While waiting for the long-overdue Supreme Court Tariff ruling, I’ve had time to reflect on why so many Americans have either a dim view or little knowledge of our capitalist economic system. How can a simple, common-sense system be misunderstood by so many?

I’ve been reading Zhang Weiying’s “The Logic of the Market: An Insider’s View of Chinese Economic Reform” to better understand how the Chinese economy compares to our own. Most economists talk in jargon, but the Author explains capitalism in terms of happiness rather than marginal returns and GDP.

In capitalism, people engage in consensual exchange. Consumers and suppliers freely exchange a wide range of goods. As each gets what they asked for, both are happy. You go to the supermarket, you get what you want, and the store gets paid. Both of you win.

However, if goods or cash change hands with only one party happy and the other sad, it’s robbery. Think about that. Someone points a gun at you, demanding your stuff. The thief is happy, but you’re really sad. The point of human interaction is shared satisfaction, rather than gloom.

The gauging of happiness and sadness in society to determine whether an action is successful or just a thief. can be applied to both governance and economics. Most commercial transactions in free-market economies result in happiness for all the participants. You go to Costco, get a hot dog, and fill your cart with goods you value. At checkout, both you and Costco are happy.

Contrast this with the shopping experience in Marxist Cuba or Venezuela. If the stores have goods, the selection is limited and of questionable value. When we were in Cuba a few years ago, the contrast between the lives of the connected and the general population was stark. The latter had nothing to bring happiness. At best, they survived. I hear things have only gotten worse. Can we identify the thieves?

In these countries, the government, rather than the private sector, is the ultimate provider of goods and services. The unhappy interaction between the general populace and the government leads us to judge government performance in market economies on the happiness meter. We know we need the government to protect property and persons. The government is required to do things that enhance our lives that we can’t do individually.

We pay taxes to fund police and fire protection. Thieves, both here and abroad, must be deterred. We’re happy to sleep at night or take a walk in the neighborhood. We pay taxes for services that make us happy. Government workers get paid, so they’re happy. Like the shopping experience at Costco, everybody wins.

The same holds for threats from abroad. The danger of potential foreign adversaries was an impetus for the colonies to band together under the Constitution. We needed an Army and a navy in a rough world. Protecting our commerce and homeland was understood by all, and, to provide for it, we were happy to pay taxes to support it, given the alternative.

People may even go the extra mile when faced with a special need. Early in our nation’s history, we faced demands from Revolutionary France for tribute. While we had the beginnings of a small navy, citizens in many of our commercial centers recognized it wasn’t enough. They got together by subscription to provide additional ships to our young nation. These ships greatly expanded our ability to establish our place in the world.

One example is the Salem, Massachusetts, donated frigate, the Essex. It almost single-handedly destroyed the British whaling fleetin the War of 1812. People with money will happily step forward when they see the benefit.

There are tasks beyond the private sector. Early in our history, private funding provided many roads and canals. Still, the idea of linking two navigable waterways by a canal over a great distance and rugged terrain, the government had to take the lead. New York brought the Erie Canal into existence with funding from privately issued revenue bonds sold by Wall Street. The canal opened commerce to a significant part of the nation, resulting in substantial economic and financial success. Everybody was happy.

However, some of today’s interactions between the citizens and the government leave many unhappy. California touted the great benefits of high-speed passenger rail between Los Angeles and San Francisco and secured both state and federal funding for the project in 1996. To date, no rail laid, but the project’s cost overrun exceeds $100 billion. Completion is nowhere in sight.

Work on the Erie Canal began in 1817, and it opened in 1825. It quickly paid for itself. The rumored rail line in the California desert made those who received all those billions happy, but what about the sad taxpayers? Who is the thief?

Our citizens have never opposed funding initiatives that advance our well-being. The unhappiness arises when we pay for stuff we don’t get. We pay for police, but find the streets unsafe. Out-of-control fires rage. Schools get ever-increasing funding, while test scores decline. Somebody got our money without giving us value in return. To Weiying, this is theft.

This simple happiness test cuts through all the jargon and other verbiage to identify what needs to change so all sides are happy. While we’re waiting for more clarity on tariffs and Trump’s imperial dreams, this is a good time to try simple things. Take it for a test drive and see if you agree. Afterall, you have a right to pursue happiness.