Editor’s Note

“The test of our progress,” President Franklin D. Roosevelt once said, “is not whether we add more to the abundance of those who have much; it is whether we provide enough for those who have little.” But in 2025, the real test may be whether we can do both – and whether Americans can agree on the right approach. 

If you’ve been following the debates of the past few years, you’ve heard plenty of diagnoses of what ails the U.S. economy. Stagnant wages. Rising inequality. A fraying social fabric. The China Shock and the rise of AI. 

You’ve probably also heard no shortage of proposed cures: tariffs and other protections, industrial policy and government intervention, wealth taxes and redistribution. The problem is that many of these solutions, however well-intentioned, risk making things worse. 

At this time of great change, how then should we build an economy that works for more Americans – one that generates broad-based prosperity while preserving the dynamism and innovation that have made the United States the world’s greatest economic engine? That’s the question we asked nine leading thinkers to tackle for this issue of The Catalyst. 

What follows isn’t a single manifesto or a unified theory. Our contributors don’t agree on everything, and that’s by design. But together, they offer an expansive vision of what works and what doesn’t when it comes to fostering inclusive growth. And they provide a practical roadmap for how to get there. 

Michael Strain of the American Enterprise Institute kicks things off by taking on the populist economic agenda that has recently gained traction in both U.S. political parties. Protectionism, nationalism, and heavy-handed government intervention won’t deliver for working Americans, he warns. What will? Removing the barriers – in housing, occupational licensing, education, and investment – that block upward mobility. 

Neil Chilson also picks up the theme of removing obstacles, but with a focus on America’s greatest competitive advantage: innovation. In “How AI Could Supercharge America,” he explains that the United States already leads the world in artificial intelligence and other cutting-edge technologies. The biggest danger we now face isn’t from the tools themselves; it’s that misguided policies could squander our lead. 

The economist Melissa Kearney starts her essay by pointing out that America’s market-based system already delivers enormous benefits – but then reminds us that we could and should still do better. By strengthening families, improving skills training, and fighting childhood poverty, we can ensure that many more Americans share in our country’s prosperity. It’s a vision of inclusive capitalism that neither dismisses markets nor pretends they’re sufficient on their own. 

Benn Steil, of the Council on Foreign Relations, offers a crucial insight about what inclusive growth actually requires. In “The Right Way to Fight Economic Inequality,” he argues that despite the rise of populist frustration, most Americans still want good jobs, not handouts. The best way to deliver those jobs, he argues, is through a “predistribution” agenda that would boost productivity by removing the barriers that limit labor mobility in both obvious and unseen ways.  

Of course, thriving in tomorrow’s economy will require more than just knocking down obstacles; we must also ensure that young Americans develop the right skills. In their essay, Robin Berkley – the Ann Kimball Johnson Director of Education at the Bush Institute – and Alexis Yelvington – program manager of opportunity, also at the Institute – tackle this challenge, showing that success in an AI-driven world requires a strong grounding in the fundamentals, especially math and reading. The bad news is that those two areas are just where U.S. students are currently losing ground. The good news is Berkley and Yelvington have plenty of suggestions for how to bring our educational system up to task. 

Three essays then grapple with where and how government should intervene in markets – and where it shouldn’t. J.H. Cullum Clark – director of the Bush Institute-SMU Economic Growth Initiative and an adjunct professor of economics at SMU – offers a sharp assessment of an old economic tool that’s recently come back in vogue: industrial policy, or government intervention to boost strategic sectors. Drawing on the history of Washington’s involvement in the semiconductor industry, Clark shows that central planning can sometimes help parts of an economy grow – but with greater risks, and at much higher costs, than most people realize. 

Igor Khrestin, senior advisor for global policy at the Bush Institute, widens the lens to examine how other countries game the system. His essay argues that, despite the hopes of many proponents, China’s admission into World Trade Organization 25 years ago hasn’t led that country to liberalize or improve its trade practices. Instead, the opposite has happened – a growing threat to American workers and global security. 

Angela Rachidi, of the American Enterprise Institute, brings the focus back home with a hard look at how well-intentioned policies can backfire. In “When Help Holds Families Back,” she argues that despite decades of social welfare spending, many Americans still feel left behind. The solution isn’t more of the same, therefore, but fixing our social safety net so it promotes advancement instead of trapping families in cycles of poverty. 

In our issue’s last essay, James Pethokoukis, of the American Enterprise Institute, tackles one of today’s most politically charged topics. “In Defense of Billionaires” makes a contrarian but important argument: that attacking the ultra-wealthy may be an easy way to score political points, but it ignores the great good that a certain kind of billionaire has done for our whole economy and society at large. The wrong restrictions, he goes on to show, could be politically satisfying – but they could also make all of us poorer. 

None of the authors in this issue offers simplistic answers or ideological purity. What they present instead is more valuable: evidence-based arguments about what actually works. They remind us that building a more inclusive economy shouldn’t require choosing between markets and government, or between growth and fairness. It requires getting the details right – removing barriers where they exist, intervening carefully where necessary, and always keeping the focus on what will help more Americans climb the ladder. 

The U.S. economy has proven remarkably resilient and adaptable over nearly 250 years. With the right policies, there’s every reason to believe it can continue to deliver broadly shared prosperity in the decades ahead. 

As always, I look forward to your feedback.