Search

Toward Better Balance in Scroogism&Socialism

Updated: Jan 21

... formerly titled: Now that the Election is Over. Have edited it a bit, toward framing the next few years as needing to focus on moving the political economy toward good balance in the I&We ... in effect, good balance in Scroogism&Socialism! And what is that balance? Well, Metaeconomics suggests something more akin to the balance that the Scroogists&Socialists struck during the mid-1950s and again for a short time in the mid-1970s: How do we get back to it?

Directly relevant to the 2020 US Election, Putnam and Garrett (2020) in The Upswing trace the continual and ongoing rebalancing in the I-We-I --- in Metaeconomic terms, balancing the I&We, which is also influenced by election results --- in the American system, looking over the period of the early-1900s through the 2020s, which shows

… that Americans in the first two thirds of the twentieth century enjoyed both rapid economic growth and greater equality and community—the best of both worlds—and conversely, Americans since the Sixties have had both slow growth and less equality and community—the worst of both worlds (Putnam and Garrett, 2020, p. 340).

The amazing similarity in path of economic, political, social, cultural measures of the American situation found by Putnam and Garrett (2020) needs attention. The analysis documents the extremely high correlation in the swing in all the measures --- the changing balance in I&We --- over time from I to We and back to I. The question is: What is the best balance in I&We, which clearly is not the best at the current time, and how to move toward the best balance that works for everyone?

The I-We-I Cycle

The amazing pattern in the data and high correlation among different forces are depicted here in Figure 1, from Putnam and Garrett (2020, Figure 1.1, p. 9). The curves represent the upswing from the early-1900s (a time when the Scroogists flourished) toward a better balance in the mid-1950s, and again in the mid-1970s (balance, as in Scroogists&Socialists both got their due) and then back to the extreme into the early-2020s (Scroogists once again dominate the system, with any attempt at tempering it branded as come extreme move by Socialists, when in fact it is nothing of that order at al), with upper reaches of the curve representing:

Economics: More optimal inequality in income and wealth

Political: More optimal partisan cooperation

Social: More optimal citizen involvement and participation in everything from bowling clubs to religious, social, and fraternal organizations

Cultural: More optimal communitarian tendencies, better balance in the I&We



Figure 1. The I-We-I Cycle in Economics, Politics, Society, and Culture


Source: Figure 1.1, p. 9, Putnam and Garrett, 2020

But, be careful here: It is not necessarily the case that the very top is the best. Rather, the very top is simply a turning point, with the optimal point more likely being somewhere on the way up to the top (no matter which direction one goes, in both cases working to temper the “I” with the “We” --- and, for more about the need to temper the “I” see Lynne, 2020).

In light of the 2020 US election, we can see that Political turmoil, the Partisan conflict, was high in the 1900s, and has returned in the 2020s. Intriguingly, the US went through a period of political, partisan cooperation in the mid-1950s, which was about the same again in the mid-1970s. Intriguingly, the correlation with arguably more optimal income and wealth inequality; more optimal social involvement; and more optimal communitarian tendencies are almost spot-on with the more optimal level of cooperation in partisan politics. It is amazing to see that all four measures are so much on the same track, a correlation which also surprised the researchers, who while “..tinkering with several obscure datasets— stumbled over an unexpected confluence of historical patterns (Putnam and Garrett, 2020, p. 343),” which led to the book.

The most important point, from a Metaeconomics frame of reference, is the play of the I&We. The US system starts out being extremely “I” (Self-interest only) oriented in the early-1900s, in the first Gilded Age. It then moves to a more communitarian --- “We” are in it all together, shared Other-interest tempering Self-interest, somewhat widely shared --- framing by the mid-1950s, reaches a peak in the mid-1960s, and is back to mid-1950s levels in the mid-1970s. It then returns to the mainly “I” (Self-interest only) frame by the early 2020s, a new version of the old Gilded Age. The frame of reference is the “I-We-I” cycle, and what to do about it, referring to what happened by the late-1950s, with the book concluding, referring back to the top of the curves:

…we didn’t set our sights high enough for what the “we” could really be, and we didn’t take seriously enough the challenge of full inclusion. Therefore, the question we face today is not whether we can or should turn back the tide of history, but whether we can resurrect the earlier communitarian virtues (N: Read “We”) in a way that does not reverse the progress we’ve made in terms of individual liberties (N: Read “I”). Both values are American, and we require a balance and integration of both (Putnam and Garrett, 2020, p. 341).

So, by the end of the book, Putnam and Garrett (2020) lament the fact that the US has deviated, once again, from having achieved a reasonably good balance in the I&We by the mid-1950s, repeating that level in the mid-1970s, at least for most groups, albeit racial and gender issues had not been given enough attention.

It Really is About the Balance in the I&We

How do we make sense of all of it? What are the drivers? And, is there a way to find some optimal point in the swing, which as Metaeconomics makes clear, is never going to be at the extremes? In Metaeconomic terms, it is about the continual need to balance and re-balance as between the I&We, Self&Other-interest, and, writ large, the Market&Government, as depicted generally in Figure 2.


Figure 2 Balance in I&We, Individual&Community, Self&Other-interest, and writ large, seeing the essential need for balance in a joint Market&Government

Think of it as a problem in reducing injustice as the scale swings back-and-forth, searching for good balance in the I&We. And, overall, the task is one of continually reducing injustice, which requires solid investment in both the market&government. Insufficient attention to either one ensures the other cannot function well, and that injustice will increase. Also, like Adam Smith tried to teach us, eliminating injustice is the most important, essential pillar on which both capitalism&democracy, market&government rests.

I&We are Actually Joint, Interdependent, and Nonseparable

In more formal terms, it is about finding path 0Z in Figure 3, seeing the communitarian virtues in path 0M and the individual liberties in path 0G. Metaeconomics clarifies it is about the jointness in individual-liberties&communitarian-virtues on path 0Z, the two being joint, interdependent, and nonseparable. And, most importantly, it clarifies that happiness, peace, and economic efficiency is only possible with good balance, perhaps something more akin to the balance in the mid-1950s (and perhaps in the mid-1970s), but not at the top of the 4-paths in Figure 1.

Figure 3. Joint fidelity to individual liberty along with commitment to equality and inclusion,

A tighter analytical system like depicted in Figure 3 (and, there is a Mathematics to go along with it; see the Mathematical Appendix in Lynne, 2020) helps clarify what is really at stake in the I-We-I conundrum delineated by Putnam and Garrett (2020). That is, while the empirical analysis behind Figure 1 is powerful, and gives many new insights, the analytical system represented metaphorically in Figure 2 and more specifically in Figure 3 helps point to what more exactly is going on. It also points to more exactly what can be done in moving back toward a more reasonable balance.

Relating the Upswing in the I-We-I Curves to the Metaeconomics Balance in I&We

The start and end-points of the Upswing Curves in Figure 1 arise on path 0G, the “I” path of mainly self-interest. Going too far on the Upswing toward the top of Figure 1 is to move too close to or perhaps even onto path 0M, a path of over influence on and control by the “We” over the “I.” The optimal path 0Z arises on the way, something more akin to that achieved in the mid-1950s in the US right before the peak, and, again, perhaps in the mid-1970s on the other side of the peak. Metaeconomics teaches that it is all about tempering the “I” with the “We” (and the “We” with the “I”) but not going too far. The optimal path 0Z is one where the primal driver represented in the “I” is sufficiently tempered and bounded by the “We” to achieve the happiness, peace, and economic efficiency of a well- balanced I&We. Yet, one cannot push it too far, as the “I” needs the space to freely choose. The fidelity of individual liberty is enjoyed on path 0Z with at least some commitment to widely experienced equality (actually, an optimal inequality, as some inequality is essential) and inclusion as represented in path 0M.

What happened? Why did the US “go over the top” and then go too far down the “I” path again? A MetaEcon would hypothesize that the shift toward path 0M had perhaps gone too far --- perhaps better said, it went too fast for the times --- toward a “We" that was not widely embraced. The fairly rapid changes represented in the Civil Rights Act of 1964, the Voting Rights Act of 1965, and the Great Society programs of the late-1960s all led to a kind of back-lash, especially in the formerly segregated South, contributing to the move to the “I” after the mid-1960s. So, a push to path 0M may have over-shot a bit, for the times, even though like Putnam and Garrett (2020) point out, in the quote above, even that push was really not enough on either the racial or gender fronts.

Metaeconomics actually suggests another substantive side to the story, like in the notion "and now you know the rest of the story," like Paul Harvey used to say it. A MetaEcon would suggest it was more about the “I” than about the “We” per se, with the failure being one of not tempering the more primal tendency to the Ego-based self-interest (the "I") which resides deeply inside of every human brain, the core of the brain being reptilian in origin. As my colleagues and I have argued (Cory, 1999, 2000, 2006a,b, 2018; Levine, 2006; Lynne, 2002, 2006, and Wilson, 2006), the reptilian core of the brain gives rise to the Ego-based arrogance of self-love, the self-interest. The mammalian over-layer which came much later in the evolutionary process works to temper it, as reflected in an Empathy based other (shared with others, but internalized within the own-self)-interest (the "We"). The other-interest reflects that which everyone can go along with, reflected in the ethical (and legal) system. The reptilian “I” needs to be tempered by the mammalian “We” in order to maintain any kind of mental stability --- good balance in Ego&Empathy, in I&We, in Individualism&Community --- essential to every well-functioning person, and, writ large, to a well-functioning, joint and balanced Market&Government. And, it takes a great deal of self-control to bring it about. The cold blooded, snake-like, hedonistic core of the brain, which can also be quite narcissistic --- was fed and encouraged in the early-1900s, and again in the early-1960s, reinforced in the early-1970s, and especially pushed in the early-1980s --- with said reinforcement and push going too far. It assuredly is the most likely cause of all the turmoil on the economic, political, social, and cultural fronts in the 2020s.

Hypotheses About the Driving Forces in the Rebalancing of I&We

So, what happened? What forces were at work that moved the balance back toward the “I” with far too much self-interest? Putnam and Garrett (2020, Chapter 5) address the question in the frame of Culture: Individualism vs Community. Metaeconomics would change the frame of the Chapter, making clear it is not “vs” but rather it is about “&” as in the jointness and inherent interdependence in Individualism&Community. Reason? Well, the Ego&Empathy, I&We, Individualism&Community is inherent in the way a Human brain is wired, so there is no “vs” but only an “&” at work within each person, and, in everything a person does within both the Market&Community, Market&Government. So, we can now make Metaeconomic sense of the Putnam and Garrett (2020, p. 163) “…trace (of) the fluctuating balance between individualism and community in American culture over the last 125 years.” In contrast to Putnam and Garrett (2020), who eventually declare they do not see the primary cause and effect, Metaeconomics sees the drivers in the I-We-I cycle as very much coming from within the person. Each person, at least in a humane liberalism --- which the US system has tried to be, not with full success --- works at how the I&We is balanced and rebalanced over time. The person decides the balance within own-self, as influenced by the community, and driven by the empathy-based formation of a shared other-interest.

A good way to start the conversation is in reference to Putnam and Garrett (2020, p. 165):

Following the literary critic Lionel Trilling, “culture,” as we use the term, always entails a contest, a dialectic, a struggle. American history and myth have always contained elements of both individual and community—the cowboy and the wagon train. “There is no period in American history when thinkers have not wrestled with the appropriate balance of power between self-interest and social obligation,” observes intellectual historian Jennifer Ratner-Rosenhagen.

In Metaeconomic terms, the dialectic is between the Ego&Empathy, the I&We, the Self&Other (internal own-self but shared with others) -interest. So, where is the cowboy and the wagon train in Figure 3? Actually, it is cowboy&wagontrain, with the best mix of the two on path 0Z. The cowboy strives to be an “I” on self-interest path 0G; the wagon train is the “We” represented on social obligation path 0M. Notice the inherent wrestling to find the appropriate balance of power, and, the sacrifice required in both domains of interest in order to resolve it, and, how the payoffs in both domains arise jointly, being completely nonseparable: Neither the cowboy by own-self nor the cowboy traveling with wagon train can go off into the sunset without losing something. At point A, the cowboy trying to go off into the sunset by own-self maximizes self-interest IG3 but has to sacrifice IM1 < IM3 in the gains from being a part of the wagon train. At the same time, if the wagon train has too much influence (or perhaps control), the cowboy is now at point C, and self-interest has to be sacrificed with IG1 < IG3. A bit of sacrifice in both domains --- sacrifice on the part of the payoff to the cowboy from being part of the wagon train and the cowboy being off on the own path to the sunset --- leads to happiness, peace of mind, and economic efficiency at point B.

The optimal path 0Z is a path with a bit of sacrifice in both domains of the dual interest, whether it is economic, political, social, and/or cultural. And, while Putnam and Garrett (2020, p. 166) refer to it as a swing in the pendulum between the self-interest and social obligation, a better metaphor is seemingly the balance scale of justice (reducing injustice) in Figure 2. Justice is served with a bit of sacrifice in both domains of interest, potentially leading to a synergistic gain, sum-greater-than-the-sum-of-the-parts payoff in both interests, overall.

The potential for that synergistic gain is illustrated in Figure 4. The possibility frontiers get progressively (no pun intended, but descriptive) further apart when the joint I&We outcomes are pursued at the same time.


Putnam and Garrett (2020, p. 166) highlight how Abraham Lincoln emphasized path 0M kinds of outcomes, as related to improving the ability of the former slaves to express their path 0G hopes and dreams of freedom. It was not to be, as the reconstruction relegated the former slaves to being largely controlled by former slave owners on some perverse path 0M. The path reflected segregation and extreme ways of controlling the former slaves lasting through the Jim Crow years. That extreme control was a part of the white segregationist agenda of the South, and not really ending until the Civil Rights Act of 1964 and the Voting Rights Act of 1965, with some vestiges of it still around, as in the systemic racism in US policing. Yet, as Putnam and Garrett (2020) make clear, some gradual gains were being made starting back in the 1870s, even during the segregationist Jim Crow period, and the fight for gender rights in everything from voting to abortion, all the gains started arising during the extreme “I” period of the first Gilded Age. The "We" was tempering the "I."

Every race was affected very directly by the Gilded Age of extreme “I” framing, which lasted well into the 1920s, with upwards of 40-50% of the wealth being concentrated in 1% (mainly white) population the last years leading to the Great Depression in the 1930s. We are now back to the 40-50% range here in the 2020s. Metaeconomics makes clear that the Great Depression was indeed caused by it, as was the crash of 2008 and continuing economic malaise of the 2020s: Think of the “I” side of the balance scale in Figure 2 essentially on the floor, without hardly any consideration for the fact said distribution of wealth is not something that others could go along with.

And, what drove it? Social Darwinism was a huge player back in the 1900s (Putnam and Garrett, 2020, p. 166-167), the notion of the survival of the fittest: “…the haves deserved what they had, and the devil take the have-nots (which is back in vogue now in the 2020s, with Meritocracy in the rich and a Culture of Cruelty practiced against the poor: see Wise, 2015).” Intriguingly, Charles Darwin never favored such an idea, but it played well, among the Taking and Keeping robber barons and their enablers, the Conservatives: It justified keeping the balance scale tipped in their favor (as it is doing so once again in the 2020s, again, see Wise, 2015).

Said hyper-individualism did not play well with the Progressives, who proceeded to do everything possible to re-balance the scale toward a “We” that would work better for everyone, including the robber barons. The Progressives sought “…to provide a new, more communitarian narrative of modernization that could knit together haves and have-nots, immigrants and native-born Americans, and their views gradually gained ground (Putnam and Garrett, 2020, p. 168).” The idea of the need to build social capital to temper the use of private capital emerged. Current Progressives have been trying it again in the 2020s, pointing to such things as the need for more investment in public education and universal health care.

Civic, religious (especially seeing the role of the Social Gospel), and social organizations started to grow back in the early-1900s, with a focus on tipping the balance toward the “We” and less emphasis on the “I.” Using the Google search engine Ngram (which facilitates word searching old books and documents), by 1920 the use of the phrase “survival of the fittest” was fading while “social gospel” was increasing rapidly, the latter phrase rising substantially in frequency of use right up to 1960 (Putnam and Garrett, 2020, p. 169). By the 1970s, the latter had essentially disappeared, as the attention to the “I” started to be restored to levels not seen since prior to the 1920s.

Yet, from the early-1900s the Progressives, represented in Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, Franklyn Roosevelt gradually helped in changing the balance toward the “We” especially with the New Deal of the 1930s. Words and phrases like (Putnam and Garrett, 2020, p. 171-172) “Christian socialism,” “neighborliness,” and “community” were common terms, as well as “association” (or “associationism”) and “cooperation.” Said rebalancing toward the “We” led to “…progressive legislation on child labor, the eight-hour workday, the estate tax, and a more progressive income tax (Putnam and Garrett, 2020, p. 172).

Even Hoover --- the President when the “Hoovervilles” appeared across the US landscape, the shanty towns, illustrating the failure of the Market to adequately provide wealth except for the top 1% --- framed the matter in (Putnam and Garrett, 2020, p. 173) “… good progressive fashion that laissez-faire was irresponsible, and that individualism without equal opportunity was repressive. The only individualism worth having—American individualism—must combine personal initiative with a deep spiritual commitment to the value of public service and the importance of cooperation.” Hoover believe that even Conservatives could be good communitarians with attention to the “We,” a view that has vanished from the “I” focus of Conservatives (especially the Libertarian and other Extreme Right elements) in the 2020s. Unfortunately, he did not practice what he preached, instead giving into “I” oriented economic policy which just exacerbated the Great Depression. American Individualism if done correctly would have ensured no Hoovervilles, with everyone having a piece of the action on path 0Z rather than only the 1% having it all on path 0G, and, even the vertical axis of extreme greed.

The 1920s that led to 1930s were all about the “I”, with free love, partying, live for the day mindsets, a free-for-all mindset perhaps stirred by a kind of nihilism arising out of the flu Pandemic in 1918 (Putnam and Garrett, 2020, p. 174). The “I” creed was not the solution, however, and led to the 1929 crash, and fed the Great Depression. It also did not work during the 1940s, with the need to pull together in a “We” to address the fight against Fascism, an extreme kind of “I” representing a dictator(s) and a small group of enablers. Ironically, US voters have been supporting Autocracy with a Fascist twist in recent years here in the US, ironic in that current US voters are the children and grandchildren of the World War cohort --- the Greatest Generation --- who put down Fascism. We can guess the Greatest Generation would be aghast at who their children and grandchildren are voting for.

The American framing of the “We” in the late-1930s and into the 1950s showed in contemporary books, movies of the day, represented in the Grapes of Wrath, Mr. Smith Goes to Washington, and It’s a Wonderful Life. By the early-1950s, it was all about living the American Dream, made possible with good balance in I&We. Also, the American Dream meant far more than an extra car and a bigger house: It was about a balanced I&We, balanced Individualism&Community, as well as strong investment and support for the essential balance in Market&Government. As Putnam and Garrett (2020, p. 177) characterize it:

The term “American Dream” had originally been popularized by James Truslow Adams in 1931, who explained, “It is not a dream of motor cars and high wages merely, but a dream of a social order in which each man and each woman shall be able to attain to the fullest stature of which they are innately capable, and recognized by others for what they are, regardless of the fortuitous circumstances of their birth.”

Labor unions, cooperatives, banking and finance regulations, and other ways to bring offsets to power to help support the opportunity to achieve the American Dream were all part of it: It was Market&Government in good balance. The notion of the Common Man --- a “We” in a "we are in it together" philosophy --- also evolved in consort with it (Putnam and Garrett, 2020, p. 175). The Dream lingered into the 1960s, and was used as a guiding light in the Civil Rights movement. It was about both material&moral considerations, not just another car or better house. Unfortunately, by the late-1970s and into the1980s, it was just a dim memory of the We that used to Be.

Also, “community standards” even in the time when the American Dream was possible for some often had a dark side, as used in the South by segregationists to keep the ancestors of the former slave population from joining the narrowly defined and guarded “insider” group of the old South. Those with that genetics, even if only “1-drop” of blood from the former slave population, were treated as the “outsider” group, something that came back in full force in the US for all people of color (“the immigrants” especially when the religion and culture is different, too) now in the 2020s. The American Dream, even at the peak of it, was mainly for white people, especially white heterosexual men, as certain race and gender profiles were not often part of the favored We. It seems it is the case again, here in the 2020s.

Other dark side communitarian framing also started to come out in the 1950s, like the McCarthyism with the oft total distortion of the reality as related to another kind of We represented in communism. The McCarthy era purges of often completely legal “We” activities led to a kind of back-lash by freedom loving “I” framing. It is now back in the 2020s, with conspiracy theories and imagined legions of extreme Left wing instigators planning to take-over the system, a kind of Fantasyland especially prominent on the Right (Andersen, 2017).

The communitarian framing of the day often meant discrimination not only for political views, but was also based on racial and gender profiling. People started to move away from the subversion of the community standard “We” with deviance of the “I” encouraged (Putnam and Garrett, 2020, p. 180). The famous James Dean, and the movie Rebel Without a Cause, 1955 kind of thinking became ever more common. By the mid-1960s, the “I” was back on the stage, and the “We” was being relegated to history.

In technical terms, it came to be understood that the two sets of isocurves in Figure 3 did not exactly overlap; rather, they really look more like that in Figure 3, with conflicts between the dual interests, rather than just one set of isocurves and one set of interests --- self&other-interest identical, not disparate like illustrated. Only one-set was regularly represented in the Microeconomic analysis of the day, and is still so depicted in the massive flaw of contemporary Microeconomics that sees only one-interest, the self-interest identically viewed as also the shared other-interest.

The 1960s represent a drastic turn from even considering what was on the “We” path 0M toward an almost exclusive focus on the “I” path 0G. And, in extreme cases of the arrogance of self-love fed by a heavy dose of hedonism and narcissism, the vertical axis became the focus. That vertical axis is a common trajectory for path 0G in the 2020s (up the vertical axis without regard for any shared We-interest, like in not wearing a face mask during a Pandemic).

So, the US starts with a good mix of autonomy&homonomy (the latter about nudges from the “We”, but not controlling, of a person’s “I” behavior) in the 1930s through early-1950s, but comes out of the 1950s with autonomy&heteronomy (the latter meaning substantive restrictions and social control). A kind of rebellion against heteronomy feeds the turning down of the curve, starting in the mid-1960s, encouraged more in the 1970s, and by the late-1980s it is strictly about autonomy. It became a kind of free-for-all, do as you please kind of “I” framing with lots of dark side outcomes. Life-styles on the Left changed dramatically, as the free-spirit of the “I” was encouraged. The Right changed, too, to a kind of free-for-all, no holds barred “I” on the economic front, while to this day still resisting the free-spirit social changes on the Left.

Ayn Rand, Frederick von Hayek, and Milton Friedman --- Libertarians all --- came to play a huge role in removing the “We” from economic framing and theory on the Right. Friedman (1970) published the infamous The Social Responsibility of Business Is to Increase Its Profits article in the The New York magazine, which went viral, like a nasty and destructive Pandemic virus. Suddenly it became fashionable and acceptable for American business to narrow the “We” to only the shareholders, giving short shrift to employees, communities, input suppliers, communities. It was also completely acceptable to resist any kind of environmental regulation, anything that reduced profits, no matter the social cost of doing so, including the very destruction of the Spaceship Earth Systems within which the business is embedded. The Right was on a very narrow “I” path, and the Economic Narrative to this day still reflects it. As McCloskey (2019, p. 93) says it, the Chicago School of Economics Libertarians, like Milton Friedman, still driving economic framing and policy in the 2020s, are “opposed to any ethical reflection whatever.”


The lack of ethical reflection continued in the 1980s, with the Reagan Revolution (and Thatcher in the UK) wherein it was erroneously claimed, without empirical support, that only the Market could and did good things. The empirical reality is that the Government can do good things, too, if good people are running it. The Friedman Doctrine and the Reagan Revolution led to dire consequences, especially for the economy, but also contributed to the downswing in the other 3-measures of the human situation, as illustrated in the move to a complete focus on the "I" by the 2020s.

As Metaeconomics makes clear (see Lynne, 2020), the lack of ethical reflection means only the arrogance of self-love expressed in less than tempered and bounded self-interest prevails, a dominant feature of business and economy in the 2020s, just like in the 1900s. It is only through the first step toward an empathy based other-interest that ethical reflection arises to influence the choice. So, the first step is to empathize, which is to consider what is on path 0M, what is the ethical content --- that which is thought reasonable by a wide-array of others (all the stakeholders not just the shareholders and the overpaid CEOs), the ethic as it were --- before considering how to temper the primal tendency to move on path 0G. After said consideration --- as Adam Smith suggested, while in the Station of the Impartial Spectator --- one then tempers the self-interest on path 0G, moving to a path 0Z that works for everyone.

So, overall, starting in the mid-1960s, and it is really the case now in the 2020s: “For the Left, constraints are on lifestyles; for the Right, constraints are on money … (in both cases, removing the constraints feeds the “I” as in ) If it feels good, do it (Putnam and Garrett, 2020, p. 188).” High individualization to an “I” causes both Left and Right to want the constraints, the “We” removed. Unfortunately, freeing-up the “I” without any kind of tempering or bounds causes negative consequences for both Right&Left, for both the I&We. Metaeconomics makes it clear that happiness, peace, and economic efficiency are not possible on path 0G, and certainly not on the vertical axis which has become to be the path in extreme lifestyles and extreme pursuits of wealth, and, sometimes both in combination as in wealth&lifestyle. For the latter, the combination destroys not only the person but everyone and everything the person touches (e.g. in extremely egoistic-hedonistic-narcissistic personalities who have managed to accumulate massive amounts of wealth and power). As Cory (1999) makes clear, the homeostasis balance of Ego&Empathy is essential, and clearly missed when the focus is only on the arrogance of self-love without self-control by own-self, and without any kinds of bounds. Adam Smith also warned of the need to temper the arrogance of self-love --- the self-interest --- with that which everyone can go along with.

<