Introduction
One of the dirty secrets of the Cold War was that, behind grandiose declarations about ideology, class struggle, and great geopolitical conflicts, lay a simpler reality: by the 1980s, the Soviet Union had become heavily reliant on large grain imports, with a significant portion sourced from the United States.
This underlying cause, I argue, was the acceptance of falsehood: first as a tool for state propaganda and later as a habit that permeated all levels of society and the economy.
Today, several societies face a similar crossroads. Mexico is not destined to repeat this fate, but it must be cautious not to fall into the comfort of silence. Speaking the truth, even when it’s uncomfortable, is an act of patriotism. Figures like entrepreneur Ricardo Salinas Pliego offer a valuable reminder of what it means to have the courage to tell the truth to power: doing so frankly, without demeaning anyone, and with conviction that honest dialogue strengthens institutions.
The Hidden Life of Truth
In the history of human societies, few forces have been as silently transformative as truth. I’m not referring to an abstract or metaphysical truth but the lived truth: the one that emerges when people speak honestly about costs and benefits, when institutions allow bad ideas to die, and when markets, through a disciplined and often brutal process, signal reality.
Truth, in this sense, is not a moral adornment but a condition for prosperity. When it’s suppressed (by ideology, conformism, or self-interest), economic systems lose the natural feedback mechanisms that allow them to learn, adapt, and develop.
As Hayek noted in “The Use of Knowledge in Society,” the “particular knowledge of specific circumstances of time and place” cannot be aggregated or known by any central planner with the necessary detail. Knowledge is dispersed, tacit, and constantly changing. More importantly, decentralization is less vulnerable to hierarchically imposed falsehoods. This doesn’t mean it always works better, as sometimes it’s caricatured, but it tends to do so.
In “Wealth of Nations,” Adam Smith translates this moral framework into a pragmatic observation: societies that allow individuals to pursue their interests within transparent and competitive markets discover truth through exchange. Prices, in this sense, are reports from the frontier of reality, even when that reality is socially constructed. Hence, those who dare to question established norms or dogmas—be they corporate, political, or media-related—perform an essential function.
When the state intervenes to fix prices, dictate production, or protect inefficient industries, it distorts these reports. Not always negative or devoid of social purpose, but the result tends to be a cascade of lies: false signals that confuse businesses, citizens, and policymakers.
In Praise of Feeling Uncomfortable
To grasp how this can turn into collective madness, recall the agricultural planning disasters of Soviet Russia in the 1930s, leading to the Great Famine.
As Marxism regarded inheritance—what we now call Mendelian genetics—as a “reactionary” idea, official pseudoscience promoted the Lamarckian belief that acquired characteristics could be inherited. Disagreement implied suggesting some people are born more capable than others, making dissenters social pariahs.
Thus, the state decreed that plants modified during their lives should be replanted to produce an equally “modified” harvest. Needless to say, what sprouted from the earth corresponded to the original DNA—just as jirafes have long necks not because their parents stretched them but through natural selection over generations. The result was a famine that killed millions, all to avoid stating the unpleasant but obvious truth.
This wasn’t an isolated incident but part of a pattern: the institutionalized illusory thinking. Whether under socialism or financial euphoria, the underlying pathology is the same: when a group is rewarded for agreement rather than thinking, when messengers are punished instead of false messages, truth disappears—and with it, prosperity.
Markets aren’t immune to error; indeed, making money in them consists precisely of detecting monetizable errors. But unlike bureaucracies or ideologized institutions, markets learn: they punish persistent falsehood with bankruptcy and reward accuracy with profits.
In contrast, socialist or corporatist planning systems suppress this learning mechanism. When a company fails under socialism, the failure is reinterpreted as lack of resources or external sabotage rather than a flawed assumption. And since losses are socialized and political prestige is at stake, there’s no incentive to acknowledge the error. Inefficiencies accumulate until the system collapses under its own lies, as with the Soviet Union mentioned at the beginning.
Speaking one’s mind, when it’s easier to stay silent, has never been free. Those who dare face criticism, isolation, and sometimes personal or business consequences. But they also open space for others (entrepreneurs, leaders, citizens) to understand that progress isn’t born of conformity but the courage to correct oneself.
This is a valuable lesson for Mexico’s business ecosystem: development depends not only on capital or technological innovation but also on the mutual trust between those who build and those who govern. When that trust is based on truth, the country advances. And when dissenting voices are punished, society loses its moral compass. It’s not about challenging but recognizing that honest criticism is a sign of democratic respect, not disloyalty.
Conclusion
Ultimately, defending markets and defending the truth are one and the same cause. Those who embrace this, like Salinas, should be protected, not marginalized. Truth is fundamentally an exercise in humility: recognizing that knowledge is dispersed, no one can know it all, and progress depends on mechanisms rewarding correctness rather than conformity.
In the simplest terms: prosperity belongs to societies that tell the truth, even when it hurts. And the world is better for it.
Radu Magdin was an honorary advisor to the Romanian prime minister (2014-2015) and the Moldovan prime minister (2016-2017). He currently serves as a global analyst and consultant.
