[May 1, 2026] Michael Rothman does it once again by piecing together an excellent summary of Friedrich Hayek’s takedown of Socialism and why it will always fail. Hayek’s argument is what we now consider mainstream criticism of all forms of Socialism/Marxism/Communist ideology.
Hayek says that a highly-centralized government cannot fully grasp the complexities of any society, and thus is destined to fail; ultimately failing catastrophically and harming its citizens. The problem, of course, is that governments are never going to have perfect information, and even if they did, proper centralized decision-making is impossible.
It is always a good day when we reinforce the proven idea that Socialism is a grossly failed form of government. Here is what Michael Rothman summarized for us:
𝐅𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐃𝐑𝐈𝐂𝐇 𝐇𝐀𝐘𝐄𝐊, 𝐈𝐍 𝐎𝐍𝐄 𝐈𝐍𝐓𝐄𝐑𝐕𝐈𝐄𝐖, 𝐁𝐔𝐑𝐈𝐄𝐒 𝐒𝐎𝐂𝐈𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐒𝐌 𝐈𝐍 𝐏𝐄𝐑𝐌𝐀𝐍𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐋𝐘: “𝐒𝐎𝐂𝐈𝐀𝐋𝐈𝐒𝐌 𝐀𝐒𝐒𝐔𝐌𝐄𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐀𝐓 𝐀𝐋𝐋 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐀𝐕𝐀𝐈𝐋𝐀𝐁𝐋𝐄 𝐊𝐍𝐎𝐖𝐋𝐄𝐃𝐆𝐄 𝐂𝐀𝐍 𝐁𝐄 𝐔𝐒𝐄𝐃 𝐁𝐘 𝐀 𝐒𝐈𝐍𝐆𝐋𝐄 𝐂𝐄𝐍𝐓𝐑𝐀𝐋 𝐀𝐔𝐓𝐇𝐎𝐑𝐈𝐓𝐘. 𝐈𝐓 𝐉𝐔𝐒𝐓 𝐈𝐒 𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐂𝐎𝐑𝐑𝐄𝐂𝐓.” 𝐓𝐇𝐈𝐒 𝐈𝐒 𝐓𝐇𝐄 𝐀𝐑𝐆𝐔𝐌𝐄𝐍𝐓 𝐌𝐀𝐌𝐃𝐀𝐍𝐈’𝐒 𝐍𝐄𝐖 𝐘𝐎𝐑𝐊 𝐂𝐀𝐍𝐍𝐎𝐓 𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐖𝐄𝐑.
Setup: Friedrich Hayek — 1974 Nobel Prize in Economics, the principal architect of 20th-century classical-liberal economic thought, the intellectual force behind Reagan-Thatcher — explaining, in 1985, why socialism does not fail because of bad implementation. It fails because the central premise is mathematically impossible.
𝐇𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐤’𝐬 𝐜𝐨𝐫𝐞 𝐝𝐢𝐚𝐠𝐧𝐨𝐬𝐢𝐬, 𝐢𝐧 𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐨𝐰𝐧 𝐰𝐨𝐫𝐝𝐬:
𝘚𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘷𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘣𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘢 𝘴𝘪𝘯𝘨𝘭𝘦 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺. 𝘚𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘐 𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘧𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘤𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳, 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘦𝘹𝘤𝘦𝘦𝘥𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘪𝘯𝘥𝘪𝘷𝘪𝘥𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘮𝘪𝘯𝘥, 𝘪𝘴 𝘣𝘢𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘸𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘱𝘦𝘳𝘴𝘦𝘥 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘦. 𝘖𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘸𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘨𝘳𝘦𝘢𝘵 𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘷𝘢𝘪𝘭𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘤𝘦𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘦 𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘭𝘪𝘻𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘪𝘭𝘭𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘦𝘯, 𝘪𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘦𝘴 𝘤𝘭𝘦𝘢𝘳 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘪𝘴 𝘢 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘪𝘯 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘰𝘧 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘪𝘴 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘭𝘦𝘥𝘨𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐢𝐧𝐭𝐞𝐫𝐯𝐢𝐞𝐰𝐞𝐫’𝐬 𝐜𝐥𝐚𝐫𝐢𝐟𝐲𝐢𝐧𝐠 𝐪𝐮𝐞𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐚𝐧𝐝 𝐇𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐤’𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐩𝐥𝐲:
𝘘: 𝘚𝘰 𝘺𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘵𝘶𝘳𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘵𝘴 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘥 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘮𝘰𝘯 𝘱𝘰𝘪𝘯𝘵 𝘰𝘯𝘦 𝘰𝘧𝘵𝘦𝘯 𝘩𝘦𝘢𝘳𝘴 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘭𝘦𝘧𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘮𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘮𝘰𝘥𝘦𝘳𝘯 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘰 𝘥𝘪𝘧𝘧𝘪𝘤𝘶𝘭𝘵, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘳𝘦𝘲𝘶𝘪𝘳𝘦 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨. 𝘠𝘰𝘶’𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘢𝘺𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺’𝘳𝘦 𝘴𝘰 𝘤𝘰𝘮𝘱𝘭𝘦𝘹, 𝘵𝘩𝘦𝘺 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘱𝘭𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦.
𝘏𝘢𝘺𝘦𝘬: 𝘚𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘮, 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘵𝘦𝘴𝘵𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘢𝘨𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘴𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘵 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘶𝘴𝘦, 𝘰𝘣𝘫𝘦𝘤𝘵𝘴 𝘵𝘰 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘦𝘹𝘵𝘦𝘯𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦. 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘪𝘴 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘪𝘯 𝘢 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘦𝘵𝘺 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘦 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘴. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘤𝘩𝘪𝘦𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘸𝘩𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘸𝘦’𝘳𝘦 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘮 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸, 𝘢𝘯𝘥 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘴𝘶𝘱𝘱𝘰𝘳𝘵𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘬 𝘰𝘧 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸, 𝘪𝘴 𝘮𝘢𝘥𝘦 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘸𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘦 𝘧𝘰𝘳 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘵. 𝘗𝘳𝘰𝘧𝘪𝘵 𝘪𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘪𝘨𝘯𝘢𝘭 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘴 𝘶𝘴 𝘸𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘰 𝘪𝘯 𝘰𝘳𝘥𝘦𝘳 𝘵𝘰 𝘴𝘦𝘳𝘷𝘦 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘸𝘩𝘰𝘮 𝘸𝘦 𝘥𝘰 𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸.
𝐇𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐤’𝐬 𝐫𝐞𝐬𝐩𝐨𝐧𝐬𝐞 𝐭𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐬𝐭𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐭 𝐝𝐞𝐟𝐥𝐞𝐜𝐭𝐢𝐨𝐧:
𝘖𝘯𝘤𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘢𝘤𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘵 𝘷𝘢𝘭𝘶𝘦𝘴, 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘸𝘦 𝘮𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘣𝘦 𝘨𝘶𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘥 𝘣𝘺 𝘢 𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘤𝘦𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯, 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘢𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘭𝘦𝘷𝘢𝘯𝘵. 𝘞𝘦𝘭𝘭, 𝘰𝘧 𝘤𝘰𝘶𝘳𝘴𝘦, 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘳𝘨𝘶𝘮𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘪𝘴 𝘪𝘮𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘪𝘣𝘭𝘦 𝘶𝘯𝘭𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘰𝘳 𝘬𝘯𝘰𝘸𝘴 𝘢𝘭𝘭 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘴. 𝘚𝘰 𝘮𝘺 𝘢𝘯𝘴𝘸𝘦𝘳 𝘪𝘴, 𝘪𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘧𝘢𝘤𝘵𝘶𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘴𝘴𝘶𝘮𝘱𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯𝘴 𝘰𝘧 𝘴𝘰𝘤𝘪𝘢𝘭𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘸𝘦𝘳𝘦 𝘤𝘰𝘳𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘵, 𝘪𝘵 𝘸𝘰𝘶𝘭𝘥 𝘣𝘦 𝘢 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘥𝘶𝘵𝘺 𝘵𝘰 𝘢𝘪𝘮 𝘢𝘵 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘫𝘶𝘴𝘵 𝘥𝘪𝘴𝘵𝘳𝘪𝘣𝘶𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯. 𝘉𝘶𝘵 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘩𝘢𝘷𝘦 𝘵𝘰 𝘳𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘨𝘯𝘪𝘻𝘦 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘯𝘯𝘰𝘵 𝘥𝘰 𝘪𝘵.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐜𝐥𝐨𝐬𝐞𝐫 𝐇𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐤 𝐝𝐞𝐥𝐢𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐞𝐝 𝐟𝐨𝐮𝐫 𝐝𝐞𝐜𝐚𝐝𝐞𝐬 𝐚𝐠𝐨 𝐭𝐡𝐚𝐭 𝐬𝐭𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐞𝐧𝐝𝐬 𝐞𝐯𝐞𝐫𝐲 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐝𝐞𝐛𝐚𝐭𝐞:
𝘠𝘰𝘶 𝘤𝘢𝘯 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘥𝘶𝘤𝘦 𝘦𝘯𝘰𝘶𝘨𝘩 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘪𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘪𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘱𝘳𝘦𝘴𝘦𝘯𝘵 𝘱𝘰𝘱𝘶𝘭𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘰𝘧 𝘵𝘩𝘦 𝘸𝘰𝘳𝘭𝘥 𝘰𝘯𝘭𝘺 𝘣𝘦𝘤𝘢𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘢 𝘴𝘱𝘰𝘯𝘵𝘢𝘯𝘦𝘰𝘶𝘴 𝘱𝘳𝘰𝘤𝘦𝘴𝘴 𝘰𝘳 𝘮𝘦𝘤𝘩𝘢𝘯𝘪𝘴𝘮 𝘸𝘩𝘪𝘤𝘩 𝘦𝘯𝘢𝘣𝘭𝘦𝘴 𝘺𝘰𝘶 𝘵𝘰 𝘮𝘢𝘬𝘦 𝘶𝘴𝘦 𝘰𝘧 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘪𝘯𝘪𝘵𝘦𝘭𝘺 𝘮𝘰𝘳𝘦 𝘪𝘯𝘧𝘰𝘳𝘮𝘢𝘵𝘪𝘰𝘯 𝘵𝘩𝘢𝘯 𝘢𝘯𝘺 𝘤𝘦𝘯𝘵𝘳𝘢𝘭 𝘢𝘶𝘵𝘩𝘰𝘳𝘪𝘵𝘺 𝘱𝘰𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴𝘴𝘦𝘴.
𝐖𝐡𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐢𝐬 𝐢𝐬 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐨𝐬𝐭-𝐌𝐚𝐦𝐝𝐚𝐧𝐢 𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭: Zohran Mamdani’s New York socialist program rests on the premise that a centralized municipal authority can determine what to produce, what to distribute, what to subsidize, and what to ration — better than the price signal that emerges from millions of individual decisions across the New York economy. Hayek answered that premise in 1985. The answer was: no, you cannot, and the reason is structural, not political. The bureaucrat at City Hall cannot possess the knowledge that the deli owner, the bodega cashier, the taxi dispatcher, and the apartment-block super each possess about their own corner of the economy.
𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐢𝐬𝐭𝐨𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐞𝐢𝐩𝐭: every attempt at central economic planning from 1917 onward has produced the outcome Hayek predicted. Soviet shortages. Cuban breadlines. Venezuelan hyperinflation. North Korean famine. Each failure was attributed by socialists to 𝘣𝘢𝘥 𝘱𝘦𝘰𝘱𝘭𝘦 𝘳𝘶𝘯𝘯𝘪𝘯𝘨 𝘪𝘵. Hayek explained 40 years ago that the failure is structural. The knowledge problem is not solvable by better people. It is unsolvable.
𝐅𝐫𝐢𝐞𝐝𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐡 𝐇𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐤 𝐰𝐨𝐧 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐨𝐛𝐞𝐥 𝐏𝐫𝐢𝐳𝐞 𝐢𝐧 𝟏𝟗𝟕𝟒 𝐟𝐨𝐫 𝐞𝐱𝐩𝐥𝐚𝐢𝐧𝐢𝐧𝐠, 𝐰𝐢𝐭𝐡 𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐡𝐞𝐦𝐚𝐭𝐢𝐜𝐚𝐥 𝐩𝐫𝐞𝐜𝐢𝐬𝐢𝐨𝐧, 𝐰𝐡𝐲 𝐬𝐨𝐜𝐢𝐚𝐥𝐢𝐬𝐦 𝐟𝐚𝐢𝐥𝐬. 𝐅𝐨𝐫𝐭𝐲 𝐲𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐬 𝐥𝐚𝐭𝐞𝐫, 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐍𝐞𝐰 𝐘𝐨𝐫𝐤 𝐂𝐢𝐭𝐲 𝐦𝐚𝐲𝐨𝐫𝐚𝐥𝐭𝐲 𝐣𝐮𝐬𝐭 𝐰𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐭𝐨 𝐚 𝐜𝐚𝐧𝐝𝐢𝐝𝐚𝐭𝐞 𝐰𝐡𝐨𝐬𝐞 𝐞𝐧𝐭𝐢𝐫𝐞 𝐞𝐜𝐨𝐧𝐨𝐦𝐢𝐜 𝐩𝐫𝐨𝐠𝐫𝐚𝐦 𝐚𝐬𝐬𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐬 𝐇𝐚𝐲𝐞𝐤 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐰𝐫𝐨𝐧𝐠. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐫𝐢𝐜𝐞 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞 𝐩𝐚𝐢𝐝 𝐛𝐲 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐩𝐞𝐨𝐩𝐥𝐞 𝐨𝐟 𝐍𝐞𝐰 𝐘𝐨𝐫𝐤. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐚𝐫𝐠𝐮𝐦𝐞𝐧𝐭 𝐰𝐚𝐬 𝐬𝐞𝐭𝐭𝐥𝐞𝐝 𝐢𝐧 𝟏𝟗𝟖𝟓. 𝐓𝐡𝐞 𝐥𝐞𝐬𝐬𝐨𝐧 𝐰𝐢𝐥𝐥 𝐛𝐞 𝐫𝐞-𝐥𝐞𝐚𝐫𝐧𝐞𝐝 𝐭𝐡𝐞 𝐡𝐚𝐫𝐝 𝐰𝐚𝐲.
𝘝𝘪𝘥𝘦𝘰 𝘧𝘳𝘰𝘮 @𝘴𝘰𝘸𝘦𝘭𝘭𝘦𝘤𝘰𝘯𝘰𝘮𝘪𝘤𝘴.
https://x.com/michaelarothman/status/2049591632983642464?s=61
NOTE: I’ve written often about Socialism and its inherent failures for more than a decade. Here are two of my older articles that still apply (links here and here)
————
Please read my books:
“The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people’s money.” – Margaret Thatcher
Something the Neapolitan socialists never think of “Friedrich Hayek — 1974 Nobel Prize in Economics, the principal architect of 20th-century classical-liberal economic thought, the intellectual force behind Reagan-Thatcher — explaining, in 1985, why socialism does not fail because of bad implementation. It fails because the central premise is mathematically impossible.” Imagine that. Centralized decision-making in a large, complex, dynamic economy can never be properly managed by highly centralized planning government. That’s just a fact of life.
Good Dog, thanks man 🐶. The best recent example is China. They put out that their population is 1.4 billion, and that is what they stand by because it makes them appear big and powerful. All their decisions are based on that “fact.” But in reality, their population is south of that figure, likely below 900 million. So when they plan for millions of more apartments, those same apartment will remain empty (because they are built on a false assumption). If left up to the free market, minor corrections along the way would be made and a terrible waste would not happen, and they would not look like fools.
Let’s all kick “socialism” (and similar ilk ideologies) while they’re down already. 👀