1) Market economies simply operate better than command economies.

I understand Russia is an exception, but in countries such as India and China, the releasing of the shackles of socialism has led to unbridled prosperity to millions in Asia, a death blow to communism (in the east). The main problem it seems with command economies is that they simply aren't efficient enough. In countries with a huge amount of resources to population such as Russia this is still feasible, but in countries such as India and China it leads economic disasters.

But what caused these inefficiencies? The inefficiencies themselves were structural: as quotas and prices are set by bureaucrats rather than prices and voluntary transaction, the incentives are quite different. Rather than create and invent, the intelligentsia wasted time advocating for more resources and manpower. Rather than economize operations, managements asked for endlessly more resources, far more than needed to fulfill efficiency operations, leading to inefficient operations; a constant disaster of surplus and shortage. Meanwhile, as prices are set, transactions and communications are slowed at the consumer level as well. These problems do not exist in the market economy, because the middle-man bureaucrats don't exist; everything, from economizing to prices and communication, occurs spontaneously, without directive.

2) The main economic problem in the first half 21st century will be trying to figure out how to rid of long term investments that are unproductive yet high yield (ineffective use of capital).

I'm looking at you, housing and big tech. The main driver of income inequality, in my opinion, is long term investments, so politically this problem is also quite important to address. Solution wise, I'm unsure of a direct sure-fire will-fix-the-problem solution, but a great start will be to eliminate government incentive to make such investments which create minimal jobs yet give a high return. One of these is, at least in the United States, to lower inflation to less than 1%. The market is peaking regardless, and inflation only incentivizes individuals to convert borrowed money into long term investments. In other words, monetary stability Pseudo "Keynesians" gasp . A stable currency would also lower the incentive for making risky long-term investments, as they aren't quite as necessary MMT gasp .

3) The government needs to stop trying to micromanage the economy.

Again, and again, and again, we see that the government is simply incapable of effectively micro-managing the economy.. Regulatory price controls should be abandoned completely unless the country is at war (as the one thing command economies are good at is killing millions upon millions of people as efficiently and quickly as possible). Likewise, the best economic system seems to be a mixture of a strong welfare state and a free market economy (which are not necessarily mutually exclusive). Some countries do have this such as the United States, but inefficient regulations and too-large expansionary spending holds back growth.