Michael Theil

[Michael Theil @mtheil23]

@JohnRad15 @Panpsychizm @fwrenzo1 I hear you and agree affordability has been a growing problem, but to be clear, are you talking about unimproved land or homes? I'm assuming the latter which was my point about barriers restricting supply.

[Michael Theil @mtheil23]

Sure, people had claims to land long before capitalism. However, this was usually granted by monarchs, kings, lords who could just as easily take it away.

Capitalism didn't invent property. It invented the secure, transferrable private property rights protected by the rule of law allowing ordinary people to reliably buy, sell, improve, rent, and mortgage land.

"Unlimited ownership" allows land and housing markets to function. Landlessness today is more a function of government restrictions that limit supply and discourage development, not the right to own.

[Michael Theil @mtheil23]

@JohnRad15 @Panpsychizm @fwrenzo1 Capitalism is the only system that makes widespread private property ownership possible. The real reason housing feels unaffordable is artificial barriers such as zoning laws, regulations, and NIMBY restrictions that deliberately limit supply.

[Michael Theil @mtheil23]

Most American billionaires created the companies they own. The jobs, products, and wealth they generated wouldn’t exist without them. Workers aren’t getting crumbs. They’re earning more than they would have otherwise. A founder owning more than some countries isn’t an indictment of capitalism; it’s an indictment of those countries.

[Michael Theil @mtheil23]

Capitalists only succeed by satisfying the most people at the lowest possible price.

If a job doesn’t pay enough to live on, the real problem is the soaring cost of housing, food, healthcare, and education. Government restrictions and barriers drive those costs, not greedy employers.

[Michael Theil @mtheil23]

@sneako The only real moral failure is believing you have a right to someone else’s property.

[Michael Theil @mtheil23]

@JamesTate121 You’re not poor because of coffee and avocados. You’re poor because politicians sell access and favors. Billionaires can only buy what’s being offered for sale.

[Michael Theil @mtheil23]

@4thOfJuly365 You could have stopped after "abolished."

[Michael Theil @mtheil23]

@iam_biglad1 Value is revealed by prices and determined by individuals’ own subjective preferences.

[Michael Theil @mtheil23]

@DarrigoMelanie "where the top 1% have as much wealth as the bottom 90%…"

Replace "have" with "created" and it becomes a much different story.

[Michael Theil @mtheil23]

@RBReich This is largely correct, but not in the way you intend.

True democracy is maximum voluntary cooperation through free markets.

Oligarchy is a small group consolidating power through coercion.

Freedom lives in the former. The path to dictatorship runs through the latter.

[Michael Theil @mtheil23]

A better framing is net producers vs. net consumers.

Societies can only thrive when producers consistently outpace consumers. When that balance reverses, no policy fix works for long.

Dismissing people as “parasites” just shuts down dialogue. Incentivizing more people to become net producers will benefit everyone.

[Michael Theil @mtheil23]

You propose a referendum on a “national solidarity tax” targeting billionaires and centimillionaires as the best way to resolve the current debates and create a “new development model.”

Yet you have not clearly articulated what the actual problem is. You allege no fraud, no theft, and no specific rights violations by any particular person or group. You simply assume that wealth inequality is inherently a crisis that justifies confiscating assets from a defined group of people.

What exactly is broken, who is being harmed, and how? Without that, this reads as an arbitrary wealth transfer dressed up as “solidarity.”

[Michael Theil @mtheil23]

@RoKhanna This is the fuss

https://t.co/GYkhbruH3C

[Michael Theil @mtheil23]

Did you actually read the study, @RoKhanna ?

It does not provide direct evidence that USAID funding cuts have caused higher child mortality. It is an observational ecological analysis covering 2001–2021 that found statistical associations between higher reported USAID disbursements per capita and lower national mortality rates. The authors themselves acknowledge key limitations in the Discussion section:

“The causal interpretation of the statistical associations must be approached with caution… the study design does not fully eliminate the possibility that the observed associations might not reflect a true causal relationship. Thus, the findings should be interpreted as providing strong support for a causal relationship, though they do not constitute definitive evidence.”

“An additional limitation is that the study cannot disentangle the specific interventions or causal mechanisms through which USAID per capita funding produces its effects.”

Despite these caveats, the paper’s conclusion shifts to stronger language, stating the cuts are "causing millions of avoidable deaths." The entire 4.5 million child deaths projection to 2030 is not based on any observed post-cut mortality data. It is a forward extrapolation that applies the historical 2001–2021 statistical associations to assumed future funding scenarios. No actual recent increases in child deaths attributable to the cuts are presented in the study.

Linking @elonmusk personally to “sentencing 4.5 million children to death” based on this modeling overstates the evidence. The projections rest on assumptions about perfect translation of aggregate disbursements into outcomes—assumptions the study’s own limitations undermine.

DOGE’s stated goal has been to verify that taxpayer funds actually reach intended humanitarian projects rather than being lost to waste, inefficiency, or corruption. This is especially relevant given the recent DOJ prosecution of a decade-long USAID bribery scheme involving over $550 million in contracts, where a USAID official and contractors pleaded guilty.

Requiring basic confirmation that funds reach recipients and produce results directly addresses the study’s methodological gaps (no audit trails or mechanism tracing) and is a reasonable safeguard for U.S. taxpayers. Why oppose efforts to ensure aid is effective and not diverted?

Improved transparency and rigorous evaluation would strengthen, not weaken, confidence in genuinely effective programs.

[Michael Theil @mtheil23]

You're asking the wrong questions, @Cernovich

If politicians were serious, they would do three things:
1. Clearly define the problem with measurable data.
2. Propose a specific solution and predict the expected results.
3. Take accountability for the outcomes.

Instead, what we get is:
Vague, emotionally charged problem definitions that shift blame.
“Solutions” that almost always mean spending more taxpayer money.
Zero accountability when the results get worse.

The cycle is predictable:
Blame group X
Demand more funding
Results disappoint
Blame someone new
Repeat.

The reality: Most persistent social problems don’t have political solutions. If they did, politicians would become largely irrelevant. That’s why they never seriously explore non-political paths. It threatens their power and purpose.

More money hasn’t fixed these issues for decades.

Maybe it’s time to stop feeding the same failed machine.

[Michael Theil @mtheil23]

You say the debate should be guided by evidence, and yet, the authors of that study explicitly mention the limitations of establishing causality. If you want evidence, then it seems you should support DOGE’s stated aims of transparency proving funds are being directed appropriately.

[Michael Theil @mtheil23]

"19 billionaires are worth as much as 12 percent of our GDP"
Most of that is founder equity in companies they built. So what's the real objection? You think their companies' market caps are too high, or that they own too much of the businesses they risked everything to create?

"I am for a free enterprise system that works for hard working men and women in every part of America, not just the connected and privileged."
Then why push policies that extract more wealth from private citizens and hand it to the most connected institution in America—the federal government? More centralized power doesn't reduce cronyism. It fuels it. You worry about private monopolies but want to strengthen the one monopoly that can legally coerce you.

"Patriotic capitalism" and "extractive capitalism" sounds great in a stump speech but means nothing in practice.

You say you're not taking their [entrepreneurs] property, then propose wealth taxes.

You say you want Americans to build more wealth, then scheme ways to confiscate it once they do.

You demand they "pay their fair share" but never explicitly define what fair actually looks like.

You want universal healthcare and education but never address why costs exploded and outcomes stagnated despite massive spending.

You rail against billionaires buying influence but stay silent on the real swamp: politicians selling access and favors from inside the system.

America’s economy became the greatest engine of prosperity in history because risk-taking entrepreneurs bet everything, and most failed. The few who succeeded created trillions in value, jobs, and innovation that lifted everyone. We don’t need fewer billionaires. We need more.

[Michael Theil @mtheil23]

Did you actually read the study, @RoKhanna ?

It does not provide direct evidence that USAID funding cuts have caused higher child mortality. It is an observational ecological analysis covering 2001–2021 that found statistical associations between higher reported USAID disbursements per capita and lower national mortality rates. The authors themselves acknowledge key limitations in the Discussion section:

“The causal interpretation of the statistical associations must be approached with caution… the study design does not fully eliminate the possibility that the observed associations might not reflect a true causal relationship. Thus, the findings should be interpreted as providing strong support for a causal relationship, though they do not constitute definitive evidence.”

“An additional limitation is that the study cannot disentangle the specific interventions or causal mechanisms through which USAID per capita funding produces its effects.”

Despite these caveats, the paper’s conclusion shifts to stronger language, stating the cuts are "causing millions of avoidable deaths." The entire 4.5 million child deaths projection to 2030 is not based on any observed post-cut mortality data. It is a forward extrapolation that applies the historical 2001–2021 statistical associations to assumed future funding scenarios. No actual recent increases in child deaths attributable to the cuts are presented in the study.

Linking @elonmusk personally to “sentencing 4.5 million children to death” based on this modeling overstates the evidence. The projections rest on assumptions about perfect translation of aggregate disbursements into outcomes—assumptions the study’s own limitations undermine.

DOGE’s stated goal has been to verify that taxpayer funds actually reach intended humanitarian projects rather than being lost to waste, inefficiency, or corruption. This is especially relevant given the recent DOJ prosecution of a decade-long USAID bribery scheme involving over $550 million in contracts, where a USAID official and contractors pleaded guilty.

Requiring basic confirmation that funds reach recipients and produce results directly addresses the study’s methodological gaps (no audit trails or mechanism tracing) and is a reasonable safeguard for U.S. taxpayers. Why oppose efforts to ensure aid is effective and not diverted?

Improved transparency and rigorous evaluation would strengthen, not weaken, confidence in genuinely effective programs.