Pierre Lemieux is understandably troubled by the persistence of Luddism. A slice:
Is it possible that the AI revolution will be so radical that no work will be left for humans? If that literally happened—nobody would want more goods and services than AI robots produce—it would mean that the problem of scarcity has been solved, a blessing, not a curse. But perhaps, an objection goes, scarcity would remain for some classes of people, who would have no jobs and no income. This dystopia is impossible in a free market society since the unemployed would be incentivized to exchange among themselves—the unemployed gardener and the unemployed butcher, for example—just as current gardeners and butchers mostly exchange their goods and services among themselves instead of selling them to billionaires and robot owners. (For more on this topic, see Michael Huemer, “In Praise of Job Destruction,” Substack, May 16, 2026.)
Emmanuel Rincon reflects on “the long tradition of wealth-extracting socialists.” A slice:
From Karl Marx to Vladimir Lenin, from Fidel Castro to Hugo Chávez, many of these figures denounced private wealth and entrepreneurship, despite the fact that few, if any, lived according to the austere principles they publicly promoted. Instead, many enjoyed lives marked by privilege, luxury, and the very economic advantages they claimed to despise.
This pattern is not confined to communist regimes. In the United States, self-described socialists have often criticized wealth accumulation — until they themselves became wealthy. Senator Bernie Sanders is among the most notable examples. For years, Sanders condemned millionaires and argued that extreme wealth accumulation was immoral. Yet after purchasing multiple homes and earning millions of dollars through book sales criticizing capitalism, his rhetoric shifted largely toward attacking billionaires instead.
Speaking of the collectivist obsession with soaking the rich, here are Megan McArdle’s thoughts on the matter. Two slices:
It is a heady moment for the left, because socialism’s tainted brand has recovered from the vivid failures of the Soviet Union. Fully 66 percent of Democrats tell Gallup they view socialism favorably, while 42 percent say the same of capitalism. This makes the left see a revolution marching toward victory, because it can promise something that the center left cannot: a disruptive break with an unsatisfying status quo.
The challenge is that socialism’s rise is spiky, concentrated in blue cities where affluent (but often downwardly mobile) college graduates cluster. That’s a problem for the Democratic Party, where the excesses of progressive governance are helping to make the party’s brand toxic in the less true-blue areas. But it’s also a challenge for the socialists, because cities are the hardest place to execute big plans for new taxing and spending.
…..
The progressivity of the tax code also complicates things on the revenue side. Socialists may wax lyrical about a Nordic-style welfare state, but those states are paid for by heavily taxing the middle class, an idea that is unlikely to gain much purchase with the educated base of the Democratic Socialists of America; today’s college-educated elite is voting for more public services, not less disposable income.
Tim Kane considers the prospects of prospect theory.
James Pethokoukis tweets: (HT Scott Lincicome)
Data centers didn’t raise electric bills nationally from 2015–24. Surprise! Actually, they modestly lowered them. That’s because big fixed grid costs get spread over more kilowatt-hours, and new demand can unlock economies of scale.
