September 26, 2025
We live in dangerous times. There is a new fascination among those lacking in knowledge of history and economic reality in favor of Socialism. The primary results in New York City being one example, the Bernie Sanders-AOC roadshow another.
It is time for those who do believe in capitalism to speak in its favor, while there is time to do so.
At its root:
“Socialism is a political and economic system where the means of production, such as factories and resources, are owned and controlled by the community as a whole, rather than by private individuals or corporations. It’s often characterized by social ownership of the means of production and a focus on equality and social welfare. Wiki via AI
And so, big fans, Karl and Friedrich:
Under socialism or communism—Marx and Engels drew no clear or consistent distinction between the two—government itself will eventually wither away as people gradually lose the selfish attitudes inculcated by private ownership of the means of production. Freed from necessity and exploitation, people will finally live in a true community that gives “each individual the means of cultivating his gifts in all directions.”
Uhhh…sure…right…take people’s money from them to bring out the best in them.
One of the features of Socialism is its almost perfect record of failure. Just consider the countries that failed under Socialism, and some of the current beauties promulgating Socialism:
Is this where we want to go? I imagine the government running grocery stores. They tried it in Kansas; they had to shut it down. Gotham-based Socialists believe they’ll be smarter. OK.
I’m thinking you can get the graft/corruption police going, they’ll have a lot of work to do.
Why the recent love affair (ignorant and misguided) with Socialism? IMO, it’s a reaction to the increasing gap in wealth. And this is not only a US-centric phenomenon. France appears to be heading to a “billionaire’s” tax to paper over decades of idle time. Desultory French citizens smoking Gitanes and drinking coffee at their local cafés, sighing in a kind of French-despair at everyday life. But that has led to a budget careening out of control. Desperate measures require desperate solutions.
Many years ago, I was playing golf in Naples FL, and we happened upon a 30,000 square foot home owned by Gary Wendt, a former executive in Jack Welch’s GE. I said to my host I found it repulsive, that display of wealth. And he said, “First, he has a huge art collection and needs walls to display the art. Second, I am told over 200 people worked on the house, mostly blue-collar workmen and I don’t think they’d find it repulsive.” He put me in my place. I point out that Wendt has focused his life now on philanthropy, busy giving it away. And my guess is the art collection is or will eventually wind up as a gift to a museum.
So, pols latch onto the Bezos wedding as justification for wealth confiscation. I can understand that, I really can. Close that gap! Of course, this finds its roots as a manifestation of wealth envy.
Now among Socialists, the idea is to confiscate wealth and then redistribute it. In the case of NYC, Mr. Mamdani wants to go after the money, and he will direct the redistribution. It’s a proposed shift in money and power which is of course what motivates.
I spent decades working with wealthy people and their advisors. And I can tell you there are only three things they can do with their money. But also, these are the three things that you and I can do with our money…we’re all in the same boat.
First, as Mr. Bezos did, they can spend it. Last I checked that is good for the economy. Putting people to work creates taxes and jobs.
This is where Socialist will declare that ‘trickle down’ economics doesn’t work. They never quite get around to proving that. All I know is that good trades people now push $100,000/year.
Second, they can invest it. Last I checked that is good for the economy. Can keep interest rates lower than otherwise, create wealth, helps keep the cost of capital down to promote more business formation.
Or third, they can give it away. Last I checked that is good for the economy. For all the talk about how billionaires escape taxes, pretty much the only way the government doesn’t get 50% of it (roughly) is if they give it away. Give it to a charity. Anyone object to that? And then eventually their heirs do…
$1.00 x 50% = $0.50 x 50% = $0.25….
OK, so that’s pretty much all you can do with your money, whether you are Mr. Bezos or anyone else. Of course, I get that the poor spend it on the necessities of life…food. Mr. Bezos spends his at Chanel. Or in giving us a space program. I get that.
You can confiscate his wealth, but the price, in addition to the amount of money a politician decides to take, is that we lose freedom in the process. Are we willing to trade our freedom for redistribution, no matter how well-meaning?
Then you have problematic wealth-envy situations. Mr. Buffett for example. For years, he would rail against income taxes, how his secretary paid a higher tax rate than he did. I have to tell you, every time I read that, I muttered to myself, “Well Warren, you could pay her taxes for her and while you were at it, send a few hundred million to Uncle Sam. Nothing preventing you from that.” He arranged his affairs in such a way that he really never paid any taxes. And then complained about the system. Not his best moments.
His compensation was in Berkshire stock and since he never sold any, he had no taxes to pay. And since he lived in the $100,000 house he bought decades ago (I always found that a bit weird, not endearing), he could live on a small salary.
You can’t call him a tax evader even as he avoided taxes. He played by the rules. I’m sure the tax bill at Berkshire would pop my eyes out, thus, the problematic nature of a Warren Buffett, wealth wise (If that’s a phrase). And now, he is in the process of giving away all of his money, the Bill Gates Foundation being a prime recipient. Thus, I repeat above, “they can give it away.” If he doesn’t, half goes to Uncle Sam, and they decide how to spend it. I’m OK if Warren and Bill decide instead.
Thus, Mr. Bezos enjoys new condemnations on the social circuit, which he has earned (and most probably doesn’t care), while Aw Shucks Warren avoids it. Two billionaires, two different looks.
See, it gets complicated, wealth envy. Me, as a free market advocate, I’m content to let these people do their thing, knowing that eventually all the money will funnel back into the vast ocean of the country’s capital base.
And then along comes a Socialist who says, “Can’t wait, let’s do it now.”
But the price we pay, gentle readers, is the loss of our freedom. Our freedom to excel, to enjoy the fruits of our labor, to make the blessings of freedom a real thing and not an abstraction.
In the recent Kimmel flap (which I will not directly address) we had thimble brains like socialist-actor (he has supported Bernie Sanders for years) Mark Rufalo emerge with vim and vigor:
That would be Mr. Rufalo at a “No Kings” protest. Thusly:
“This cancellation is the U.S. government coming and taking your voice away from you,” Ruffalo said. “It is the U.S. government that is now suppressing the freedom of speech. It is the U.S. government, not your neighbors, not someone on social media. It is the government doing it now.” He continued, “And that’s where we all have to come together, because authoritarian regimes, fascist regimes have to degrade our freedoms more and more overtime until we’re living the smallest, the most frightened, the most secretive lives. Think of yourselves living under the Taliban because that’s where we’re headed.”
So, Mr. Rufalo exercises himself over protecting freedom of speech but then embraces taking away economic freedom. Hunh? Perhaps more brain matter might reconcile the two for him.
I have some excess capital; it goes to 529 education funds for my grandchildren. Do we want, instead, my beloved Flagler County to take that money and do whatever with it? Where is the better choice?
Do we want the county commissioners to decide how much I can have and how much is too much? And how do they decide that? And then they take the money and spend it as they wish. One can only imagine.
Do we substitute the dead hand of government bureaucracy, empowered by politicians for the mother/father/husband/wife trying to do the best for their families?
As Margaret Thatcher said, “The problem is Socialists always run out of other people’s money.”
Socialism doesn’t work. Full Stop.
We need to be clear on that and tell our kids.
Thoughts, questions, or reflections? I’d love to hear them. You can reach me anytime at anthony@workingprofit.com
