By JD Hall
Insight to Incite
August 11, 2026
What they call "capitalism" increasingly isn't capitalism at all. It is a bastardized system of privatized profits and socialized losses, where multinational corporations demand free markets when they want cheap foreign labor, unrestricted capital flows, tax advantages, deregulation, and access to American consumers, then sprint to Washington for bailouts, subsidies, contracts, tariffs, loan guarantees, and Federal Reserve intervention the moment the market threatens their societal Ponzi scheme. Americans are told this is the "free market." It is capitalism for the losers and socialism for the winners, with working Americans given the bill. That system was exposed this week in conversations about a $20 burrito.
I love saying, "I told you so." It ranks somewhere between finding twenty dollars in an old pair of jeans, right after finding out I still fit in them, and watching chickens peck their new barnyard toy. It's one of those simple joys in life. The problem is that opportunities to say it usually arrive wrapped in really bad news, and this one just arrived inside a tortilla.
Several months ago, I warned that the next phase of Establishment Conservatism™ wouldn't revolve around calling everyone "racist," "Nazi," or "antisemite." Those labels have been dragged behind the political pickup truck for so many miles they're nothing but frayed rope and broken bumper stickers now. Every time someone is called "literally Hitler," those bugbears stop being monsters under the bed and start becoming laughingstocks. The power of those accusations loses currency the more they use them. Instead, I argued that the new accusation would be something simpler. As soon as ordinary Americans started questioning the economic order that has quietly hollowed out the middle class, the establishment would reach back into the Cold War junk drawer and dust off the word "Communist." It wouldn't matter whether anyone had read Karl Marx, understood Marx, or could have picked Marx out of a police lineup. The label wouldn't exist to describe reality. It would exist to stop the conversation before it begins.
I wrote on X at the time...
I warned I2I followers yesterday that Establishmentarian globalists and NeoCon Unipartyists would soon begin alleging that the "dissidents" are secret Commies. I explained that James Lindsay just invented "Woke Right 2.0" with "Marxist" as a descriptor for people who believe in Nationalism and oppose globalism, and these two are led around by James Lindsay on a leash because they're incapable of original thoughts. They got the memo with full talking points.
That is the go-to reaction of the Boomers who have managed American decline for 70 years. It's all they know. It's the only familiar card they have left. Challenge the existing power structure, the Post War Consensus corporate globalism that has ruined America and sold us out to foreign nations and interests, and they reach for, "Marxist."
It's the last, drying gasp of geriatric geezer middle-managers, terrified of losing the reigns of political power, too dumb to realize they never had them. It is the sad, pathetic last go-round of the very generation that has brought the U.S. to its current laughingstock status on the world stage, turned the greatest empire in world history into a vassal state of Israel that couldn't win a war against Iran, and turned every generation after them into rentoid debtors and tax cattle. So, when they say "Communist," what they mean is, "People who give a damn about Americans and our best interests." When they say "Critical Theory" they mean caring about your family and personal well-being. And whatever globalist economic forces are raping America's interests, gutting our children's future, and turning the U.S. into a borderless economic zone of homeless, indebted paupers in a post-modern hellscape ? That's just "capitalism," and you had BETTER support our continued plundering or else we'll call you "Commies." The strategy: 1. Spend every ounce of political and economic capital vilifying 2-3 celebrity figures in a 24/7 non-stop deluge of hyperbolic, catastrophized screeching. Call them "literally Satan," for example. 2. Tie the entire MAGA 1.0 America First movement and Nationalist populism to those 2-3 figures. 3. Call them "Commies" because it's the only movement on the right that even pretends to care about what your groceries cost, or how hard it is to buy a home, or a debt economy, or wars that cause hyper-inflation but enrich trans-national corporations. Get it ? They care about you. That's "Communist," obviously. Now be a good Capitalist and line up to get chipped and pay your fresh air tax. Israel needs the money for their next conquest. What the Metamucil-sipping Boomer-Cons don't comprehend is that their proximity to power in the Swamp has given them a disproportionate influence compared to the masses who are tired of their crap. They have the ear of POTUS and Beltway lobbyists, but not We the People. They're on Fox, talking to nursing homes and airports, but no one is watching but captive audiences. And they've hitched their wagons to a shooting star in the White House who will be a lame duck in a matter of months. They'll wake one day, not long from now, and discover exactly how irrelevant they've become.
I gave that warning above because James Lindsay had sent out the memo that "Woke 2.0" would be people who complained about the NeoCon economy, and since then, Jeremy Boreing and absolutely everybody in the Israel First ecosystem has been complaining about "closet Commies" in the conservative movement who complain about things like the affordability crisis. Well, now Burrito-Gate has happened, and it unfolded almost like somebody found my prediction, highlighted it with a yellow marker, and passed it around the group chat. What happened - which I explained here at NXR - was that a young man remarked that "a burrito shouldn't cost twenty dollars," and any adult with an IQ higher than his thermostat immediately understood his point. He wasn't writing a doctoral dissertation on the inflationary price of Mexican cuisine, and probably not being terribly literal, but instead was talking about groceries, housing, insurance, debt, inflation, and the increasingly absurd reality that young families are expected to finance what their grandparents bought with one blue-collar income and a handshake.
The response was magnificent in the way only political self-parody can be. BoomerCons all across America suddenly became forensic burrito investigators, rummaging through restaurant menus like the fate of Western Civilization depended on proving a carne asada special only cost $14.95. Erick Erickson, bless his heart, was rummaging through online burrito advertisements to see if the young man was lying. It was fantastically out of touch, as though they were all so far outside the realm of normal that they needed evidence that the price of things has really gone up, which means the value of the dollar has really gone down.
The answer, of course, is that yes, obviously they have. Inflation of goods and deflation of the dollar was already bad before Trump, and has gotten noticeably worse because government borrowing - on account of war - and the inflation caused directly by the war itself is what creates inflation. Combine that with tariffs (which in principle are fine, if done consistently and with something resembling a game plan) and oil prices that are much higher than their currently manipulated status because the Straight of Hormuz is pumping 19 million barrels less daily than before, and inflation is obviously going to skyrocket. Wars have consequences, and the people promoting the policies that have consequences are busy telling us that we are imagining an economy in the gutter. And worse yet, they're telling us that anyone struggling needs to pick themselves up by their bootstraps and stop being lazy.
Dan Crenshaw's response was to tell everybody to eat ramen.
Stop whining, get a job, eat Ramen like the rest of us did in college, on a budget with 4 roommates. The market doesn't care what you think something 'should' cost. Only communists care (they set prices remember ? Then everyone starves, remember?) Are you a communist ? Or are you an American adult male capable of handling his own shit?"
There was a day when a civil leader speaking this way to legitimately hurting people would be met with a guillotine. The good old days, right ? I have nostalgia for an age I've never lived.
Keep in mind, Crenshaw voted to give Ukrainians $61 billion, voted to give Israel $26 billion, and voted to raise the government debt ceiling in the "Fiscal Responsibility Act" of 2023, when they literally ran out of money because balancing a budget is something they haven't done since 2001. The Ukrainians, Israelis, and Congress do not have to handle their own shit. But you do. When they fail to handle it, Crenshaw will give them your money. When you're having a hard time - in thanks, due to funding foreign nations, foreign wars, and the federal Congress - you can eat Ramen.
Think about how remarkable that actually is. The generation that supervised America's post-war economic decline now recommends surviving it by eating the national goyslop cuisine of the country we fought at Pearl Harbor. Somewhere the Greatest Generation is trying to process the fact that after defeating Imperial Japan, building the strongest middle class in world history, and handing their children the most prosperous nation on earth, their political heirs have managed to turn "Congratulations, you're eating ramen now" into a conservative policy platform. Apparently, the Japs won.
Ben Shapiro took the comment like an autist with an attitude, with brutal literalism, saying, "Okay, young people: a burrito does not cost $20. If you're paying $20 for a burrito and you're not independently wealthy, you're doing life wrong. We have enough problems as a country without insane expectations that the government is going to provide us gourmet-quality burritos."
The point went right over his yarmulke. We don't want the government to provide us anything. We want the government to stop financing foreign wars with monopoly money and giving Israel blank checks deducted straight from our family bank accounts. Does it matter if it's at a $15 burrito ? How about $10 ? My family doesn't go to McDonald's because we can't get through the drive-through for less than $40, and I'm pretty sure my kids think I'm lying about hitting McDs on Tuesdays in college for 39-cent cheesburgers. Do you remember going to McDonald's not that long ago because you were poor ? I do. Now it's a luxury item, and not because its brand went bougie. It's because Chick-fil-A is even more expensive, and that's the world we live in now. And please, no lectures on eating at home. The point is that the price of everything is commensurate. Stuff doesn't cost too much. Rather, our dollar is quickly becoming worthless.
The remarkable part of Burrito-Gate was how quickly the conversation skipped over whether life has objectively become harder for ordinary Americans and landed squarely on, "Sounds like Communism." Apparently, wondering why groceries require a second mortgage is Communist. Wondering why young couples struggle to buy a starter home is Communist. Asking why BlackRock has an easier time buying neighborhoods than young families buying a 2-bedroom house is Communist. Mentioning that endless borrowing, endless money printing, and endless foreign wars might not be fantastic for the purchasing power of the dollar is also Communist, and only Communists complain about the price of stuff.
Now, my grandfather is in the Great Beyond trying to understand how the patriotic answer to a collapsing dollar became Japanese noodles and lower expectations. I mean, not really. The afterlife doesn't include such quandries, but you can only imagine what the bulk of WWII veterans who have gone on to glory would think about seeing 30% of homes in America be investor-owned, many of whom are outside the United States. When homes are asset investments instead of habitats for actual humanity, it means the economy isn't working for people. It's working for portfolios.
You see, Burrito-Gate wasn't actually about economics. It wasn't even about capitalism versus communism. If complaining about impossible housing prices, impossible insurance costs, impossible grocery bills, impossible debt loads, and impossible inflation automatically makes me a Communist, then what exactly is today's conservatism conserving ? Because from where I'm sitting, it increasingly looks like the answer isn't families, churches, home ownership, or the American middle class. It's the political establishment that's run the ship aground for 80 years.
THE LEFT-RIGHT PARADIGM and MEANS-END INVERSION
The Left-Right paradigm has become one of the most effective systems of intellectual livestock management ever devised, complete with ideological branding irons and enough psychological cattle prods to keep two hundred million Americans grazing peacefully.
If the price of questioning global finance is being called anti-capitalist, we must pay it. If asking whether investment firms should own neighborhoods instead of newlyweds earns an ideological scarlet letter, stitch it on the jacket. If objecting to trillion-dollar deficits, forever wars, and a dollar that now has the purchasing power of an arcade token makes us insufficiently conservative, then we are in "whatever" territory. We have no interest in defending the political establishment simply because somebody wrapped them in an American flag and called them "the market."
That is why the Left-Right circus has to collapse under its own stupidity. It no longer exists to help people think. It exists to prevent them from thinking. Every question is filtered through a partisan decoder ring before anyone is allowed to ask whether it's actually true, actually just, or actually good. The categories have become chains, and millions of Christians have become so accustomed to wearing them they mistake the rattling for freedom.
Philosophers call this a means-end inversion.
MEANS-END INVERSION happens whenever we confuse the tool with the purpose or the means with the good it was supposed to achieve. Instead of asking whether something actually serves the end we're pursuing, we begin pursuing the label itself. The brand becomes more important than the product. That inversion quietly turns labels into idols and leaves us defending them long after they've stopped serving the people they were meant to benefit.
For example, the goal of education is learning. The means is school. Means-end inversion happens when students become obsessed with grades and diplomas instead of knowledge and wisdom. Schools might even inflate grades or encourage cheating on standardized tests because the grades are more important than the actual learning. Get it ? Or to give another example, the goal of a nation's military should be ensuring peace. Its means of ensuring peace are killing people and breaking things. Means-End Inversion happens when the military is used to kill people and break things in a way that gives us less peace in the long-term, instead of more. These are examples of how it's easy to invert the means of the end, and the end itself.
At one time, I exerted a lot of energy arguing that Reformed Baptists are, in fact, still "Reformed" despite being Baptist. We still hold a Covenantal view, albeit a different version, so check that box. We are Calvinistic, so check that box. We are committed to the five solas, so check that box. Just because we don't baptize babies or houseplants or any other kind of unbeliever doesn't make us less Reformed. And then, the Presbys laugh because they associate "Reformed" with baby-sprinkling, and I spent a good ten years of my life arguing about it. And then, it hit me: my goal was to be "Reformed" and fought really hard for that label, but that's a dumb goal. What's even the point ? The moment I, or anyone else, leans into a belief, or away from it, to earn a label, is the moment we've lost the plot. The goal must be to be Biblical, not "Reformed."
Ditto for Capitalism. We should not support an economic perspective, policy, or practice because it is "Capitalism," as though Capitalism itself as a label is a measured human good. We support capitalism because it's good for humans. We believe it's the best economic system compared to all the others, because it is best for humans. But our primary allegiance mustn't be to what the textbook or political influencers tell us is Capitalism. Our primary allegiance must be to what is good for humans. The value of Capitalism is entirely due to its benefit to humanity. Benefiting humanity is the goal, not who can be the biggest or most ideologically pure Capitalist.
Capitalism is not a god. It is not a sacrament. It is not the eighth ordinance of the church, and Milton Friedman wasn't the Apostle Paul. Capitalism is an economic tool. It possesses no independent moral authority whatsoever. Its value is entirely derivative. It is valuable only insofar as it serves the human beings for whom economies exist in the first place. The moment we begin defending "Capitalism" instead of defending the people Capitalism was supposed to benefit, we've committed the exact same means-end inversion I explained above. We've made the label the goal.
Suppose multinational corporations discover they can increase profits by replacing five million fathers with artificial intelligence. Is that automatically good because "the market has spoken" ? Suppose Wall Street discovers it can generate enormous returns by turning neighborhoods into investment portfolios, pricing newly married couples out of home ownership. Suppose private equity can squeeze another twelve percent out of a rural hospital by firing nurses, or another twenty percent out of a trailer park by doubling lot rent, or another thirty percent out of an apartment complex by nickel-and-diming tenants with a dozen new fees. If every one of those practices can be defended as "capitalist," does that end the conversation ? No. Only if we've become idolaters.
That is exactly the trap the Establishment Right has laid for itself. Somewhere along the way, it stopped asking whether a practice serves families, strengthens communities, rewards honest labor, encourages marriage, makes children more attainable, or helps fathers provide. It asks only one question. "Is it capitalism?" If the answer is yes, the discussion is over. Stamp it with a bald eagle. Wrap it in an American flag. Call anyone raising objections a Communist, and move on to the next think tank luncheon.
That's not defending capitalism. That's worshiping it.
A healthy economic system should constantly stand before the bar of human flourishing and justify its existence. Does it make it easier for ordinary people to own property ? Does it reward work ? Does it encourage independence instead of dependency ? Does it strengthen families instead of fragmenting them ? Does it make children a blessing instead of a financial luxury ? Those are the questions that matter. "Is this capitalist?" isn't even on the first page of the exam
If capitalism is the best economic system (and it generally is), it will pass those tests more often than its competitors. That's exactly why we defend it. But if particular practices wrapped in the banner of capitalism undermine the very human flourishing capitalism exists to promote, our loyalty belongs to the people, not the branding. We are under no Christian obligation to baptize every exploitative practice simply because somebody in a suit assures us it's "just the free market." Markets were made for man. Man was not made for markets. The moment we reverse that order, we haven't become better capitalists. We've simply found another idol to worship.
Perhaps the most astonishing trick ever pulled by the modern political establishment is convincing ordinary working Americans to identify with the interests of the institutions slowly crushing them. It is an audacious con. The blue-collar mechanic, the electrician, the truck driver, the welder, the farmer, and the office worker have been persuaded that questioning any practice wrapped in the word "Capitalism" is somehow an act of treason against their own tribe.
AN EXAMPLE OF COMPLIANCE CAPITALISM
The accusation of "anti-Capitalism" works because we've been trained to fear the label more than the condition. We'd rather be called a "good capitalist" than ask why we can't afford to own a home. We'd rather defend an economic orthodoxy than demand a healthcare system that doesn't punish independence. We'd rather wear the correct ideological jersey than insist that markets exist to serve families instead of requiring families to sacrifice themselves for the market. That is not conviction. It's psychological captivity.
I'll give you a personal example. When we decided to take the leap and I'd quit the day job in finance to write this Substack, we did so, in part, factoring in the price of health insurance on the marketplace compared to what I paid out of my paycheck. We didn't know that only weeks later, Republicans let the Marketplace Premium Subsidies expire for the self-employed. After all, those are practically socialist. Republicans had some good ideas to help, like expanding Health Savings Accounts (HSAs), expanding association health plans, increasing catastrophic health plans, price transparency requirements, broader deregulation to increase competition, and so on. In the end, Republicans did what Republicans do best, which is nothing, and the health insurance price for self-employed people tripled nationwide.
What does that do ? It forces people into wage slavery, because purchasing health insurance on the market is now outrageously expensive. Wage slaves can't avoid payroll taxes, so the government gets its cut. It also keeps the job market flooded, which keeps wages artificially low, which is what the corporatocracy wants. Suddenly, the safest economic decision isn't starting a business, freelancing, building a family enterprise, or taking entrepreneurial risks. It's finding an employer with a group health plan and staying put. Independence becomes a luxury good.
That has consequences far beyond healthcare. A wage slave thinks twice before taking risks, starting a business, speaking out, or walking away from a bad job. His paycheck isn't the only thing on the line anymore. His children's doctor, his wife's prescriptions, and his family's financial security are all tethered to the same employer. That's a remarkably effective way to encourage compliance.
Self-employed people, by contrast, are inherently more independent. They don't rely on a corporate hierarchy for advancement, and they generally enjoy greater control over how they earn a living. A society filled with independent proprietors, contractors, tradesmen, and small business owners is harder to centralize than one in which millions of families depend on large employers for both income and essential benefits. Whether intentional or not, a system that heavily penalizes independence while rewarding dependence should concern anyone who believes strong families and free citizens are the foundation of a healthy nation.
So, was the "pro-Capitalist" position really making health insurance more expensive because it's the "free market."Maybe. But it's not the pro-family, pro-independence, pro-human flourishing position, so why does it matter ? There are dozens, if not hundreds, of positions like that, which Christians and conservatives need to begin thinking through with a human-centered, and not label-centered, mindset.
WHERE DO $20 BURRITOS COME FROM?
A twenty-dollar burrito doesn't happen because your local Mexican restaurant gets greedy. It happens because several economic forces converge on the same menu. First comes monetary inflation. That means Washington spends money it doesn't have, the Federal Reserve creates new dollars out of nothing (alchemy) to help finance an ever-growing mountain of debt, and every existing dollar buys a little less than it did before. That's the hidden tax nobody votes for.
Second comes price inflation. Energy costs rise. Transportation costs rise. Insurance rises. Regulations pile up. Taxes increase. Supply chains become more expensive. Every business in the production chain passes its higher costs to the next guy until the final bill lands on your lunch tray. Your burrito didn't become more valuable. The dollars buying it became weaker while the cost of producing it became higher.
Third comes labor economics. For decades, the supply of available labor has steadily expanded while household expenses have climbed. Yes, that's affected by immigration, globalization, and automation. But mostly, it was driven by women entering the workforce and the dramatic expansion of dual-income households after World War II. The practical result has been the same: one income buys less, two incomes become the expectation instead of the exception, and wages struggle to keep pace with the combined pressure of inflation and an abundant labor pool.
Fourth comes shock inflation. The Pentagon keeps trying to defeat Temu warfare with Neiman Marcus weaponry, launching million-dollar missiles at $50,000 drones because defense contractors make a lot more money selling aircraft carriers than they do selling cheap, mass-produced counter-drone technology built for modern warfare. Americans get the invoice twice: once through taxes, and again through higher prices.
Fifth comes cost-push inflation, which is when production costs rise (energy, wages, shipping, raw materials), so businesses raise prices, which is almost always the result of stupid government bureaucracy and red tape.
Stack those five forces together, and the twenty-dollar burrito begins to make a lot more sense. Now, take a look at all those. Which of those problems are Republicans willing to fix. Which of those problems are Republicans even willing to discuss?
Is the Republican establishment willing to discuss the Federal Reserve ? No.
Is the Republican establishment willing to discuss shock inflation caused by war ? No. What about price inflation, again, largely caused by war and other forms of massive government spending ? No.
Is the Republican establishment willing to discuss labor economics ? Yes, but only migrant labor, while defending H1B visas. But are they willing to discuss the role of women in the workplace as the primary cause of deflated wages ? Absolutely not. Not in a million years. You couldn't pay them to have that conversation.
So, it's no wonder that they are hesitant to admit there's a $20 burrito problem. They have no solutions. If you don't have solutions, you're going to be hesitant to admit there's a problem, so you scour the Internet for a $20 burrito and declare it all fake news. And the response is, "You are not working hard enough. Stop being lazy."
Last weekend, my family watched the new Animal Farm animated film. It was hot garbage, so far as cinematic quality goes, but I was happy to explain to my kids the allegory and particularly that of Boxer, Orwell's representation of the working class, the laborers whose strength and loyalty actually built the farm's success but who get exploited by the ruling class in the end and ultimately turned into glue. You can hear the voice of Dan Crenshaw somewhere off in the distance, saying, "Work harder, horse. Work harder and eat the Ramen."
Don't let the "Eat Ramen" people tell you that we are the Commies in this scenario. Clearly, we are Boxer. They are Napoleon and the pigs. That they'd have the gall to claim they are the Capitalists is really beyond the pale. "All animals are equal. Some are more equal than others" is the only explanation for the modern American nation in which the wealthy are getting wealthier, and everyone else is told to eat Japanese junk food.
A HUMAN-CENTERED VALUE SYSTEM AND LABEL CONSERVATISM
And this is where the argument gets much bigger than burritos, healthcare, BlackRock, or whether somebody on Fox Business thinks you're insufficiently enthusiastic about capitalism. Those are merely the opening skirmishes. We are entering a technological revolution that is going to force Christians to answer questions our grandparents never imagined, and "Well, I'm a conservative" is going to be about as useful as bringing a Blockbuster membership card to an ATM.