The recent short-lived dockworkers’ strike highlighted the inherent and persistent tension between what benefits individuals (micro effects) and what may better serve an entire system (macro effects).

If I were a member of the International Longshoremen’s Association, I would want naturally every possible prohibition on any type of technological or mechanical automation that could potentially replace workers. That would be in my best interests, especially in the short-term (micro). But the reality is that every job that can be mechanized will eventually be mechanized – at a substantial benefit to the overall economy (macro), even if it initially hurts individual workers.

This micro vs. macro strain permeates many issues, ranging from education reforms to economic policies.

Consider student loan forgiveness. On a personal (micro) level, every borrower with college debt would like their loans erased – who wouldn’t appreciate financial relief?  However, widespread loan forgiveness, like other forms of “free money,” introduces broader systemic challenges.

Programs such as student loan forgiveness or universal basic income might appear “free”, but they come with hidden costs, whether through taxes, inflation, or other economic consequences. At the macro level, the financial burden of funding government programs, subsidies, or benefits is always shouldered by someone, even if the costs aren’t immediately visible.

This balancing act is not limited to left-leaning policies. On the right, former President Trump has threatened tariffs as high as 200% on imported cars. Like student loan forgiveness, these tariffs would benefit a specific group—domestic auto producers—while passing the cost to others, namely consumers who would face higher prices. Ironically, Trump once described tariffs as the “most beautiful word in the dictionary,” even though they are effectively taxes designed shield local industries and inflate prices in the process.

This same micro vs. macro conflict also extends to local issues, such as education. An individual may prefer and benefit from a voucher that subsidizes private school tuition (in the short term, for sure), but any diversion of public school system funding to private schools negatively affects the system’s funding, and potentially the experience of the students who don’t transfer.

At the federal level, the tension between providing targeted financial relief and maintaining broader economic stability is especially pronounced, given the unprecedented federal budget deficit equal to 7% of GDP during a time of full employment.

While it is natural for people to focus on their immediate needs, maintaining a healthy and sustainable system requires making difficult trade-offs. Navigating these tensions is one of the central challenges of policymakers, and striking the right balance is essential for creating policies that serve both individual and broader societal interests.

David Moon is president of Moon Capital Management. A version of this piece originally appeared in the USA TODAY NETWORK.