We have two ways of thinking about institutional and human behavior. The first assumes that we game the system and face countervailing rules and powers, and the task of institutional design is to make rules that work given this fact. The second assumes that we are trustworthy and restrained in the name of solidarity, and the task of institutional design is to encourage virtue and mutual consideration. We know a good deal about designing institutions under the first assumption, although The Meltdown is evidence that we know less than what we need to know. But we know little and have done almost no systematic research on trustworthy solidaritous behavior and institutional design.

Now we know a lot about solidarity in actual practice. Despite John Strauss's dismissing my observation at one seminar, in fact I know of very few USC professors who would even think of renting out their daughters (or sons, for that matter) as sex workers. That may be because of vanity and pride and their economically privileged positions, but I think it is also the case that they understand that family and personal relations have built-in unbreachable limits. The market and the law stops at their doorsteps, for they understand being a father or mother in other terms. Real entrepreneurs and leaders are similarly outside the realm of most of the game-and-powers model.