Articles

Advocacy of "socialism," which the United States Socialist Party defines as a "social and economic order in which workers and consumers control production," has resurfaced in U.S. politics in recent years. Public figures such as Vermont Senator Bernie Sanders sing its praises. But the truth is that socialism profoundly undermines people's ability (and motivation) to improve their own living conditions. The misery that socialism has caused millions of people refute its promises, in a terrible way.

It's difficult to acquire a home at a "good price." The Truth as it is... the factors that affect the cost of housing on the island.

“Feudalism, communism, fascism, that’s divisive,” he replies. “All are based on getting resources by taking them from somebody else. Capitalism forces us to think, ‘What does the other guy want?’ The most important aspect of capitalism is cooperation.” That’s “why every time you buy something, you hear this double, ‘Thank you.’” “The closer people live to marketplaces, the more generous they are,” explains Norberg. “If they constantly buy and sell and negotiate, they begin to take other people’s interests into consideration. That’s what markets do. They do affect our character, but not in this way that the critics say. They don’t make us more divisive and aggressive. They make us more generous.”

The call for new or improved constitutions has become a fashionable and enthusiastic rallying cry for politicians, ideologues, and intellectuals throughout the twentieth and twenty-first centuries. The emergence of new states, revolutions, political upheavals, aspirations for salvation, crises, or defeated states seeking a fresh start are among the reasons that our modern world is increasingly populated with modern constitutions. The ultimate aim of this popular exercise is the creation of a Magna Carta that will rectify the wrongs of the past, paving the way for a bright new future.

Over the past two decades, I saw this inverted worldview swallow all of the crucial sense-making institutions of American life. It started with the universities. Then it moved beyond the quad to cultural institutions—including some I knew well, like The New York Times—as well as every major museum, philanthropy, and media company. It's taken root in nearly every major corporation. It's inside our high schools and our elementary schools.

Puerto Rico was such a blessed island that for many years there was no talk about the economy because the factories that took advantage of the 936 law ensured a consistent flow of money to the government. The loss of 936 was a fatal blow to our economy, so fatal that it cost us bankruptcy and a debt that will keep us making payments to bondholders for at least 20 years. Needless to say, this will be a costly process for Puerto Rico. But that is not the worst news. The administrations that have reigned over our Island's finances since Puerto Rico's economic bonanza ended have been abysmal. Even knowing that the money was no longer coming in, the government continued spending as if nothing had happened. To top it off, instead of making adjustments, they continued issuing bonds as if they did not have to repay them after their maturity date.

Socialist revolutions do not spread in times of misery and poverty as one would expect them to do, but during prosperity and progress. To know this, we only have to look back at history, which reminds us that the Essene movements (primitive socialism) coincided with the height of the Empire pax augusta.

The data suggest that, contrary to what so many people predicted, Argentina may not be slipping deeper into recession following Milei’s shock therapy. Instead, its economy is healing.

Ideological labels are challenging. They change over time. They often originate as terms of abuse for one’s opponents. The proto‐liberal Levellers in the mid‐1600s got their name from critics who accused them of wanting to “level” society, rather than simply to establish equal rights. Both “Whig” and “Tory” were originally used to criticize their opponents in the late 17th century. These days, what do conservatives want to conserve? Are liberals still liberal?