Felipe Garcia @fchoza - Twitter Profile

FChoza retweeted

3 days ago

The most recent podcast between Theo Von and Zohran Mamdani genuinely makes my blood boil. Like watching a scammer using people’s vulnerability to extract their life savings. He describes socialism in terms of peace and dignity. I would love to hear the reaction of people who have actually lived under socialist regimes. How many of those who experienced Maoist China, the Soviet Union or Venezuela would describe their lives in those terms? There is a vast difference between the ideals of socialism and the reality of many attempts to implement it. Maoist China and the USSR were responsible for extraordinary levels of human suffering, repression and death. Venezuela is a more recent example of how economic mismanagement, institutional failure and destructive policies can devastate a country and impoverish its population. Of course, there are always exceptions brought forward. Norway, with its $2.25 trillion sovereign oil wealth fund, or Sweden, often held up as a socialist success story. But both go out of their way to say they are fundamentally market economies. Sweden, in particular, has spent decades reforming its economy and rolling back elements of its earlier interventionist model because it lowered their living standards so badly. So when Mamdani talks about socialism as a pathway to peace and dignity, I find myself wondering whether he is being deliberately misleading or is simply ignorant of the historical record. Is he aware of the economic realities and the human cost of previous attempts to implement these ideas, or does he genuinely believe in an economic fairy tale? Then there is his apparent vision for New York City. New York is one of the world’s great financial centres. Manhattan is one of the most expensive places on the planet to live. Mamdani seems to believe that everyone should be able to afford a comfortable life there, regardless of their income. There is a fundamental difference between making a city more affordable and promising that everyone can live comfortably in one of the most expensive locations in the world on minimum wage because of government programs. Not everyone can afford to live in Manhattan, not everyone can qualify for the Olympics, not everyone can marry a supermodel, not everyone can drive a Bentley. That is not necessarily a failure of society. It is a reflection of scarcity, demand and the realities of life. If you cannot afford to live in one of the world’s most expensive cities, there are plenty of other places in the United States where your income will go considerably further. We need to be grown ups. Improving housing supply, wages and access to opportunity is a serious policy discussion. Pretending that everyone can enjoy an affluent lifestyle in Manhattan, regardless of their economic contribution, is not. Mamdani also appears to advocate a model in which the government should provide people with the means to enjoy experiences such as a weekly night out for a fish dinner. There is nothing wrong with wanting people to have a good quality of life. A functioning society should provide a safety net, protect the vulnerable and create opportunities for people to prosper. But there is a fundamental difference between helping people out of poverty and making the government responsible for providing them with a particular standard of lifestyle. Every benefit, subsidy and public service has an economic cost. That cost must ultimately be met through taxation, borrowing or reduced spending elsewhere. And the more government promises to provide, the more important it becomes to understand who pays for it, how it is funded and what the consequences are for productivity, investment and economic growth. Dignity is a worthy aspiration. But dignity without economic reality is simply a political promise. The world is full of politicians who promise to remove the pressures, compromises and trade-offs of adult life. But resources are finite, incentives matter, and wealth has to be created before it can be redistributed. The real question is not whether we want people to live peaceful, dignified lives. Of course we do. The question is whether the policies being proposed can sustainably deliver those outcomes, or whether they risk creating the very economic conditions that make them impossible. There is a reason the distinction between creating wealth and redistributing wealth matters. You cannot indefinitely redistribute wealth that an economy is no longer generating. There is also a reason why socialist countries end up building walls to keep people in and capitalist countries need to police their borders as people pour in.

DanielPriestley's tweet photo. The most recent podcast between Theo Von and Zohran Mamdani genuinely makes my blood boil. Like watching a scammer using people’s vulnerability to extract their life savings.

He describes socialism in terms of peace and dignity. I would love to hear the reaction of people who have actually lived under socialist regimes. How many of those who experienced Maoist China, the Soviet Union or Venezuela would describe their lives in those terms?

There is a vast difference between the ideals of socialism and the reality of many attempts to implement it. Maoist China and the USSR were responsible for extraordinary levels of human suffering, repression and death. Venezuela is a more recent example of how economic mismanagement, institutional failure and destructive policies can devastate a country and impoverish its population.

Of course, there are always exceptions brought forward. Norway, with its $2.25 trillion sovereign oil wealth fund, or Sweden, often held up as a socialist success story. But both go out of their way to say they are fundamentally market economies. Sweden, in particular, has spent decades reforming its economy and rolling back elements of its earlier interventionist model because it lowered their living standards so badly.

So when Mamdani talks about socialism as a pathway to peace and dignity, I find myself wondering whether he is being deliberately misleading or is simply ignorant of the historical record. Is he aware of the economic realities and the human cost of previous attempts to implement these ideas, or does he genuinely believe in an economic fairy tale?

Then there is his apparent vision for New York City.

New York is one of the world’s great financial centres. Manhattan is one of the most expensive places on the planet to live. Mamdani seems to believe that everyone should be able to afford a comfortable life there, regardless of their income.

There is a fundamental difference between making a city more affordable and promising that everyone can live comfortably in one of the most expensive locations in the world on minimum wage because of government programs.

Not everyone can afford to live in Manhattan, not everyone can qualify for the Olympics, not everyone can marry a supermodel, not everyone can drive a Bentley. That is not necessarily a failure of society. It is a reflection of scarcity, demand and the realities of life.

If you cannot afford to live in one of the world’s most expensive cities, there are plenty of other places in the United States where your income will go considerably further. We need to be grown ups. Improving housing supply, wages and access to opportunity is a serious policy discussion. Pretending that everyone can enjoy an affluent lifestyle in Manhattan, regardless of their economic contribution, is not.

Mamdani also appears to advocate a model in which the government should provide people with the means to enjoy experiences such as a weekly night out for a fish dinner.

There is nothing wrong with wanting people to have a good quality of life. A functioning society should provide a safety net, protect the vulnerable and create opportunities for people to prosper.

But there is a fundamental difference between helping people out of poverty and making the government responsible for providing them with a particular standard of lifestyle.

Every benefit, subsidy and public service has an economic cost. That cost must ultimately be met through taxation, borrowing or reduced spending elsewhere. And the more government promises to provide, the more important it becomes to understand who pays for it, how it is funded and what the consequences are for productivity, investment and economic growth.

Dignity is a worthy aspiration. But dignity without economic reality is simply a political promise.

The world is full of politicians who promise to remove the pressures, compromises and trade-offs of adult life. But resources are finite, incentives matter, and wealth has to be created before it can be redistributed.

The real question is not whether we want people to live peaceful, dignified lives. Of course we do.

The question is whether the policies being proposed can sustainably deliver those outcomes, or whether they risk creating the very economic conditions that make them impossible.

There is a reason the distinction between creating wealth and redistributing wealth matters. You cannot indefinitely redistribute wealth that an economy is no longer generating.

There is also a reason why socialist countries end up building walls to keep people in and capitalist countries need to police their borders as people pour in.

26

305

22

55

13K

Felipe Garcia

@FChoza

Who to follow

Last Seen Users on Sotwe

Trends for you

Most Popular Users