I knew about planned economies, but I just learned about command economies from this article.

Sincere question: don't most if not all Western nations have essentially the same problem, to a (perhaps?) lesser degree?

I am far from being an economist or political scientist, but that's what it appears to me. Every government I can think of puts its collective thumb on the scale in the economy somehow. And I can't judge which of the metrics cited (negative productivity growth, fertility below replacement, etc) are causal and which are incidental. So I don't understand how the claim is supported by the data.

Or is the entire piece just somebody's opinion with an agenda? I'd love to hear from someone unbiased who knows better.

Any mention of the Laffer curve should be taken with a grain of salt... Historically it's always used to push a viewpoint that somehow society would be better if only we didn't tax the people who can most afford to be taxed.

It does seem like, especially for the supposed political goals of the recent governments, there's things to watch out for.

But despite denying it ("This isn’t hyperbole"), it seems like most of this article is, in fact, hyperbole.

The main (incredibly grating) assumption is that government is intently destructive and non-productive:

> But only one of them leads to capital accumulation and becomes an engine of generational wealth growth.

> ...It is unavoidable that the government appropriates and ultimately compromises and destroys a lot of productive capital. Well and good, provided the economy can regenerate it at least as fast as it is harvested.

Government is only unproductive to the extent the people want it to be. Governments fund education, nutrition, and support immigration, i.e., produce essentially _all_ of the available _human capital_. Research and development produce enormous values both for society and the economy (the internet was designed, tested, built, and expanded by a government!). Governments foot the bill for enormous utility and trandportion subsidies to enable entire economies to exist at all.

The only difference between a government agency and a corporation is the profit _motive_. The government can do exactly the same things as a corporation would, and in fact, that's why it's relatively common for governments to charter purpose made corporations to do certain things.

The inefficiency and ineffectiveness of government is mostly a contrivance of people who _want_ government to be ineffective and inefficient -- mostly as a rhetorical bludgeon to further a "small government" agenda (i.e., moving as much economic power out of the hands of agencies chartered to do something _other than_ maximize shareholder value)