This Could Be Our Future

This Could Be Our Future Plot Summary

Introduction

Our society operates under a powerful hidden assumption: the belief that in any decision, the right choice is whichever option makes the most money. This paradigm of financial maximization has come to dominate not just business and economics, but our institutions, politics, communities, and even personal values. While the focus on financial growth isn't inherently wrong—financial security is important—the exclusive prioritization of monetary gain above all other forms of value severely limits human potential and societal progress. This exploration challenges us to reconsider what truly constitutes rational self-interest. Through rigorous logical analysis, historical examples, and compelling case studies, we discover how expanding our definition of value beyond money could transform our world. From the mullet economy that extracts wealth from many to benefit few, to the promise of multi-dimensional decision-making frameworks like Bentoism, we'll examine how our current systems evolved and what alternatives might emerge. By recognizing that values like community, sustainability, fairness, and long-term thinking can be just as rational as financial considerations, we unlock the possibility of a future that maximizes human flourishing in all its dimensions—a world where prosperity is measured not just by GDP, but by how well we fulfill our broader human potential.

Chapter 1: Financial Maximization as the Dominant Hidden Default

Financial maximization operates as society's most powerful hidden default—an unseen force that influences virtually all decisions. Like the subtle white lines guiding us in a parking lot, this default steers our choices without conscious awareness. We tend to accept that the rational decision in any context is whichever option produces the greatest financial return. This belief is so deeply embedded that we rarely question its dominance or recognize it as merely one perspective among many possible ways to determine value. The origins of this mindset can be traced to the 1970s, when economist Milton Friedman published his influential essay declaring that "the social responsibility of business is profit." This philosophy spread far beyond corporate boardrooms, gradually reshaping our entire society. Over subsequent decades, the goal of being "very well off financially" rose from being essential for 28% of college freshmen in 1970 to 82% by 2016—the single largest change in life goals recorded during this period. Simultaneously, previously prioritized goals like "developing a meaningful philosophy of life" declined from 79% to just 46%. What began as economic theory transformed into cultural dogma. Game theory, emerging from Cold War strategy sessions at institutions like the RAND Corporation, provided intellectual justification for this shift. It established mathematical models suggesting that rational behavior meant maximizing one's immediate self-interest, often at others' expense. This hyperrational framework portrayed trust and cooperation as naive, while self-centered calculation represented clear-eyed realism. The paradigm spread through education systems, media narratives, and political discourse. Harvard Business Review covers urged readers to "be paranoid" and "go to war," reinforcing competitive, profit-maximizing mindsets. Finance and consulting firms staffed with graduates from elite business schools implemented these philosophies throughout major corporations and institutions. The Maximizing Class, as they might be called, represented a new force with a singular mission: extract maximum financial value from every situation. As financial maximization colonized more aspects of society, institutions previously governed by diverse values—education, healthcare, science, government—became increasingly evaluated through a purely monetary lens. What couldn't be measured in dollars was marginalized, regardless of its importance to human flourishing. This shift was not inevitable but resulted from specific historical choices that could, with recognition and effort, be redirected toward a more balanced understanding of value.

Chapter 2: The Mullet Economy: How Value Extraction Creates Inequality

The Mullet Economy—"business in front, party in back"—captures the fundamental economic shift of the past fifty years. Since the 1970s, workers' productivity has continued rising while their compensation has effectively flatlined. This stark divergence represents perhaps the most consequential feature of our economy: one group faces cost-cutting (the "business in front") while another enjoys financial windfalls (the "party in back"). The mechanics of this transfer operate through a two-step process. First, companies cut costs through wage freezes, layoffs, and service reductions. Second, the "saved" cash gets redistributed to executives and shareholders through mechanisms like stock buybacks. Before 1982, such buybacks were largely illegal, considered a form of market manipulation. After deregulation, they became standard practice. By 2018, companies were spending over $1 trillion annually repurchasing their own shares, often exceeding their investments in research and development. This transformation is starkly visible in compensation patterns. From 1948 to 1973, American hourly compensation grew 91 percent. From 1973 to 2013, it grew just 9.2 percent—despite continued productivity gains. Meanwhile, CEO compensation soared by 1,000 percent. This isn't because workers suddenly became less valuable; it's because the fundamental rules of the economic game changed. As income stagnated, consumer debt exploded—credit cards and student loans essentially replacing the raises workers once received. The consequences extend beyond individual finances to reshape entire communities. When communities face economic extraction rather than investment, small businesses struggle, entrepreneurship declines, and neighborhoods transform. In cities, this manifests as gentrification—local businesses replaced by chains, rents skyrocketing, and longtime residents displaced. In rural areas, downtowns hollow out as shopping malls and big-box retailers (originally built as tax shelters through a 1954 change called "accelerated depreciation") siphon economic activity from community centers. Perhaps most concerning is how the Mullet Economy threatens our collective future. At a 2018 Dallas Federal Reserve conference, CEOs openly acknowledged they couldn't envision "broad-based wage gains" ever returning. Many companies were already planning to replace human workers with automation. In a world dominated by financial maximization, this represents rational strategy—but it risks creating a future with ever-higher profits flowing to an increasingly narrow slice of society, while economic security becomes unavailable to growing numbers of people. This system isn't simply the natural outcome of market forces. It results from specific policy choices, regulatory changes, and shifts in corporate governance—all implemented through extensive political influence purchased by those benefiting most from these arrangements. Without addressing these underlying mechanics, inequality will likely continue intensifying, regardless of overall economic growth.

Chapter 3: The Limitations of Profit-Only Metrics in Measuring Progress

For the past century, we've primarily measured societal progress through gross domestic product (GDP)—a metric tracking how much money businesses, consumers, and government spend. When GDP rises, we celebrate economic growth; when it falls, we worry about recession. Yet this singular focus on financial metrics systematically blinds us to crucial dimensions of human wellbeing and social health. When Simon Kuznets first proposed GDP after the Great Depression, he explicitly warned about its limitations: "The welfare of a nation can scarcely be inferred from a measurement of national income." GDP tracks quantity of spending but remains indifferent to quality—it treats expenses for divorce lawyers, cancer treatments, and environmental cleanups as identical to spending on education, preventive healthcare, or community development. According to this metric's logic, the ideal citizen would drive an SUV, have cancer, be getting divorced, and eat out every night—all GDP-positive activities regardless of their actual impact on wellbeing. This measurement problem extends beyond GDP to our entire conception of value. We've created a false dichotomy between "value" (singular, meaning monetary worth) and "values" (plural, meaning principles or ideals). The former is precise, quantifiable, and universally translatable; the latter seems subjective, unmeasurable, and therefore less "real" in policy discussions. Yet research consistently shows that beyond providing basic security, additional financial gains produce diminishing returns for human happiness. A 2010 study by Nobel Prize-winning economist Daniel Kahneman found that emotional wellbeing increases with income only up to about $75,000 annually—after which additional money brings minimal additional satisfaction. The limits of financial metrics become particularly evident when examining what they systematically exclude. Wikipedia adds tremendous knowledge value to society but registers negatively in GDP since it replaces paid encyclopedia sales. The domestic work performed predominantly by women—estimated at $12 trillion in unaccounted-for economic activity—simply doesn't exist in our primary measurements. Volunteer work, community building, mentorship, and countless other valuable activities remain invisible in financial accounting systems. When our measurement systems fail to capture important dimensions of value, those dimensions inevitably receive less attention and investment. As management theorist Peter Drucker observed, "What gets measured gets managed." Our narrow focus on financial metrics has led to bizarre distortions—like pharmaceutical companies finding it more profitable to create lifestyle drugs for wealthy markets than life-saving treatments for widespread diseases, or companies maximizing quarterly profits by sacrificing research that might ensure their long-term viability. This isn't merely a technical problem of inadequate metrics. It reflects a philosophical impoverishment—a failure to recognize the plurality of human values and the diverse ways those values manifest across different domains of life. Just as medicine evolved from bloodletting to modern practice by developing more sophisticated ways to observe and measure health, our understanding of value requires similar evolution—moving beyond financial maximization toward a multi-dimensional approach that honors the full spectrum of what makes life worth living.

Chapter 4: Bentoism: A Framework for Rational Multi-Dimensional Value

Bentoism offers a framework for expanding our conception of rational self-interest beyond immediate financial gain. Named after the compartmentalized Japanese lunch box, it creates a structured way to consider four dimensions of value that affect our decisions: Now Me, Now Us, Future Me, and Future Us. This framework doesn't reject financial considerations but places them within a broader context of human values and time horizons. The framework operates like a grid with two axes: time (from now to future) and perspective (from self to collective). Now Me represents immediate self-interest—the domain where financial maximization operates most powerfully. Its governing values include security, pleasure, and autonomy. Now Us encompasses relationships with others—family, community, coworkers—and values like fairness, tradition, and collective wellbeing. Future Me considers our long-term personal interests, including values like mastery, purpose, and grit. Future Us addresses intergenerational concerns and broader societal values like sustainability, knowledge, and awareness of long-term consequences. When confronting decisions, considering all four perspectives often reveals solutions that create more comprehensive value than narrowly maximizing immediate financial returns. In the classic game theory scenario called Prisoner's Dilemma, rational self-interest supposedly dictates betraying your partner. Yet in real-world tests, many participants intuitively resist this "rational" choice because they access values beyond immediate self-interest. A Bentoist approach makes this intuition explicit—Now Us values solidarity and loyalty, Future Me values personal integrity, and Future Us values living in a trustworthy society. The Bento approach helps identify value conflicts that often remain unexamined. Consider someone struggling to quit smoking. Now Me values pleasure and avoiding withdrawal pain, making continued smoking seem rational from that limited perspective. However, Future Me values health and longevity, Now Us cares about not harming loved ones with secondhand smoke, and Future Us considers broader public health implications. When we expand our notion of rational self-interest to include all four perspectives, different choices emerge as truly rational. This framework aligns with psychological research showing that people who pursue "intrinsic" goals (learning, improving, helping others) report greater satisfaction than those chasing "extrinsic" goals (wealth, appearance, recognition). Carnegie Mellon researchers found that introducing monetary rewards for enjoyable activities actually decreased participants' intrinsic motivation once the money was removed. This suggests our current economic models may inadvertently undermine deeper forms of human flourishing and motivation. Bentoism doesn't impose specific values but creates space to recognize the full spectrum of what we actually care about. It acknowledges that different contexts rationally call on different values—financial considerations appropriately dominate investment decisions, while justice properly governs legal matters. The problem arises when financial values bulldoze other domains where different values should rightfully prevail. By recognizing that nonfinancial values can be just as rational as financial ones, Bentoism offers a practical path toward balancing immediate needs with longer-term flourishing for ourselves and society.

Chapter 5: Real-World Applications of Value-Conscious Decision Making

Value-conscious decision-making already exists in numerous contexts, demonstrating that prioritizing non-financial values can create sustainable success. These real-world examples illustrate how expanding our conception of value works in practice—not as utopian idealism but as practical strategy that often produces superior outcomes. Pop star Adele provides a compelling case study. When tickets for her concerts went on sale, they immediately sold out, then reappeared on secondary markets at massive markups. Financial maximization would suggest Adele should either charge much higher prices initially or take a cut of the scalpers' profits. Instead, she partnered with a startup that developed an algorithm identifying her most loyal fans, giving them priority access. This loyalty-maximizing approach meant less revenue for Adele but ensured her concerts were filled with genuine fans rather than wealthy elites. From a Now Me perspective, this seemed irrational; from a Now Us perspective that valued community and fairness, it made perfect sense. In professional basketball, teams discovered that traditional wisdom about shot selection was mathematically suboptimal. Data analysis revealed that three-point shots, despite lower success rates, generated more points over time than mid-range jumpers. This insight transformed how basketball is played—not because teams became more values-driven but because they measured value more accurately. Today, NBA teams take more three-pointers in a single season than they did in the entire 1980s. This illustrates how better measurement tools can reveal previously invisible forms of value. Companies like Patagonia and Kickstarter have institutionalized multi-dimensional value creation through their legal structures as Public Benefit Corporations (PBCs). Patagonia's PBC charter includes a remarkable commitment to share proprietary environmental innovations with competitors when doing so might benefit the planet. After developing a sustainable "biorubber" for wetsuits through four years of research, Patagonia shared the material with competitors rather than maintaining exclusive rights. Similarly, Tesla opened its electric vehicle patents to competitors in 2015, recognizing that addressing climate change required widespread adoption of electric vehicles—a Future Us value that transcended immediate competitive advantage. The Financial Independence Retire Early (FIRE) movement represents an individual-level application of expanded value thinking. FIRE followers minimize consumption and maximize savings not to become wealthy for wealth's sake, but to create financial security that enables pursuit of more meaningful values. As one FIRE blogger writes: "Happiness comes from many sources, but none of these sources involve car or purse upgrades." By optimizing for long-term autonomy rather than immediate consumption, FIRE practitioners demonstrate how financial discipline can serve non-financial values. Even traditional businesses find value in non-financial priorities. Fast-food chain Chick-fil-A closes all locations on Sundays, reportedly forgoing $1 billion annually in potential revenue. This tradition-honoring practice creates costs but also benefits—Chick-fil-A consistently ranks among America's most popular restaurant chains and best places to work. By optimizing for values beyond profit, the company builds stronger customer and employee relationships that create sustainable success. These examples demonstrate that expanding our notion of value isn't merely idealistic—it creates practical advantages. Organizations and individuals who recognize multiple dimensions of value often make more nuanced decisions that create lasting benefits across various timeframes and stakeholder groups. Far from being irrational, this multi-dimensional approach to value can represent superior rationality—one that more accurately reflects the full spectrum of human concerns and potential.

Chapter 6: The 30-Year Path to Value Transformation

Significant cultural transformations typically unfold over approximately thirty years—the time required for new ideas to progress from fringe concepts to mainstream acceptance. This pattern appears repeatedly across domains from medical practice to exercise habits to financial maximization itself. Understanding this timeline provides realistic expectations for expanding our value systems beyond financial maximization. Consider several examples of thirty-year transformations. In 1867, surgeon Joseph Lister published findings on antiseptic surgical methods based on the new germ theory. Despite dramatically reducing mortality, his approach faced fierce resistance from established medical professionals. Thirty years later, when England's king needed emergency surgery, Lister's methods had become standard practice. Similarly, when President Kennedy called Americans to exercise in 1960, the idea seemed revolutionary—doctors warned against weight lifting, and joggers were so unusual that police sometimes stopped them. Thirty years later, 60 million Americans belonged to gyms and exercise had become normal daily activity. Financial maximization followed this same trajectory. Milton Friedman's 1970 essay declaring profit as business's sole responsibility initially represented a controversial position. Three decades later, by 2000, this philosophy had become the unquestioned orthodoxy in business schools, corporate governance, and political discourse. The ideological revolution wasn't instant but accrued through gradual changes in education, cultural messaging, regulatory structures, and institutional practices. This thirty-year pattern reflects how generational change drives cultural transformation. As philosopher Karl Mannheim noted, society continually experiences new participants emerging while former participants disappear. People entering adulthood during periods of cultural shift internalize emerging values differently than those whose formative years occurred under previous paradigms. The younger generation doesn't need to overcome entrenched mental models—they simply grow up with different baseline assumptions about what's normal. By 2050—thirty years from now—Millennial and Generation Z individuals will occupy leadership positions throughout society. These generations, notably the first to grow up after the internet, express significant dissatisfaction with inherited economic systems. In a 2014 Harvard poll, only 19% of Americans between nineteen and twenty-nine called themselves capitalists, and less than half supported capitalism. While dissatisfaction doesn't guarantee change, it creates openness to alternatives like expanded value frameworks. Transformation requires both crisis and response. Just as antiseptic methods addressed surgical mortality and exercise emerged in response to television-induced sedentary lifestyles, expanded value systems respond to growing recognition that financial maximization creates unsustainable outcomes. Climate change, automation-driven job displacement, and extreme inequality provide motivation to seek alternatives. Bentoism and similar frameworks offer structured responses to these challenges. Cultural shifts don't happen automatically—they require intentional effort by individuals and institutions working to create change. Early adopters demonstrate alternatives, measurement systems evolve to capture previously invisible forms of value, technologies enable new practices, and networks form to share innovations. Over time, what seemed radical becomes commonsensical, just as previously unquestioned assumptions fade into historical curiosity. The thirty-year path suggests both patience and urgency. Transformation won't happen overnight, but neither is it impossibly distant. Like learning a perfect handstand—which requires six months of daily practice rather than two weeks of intense effort—expanding our value systems demands persistent work rather than quick fixes. By understanding this timeline, we can maintain both realistic expectations and confident hope that significant evolution in how we define and pursue value remains entirely possible.

Summary

Financial maximization—the belief that the right choice in any situation is whatever option makes the most money—has become our society's dominant hidden default. This narrow conception of value systematically neglects equally rational considerations like long-term well-being, community health, and intergenerational responsibility. By recognizing that human rationality encompasses multiple dimensions of value across different time horizons, we unlock tremendous potential for individual fulfillment and collective flourishing. The framework of Bentoism provides a practical approach to this expanded rationality, helping us consider not just immediate self-interest (Now Me) but also our relationships with others (Now Us), our future selves (Future Me), and future generations (Future Us). Real-world examples from music to sports to business demonstrate that this multi-dimensional approach to value creation works—not just ethically but practically. As we face mounting challenges from climate change to technological disruption to extreme inequality, expanding our value systems represents our most promising path forward. While meaningful cultural transformation typically requires about thirty years to fully manifest, the seeds of this value evolution are already visible in emerging practices and changing attitudes, particularly among younger generations who will lead society by 2050.

About Author

Loading...

Yancey Strickler

Read more