Originally published at The Daily Economy. 

​Artificial intelligence has become the latest excuse for reviving one of the oldest bad ideas in economic policy: a universal basic income. Recent pieces in Newsweek, the LSE Business Review, and Fortune have all helped push the idea that AI may soon wipe out so many jobs that Washington will need to send everyone a check.

That makes for a catchy headline. It also makes for terrible economics.

The right question is not whether AI will disrupt work. Of course it will. The right question is this: after more than 100 local guaranteed-income experiments, what have we actually learned?

The answer is much less flattering to UBI than its promoters would like.

What 122 UBI-Style Pilots Show

A new AEI working paper by Kevin Corinth and Hannah Mayhew gives the best recent overview of the evidence. Per their study, there were 122 guaranteed basic income pilots across 33 states and the District of Columbia between 2017 and 2025. Those pilots allocated about $481.4 million in transfers to 40,921 recipients, with 61,664 total participants including control groups. The average recipient got about $11,765, the average pilot lasted 18.4 months, and the average monthly payment was $616.

That sounds like a mountain of evidence. It is not.

Of those 122 pilots, only 52 had published outcomes. Only 35 used randomized designs. Only 30 reported employment outcomes. So the case for UBI is not being built on some giant pile of clear, clean evidence. It is being built on a much smaller stack of studies, many of them weak, limited, or badly timed.

And here is the kicker. Among the 30 randomized pilots with published employment results, the average effect was a 0.8 percentage-point increase in employment. UBI fans will rush to wave that around. They should slow down.

AEI shows that the bigger and more credible studies tell a very different story. Among the four pilots with treatment groups of at least 500 participants, which together account for 55 percent of all treatment-group participants, the mean effect on employment was minus 3.2 percentage points. AEI also estimates a mean income elasticity of -0.18, which is consistent with standard labor-supply economics. 

In plain English, when people receive more unearned income, work tends to fall at the margin. Shocking, I know. Economics still works.

Credit: American Enterprise Institute

​Why the Evidence Is Weaker

Than the HypeThe AEI paper is useful not just for what it finds, but for how bluntly it describes the weaknesses in the evidence.

The average treatment group among those 30 studies was just 359 people, and the median was only 151. That is not exactly ironclad evidence for redesigning the American welfare state. Among the 26 pilots for which attrition could be measured, the average attrition rate was 37 percent. That is a giant warning sign. If enough people drop out, the reported results can become badly distorted.

The studies also varied widely in payment size, duration, sample composition, and even how outcomes were measured. The mean annualized payment was $7,177, equal to an average income boost of about 39.5 percent relative to baseline household income in the studies. Some pilots relied heavily on self-reported survey data. Some were conducted during or right after the COVID period — when labor markets, safety-net programs, and personal decisions were anything but normal.
​
AEI’s conclusion is appropriately cautious: these findings may not generalize to a permanent, universal, nationwide UBI under current or future conditions. That alone should cool off a lot of the AI-fueled policy hysteria.

​AI Will Displace Jobs. It Will Also Create Them

None of this means AI will be painless. Some jobs will shrink. Some tasks will disappear. Some workers will need to retrain, relocate, or rethink their careers. That is what happens when productivity rises and technology changes how goods and services are produced. It happened with mechanization, with computers, and with the internet. It will happen with AI.

But displacement is not the same thing as permanent mass unemployment. That leap is where the UBI argument falls apart. Economies are not fixed piles of jobs. They are dynamic systems of discovery, adaptation, and exchange. When costs fall and productivity rises, resources move. Businesses reorganize. Consumer demand changes. New occupations emerge. Old ones evolve. Some disappear. That churn is real, but so is the adaptation.

The answer to technological change is not to pay people for economic resignation. The answer is to make adaptation easier.

UBI Fails the Economics Test

There is a reason Ryan Bourne at Cato has argued that UBI is not the answer if AI comes for your job. It confuses a transition problem with a permanent income problem. Worse, it assumes that writing checks can substitute for the incentives, signals, and institutional conditions that actually create opportunity.

UBI also crashes into the budget constraint. As Max Gulker at The Daily Economy has noted, UBI is often sold through small pilots and vague moral language, but the national arithmetic is ugly. And as Robert Wright in another AIER piece points out, “universal” quickly means sending money to many people who are not poor while piling enormous costs onto taxpayers. (Bear in mind, the national debt is already rapidly approaching $40 trillion.) 

That is before getting to the public-choice problem. In theory, UBI supporters sometimes imagine replacing the welfare state with one simple cash transfer. In reality, government programs rarely disappear. Bureaucracies defend themselves. Interest groups protect carveouts. Politicians promise more, not less. So a UBI would likely be stacked on top of much of the current welfare state, not substituted for it. That is not reform. That is fiscal delusion with better branding.

A Better Answer: Remove Barriers to Work

If AI means more labor-market churn, then policy should focus on mobility, flexibility, and self-sufficiency. That means less occupational licensing, lower taxes, lighter regulation, fewer benefit cliffs, less wasteful spending, and more room for entrepreneurship and job creation. The government should stop making it harder for people to pivot.

It also means reforming welfare the right way. My proposal for empowerment accounts is not a UBI. It would be targeted to people already eligible for welfare, not universal. It would include a work requirement for work-capable adults, not detach income from effort. And it would consolidate fragmented programs into a more flexible account that families control directly, reducing bureaucracy and lowering spending over time as more recipients move toward self-sufficiency.

That puts it much closer to the classical liberal insight behind replacing bureaucratic control with direct support, while avoiding the fatal error of turning the entire country into a permanent transfer state. As Art Carden reminds us at The Daily Economy, there is a long intellectual history behind cash-based assistance. But today’s UBI politics are not really about shrinking the state. They are mostly about expanding it because elites fear AI.

Don’t Make Bad Policy Out of Fear

The UBI revival tells us less about AI than it does about politics. New technology arrives, uncertainty rises, and too many policymakers reach for the federal checkbook as if it were a magic wand. It is not.

After 122 local experiments, the case for UBI is still weak. The best evidence does not show a jobs renaissance. The larger studies show employment declines. The broader evidence base is riddled with small sample sizes, high attrition, and limited generalizability. That is a flimsy foundation for a permanent national entitlement.

AI will change work. It will not repeal economics. The best response is not fear-driven universal dependency. It is a freer economy with stronger incentives to work, save, invest, adapt, and prosper.

​Affordability is not an abstract debate for American families—it’s the defining issue of daily life. Grocery bills, housing costs, energy prices, healthcare, and childcare all shape whether families feel secure or stretched.

Families don’t become pessimistic out of nowhere. Confidence erodes when planning for the future feels harder, margins feel thinner, and basic economics no longer seem to work in their favor.

Meanwhile, leaders on both sides of the aisle are increasingly pointing the finger at free-market capitalism for nearly everything—high prices, inequality, corporate power, even government debt. But what’s often labeled “capitalism” today is really a mix of subsidies, bailouts, protectionism, regulatory micromanagement, and monetary manipulation—policies that distort markets rather than allow them to function.

True free markets are not chaos or greed. They are a rules-based system built on voluntary exchange, price signals, competition, and accountability. When people are free to trade, build, innovate, and respond to real prices, costs fall and opportunity expands—giving families the freedom to flourish.

In today’s episode of This Week’s Economy, we explore how free-market capitalism supports families, restores dignity through work, and lowers prices to make life more affordable. We’ll also examine how these principles apply at the federal, state, and local levels. Tune in to the full episode on ⁠YouTube⁠, ⁠Apple Podcast,⁠ or ⁠Spotify⁠, and visit ⁠my website⁠ vanceginn.com for the show notes in my newsletter and more information

Originally published on Substack. 

When a Republican president starts acting like a New York City socialist, it’s time to say the quiet part out loud: Industrial policy has officially infected both political parties.
​
The Wall Street Journal reports that the Trump administration plans to take an equity stake in a semiconductor startup founded by Intel’s former CEO should alarm anyone who still believes capitalism means private risk and private reward.

The deal—made through the government’s CHIPS Act slush fund passed during the Biden years—reads less like a market transaction and more like Washington’s latest attempt to play venture capitalist with other people’s money.

And let’s be clear: When government takes equity in a private company, that isn’t capitalism. That’s corporate socialism.
In fact, it’s precisely the kind of policy you’d expect from NYC Mayor-Elect Zohran Mamdani—not a Republican president.
But here we are.

When Government Takes an Equity Stake, It’s Not “America First”—It’s Government First

This chip startup—led by a respected former Intel CEO—may well be brilliant. It might innovate, scale, and help rebuild domestic semiconductor capacity.

That’s not the point.

The point is what government is doing:

• picking a firm
• choosing a technology
• subsidizing the risk
• absorbing potential losses
• sharing in theoretical profits
• and distorting competition

This is industrial policy by another name: political venture capitalism, which has failed in every country and every century it’s been attempted.

If this is the new right-wing economic strategy, then the difference between Washington GOP and the socialist left is now just the branding.

The Free Market Doesn’t Need a Babysitter
​
Let’s walk through the basics—something both parties seem to have forgotten.

Capital markets exist. They evaluate risk. They price innovation. They take losses when they get it wrong and reap rewards when they get it right.

Investors exist. They specialize in picking promising technology and turning it into real businesses.

Entrepreneurs exist. They build companies because they believe in their ideas, not because the federal government holds out a check.

We don’t lack money.

We don’t lack expertise.

We lack the political will to let markets work without Washington playing helicopter parent.

When government inserts itself as an equity partner, one thing is certain:

Profits are privatized.

Losses are socialized.

And taxpayers always end up holding the bag.

Corporate Welfare: Where Both Parties Quietly Agree

Most Americans miss the quiet truth about Washington:

Democrats prefer social welfare.

Republicans prefer corporate welfare.

And both forms of welfare substitute political judgment for market discipline.

The Trump administration’s equity-stake experiment doesn’t put America first.

It doesn’t put workers first.

It puts politicians and bureaucrats first.

And it places taxpayers on the hook for decisions they never made.

The Semiconductor “Crisis” Doesn’t Justify Central Planning

We’ve heard the justification:

“China is subsidizing chips, so we must do the same.”

No.

We don’t beat China by becoming China.

China subsidizes everything precisely because its political system doesn’t allow prices, entrepreneurs, and markets to guide resources. That’s why it wastes more capital than any major economy on earth. That’s why its productivity is collapsing. And that’s why its growth model is unraveling.

Copying China’s industrial strategy is like copying Venezuela’s inflation strategy:

You don’t learn from failure by recreating it.

If the U.S. semiconductor ecosystem needs strengthening—and it does—then fix the barriers preventing private investment:

• cut spending and taxes
• reduce regulatory burdens
• open energy markets
• allow faster permitting
• stop subsidizing competitors
• end distortions that make domestic manufacturing so costly

In other words, get government out of the way.

A Classical Liberal Rule: If It’s a Good Investment, Government Doesn’t Need to Fund It

True capitalism is not complicated:

• People in the market take risks.
• Investors take losses.
• Entrepreneurs reap rewards.
• Government protects property rights, ensures rule of law, and stays neutral.

Once government becomes an investor, neutrality disappears.

Regulators protect their portfolio.

Competition becomes political.

Access becomes relational.

And innovation becomes something you lobby for—not something you earn.

It’s the opposite of a free market.

It’s industrial favoritism with better lighting.

You Cannot MAGA with a Central Planner’s Playbook

I say this with respect for many good policies Trump pursued in his first term:

You don’t restore American greatness by embracing government equity stakes in private firms.

You don’t revive American manufacturing by funneling taxpayer money to politically blessed companies.

And you don’t build the next generation of semiconductors by outsourcing investment decisions to bureaucrats who’ve never built a semiconductor in their lives.

America’s strength has never come from Washington picking winners.

It comes from a free people out-innovating, out-producing, and outperforming the world because they are free—not government-backed.

If we want faster innovation, stronger markets, and global leadership in technology, the answer is simple:

End corporate welfare.

End industrial policy.

Unleash free markets.
​
Let America’s entrepreneurs—not politicians—drive the future.

​This week’s episode dives into key election-related issues that could significantly impact Social Security and the broader economy. With projections indicating that the Social Security Trust Fund could be depleted in six years under another Trump presidency, while a Harris presidency may maintain the status quo, voters must consider the fiscal implications of their candidates' policies. Topics covered include the impact of tax exemptions, tariff policies, and entitlement expansion, all of which threaten the solvency of the nation’s mandatory programs. 

Watch the episode on YouTube below, listen to it on Apple Podcast or Spotify, and visit my website for more information.

​In this episode, we discuss:
1) The importance of economic freedom, how it is measured, the rule of law, and the importance of protecting private property;
2) Myths about which European countries are socialist and the history of different economic institutions in Poland, including his latest work “The Road to Socialism and Back: An Economic History of Poland, 1939–2019”; and
3) A history of socialism and communism, what Marx failed to see in countries with capitalism or socialism, and reasons to be optimistic about economic freedom and prosperity worldwide.

​Matt’s bio:

• Matthew D. Mitchell is a Senior Fellow in the Centre for Economic Freedom. Prior to joining the Fraser Institute, Mitchell was a long-serving senior fellow at the Mercatus Center at George Mason University, where he remains an affiliated senior scholar. He is also a senior research affiliate at the Knee Center for the Study of Occupational Regulation at West Virginia University.
• Mitchell received his PhD and MA in economics from George Mason University and his BA in political science and BS in economics from Arizona State University. His writing and research focuses on economic freedom, public choice economics, and the economics of government favoritism.
• Mitchell has testified before the U.S. Congress and several state legislatures. He has advised federal, state, and local government policymakers in the United States on both fiscal and regulatory policy. His research has been featured in numerous national media outlets, including the New York Times, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, National Public Radio, and C-SPAN.

You can watch this episode and others along with my Let People Prosper Show on YouTube or listen to it on Apple Podcast, Spotify, Google Podcast, or Anchor. Please share, subscribe, like, and leave a 5-star rating!
​
For show notes, thoughtful insights, media interviews, speeches, blog posts, research, and more, check out my website (https://www.vanceginn.com/) and please subscribe to my newsletter (www.vanceginn.substack.com), share this post, and leave a comment.

​In this episode, I discuss the following with John Mozena:
​
1) How politicians, even on the right, incorporate components of "sidewalk socialism" and why this is a dangerous game;
2) How corporate welfare is disrupting the natural flow of spontaneous order in society, destroying states, and corrupting universities; and
3) Why decreased spending and regulations are the best paths forward to human flourishing and more.

​John’s bio:

• CEA President John C. Mozena has been on both sides of the economic development wars. A long-time marketing and communications professional and former journalist, he spent two decades in private-sector agency and corporate roles where his clients often included economic development entities and programs. As a public relations agency account lead, he worked with six downtown development authorities, a major regional tourism bureau and convention center, three national industry trade associations, multiple commercial real estate developers and a variety of other clients with interests in economic development policy. He was the author of innumerable press releases and talking points announcing stimulus funding, state tax credits, manufacturing plant openings, public-private partnerships and other deals and initiatives touting “job creation” and “economic impact.”
• After leaving the private sector, Mozena became the vice president for marketing and communications at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy, Michigan’s free-market public policy think tank. At the Mackinac Center, he worked closely with the nationally-recognized research and policy team in its Morey Fiscal Policy Initiative to provide marketing and communications planning and support for their economic development policy work. He left the Mackinac Center in 2017 and served as a marketing and communications consultant for public policy organizations while working with the CEA’s co-founders to launch it at the end of 2018.
• In the 1990s, Mozena co-founded the Coalition Against Unsolicited Commercial Email (CAUCE), a grassroots organization advocating for policy tools to fight the growing problem of junk “spam” email for consumers. As CAUCE’s primary media contact, he was quoted in the Wall Street Journal, The New York Times, Newsweek, Wired, NPR, PBS, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, CBS Radio, Fox News Channel, BBC and more than 100 other media outlets.
• He is a graduate of the Atlas Network Academy, including its Think Tank Leadership Training program; a member of the American Enterprise Institute Leadership Network; a Fellow at the Better Cities Project and holds an accreditation in public relations (APR) from the Public Relations Society of America.

You can watch this episode and others along with my Let People Prosper Show on YouTube or listen to it on Apple Podcast, Spotify, Google Podcast, or Anchor. Please share, subscribe, like, and leave a 5-star rating!
​
For show notes, thoughtful insights, media interviews, speeches, blog posts, research, and more, check out my website (https://www.vanceginn.com/) and please subscribe to my newsletter (www.vanceginn.substack.com), share this post, and leave a comment.

​A 2022 Pew Research Center survey found that an alarming number of people still believe that socialism “gives all people an equal opportunity to be successful,” with 52% agreeing this statement is at least somewhat true for socialism.

Fortunately, 64% agreed that statement is at least somewhat true for capitalism. 

Still, it is evident that most people who favor socialism don’t understand it or its negative consequences. Apologists for socialism need to understand what the late economist Friedrich Hayek said: “There is all the difference in the world between treating people equally and attempting to make them equal. While the first is the condition of a free society, the second means, as de Tocqueville describes it, a new form of servitude.” 

Socialist economies surrender class distinction by giving up freedom to politicians in the marketplace, including work, education, healthcare, and more. This is the exact opposite of “free.” Nothing scarce is free because there are trade-offs that come with every decision. Nations with socialized labor, schooling, and medicine must fund them at the expense of taxpayers, from the lost productivity that results from less economic growth, and from the lost opportunities with each of those taken dollars. 

People in socialist economies work under a glass ceiling that they can never break. They surrender so much of their resources to the government that it contributes to a forced mediocrity. But in capitalist economies, the ceiling is much higher. People have more potential to prosper because the means of capital and labor are owned by them personally, not by politicians. 

​Greater economic freedom under capitalism tends to yield higher life expectancies, higher incomes, greater per capita GDP, and less poverty when considering countries or states .

But when the government is empowered instead of its citizens, people are left with few options for innovative solutions in the private sector. This destroys organic competition, where the best solution can be the most successful. This bears out the experience of socialist economies, that the government institutions dominating the provision of services typically have low quality at high cost. 

Some socialists claim that their preferred system of pooling resources for everyone is a superior way of helping people than philanthropy or the work of employers, churches, or charities. But this assumes that a one-size-fits-all approach will work for everyone. In reality, each person is different with unique needs, which is why making ways for entrepreneurs to create new solutions is critical. A system run by politicians can never fully satisfy the needs of its people. It makes winners of the politically connected and losers of everyone else. 

One reason that people, especially young adults, may find socialism appealing is because it appears compassionate on its surface. A paradise where everyone is clothed, fed, and happy sounds like something to desire. But that’s never the outcome when liberties are surrendered to leaders. 

​The lack of belief in free markets is really the lack of belief in free people. Too many on the Left and the Right fail to understand this fact with their big-government solutions. 

The world is witnessing this reality unfold in real time in the once-thriving nation of Cuba . Cubans embraced socialism 60 years ago with high hopes and are now impoverished and starving, waiting in line for hours with hopes of getting some bread , while politicians spend their money on sports teams and hotels to impress outsiders. By its nature, socialism disempowers people and forces them down the road to serfdom. 

Capitalism, with a free market economy of voluntary exchange and limited government, allows spontaneous order with a well-functioning price system to best allocate resources to those who value it most. This results in a compassionate system for people rather than for politicians.  

Socialism hasn’t worked, other than to impoverish many people across the globe. Stop its expansion and instead return to the antidote: free market capitalism. 

Originally published at Washington Examiner. 

America is in the midst of an identity crisis, and it’s probably not the kind you’d think. Our nation is wrecked by an abysmal economy and unhappy people losing confidence in their country. In such unhappiness, people on both sides of the political aisle too often propose “solutions” that grant the government more control of our lives, even though that control is usually the source of the problem.

The American experiment has paved the way for millions to escape poverty and build a better life via a free-market system with a constitutional republic that encourages innovation and results in more human flourishing than ever before. We need to get back to those roots.

I had the opportunity to discuss this phenomenon with Dr. Samuel Gregg, author of the book The Next American Economy and distinguished fellow at the American Institute for Economic Research, who said this country’s founding values are based on “liberty and personal responsibility.” 

What set America apart was a vision for commoners to determine their own future, and we continue to rank as the most entrepreneurial country in the world. American’s earliest ideals demanded liberty and responsibility, rejecting directives from a distant King. As a result, the roles of the federal and state governments were carefully managed by a system of federalism, with checks and balances to restrain overreach and protect liberty. According to Gregg, this ongoing experiment is why immigrants are continually inspired to leave their homes and venture to the United States. 

These core tenets of America have become less defined over the past century. America has increasingly chosen big government over individual liberties, thereby reducing the benefits of free-market capitalism.

The major expansions of government started in the progressive era, with Presidents Teddy Roosevelt, Woodrow Wilson, and Herbert Hoover. Those historic expansions were put on steroids by President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s “New Deal,” which prolonged and deepened the Great Depression. Likewise, President Lyndon B. Johnson’s “Great Society” program ballooned government through the creation Medicare and Medicaid, among others. The results have been massive government spending with increased dependency on government programs. 

President George W. Bush’s expansion of Medicare with Part D provided some prescription drug coverage for seniors, with questionable results, at a massive cost. President Barack Obama’s Obamacare expanded government control, contributing to the high cost and declining quality of US healthcare. President Trump’s attempt to punish China with tariffs actually punished low-income Americans most. Most recently, President Biden’s 2022 “Inflation Reduction Act” further grows government, without reducing inflation and at a huge cost to taxpayers. 

Inflating the role of government in an attempt to solve underlying issues created by big government created a vicious cycle that continues today. Government meddling distorts the economy by blocking and confusing free people’s choices. This results from a cultural shift, where Americans increasingly seem to believe government can solve problems better than markets or individuals.

This belief is contradicted by the evidence. The lack of belief in free markets is really the lack of believe in free people, as the market is nothing but people. Big government is usually the cause of economic and social problems, so trying to solve them with more government just exacerbates the issues. A severe deficit in the knowledge of history, both of culture and economics, helps explain why post-modern socialist solutions increasingly entrance younger generations. 

Unlike older countries, America’s identity comes from the “texts, documents, and debates” that created our founding, says Gregg. Surveys show that only 1 in 3 Americans can pass a citizenship test, because most of them aren’t familiar with the foundational ideas outlined in our texts and documents. A national identity crisis is near-inevitable, when we forget our core values of liberty and personal responsibility

The further we stray from the principles that made our nation great (including free-market capitalism, a constitutional republic, and personal responsibility) the more swiftly we head down what economist Friedrich Hayek called “the road to serfdom.” 

Only by learning our unique history, and grasping the principles of free-market economics free from burdensome interference, can Americans embark on the next American economy.

Originally published at AIER. 

​Many Americans have historically associated “socialism” with things like the Red Scare, Nazism, the Cold War, and McCarthyism. Today, that fear has largely faded—particularly among young people—and has instead become a love affair.

A recent Axios/Movement poll found that 51% of 18 to 34 year-olds view socialism positively, though the share is only 41% for all Americans. That poll also found that 49% of young adults viewed capitalism favorably—a decrease from 58% in 2019. However, across all Americans there is 57% support for capitalism with just 36% having a negative view of it, which is a slight decrease from the 61% to 36% split in 2019.

Many reasons explain these trends, but the fact that capitalism has lifted more than one billion people worldwide out of poverty is irrefutable.

Despite this reality, the alarming rise in support for socialism, particularly among young adults, begs the question: Do proponents of “socialism” really understand it, and will it ever invade America?

In short, institutions matter and we should understand them, because when we do, we have a better appreciation for capitalism and will reject socialism, even as socialism metastasizes throughout many sectors of our economy.

Socialism is an economic system in which government owns the means of production. Socialism is an extractive economic institution with redistribution of resources—not with market prices but rather by elite politicians who supposedly understand the collective desires of society.

Capitalism, on the other hand, derives its success from an inclusive economic institution with private ownership of the means of production in a free enterprise system. This institutional framework has strong private property rights allowing for a well-functioning price system in markets that allow efficient allocation of resources to those who desire things most with a profit-loss calculation to increase prosperity.

Many supporters of socialism believe society would be best served by a big government that oversees things like health care, food, employment, and transportation, with college and housing at no charge. Socialism’s enthusiasts also claim government-run societies would decrease income inequality and give workers a greater voice.

However, socialists fail to recognize the truth that nothing is free.

More precisely, scarcity means there are always costs, whether realized or unrealized. Free college and universal health care could be fantastic services if they were truly free, but the government doesn’t have its own money—it must extract resources from Peter to give to Paul, and “free” provisions like these have poor outcomes.

Moreover, the ideas of “tax the rich” and “give to the poor” are fallacies that don’t support lower poverty or less income inequality, as they reduce opportunities for success in the productive private sector while contributing to greater dependency on costly government redistribution. This intervention stifles consumer power, eliminates competition, and oftentimes contributes to greater poverty and income inequality.

History shows us that socialism has never worked and will never work well.

Cuba—a socialist country located only 90 miles south of Florida—first embraced socialism over 60 years ago under Fidel Castro. Cubans yielded enormous liberties to Castro’s government in exchange for promises of a better life. As Cuba now grapples with shortages of COVID-19 vaccinations, food, and other critical supplies, even President Biden recently denounced Cuba and its economic system as a failure.

Despite the growing disdain for capitalism in the United States, data from the Economic Freedom of the World report confirms that capitalist, free-market policies lead to the greatest prosperity.

Greater economic freedom under capitalism provides for a more robust economy and a well-functioning price system that yields higher life expectancies, higher incomes, greater per-capita GDP, and less poverty. And capitalism is also morally superior to socialism as it empowers people to make decisions that meet their needs rather than being told what to do through subjective determinations from elite politicians. Furthermore, socialism requires the immoral violation of personal property rights and individual freedoms.

Government is not intended to dictate the lives of each individual, nor it is it supposed to control a society’s factors of production.

As former President Trump said, “America will never be a socialist county.” Socialism did not make America great, nor will it provide for a more perfect union. While we’ve moved further toward socialism in many sectors of our economy, which explains their poor outcomes, Americans should appreciate the many benefits of capitalism so that we can right the course toward more human flourishing.

​Commentary