Now you’ve done it. You’ve gone and upset the establishment Economist.

The British news magazine recently published (June 4) an op-ed expressing their concerns about “Gen Z socialism”: “A fresh crop of socialists want to remake the economy with price controls, hefty wealth taxes, and a spree of nationalisations.” These allegedly nefarious notions on the part of Generation Z (1997–2012) are clearly considered ideological violations that reek of revolution.

However, they are revolutionary only if they benefit the population; the assumption is that the same set of policies that bolster the stupendously wealthy, those whom the Economist apparently believes are the better, more responsible set of citizens, are perfectly natural.

Let’s take, for example, the objection to wealth taxes. Terrible, right? Nowhere in their op-ed do they object to taxing the resources of poor Americans; but that is precisely what the Trump administration’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act does. In effect, it is a wealth transfer from the bottom to the top.

According to the non-partisan Center on Budget and Policy Priorities and based on Congressional Budget Office data, tax cuts for those with annual incomes of $500,000 or more will receive 1.4 trillion in total tax savings. That money comes at the expense of 187 billion in cuts to the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and slashing 1.1 trillion from Medicaid over ten years.

Although all income groups receive a much-touted tax break, that “savings” outweighs losses in “health coverage, food assistance, and other programs.” The erosion of entitlements for the poorest Americans—those at the bottom 10 percent of the income distribution—translates to an annual decrease of $1,200 per household while the top ten percent will gain $13,600 each year.

As far as “nationalisations” are concerned, the US government has bailed out large financial institutions, airlines, and auto manufacturers many times with a stream of hundreds of billions in taxpayer money. In effect, those entities were nationalized, and many were largely, albeit temporarily, owned by the state.

The 2007 financial crisis precipitated massive government aid to some of the most profitable corporations in the United States. However, dozens of them have not repaid the US government or were exempted from doing so. The taxpayer is now on the hook for that lost money, another form of wealth tax to which the Economist does not object.

The op-ed continues: This “brand of leftism” represents a “me-first doctrine,” they say with a straight face. “Yet Gen-Z socialism is wrong about how to fix the problems of capitalism. It must be resisted, because it is a profound threat to prosperity.”

The editors are correct in the sense that something must be resisted, but not the “it” they have in mind. It is the me-first doctrine of corporate America that must be fought against, and Gen Z seems well positioned to do that. Far from exhibiting the pathological behavioral traits typical of concentrated centers of wealth and power, including extreme self-centeredness and a flagrant disregard for the welfare of others, members of Gen Z consistently exhibit the opposite tendencies.

The polling data for this group is revealing: Regarding poverty alleviation, just over 80 percent think that the government should either provide more aid or maintain current levels of assistance to people in need. Additionally, in total, 73 percent say that Social Security benefits should either be increased or remain the same.

For a group of young people who are decades away from pension age, and who may still receive parental support, these sentiments demonstrate care for others that contradict accusations of selfishness. By contrast, polling shows that those at the top of the economic ladder are far more intolerant of government aid to poor and low-wage people.

Then the Economist shows the real source of its panic: “Gen-Z socialists demand handouts funded by billionaires.” Handouts?? Not paying taxes—they very much owe—is a billionaire’s stock in trade.

In a 2021 report, the US Department of the Treasury estimated that tax evasion amounted to 600 billion every year, and the top 1 percent avoided paying $163 billion in 2019 alone. Some yearly estimates are even higher. These numbers represent record losses that result in less spending on necessary programs for which the taxpayer, again, must foot the bill.

The Economist attempts to strike a centrist balance: “The far right is no less barmy [crazy].” So reasonable. “But [despite the dangers posed by the right] what is so worrying about the Gen-Z socialists is how deeply their ideas are bleeding into the centre-left.”

And then back to the primary concern: “Wealth taxes would become confiscatory and deter innovation.” Deter innovation? If the ultra-wealthy pay what they owe, the thinking goes, then it will harm everyone. It’s best, the thinking goes, if the ultra-wealthy adhere to a “me-first” ethos; a rising tide raises all boats. (The trickle-down witchcraft just doesn’t seem to die.) The “innovation” part of that warning is just there to scare the reader. It means nothing.

Let’s suppose that were true, that greater wealth at the top meant corresponding increases in prosperity for others at the middle and the bottom. In that case, we would have seen a narrowing of the income and wealth gaps. The opposite is the case.

According to economist Thomas Piketty, in 1929, on the eve of the Great Depression, the wealthiest 10 percent owned 50 percent of national income. A thirty-year period during the post-war years (1950-1980) witnessed a decrease to 30 percent because the wealthy were taxed at greater rates while workers were comparatively better paid and enjoyed a greater quality of life. Today, we are mostly back to pre-Depression levels of income inequality.

The editors then opine that these kids should show some gratitude: “But this is the best time in human history to be born, given record real incomes, high life expectancy and low rates of extreme poverty.” How overjoyed we all should be.

The Economist seemed to have missed the fact that wages have stagnated or declined for decades. While it’s true that median weekly wages have doubled over the last 25 years, one’s purchasing power has not. Some estimates put increased real buying power over a quarter century at a little more than 10 percent.

However, a recent report by the Brookings Institute found that nearly half of all Americans struggled to afford basic necessities like healthy food and decent medical care. The picture is worse for Black and Hispanic families.

Their piece then closes with this: “Many of the problems that animate Gen-Z socialists, like high rents, are the result of markets that are insufficiently free, not excessively so.”

So, the Gen Z youth need to toughen up and understand markets. These are the same “free” markets that the private sector and ultra-wealthy hold in contempt.

Does the Economist think for a second that Amazon, Google, and Apple are interested in markets or competition? No, they are not. They are anti-capitalist. They keep the nanny state close—as do the major defense contractors; nothing beats free money. What was the word the Economist used? Confiscatory?