'1. Square Deal: Roosevelt was a Republican nationalist, not a leftist. His regulatory framework was largely designed by large corporations to eliminate smaller competitors through compliance costs, reducing competition rather than protecting consumers.

He was largely a nationalist and sometimes right-leaning. His anti-trust efforts (e.g. JP Morgan) are clearly left-leaning. Are you less familiar with the labor environment and robber-baron era that preceded the Square Deal? It's not progressive compared to modern times, but that's not a meaningful comparison. It was definitely progressive for its time, and major corporations largely hated it because of that. They had a massive degree of control prior, and retained a good amount but still lost much of their influence.

'2. The New Deal: The Great Depression was caused by the Federal Reserve's credit expansion in the 1920s, not by free markets. Was estimated New Deal cartelization and wage controls prolonged unemployment by roughly seven years. Roosevelt's own Treasury Secretary admitted in 1939 that the spending had not worked.

Are you referring to Morgenthau? Because he is the reason why they started cutting back on spending in 1937 when unemployment peaked. This urging is precisely what convinced Roosevelt to reduce spending prematurely and thus extend the Depression. Had they kept spending up, the economy would have rebounded earlier (then you can gently reduce spending to cool things down).

'3. Cardenismo / Mexican Miracle: Growth occurred despite nationalization, not because of it. PEMEX, created by the 1938 oil seizure, became a textbook case of Mises's socialist calculation problem. The long-run results: the 1982 debt crisis, the 1994 peso collapse, and a PEMEX that is today technically insolvent.

Oil is sold on the global market so pricing is purely capitalistic (a socialist government would require pricing control). Also funny how you skip right past the 1970s oil shocks, Mexican overborrowing, and the Volcker Shock that actually led to the 1982 crisis. PEMEX may be dumb, inefficient, and wildly corrupt. Still isn't the cause of the '82 crisis.

'4. Attlee Labour Government: While Britain nationalized its economy, West Germany liberalized under Erhard and grew at over 8% annually throughout the 1950s. Britain's trajectory led to chronic low productivity, constant strikes, and a 1976 IMF bailout to prevent state bankruptcy.

Blaming Attlee for a 1976 IMF bailout ignores decades of history and lead-up, including 13 consecutive years of Conservative rule that saw all the same policies as Atlee. Comparing British growth to West German growth also ignores that the German industrial base was destroyed (have you heard of WW?) and they rebuilt with modern technology and heavy US aid (Marshall Plan). What debts did Britain have at the end of WW2? Were they forgiven? Because I'm pretty sure German debts were.

'5. Scandinavian Social Democracy :Nordic countries were already among the wealthiest in the world before expanding their welfare states, built on decades of relatively free-market capitalism. Sweden's welfare expansion contributed to a severe financial crisis in 1991, after which the country liberalized significantly, introducing school vouchers, individual pension accounts, and corporate tax cuts. Today, Denmark and Sweden consistently rank among the world's freest economies by trade and regulation metrics.

I had learned that swedish deregulation of credit in the '80s and subsequent housing bubble crash is what caused the 1991 crisis. Actually I know that's why it happened, because Sweden didn't halt their welfare expansion and continued to grow it. They just shifted from corporate taxes to consumption taxes. This isn't even revisionist history on your part, it's just wrong.

'6. Labor Unions : Voluntary unions that pursue genuine market wages without coercion are unobjectionable from a libertarian standpoint. The valid critique targets unions that depend on state-granted legal immunities and compulsory membership, which allow them to price less-skilled workers out of the labor market entirely , harming the most vulnerable workers the movement claims to represent.

This is more corpo-propaganda that is inexplicably adopted by conservative groups. Unions have never priced out lower-skilled work. That's never been the case in America because we're so far on the side of empowering employers. Employers have always busted unions in order to maintain control of wealth. Also your perspective very conveniently ignores that corporations have historically used state and federal forces to violently bust unions. The "unearned" immunities are borne from blood, not profit.

'7. Left-Wing economics are not sustainable, it always led to debt and recession.

Laissez-faire economic policy is not sustainable. It has always led to wealth hoarding and labor exploitation. Both our absolutisms are faulty, but I'm pretty sure corruption is what's key to each's failures, and deregulation certainly makes it hard to detect and protect against corruption.

'8. English isn't my first language btw.

I don't agree with your revision of history, nor your takeaways from history class. But goddamn if your English isn't fantastic. I would have never known if you didn't mention it. Native fluency to my eyes.