Pew Research Center, and More in Common, a consistent pattern emerges:* Only about 15–20% of American adults explicitly identify with MAGA or strongly embrace its worldview.* Majority of Americans at about 50–55% oppose most if not all MAGA policies and support democratic institutions.* That leaves roughly 25–30% with mixed views.Let that sink in.The MAGA New Right is not a majority movement, although it is the noisiest, most visible, and, it seems the most determined, in a relentless effort to put and keep MAGA in power.It is driven by a small but highly activated minority, operating inside a much larger, but also often confused, and exhausted majorityTo understand why this matters, it helps to step back—2,500 years. Field pointed us to the ancient Greek trilogy, ancient Greek plays.Aeschylus already told this storyIn the ancient Greek trilogy Oresteia by Aeschylus, society is trapped in a cycle of revenge.Blood calls for blood.Family members kill one another in the name of justice.The Furies—ancient goddesses of vengeance—demand punishment without end.Then something revolutionary happens.The goddess Athena steps in and creates a jury trial. Justice moves from personal retaliation to shared civic judgment. The Furies are not destroyed—they are transformed into the Eumenides, protectors of the city.This is one of humanity’s earliest stories about democracy.It’s the moment when raw rage --- the Furious Minds creating chaos for everyone else --- is replaced by institutions.A DIT lens on today’s America, and helping make sense of how the Ancient Plays, well, still playDual Interest Theory (DIT) starts with a simple (but well supported in the sciences and humanities) idea:Every person carries two joint motives, leading to two joint interests:* Ego-based self-interest (protect me and mine)* Empathy-based shared other-interest (protect us, jointly shared)Healthy societies build institutions that help balance these two forces.Unhealthy societies let ego — like MAGA — run wild.Using the Oresteia metaphor, today’s America looks something like this:The Furies Core (~15–20%)These are the true MAGA New Right believers.They are driven by grievance, tribal identity, and us-versus-them thinking. Many are willing to sideline, neutralize, even destroy democratic norms if it helps their side win.They are highly motivated, emotionally intense, and organizationally disciplined, as well as often well-funded.In DIT terms: high ego, low empathy.This small group supplies the energy behind the movement.The Orestes Middle (~25–30%)This is the most important group—and the least understood.They are not ideological and/or theological MAGA.They don’t read post-liberal theory.They don’t follow Christian nationalist theology.They don’t think in terms of authoritarian political philosophy vs democracy political philosophy.They are not angry, and, well, not extremely egoistic libertarians. Community and the public good is important.Instead, they are:* stressed by inflation* exhausted by politics* skeptical of institutions* influenced by media narratives* voting on habit, resentment, or short-term conditionsThey hold mixed views: Liking some policies, hating the chaos, distrusting both parties.They are conflicted.They are Orestes—pulled between forces they barely understand.In DIT terms: Unstable balance between ego and empathy.This middle does not want autocracy. But it can drift into it.The Athena Majority (~50–55%)This group supports:* rule of law* democratic norms* pluralism* civic institutionsThey oppose most if not all MAGA policies and authoritarian impulses.But they are often quieter, less organized, and less emotionally activated.In DIT terms: higher empathy, lower tribal ego.They are the numerical majority.Yet they infrequently behave like one.Why this structure is dangerousHere’s the Metaeconomic insight:Democracies rarely collapse because most people want tyranny.They collapse because:* a small ego-driven minority, like the MAGA New Right, is intensely organized* a large civic majority is passive* and the middle becomes overwhelmedPower flows not from numbers, but from intensity plus coordination.Field shows us the organizational machinery of the MAGA New Right.DIT helps explain why that machinery works.A concentrated ego-identity core can dominate institutions if the more empathy-based (we might say more aware, more woke) middle disengages and the majority assumes democracy will take care of itself.Athena only wins when showing up. This is not about persuading the Furies.The MAGA core is unlikely to be convinced by facts or appeals to empathy.They are operating from identity and grievance.The future hinges on something else entirely.It hinges on:* steadying the middle* activating the civic majority* rebuilding trust in shared institutions* and, as DIT makes clear, restoring the balance between ego and empathy, self and other (shared) - interest.In Metaeconomic terms, this means re-centering shared other-interest as the foundation of economic and political life.Not abstract ideology.Not tribal loyalty.But the simple recognition that we rise or fall together.A final thoughtField’s Furious Minds gives us a powerful empirical map of the MAGA New Right.But the deeper lesson comes from Aeschylus:When societies fail to transform the Furies, they are ruled by them.The task before us is not to destroy our neighbors.It is to rebuild Athena.Because democracy is not sustained by anger.It is sustained by institutions—and by citizens willing to defend them.The Metaeconomic Order can help make sense of it all. It can help the effort to reach a reasoned outcome. And, the rule of law in a Democracy must prevail.Thanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit metaeconomics.substack.com

(Note, again, because my “academic prose” not being very readable, I drafted a version of the following, and, then, with editing help from ChatGPT 5.2 — with several corrections made to the edit, here it is). Recently, longtime columnist David Brooks announced that he is stepping away from his regular column at The New York Times. He said he has found “a project and a cause” worth devoting the final chapter of his career to.He doesn’t say exactly what that cause is. But he gives us a strong hint right at the start:Thanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.“I’ve long believed that there is a weird market failure in American culture… There are a lot of shows on politics, business, and technology, but not enough on the fundamental questions of life: How do you become a better person? How do you find meaning in retirement? Does America still have a unifying national narrative? How do great nations recover from tyranny?”He also notes something many of us feel: Americans have lost faith — not just religious faith, but faith in one another, in institutions, and in shared purpose. And, the Market --- and the hyper- individualism it encourages --- has failed to provide it.I agree. From an economist’s point of view, this is a market failure.What causes that failure? Well, Markets — and the typical Econ 101 classroom — focus almost entirely on self-interest. They do a poor job of supporting what I call, in Dual Interest Theory (DIT), our shared other-interest: The things we hold in common, the empathy we have for one another helps find the common, and the moral and ethical commitments --- both empathy-based --- that bind a society together.Yet those shared interests are essential.They shape who we become as people.They guide how we age and retire with meaning.They determine whether a nation can resist tyranny — or slide quietly into it.Every one of Brooks’ big questions requires attention to this shared other-interest.And this shared interest begins with empathy-with: Noticing others, on the way to hopefully caring with and about others, and recognizing that we are connected. Being “awake” --- being woke --- to one another is not a weakness. It is the starting point of moral life on the way to a widely shared ethic.Today, that very idea is under attack. The American Ethic is under attack.We are watching a push toward authoritarian rule (and, on way too many recent days, it looks like rule with neofascist tendencies) from the MAGA New (Extreme) Right. It runs alongside destructive extremes on the Extreme Left. Extremes don’t build nations. They tear them apart.What we need instead is balance, as DIT makes clear, in solid empirically based terms.Brooks tells us that he once hoped to strengthen a moderate conservatism inspired by thinkers like Edmund Burke and Alexander Hamilton — a tradition that valued institutions, restraint, and the common good. He jokes that he was so successful that moderates now dominate American politics.Of course, it is in jest, and, we know it did not happen.Both the Center-Right and the Center-Left have largely lost influence. And that loss matters, because it was once the integration of Right & Left in the center, acting on shared other-interest, on common ground, that sustained American democracy.Historically, American politics worked best when the center held — when people disagreed but still shared a basic national story, a shared national narrative. The Extremes were marginalized, because it was essential in order to sustain the Democracy.That shared narrative is what DIT frames as the American Ethic: A commitment to both personal freedom and responsibility to one another.Right now, we don’t have a strong unifying narrative.So we must build one.Not an “us versus them” story.Not one owned by the “us” of the Extreme Right or the “us” of the Extreme Left.But a story that works for “We the People” as in All the People.Dual Interest Theory makes the point clearly:A healthy society balances self-interest with shared other-interest.Too much ego leads to greed and domination.Too much empathy leads to tamping down individual initiative too far.Too much ideology (and theology) leads to rigidity and control.But empathy, paired with reason, tempering the ego --- creates stability.If we want to stop the slide toward tyranny, the Center-Left and the Center-Right must work together.People who still believe in Democracy must find common ground in the center. That is how nations recover and build a unified Nation. That is how freedom survives.Brooks leaves us with an important question:Do we still have a unifying national narrative?My answer is this: We don’t — yet.But we can.If we choose balance.If we choose empathy, and use it to temper the primal drive coming from the ego.If we choose a shared future over tribal extremes.That is the real work ahead.The David Brooks “Time to Say Goodbye” essay is worth a read: see https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/30/opinion/david-brooks-leaving-columnist.htmlThanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit metaeconomics.substack.com

(Note: Dual Interest Theory (DIT) in Metaeconomics is neutral to ideology and theology — but it does have a placeholder for any version one wants to consider, in the frame of the shared-with-the-other-interest — see Frequently Asked Questions About Metaeconomics. So, while this Substack sometimes appears to be a Center-Left political analysis — my personal preference — DIT does not care! DIT just helps frame the question of which ideology and theology actually works best, an empirical question). Hillary Clinton’s recent Atlantic essay, “MAGA’s War on Empathy…” describes something many Americans now feel in their bones: a deep moral and ethical crisis is unfolding in our country.Federal agents kill a nurse who tried to help someone in distress. Victims are smeared as “terrorists.” Children are separated from parents. Clergy who ask for mercy are attacked. Influencers warn that empathy itself is a sin.Thanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.It is not just politics.It is a war on the moral and ethical foundation of American democracy.Dual Interest Theory (DIT) helps us see what is really happening.The Core DIT Insight: We Are Dual-NaturedDIT clarifies that Humans have evolved with a dual interest:* Self-interest (ego) — the drive for survival, power, status, security, advantage.* Shared other-interest (empathy) — the capacity to care about others, to feel with the other, and to build cooperative norms, on a shared ethic.Healthy societies balance the two interests, recognizing the self-interest is more primal.Unhealthy societies elevate ego and suppress empathy.Adam Smith understood it in 1759. He warned that self-interest becomes destructive unless tempered by what Smith called the Moral Sentiments --- in today’s terms, the Ethic holding the Moral content — our ability to see ourselves through the eyes of others and go to common ground, an Ethic that reasoned people can go along with.DIT simply formalizes what Smith already knew:Empathy gives content to ethics.Empathy-based ethics stabilize democracies and markets.Without empathy, self-interest runs wild.MAGA as an Ego-Dominant Political EconomyWhat Clinton documents is not accidental cruelty.It is systemic ego dominance.DIT would describe MAGA’s political economy this way:* Power over people* Fear as a governing tool* Zero-sum thinking* Glorification of strength* Dehumanization of outsiders* Rejection of widely shared moral and ethical obligation* Empathy is a dangerous emotionThis is classic authoritarian psychology.When empathy is framed as weakness, only dominance remains.Adam Serwer captured it perfectly years ago, in speaking to the core of MAGA:The cruelty is the point.DIT adds the deeper explanation:Cruelty emerges when ego is not tempered, not bounded by the shared (ethical) other-interest.“Toxic Empathy” Is a Category ErrorSome MAGA-aligned “Christian” influencers now call empathy “toxic.”From a DIT perspective, this is a profound misunderstanding.Empathy was not toxic to Jesus Christ.Empathy is not softness.Empathy is the biological and moral mechanism that makes cooperation possible.Calling empathy toxic is like calling oxygen poisonous.It is empathy that:* Makes for trust in markets* Sustains communities* Grounds civil rights* Supports democracy* Enables moral reasoning on the way to a shared ethicWithout empathy, societies slide toward:* Authoritarianism* Tribalism* Scapegoating* Political violenceHistory is clear on this.The American Ethic: Institutionalized Shared Other-InterestThe U.S. Constitution --- a horizontal rule of law framework --- quietly embeds DIT logic.It assumes:* Human self-interest must be checked (separation of powers).* No one gets absolute authority (rule of law applied to all).* Human liberty and freedom, dignity and opportunity for all matters (equal protection).This is empathy-based ethics translated into institutions.The American Ethic is not about perfection.It is about balance:Markets & Ethics (with Moral content)Freedom & ResponsibilityRights & DutiesIncentives & EthicsDemocracy and the Market work only when empathy-based (shared) other-interest tempers ego.“Christian” Nationalism as a major player in MAGA (for an understanding of all the players see Furious Minds), by contrast, seeks a vertical power rule of men system, religious domination, and obedience — replacing horizontal rule of law with hierarchy, replacing Democracy with Autocracy laced with Theocracy.DIT calls it what it is:An empathy collapse.Why the Moment Is So DangerousClinton identifies several accelerants:* Social media rewarding outrage* Influencers monetizing cruelty* Tech elites dismissing people who oppose the war on empathy as “NPCs” (Non-Player Characters, a video-game term for nonhumans).* Mainline Churches fragmenting* Political leaders modeling shamelessness and extreme selfishnessDIT adds the unifying diagnosis:We are watching empathy being systematically dismantled.When empathy collapses:* Truth collapses* Institutions weaken* Violence rises* Democracy erodes* Markets crashA society without empathy becomes a society ruled by fear.The MAGA War on Empathy puts too much emphasis on the Ego, and, it crashes the system… as illustrated here, too much Ego-based Right-wing, not enough Empathy-based Left-wing… the American Eagle needs both Wings: Moral and Ethical Content Matters to Markets, TooDIT in Metaeconomics insists on something mainstream economists often ignore:Markets must be tempered by Ethics (as Adam Smith made clear).Ethics must be given considered content.Invisible hands do not form the ethic: People do.Empathy supplies that content.DIT by pointing to empathy requires asking:* Who counts* Whose suffering matters* What fairness means* Where limits belong* What is reasonableWithout empathy, “ethics” becomes a set of empty slogans.The war on empathy is not just cultural.The war is economic and political, and, ironically, theological in that empathy is a key part of religion.The war is reshaping incentives toward domination with a kind of dark empathy and a perverse ethic.The Path Forward: Rebalancing Ego & EmpathyClinton closes by urging more empathy, not less.DIT helps clarify what that might mean — by adding structure.DIT clarifies that saving Democracy and the Market requires restoring balance in ego & empathy:* Reward cooperation, not cruelty* Elevate shared interest alongside private (interest) gain* Teach moral reasoning on the way to a shared ethic* Protect institutions that constrain ego* Practice “neighborism” at scaleThis is not sentimental.It is practical.Empathy is civilization’s stabilizer.Final ThoughtWe can hold firm to the American Ethic.But only if we remember who we are:America is built not just on markets and power —but on empathy-based Moral Sentiments --- the American EthicSaid American Ethic sees the shared humanity among We the People --- All the People.Empathy won’t destroy civilization.It is the only thing that saves it.Metaeconomic PostscriptHillary Clinton’s essay powerfully describes what she calls MAGA’s “War on Empathy.” But to fully understand what is happening, we need to connect her story to what science and philosophy tell us about how humans actually work. Another source for such understanding, also helping to see how the moral and ethical dimension start with empathy, is by Michael Nill, who also looks into The MAGA Attack on Empathy. Nill is the author of the book Nurturing Decent Human Beings: The Case for Moral Education in Our Schools, which brings the need for moral and ethical education into full view. MAGA certainly needs it. As Nill points out, some in the MAGA frame of mind, like “Christian” author Beth Stuckey make erroneous claims like someone going into empathy-with a person can lead to approval of abortion, single-sex relations, transgenderism, and (undocumented) immigration. So, empathy is a bad, a toxic thing to do. Anyone who goes into empathy-with a person considering an abortion; with people of the same sex and want marriage; a person born into some spot on the continuum of the gender spectrum, without any choice of their own; or is an undocumented immigrant seeking a better life, should not be doing so. Empathy is toxic because a person is thoughtfully considering what Stuckey claims is a sinful or is somehow otherwise inappropriate to a “Christian” choice. Well, some moral and ethical — and some biological science — education is clearly needed, please. Metaeconomics and Dual Interest Theory (DIT) can also help connect the science and humanities, especially to include philosophy and ethics. DIT helps makes sense of the educated understanding often missing in so many bogus claims resting in the MAGA New Right (again, see the Review of the Laura Fields “Furious Minds… “ book). But, back to the Clinton Essay: Researchers across history, religions, and cultures agree on seven basic virtues. Economic historian Deirdre McCloskey shows that these virtues appear everywhere, across societies and belief systems.They are:* Prudence* Courage* Justice* Temperance* Faith* Hope* LoveDIT helps explain where these come from.Very simply, our brains have three big systems:* Self-interest (ego) — focused on survival, success, and advantage* Empathy (shared other-interest) — focused on caring, fairness, and connection* Self-control — helps balance the first twoEach virtue grows out of one or more of these systems.Here’s the basic idea:* Prudence comes mainly from self-interest. It helps us plan and protect ourselves.* Courage also comes mostly from self-interest, though sometimes empathy pushes people to act bravely for others (like soldiers risking their lives for other soldiers, and for country).* Justice comes from empathy. It is about fairness—what reasonable people can accept together. Laws, regulations and community norms grow from this.* Faith, Hope, and Love come from empathy-with others. For believers, they also connect to God. These virtues give emotional and moral depth to shared life.* Temperance is self-control. It keeps self-interest from becoming arrogance or cruelty. It brings empathy into the picture, working to the temper the self-interest.Long ago, Adam Smith warned that self-interest alone turns into arrogance unless it is tempered by moral sentiments—what we now call empathy-based ethics.That balance in self & other, ego & empathy, incentive & ethic is the heart of DIT.What the “War on Empathy” Really MeansClinton sometimes blends empathy and virtue together. But they are not the same.Empathy is the starting point.Virtues other than Prudence and Temperance are what grow out of empathy.So the MAGA “War on Empathy” is really something deeper:It is a war on the brain processes that activate justice, faith, hope, and love. In effect, it is a War on sympathy and compassion, as the starting point for said outcomes is empathy. compassion.When empathy is shut down, self-interest runs wild.That is why we see:* Cruelty toward immigrants* Violence against peaceful helpers* Lies about victims* Celebration of harshnessThis is unchecked ego.What Does “Moral Rot” Mean?Clinton also talks about “moral rot.”Here’s a simple way to understand it.A moral belongs to an individual.An ethic belongs to a society.People talk, argue, reason, and struggle together. Over time, the individual morals combine into a shared ethic—the rules we live by as a community.“Moral rot” happens when many people adopt morals that no longer fit the larger ethical system of democracy, dignity, and human rights.When that spreads, the whole system becomes unethical.So moral rot in individuals can turn into ethical collapse in society.The DIT Bottom LineAmerica works only when:Self-interest is balanced by empathy-based other (shared)-interest.Ego is tempered by the empathy-based virtues.Markets are guided by the moral content of the shared ethic.Freedom is joined with responsibility.The attack on empathy is not just emotional or cultural.It is economic.It is political.It is theological.It is neurological.And it threatens democracy itself.Restoring empathy restores justice.Restoring balance restores stability.That is the Metaeconomic lesson.Thanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit metaeconomics.substack.com

[Note: The recent Substack on the Project of Metaeconomic focuses attention on the need to pay attention to the content of the shared interest in play. In effect, it is essential to pay attention to the Ethic in play. The Ethic is key. Now, the American Ethic has been in play for 250 years — about liberty and freedom, dignity and opportunity for ordinary people — all composing the shared other-interest in a humane, viable, efficient economic and social system. That Ethic is now under assault, especially by the MAGA New Right, which tends to have an “us” vs “them” frame — which harkens back to the old Fascism, and, even more dangerously, underlies the more nuanced new fascism which is often referred to as Neofascism. So, this post is to explore and stir thinking about which shared other-interest, which Ethic is the best for America going forward. What think?]People often ask:How can modern neofascist movements claim to support free markets, while acting authoritarian at the same time?Thanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.It feels confusing.But there’s a pattern.Let’s break it down simply.Keep in mind the fundamental feature of both old and new (neo)fascism is the distinction of “us” vs “them” and intent of the “us” to be in power over the “them.” The notion of “We the People” is lost in the purpose of the “us” taking the power.Old Fascism (1930s Style)In the 1930s, fascist governments were very open about control.They:* ran the economy from the top* told businesses what to produce* crushed unions* spent heavily on the military* rewarded loyal companiesPrivate companies existed.But only if they obeyed.So:👉 the state controlled the market.It wasn’t capitalism.It wasn’t socialism.It was authoritarian capitalism.New Fascism (Neofascism Today)Today’s version is quieter and more clever.Modern strongmen say they love:* “free markets”* “small government”* “efficiency”But what they actually do is:* cut taxes for the rich* weaken worker protections* remove regulations* attack courts and journalists* reward loyal corporations* punish criticsSo markets aren’t really free.They become loyalty markets.Friends of the leader win.Everyone else loses.This is often called:authoritarian neoliberalismorcrony capitalism.The DIT View (Why This Happens)Dual Interest Theory (DIT) says people live with two forces:* Ego-interest — power, status, control.* Shared other-interest — empathy, fairness, community.Healthy societies balance both.Fascism breaks that balance.Old fascism used government power directly.New fascism uses market language as cover.But both do the same thing:* boost ego at the top* shrink empathy for outsiders* build “us vs them” loyalty* destroy democratic guardrailsDIT calls this dark empathy:care for our groupcruelty toward everyone else.The Big TrickModern neofascism doesn’t wear boots.It wears business suits.It doesn’t shout “dictatorship.”It whispers “free markets.”But behind the words:👉 leaders take control👉 institutions weaken👉 wealth flows upward👉 democracy fadesSame outcome.New packaging.One Simple TakeawayOld fascism controlled markets openly.New fascism pretends markets are free — while secretly controlling everything through loyalty and fear.That’s the upgrade.Both old fascism and neofascism fail massively in the realm of shared other-interest. Both of said “isms” are immoral and unethical to the core. Final ThoughtReal capitalism needs:* fair rules* strong institutions* shared truth* empathy beyond tribes* empathy-based ethics widely sharedWithout those, markets become tools of power.And democracy doesn’t survive.Thanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit metaeconomics.substack.com

You’ve probably heard the old saying:If it walks like a duck, swims like a duck, and quacks like a duck… it’s probably a duck.Thanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.It’s simple common sense.Well, we can use the same idea to think about something much more serious:Fascism — and its modern cousin, Neofascism.Let’s call it:The Fascist Duck TestHere’s the classic version, next to a Metaeconomic (DIT-inspired) version.Simple. A little funny. But also very real.What’s Really Going On (DIT Version)Dual Interest Theory (DIT) says humans have two powerful drives:* Ego-interest – looking out for ourselves (power, status, control).* Shared other-interest – empathy, caring about others, building community.Healthy societies balance both.Fascism and Neofascism breaks that balance.Here’s how:🟥 First: Huge Ego at the TopA strongman leader acts like he is the nation.Rules don’t matter. Courts don’t matter. Facts don’t matter.Only the ego matters.🟥 Second: “Dark Empathy” for the In-GroupFollowers are taught to care only about their group.Not everyone.Just us.That’s not real empathy. That’s tribal loyalty.It feels warm inside the group —but cold and cruel to everyone else.🟥 Third: Us vs ThemEvery problem gets blamed on:* immigrants* minorities* journalists* scientists* “elites”* “traitors”* political oppositionThis keeps people angry and afraid — and loyal.Why This MattersFascism and the modern form in Neofascism isn’t just about one bad leader.It’s about a toxic combination:* Extreme ego-interest (power worship)PLUS* Narrow, distorted shared-interest (loyalty only to the “us”, the insiders)DIT shows us something important:Fascism and Neofascism feels stable to the in-group — stable to the “us” ---but it destroys democracy, truth, and society for “We the People” --- it destroys the whole ---- ironically destroying it also for the “us” as it destroys the whole system.Real democracy depends on empathy-with everyone, going every direction, not just our side in the “us.” It means finding the common ground for “Us & Them” --- like the Right & Left Wing of the American Eagle which keeps that Eagle flying forward, and, most importantly, not crashing --- as in “We the People” like the Constitution makes possible.Adam Smith called the idea of empathy-with as that which stirred the impartial spectator, the conscience— the ability to see ourselves from others’ point of view and find common ground.Without that, freedom collapses.So Back to the Duck…If a movement:* worships strongmen* divides people into “real citizens” as the “us” and everyone else claimed to be enemies as the “them”* attacks courts and media* disparages the universities* assaults the competent agencies* replaces truth with propaganda* demands loyalty over law* develops dual law systems, one law for “us” (like pardons insurrectionists assaulting the Democracy) and another law for “them”then…🦆 It just might be a fascist --- or the more dangerous kind, the neofascist, wrapped in the flag and carrying a bible while gutting democracy --- duck.Final Metaeconomic ThoughtGood capitalism.Good democracy.Good societies.They all require balance:✔ self-interest and other-interest✔ empathy-based ethics shoring up the shared other-interest✔ truth based in serious research looking for the facts✔ shared responsibility on common groundWhen ego takes over and empathy shrinks to a tribe of the “us” --- history tells us what comes next.And it’s never pretty.Thanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit metaeconomics.substack.com

[Note: The following is adapted from the more detailed “academic” version of the Project of Metaeconomics. ChatGPT 5.2 helped make it more readable, and, after corrections for accuracy — Chat can make things up! — here it is. Why post it? Well, the immoral and unethical economic policy being used to build the MAGA New Right economy has caught my Metaeconomic eye … and, it needs to be addressed. Dual Interest Theory “does not care” which ideology is in play, other than it has to be ethical. The current set of policies being put into play do not pass that ethical standard. So, what think?]Our economic models have become very mathematical. They are good at predicting buying and selling. Said models often forget something important: Economics started as a branch of moral philosophy. It was meant to ask how choices affect real people and the common good.Economist Anthony Annett says it clearly: Economics must bring ethics back into thinking, policy, and education. Without ethics, economics becomes only a technical exercise, disconnected from human life.Thanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.Metaeconomics is a project to rebuild that missing foundation.What Does “Meta” Mean—and Why Metaeconomics?“Meta” means stepping back and looking at a subject from above. It means asking what assumptions are being made—and what might be missing.Metaeconomics does not throw away traditional economics. Instead, it asks:What are we leaving out?How can we make economics better?Economist Axel Leijonhufvud suggested we should not replace mainstream economics, but move beyond its limits. Metaeconomics does exactly that. It keeps what works in economics and restores what was removed over time—in particular, empathy-based ethics was removed from view. Metaeconomics puts the ethic back.Dual Interest Theory (DIT): The Heart of MetaeconomicsAt the center of Metaeconomics is Dual Interest Theory (DIT), built from decades of research in economics, psychology, biology, and the humanities.DIT starts with a simple idea:People act from both self-interest and shared interest with others.Mainstream economics usually assumes people care only about themselves. But real life shows something different. People try to get ahead, yes—but they also care about fairness, relationships, and what others can accept.True “own-interest” is not selfishness alone. It is balance in the selfishness and selflessness, self & other.Adam Smith called pure selfishness “the arrogance of self-love.” He said it must be tempered by moral feelings —by shared concern for others, reflected in the shared ethic.Metaeconomics keeps self-interest as important, but adds shared other-interest—the ethical side of human life. Metaeconomics brings ethics back into economic thinking.Adam Smith Was Already a MetaeconomistAdam Smith understood this balance long ago.In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith explained that people develop ethics by putting themselves in another person’s place. Smith called it the “Station of the Impartial Spectator.” It helps us see what is fair and reasonable.In The Wealth of Nations, Smith supported freedom, dignity, and opportunity. He believed the incentive in the markets created wealth—but only when guided by humane values.Smith’s two books form one system:Wealth & SentimentsIncentive & EthicThere is no “Adam Smith problem” as though the books clash. That idea comes from modern misunderstandings. Smith always believed both sides mattered.Evolution Confirms It: Empathy MattersModern biology supports Smith’s insight.Scientists now show that cooperation, empathy, and fairness are just as essential to evolution as pursuing ego-based self-interest. Societies succeed when people balance ego-based self-interest with empathy-based other-interest reflecting care for others.Economies and societies fail when excessive greed overwhelms ethics.Economies and societies are part of the same story. The shared other-interest in play is key.Why Metaeconomics Is NeutralMetaeconomics does not favor any particular shared other-interest represented in religion and/or political ideology.Metaeconomics simply gives space to whatever shared values people bring—cultural, political, or spiritual—and then asks:What actually works, based on evidence and reason?Metaeconomics is a framework and a method, not an ideology.What’s Wrong with Mainstream Economics TodayEconomist Daniel Bromley says mainstream economics is “political ideology in disguise.” It focuses only on an ideology of self-interest. Only the incentive matters. And, as Bromley says it, while “the ethic is key.” mainstream economics assumes the ethic will somehow appear without a conscious effort to bring it into play.Economist Deirdre McCloskey calls mainstream economics a “cargo-cult science”—it looks scientific but ignores human values. McCloskey calls for a Humanomics, “an economics with the human and their ethics left in.” Well, Metaeconomics is a Humanomics with DIT at the core of it.Behavioral economist Richard Thaler says mainstream economics represents only the Econ --- the self-interest part --- and not the Human.Metaeconomics restores balance by using both science and the humanities to ensure the Human is in view.Real-World Economics, Not Fantasy EconomicsMetaeconomics aims for real-world economics.It sees the economy as part of a larger human and environmental system—what we can call “Spaceship Earth.” Economy and society is embedded in that Spaceship.We are all travelers on our shared Spaceship, on our planet Earth. Our economics must reflect that reality.Rebuilding Economics EducationMost if not all Economics 101 courses teach ideology instead of science and humaities. Said approach avoids reflecting on the biological and neurosciences, but also the moral dimension and the ethic built upon it.We need a MetaEcon 101 that teaches:* self-interest and shared other-interest together* the science and humanities behind the key role for the ethic* balance instead of extremes* incentives framed and tempered by the ethicEconomics needs to once again reflect both science and humanity—just as Adam Smith intended.Main Features of MetaeconomicsMetaeconomics:* moves beyond self-interest only* restores ethical thinking* uses science and humanities* recognizes ego and empathy* balances markets and government* stays neutral toward ideology and theology* asks for empirical evidence for a favored ideology and/or theology* seeks practical, humane solutionsIn short: Metaeconomics works to serve real people.An InvitationMetaeconomics is a project to bring empathy-based ethics, and human understanding back into economics.It restores what Adam Smith taught, what evolution confirms, what serious and systematic inquiry in science and humanities confirms, and what the economy and society now urgently needs.If we want to protect democracy, care for our planet, and build an economy that works for ordinary people, we must take part in this effort.This is the Project of Metaeconomics.Learn More* Metaeconomics: Tempering Excessive Greed (2020)* “Towards a Dual Interest Theory in Metaeconomics” (2023)* “Cargo-Cult Economics to Metaeconomics” (2025)* The Metaeconomics Blog and The Metaeconomic Order (you are here, right now!)Let’s bring ethics back into economics—where it started, and where it belongs.Thanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit metaeconomics.substack.com

[Note: I am not an immigration expert, but, I am a reasonably good economist!! And, the current MAGA New Right (see my other Substack about MAGA) inspired immigration policy makes no economic sense, as in spending $170B+ over the next 3-4 years to cut the National Income (GDP) by $1.1-2 Trillion per year. The illegals are working people, producing National Income, and paying taxes. What are we doing? Far better to acknowledge the sunk costs, give all the undocumented immigrants a path to citizenship, and start over with a reasoned immigration policy and law. Now, that would be common (Metaeconomic!) sense. Anyway, with some help from my new colleague ChatGPT 5.2, here is my Metaeconomic take on the current nonsense… ]Thanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.Let’s start with a simple fact:Roughly 11–14 million undocumented immigrants already live in the United States. They are here. They work here. They raise families here. That reality is not going away.From a Dual Interest Theory (DIT) perspective—balancing ego-based self-interest with empathy-based shared other-interest—the rational question is not how tough can we sound, but what actually works.The Economic RealityMost undocumented immigrants are productively employed—in construction, agriculture, meatpacking, hotels, restaurants, and caregiving. These are sectors the economy already struggles to staff. Removing millions of workers would:* Shrink GDP* Raise food, housing, and service prices* Cost taxpayers hundreds of billions of dollars in enforcement, detention, and deportation* Reduce employment even for U.S.-born workers, as firms scale back or shut downThat is not economic strength. It’s self-harm.The Myth of “The Worst of the Worst”We are repeatedly told deportation efforts target only “dangerous criminals.” But government data show that very few ICE detention have violent criminal convictions. The percentage is less than for the US population. The rhetoric is tough; the facts are not.This gap between talk and truth matters. Policy built on fear rather than evidence almost always produces bad outcomes—and this is no exception.The Sunk Cost ProblemEconomists understand sunk costs: when resources are already committed, pretending otherwise only makes losses worse.Undocumented immigrants are a sunk reality. Spending vast sums to remove them destroys value already created—labor, skills, community ties—while adding new costs on top.From a DIT lens:* Self-interest says: keep productive people working, expand the tax base, grow the economy.* Shared other-interest says: keep families intact, stabilize communities, treat people with dignity under the rule of law.A pathway to legal status—and eventually citizenship—for those already here aligns both.What About Crime?Crime should be handled the way crime is supposed to be handled: Through the regular legal system. Violent offenders—citizen or not—can be prosecuted and incarcerated. Mass deportation is a blunt instrument aimed mostly at people whose real “crime” is lacking paperwork.What We’re Really SeeingIf the economics are so clear, why does the policy debate stay so irrational?Because the issue isn’t economics. It’s ideology, especially fed by claims lacking in empirical credibility coming from the MAGA New Right (again, for all the claims made by the MAGA New Right, most if not all of which rest on shaky grounds, including the thinking on immigration, see the overview in the Substack pointing to the new book Furious Minds).Immigration enforcement has become a symbolic stand-in for control, identity, and dominance. The performance of toughness matters more than results. Truth becomes optional, as total disregard for the truth is spread everyday. “Noble lies” about criminals and invasions, substitute for evidence. Anyone that protests is shredded with the same disregard for truth and “noble” liesThe DIT Bottom LineMass deportation is a double loss:* It harms self-interest by wasting money and shrinking the economy.* It harms shared other-interest by breaking families and communities.Recognizing reality and offering a broad path to citizenship is not “open borders.” It is economic common sense and social stability. Simply cut the costs, give every illegal a path to citizenship, and start over with a rational immigration policy.The immigrants are already here.The work is already being done.The only question left is whether we are willing to choose policy based on facts and balance, rather than fear and fantasy on which the MAGA New Right stands.📚 Sidebar: Serious Talk About Fixing Immigration (Beyond the Noise) — more help from ChatGPT here… pointing to credentialed sourcesFor readers who want credentialed, solution-focused analysis — not just slogans.🏛️ Bipartisan & Legislative Efforts* The Dignity Act (Salazar–Escobar)A rare bipartisan bill combining border management with a structured legalization program for long-term undocumented residents.👉 https://salazar.house.gov/media/press-releases/dignity-act-secures-new-national-endorsements-first-major-poll-shows-most* How the Dignity Program Works (legal status pathway explained)Plain-English overview of the bill’s legalization framework (registration, background checks, work authorization).👉 https://goimmigrationlaw.com/main-legalization-pathway-the-dignity-program/* Senate proposal to update the “registry” statute (green cards for long-term residents)Would allow millions who’ve lived here for years to apply for permanent residency.👉 https://www.newsweek.com/green-card-proposal-could-benefit-millions-immigrants-2105303🧠 Policy Blueprints (Deep, Credible Analysis)* Center for American Progress — “A New Immigration System”Comprehensive reset proposal: legalization, economic growth, border capacity, and humane enforcement.👉 https://www.americanprogress.org/article/a-new-immigration-system-to-safeguard-americas-security-expand-economic-growth-and-make-us-stronger/* Niskanen Center — “Immigration Beyond the Extremes”Evidence-based blueprint arguing for legalization, legal pathways, and system capacity instead of symbolic crackdowns.👉 https://www.niskanencenter.org/immigration-beyond-the-extremes-a-blueprint-that-actually-works/* FWD.us — A Path Forward on ImmigrationPractical roadmap for modernizing immigration law and integrating undocumented workers into the formal economy.👉 https://www.fwd.us/immigration/a-path-forward-on-immigration/📰 Context & Public Debate* PBS NewsHour — The Debate Over U.S. Immigration ReformMainstream coverage that actually discusses reform options, not just border conflict.👉 https://www.pbs.org/video/the-debate-over-us-immigration-reform-4fboxx/* American Immigration Council — Immigration Reform PrimerExplains why experts continue to call for legalization + system redesign, with data and policy background.👉 https://www.americanimmigrationcouncil.org/about-immigration/immigration-reform/💡 Why this matters (DIT lens)These sources show that serious analysts — across party lines — are converging on the same basic idea:Recognize the sunk reality of undocumented immigrants already here, legalize and integrate them, then rebuild immigration law so the system actually works going forward.That’s exactly the Dual Interest Theory balance:economic self-interest + shared other-interest = stability.Thanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit metaeconomics.substack.com

What we are seeing today is not random chaos. It looks increasingly like a coordinated push toward autocracy — a system where power flows downward from a few at the top, rather than outward through equal laws for everyone.Democracy depends on horizontal rule of law. Autocracy depends on vertical control.Thanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.That difference matters.From a Dual Interest Theory (DIT) in Metaeconomics perspective, what’s happening is clear: ego-based self-interest is crowding out empathy-based shared other-interest. When that balance breaks, societies destabilize.DIT teaches that healthy systems — biological, economic, and democratic — require both:* Incentives (self-interest), and* Ethics (empathy with others)* Balance in Incentive & EthicWhen empathy collapses, raw power rushes in.So how do we stay calm while working to slow or stop this slide?Here are two practical anchors.1. Reframe the story — and stay grounded in truthGeorge Lakoff reminds us: whoever frames the debate often wins it.Autocratic movements thrive in a make-believe world built from:Blatant falsehoods.The “stolen election” total disregard for the truth claim opened the door. Since then, many MAGA leaders routinely make claims with no evidence. This isn’t even normal lying — it’s what philosopher Harry Frankfurt called b******t: speaking without any concern for fact-based truth.“Noble” lies.Some leaders knowingly spread falsehoods while claiming moral or divine authority. These lies serve the “us” while justifying control over “them.” Christian Nationalism plays heavily here.Cargo-cult (make-believe science) thinking.They imitate science, economics, and scholarship while ignoring real evidence about how societies actually function.Our response must be calm, steady, and factual. Call out false claims plainly. No theatrics. Just truth.DIT is clear: systems survive only when shared reality survives.2. Hold the empathy lineEmpathy isn’t weakness. It’s infrastructure.Democracy only works when citizens can imagine themselves in one another’s place — what Adam Smith called moral sentiments. The modern term is the ethic. That empathy-based ethic supports institutions, law, and trust.DIT frames this simply:* Ego alone leads to domination.* Empathy alone lacks structure.* Balance in ego & empathy creates stability.Every durable democracy rests on this balance.So remind yourself each morning:Standing for empathy, evidence, and equal law is honorable ground.You are defending the shared other-interest that makes freedom possible.Be proud of that.Autocracy grows through fear and exhaustion.Democracy survives through calm resolve, shared truth, and empathy-with others.That’s the work now.Thanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit metaeconomics.substack.com

(Note: Both a Brief Review and a Detailed Review of the Field 2025 book are available in the Metaeconomics Blog. Both the Brief Review and the Substack were written with the editing help of ChatGPT 5.2, using the content in the Detailed Review, which is 40+ pages looking deeply into the 406 page book. So, go there for the Details!). Furious Minds and a Dangerous ImbalanceLaura Field’s new book, Furious Minds: The Making of the MAGA New Right, asks a question many Americans still avoid:How did an anti-democratic movement gain so much power in the United States?Field’s answer is unsettling—but important. The MAGA New Right is not just angry or chaotic. Parts of it are built on real ideas, real networks, and real plans. That is why it matters.To make sense of what Field shows, I’ll use a simple framework called Dual Interest Theory (DIT).A Simple Idea: Two Interests, Not OneDual Interest Theory starts with a basic fact about people and societies:* We care about ourselves* We also care about othersHealthy societies balance both. The ethic is key (the shared moral order, as David Brooks referred to it in the Farewell essay, giving important content to the community of shared interest). The ethic comes out of the act of being in empathy-with the other — care with and about others — as the Constitution frames.Self-interest drives effort, innovation, and freedom.Shared concern for others—empathy, fairness, truth—keeps systems stable.When that balance breaks, trouble follows.What Field Shows About the MAGA New RightField identifies three main groups inside the MAGA New Right:* The Claremonters* The Postliberals* The National ConservativesThey argue among themselves. But they agree on one thing:The moral circle should be smaller.Instead of “We the People,” they favor:* Loyalty over truth* Tribe over pluralism* Authority over democracyEmpathy is narrowed. Disagreement becomes betrayal. From a DIT perspective, this is a warning sign.Big Ideas, Little RealityMany MAGA intellectuals talk about the Founders, religion, or “great books.” But Field shows that facts often get pushed aside.Claims are made without evidence.Lies are justified as “necessary.”Reality becomes optional.This is how movements slide into what looks like moral certainty—but is really moral collapse.January 6 Was Not an AccidentFrom this angle, January 6, 2021, was not a surprise.When truth no longer matters, elections become suspicious by default.When loyalty matters more than law, violence becomes acceptable.When leaders claim they alone can “save the country,” democracy is already in danger.Field shows this clearly. DIT explains why it happened.Religion, Nation, and Moral ClosureSome parts of the MAGA New Right claim God or nation gives them special authority.The problem is not faith or patriotism.The problem is closing the door to disagreement.When moral claims cannot be questioned:* Evidence stops mattering* Power replaces persuasion* Democracy cannot surviveHistory is very clear on this.A Choice We Keep FacingField uses an old Greek story to frame her book: the choice between the Furies (revenge, anger, force) and Athena (law, reason, shared responsibility).Dual Interest Theory makes the same point in modern terms:Societies work when self-interest is balanced by empathy and truth.They fail when moral certainty is imposed by force.Furious Minds is a warning, backed by evidence.The real choice is not left vs. right.It is democracy with moral balanceor autocracy without it.The ethic with moral content is key. Autocracy lacks the ethic. The choice is still ours.Reference:Field, Laura K. Furious Minds: The Making of the MAGA New Right. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press, 2025And, an aside: Just what proportion of the American population is actually in the Furious Minds, MAGA New Right? With some help from ChatGPT, try this:DIT Population Triangle (Furies → Orestes → Athena)▲ Apex — Furies Core (Ego / Tribal Identity)~15–20% of adults* Strong MAGA identity* Grievance politics; us-vs-them moral certainty* High mobilization and narrative discipline* Comfortable sidelining democratic norms if it “wins”DIT reading: concentrated ego-interest (identity + retaliation)Political role: supplies intensity, organization, and agenda-setting▮ Middle — Orestes Bloc (Conflicted / Instrumental)~25–30%* Weak or mixed identity; situational voters* Hold inconsistent views (some policies yes, others no)* Motivated by prices, fatigue, party habit, resentment, or media cues* Not ideologically New Right; not committed to autocracyDIT reading: pulled between ego and empathy; low-coherence politicsPolitical role: decisive swing mass — outcomes hinge on where this group drifts▼ Base — Athena Majority (Shared Other-Interest / Civic Institutions)~50–55%* Support rule of law, pluralism, and democratic guardrails* Oppose most MAGA policies and authoritarian moves* Often less emotionally activated and less organizedDIT reading: shared other-interest (institutions over vendetta)Political role: numerical majority, but frequently passiveSo, the Oresthes —> Athena mindset can neutralize the Furies? Yes. It just takes 1) being aware, 2) acting on courage to oppose the Furies, reel them in.The DIT takeaway (why this structure matters)* Furies in the MAGA power ≠ majority support.It comes from a small (~20%) ego-identity core that is highly activated.* Orestes bloc: Democracy rises or falls in the middle.The ~28% Orestes bloc doesn’t want autocracy — it drifts there under stress, misinformation, and exhaustion.* Athena, valuing Democracy: Wins only when activated.The civic majority exists, but it must show up, organize, and speak in shared-interest terms.In DIT language:The system destabilizes when ego-interest is loud, empathy is quiet, and the middle is overwhelmed.Stability returns when Athena institutionalizes the Furies — channeling raw grievance into civic process (the Eumenides move). This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit metaeconomics.substack.com

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed, by their Creator, with certain unalienable rights…— U.S. Declaration of Independence, 1776Note: Again, this Substack is a Me & ChatGPT effort, using the details in the Blog by the same title. Click here for the details. The U.S. Founders appealed to a Creator in 1776. But notice what they did not do.Thanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.* The Declaration of Independence does not quote the Christian Bible.* The 1787 U.S. Constitution does not ground itself in any specific religion.* The Pledge of Allegiance (added much later) does not name a particular scripture either.The Founders were, in large part, Deists. They believed in a Creator, but not in a tightly defined, state-enforced Christian nationalism. They designed a tripartite, balanced government on purpose—to keep religion and state from fusing into a single authoritarian power center.So here’s the question this essay explores:If there is a God—and that God is a reasoned God, not a magical dictator—what kind of economic and political order would such a God favor?My claim, using the lens of Dual Interest Theory (DIT) in Metaeconomics, is simple but provocative:If God is reasoned, then God is a MetaEcon.That is: a God who respects truth, evidence, and humane ethics would favor an economy where self-interest is always tempered by empathy-based shared interest—a Humane Capitalism within an Inclusive Democracy.The Creator’s Prayer (A Deist-Friendly Rewrite)To set the tone, here is a re-framed “Lord’s Prayer” written from a Deist/Metaeconomic perspective. It keeps the spirit of moral seriousness but shifts away from sectarian religion toward a shared ethical space:The Creator’s PrayerOur Creator, which art in the Universe,Hallowed be Thou.Thy Universe come.Thy will be done on Spaceship Earth,As it is in the Universe.Help us build an efficient and stable political economyfor provision of daily bread for we Travelers on the Spaceship.And forgive us for the arrogance of ego, the I, the self-interest only,As we join in empathy-with a shared other-interestreflecting that which the other, the We, can go along with.And lead me not into ego-driven temptation,But deliver me from the evil of not being in empathy-with the other,as we seek to live in peace as in I & We,Self & Other, Person & Community, Me & Us, I & Thou.For thine Universe is economically efficient and politically stable,Giving a system of humane capitalism and inclusive democracy,Giving peace and happiness,For ever and ever. Amen.This is the Metaeconomic sensibility in prayer form:* Ego-based I (self-interest)* Empathy-based We (shared other-interest)* A search for balance that works for both.What Is a MetaEcon, in Plain Language?Metaeconomics doesn’t throw out standard economics. It goes beyond it.* Traditional Microeconomics focuses on self-interest only—what I call Single Interest Theory (SIT). Think of a person as a rational calculator trying to maximize their own payoff.* Dual Interest Theory (DIT) says that’s only half the story. Humans are not just “Econs.” We are Humans with:* An ego-based self-interest (the “I”), and* An empathy-based shared other-interest (the “We”) that grows out of community, relationships, ethics, and sometimes religion.In DIT, a humane person aims to maximize their own-interest, which is:own-interest = self-interest & shared other-interest (joint and balanced)A MetaEcon is a decision-maker (believer, non-believer, or agnostic) who:* Takes scientific facts seriously, and* Tempers ego with empathy-based ethics, looking for what the reasoned other can go along with.So when I say “God is a MetaEcon,” I mean:A reasoned God would favor decisions, policies, and systems that respect facts & ethics, self & other, individual liberty & shared responsibility.Religion vs Religionism: When Faith Turns AuthoritarianThere is an important distinction:* Religion (at its best):A source of virtues, empathy, moral reflection, and shared other-interest. It can help form the “We” side of DIT.* Religionism (at its worst):A merger of dogma, power, and politics that ignores both science and empathy. It often shows up as:* Authoritarian leaders claiming to speak for God* Policies that ignore modern knowledge and basic compassion* Legal reasoning frozen in 1100s theology and 1700s scienceWe see religionism fused with authoritarianism today in:* Orban’s Hungary* Putin’s Russia (with Eastern Orthodox cover)* Netanyahu’s Israel in specific policy moves* DeSantis’s Florida and several U.S. states where right-wing governors and legislators integrate religionism with powerIn the U.S., this fusion appears vividly in:* Overturning Roe v. Wade using old religious ideas and “originalism” to ignore modern science on reproduction and viability.* Treating climate change as either God’s will or no big deal, while dismissing mountains of scientific evidence.* Fights over public schools: restricting honest teaching on slavery, racism, the Holocaust, evolution, and the LGBTQ spectrum.* Expanding voucher systems and book bans that channel public money into ideologically narrow schooling.This is not religion as a source of empathy and virtue. It is religionism as a tool of power.A reasoned God, and certainly a MetaEcon, would not bless that.I and Thou: Ego, Empathy, and the Joint PathThe philosopher Martin Buber (in I and Thou, 1923) describes two basic modes of relating:* I–It:I treat the other as an object, a means to my own ends. This is the world of pure self-interest.* I–Thou:I relate to the other as a person, with dignity and value. This is the world of empathy, respect, and genuine dialogue.Metaeconomics translates this into a simple picture:* Path 0G: the selfish path of ego-only self-interest (I–It; the world of standard Microeconomics).* Path 0M: the path of shared other-interest coming from community, ethics, religion, etc. (the “Thou,” the “We”).* Path 0Z: the best path, where I choose actions that balance 0G and 0M—your well-being and mine together.On path 0Z:Efficiency, peace, and happiness requireI & We — not I against We.Use a harsh, unscientific religion or ideology, and 0M becomes distorted, forcing people onto rigid “thou shalt not” paths that fail both ethics and efficiency (for example, banning removal of a fertilized egg before it is in any reasonable sense a human).Use good facts and good ethics together, and 0M helps guide us to a better 0Z.The Tripartite Self: Psychology, Politics, and the TrinityPsychiatrist Eric Berne (1961) argued that each person has three main “ego states”:* Child – emotional, impulsive, pleasure-seeking* Parent – internalized authority, rules, and values* Can be Strict Father / Critical Parent (harsh, “do as I say”), or* Nurturant Parent (supportive, empathic)* Adult – the rational balancer and controllerPolitical linguist George Lakoff draws a parallel:* The Right tends to favor a Strict Father morality: obedience, punishment, tough love, hierarchy.* The Left tends to favor a Nurturant Parent morality: care, empathy, inclusion, opportunity.Metaeconomics—and frankly, common sense—says:Neither Strict Father alone nor Nurturant Parent alone works.We need a balanced Adult that integrates both: strict and nurturing in the right measure.Even Christian theology’s Trinity can be read this way (very roughly):* Father – often Strict (especially in the Old Testament)* Son – more Nurturing, focused on grace and compassion* Holy Spirit – the life-force, the balancing presence that “keeps things in wise tension”Again, we see a pattern:Ego & empathy, strict & nurturing, self & other—held together by a controller looking for sufficient reason.That controller is where a reasoned God and a MetaEcon would agree.Markets, Virtue, and a Humane EconomyEconomist–theologian Mary Hirschfeld, in Aquinas and the Market, argues for a Humane Economy rooted in virtue:* Standard economics celebrates prudence (smart self-interest, profit maximization).* Aquinas says prudence must be tempered by other virtues:* Temperance* Fortitude (Courage)* Justice* Faith* Hope* Charity (Love)Metaeconomics/DIT can express this formally:* Self-interest (prudence) lives on the ego side.* The other six virtues live on the shared other-interest side.A good life, and a good economy, means maximizing the joint self & other-interest—not self-interest alone.A Humane Capitalism is not anti-profit.It is anti-excess, anti-Scroogism, and anti-chaos.That is exactly the kind of system a reasoned God would likely favor:* Profit, yes.* But good profit, earned within a framework of virtue, justice, and shared flourishing.When 2 + 2 Must Equal 4 in Both Science and FaithWriter Sohrab Ahmari raises a key question:Does 2 + 2 = 4 only in science, and somehow 2 + 2 = 5 in religion?If so, religion contradicts basic reason. But if reason is part of God’s own nature, then:2 + 2 = 4 in science and 2 + 2 = 4 in religion.That is the idea of a reasoned God. Science and religion operate in different ways, but they cannot give radically contradictory answers about basic reality and still both be trusted.Metaeconomics calls for science & ethics, facts & values, working together (the “&” frame), not at war (“science vs religion”).Let’s apply that sensibility to some hot-button topics.1. Abortion* Science: A fertilized egg is not yet a human person in any ordinary biological or moral sense. It takes time, development, and viability before “someone” is present.* Religionism: Some claim that from the instant of fertilization, we have a full human person and that all termination is “murder.” This view often ignores modern biology and the complex realities of pregnancy, including rape, incest, nonviable fetuses, and risk to the mother’s life.Metaeconomic Sensibility / Reasoned God view:* Stopping a fertilized egg very early is not an “abortion of a human person.”* Later-term abortion raises serious ethical questions and must be treated with empathy-based moral reflection, especially for the pregnant woman and those around her.* Policy must be based on both the best science and reasoned ethics, aiming for what reasonable people can go along with, not raw dogma or political power.2. EducationWe see growing pressure to:* Ban honest teaching on slavery, racism, and the Holocaust* Replace evolution with creationist narratives as “science”* Silence discussion of the LGBTQ spectrum* Drive good teachers out through harassment and ideological controlMetaeconomic Sensibility / Reasoned God view:* Education should be grounded in facts.* Moral education is crucial, but it must be reality-based and compatible with basic human dignity.* Religion can contribute to moral reflection, but it cannot replace science or dictate the curriculum as if revelation alone settled empirical questions.3. LGBTQ and the Gender Spectrum* Science: Gender and sexuality are complex, involving biology, brain, hormones, and lived experience. They form a continuum, not a simple “male/female, end of story.”* Religionism: “God made only male and female; anything else is rebellion” — often based on a superficial reading of ancient texts and no engagement with modern science or the lived reality of LGBTQ people.Metaeconomic Sensibility / Reasoned God view:* A reasoned God would know how complex creation actually is.* Empathy-with each person on the spectrum means asking:If I were in their situation, how would I wish to be treated?* Policy and culture must seek a shared other-interest that includes LGBTQ persons as full members of the community, not targets for exclusion or erasure.4. Environment and Climate* Science: The Earth’s atmosphere has limited capacity to absorb greenhouse gases. Human burning of fossil fuels is driving dangerous climate disruption.* Religionism: “God controls the climate,” “climate change is just natural,” or “destroying the planet is God’s will.”There is an old story: a minister praises a farmer, “You and God have made a wonderful farm.” The farmer replies, “You should have seen it when God had it alone.”Metaeconomic Sensibility / Reasoned God view:* Humans are co-responsible stewards on Spaceship Earth.* A reasoned God would expect us to use scientific knowledge to prevent catastrophic harm.* The right frame is not “climate change is God’s will” but:How do we use facts & ethics to design an energy system that sustains life and respects future generations?5. Health, Compassion, and CovidResearch summarized in Compassionomics (Trzeciak & Mazzarelli) shows:* When health care balances profit (self-interest) with compassion (shared interest), both patients and providers do better.* Pure profit-driven systems, with empathy stripped out, are less effective and less humane.Similarly, during Covid, treating isolation, masking, and vaccination as a private vs public fight (my freedom vs your safety) led to needless deaths. Seeing it as private & public—your health and my health together—would have saved hundreds of thousands of lives.Metaeconomic Sensibility / Reasoned God view:* Health care should mix private and public elements in a way that keeps both incentives and compassion intact.* Programs like Medicare and Social Security make sense under DIT: they arise out of empathy-with the elderly and vulnerable while still leaving room for private initiative and enterprise.* A reasoned God would favor systems where ego is tempered by empathy, not where ability to pay alone decides who lives and who dies.6. Wealth, Inequality, and “Scroogism”* Classical liberalism freed people from oppressive church–state–oligarch systems, which was a good thing.* But Neoliberalism and Single Interest Theory (self-interest only) went too far in the other direction: possessive individualism, extreme inequality, and political systems captured by oligarchs.The Christian story about the rich man and the eye of the needle captures the problem. A reasoned God would:* Oppose a world where a few live in obscene wealth while many lack basics.* Also oppose a world where no one has incentives to work, create, or innovate.Metaeconomic Sensibility / Reasoned God view:* The goal is optimal inequality, not zero inequality.* Pay systems, tax structures, and property rules should:* Reward effort, creativity, and responsibility* Avoid Scroogism-level extremes that destroy community, democracy, and basic fairnessYou can think of it as:Scroogism & Socialism in balance,not Scroogism alone and not rigid state control alone.That balance is exactly what a MetaEcon—and I suspect a reasoned God—would seek.So… Is God a MetaEcon?Whether you are:* A believer in a divinity,* A non-believer, or* An agnostic still searching (think Webb Telescope peering into the early universe),the Metaeconomic Sensibility suggests this:* Reality matters. Science and serious scholarship give us the best available facts.* Ethics matters. We must ask what the reasoned other can go along with, not just what serves our own ego.* Balance matters. The best path is not self vs other, science vs religion, market vs government. It is self & other, science & ethical reflection, market & community & government.So if there is a God, and that God is reasoned, that God would:* Insist that 2 + 2 = 4 in both science and faith* Favor a political economy where:* Ego-based self-interest is always tempered by empathy-based shared interest* Facts & ethics jointly guide policy* Humane capitalism and inclusive democracy evolve togetherIn that sense:Yes. A reasoned God would be a MetaEcon.And the beautiful part is this:You don’t have to believe in God to act like a MetaEcon.A believer, a non-believer, and an agnostic can all land on the same path 0Z—the path where truth and empathy shape how we live, how we trade, and how we govern ourselves.What do you think?Would a reasoned God—if such a Being exists—want anything less?Thanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit metaeconomics.substack.com

Economist Anthony Annett put it directly: economics must restore ethical reflection to the heart of reasoning, policy, and education. Without an ethical foundation, economics becomes a technical exercise unmoored from real human consequences.Metaeconomics is a project to rebuild that foundation. (Note: This essay is a Me & ChatGPT rewrite of the original essay on the Metaeconomics Website. Click here for the details). Thanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.What Does “Meta” Mean—and Why Metaeconomics?The prefix “Meta” means to look at a discipline from above, to step back and see its assumptions, and then to go beyond its limitations. Metaeconomics does not throw out mainstream economics. Instead, it asks: What is missing, and how do we improve it?Economist Axel Leijonhufvud suggested we should not replace mainstream economics, but transcend its limits. Metaeconomics takes this seriously. It keeps the strengths of economic analysis while restoring what was removed during the past century—ethics, empathy, and the human dimension.Dual Interest Theory (DIT): The Heart of MetaeconomicsAt the center is Dual Interest Theory, developed through decades of research in economics, behavioral science, evolutionary biology, and the humanities.DIT begins with a simple but powerful claim:Human beings act from both self-interest (Incentive) and shared other-interest (Ethic)Mainstream economics assumes only self-interest matters. But real life repeatedly shows that people balance getting ahead with doing what others can accept, reflected in the shared ethic. That balance—self & other—is the real “own-interest” in human decision-making.Metaeconomics keeps self-interest primal, but adds the equally real shared other-interest—what reasoned people can go along with. This brings ethics back into analytical view.Adam Smith Was Already a MetaeconomistThe surprising truth is that Adam Smith understood this dual interest perfectly.In The Theory of Moral Sentiments, Smith explained that successful societies require empathy-based ethics, what Smith called the moral sentiments, that temper our self-love. Only by placing ourselves “in the shoes of the other,” at what Smith called the Station of the Impartial Spectator, do we gain an ethic that guides our choices.In The Wealth of Nations, Smith argued for liberty, dignity, and opportunity—not for excessive greed. He believed markets work when they are embedded in humane values. The two books are one system: Wealth & Sentiments, Incentive & Ethics.There is no “Adam Smith problem.” There is only a modern misunderstanding of Smith.Evolution Also Confirms It: Empathy Is Not OptionalEvolutionary biologists now show what Smith intuitively understood: cooperation, empathy, and fairness are essential to successful evolution—biological and cultural. Economics is part of that same evolutionary pathway.Societies thrive when people balance self-interest (selfishness) by empathy with the other (selflessness). They fail when greed overwhelms ethical balance.Why Metaeconomics Is Politically and Theologically NeutralBecause Metaeconomics gives analytic space to whatever shared-interest is operating—religious, political, cultural—it does not privilege one ideology over another. Instead, it provides a neutral framework for evaluating claims based on empirical evidence and ethical reasoning.In short: Metaeconomics is a method, not an ideology.The Problem with Mainstream Economics TodayInstitutional economist Daniel Bromley puts it bluntly: mainstream Single Interest Theory (SIT) is “political ideology in disguise.” It assumes ethics will magically appear, even when the model removes ethics from view.Deirdre McCloskey calls this a kind of “cargo-cult science”—models that look scientific, but ignore the humanities and moral philosophy that make human behavior understandable.Metaeconomics restores empirical balance using research across science and the humanities, not ideology.Real World Economics, Not Fantasy EconomicsThe Metaeconomics project moves us toward a real-world economics grounded in human nature, ethical reflection, and empirical science. It sees the economy as part of a larger human and ecological system—what I call a “Spaceship Earth Economics.”We are travelers on a shared spaceship. Our economics must reflect that reality.Rebuilding Economics EducationSadly, introductory economics courses often teach ideology more than science, often discouraging ethical reflection altogether.We need a MetaEcon 101 that teaches:* the joint nature of self and other* the empirical basis of ethics* dual interest rather than self-interest only* balance, not dominance, between incentives and valuesEconomics should once again be grounded in science and ethics—just as Adam Smith envisioned.Main Features of Metaeconomics (DIT)Metaeconomics:* Transcends the limits of self-interest-only economics* Restores ethical reflection* Grounds economics in science and humanities* Recognizes dual human nature (ego & empathy)* Shows why extreme inequality undermines efficiency* Rebalances Markets & Government* Provides a neutral method for evaluating ideology* Seeks pragmatic, humane solutions that truly workIn short: economics must serve real human beings.The InvitationMetaeconomics is a project to put ethics, empathy, and real human understanding back into economics. It restores what Adam Smith taught, what evolution confirms, and what society urgently needs.If we hope to sustain democracy, reduce inequality, protect our planet, and build economies that work for ordinary people, we must join this effort.This is the Project of Metaeconomics.If you want to explore more* Metaeconomics: Tempering Excessive Greed (2020)* “Towards a Dual Interest Theory in Metaeconomics” (2023)* “Cargo-Cult Economics to Metaeconomics” (2025)And the Metaeconomics Blog and ongoing Metaeconomic Order essays.Let’s bring ethics back into economics—where it started, and where it belongs.Thanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit metaeconomics.substack.com

… an academic career covering 4-5 decades has still got me thinking about it, so, with some help here, as in Me & ChatGPT … well try it, and let me know what you think!Thanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.We live in a time filled with loud political claims. Many of these claims are stated as facts, even when they have never been tested by real research. Moral philosopher Harry Frankfurt called this “b******t” — statements made with no concern for truth.Because democracy depends on truth that can be tested and verified, this matters a great deal.So, an honest question is worth asking:When we look at strong research from science and the humanities, which parts of today’s political spectrum match the evidence most often? Which parts align with fact-based truth?This essay looks at the question through Dual Interest Theory (DIT) in Metaeconomics.DIT says every choice has two joint and inseparable parts:* Self-interest — our wants, identity, wealth, and status.* Shared-other-interest — empathy, moral concern for others, institutions, and long-term well-being.DIT shows that societies work better when self-interest is tempered by shared-interest ethics that are tested with facts and careful reasoning.This idea helps explain why much of today’s credible research lines up more often with what is called the Center-Left than with the populist–religious–market fundamentalist Right or the Extreme Left.This isn’t about party loyalty.It isn’t ideology or cheerleading.It has to do with how different worldviews handle:* evidence,* doubt,* uncertainty, and* the shared-interest side of human nature.The Pattern in ResearchAcross many fields — climate science, gender identity, public health, moral psychology, and inequality — a clear pattern shows up:Positions more common on the U.S. Center-Left tend to be closer to the scientific and scholarly consensus.Why?Because the Center-Left, on average, shows:* more comfort with testing claims,* more trust in scientific institutions,* more tolerance for complexity,* more willingness to change views when evidence demands it.This fits DIT:Evidence-testing is a shared-interest process.It forces us to look beyond ourselves.Truth needs conversation, comparison, and correction.By contrast, parts of the modern U.S. Right — especially those tied to strict religious literalism, hard market ideology, and rigid hierarchy — show higher levels of:* identity-protective reasoning,* distrust of experts,* resistance to changing sacred beliefs,* preference for moral certainty.These patterns are strongly documented in political psychology.The key point is structural, not moral:When evidence threatens a sacred story, the story usually wins.How Religion Enters the PictureHere, research gets especially clear.Studies in sociology show that religious fundamentalism — strict authority of scripture, fixed truth, and moral purity codes — closely ties to:* skepticism about climate science,* denial of biological roots of sexual orientation,* distrust of universities,* hostility toward independent institutions.This form of religion does not simply sit next to science.It competes with science.When truth is seen as fixed and delivered from divine authority, methods that rely on testing, peer review, and provisional knowledge become suspect or threatening.To be clear: religion itself is not the problem.Many religious traditions teach humility, compassion, and shared responsibility. Those beliefs fit well with evidence-based ethics.But today’s U.S. political Right often blends:* religious fundamentalism,* strict market beliefs (i.e., market fundamentalism), and* nationalist populism.That mix tends to resist shared-interest testing and scientific evidence.It often limits shared concern only to people who share that worldview.It leans toward anti-science attitudes, especially toward social science, and is sometimes strongly dismissive of the humanities.This helps explain why well-supported research runs against many of its claims.Examples by Research DomainAcross several major fields, scientific and scholarly evidence aligns more with Center-Left views than with the main claims on the modern Right.ClimateScientific academies around the world agree that human activity is the main driver of current warming. Denial of climate influence is mostly found on the Right.LGBTQ IdentityAcross biology, endocrinology, and psychology, evidence shows sexual orientation and gender identity are not voluntary choices. Claims that treat them as moral failures or willful decisions mostly cluster on the Right.Economic InequalityResearch shows that markets without proper guardrails produce extreme wealth concentration, which harms mobility, productivity, and democracy. This supports Center-Left arguments for institutions that balance markets, not the laissez-faire self-interest only view more common on the Right. The Center-Left claim that shared-interest matters is supported by the research.HealthcareComparative studies show that nations with guaranteed healthcare generally achieve better results at lower cost. These systems are usually defended by Center-Left coalitions, not by market fundamentalists.These patterns are not partisan opinions.They are empirical findings.And they point in one direction over and over.The DIT ExplanationDIT helps make sense of this.* Science is social.It requires shared methods, external checks, and humility.* Self-interest alone resists uncomfortable evidence, especially when research challenges identity, status, or wealth.* Shared-interest ethics fit better with truth-seeking.When we care about others and long-term outcomes, we test ideas rather than defend sacred narratives. Empathy matters.In short:The strength of our shared-interest side determines whether evidence can change our minds.Healthy disagreement is about balancing values and goals.But ideological identity can become sacred.When that happens, evidence breaks on impact.Today, that breakdown happens more often among fundamentalist (both religious and market) and populist parts of the Right. The reasons are psychological and structural, not personal.Are There Failures on the Left? Yes.The Left is not immune to ideology.Some Left-leaning groups push ideas that ignore evidence, such as:* strict anti-GMO claims,* blanket resistance to nuclear energy,* post-modern beliefs that deny objective truth.But these views are mostly fringe.They do not appear widely in Center-Left policymaking or law.By contrast, rejection of evidence on:* climate,* public health,* vaccines,* elections,* LGBTQ identity, and* economic inequalityis common within major parts of the modern Right.That is what the research shows.The Deeper Question for MetaeconomicsDIT does not tell us to take a political side.It tells us to hold ego-interest in check by grounding decisions in evidence, shared ethics, and empirical test. Empathy-interest giving rise to the shared-interest matters.DIT does not say:* “Left is always right,” or* “Right is always wrong.”It says:* Policy should respond to facts,* Ethics must be informed by reality,* Shared-interest holding the ethic should temper ego,* Truth must not be blocked by identity defense.Without shared ethics and empirical testing, both markets and democracies slide into distortion and self-deception.And that seems to be what happens when political (including political economic) and/or religious ideology tries to silence results from serious research.In DIT terms, the test is simple:Which claims still stand when the data are examined, and when our moral and ethical circle stretches beyond our own identity?Wherever that leads, that is where a Metaeconomic Order must stand.Final ThoughtThe purpose of Metaeconomics is not to shame one side or praise another.Its goal is to help us rise above ideology.If we hope to solve climate problems, handle diversity, protect democracy, or balance markets with ethics, we must let the shared-interest side guide us.The facts from well-run research are not perfect, and they change over time.But they remain our best tools for tempering self-interest and building systems that work for everyone.And that is the heart of The Metaeconomic Order.Thanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit metaeconomics.substack.com

Excerpt:We were taught that members of Congress listen to “We the People.”The reality today is very different. Individual citizens are almost completely shut out of the information loop. Here’s why he system no longer works as a two-way street — and what can still be done about it.About This EssayThanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.This piece is part of my ongoing Metaeconomic Order series, which explores how modern political and economic systems drift when the balance between ego-interest and shared-other-interest breaks down. Representative government depends on that balance — and the collapse of citizen input channels is one more sign of a system tilting toward narrow interests and away from broad reciprocity. And, this is an integration of Me & ChatGPT-5 (yes, I pay Microsoft $20/month to get access to the latest version!) … nuanced questions of ChatGPT-5 based on 4-5 decades of paying attention to political economy, first cuts and many iterations, edits --- more questions, and, finally, here it is.Earlier installments here in The Metaeconomic Order examine … a sampling here, many more available:* how extreme inequality (“the greatest of all plagues”) erodes democratic stability,* why The Two Roads to Serfdom --- whether moving toward extreme socialism or extreme capitalism --- diverge into authoritarian trajectories, The Third Road to Serfdom, on which the US is now headed in the Authoritarian Nationalism being built. Citizen input to our Congressional Delegation is crucial at the current time, in order to stop the tilt to Authoritarian Nationalism* Need to take back the meaning of the word Socialism from the Republicans, and clarify that Republican Scroogists are just as problematic as Democrat(ic) Socialists: Balance Please* how empathy-with-the-other underpins functional markets, governance, and civic identity, and* why rebuilding empathy-based shared-interest institutions is essential to renewing democratic life and Avoiding All Three Roads to SerfdomYou can explore the full series here and follow along as we map what a revitalized, science-based Metaeconomic Order might look like — an Order grounded in Adam Smith’s moral sentiments and modern Dual Interest Theory.For years, I’ve done what civics class told us to do.I call my representatives. I write detailed, evidence-based emails.I offer four decades of experience in political economy.And I get… nothing.No acknowledgment.No reply.Not even a form letter.So what’s going on? Has representative government simply stopped representing?The short answer: Yes — at least in the way we were taught.The channels that once connected citizens to their elected officials have quietly collapsed. Below is a map of why and how it happened, and what still works in 2025.1. The Volume Problem: Congress Is Drowning in MessagesThanks to digital tools, congressional offices now receive tens of thousands of messages per week — most generated by mass-click campaigns.Most emails look identical.Most are not read.Most never reach the member.A House member may have only a dozen staff to handle everything: legislation, communications, scheduling, phones, casework. They simply don’t have the bandwidth.The email inbox is now noise, not input.2. The Incentive Problem: Members Don’t Fear General Voters — They Fear PrimariesMost districts are now “safe.”Elections are decided in the primary, not the general.That means members listen to:* party leadership* base activists* big donors* ideological groups* local elites…not the broad public.Your careful, reasoned analysis may be excellent — but it doesn’t move their political incentives.3. The Power Problem: Congress Outsourced Policy to LobbyistsCongress has fewer internal experts than it did in the 1970s.Lobbyists, by contrast, have:* specialized knowledge* institutional memory* long-term relationships* timeSo lobbyists now do much of Congress’s real work:* drafting bills* interpreting regulations* preparing policy memos* briefing staffNot because members are corrupt — but because the institution is hollowed out.4. The Fundraising Problem: Members Spend More Time on Money Than PolicyA sitting member of Congress often spends 30–70% of their schedule fundraising.Not legislating.Not reading constituent emails.Not reviewing your thoughtful input.Fundraising.The people they meet are the people who influence them.5. And Then There’s Social Media: The Most Misunderstood Channel of AllPeople often assume posting on Facebook, Bluesky, Instagram, TikTok, or X will “get attention” from elected officials.Sometimes it does — but usually in indirect, locally driven ways.Here’s the reality of how congressional offices actually monitor social media:5A. What They DO Monitor1. Local media ecosystemsThis includes:* local newspapers* TV and radio* journalist accounts* large town or regional Facebook groupsIf your content gains traction locally, staff will see it.2. Posts that tag the memberComments, replies, or videos that directly tag their official account get routed into their monitoring tools.3. Social-media posts that go semi-viral in the districtA TikTok with a couple thousand local views matters far more than one with 100,000 national views.Local resonance beats national reach.5B. What They DO NOT Monitor* Your personal Facebook posts (unless widely shared)* Bluesky threads without tags or local engagement* Instagram or TikTok content outside the district* Most comments in broad national political groupsPosts that aren’t connected to the district rarely reach congressional eyes.5C. What Social Media CAN Still Do for Regular CitizensUsed strategically, social media can recreate a lost channel of “shared-other-interest” information:1. Post in local Facebook or community groupsThese are heavily monitored by congressional staff.2. Tag the member — sparingly and respectfullyAggression gets ignored.Clarity gets noticed.3. Coordinate with local journalistsThey often pick up thoughtful posts for local stories.4. Share short, punchy versions of your SubstackShort-form content spreads much better than long rants.5. Aim for issue-specific traction, not general ventingMembers respond to focused district issues (healthcare, ag policy, Social Security, veterans, education, infrastructure).The goal isn’t to “go viral.”The goal is to create local momentum that shows shared concern.6. The Empathy Problem: The Shared-Interest Channel Has BrokenThrough a Dual Interest Theory lens, Congress used to receive two kinds of input:* Ego-interest (fundraising, party loyalty, donors, base activists)* Shared-other-interest (broad public welfare, cross-partisan perspectives, civic norms)But the shared-interest channels have atrophied:* local journalism shrank* town halls diminished* letter-writing declined* email became noise* phones became overloaded* constituent meetings became tightly controlledWhat’s left is the ego-interest loop — which DIT predicts will push political systems toward narrow, vertical power structures when left unbalanced.Social media can partially rebuild shared-interest channels — but only when it is used locally, collectively, and strategically.7. What Still Works: The High-Impact ChannelsThe following do reach congressional offices:1. Letters to local newspapersCongressional staff read these obsessively.2. In-person visits to district officesThey must be logged.3. Comments on federal rulemaking (regulations.gov)Surprisingly powerful — every comment enters the legal record.4. Local Facebook or neighborhood-group discussionsThese are watched carefully.5. TikTok or Instagram videos about district issuesThey surface when they get local traction.6. Small coalitions (10–30 engaged people)Collective messages get attention.7. Committee staff outreachCommittee staff are the real policy brain trust.Used well, these channels reintroduce the shared-interest voice into a system that has otherwise gone silent.8. The Bottom LineRepresentative government isn’t functioning the way the civics books promised. We still vote, but the connective tissue — the everyday channels through which citizens informed government — has worn thin.Yet all is not lost. With a smart mix of:* local engagement* targeted social-media strategy* public letters* district-level traction* and coalitional actioncitizens can still push shared-interest information back into a system starved for it.Democracy works when it hears us. It is especially crucial now that the Congressional Delegation and other Political Leaders here us, as the tilt toward an Authoritarian Nationalism is underway. Democracy is under assault, and we the people need to be heard. The trick now is learning where the ears actually are.Thanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit metaeconomics.substack.com

This short Substack was inspired by a Conservative acquaintance making the claim that Mayor Mamdani is a Communist (i.e., Extreme Socialist), and that New York would be in effect destroyed by it. Well, to this DIT based Metaeconomist, who has a placeholder for any and all political systems, that seemed like one of the total disregard for truth claims for some purpose not made clear, other than to sew fear into the New Yorker. The claim would also justify Scroogism which is a key feature of Extreme Capitalism, the claim the Market can do no wrong and the Government can do no good. Is that the purpose? So, did some homework, and with the help of ChatGPT, well, here it is… some thoughts on the truth content of the claim.And, on using ChatGPT: I have gone to using ChatGPT-5 in my Substacks, which integrates across all manner of sources, with my own method (ongoing for decades) of the same kind of integration. Generally, I write the essay first, and then use ChatGPT-5 to mainly better organize and make it more readable. In this case of the claim of Mamdani communism, I asked several nuanced (because I have been paying attention to the properties of the various kinds of political economic systems for decades) questions about what Mamdani is thinking, and asked ChatGPT to help me find it. So, the following is an integration of Me & ChatGPT-5, a work in progress. So, here we go.What Zohran Mamdani proposes for New York City looks much more like a Scandinavian (like Norway and Sweden)-style mixed economy—a blend of private market incentives and public ethics—than a command economy as in any form of communism or extreme socialism.So, here’s a fact-based look at Mamdani’s major ideas through the Dual Interest Theory (DIT) lens, which asks: How do ego-interest (incentives, markets) and shared other-interest (ethics, community) work together?Thanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.What the Evidence SaysIndependent analysts (Columbia Business School, Time, Guardian, The New Yorker) agree:Mamdani’s plan is ambitious but not revolutionary. It aims to fix affordability without abolishing private property, working at better balance in private & public property. The challenge is funding and execution, not ideology. Other than the command to freeze rents --- which does have the ring of a command and control type economy --- it certainly is not communism, but rather a bit of socialism working to temper the excesses of scroogist based capitalism.The DIT LessonWhen Self-Interest Rules (Scroogism) Alone: Inequality ↑, trust ↓, shutdown politics. When Shared Other-Interest Rules (Socialism) Alone: Innovation ↓, costs ↑, bureaucracy expands. When Both Are Integrated (DIT Balance, Scroogism & Socialism): Ego-based Incentive & Empathy-based Ethic = Prosperity & Legitimacy.Mamdani’s mix—markets running on moral and ethical fuel—is closer to pragmatic social democracy in a more humane economic system than to anything that would be considered communism. Mamdani is not a communist. His policies can work if New York manages the balance: public ethics that temper greed, private enterprise that sustains growth, good balance in incentive and ethic.In DIT terms: the goal isn’t to win a war between Scroogism and Socialism—it’s to make them cooperate in an integrated way for the good of we the people. It is also about the Me needs a We to Be, but without a Me there is no We, another way to say it is essential to strike a balance and avoid the extremes. DIT makes clear that every attempt at moving toward the extremes --- pure communism with all public property (all We) or pure capitalism with all private property (all Me) --- fails. It seems Mamdani is more about striking balance within that range, working for we the people --- keeping Incentive for the Me while dealing with Fairness with the We, which reduces Resentment. It has nothing whatsoever to do with communism. Rather, it is about a joint partnership between Market & Government, and it has a lot to do with a Democracy based Market economy.What think? What am I missing?Metaeconomics PostscriptA reader commented that something may indeed be missing. And, that while the reader agreed Mamdani is not likely a communist, i.e., Mamdani supports the moral and ethical system underlying a Democracy based Market system, Mamdani may have gone awry on another moral and ethical front. And, to understand the comment, one needs to know that intifada (Arabic: “uprising” or “shaking off”) originally referred to the Palestinian uprisings against Israeli military occupation—in the late 1980s and early 2000s.In particular, the comment was: “ ... my big issue with (Mamdani) is his refusal to condemn phrases like ‘globalize the intifada’ which we all know is a call to violence or to (not) recognize Israel’s right to exist as a Jewish state (keeping in mind there are 27 Muslim majority countries).” A DIT response here: Clearly Mamdani needs to make clear his position, and by not speaking against it when he has been at gatherings where it has been voiced, reasoned people are left to assume Mamdani supports intifada, perhaps even the violent form of it. And not making it clear, well, that is a moral and ethical issue. Now, in all fairness to Mamdani, in that he apparently has never said much in either direction (although the revealed preference --- economists use this notion a lot! --- in not speaking against intifada is perhaps revealing), the phrase “Globalize the Intifada” carries very different meanings for different people. Some hear it as a general call for justice or solidarity with Palestinians; others, recalling the violence of earlier intifadas, hear it as a call to harm for Israel the Nation (the notion of Nation coming from Hazony 2018, 2025), and a support for anti-Judaism in general (am using the term as in Nirenberg 2013; see Footnote). Zohran Mamdani hasn’t advocated violence against Judaism, but also has not offered the explicit rejection that might reassure many in the Jewish community who hear that phrase as threatening. So, overall, it is unethical for Mamdani to not reveal the truth about his view on the matter of intifada.From a Dual Interest Theory perspective, this is a challenge of empathy-with-the-other, as in empathy-based ethics: Recognizing both the fear that violence could be condoned and the moral and ethical passion driving calls for human rights. A healthy political culture requires both—the self-interest in security and the shared other-interest in justice—tempered by reasoned dialogue. The goal, always, is to find language and policy based in empathy-with going every direction, searching for common ground on which both sides can live with in good conscience.Footnote:As Nirenberg (2013, p. 1-2) says it, regarding Judaism: “… words like Jew, Hebrew, Semite, Israelite, and Israel … (we) all know that there are differences as well as similarities between these words. Jew is not the same as Hebrew, Israelites are not Israelis, Israeli need not mean Zionist or Jew (or vice versa), and many who have been called ‘Jew’ or ‘Judaizer’ in no way identify with Judaism at all. Yet all of these and numerous other words exist in close proximity to each other, and have so often bled together across the long history of thought that, for the sake of simplicity, we can call our topic (in this book) the history of thinking about ‘Judaism.’ (pp. 1-2)”I am in the process of Reviewing the Nirenberg (2013) book, all 611 pages of it. Stay tuned.Nirenberg, David. Anti-Judaism: The Western Tradition. W. W. Norton & Company, 2013.Thanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit metaeconomics.substack.com

Recent Government shut down was really about a continued concern that the so-called Big Beautiful Bill doesn’t heal America’s economy — it deepens its infection. It is the newest strain of the Plague of Inequality that David Lay Williams warned about: when wealth and moral imagination separate, societies sicken.The Plague, Then and NowThanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work.Political thinkers since Plato have diagnosed the same recurring illness:* When wealth and power concentrate, the moral glue of reciprocity dissolves.* When the few mistake privilege for virtue, the many lose trust.* The result is oligarchic contagion — a social immune system collapse.In The Greatest of All Plagues (Princeton 2024), David Lay Williams (see detailed review) traces this pattern through Plato, Rousseau, Smith, and Marx.Every age faces a moment when greed masquerades as growth and inequality becomes self-justifying.The “Big Beautiful Bill” is that moment for our time.The bill’s beauty is purely ornamental.Underneath lies the ancient pathology: privilege defended as efficiency.The DIT Diagnosis — Moral Economics in Real TimeDual Interest Theory (DIT) explains why the Plague of Inequality keeps returning.* Ego-interest drives innovation and wealth creation.* Shared other-interest (empathy-with) sustains legitimacy and cooperation.When policy celebrates only ego-interest, inequality metastasizes.When empathy is stripped from economics, efficiency itself dies — because unhealthy, undernourished, distrustful populations can’t produce or consume effectively.The Cure We Keep ForgettingAs Smith, Mill, and now Williams remind us: optimal inequality — not perfect equality — is the true antidote.It means designing systems where incentive and ethic co-evolve, each tempering the other.Re-investing in health, nutrition, and fair pay isn’t charity; it’s civilization’s immune response.Metaeconomic ConclusionThe Big Ego-Interest Bill is no miracle of efficiency — it’s the latest symptom of an old disease.Unless empathy re-enters the political economy, the Plague of Inequality will keep mutating — and each new strain will call itself “beautiful.”Thanks for reading The Metaeconomic Order! Subscribe for free to receive new posts and support my work. This is a public episode. If you would like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit metaeconomics.substack.com