Dan Mitchell: Socialism Humor

“Building on columns from May and July, let’s enjoy five more reasons to laugh at socialism.

Though we may want to cry after seeing this first bit of satire since Donald Trump has morphed into Bernie Sanders and is having the government take partial ownership of various companies.

Next, we have a reminder that we should be nice to our socialist friends when they suffer trauma.

Our third item points out that socialism is for the young and hardy (actually for the naive and foolish).

Next we have some helpful ways of diagnosing a health emergency.

As usual, I’ve saved the best for last.

This final meme shows that capitalism “exploits” us by providing many products, albeit at a cost. Socialism, by contrast offers nothing, but at least it is free.

Reminds us that the choice is full socialism or full stomachs. Or maybe this bread meme is most appropriate." 

Source:Dan Mitchell talking about the Socialist Don.

From Dan Mitchell

If some of Dan Mitchell’s comments here don’t make sense and you are wondering what he’s referring to, it’s because it’s his own personal captions about photos that he posted on his own blog about socialism. And those photos aren’t here, except for the first 1.

So 1 of MAGA’s favorite targets and talking points, is of course Socialists and socialism. Their Dear Leader Donald J. Trump attacks Socialists and socialism, almost every time he’s talking about Democrats. Fine. But he has a credibility problem here and the photo on this posts shows you exactly what I’m talking about.

So in a year Donald John Trump, who is almost completely, personally, responsible for the January 6 riots on the U.S. Capitol, who also happens to be a convicted felon, (but not for the felonies that a lot of Americans wanted him to be convicted of) is reelected President of the United States, just a couple months before, a Socialist wins the Democratic nomination for Mayor of New York City.

You would think Zohran Mamdani’s winning the Democratic nomination for MYC Mayor and who is also the most likely Mayor of New York, (unless NYC Republicans get a brain and Curtis Silwa drops out of the race) would be a great target for Donald Trump and his MAGA Party. 1 problem: as much as they’re bashing socialism, the U.S. Government is buying and taking parts of private companies and threatening to take over other companies, if they don’t change their politics.

As I wrote about Donald Trump’s socialism back in August:

“As Erick Erickson’s said on his blog post:

“When the federal government took control of General Motors, GM no longer engaged in risk assessed based on shareholder value and economic value, but in political risk…

I would add to that, once the Feds become part of a private company, that company starts taking more bad risks because they now know they have the taxpayers there to bail them out. Unlike if they are completely in private hands, there’s no guarantee of even a private buyout if they go under or pile on so much debt from their own bad investments, that they either have to be bailed out, or go into public bankruptcy…

From The New Democrat

To hear Donald Trump or any other MAGA head talk about how bad socialism is, would be like:

hearing Vladimir Putin talk about the need for peace in the world… or at least in Europe, or in the Slavic world.

Or Donald Trump talking about the need for law and order, the rule of law, peace and civility in our politics. As well as talking about the dangers of lawfare in our politics.

Or Marjorie Taylor Greene talking about the need for moderation in Congress.

Ilhan Omar and Rasheda Tlaib both giving speeches in opposition to antisemitism.

It would be almost impossible (unless you were on a 2-week binge consuming nothing but alcohol and meth and somehow managed to survive that experience) to take these people seriously, when they’re talking about those issues. So maybe as the the photo on this post suggests… assuming the Trump Administration continues their own policy of state socialism, that the next time they’re speaking out against socialism, they something like:

“We taking down socialism by taking down 1 private company at a time, until the root out all of the socialism in America”. Just as they’re building their own socialist empire to replace the 1 that they claimed was socialist.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, and Twitter.

Dan Mitchell: Socialism From Republicans Is Just as Bad as Socialism From Democrats

“When Zohran Mamdani won the Democratic nomination in the New York City Mayor’s race, many Republicans warned that his plan for government-run grocery stores was socialism.

Since Mamdani wasn’t threatening (at least not yet) to shut down private supermarkets, his plan would not lead to the usual consequences of socialism, such as bread lines and food rationing.

But it is a given that his plan would be a money-losing boondoggle.

So Republicans were correct to mock and criticize his vote-buying scheme.

Yet I wonder if those same Republicans will also condemn Donald Trump’s far more expensive and far more damaging plan to have the government become a dominant shareholder in Intel.

For more information on this depressing development, let’s start with the Wall Street Journal‘s editorial about Intel last week. Here are some excerpts…

Source:Dan Mitchell is no one's Socialist.

From Dan Mitchell

FOX News anchor Jesse Watters from last night arguing in favor of Socialism. Conservatives, where have you gone? We miss you: 

“Prices are still high. Can’t Trump just bring in some corporate executives and just say guys, there’s going to be a socialist revolution in this country if you don’t do something, please do something?”

From Barbara Sobel

Being a Gen-Xer who came of age during the early 1990s, I’m old enough to remember when the Republican Party was the party of economic freedom, private enterprise, keep the government out of the economy, taxes and regulations down, let the “free market” and mother nature take it’s course, etc. That’s why Conservatives became Republicans in the late 1960s, especially after the emergence of the New-Left in the Democratic Party, along with the Cold War as well. 

But go up 20 plus years with the emergence of Donald John Trump and his political takeover of the Republican Party… the Department of Defense might no longer be the Department of Defense… maybe it’s the “Department of War” now, but the Republican Party is no longer the Republican Party.

I know hearing “the Republican Party is no longer the Republican Party”, sounds like “fish are no longer fish”, “prison inmates are no longer prison inmates. They’re now institutional guests.” But my point here is what’s called the Republican Party today, is at the very least no longer a conservative party. This is no longer the Republican Party of fiscal and economic conservatism, or even of national security conservatism. This is now just Donald Trump’s party and whoever is there, are only his guests and are only allowed to stay, as long as they’re 100% loyal to The Donald. 

The New Democrat has been talking about Donald Trump being a Socialist, since back in May when I wrote a counter-post to conservative columnist Kevin Williamson’s piece arguing that Donald Trump is-in-fact a Socialist. And here is some of what I wrote about that: 

“And The White House is out of believable, positive spin, The Donald himself has even run out of decent lies in how to spin his bad economy, (I guess the Trump tariffs have even hurt TrumpLies.Inc) so they’re desperate and are trying to come up with anything that they can think of at the time, to try to justify (because they can’t spin) the weaknesses in the American economy right now.

So Donald John Trump: the Manhattan real estate mogul, the self-proclaimed billionaire, the “king of reality TV”, sounding like a Socialist, because he’s talking about sacrifice and the need for Americans to cut back. When no one in his White House, including himself, would ever even consider cutting back anything that they enjoy in life, to benefit someone else who isn’t doing as well… I don’t think there’s anything more to it then what I just laid out. Donald Trump is not a Socialist… but he’s a desperate politician, to the point if sounding like a Socialist is what he needs to do to improve his political fortune, that’s exactly what he will do.” 

From The New Democrat

And even Larry Kudlow who gets down on his knees to pray to his Dear Leader Donald every day on his show… even Kudlow didn’t like the President’s socialist proposal for the U.S. Government to become part of Intel a couple weeks ago. Here is some of what I wrote about that: 

“As I’ve said before, (or something close to this) Larry Kudlow, Erick Erickson, and Steve Moore, are no one’s radical Hippies or flaming Socialists. Pre-Trump, both Kudlow and Moore would be what you would describe as Northeastern, country club, neoconservative, supply-side, Republicans. They were people who believed that government should be out of the private sector and just let companies operate freely in what they would call a free market.

Erick Erickson, perhaps a little to the left (key word being little) but he’s basically the Gen-X, male version of someone like a Phyllis Schlafly from the 1960s and 70s. Very radical as a right-wing culture warrior, but not a racist or an ethnic bigot. But someone you could describe as a true believer when it comes to what has been called Christian Nationalism. But someone who combined his radical, right-wing cultural war politics, with a more conservative-libertarian view of government when it comes to economic policy.

So when you even have people who are true Conservatives when it comes to economic policy, tell you that state socialism is a really bad idea and you are also on the Right, you should at least listen to them. Unless you are not a Conservative, and more of a State Socialist and someone who thinks… 

From The New Democrat

But I think my colleague Erik Schneider made the key point about Donald J. Trump back in August as far as how The Donald governs and does his own business: 

“If you know anything about Donald John Trump, you know that the only 2 things that he believes in, are himself and absolute power for himself. He’s not interested in political philosophy and doesn’t really practice any particular political philosophy. I’ve made this point before but if he thought acing and talking like a Socialist… hell, a Communist, would guarantee himself absolute power over anyone who even tries to confront him and challenge his power, that’s what he would talk and act like.

Donald Trump chose American, Anglo-Saxon nationalism, 10 years ago, because he saw a group of Americans who thought America wasn’t just going to hell (to paraphrase Eric Schnurer) but has been there at least since the civil rights movement of the 1960s.

And DJT rightly calculated that if he became their leader, (cult hero or icon, god even, would be more accurate) he could use these people (which is exactly what he’s been doing) to not just become President of the United States, (which is something he thought about doing since his early 40s) but obtain absolute power for himself and be untouchable for the rest of his life. If you think about it, his “MAGA” movement, is the best con he’s ever pulled and probably the best political con ever pulled in American history, as far as how successful he’s been with it politically… 

From The New Democrat

To put it another way: Donald Trump is the Nihilist of American politics. He believes in nothing, at least philosophically. For you Seinfeld fans, if your show is the show about nothing, Donald J. Trump would be the perfect character for your show, because he’s about nothing other than himself. That’s why we have a President who is a registered Republican, but who is sort of governing like a Socialist on economic policy, because he thinks that personally benefits him, which is the only thing that he’s ever interested in.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on Facebook, Threads, and Twitter.

Dan Mitchell: Decentralize The Welfare State

"Excessive government spending is America’s top fiscal problem.

To be more specific, poorly designed entitlement programs are leading to an ever-growing spending burden that ultimately will either lead to massive tax increases or a debt crisis.

To avoid either of those bad options, we need entitlement reform.

I’ve previously written about how to fix “social insurance” programs for older people, such as Social Security and Medicare.

Today, let’s look at the other category of entitlements, the “means tested” programs for low-income people, such as Medicaid and food stamps.

Let’s start by looking at two charts from the Economic Policy Innovation Center.

The first chart shows how fast spending on health programs is increasing, along with a line showing how fast spending increases if Republicans in Congress succeed with some reforms to the Medicaid program.

The second chart shows how food stamp spending dramatically spiked during the pandemic and has since stayed very high because Biden expanded the program.

Excessive government spending is America’s top fiscal problem.

To be more specific, poorly designed entitlement programs are leading to an ever-growing spending burden that ultimately will either lead to massive tax increases or a debt crisis.

To avoid either of those bad options, we need entitlement reform.

I’ve previously written about how to fix “social insurance” programs for older people, such as Social Security and Medicare.

Today, let’s look at the other category of entitlements, the “means tested” programs for low-income people, such as Medicaid and food stamps.

Let’s start by looking at two charts from the Economic Policy Innovation Center.

The first chart shows how fast spending on health programs is increasing, along with a line showing how fast spending increases if Republicans in Congress succeed with some reforms to the Medicaid program.

The second chart shows how food stamp spending dramatically spiked during the pandemic and has since stayed very high because Biden expanded the program.

Ideally, the way to deal with both programs is to copy Bill Clinton’s successful welfare reform by shifting the programs back to the states.

In the short run, this would mean giving states a “block grant” and giving them the flexibility to figure out the best ways of spending the money.

In the long run, the ideal policy would be to phase out the block grants so that states can decide both how to raise money and how to spend money.

Matt Weidinger of the American Enterprise Institute has a similar perspective. Here are some excerpts from a recent article... 

Source:Dan Mitchell is a Libertarian economist.

From Dan Mitchell

Now if the MAGA Party (that some people still call the Republican Party) was serious about reducing the Federal debt and deficit, (and money grew out of a MAGA hat on the same day) they would be doing something like what Dan Mitchell is talking about here. But MAGA is not even conservative, let alone Republican, at least in ideology. They are their own political party in ideology.

My approach is a little different here.

So what leftists, Libertarians, and real Conservatives call the “welfare state”, I call it the safety net.

Why? Welfare states, especially in the developed world, are universal. They apply to everyone regardless of their income levels. America is obviously more liberal democratic, capitalist, liberal capitalist (if you will) as a country and we expect our people to be able to at least try to become economically independent on their own, before they are eligible for public assistance. Our safety net is there (and I’m sure this sounds corny) to catch people when they fall on hard times. It’s not there to try to micromanage their lives for them.

The American public safety net, in a Federal budget of $7 trillion (for FY 2025) is $1.7 trillion dollars, not including Social Security and Medicare. That might sound like a lot when you are talking about public assistance representing about 1/4 of the entire U.S. Federal budget. But compared with Canada and a lot of places in Europe, where they spend 40, 45, 50%, perhaps more in some places, America still has a pretty small safety net budget.

The U.S. Federal deficit as if right now, is around $1.8 trillion. That’s a huge number, which again begs the question why would a political party that’s supposed to be the center-right conservative party in America, be trying to add another $2 trillion to the deficit. But that’s a different question. But by applying some fiscal federalism to the U.S. public assistance budget, we could literally eliminate the Federal deficit in this country.

And we wouldn’t have to do “balance the budget off the backs of poor people” (as the far-left loves to say) by kicking anyone off these programs who actually needs them and are legally eligible for them:

Just turn them over to the states and local government’s

Give all these government’s an annual appropriation to run these programs themselves

Make all these programs financially self-sufficient

And require everyone on them to get an education and go to work as well.

So why do this, besides to deal with the Federal deficit?

Well, I just explained the fiscal reasons for doing this. And for leftists who are worried that this would give let’s say red states the permission to kick out minorities and poor people… you could have basic Federal standards that prohibits states and localities from kicking people off these programs, simply because they’re on them, or they’re trying to save money. They would be allowed to kick people off because they don’t want to work, or get an education, move into a good community, etc. But not simply just to kick them off.

And last reason for doing this is, as U.S. Justice Louis Brandeis famously and intelligently once said: states are laboratories for democracy. They are the boots on the ground when it comes to public assistance in America. And they don’t need Uncle Sam trying to run Medicaid, or Food Stamps, Public Assistance, job training, Welfare, Unemployment Insurance for them. And with just basic, enforceable, Federal standards, these programs would be a lot more cost-effective, (especially for taxpayers) and would be run a lot better, because the people running the programs, would be in the communities where these programs are run.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

Dan Mitchell: Libertarian Humor

"Even though I have an entire page dedicated to libertarian humor (pro and con), I only added two columns in the past year (here and here).

I’ll try to do better in 2025, starting with this bit of stand-up humor.

I have to give the guy credit. I don’t know his personal views, but at least he understands the differences between philosophies.

Next we have the libertarian perspective on the political spectrum.

Not as good as my triangle, but fundamentally accurate.

I thought about putting our third item with my collection of gun control humor, but the real message if in the bottom frame, so it qualifies as libertarian.

Our next item shows someone who thinks like me (the guy with the beard, in case that’s not obvious).

Per tradition, I’ve saved the best for last.

And what makes this article from the Babylon Bee especially amusing is that I just landed in Buenos Aires this morning…

Source:Dan Mitchell with look at the lighter side of libertarianism. But that’s only assuming there’s any other side to libertarianism.

From Dan Mitchell

Before I go much further into this, I just want to say that I and the rest of The New Democrat, actually have a lot in common with what we call Classical Libertarians. As real Liberals, (or Classical Liberals, if you prefer) we believe in individual freedom as well… both personal and economic, as well as personal responsibility. 

But having said that, The New Democrat also believes in the rule of law. And someone might say: “Can’t you believe in the rule of law and also be a Libertarian?” I guess so. But when you have people who call themselves Libertarians, but who call for privatizing law enforcement, or just say something like:

“It’s up to the individual to fix any injustice that may occur to themself by themselves”. It's harder to believe that Libertarians even believe in a role for government when it comes to law enforcement.

And the rule of law is just 1 issue. Schools, public infrastructure, pretty much anything that’s run by local government’s, Libertarians will tell you that there’s no need for public this, that, and the other thing, plus something else…. all those things can be handled by the private sector and individuals themselves. 

So what I’m going to do here is give you at least a classical definition of what it means to be a Libertarian. And then make fun of people who call themselves Libertarians, but who are really right-wing Anarchists. The Right’s version of antigovernment hippies. 

As was written on The New Democrat 3 weeks ago: 

“If I were to give a serious definition of libertarianism, (and that’s a big if) it would be very close to the first Wikipedia article about it that I posted here: someone who believes in the individual and individual freedom over everything else. That means someone who believes in both personal and economic freedom, combined with personal responsibility. And that government is just there to do for the people what the people can’t do for themselves:

National security

Foreign affairs

Law enforcement

Managing the currency

And that the best government is the government that’s closest to the people, instead of the Federal Government trying to treat the states and cities as just additional federal agencies, with very little, if any autonomy of their own.

From The New Democrat

The classical definition of what I just gave you, you could probably call that from the Ron Paul School of Libertarianism. But when you got people even from Reason Magazine, or Ayn Rand supporters, or John Stossell saying: “We don’t even need a Defense Department, let alone law enforcement, or public schools and roads”, that begs the questions: “What do Libertarians want from government, other than to be left alone and allowed to live their own lives?”

Just go about with the rest of your life while so-called Libertarians try to come up with answer to that. Because you might have forgotten the original question before you get answer. And if the answer to the question is essentially “nothing”, but perhaps explaining that answer in at least 1 paragraph… what’s the difference between a Libertarian and a right-wing Anarchist? 

If you want some political cultural stereotyping, I’ll give it to you anyway: if you are old enough to remember the Hippies from the Silent and Boomer generations from the 1960s and 70s… the Beatniks from the 1950s and early 60s… there was a cultural and hardcore individualist faction in both movements, who weren’t very political. They just wanted government to leave them alone. That’s what the so-called “Modern Libertarian” looks like to The New Democrat.

TND sees “modern Libertarians) as right-wing hipsters who just want to be free to live the life and be able to do anything in the world… that’s currently illegal. Perhaps short of being able to kill without cause, or physically assault without cause. But who knows, they may think even murder and assault, even burglary should be legal… but so should vengeance:

“Yeah, man… vengeance is out there. I mean, it’s really out there”.

And at risk of sounding really insulting: if you are familiar with The Manson Family… “Modern Libertarians kind of sound like Lynette Fromme (also known as Squeaky) or Sandra Good, and perhaps a few other whacked-out, hardcore, antiestablishment members of that crime family… who are currently not serving life sentences in prison for murder.

I would put the Dan Mitchell’s of the world in the classical bloc when it comes to American Libertarians. He’s someone who I believe thinks we should have a have government defense department, law enforcement. etc… a government strong and responsible enough to protect its citizens from predators: foreign and domestic. Not to try to run the people’s lives for them. But he might a member of a small minority when it comes to people who call themselves “Libertarians” today.

Source:The New Democrat

You can follow me on Threads and Twitter.

Dan Mitchell: Advice For DOGE: Fiscal Federalism

Source:Dan Mitchell is a Libertarian blogger & egghead.

Source:The New Democrat

“Donald Trump was a big spender during his first term in office. Even if you don’t count the orgy of pandemic-related spending, he spent more and spent faster than Barack Obama.

He even increased domestic spending faster than Obama!

But maybe his second term will be different. One positive sign is that Elon Musk and Vivek Ramaswamy are spearheading a Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), which is a private effort to identify ways of saving money and streamlining government.

In a triumph of hope over experience, let’s make some suggestions for DOGE.

We’ll start with fiscal federalism.

Under current law, politicians in Washington send hundreds of billions of dollars every year to state and local governments. Every single penny of this spending is in areas where the federal government should have no involvement.

As part of a federalism agenda, it is time to eliminate all these transfers.

The savings for taxpayers could be enormous. Here’s a list of federal handouts compiled by my former colleague, Chris Edwards.

Nearly $1.3 trillion last year…

From Dan Mitchell

I think Never Trumper Adam Kinzinger had the perfect statement about “DOGE” last week when he said:

“To the Dems that have “warmed up to” the DOGE idea with Musk and Vivek…. This is gonna come back and bite you. They are not doing this for the right reason. It’s for control. Stop normalizing these clowns.

We are spending more on interest to the debt than national defense. Budget health is going to take bipartisan solutions.”

From Adam Kinzinger on Threads.

My point is if the modern Republican Party was serious about the national debt and budget deficit, (and they are serious problems that need to be addressed) this is what they would be talking about.

I’m not in the habit of quoting bank robbers. But when Willy Sutton was right, he was damn right. If you are interested in paying off the debt and making savings in your budget, you go where the money is:

Food Assistance, Public Housing, and Welfare, are nothing compared with the rest of the U.S. Government budget. Put those programs together in once package, you are talking about maybe 200 billion-dollars, at most.

The fiscal year U.S. Government budget was almost 7 trillion-dollars. ($6.75 trillion) The current Federal budget deficit is $1.8 trillion dollars. Can you see an intelligent, sane, sober person, who thinks chipping away at a bunch of Federal social programs, that add up 1 only 1/5 of a trillion-dollars, will finally balance the budget? You could just eliminate all those programs and still run a deficit of around $1.6 trillion dollars for 2026-27.

Now, for anyone who is still awake after seeing all these numbers and facts, (that’s right, both of you, who aren’t related to me) there are some real solutions to dealing with the budget deficit and the national debt. But to get to Adam Kinzinger’s Thread, it’s going to take some real bipartisan solutions, as well as some real solutions that aren’t that bipartisan, which is what Dan Mitchell is talking about.

The Republican Party in Congress, even in 119th Congress where Republicans will control both the House and Senate, aren’t even going to want to reform Social Security and Medicare, by themselves, let alone gut those programs. Especially with the bare majorities that they are going to have and with Congressional Democrats plotting both to win back the House and Senate in 2026.

If the Democrats win back both the House and Senate in 2026, (big if) they probably won’t have any political interest in taking on the national debt and deficit. Other than perhaps trying to roll back all of Donald Trump’s tax cuts, which they won’t be able to do themselves anyway.

The only way to deal with the national debt and deficit, is to do what the Adam Kinzinger’s of the world are talking about, which is about reforming our entitlements, to make them more cost-effective, as well as the tax code, to make it more pro-growth and less expensive for the budget, as well as reforming the Department of Defense and every other department and agency in the U.S. Government as well, to make them more cost-effective.

And what Dan Mitchell is talking about, which is what I agree with as Liberal (or a Classical Liberal, for all you pansy closeted leftists) is fiscal federalism. Which means the states would become completely responsible for running the safety net programs in their states, including Social Security and Medicare. And taking those programs off the Federal budget. But they’ll still be in existence, but just run by the states instead of the Feds. As well as work, and educational requirements, for anyone receiving any public assistance whatsoever. And there goes your budget deficit.

You can follow me on Threads, Blue Sky, and Twitter.

Dan Mitchell: Paul Krugman is Right

Source:New York Times left-wing columnist Paul Krugman.

Source:The New Democrat

“I like profits.

But let me qualify that statement. I like profits that are the result of businesses providing goods and services that consumers value.

Those profits are earned.

By contrast, I don’t like it when businesses get in bed with government and get money via cronyism, bailouts, subsidies, protectionism, or industrial policy.

Those profits are unearned.

Interestingly, there are some folks on the left who (sort of) agree.

In his column for the New York Times, Paul Krugman warns that cronyism is bad and that we can expect more of it under Trump…

From Dan Mitchell

“It’s late 2025, and Donald Trump has done what he said he would do: impose high tariffs — taxes on imports — on goods coming from abroad, with extremely high tariffs on imports from China. These tariffs have had exactly the effect many economists predicted, although Trump insisted otherwise: higher prices for American buyers.

Let’s say you have a business that relies on imported parts — maybe from China, maybe from Mexico, maybe from somewhere else. What do you do?

Well, U.S. trade law gives the executive branch broad discretion in tariff-setting, including the ability to grant exemptions in special cases. So you apply for one of those exemptions. Will your request be granted?

In principle, the answer should depend on whether having to pay those tariffs imposes real hardship and threatens American jobs. In practice, you can safely guess that other criteria will play a role. How much money have you contributed to Republicans? When you hold business retreats, are they at Trump golf courses and resorts?”

From Paul Krugman at The New York Times. 

A good definition of capitalism from Dictionary:

“Capitalism is an economic system where private individuals and organizations own and control the means of production, and prices and goods are determined by a free market. Some key characteristics of capitalism include:

Private ownership: Individuals and organizations privately own and control the means of production.

Free market: Prices and goods are determined by competition in a free market.

Limited government role: The government protects the rights of citizens and maintains an orderly environment for markets to function.

Profit motive: The essential feature of capitalism is the motive to make a profit.

Supply and demand: The market mechanism relies on supply and demand as the overriding economic principle.”

A good definition of crony capitalism from Dictionary:

“Crony capitalism is an economic system where businesses succeed based on their relationships with government officials, rather than free enterprise. It can involve:

Favoritism in the distribution of government grants, tax breaks, and legal permits

Businesses gaining undue influence over how the government deploys public goods

Businesses profiting from an anti-competitive regulatory environment

Crony capitalism can be harmful to the economy, creating market power and price distortions. However, it can also counteract inefficient programs.”

I feel crazy saying this, but I agree with both Dan Mitchell and Paul Krugman on the same subject. Imagine that, a Libertarian, getting together with let us say a hardcore Democratic Socialist (or Social Democrat, if you prefer) putting their heads together (even from a distance) and getting out of that experience without 2 migraine headaches.

As a Liberal (or Classical Liberal, for you pansy closeted leftists) I’m in favor of what I at least call liberal capitalism. Which is basically what all the big countries in the developed world operate under. That every person should have the opportunity to earn as much money as they can for themselves. But in a private, fair market, where individuals are protected by predators, and where everyone has to pay taxes on their income. Now what’s a fair level of taxation and how much everyone should pay, is really a different discussion. But to the point to fund a limited and responsible government, that doesn’t have to run high deficits and debt to fund itself and where taxes are at a point to encourage individuals to be successful on their own. Not encourage people to be dependent on government for their economic well-being.

Now crony capitalism is the opposite. Russia has essentially operated under crony capitalism, since the fall of the Soviet Union and became the Russian Federation. In Russia, your economic future, especially if you have knowledge and skills, as well as intelligence, in many ways is tied to how friendly you are with their Federal Government there. Which is essentially a nationalist oligarchy today. Which is what a lot people in Donald Trump’s MAGA orbit, perhaps including President Trump himself, as well as Elon Musk and his other billionaire investors, want to see in America.

I think the point of Paul Krugman’s column here is that he doesn’t want to see that Russian style of crony capitalism come to America. But he’s obviously worried that it is. 

You can follow  me on Threads, Blue Sky, and Twitter.

Dan Mitchell: "Notwithstanding My WSJ Quiz Results, I Am Not a Conservative'

Source:Cato Institute fellow Daniel J. Mitchell.

Source:The New Democrat

"Some online quizzes and tests about policy and philosophy produce very accurate results.

I’m a “hard-core libertarian” according to Professor Bryan Caplan’s 130-question quiz.

I’m “not communist” on a test to determine Marxist sympathies.

I’m a “minimalist” according to the Committee for a Responsible Federal Budget’s fiscal quiz.

Some tests, however, produce illogical results.

I am a “moderate” according to a social attitudes test.

Today, I’m going to share some more results that are not very logical. The Wall Street Journal posted a quiz a few days ago to ask “What Kind of Voter Are You?”

To may dismay, they decided that I’m a traditional conservative rather than a libertarian.

Here’s a breakdown of my results.

As far as I can tell, I’m as pro-free market as possible. Which makes sense since another quiz labelled me a “minarchist.”

But if you look at the second category, the quiz thinks I’m a social conservative.

Since I’m largely abstemious in my personal life (the boring kind of libertarian), I would not object if someone concluded I’m a social conservative as a person.

But I firmly believe I’m a libertarian with regards to policy and philosophy.

I don’t support laws against drug use.

I don’t support laws against prostitution

I don’t support laws against gambling

I don’t support laws against whatever consensual adults want to do in a bedroom.

So why did the WSJ decide I was a social conservative?

I would argue that some of their questions are poorly worded.

For instance, they apparently think the libertarian view is that any and all abortions should be legal. I’m sure some libertarian have that point of view, but there are also lots of pro-life libertarians.

I based my answer on the fact that I would not favor unlimited and unrestricted abortions way past the point of viability. Call me crazy, but I don’t think that makes me non-libertarian... 

From Dan Mitchell

Before I get into what Dan Mitchell is saying here and I agree with him on how he describes his own personal politics, but what you are about to read here gives you a pretty good idea of a what a Conservative is in the political sense. 

The great conservative political humorist P.J. O'Rourke (RIP) I think when he was being interviewed by Reason Magazine, or some other right-wing publication was talking about conservatism and he gave I believe a pretty good definition of it when talking about his own personal life and this is a paraphrase: 

"I'm straight, 

I've been married with the same woman for a very long time. 

I don't gamble. I don't use marijuana or any other illegal narcotic. 

I don't have abortions. 

I don't cheat on my wife. 

I don't watch porn. 

I've never been a romance with a man. 

I've never been married to a man. 

I'm not a party animal."

He just gave the interviewer a long list of things that today's so-called social Conservatives are supposedly not just against, (even if they actually do these things in private) but what separated him from the "social Conservatives" was that he didn't think these personal choices should be illegal, simply because he disapproves of them. I think abortion is the only exception to that because he did believe abortion should be illegal, at least in most cases. 

If you go by the so-called mainstream definitions of what it's supposed to be a Conservative and Liberal in America, the most conservative people are MAGA, or some other right-wing authoritarian. And the most liberal people, at least in a democratic sense, are the so-called Squad in the House of Representatives, or the Green Party, Democratic Socialists of America. 

But the one thing that these two fringe factions have in America, is that they're both collectivists and in some cases even authoritarians, especially if you were to look at the Communists on far, far-left and the MAGA militants, the right-wing, anti-U.S. Government radicals on the far-right. So they have a lot more in common then you would think. They're actually not that different at all. A few differences in economic policy and some social issues. 

When I think of Conservative, I think P.J. O'Rourke has an excellent definition. But I would add someone who believes in conserving what works in American society and politic: 

Things like the U.S. Constitution, separation of powers, checks and balances, devolution of power, the rule of law, individual rights, strong national defense. 

Government should move conservatively, meaning cautiously when it comes to reform and that the government closest to home is the best government when it comes to social and welfare policy. 

Someone like a Ronald Reagan as President of the United States, other than the high deficits and debt, the expansion of the War On Drugs, the high crimes rates of the 1980s, is an excellent example of what it means to be an American Conservative, at least far as tone and rhetoric and what he got done as President. 

But when I look at the Dan Mitchells's of the world, who I've been following online the last 10 years or so, which is most of my blogging career, I have him down as a Libertarian, in the classical sense. Not in the antigovernment, Anarcho sense. Those folks are really just right-wing Anarchists. But he's someone who believes in limited government, which is not no government. He's someone whose even praised the flat tax before. Which means he's not anti-tax all together. And he's someone who believes in a good deal of personal and economic freedom, personal responsibility, the rule of law, etc. 

Dan Mitchell: ‘The Fiscal Case For Federalism’

Source:Dan Mitchell being interviewed about federalism.

Source:The New Democrat

“Fixing entitlement programs is the the most pressing fiscal need in Washington.

In a discussion with the Club for Growth Foundation, I explain that we also need federalism – i.e., shifting programs to the state and local level.

Some of those activities should be left totally to the private sector (agriculture,

housing, etc) while others could be picked up by state and local governments (education, transportation, etc).

As I mentioned in the discussion, Switzerland is a good role model.

It’s arguably the world’s best-governed nation. And I don’t think it’s a coincidence that it’s also the most-decentralized nation.

which case everything is abolished).

National defense (a small share of spending)

Social Security (after being reformed, of course)

Medicare (after being reformed, of course)

My former colleague Chris Edwards wrote about the need for federalism in a column for National Review. Here are some highlights of his article… 

From Dan Mitchell

“Dan Mitchell Extolling the Virtues of Federalism” 

From Dan Mitchell

I have a few responses to what Dan Mitchell is advocating for here before I agree with a lot of what he’s saying, minus the flat tax. 

A lot of today’s so-called Progressives (who are actually Social Democrats or Democratic Socialists) argue that: “This is the way that they run health care in Sweden and the rest of Scandinavia. This is what we should do in America as well.” Meaning that health care, college education, and a lot of other social and economic benefits are run exclusively by the national government in those countries: “So we should do that in America as well.” 

Well, as lot of Conservatives, as well as Liberals, including myself and The New Democrat Blog will tell you, just because one thing might work in one country, doesn’t mean it will work in another. China has been a Communist State for almost 80 years now. That country seems to be thriving economically. Do you really want America to be a Communist State? And that’s just one example of why you don’t want to automatically assume that just because one system might work in one country, that another country should just automatically adopt that form of government as well. 

But that’s what Dan Mitchell is basically doing here. Switzerland is a country of 9 million people. Roughly the same population as the State of New Jersey. It has the same territory as New Hampshire and Vermont combined. America is a country of 330 million people. We are the 3rd largest country in the world in territory and in population. Just because something might work in New Jersey or Texas on a state level, doesn’t mean that would make for good policy nationally. And that’s really my case for federalism here. 

I think when people who aren’t familiar with the term federalism, especially people on the left who are always advocating for more Federal responsibility, power and programs, they think federalism means strong, national, government. That a Federalist wants a strong, national, government. But the fact is the opposite true.

Federalists believe in the Federal Republic. And in federal republics, of course you have a national government. But you also have state/provincial government’s as well. You don’t have the national government handling national defense, foreign policy, monetary policy, interstate law enforcement, along with education, social welfare, marriage, recreation, and everything else.

In federal republics, the states aren’t national agencies. They’re what U.S. Supreme Court Justice Louis Brandeis called: “Laboratories of democracy” And what that means is the Federal Republic is essentially a “free market of ideas”

And the states, as long as they’re within the U.S. Constitution and aren’t violating anyone’s constitutional rights, or are interfering with federal power, like trying to create their own military, or trying to run their own immigration policy, (that sort of thing) they are free to manage their own law enforcement agencies, they’re own education systems, they’re own social own welfare systems themselves. Without the Federal Government butting in and trying to interfere with their own government and trying to tell them what they can and can’t do. Or trying to take over their programs for them. 

So when you have a country as big, as diverse, not just racially and ethnically, or culturally, but politically as well, where you might have some states that look like Scandinavia ideologically, like Vermont, but have some states that look like Switzerland ideologically, like Texas, federalism which is decentralization of governmental power, is really the only form of government that I believe can work in America. And has worked in America for almost 248 years now.