A paradoxical market reality is that sectors with heavy government involvement, like healthcare and education, experience skyrocketing costs. In contrast, less-regulated, technology-driven sectors see prices consistently fall, suggesting a correlation between intervention and price inflation.

The U.S. is shifting from industry supporter to active owner by taking direct equity stakes in firms like Intel and U.S. Steel. This move blurs the lines between free markets and state control, risking a system where political connections, not performance, determine success.

The government often creates economic problems (e.g., through money printing), then presents itself as the solution with "free" programs. This cycle causes the public to misattribute their financial struggles to the failures of capitalism, rather than recognizing the government's role as the problem's source.

The most effective government role in innovation is to act as a catalyst for high-risk, foundational R&D (like DARPA creating the internet). Once a technology is viable, the government should step aside to allow private sector competition (like SpaceX) to drive down costs and accelerate progress.

Policies like price caps (e.g., for insulin) or price floors (e.g., minimum wage) that deviate from market equilibrium create distortions. The economy then compensates in unintended ways, such as companies ceasing production of price-capped goods or moving to under-the-table employment to avoid high minimum wages.

Deng Xiaoping’s reforms, which ignited China’s growth, were based on adopting American free-market principles like private enterprise and foreign capital. China’s success stemmed from decentralizing its economy, the very system the U.S. is now tempted to abandon for a more centralized model.

In an era of financial repression and heavy government intervention, the most effective investment strategy is to identify sectors receiving direct government support. By positioning capital near these "money spigots," investors can benefit from policies designed to manage the economy, regardless of traditional market fundamentals.

The debate over government's size can be framed using political philosophy. 'Negative freedom' is freedom *from* state interference (e.g., censorship). 'Positive freedom' is the capability to achieve one's potential, requiring state support for basics like education and health to enable true flourishing.

The system often blamed as capitalism is distorted. True capitalism requires the risk of failure as a clearing mechanism. Today's system is closer to cronyism, where government interventions like bailouts and regulatory capture protect established players from failure.