Most of those preaching “equality” are only interested in casting off specific inequalities that don’t benefit them to replace them with new inequalities that do.

When Hayek won the Nobel Prize in 1974, he did something unusual: he questioned whether economists should be given a Nobel Prize in the first place. At the Nobel banquet, Hayek said that if he had been consulted about creating the prize, he would have advised against it. His concern was the authority the award could confer on economists. It could lead politicians, journalists, and the public to treat an economist as an expert on subjects far beyond his area of competence. Hayek suggested that Nobel laureates should at the very least take an “oath of humility,” promising not to speak beyond the limits of their knowledge.

The 2008 financial crisis did not appear out of nowhere. It was manufactured, step by step, by the Federal Reserve, Congress, and a constellation of Wall Street banks who all correctly understood that the government would socialize their losses. Start with the Fed. After the dot-com crash in 2000, Alan Greenspan dropped the federal funds rate from 6.5% down to 1% by 2003 and held it there. That rate was artificially cheap credit, flooding the banking system with money that had no corresponding real savings behind it. Banks, mortgage originators, and ordinary homebuyers responded exactly as you would expect: they borrowed. Heavily. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, two government-sponsored entities with implicit federal backing, purchased and securitized trillions of dollars in mortgages, signaling to every lender on Earth that the credit risk ultimately sat with the taxpayer. Lenders stopped caring whether borrowers could repay. Why would they? They were selling the risk upstream immediately. The instruments got exotic fast. Mortgage-backed securities, collateralized debt obligations, CDOs-squared: layers of complexity designed not to manage risk but to obscure it from ratings agencies like Moody's and S&P, both of which stamped AAA on paper that was, in plain terms, garbage. Free market economists who studied credit expansion had warned since the 1930s that artificial booms create the very busts governments then claim to be rescuing you from. Washington ignored these warnings. By 2006 the housing market peaked. By 2007 subprime delinquencies were spiking. By September 2008 Lehman Brothers had failed, the Fed had engineered a shotgun rescue of Bear Stearns, and Treasury Secretary Hank Paulson was on his knees (literally, reportedly) in a congressional meeting room begging Nancy Pelosi for $700 billion. The Troubled Asset Relief Program passed. The Fed's balance sheet exploded from roughly $900 billion to over $2 trillion in weeks. The people who took the risks kept their bonuses. The people who saw the crisis coming got ignored. The people who built nothing and understood nothing got bailed out with money conjured from thin air. The Fed then cut rates to near zero, held them there for years, and inflated the next bubble before the last one had even finished deflating.

Murray Rothbard sat down and wrote Man, Economy, and State in 1962, and produced what remains the most rigorous reconstruction of economic theory from first principles ever attempted by a single human mind. You should treat this book the way physicists treat Newton's Principia: as the foundational text that reordered an entire field. Rothbard starts from one irreducible fact. Humans act. From that single axiom, he builds price theory, capital theory, production structure, and monopoly theory, all without a single econometric regression in sight. He systematically demolishes the case for government intervention by showing how each distortion generates further distortions, cascading outward until someone eventually calls for another intervention to fix the previous one. Rothbard separated himself from contemporaries like Samuelson through intellectual courage. Samuelson dressed mathematics up as economics. Rothbard did the harder thing: he reasoned carefully from human behavior. Power and Market, published alongside the main volume, extended this into devastating critiques of taxation and regulation. Read both. Together they form an education that most graduate programs in 2026 still quietly avoid assigning.

The @lnp2pbot bot has shut down due to massive AI-powered attacks. El bot @lnp2pbot ha cerrado por ataques masivos con IA 😢

Carl Menger published Grundsätze der Volkswirtschaftslehre in 1871, and the entire edifice of mainstream economics cracked. No committees. No government grant. One Viennese professor working alone, insisting that value originates in the human mind, not in the hours of labor poured into production. Marx had built his entire system on labor-value theory that same decade. Menger showed it was wrong. The German Historical School, which then dominated European economics, had rejected universal economic laws entirely. They believed every nation needed its own bespoke theory. Menger told them, politely then less politely, that this was nonsense. What followed, the Methodenstreit of the 1880s, was a genuine intellectual war. Menger's student Böhm-Bawerk would later dismantle Marx's capital theory so thoroughly that serious socialist economists spent decades trying to patch the holes. You get to inherit that victory for free. The least you can do is understand where it started: one book, one man, 1871.

What a lovely initiative! @primal

The Road to Serfdom, Hayek’s most famous work, is a warning about how central economic planning erodes and ultimately destroys freedom. Attempts to run the economy collectively, however well-intentioned, push society down the path to authoritarianism. Central planning requires the government to make countless decisions — what gets produced, where resources go, whose needs take priority, etc. Since people all have different needs and goals, enforcing such a plan inevitably means overriding the choices of individual citizens. The process feeds on itself: more planning requires more control, and more control means less individual freedom. What begins as an effort to manage the economy ends with the state exercising power over every aspect of people’s lives.

Ludwig von Mises sat down in 1920 and published a paper that ended the intellectual case for socialism, even if the socialists took another seven decades to notice. The argument was precise. Mises showed that without private ownership of the means of production, there are no real prices for capital goods. Without prices, you cannot calculate profit and loss. Without profit and loss, economic planners have no way of knowing whether they are creating value or destroying it. They are flying blind, spending real resources with no feedback mechanism telling them whether the factory, the railway, or the grain depot was worth building. Every allocation becomes a guess dressed up as a decree. This, he called the Socialist Calculation Problem, and nobody answered it. Oskar Lange tried in 1936, proposing that socialist planners could simulate prices by trial and error. Mises read this and was unimpressed (charitably put). Lange assumed you could reproduce the function of market prices without the institution that generates them: private property, genuine exchange, real skin in the game. You cannot fake the signal and expect accurate information. The Soviet Union spent seventy years proving Mises right. Chronic shortages, misallocated steel, surplus winter boots in Georgia in July, famine engineered by committees convinced they understood grain supply better than the price system. The USSR collapsed in 1991 under the weight of precisely the inefficiencies Mises predicted in Vienna in 1920. You are watching this play out again today, every time a government sets energy prices, rent ceilings, or pharmaceutical price caps, and then expresses shock at the resulting shortages. The calculation problem did not expire with the Soviet Union. Bureaucrats who override price signals recreate the same blindness Mises identified. Mises told you exactly what would happen.

The intellectual case against Marxism was won more than a century ago. The most rigorous and devastating blows came from the Austrian School of economics – but the strange part is that hardly anyone is taught the winning arguments. Carl Menger’s subjective theory of value, developed in the 1870s, undermined the labour theory of value on which Marx built his entire system. Eugen von Böhm-Bawerk then delivered a systematic demolition of Marx’s economics, exposing the contradictions in the theory of surplus value and the so-called transformation problem. Ludwig von Mises went further still, demonstrating that rational economic calculation is impossible under socialism because without private property and market prices there is no way to allocate resources efficiently. Friedrich Hayek later extended this into the knowledge problem: the information required to run a complex economy is dispersed and cannot be centralised. And Murray Rothbard showed how Marx misunderstood the nature of capitalism by replacing voluntary exchange and entrepreneurial creation with a false theory of exploitation based on labour value and class conflict. These were not minor objections. They struck at the theoretical foundations of Marxism and, in the case of Mises and Hayek, correctly predicted the chronic waste, shortages, and eventual collapse of socialist economies. History confirmed their arguments on a civilisational scale. Yet in universities, media and political debate, these critiques remain marginal. Marx is still widely taught as a serious economist and social theorist. His errors are softened, historicised, or treated as interesting starting points. The Austrian responses are rarely given equal weight. Students can pass through entire programmes in the social sciences without encountering Böhm-Bawerk’s critique or Mises’s calculation argument in any depth. This neglect is not accidental. It reflects a deeper intellectual preference for theories that pathologise markets and legitimise expanded state power. The result is a public discourse that continues to recycle Marxist categories long after their economic foundations were shown to be unsound. The cost of that selective memory is still being paid.