Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Innovating our way forward

Innovating our way forward
Getty Images

Molineaux is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and president/CEO of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Each day, I’m reminded that, while I expect most systems to work seamlessly, they are no longer one-hundred percent reliable. When my internet goes down or my phone locks, I’m annoyed by the inconvenience. I feel anxious because words are weaponized; changing meanings almost overnight. Or how some words may have different meanings depending on the culture. I need to be better at acknowledging gender pronouns so I don’t accidentally cause offense. Through this change, I drift into nostalgia, remembering a past that wasn’t so personally hard to navigate or filled with seeming landmines. And I have compassion for those who have always been challenged to “code switch” for my comfort. I’m getting a small taste of what others have lived through.


While this time feels like a breaking down of the old, no-longer-effective systems, it also offers the potential to break through to a new culture that works for us all. We are currently in the uncomfortable place in between. We are seeking an innovative shift in our culture; one that is centered on humanity, and fulfilling the promise of our founding documents – life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness – for all people.

I have also been pondering the process of innovation and our willingness to let go of nostalgia since seeing a meme that stated:

“No amount of innovation applied to a candle would have produced a light bulb.”

The problem of illumination after the sun goes down has been solved by fire-based solutions for millennia. Yet, I would never trade the ease of flipping a light switch to go back to candles and lanterns. My nostalgia for candlelit dinners doesn’t mean I want to return to olden times.

Similarly, I wonder why are we holding onto our nostalgia for a more white/cis-centric society, that obviously doesn’t work for everyone? Is it the fear of the unknown? Is it an underlying racial bias? Is it the concern for the loss of power? Because it’s more comfortable for some of us? Better that we innovate a new society that works for all.

When inventing new illumination methods, scientists began by conducting experiments. Through this process, they learned what worked or didn’t work. There were gas-lighting (too fire-prone), electric arc lighting (too bright) and 23 other incandescent bulbs produced (too expensive) before Edison’s incandescent bulb. The effort, once begun, took more than 50 years to innovate a marketable solution and another 40 years for the infrastructure to be built that still supports the lightswitch flipping we take for granted today. And thus as technology evolves and takes time we must evolve and take the time to adapt and understand. Patience is obviously needed.

The inventors started with a human need for illumination after dark.

Using the aforementioned thought pattern as a guide, what is the human need within our communities today? Or in our nation? Having the right problem identified will allow us to experiment and iterate effectively, innovating as we go. Here are some quick ideas of what we need:

  • Opportunities for individuals to thrive.
  • Education about the opportunities available.
  • Responsibility by individuals to give back to the community.
  • Leaders who are responsive to their constituents.

What would you add?

Individually, we need to create conditions in which people can:

  • Feel and be safe.
  • Be able to provide for themselves and their families.
  • Feel a sense of belonging.
  • Contribute to something bigger than themselves.

You’ll notice that in addition to the material needs of food and shelter (providing for ourselves and family), most human needs are about a sense of security and belonging, which allows them to contribute back to the overall community. Our current systems do not provide for these immaterial needs, hence our society breaks down. Innovative solutions must and will address these human needs.

So much of our media and entertainment is focused on surviving a coming apocalypse. And in a sense, they are right that a way of life is ending. We have come to the end of an era; which is inevitably followed by a new era, necessitating we create the foundation for our next era interpersonally.

Let’s identify the unmet human needs and begin innovating to meet those needs. Perhaps then we will have a positive peace, based in liberty and justice for all.


Read More

An empty grocery cart in a market.

NYC Mayor Zohran Mamdani proposes five city-run grocery stores. See the arguments for and against, from food deserts to bodega concerns and the $70M cost.

Getty Images, Kwangmoozaa

Government-Owned Grocery Stores: Accessible Nutrition or Government Overreach?

Issue Introduction

Over the past few years, affordability has become the most central issue affecting Americans and the quality of life in the United States. The prices of groceries and basic necessities have risen 25-30% since the COVID-19 pandemic and are projected to rise another 3.2% in 2026. At the same time, the exodus of grocery chains from rural and low-income areas has scattered food deserts throughout individual states. Recent mass closures include Grocery Outlet’s shuttering of 36 stores and continued shut-downs of many Albertsons locations. These factors have led politicians to make affordability a major campaign issue.

During his progressive campaign for mayor of New York City, Zohran Mamdani raised the idea of opening grocery stores owned and operated by the city government to provide New Yorkers with affordable groceries. In his April 2026 public address that marked his first 100 days in office, Mayor Mamdani announced plans for the first of five city-run grocery stores. Mamdani’s proposed initiative will use $70 million in capital funding to build five city-owned municipal stores–one in each borough–and place them under control of the New York City Economic Development Corporation (NYCEDC). NYCEDC will then select third-party operating staff in accordance with city standards for affordability and proper labor practices. Public opinion following the announcement continues to be divided between uproar and support.

Keep ReadingShow less
Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism
Monopoly's mr. monopoly in a graffiti collage
Photo by Artur Ament on Unsplash

Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism

The signs are everywhere. For many Americans, buying power has improved only modestly despite decades of economic growth. Corporate profits are at an all-time high. We have reached a level of wealth inequality last seen almost a hundred years ago. By many measures, our capitalist economy seems to have failed to deliver broadly shared prosperity.

However, the failure isn’t with the free market as an economic approach. Instead, it’s our failure to regulate and moderate the free market, or more accurately, that we have spent 40 years undermining or removing the regulations of the New Deal that made our economy work for more Americans.

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman putting savings in a white piggy bank.

America’s economy now rewards asset ownership over wages. A policy proposal: a $35,000 Birthright Account for every child, and how it could be funded.

Guido Mieth/Getty Images

The American Dream Needs a New Economic Operating System

It is, by now, not an exaggeration to state that the traditional American Dream—work hard, buy a house, raise a family, and retire securely—is failing. It was built for a labor-based economy in which steadily rising wages allowed ordinary families to accumulate wealth. But America has become an asset-based economy, and ownership of those assets is extraordinarily concentrated.

Since the 1980s, the returns from capital have far outpaced the returns from labor. Inflation-adjusted wages for ordinary workers have risen only modestly, while the real value of equities has multiplied many times over. Housing, education, healthcare and childcare costs have soared, employment has become less secure, and defined-benefit pensions have largely disappeared. Even two-income households with respectable jobs often struggle to buy a home, build savings and accumulate enough for retirement.

Keep ReadingShow less