Why Does My Candidate's "Capitalism" Sound Suspiciously Like Socialism?
Election Season and Monetary Economics
It is summer in America and election season is ramping up. On the national level we have the midterms – two before the next Presidential election – and on the state level, there are 39 governorships to be decided.
One of those is the State of Ohio, where I live, and there are three candidates to be considered, but only two to be taken seriously. Among the two consequential candidates, Democrat Amy Acton and Republican Vivek Ramaswamy, the race is currently polling as a toss-up. Invisible is the Libertarian party whose economic platform is spartan, but stresses affordability, ending property taxes, and restriction on data centers.
Regarding Dr. Acton, through June 2020, she was the Director of Public Health for Republican governor Mike Dewine and spearheaded his panicked lockdowns during the Wuhan virus. Not only were they among the most aggressive series of actions in America, but Dr. Acton then became his chief health advisor. However, unable to handle the backlash from her destructive policies, she left the Dewine administration in August 2020.
Without going into detail, the economic platform supporting Acton’s run for governor is littered with workforce development, affordability, consumer protection and government “investments.” Of course, this is typical democratic socialism and old as dirt.
What is more interesting are the monetary economic fallacies of the one candidate who claims to be an advocate for individual rights and economic freedom. And for that, we have the Wall Street Journal Opinion section piece that was published under the byline of Vivek Ramaswamy and dated July 5, 2026.
In the first three paragraphs, Ramaswamy gives readers a sample of the nihilistic ideas that are dominating the Democratic party. From the mayors of New York and Los Angeles to the governor of California and Dr. Acton, he correctly assails the billionaire tax schemes and multi billion dollar subsidies while positioning himself as an advocate for free markets and sound money.
Then Ramaswamy unleashes the misinformed economic narratives that are typical of conservative pundits, politicians, and professors. This begins with the fourth paragraph:
“American wealth is concentrated at the top. On this narrow point, the socialists are correct.”
In every country in the history of the world, wealth is concentrated at the top, but to a liberty-minded capitalist (the only kind), the broader points should be the methods for accumulating wealth and the value of wealth concentration.
Ramaswamy concludes the paragraph by saying:
“the greatest driver of inequality over the past five years was exactly what the socialists now demand more of: large-scale government spending.”
First of all, economic inequality is natural and good. To concede that point to the collectivists is to lose the argument. However, he is correct about government spending as the forced extraction of wealth that punishes everyone (except the politicians, bureaucrats and NGO operators that pay indulgences to the politicians in the form of campaign contributions).
Getting to the issue is the lead-in for paragraph five:
“When Washington floods the economy with borrowed and freshly printed dollars, the money flows first into assets owned by the wealthiest Americans—stocks, bonds, real estate.”
This is common wisdom, but there is so much wrong here that it’s hard to know where to start.
The false premise is that the State creates money, that creates the illusion of free money, but the State creates nothing. To correct that nonsense, consider the fact that the money supply in America as measured by M2 (a measure of money in circulation) as published by Macrotrends, has grown to $22.7 trillion from $4.7 trillion since January 2000. That is an increase of 4.8 times during a period when US Gross Domestic Product increased 3 times and the population increased by 60 million, or about 21%. Currency devaluation and price inflation are real, but money in circulation is a self-regulating mechanism that disregards the central bankers.
With that in mind, “Washington floods the economy” only makes sense if you believe the Cantillon effect is real and persistent. Published in 1755 and named for French economist Richard Cantillon, it claims that newly minted government money affects some prices before others, namely assets owned by those closest to government power, and then sequentially affects other goods.
Compared to the “capital theory” work of his successor, French economist Jacques Turgot, Cantillon’s “money theory” is more primitive. Accordingly, it is favored by the Federal Reserve to justify their quantitative easing (QE) projects that create deposits in America’s banking system through the purchase of Treasury bonds.
Ostensibly, those who acquired wealth by their own industry suddenly became giddy for speculation on equities and real estate and pushed prices higher on the greater fool theory of irrational investors. Back to reality, it is producers and traders who decide what is money. And think about the technological advances, the productivity gains, and the capital that continuously flows into America because that is where it is treated best.
On a roll, Ramaswamy doubles down:
“As big government pumped money into the economy, assets boomed: The stock market has roughly tripled from its March 2020 low.”
Speaking of which, Macrotrends also reports that the valuation of the S&P 500 stock market index has fluctuated between 20 and 40 times trailing earnings since 1990 - and as of February 2026, the price earnings multiple was just under 30.
Of course, the earnings of the previous 12 months compared to the current price is not the only indicator of stock market valuation and multiples are historically high right now, but to say that it is money created by the State that bid up asset prices means that earnings, innovation and capital flows don’t matter.
However, they are all that matter. High valuations reveal confidence in the likelihood of future profits and cash flow - and all of it depends on high risk equity investors - not the low-risk debt in which banks specialize. Consider the fact that Alphabet (Google), Amazon, Apple, Meta (Facebook) and Tesla are relatively new additions to the top ten largest companies in the S&P 500 index.
These are venture capital success stories that have enriched the lives of countless investors and consumers, yet the WSJ Opinion piece continues:
“The rich got richer because of the socialists’ remedy—government spending.”
If you want to help your political opponent get elected, this is the way to go. Ramaswamy is rationalizing every crony corporatism, political patronage, regulatory capture, government subsidy, whatever you want to call it, scam imaginable.
Naturally, that is a major contradiction, but not the only one. Here, the Ramaswamy campaign delivers four contradictions in one statement:
“The money inflated the assets of the wealthy, widening the gap that now propels Democratic Socialists to power, while inflating the price of everything.”
The monetary policy of the Federal Reserve did not drive asset prices higher. Income and wealth inequality are natural and healthy facts of social reality.
Furthermore, driving the Democratic Socialists to power is the illusion of free money, the denigration of markets, and the demonization of profits that are encapsulated in this WSJ Op-Ed attributed to Vivek Ramaswamy. On top of that, “the price of everything” rose rapidly because of the supply-side disaster known as economic lockdowns that earned Dr. Amy Acton a Profile in Courage award.
If you are not running for office or working for a campaign, you have basically two choices in politics: vote for the best candidate or don’t vote. In this case, the best candidate is either the pretend capitalist whose judgment is suspect or the humanitarian with the guillotine who is what she says she is.
In a larger sense, politics is downstream from ethics. It is the cesspool of ideas for people who would rather tell you how you should live before building their own characters and productive capabilities. Conversely, the rational alternative for your health, wealth and wisdom begins with your own life as your primary value. And that is where The Moneyball Method begins: independence from the monetary economics of the State’s institutions.
Economically, it begins with money as the cornerstone of civilization, prices as the most efficient conduit for information, markets as voluntary trade for mutual profit, and earned profits as poetic justice. Or as Dagny Taggart whispered to John Galt in Ayn Rand’s classic novel Atlas Shrugged:
“We never had to take any of it seriously, did we?”
“No, we never had to.”
