Brilliant economists are saying Hayek was right about the past, but AI changes the game.
"The calculation problem? Solved. Modern supercomputers can handle what Soviet planners couldn't."
Here's why even smart people are missing something fundamental. 🧵
This isn't new thinking. It's the return of an ancient conceit.
Soviet planners once believed they could organize society "scientifically." No more waste, no unemployment, just rational experts allocating resources perfectly.
They called it scientific socialism. We know how that ended.
What these AI evangelists miss is what Friedrich Hayek understood decades ago: the problem was never computational power.
The problem is information itself.
When the price of tin rises, you don't need to know why. You just need to know that tin is now more valuable elsewhere.
This is what makes markets miraculous. They coordinate billions of decisions using almost no information.
A price contains everything market participants need to know. Nothing more, nothing less.
The "economy of knowledge," as Hayek called it, operates on radical simplicity.
Economists proved this formally in the 1970s. Competitive markets are "informationally efficient." They use the absolute minimum information possible to achieve optimal outcomes.
No algorithm, no matter how sophisticated, can improve on this. It's mathematically impossible.
But here's the deeper issue that destroys the AI-planning fantasy entirely:
Much of human knowledge can't be articulated at all. It's tacit, experiential, embedded in context that no central system can capture.
How do you program an algorithm to invent the iPhone?
The entrepreneurs imagining breakthrough products, the local knowledge of specific circumstances, the cultural intuitions that drive innovation. None of this can be reduced to data points for an AI system to process.
Central planning fails not because computers aren't fast enough, but because the knowledge problem is unsolvable.
Today's AI democracy projects and algorithmic governance systems are just Soviet five-year plans with better graphics.
They promise to engineer away human complexity. But complexity isn't a bug. It's the feature that makes free societies innovative and resilient.
The fatal conceit lives on. Every generation thinks it has the technology to finally make central planning work.
But markets don't need to be improved by AI. They need to be protected from the planners who think they can build something better.
Want to learn how to defend these ideas when your professors push the latest version of techno-solutionism?
We built a survival kit that trains you to argue for liberty in hostile classrooms—and win.
A 16th-century Spanish priest wrote the first systematic defense of sound money, identified inflation as theft, and justified killing tyrants who imposed taxes without consent.
Kings banned his books. Executioners burned them. The Inquisition tried to erase them from history.
But this Jesuit monk had developed the core insights of Austrian economics 250 years before Austria even existed. 🧵
This is the story of Juan de Mariana, the original "politically incorrect" libertarian who out-Rothbarded Rothbard, out-Misesed Mises, and challenged the entire power structure of his time.
While most people think free-market economics started with Adam Smith, the real intellectual revolution began in the lecture halls of 16th-century Salamanca.
Born in 1536 as the illegitimate son of a canon, Mariana joined the Jesuits at sixteen and quickly became one of Europe's most brilliant minds. He taught at Rome, Sicily, and the Sorbonne, the Harvard of its day.
But brilliance wasn't enough for Mariana. He wanted to change the world.
In August 1939, Britain and France were desperately trying to stop Hitler.
They had one last hope: convince Stalin to join them against Nazi Germany. Instead, Stalin chose to ally with the nazis.
This wasn't an accident. It was ideological sympathy. 🧵
The scene in Moscow was surreal.
British and French envoys were begging Stalin for an alliance, but talks stalled over Poland accepting Soviet troops and the Baltic states falling into Stalin's sphere.
Stalin was stupefied by British refusal. How could British imperialists, who had seized one quarter of the earth, deny him the right to annex former Russian possessions?
Meanwhile, Hitler was growing anxious about a potential Soviet-Western alliance.
In May 1939, Stalin made a telling move: he replaced Jewish foreign minister Maxim Litvinov with Vyacheslav Molotov, whose main trait was never disagreeing with Stalin. This wasn't coincidence. It was preparation for Nazi talks.
The Soviet Union promised equality, prosperity, and democracy for all.
— 7 million died in the Holodomor famine.
— 6 million people forcibly deported.
— 800,000 died during deportation.
— 40% lived in poverty.
Don't be fooled—life for regular people in the USSR was awful. 🧵
We're told constantly that socialism "just hasn't been tried correctly yet."
But the USSR wasn't an accident. It was socialism's most ambitious experiment.
And the results? A masterclass in how utopian promises become dystopian realities.
Stalin's Five-Year Plan gave the Soviet state control over Ukraine's agriculture. Ukrainian farmers were forced to sell their grain, land, livestock, and tools to the government.
They were enslaved on collective farms called "kolkhozes."
The result? Mass starvation from central planning's inevitable failures.
You're a Soviet railroad commissar. No markets. No prices. Just you and a mountain range between two cities. How do you decide where to build?
This simple question reveals why socialism always fails. 🧵
Through the mountains, you'd use less steel but massive engineering resources. Around the mountains, you'd use more steel but save engineering for other projects. Both steel and engineering are desperately needed elsewhere for irrigation, trucks, harbors, thousands of other uses.
To choose wisely, you'd need to know what millions of people know. What farmers know about crop yields. What grocers know about customer demand. What truckers know about delivery capacity. What families know about the meals they want to cook tonight.
From progressive pulpits to college campuses to political debates, it’s a claim you hear everywhere today.
But what happens when we actually examine what Jesus taught versus what socialism requires? Let's investigate. 🧵
To answer this fairly, we need to define socialism clearly. Many people define it as "government giving free stuff" or "people doing good things for others."
Well, if that's socialism, then F.A. Hayek was a socialist—he supported some social programs and certainly believed in helping people.
But that's not what socialism actually means. Socialism is the concentration of economic power in government hands: central planning of the economy, state ownership of production, and redistribution of wealth through political force.
That's what Karl Marx commanded, and that's what his followers tried to apply across the world.
Now let's see what Jesus actually taught about these things.