ReportWire

Tag: socialism

  • November 7 as Victims of Communism Day – 2025

    [ad_1]

    Bones of tortured prisoners. Kolyma Gulag, USSR (Nikolai Nikitin, Tass). (NA)

     

    NOTE: The following post is largely adapted from last year’s November 7 post on the same subject.

    Since 2007, I have advocated designating May 1 as an international Victims of Communism Day. The May 1 date was not my original idea. But I have probably devoted more time and effort to it than any other commentator. In my view, May 1 is the best possible date for this purpose because it is the day that communists themselves used to celebrate their ideology, and because it is associated with communism as a global phenomenon, not with any particular communist regime. However, I have also long recognized that it might make sense to adapt another date for Victims of Communism Day, if it turns out that some other date can attract a broader consensus behind it. The best should not be the enemy of the good.

    As detailed in my May 1 post from 2019, November 7 is probably the best such alternative, and over time it has begun to attract considerable support. Unlike May 1, this choice is unlikely to be contested by trade unionists and other devotees of the pre-Communist May 1 holiday. While I remain unpersuaded by their objections on substantive grounds, pragmatic considerations suggest that an alternative date is worth considering, if it can avoi such objections, and thereby attract broader support.

    The November 7 option is not without its own downsides. From an American standpoint, one obvious one is that it will sometimes fall close to election day, as is the case this year. On such occasions, a November 7 Victims of Communism Day might not attract as much attention as it deserves, because many will – understandably – be focused on electoral politics instead. Nonetheless, November 7 remains the best available alternative to May 1; or at least the best I am aware of.

    For that reason, I am – once again – doing a Victims of Communism Day post on November 7, in addition to the one I do on May 1. If November 7 continues to attract more support, I may eventually switch to that date exclusively. But, for now, I reserve the options of returning to an exclusive focus on May 1, doing annual posts on both days, or switching to some third option should a good one arise.

    In addition to its growing popularity, November 7 is a worthy alternative because it is the anniversary of the day that the very first communist regime was established in Russia. All subsequent communist regimes were at least in large part inspired by it, and based many of their institutions and policies on the Soviet model.

    The Soviet Union did not have the highest death toll of any communist regime. That dubious distinction belongs to the People’s Republic of China. North Korea has probably surpassed the USSR in the sheer extent of totalitarian control over everyday life. Pol Pot’s Cambodia may have surpassed it in terms of the degree of sadistic cruelty and torture practiced by the regime, though this is admittedly very difficult to measure. But all of these tyrannies – and more – were at least to a large extent variations on the Soviet original.

    Having explained why November 7 is worthy of consideration as an alternative date, it only remains to remind readers of the more general case for having a Victims of Communism Day. The following is adopted from this year’s May 1 Victims of Communism Day post, and some of its predecessors:

    The Black Book of Communism estimates the total number of victims of communist regimes at 80 to 100 million dead, greater than that caused by all other twentieth century tyrannies combined. We appropriately have a Holocaust Memorial Day. It is equally appropriate to commemorate the victims of the twentieth century’s other great totalitarian tyranny.

    Our comparative neglect of communist crimes has serious costs. Victims of Communism Day can serve the dual purpose of appropriately commemorating the millions of victims, and diminishing the likelihood that such atrocities will recur. Just as Holocaust Memorial Day and other similar events promote awareness of the dangers of racism, anti-Semitism, and radical nationalism, so Victims of Communism Day can increase awareness of the dangers of left-wing forms of totalitarianism, and government domination of the economy and civil society.

    While communism is most closely associated with Russia, where the first communist regime was established, it had equally horrendous effects in other nations around the world. The highest death toll for a communist regime was not in Russia, but in China. Mao Zedong’s Great Leap Forward was likely the biggest episode of mass murder in the entire history of the world.

    November 7, 2017 was the 100th anniversary of the Bolshevik seizure of power in Russia, which led to the establishment of the first-ever communist regime. On that day, I put up a post outlining some of the lessons to be learned from a century of experience with communism.  The post explains why most of the horrors perpetrated by communist regimes were intrinsic elements of the system. For the most part, they cannot be ascribed to circumstantial factors, such as flawed individual leaders, peculiarities of Russian and Chinese culture, or the absence of democracy. The latter probably did make the situation worse than it might have been otherwise. But, for reasons I explained in the same post, some form of dictatorship or oligarchy is probably inevitable in a socialist economic system in which the government controls all or nearly all of the economy.

    While the influence of communist ideology has declined greatly since its mid-twentieth century peak, it is far from dead. Largely unreformed communist regimes remain in power in Cuba and North Korea. In Venezuela, the Marxist government’s socialist policies have resulted in severe repression, the starvation of children, and a massive refugee crisis—the biggest in the history of the Western hemisphere. Recent events in Venezuela also highlight the dangers of “democratic socialism.” While most communist regimes have taken power by force, ignorance about the history of communism and socialism could enable such movements to take power by democratic means and then eventually shut down democracy, as has actually happened in Venezuela. “Democratic socialism” – which has many of the same flaws as the authoritarian version is gaining in popularity on the political left in the US, as shown by the recent election of a prominent member of the movement as mayor of New York.  Most of his supporters likely have little understanding of the  dangers of his ideology. Victims of Communism Day can help combat such ignorance.

    In Russia, the authoritarian regime of former KGB Colonel Vladimir Putin has embarked on a wholesale whitewashing of communism’s historical record. Putin’s brutal war on Ukraine is primarily based on Russian nationalist ideology, rather than that of the Soviet Union. Nonetheless, the failure of post-Soviet Russia to fully reckon with its oppressive Soviet past is likely one of the reasons why Putin’s regime came to power, and engaged in its own atrocities.

    In China, the Communist Party remains in power (albeit after having abandoned many of its previous socialist economic policies), and has become less and less tolerant of criticism of the mass murders of the Mao era (part of a more general turn towards greater repression). The government’s brutal repression of the Uighur minority, and escalating suppression of dissent, even among Han Chinese, are just two aspects in which it seems bent on repeating some of its previous atrocities. Under the rule of Xi Jinping, the government has also increasingly reinstated socialist state control of the economy.

    Here in the West, some socialists and others have attempted to whitewash the history of communism, and a few even attribute major accomplishments to the Soviet regime. Cathy Young had an excellent critique of such Soviet “nostalgia” in a 2021 Reason article.

    Victims of Communism Day is also a good time to remember our duty to help those victims, or at least avoid impeding their escape from oppression.  Among other things, it is unjust to deport migrants fleeing oppressive Marxist dictatorships, like those Cuba, Nicaragua and Venezuela, as the Trump Administration seeks to do to hundreds of thousands who entered the US legally under the CHNV program. If some on the left tend to ignore the evils of socialism, many on the  nationalist right have been exacerbating the plight of its victims.

    In sum, we need Victims of Communism Day because we have never given sufficient recognition to the victims of the modern world’s most murderous ideology or come close to fully appreciating the lessons of this awful era in world history. In addition, that ideology, and variants thereof, still have a substantial number of adherents in many parts of the world, and still retains considerable intellectual respectability even among many who do not actually endorse it. Just as Holocaust Memorial Day serves as a bulwark against the reemergence of fascism, so this day of observance can help guard against the return to favor of the only ideology with an even greater number of victims.

    [ad_2]

    Ilya Somin

    Source link

  • Zohran Mamdani’s signature housing policy is widely loathed by economists. Here’s why | Fortune

    [ad_1]

    New York City Mayor-elect Zohran Mamdani swept to victory Tuesday evening on a platform of affordability, anchored by a plan to freeze rents across nearly 2 million rent-stabilized apartments. 

    But economists, universally, hate rent control. In a 2012 poll of top economists, just 2% agreed that rent-control laws have had “a positive impact” on the supply and quality of affordable housing. The Nobel laureate Richard Thaler even quipped in the survey that the next question should be: “Does the sun revolve around the Earth?”

    Why do economists revile a plan that seems to promote fairness and equity in a housing market that is clearly broken? 

    Seductive simplicity

    To most voters, freezing rents looks like common sense: If prices are out of reach, stop them from rising. But to economists, that’s like treating a fever by breaking the thermometer: It suppresses the symptom without curing the disease, the persistent shortage of housing.

    “Freezing rents doesn’t fix scarcity,” said David Sims, a Brigham Young University economist whose research on Massachusetts rent control remains a touchstone. “It just reshuffles who bears the cost.”

    Sims’s work examined the rent-control regime that once governed Cambridge, Mass., where tenants could stay indefinitely at below-market rents. The policy was meant to keep housing affordable, but it led to what he calls misallocation. 

    “People who could do better by moving tend to stay,” he told Fortune. “Older households hang on to large units they no longer need, while young families can’t find space. Over time, you end up with the wrong people in the wrong apartments.”

    When Massachusetts voters repealed rent control in 1994, property values in Cambridge rose 45%—not only for the deregulated apartments, but for entire neighborhoods. It turned out that years of capped rents had discouraged investment and dragged down surrounding property values, meaning that when controls were finally removed, landlords were empowered to upgrade and renovate their apartments. Neighborhoods that had been frozen along with the rents suddenly seemed to revitalize.  

    That dynamic is already visible in New York. According to the city’s Housing and Vacancy Survey, roughly 26,000 rent-stabilized apartments are sitting empty, many uninhabitable because renovation costs far exceed what landlords can legally recover. The state’s 2019 Housing Stability and Tenant Protection Act caps recoverable renovation expenses at $50,000 spread over 15 years. Rehabilitating a century-old tenement can cost twice that, leaving owners little incentive to do anything but lock the door.

    Short-term relief, long-term pain

    Rent control’s immediate benefits, for current residents, are undeniable. It offers stability to tenants living paycheck-to-paycheck and reduces the risk of displacement. But over the long term, economists argue it functions the same way as throwing sand in the gears of the housing market. Landlords defer maintenance they can’t recoup, new construction slows, and the available housing stock quietly erodes.

    A 2018 Stanford study led by Rebecca Diamond, one of today’s leading experts in housing markets, found that when San Francisco expanded rent control in the 1990s, the supply of rental housing fell 15% over the next decade. Many landlords converted apartments to condos or owner-occupied housing to escape regulation. The policy helped existing tenants, but ultimately raised market rents citywide and accelerated gentrification, causing the opposite of what policymakers intended.

    “It’s not about pitying landlords,” Sims said. “It’s about understanding incentives. You can’t expect people to invest in something if they’ll never break even—just like you can’t expect tenants to volunteer to pay more rent.”

    For economists, the deeper problem with rent freezes is conceptual: They imply that affordability can simply be decreed against the logic of supply and demand. 

    “It creates this belief that the problem can be solved by fiat,” Sims said. “But rents are high because people want to live in New York. The only lasting fix is to make it easier to build more housing that people actually want.”

    He offers a visceral analogy of market pressures: Black Friday. People don’t wait in line for stores anymore on Black Friday, Sims said, but there was a time when, for a $1,000 TV at $200, there’d be a line around the block at 4 a.m., and only a few lucky people would get the TV.

    “But housing isn’t like a $200 TV,” Sims observed. “Everyone kind of needs a place to live, but if housing is priced like the $200 TV, then there’s a bunch of people in that line who don’t get it.”

    That’s the thing about rent control, economists say: It benefits insiders at the expense of outsiders. Over time, it can deepen inequality by keeping younger, lower-income, or newly arrived residents locked out of regulated neighborhoods that effectively become closed clubs.

    Band-Aid policy in a broken market

    Supporters of Mamdani’s plan counter that New York’s crisis is so severe, temporary freezes are a moral necessity. 

    With median rents above $4,000, they argue, the city cannot wait for zoning reforms and construction projects that take years to materialize. But even sympathetic economists warn that without parallel measures to boost supply, a freeze simply defers the reckoning.

    “If you don’t pair a rent freeze with a credible plan to add housing,” Sims said, “you’re not solving the problem. You’re just pushing off accountability without really solving the underlying problem.”

    [ad_2]

    Eva Roytburg

    Source link

  • Abigail Spanberger wins Virginia, offers Democrats an alternative to mamdani’s socialism

    [ad_1]

    Five years ago, as Democrats grappled with a disappointing congressional election that saw their House majority decline by more than a dozen seats despite Joe Biden’s win in the presidential election, then-Rep. Abigail Spanberger (D–Va.) voiced her frustration with the party’s lurch toward the political left.

    If Democrats didn’t shift back toward the center, “we will get fucking torn apart,” she warned on a conference call with some of the Democrats’ top brass. “And we need to not ever use the words socialist or socialism ever again.”

    History sometimes has a sense of humor.

    On Tuesday night, as New York City was poised to elect a new mayor who had expressly embraced the socialist label and become a national champion for the far-left wing of the Democratic Party, Spanberger also emerged victorious. She will be the next governor of Virginia—and the state’s first female governor—after defeating Lt. Gov. Winsome Earle-Sears, the Republican nominee.

    CNN called the race less than an hour after the polls closed, with Spanberger leading Earle-Sears by about nine points with 33 percent of precincts reporting.

    It’s a result that, when paired with Zohran Mamdani’s likely victory in the other big race on this low-key Election Day, offers Democrats two divergent paths as the party heads into next year’s midterm elections and beyond. And while Mamdani’s win, like his campaign, gets more media attention, it is the result in Virginia that probably says more about what Democrats need to do if they want their party’s brand to be more viable on the national stage.

    They can start by taking some lessons from how Spanberger has bluntly dissected the party’s recent troubles. During her three terms in Congress from 2019 through 2024, Spanberger earned a reputation as one of the most interesting and independent members of the Democratic caucus. She criticized her own party for failing to recognize that “inflation is a problem” in the wake of the COVID-19 pandemic and blamed Biden for overreaching politically. “Nobody elected him to be [Franklin Delano Roosevelt], they elected him to be normal and stop the chaos,” she told The New York Times in November 2021.

    She walked the centrist walk as well. The Bipartisan Index, a ranking of members of Congress issued by the Lugar Center and Georgetown University, identified Spanberger as the 17th most bipartisan member of the House in 2023—as determined by her votes.

    Bipartisanship isn’t always a good thing on its own merits, of course. As you might expect, some of Spanberger’s record is interesting to libertarians. During Biden’s term, she helped block a provision that would have required banks to report all transactions of $600 or more to the IRS, citing concerns about privacy. In 2021, she worked with a fascinating collection of lawmakers—including Reps. Barbara Lee (D–Calif.) and Chip Roy (R–Texas)—to get the House to repeal the 1991 Authorization for the Use of Military Force (AUMF) against Iraq (and an even older AUMF dating to 1957).

    “We must be accountable to the American people and cannot abdicate this responsibility to open-ended AUMFs that give too much power to a President and don’t require Congress to take consequential votes,” she said in 2023 as she backed a similar bill. (Both the House and Senate have passed measures to repeal that authorization, but the process has still not been finalized.)

    On the other hand, one of Spanberger’s biggest accomplishments in Congress was passing a bill to increase Social Security benefits for public workers who already receive pensions. It was a bipartisan effort, naturally, but it also blew an even larger hole in Social Security’s already leaky fiscal situation—and, as I wrote last year, it was fundamentally unfair.

    As governor, Spanberger will quickly face at least one issue that will challenge her carefully crafted bipartisan persona.

    Democrats expected to hold onto their majorities in both chambers of the state Legislature. Politics being what it is in the mid-2020s, one of the first things on the agenda in Richmond is not any kind of state-level policymaking but an attempt to influence federal politics with a mid-decade redistricting effort that could help flip the U.S. House of Representatives next year.

    Asked on the campaign trail whether she would support a redistricting bill—along the lines of what California and Texas are already doing—Spanberger said last month that she would not oppose it. That’s despite previously saying that gerrymandering is “one of the largest issues plaguing our country.”

    It’s the kind of zero-sum issue where there is no easy, bipartisan solution—one side will get what they want, and the other will not.

    There is also another way to look at Spanberger’s win—not as a response to anything she’s done in office or on the campaign trail, but simply the result of being in the right place at the right time. Since 1977, the party that won the White House in the previous year has lost the Virginia gubernatorial election in every cycle but one—Democrat Terry McAuliffe beat Republican Ken Cuccinelli in 2013, a year after Barack Obama was reelected to the presidency. Maybe Spanberger just got lucky, as a Democratic candidate in a blue-leaning state with a lot of disgruntled federal workers and right across the Potomac River from a Republican in the White House.

    But even if this election was more about national mood than anything specific to Virginia and Virginians, that might be even more of a reason for national Democrats to look to Spanberger rather than Mamdani for the path forward. After all, she’s won in an environment that looks a lot more like what next year’s midterms will.

    Asked by The New Yorker about the meaning of Mamdani’s likely win in this year’s most-watched race, Spanberger offered a typically blunt assessment: “As a candidate to be the governor of Virginia, I don’t want to be disrespectful—like, I don’t care that much about what happens in the city of New York.”

    Democrats elsewhere should adopt that same approach in the months and years ahead.

    [ad_2]

    Eric Boehm

    Source link

  • Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell Faces a Hard Reelection Fight Against Progressive Activist Katie Wilson

    [ad_1]

    SEATTLE (AP) — Democratic Seattle Mayor Bruce Harrell faces a tough reelection fight against progressive activist Katie Wilson as voters in the liberal city recoil from President Donald Trump’s second term and question whether the incumbent has done enough to address public safety, homelessness and affordability.

    Harrell, an attorney who previously served three terms on the City Council, was elected mayor in 2021 following the chaos of the COVID-19 pandemic and racial justice protests over George Floyd’s murder by Minneapolis police.

    With crime falling, more police being hired, less visible drug use and many homeless encampments removed from city parks, the business-backed Harrell seemed likely to cruise to re-election at this time last year. He’s been endorsed by Democratic Gov. Bob Ferguson, Attorney General Nick Brown and former U.S. Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg.

    But Trump’s return to office has helped reawaken Seattle’s progressive voters. The lesser-known Wilson, a democratic socialist running a campaign that echoes some of the themes of progressive mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani in New York, trounced Harrell by nearly 10 percentage points in the August primary.

    “Voters in places like Seattle are frustrated with the status quo, particularly in the context of Trump’s attacks on blue cities,” said Sandeep Kaushik, a Seattle political consultant who is not involved in the race. “They’re kind of moving back into their progressive bunker and are much more inclined to say, ‘Yeah, we should go our own way with our own bold progressive solutions.’ That all that plays into Katie’s hands.”

    Wilson, 43, studied at Oxford College but did not graduate. She founded the small nonprofit Transit Riders Union in 2011 and has led campaigns for better public transportation, higher minimum wages, stronger renter protections and more affordable housing. She herself is a renter, living in a one-bedroom apartment in the city’s Capitol Hill neighborhood, and says that has shaped her understanding of Seattle’s affordability crisis.

    Wilson has criticized Harrell as doing too little to provide more shelter and said his encampment sweeps have been cosmetic, merely pushing unhoused people around the city. Wilson also paints him as a city hall fixture who bears responsibility for the status quo.

    She has been endorsed by several Democratic organizations as well as by U.S. Rep. Pramila Jayapal, the former chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus.

    Harrell, 67, played on the Rose Bowl champion University of Washington football team in 1978 before going to law school. His father, who was Black, came to Seattle from the segregated Jim Crow South, and his mother, a Japanese American, was incarcerated at an internment camp in Minidoka, Idaho, during World War II after officials seized her family’s Seattle flower shop — experiences that fostered his understanding of the importance of civil rights and inclusivity.

    Harrell has said Wilson, who has no traditional management experience, isn’t ready to lead a city with more than 13,000 employees and a budget of nearly $9 billion. He also has criticized her for supporting efforts to slash the city’s police budget amid the 2020 racial justice protests.

    Wilson has said that proposal was based on some fundamental misunderstandings and that she since has learned a lot about how the police department works. She says she supports having a department that is adequately staffed, responsive and accountable to the community.

    Both Harrell and Wilson have touted plans for affordable housing, combatting crime and attempting to Trump-proof the city, which receives about $150 million a year in federal funding. Both want to protect Seattle’s sanctuary city status.

    Wilson has proposed a city-level capital gains tax to help offset federal funding the city might lose and to pay for housing; Harrell says that’s ineffective because a city capital gains tax could easily be avoided by those who would be required to pay it.

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Will a Mamdani victory push the Democrats further left?

    [ad_1]

    This week, editors Peter Suderman, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Nick Gillespie, and Matt Welch discuss the upcoming New York City mayoral election and what a Zohran Mamdani victory could mean for both the city and national politics. They weigh the best-case/worst-case scenarios of a leftward turn in New York, asking whether Mamdani represents a lasting anti-AI socialist movement or simply the newest iteration of the Democratic big tent.

    The editors then turn to the governor’s races in Virginia and New Jersey, where Democratic wins would signal continued strength for the party’s centrist wing. They examine a federal judge’s order requiring the government to keep SNAP funded during the ongoing shutdown, and then analyze Trump’s tariff case as it heads to the Supreme Court and what a ruling could mean for presidential trade powers. Finally, a listener asks whether libertarians who work in the defense industry are violating their principles or simply operating within the system as it exists.

     

    0:00–The best-case scenario and worst-case scenario for a Mayor Mamdani

    8:09–Gubernatorial races in New Jersey and Virginia

    20:04–SNAP benefits and shutdown politics

    29:32–Does the GOP have an Obamacare alternative?

    34:57–Listener question on ethical contradictions

    44:37–Tariffs case reaches the Supreme Court

    55:05–Weekly cultural recommendation

     

    Mentioned in This Podcast

    “The Democratic Thrill for Mamdani Is a Tell,” by Matt Welch
    “Will Democrats Find Their Way?” By Liz Wolfe
    “Mamdani’s Socialist Mayorship Will Make New York a Worse Place To Live and Do Business,” by Nick Gillespie
    “Zohran Mamdani’s $5 Billion Corporate Tax Hike Threatens NYC’s Status as the World’s Financial Capital,” by Filippo Borello
    “3 Reasons Why Zohran Mamdani’s City-Run Grocery Stores Will Fail,” by Natalie Dowzicky
    “New York City Is About To Elect a Socialist Mayor in Zohran Mamdani. Why Won’t This Failed Ideology Die?” By Zach Weissmueller
    “About 1 in 5 Kids Are at Risk of Losing SNAP. Centralized Control Keeps Failing Low-Income Families.” By Romina Boccia and Tyler Turman
    “SNAP Stops,” by Liz Wolfe

    “In Tariff Case, Trump’s Attorneys Can’t Decide if Foreign Investment Is Good or Bad for America,” by Eric Boehm
    “Trump Hopes To Bully SCOTUS Into Upholding His Tariffs,” by Damon Root
    “Trump’s Tariff Tantrum Proves He Shouldn’t Have That Power,” by Joe Lancaster

    “In Yorgos Lanthimos’ Bugonia, Elites Are Alien Creatures,” by Peter Suderman

    “I’m Just A Shill (FT. Zohran),” by Andrew Cuomo

    [ad_2]

    Peter Suderman

    Source link

  • Mamdani’s Socialist Mayorship Will Make New York a Worse Place To Live and Do Business

    [ad_1]

    As I write this, I have yet to cast my vote for the mayor of New York City, where I live (a question I can answer more easily and definitively than the current mayor). In most elections, there are only two bad choices. But because New York has more of everything, from people to rats to unlicensed weed dispensaries, this time there are at least three terrible choices: The Democratic nominee Zohran Mamdani, the Republican Curtis Sliwa, and former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who is running on the “Fight and Deliver Party” line.

    Bad candidates are like unhappy families, each awful and terrible in their own way. But by all indications, only Mamdani matters because he is going to cruise to victory next Tuesday. When that happens, Andrew Cuomo, already hounded out of Albany due to terrible COVID policies and disturbing harassment of basically everyone he ever worked with, will disappear for good. Maybe he’ll live in South Florida like the next-in-line son of a deposed Shah or, in a more just world, in a tiny, market-rate studio apartment in Crown Heights with another disgraced politician, Anthony Weiner. The beret-wearing fabulist Curtis Sliwa will continue to haunt New York’s airwaves and local TV shows, talking about his cats and whatever else rambles like tumbleweeds through his mind.

    Mamdani’s win will absolutely not be good for the city, but it will also not usher in the utter, instantaneous apocalypse that some fear. Yes, he will try to make buses and child care free, create city-owned grocery stores, jack up taxes on the ultra-rich (charitably defined as anyone making more than the “many young professionals at tech start-ups, law firms and investment companies” that seem to love him the most), and “freeze the rent” on perhaps as many as 1 million rental apartments (around half the total rental market). Maybe he will even issue an arrest warrant against Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu because, well, that sort of dramatic, dubiously legal action is a huge part of being the mayor of New York (and of being a member of the Democratic Socialists of America).

    If you live outside New York, your biggest worry should be what effect a landslide win might have on the Democratic Party nationally. If Mamdani crushes Cuomo and Sliwa as seems likely, expect a big push from allies like Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D–N.Y.) to revive the worst excesses of the populist identity politics that helped cost Democrats the White House in 2024 and caused much of the discord, overspending, and stupidity of the past decade. (If the centrist Democrats running for governor in New Jersey and Virginia win as currently expected, expect a ton of articles about the fight for the soul of the Democratic Party.)

    As Reason‘s Zach Weissmueller recently explained, Mamdani’s appeal goes beyond playing Santa Claus to large blocs of voters. He personifies the symbolic grievances of college-educated and relatively well-off Millennial and Gen Z voters who don’t really understand how capitalism works and what creative destruction entails. They take wealth production for granted, focusing instead on what they perceive as its morally just distribution, while overlooking the challenge of maintaining, much less expanding, economic and social opportunities for all.

    For New York City, what Mamdani’s mayoralty will absolutely do is hurry along the slowly decaying orbit of the country’s largest city that commenced with the election of groundhog manhandler Bill de Blasio to two terms in Gracie Mansion and continued with the mediocre-at-best performance of Turkish Airlines enthusiast and cheese-detractor Eric Adams. We’re already a dozen-plus years into having the city run by bums or buffoons and, if you read histories like Richard E. Farley’s Drop Dead, you know this is how things go in New York City. There are long cycles of mediocre-to-terrible mayors (think of the years of Richard Wagner, John Lindsay, and Abe Beame, a period lasting from 1954 to 1977) that are interrupted by periods of better-than-average governance (think Ed Koch, Rudy Giuliani, and Mike Bloomberg, a span lasting from 1978 to 2013, exclusive of David Dinkins’ single term in the early ’90s).

    New York has famously been called “the ungovernable city,” and in most ways, it is. Everything here is out of control; it is simultaneously the most regulated and freest autonomous zone imaginable. Yes, what happens here is deeply affected by politics and politicians, but those are just small streams that add to the powerful torrent of everyday life. After World War II, for a variety of reasons, New York flatlined in population in the 1950s and 1960s and then lost over 10 percent of its residents in the 1970s. Its population rebounded in the late ’80s, and the city has seen decades of sustained growth and vitality, even through events like 9/11, the financial crisis (felt deeply in the country’s finance center), and COVID (which posed particular issues for America’s most densely populated big city).

    The city’s resurrection in the ’80s was in no way a foregone conclusion and was a combination of many factors. The most important parts included the invention of the contemporary financial industry that revved up so much so that by 1987 it provided the setting for Tom Wolfe’s era-defining novel, Bonfire of the Vanities, and its cast of “masters of the universe,” social justice warriors, and journalistic grifters. An influx of immigrants (both from abroad and various parts of America) flooded into a city with relatively abundant housing, reviving neighborhoods and areas written off long ago. But governance mattered greatly, too. The mayoralty of Ed Koch, a “liberal with sanity” who fought against rent control, crime, and excessive spending while personifying the city’s tolerance of all sorts of lifestyles, was an essential part of the renaissance, as we discussed in this 2011 interview.

    But the fortunes of a city rarely rely solely or even mostly on its political class. In the ’50s, ’60s, and ’70s, New York was hardly the only city in the Northeast and Midwest that was seeing major population declines as the U.S. economy became more post-industrial and the South and West opened for business in big ways. Yet New York’s elected officials exacerbated exodus and decline by promising more and more services to people and papering over growing budget shortfalls with all sorts of gimmicks and tricks that ultimately came undone in the mid-1970s.

    Farley’s account in Drop Dead is detailed and appalling—and it comes with a warning for today: After cleaning up its fiscal act and getting its budget more or less in order, the city is reverting to its old tricks and running up annual shortfalls of $10 billion or more for the foreseeable future. The terms of the city’s bailout by the feds (contrary to the memorable Daily News headline, Gerald Ford, desperate for Empire State electoral votes, never told the city to “drop dead”) and the state legislature of New York mean that Mayor Mamdani will be tightly constrained in what he can do. Many of his proposals (such as freezing the rent) are either legally dubious or will have to go through Albany (such as almost anything related to the public transit system).

    This is good news, because his agenda, in virtually every particular, will make New York a tougher place to live and run a business (and thus work as a regular employee), or even go to school—he wants to get rid of gifted-and-talented programs and entrance-exam schools which motivate striver parents with limited financial resources to leave an expensive and generally awful system.

    His housing proposals are also sure to backfire. As Reason‘s Justin Zuckerman recently documented, the city is already experiencing a severe housing drought—partly as a direct result of 2019 changes to state laws eagerly signed by then-Gov. Cuomo. Far from making housing more affordable or available, freezing rents at current levels will incentivize renters to stay put (rental turnover here is already 41 percent lower than the national average) and do nothing to spur large-scale construction of new units (who will build in a place where they have little or no say over what they can charge?). The hunt for good apartments in New York will go from bad to worse.

    “When I read [Mamdani’s] proposals,” writes Andrew Sullivan at Substack, “at first I thought I was reading a high-schooler’s essay. Free everything!” He’s onto something—most of Mamdani’s ideas have already been tried extensively and failed in the immediate past. Consider his promise to hike the minimum wage from $16.50 an hour to $30 an hour in a few years. As Jim Epstein showed a decade ago for Reason, a minimum wage hike to $15 had predictable and bad effects on the city’s car wash industry. Whatever the intentions, such moves “push[ed] car washes to automate and to close down.” As bad, the mandated wage increase also fostered “a growing black market—workers increasingly have no choice but to ply their trade out of illegal vans parked on the street, because the minimum wage has made it illegal for anyone to hire them at the market rate.”

    None of this is rocket science or terra incognita. One of Mamdani’s signature proposals is the creation of city-run grocery stores, an idea that is especially nonsensical in a place like New York, which already is “the No. 1 U.S. metro area in terms of residents’ ‘equitable access’ to a local supermarket.” He or his advisers might look to the recent experience of Erie, Kansas, where things are not going well for government-run supermarkets. Or he might follow the lead of Kennedy, who asked some Bronx residents about the plan and learned that they would rather the city work on homelessness, “dealing with ‘rats the size of cats,’ and cleaning ‘all of the needles on the street.’”

    Depending on how much of his agenda he can muscle through, the City that Never Sleeps may be in for a longer or shorter nap when it comes to the growth and vitality of recent decades. Eventually, New York always wakes up and renews itself economically, culturally, and politically. It’s depressing that no one on the political horizon seems likely to conjure the magic that Koch, Giuliani, or Bloomberg—all of whom had terrible flaws—brought, but that’s almost always the case. The most depressing thing is that all of Mamdani’s mistakes are completely avoidable because they’ve happened time and time before. But unlike its old colonial rivals, Boston and Philadelphia, New York has never had much time or use for history.

    [ad_2]

    Nick Gillespie

    Source link

  • From the subway to social media, NYC mayoral candidates make their closing arguments to voters

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — In his final ad of the New York City mayoral race, Andrew Cuomo opens on a dour note: “Life in New York is tough right now.”

    Then comes a dig at Zohran Mamdani, the Democratic nominee who the former governor has argued is too inexperienced to lead the city: “Candidates who need on-the-job training can’t fix it,” he says.

    In their last days on the campaign trail before Election Day on Tuesday, Cuomo, Mamdani and Republican Curtis Sliwa are offering their closing arguments to voters.

    For Cuomo, 67, it’s a message that voters must stop Mamdani from leading the city into ruin, casting himself as the only one who can keep the city safe and move it forward.

    Meanwhile, Mamdani is trying to keep riding the wave of progressive excitement that carried him to victory in June’s primary — while weathering the final barrage of attacks from Cuomo and other critics wary of giving a 34-year-old democratic socialist the reins to America’s biggest city.

    With early voting concluding Sunday, he’s shaking hands with everyone form social media influencers to airport taxi drivers as he urges his supporters not to grow complacent. “People say ‘We got this. It’s over. Cuomo is cooked,’” he says in one of his many popular online videos. “Do not believe it.”

    And Sliwa is running an aggressive ground-level campaign of his own, hitting the city’s subways and streets with his public safety-focused pitch and a warning that his Democratic opponents are “two sides of the same coin.”

    Cuomo, a Democrat on the ballot as an independent, has spent the final stretch working to convince Republicans he is a more viable candidate than Sliwa.

    He has met with Jewish and Muslim leaders. There have been an array of media hits on traditional news channels but also appearances on shows hosted by YouTuber-turned-boxer-turned-pro wrestler Logan Paul as well as Stephen A. Smith, a commentator on sports and politics.

    Much of the former governor’s pitch has been marked by dark warnings of social and economic collapse if Mamdani were to win, along with assurances that his record as governor makes him a more suitable choice.

    In an interview this week on Fox Business, Cuomo said Mamdani, who was born in Uganda to parents of Indian descent but grew up in New York City, “doesn’t understand the New York culture.”

    “Republicans, there are two choices, me or Mamdani. Don’t waste your vote,” Cuomo said.

    Former New York Gov. David Paterson, who has campaigned for Cuomo, said Cuomo has amped up the negativity because previous jabs on Mamdani’s inexperience and agenda haven’t slowed his momentum.

    “Normally, I would say, ‘Ease up.’ You’re both running for mayor. You both care about the city, so you know, just state your message,” Paterson said. “In this case, the reason he’s doing it is that that message hasn’t filtered in yet.”

    Sliwa, 71, has returned to the place where he gained fame as the creator of the Guardian Angels anti-crime patrols: the city’s subways.

    He’s held near daily news conferences across the transit network, hammering home his message that he’ll make the trains safer.

    As a rainstorm Thursday caused localized flooding in parts of the city, Sliwa filmed a video for social media as cars drove through a small pond that had developed on one intersection, decrying the state of the city’s sewer system.

    It’s reflective of the local quality-of-life issues the longtime talk-radio host has kept central to his colorful campaign.

    President Donald Trump has repeatedly dismissed Sliwa’s candidacy — and mocked his passion for rescuing cats — but Sliwa has waved off the criticism.

    “Homeless people, emotionally disturbed, veterans we don’t take care of — we don’t need a tough guy to be mayor. We need a compassionate, considerate, concerned person,” Sliwa said in an interview on CNN. “And that’s Curtis Sliwa.”

    By contrast, he said, Cuomo is “cold-hearted” and “angry.”

    “Nobody votes for anger,” Sliwa said.

    Sliwa wore his signature red beret to cast his ballot on the first day of early voting, but did not bring a cat with him as he did when he ran against Mayor Eric Adams in 2021.

    Mamdani, a state assemblymember, has tried to stay on the offensive.

    Last weekend, he packed out a stadium in Queens with more than 10,000 people for a rally alongside U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez — playing to a friendly crowd receptive to his platform of using government programs to lower the high cost of living in New York.

    But he said he “will not allow myself to become complacent” while his army of volunteers knocks on doors.

    He set up a news briefing with social media influencers, appeared on Comedy Central’s “The Daily Show” with Jon Stewart, won an endorsement from an association of bodega owners and held a midnight news conference in Queens after canvassing night shift workers at a nearby hospital and airport.

    The everywhere-all-at-once approach appeared to help him secure at least one undecided voter at a recent stop.

    Dr. Rita Bellevue, a retired physician, seemed pleasantly surprised when Mamdani and his coterie of news cameras approached her at a midtown Manhattan bus stop. Afterward, she said she had been deliberating whether to vote for him or for Cuomo.

    “I think I just decided,” she said with a smile before hurrying to catch her bus.

    ___

    Associated Press writer Jennifer Peltz contributed to this report.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • A divided Fed

    [ad_1]

    Dissent at the Fed meeting: For the second time this year, the Federal Reserve Board cut interest rates by a quarter point—the lowest level in three years. “This remains a very divided Fed, as evidenced by the fact that two officials cast dissenting votes in opposite directions,” reports The New York Times. “One wanted a bigger, half-point cut; another wanted no cut at all. The split stems not only from divergent forecasts about the economy but also risk tolerances around allowing the labor market to weaken or inflation to stay elevated.”

    This is consistent with the previous meetings: Back at July’s meeting, two board members disagreed with the final decision to hold rates steady. At September’s meeting, President Donald Trump appointee Stephen Miran—who had just been appointed—called for a half-point cut instead of a more cautious quarter-point cut (like the rest of the board agreed to). Then in this meeting, Miran said much the same, but was opposed by Jeffrey Schmid, who advocated no decrease at all.

    “The decision to lower interest rates by 25bps in October was never in doubt, but the unexpected hawkish dissent from a regional Fed president highlights that future moves are becoming more contentious,” Michael Pearce, deputy chief U.S. economist at Oxford Economics, told CNBC. “We expect the Fed to slow the pace of cuts from here.”

    “A further reduction in the policy rate at the December meeting is not a foregone conclusion—far from it,” said Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell in a post-meeting press conference.

    Powell noted that, though the economy looks strong in the aggregate, things look rather bifurcated right now: Spending by high-income households is possibly obscuring some of the pain and pressure felt by low-income households. He signaled that poor Americans are feeling greater financial pressure than before, citing the growing number of defaults on subprime auto loans. (“The percentage of subprime borrowers—those with credit scores below 670—who are at least 60 days late on their car loans has doubled since 2021 to 6.43%, according to Fitch Ratings,” reports CNN.)

    He also conveyed concerns about tariffs raising inflation (the effects of which still have not fully been felt, due to stockpiling by large retailers, which is due to run out soon) and a weakening labor market.

    Ceasefire updates: In yesterday’s Roundup, I was insufficiently careful in my reporting of the Gazan death toll—the 100 allegedly killed by the Israel Defense Forces (IDF) is, after all, reported by the health ministry there, which is controlled by Hamas, so it is very hard to tell whether such numbers are reliable.

    Since then, the death toll reported by the ministry of health has risen to 104, with 66 of those alleged to be women and children, and Israeli government sources say “dozens” of top Hamas commanders were taken out, naming 26 militants specifically.

    It is very hard to tell whether the Gaza Ministry of Health numbers are accurate, and Hamas has repeatedly used human shields in an attempt to protect its combatants from Israeli strikes. Now, amid the renewed fighting, both sides are becoming further entrenched: Though Israel says it remains committed to maintaining (resuming?) the truce, Hamas has said, per Associated Press reporting, that “it would delay handing over the body of another hostage to Israel because of the strikes.” This most recent round of fighting was allegedly sparked by Hamas forces violating the U.S.-brokered ceasefire by attacking IDF soldiers, killing a reservist (Master Sgt. Yona Efraim Feldbaum) on Tuesday. The Qatari prime minister said, following this incident, that mediators are renewing their push to “get [Hamas] to a point where they acknowledge that they need to disarm.”

    Trump, fresh off his victorious Knesset speech just two weeks ago, doesn’t seem all too concerned: “They killed an Israeli soldier. So the Israelis hit back. And they should hit back,” Trump told reporters on Air Force One yesterday. “Nothing is going to jeopardize” the ceasefire, he added, with characteristic overconfidence.

    “We actually met with people [who] were leading [Hamas], and… I think they’re unhappy when they see some people being killed,” he added, rather confusingly (given that he’s referencing…a terrorist group).

    “The ceasefire is holding. That doesn’t mean that there aren’t going to be little skirmishes here and there,” Vice President J.D. Vance told reporters.

    Scenes from New York: 

    Related: “The socialist housing plan for New York City“

    QUICK HITS

    • “Transit is one of the very few things that makes New York affordable,” Metropolitan Transportation Authority head Janno Lieber tells a group of independent New York journalists, critiquing Zohran Mamdani’s free-buses plan. “It’s not an affordability problem, compared to the whole country, people spend a lot less on transportation as part of their budgets. It’s an affordability solution, but we want to make it more so. And the Fair Fares program has been successful with targeting affordability. But what’s good about Fair Fares is you can use that discount if you’re low-income for the subway or the bus. So one of the first things I want to get into is, why would we say the bus is free, but [not] the subway—what does that mean? Are people going to ride the bus instead of the subway?…Why is the bus the whole focus? Let’s talk about how to make transit—it’s affordable, it’s a good thing it is, but let’s talk about how to make it more affordable. And we do have tools like the Fair Fares program, where we could raise the eligibility threshold.” (Also, interestingly, future bus revenues are pledged to the bondholders who finance the whole Metropolitan Transportation Authority system; bondholder approval—which they’re not going to give—would be necessary before changing the bus fares in the manner Mamdani proposes.)
    • Things appear to be heating up near Venezuela:
    • A predictable consequence of ratcheting up tariffs: Canada is now shoring up trade ties with Asia. Bloomberg has more.
    • This strikes me as such a misleading headline from Politico, designed to elicit rage: “RFK Jr.’s top vaccine adviser says he answers to no one.” But the actual interview, which is with Martin Kulldorff (former Just Asking Questions guest), is full of very wise chunks, in which Kulldorff talks about how the health secretary, Robert F. Kennedy Jr., has asked him to try to just…impartially follow the science and sift through the available evidence, how Kulldorff is attempting to maintain a posture of humility regarding what we know and what we don’t (including on topics like adverse vaccine reactions), and how he thinks COVID-19 vaccine mandates really damaged public trust in the health authorities.
    • “In long-awaited cuts just months after completing its $8 billion merger with Skydance, Paramount has begun layoffs set to impact about 2,000 employees,” reports the Associated Press. This amounts to about 10 percent of Paramount’s workforce. Roughly half of those will be carried out immediately, while the rest will be done more steadily over the coming weeks and months. More here:
    • More of a conservative take than an explicitly libertarian one, but there’s certainly something interesting in here about changing norms and the declining stigma of welfare, which is probably a bad social indicator:

    [ad_2]

    Liz Wolfe

    Source link

  • The Gaza Split

    [ad_1]

    Ceasefire or not? Yesterday, Israeli strikes killed 100 people in Gaza, claiming that the ceasefire had been violated, since Hamas has not yet returned the bodies of all the dead hostages taken on October 7, 2023, and attacked Israeli soldiers in the southern part of the territory, near Rafah.

    News broke last week that two IDF soldiers were killed in Jenina, which is located on the eastern side of the Yellow Line that indicates the military pullback. Though Jenina is under IDF control, there are apparently Hamas cells that still operate in some capacity there. “As troops have worked to clear the neighborhood of Hamas infrastructure—including a tunnel network—operatives have emerged from underground and attempted attacks,” reports The Times of Israel. 

    “There is and will be no immunity for anyone in the leadership of the Hamas terror organization, neither for those wearing suits nor for those hiding in tunnels. Anyone who raises a hand against IDF soldiers, his hand will be severed,” said Defense Minister Israel Katz.

    “The Israeli military is digging in along the cease-fire line inside Gaza, strengthening fortifications and establishing infrastructure that further divides the territory into two,” reports The Wall Street Journal. For the first time, journalists were allowed access to that zone, which “divides Gaza roughly in half” with the IDF “manning existing outposts and erecting new ones.” Yellow concrete blocks are being laid, and it sure looks like the idea is for an Israeli military presence to continue there for a long time.

    Per the truce brokered by President Donald Trump, “Israel is supposed to pull back farther toward Gaza’s borders once an international security force is on the ground and Hamas has been disarmed,” reports the Journal. “Hamas, however, has refused to give up its weapons and is cementing its control over Gaza.” It’s a truce that doesn’t look all that much like a truce; instead, Israel controls about 53 percent of the Strip, with Hamas forces still operating in some capacity in the remaining 47 percent. It’s very possible that rebuilding will look rather bifurcated, with the Israel-controlled zones subjecting Palestinians to some amount of surveillance but being free of terrorist control, while the remaining chunks of the Strip remain fairly leveled, with no foreign investment and very little rebuilding. Jared Kushner and special envoy Steve Witkoff are widely seen as the architects behind the split-rebuilding plan, which is controversial among the other stakeholders trying to broker peace.

    “Arab mediators are alarmed by the plan which, they said, the U.S. and Israel have brought up in peace talks,” reports the Journal. “Arab governments strongly oppose the idea of dividing Gaza, arguing it could lead to a zone of permanent Israeli control inside the enclave. They are unlikely to commit troops to police the enclave on those terms.” But what exactly is the solution if Hamas won’t surrender arms?

    Venezuela update: When The Wall Street Journal asked prominent Venezuelan opposition leader María Corina Machado earlier this week what she thinks about Donald Trump’s increasingly aggressive provocations toward the Maduro regime, she responded: “President Trump pledged to dismantle the drug cartels poisoning American families, and he is fulfilling that promise.”

    Trafficking is “a national security crisis for the United States, and for Venezuela as well. The money generated from those criminal activities does not build schools or hospitals. It finances repression, torture, and the machinery of terror that keeps a criminal regime in power.” Trump made an “accurate diagnosis of Venezuela’s reality, and acted accordingly.” And the Venezuelan people had long “asked the world to understand that Maduro is not a conventional dictator but the head of a transnational criminal organization. The Trump Administration recognized that fact and treated it as such.”

    When asked explicitly about foreign military intervention to end the Maduro regime, Machado responded that Venezuela has been “under foreign intervention for decades, by Cuba, Russia, China, Iran, drug cartels, and terrorist organizations” and that “democratic allies” can help the Venezuelan people “recover the sovereignty that belongs to them.”

    It’s hard to tell how authentic she’s being. She has a vested interest in maintaining and strengthening an alliance with Trump. If Trump really is interested in regime change—and if he can do so in a way that doesn’t simply lead to another Maduro operative gaining power—Machado stands to gain; she won the opposition primary back in 2023 and was the rightful challenger to Maduro in 2024, before being barred from running by the government. From her perspective, this must look like a huge opportunity to secure the liberation of the Venezuelan people—liberation she’s been fighting for. She has real reasons to back Trump, who is possibly preparing to take military action to try to unseat Nicolas Maduro. (It’s worth noting that Trump has not sought congressional approval for this, and has been conducting extralegal boat strikes on suspected narcotraffickers, supplying no evidence to the American people or to legislators that the people he’s killing are legitimate criminals. Also: We don’t tend to blow people into smithereens when they’ve committed crimes, so even if evidence were provided, Trump is not comporting with U.S. law.)

    But it’s also possible that Machado’s being way too hopeful here; U.S.-led regime change in Latin America has not historically panned out so well.

    She also made an even more explicit pitch to Trump sympathizers, noting that Maduro-unseating could lead to fewer migrants flooding across U.S. borders: “The vast majority of Venezuelans are desperate to return home. They didn’t leave by choice. The longing for family and national reunification is immense. The moment Maduro leaves power, hundreds of thousands will begin to return. And soon after, it will be millions coming back to rebuild the nation they were forced to abandon.”

    Scenes from New York: 

    If you want to hear all about the threat posed by Mamdani, I highly recommend this Weissmueller joint.

    QUICK HITS

    • “The White House on Tuesday fired all six members of the Commission of Fine Arts, an independent federal agency that had expected to review some of President Donald Trump’s construction projects, including his planned triumphal arch and White House ballroom,” reports The Washington Post. “The commission, which was established by Congress more than a century ago and traditionally includes a mix of architects and urban planners, is charged with providing advice to the president, Congress and local government officials on design matters related to construction projects in the capital region. Its focus includes government buildings, monuments and memorials. White House officials have traditionally sought the agency’s approval.” (Interestingly, though Trump gets all the credit for being a norms-disrespecter, Joe Biden did it first: “Biden in 2021 fired Trump appointees from the Commission of Fine Arts and the National Capital Planning Commission, with Biden administration officials at the time defending the moves as an effort to diversify the panels.” But that “was the first time in the commissions’ history that a president had forced out sitting members, drawing some criticism from art and architecture experts that Biden was politicizing its work.”)
    • “The number of legally sanctioned homicides by civilians in the 30 stand-your-ground states has risen substantially in recent years,” reports The Wall Street Journal, having analyzed FBI data. “Justifiable homicides by civilians increased 59% from 2019 through 2024 in a large sample of cities and counties in those states, the Journal found, compared with a 16% rise in total homicides for the same locales.”
    • Tariffs make prices rise, whowouldathought?

    [ad_2]

    Liz Wolfe

    Source link

  • Javier Milei’s libertarian policies win shock election

    [ad_1]

    This week, editors Peter Suderman, Nick Gillespie, and Matt Welch are joined by associate editor Liz Wolfe to discuss Argentine President Javier Milei’s strong midterm showing and what it suggests about the durability of his libertarian reform agenda. They debate whether the results vindicate Trump’s earlier currency-swap bailout, how Milei’s spending-cut program is playing out, and what lessons his success may hold for other governments confronting inflation.

    The editors then turn to Washington, where Trump’s decision to impose new tariffs on Canadian goods followed an Ontario ad featuring Ronald Reagan criticizing tariffs. They also discuss the continued U.S. bombings in Venezuela, and the administration’s alleged involvement in the Paramount-Warner Bros. merger, along with the symbolism of replacing the East Wing with a ballroom. The panel considers the rise of socialist Zohran Mamdani in New York City and why his ascension could have national significance. Finally, a listener asks if protests like the recent “No Kings” rallies accomplish anything.

     

    0:00–Milei’s party wins landslide election in Argentina

    16:08–Trump escalates trade war with Canada over advertisement

    23:51–Are we headed into an unauthorized war with Venezuela?

    34:40–The Paramount-Warner Bros. merger

    39:47–Listener question on the power of protest

    53:57–What does the rise of Zohran Mamdani mean for the country?

    61:58–Weekly cultural recommendations

     

    Mentioned in This Podcast

    “Javier Milei Wins Argentina’s Midterm Election, Gaining More Power To Push Reforms,” by César Báez“

    The Government Shutdown Isn’t Stopping Trump From Amassing ‘Emergency’ Powers,” by Katherine Mangu-Ward“The Constitution Does Not Allow the President To Unilaterally Blow Suspected Drug Smugglers to Smithereens,” by Rand Paul“Trump Dares Congress To Take Its War Powers Seriously in Venezuela,” by Matthew Petti“Trump Allegedly Misidentified a Colombian Fisherman as a Venezuelan ‘Narcoterrorist,’” by Jacob Sullum“Trump Campaigned on Free Speech. That Isn’t How He’s Governed.” By John Stossel“Abolish the FCC,” by Ilya Somin“The FCC’s Paramount/Skydance Decision Aims To Reshape Broadcast Journalism by Bureaucratic Fiat,” by Jacob Sullum“Zohran Mamdani’s Socialist Housing Plan Could Crash New York’s Rickety Rental Market,” by Howard Husock“Mamdani’s Fare-Free Buses Wouldn’t Be NYC’s First Wasteful Public Transit Boondoggle,” by Emma Camp“The Socialist Transit Plan That Could Break NYC,” by Kennedy and Natalie Dowzicky“Brandon Johnson’s Chicago Is a Preview of Zohran Mamdani’s New York,” by Christian Britschgi“Is Everyone Who Opposes a New School Zoning Plan in Brooklyn Racist?” By Matt Welch

    [ad_2]

    Peter Suderman

    Source link

  • New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani rallies voters with support from Bernie Sanders and AOC

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani rallied supporters Sunday with heavyweight support from U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as the race enters its final stretch, telling a raucous crowd that his campaign is a “movement of the masses.”

    Mamdani, the Democratic nominee, took the stage at a small stadium in Queens where he and two of the nation’s leading progressives pitched his candidacy as a force to take on billionaires and “oligarchs” who have thrown money and support behind his opponents.

    “When you insist on building a coalition with room for every New Yorker, that is exactly what you create: a tremendous force,” Mamdani said. “This, my friends, was your movement, and it always will be.”

    As the crowd chanted his name, Mamdani reiterated plans to hire thousands of new teachers, renegotiate city contracts, freeze rent for low-income residents, build more affordable housing and provide universal child care.

    With early voting underway ahead of Election Day on Nov. 4, Mamdani, a democratic socialist, is in an increasingly caustic race with former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who is running as an independent candidate after losing the Democratic primary to Mamdani, and Republican Curtis Sliwa, who campaigned Sunday in Queens.

    Cuomo has sought to cast Mamdani, a 34-year-old state assemblymember, as a naive candidate whose agenda would damage the city. In a radio interview Sunday morning, Cuomo argued that he is the real Democrat in the race while saying Mamdani’s democratic socialism would result in an exodus of residents and businesses.

    “The socialists want to take over the Democratic Party. That’s what Bernie Sanders is all about. That’s what AOC is all about,” Cuomo said, adding, “He wins, book airline tickets for Florida now.”

    Cuomo resigned as governor in 2021 following a barrage of sexual harassment allegations that he denies. Mamdani has often pressed Cuomo over the allegations, and on Sunday he told the crowd that it is time to leave behind the former governor’s “playbook of the past.” But he urged supporters not to take his lead in the polls for granted and to turn out to vote.

    “We cannot allow complacency to infiltrate this movement,” Mamdani said.

    Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have supported his campaign for months including before the Democratic primary in June. On Sunday they cast Mamdani as an antidote to what they called the creeping authoritarianism of President Donald Trump’s administration.

    Ocasio-Cortez, whose district includes Queens, said a victory for Mamdani will send a message nationally that a progressive message can prevail.

    “It is not a coincidence that the very forces that Zohran is up against in this race mirrors what we are up against nationally … an authoritarian, criminal presidency fueled by corruption and bigotry, and an ascendant right-wing extremist movement,” she said.

    Sanders said a Mayor Mamdani would represent “not the billionaire class” but working families.

    “In the year 2025, when the people on top have never, ever had so much economic and political power, is it possible for ordinary people, for working class people, to come together and defeat those oligarchs?” Sanders said. “You’re damn right we can.”

    Under the slogan “New York Is Not For Sale,” the rally featured rousing speeches from religious and labor leaders along with state elected officials including Gov. Kathy Hochul, Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins and Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie. The event was emceed by Sarah Sherman of “Saturday Night Live.”

    Mamdani recently received an endorsement from House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a moderate New York Democrat. Jeffries, in a statement, said he has disagreements with Mamdani but supports him as the nominee, adding that the party should unify against Republicans and Trump.

    Incumbent Mayor Eric Adams abandoned his reelection campaign and endorsed Cuomo.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • New York Mayoral Candidate Zohran Mamdani Rallies Voters With Support From Bernie Sanders and AOC

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK (AP) — New York mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani rallied supporters Sunday with heavyweight support from U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders and Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez as the race enters its final stretch, telling a raucous crowd that his campaign is a “movement of the masses.”

    Mamdani, the Democratic nominee, took the stage at a small stadium in Queens where he and two of the nation’s leading progressives pitched his candidacy as a force to take on billionaires and “oligarchs” who have thrown money and support behind his opponents.

    “When you insist on building a coalition with room for every New Yorker, that is exactly what you create: a tremendous force,” Mamdani said. “This, my friends, was your movement, and it always will be.”

    As the crowd chanted his name, Mamdani reiterated plans to hire thousands of new teachers, renegotiate city contracts, freeze rent increases for the city’s 1 million rent-regulated apartments, build more affordable housing and provide universal child care.

    With early voting underway ahead of Election Day on Nov. 4, Mamdani, a democratic socialist, is in an increasingly caustic race with former Gov. Andrew Cuomo, who is running as an independent candidate after losing the Democratic primary to Mamdani, and Republican Curtis Sliwa, who campaigned Sunday in Queens.

    Cuomo has sought to cast Mamdani, a 34-year-old state assemblymember, as a naive candidate whose agenda would damage the city. In a radio interview Sunday morning, Cuomo argued that he is the real Democrat in the race while saying Mamdani’s democratic socialism would result in an exodus of residents and businesses.

    “The socialists want to take over the Democratic Party. That’s what Bernie Sanders is all about. That’s what AOC is all about,” Cuomo said, adding, “He wins, book airline tickets for Florida now.”

    Cuomo resigned as governor in 2021 following a barrage of sexual harassment allegations that he denies. Mamdani has often pressed Cuomo over the allegations, and on Sunday he told the crowd that it is time to leave behind the former governor’s “playbook of the past.” But he urged supporters not to take his lead in the polls for granted and to turn out to vote.

    “We cannot allow complacency to infiltrate this movement,” Mamdani said.

    Sanders and Ocasio-Cortez have supported his campaign for months including before the Democratic primary in June. On Sunday they cast Mamdani as an antidote to what they called the creeping authoritarianism of President Donald Trump’s administration.

    Ocasio-Cortez, whose district includes Queens, said a victory for Mamdani will send a message nationally that a progressive message can prevail.

    “It is not a coincidence that the very forces that Zohran is up against in this race mirrors what we are up against nationally … an authoritarian, criminal presidency fueled by corruption and bigotry, and an ascendant right-wing extremist movement,” she said.

    Sanders said a Mayor Mamdani would represent “not the billionaire class” but working families.

    “In the year 2025, when the people on top have never, ever had so much economic and political power, is it possible for ordinary people, for working class people, to come together and defeat those oligarchs?” Sanders said. “You’re damn right we can.”

    Under the slogan “New York Is Not For Sale,” the rally featured rousing speeches from religious and labor leaders along with state elected officials including Gov. Kathy Hochul, Senate Majority Leader Andrea Stewart-Cousins and Assembly Speaker Carl Heastie. The event was emceed by Sarah Sherman of “Saturday Night Live.”

    Mamdani recently received an endorsement from House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, a moderate New York Democrat. Jeffries, in a statement, said he has disagreements with Mamdani but supports him as the nominee, adding that the party should unify against Republicans and Trump.

    Incumbent Mayor Eric Adams abandoned his reelection campaign and endorsed Cuomo.

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Jeffries Backs Mamdani for NYC Mayor Months After Primary

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK (AP) — House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries on Friday endorsed Zohran Mamdani for mayor of New York City, saying he respected the will of the primary voters and young people inspired by the Democratic socialist state lawmaker’s candidacy.

    Jeffries, who represents Brooklyn, has for months declined to officially throw his support behind Mamdani, who upended the New York political establishment when he handed former Democratic New York Gov. Andrew Cuomo a resounding and stunning defeat in the June primary.

    Cuomo is still running in the November general election, but as an independent. Republican Curtis Sliwa is also on the ballot, as is Mayor Eric Adams, though the embattled Democrat dropped out of the race last month and has endorsed Cuomo.

    While acknowledging he had “areas of principled disagreement” with his party’s nominee for mayor, Jeffries said Democrats have a “clear obligation to push back against” Republican extremism, calling it a “national nightmare,” in a statement.

    “Donald Trump must be given no space to haunt the people of New York City,” said Jeffries, adding that communities he represents in Brooklyn “are being devastated by this extreme version of the Republican Party.”

    Jeffries’ tactical decision to back Mamdani is a show of support for a unified Democratic ticket. However, it is also expected to draw criticism from the GOP. Republicans have repeatedly highlighted Mamdani’s most controversial past comments and positions, casting him as dangerous, a communist, and an antisemite, and trying to tie him to other Democratic officials.

    Jeffries credited Mamdani with focusing on the “affordability crisis” in his campaign and expressing a commitment to serving all New Yorkers, including the Jewish community that has faced a rise in antisemitic incidents.

    Last month, Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul endorsed Mamdani, saying the two diverged on some issues but came together on the importance of addressing the affordability crisis in the city and across the state. At the time, it was one of Mamdani’s most significant endorsements in his bid for mayor.

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Oct. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Political crisis in France eases for now as prime minister survives no-confidence vote

    [ad_1]

    PARIS — PARIS (AP) — France’s latest political crisis eased — for now — when Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu survived two consecutive no-confidence votes on Thursday, averting another government collapse and giving President Emmanuel Macron a respite before an even tougher fight over the national budget.

    The immediate danger may have receded but the core problem is still very much center stage. The eurozone’s second-largest economy is still run by a minority government in a splintered parliament where no single bloc or party has a majority.

    Every major law now turns on last-minute deals, and the next test is a spending plan that must pass before the end of the year.

    On Thursday, lawmakers in the 577-seat National Assembly rejected a no-confidence motion filed by the hard-left France Unbowed party. The 271 votes were 18 short of the 289 needed to bring down the government.

    A second motion from the far-right National Rally also failed.

    Had Lecornu lost, Macron would have faced only unpalatable options: call new legislative elections, try to find yet another prime minister — France’s fifth in barely a year — or perhaps even resign himself, which he has ruled out.

    Macron’s decision to dissolve the National Assembly in June 2024 backfired on him, triggering legislative elections that stacked the powerful lower house with opponents of the French leader but producing no outright winner.

    Since then, Macron’s minority governments have sought to barter support bill by bill and have fallen in quick succession.

    That collides with the architecture of the Fifth Republic, founded in 1958 under Charles de Gaulle.

    The system was built for a strong presidency and stable parliamentary majorities, not for coalition horse-trading or a splintered house.

    With no single bloc near an absolute majority of 289 seats, the machinery is grinding against its design, turning big votes into cliffhangers and raising existential questions about the governance of France.

    For French voters and observers, it’s jarring. France, once a model of eurozone stability, is now stumbling from crisis to crisis, testing the patience of markets and allies.

    To peel away opposition votes, Lecornu offered to slow the rollout of Macron’s flagship 2023 pension law, which raises the retirement age from 62 to 64.

    The proposed slowdown could push the law back roughly two years, easing near-term pressure on people nearing retirement while leaving the end goal intact.

    The government puts the short-term cost of the delay at 400 million euros ($430 million) for next year and 1.8 billion euros ($1.9 billion) for 2027, saying it will find offsets.

    For many in France, pensions touch a nerve — the 2023 law triggered massive protests and strikes that left heaps of trash rotting on Paris streets.

    The government then used Article 49.3 — a special constitutional power that lets a prime minister push a law through without a parliamentary vote. But the backlash only hardened.

    With Thursday’s reprieve, Macron’s government has some breathing room. It shifts the battle to the 2026 budget, with a debate opening on Oct. 24.

    Lecornu has vowed not to use Article 49.3 to pass a budget without a vote — which means no shortcuts: every line must win support in a fractured chamber.

    The government and its allies hold fewer than 200 seats. For a majority, they need opposition support.

    That math makes the Socialists, with 69 lawmakers, and the conservative Republicans, with 50, both potential swing blocs. But their backing isn’t a given, even though they both lent support to Lecornu against Thursday’s no-confidence motions.

    The Socialists say the budget draft still lacks “social and fiscal justice.”

    France’s deficit sits near 5.4% of GDP. The plan is to bring it to 4.7% next year with spending restraint and targeted tax changes while trying to protect growth.

    The left is preparing a renewed push for a wealth-side measure aimed at ultra-high fortunes.

    The government rejects that path and prefers narrower, lower-yield steps, including measures on holding companies.

    Analysts predict hard bargaining over benefit freezes, higher medical deductibles and savings demanded of local authorities — each concession risking votes on one flank even as it gains them on another.

    The clock is ticking: Against a year’s end budget deadline, the government must show how it will pay for the pension slowdown and negotiate, in parallel, with the Socialists and conservatives over taxes and spending.

    For the president, success would mean proving that France can pass a credible budget and start to rein in its deficit without extraordinary procedural force.

    If the talks crack — on pensions, taxes or spending — the risks of Lecornu’s government collapsing return, and at the end of the year, France could find itself back where it started: deadlocked.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • After Lecornu’s Fall, All Eyes on Macron’s Next Move With France in Political Turmoil

    [ad_1]

    PARIS (AP) — Outgoing French Prime Minister Sébastien Lecornu, aiming to calm the political storm triggered by his resignation on Monday less than 24 hours after unveiling his ministers, faced a tight deadline Wednesday to break the deadlock caused by his departure.

    After accepting Lecornu’s resignation, President Emmanuel Macron gave him 48 hours to hold further talks with political parties, citing the need to preserve national stability.

    The tight time frame for Lecornu bought Macron some time to consider his options. But all eyes turned to Macron on Wednesday as debate swirls about how he may respond to France’s political crisis and dig himself out of the crisis.

    The fragile coalition between Macron’s centrists and the conservatives unraveled almost immediately after Lecornu’s government was announced, leaving parties deeply divided, and he failed to secure the parliamentary backing needed to pass the 2026 budget.

    Lecornu invited all political forces to talks, but far-right leaders Marine Le Pen and Jordan Bardella of the National Rally party rejected the call, pressing instead for snap elections. On the far left, France Unbowed officials also boycotted.

    The French constitution gives large powers to the president, who names the prime minister. Even when weakened politically, he still holds some powers over foreign policy, European affairs and negotiates and ratifies international treaties. The president also is the commander-in-chief of the armed forces.

    Macron, whose approval ratings have sunk to record lows, has not indicated his next move if Lecornu fails. Rivals say his choices are limited to calling new elections, appointing a prime minister from outside his camp or resigning.

    Here is a closer look at Macron’s options:


    Choosing an outsider for a political cohabitation

    Republicans party leader Bruno Retailleau, along with the Socialists, Greens and Communists, have pushed for the inclusion of a prime minister from another party. Retailleau, who withdrew support from the government coalition, said he could join a new cabinet only under such an arrangement.

    Under cohabitation, the prime minister governs with the backing of parliament, while the president retains influence mainly over foreign policy, defense and European affairs. France has seen three such periods, most recently from 1997 to 2002, when President Jacques Chirac shared power with Socialist Prime Minister Lionel Jospin.

    The French president can dissolve the National Assembly and call elections before the end of deputies’ terms. The tool has been used repeatedly under since 1958 to resolve political crises, but it carries risks of deepening divisions.

    Macron already tried this path last year after the European elections, when the National Rally surged to a historic win. The move produced a fractured Assembly in which the far right and left now hold more than 320 seats, while centrists and conservatives control 210. That fragmentation has led to chronic instability and a rapid succession of governments.

    While unlikely to win an outright majority, the National Rally views a snap election as a golden chance to come to power. Jordan Bardella, the party president, has said he would be ready to work with Republicans MPs in order to secure a majority.


    Resignation is possible but unlikely

    Macron’s second term is set to end in May 2027 and he has repeatedly said he will not resign. But if his mind changed and he quit, the Constitutional Council would declare a vacancy, the Senate president would assume interim powers and a new presidential election would be held within 35 days.

    On the far left, Melenchon’s France Unbowed has asked for Macron’s departure.

    More surprisingly, and a sign of Macron’s growing isolation inside his own camp, Édouard Philippe, Macron’s first prime minister after he swept to power in 2017 and once a close ally, has suggested the president should step down and call an early presidential election once the 2026 budget is adopted.

    Since 1958 and the inception of the Fifth Republic, only one French president has resigned: Charles De Gaulle after losing a 1969 referendum.

    Petrequin reported from London.

    Copyright 2025 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten or redistributed.

    Photos You Should See – Sept. 2025

    [ad_2]

    Associated Press

    Source link

  • Sanders and Mamdani energize supporters at town hall as NYC mayor’s race enters final stretch

    [ad_1]

    NEW YORK — U.S. Sen. Bernie Sanders and Zohran Mamdani rallied supporters at a town hall in Brooklyn on Saturday, slamming President Donald Trump and boosting their shared progressive message as Mamdani works to energize his base in the final weeks of the New York City mayor’s race.

    The crowd was friendly, and the reception was almost entirely warm.

    The idea of health care as a human right? Cheers. The mere mention of Trump? Heavy boos. The notion of an oligarchy? Even more boos. At one point, the crowd chanted the campaign slogans that helped Mamdani win the Democratic nomination in the race.

    “We will freeze the?” Mamdani asked. The booming response: “Rent!”

    “Make buses fast and?,” he continued.

    “Free!,” the audience yelled.

    The town hall — part of Sanders’ “Fighting Oligarchy” tour, which has drawn massive crowds in red and blue states alike — packed an auditorium in Brooklyn as Mamdani’s campaign barrels toward the November election.

    He is facing off against former Gov. Andrew Cuomo and incumbent Mayor Eric Adams, who are both running as independents, along with Republican Curtis Sliwa, the founder of the Guardian Angels crime patrol group.

    Sanders, an independent who represents Vermont, dubbed Mamdani “the future of the Democratic Party,” while criticizing the state’s top Democratic leaders for not endorsing him.

    “I find it hard to understand how the major Democratic leaders in New York state are not supporting the Democratic candidate,” Sanders said.

    The event, which felt more rah-rah lovefest than the usual caustic questioning of most political town halls, came near the end of a chaotic week in the race.

    Adams has spent the last few days fending off reports that Trump intermediaries have been assessing his willingness to drop out of the contest to take a job with the federal government.

    At the same time, Trump has told reporters he doesn’t want Mamdani, a democratic socialist, to be the city’s next mayor but believes he will win unless two of the three other major candidates exit the race. Trump has also said he thinks Cuomo might be able to win in a one-on-one race, adding, “If you have more than one candidate running against (Mamdani), it can’t be won.”

    Edward Donlon, a 75-year-old Mamdani supporter who trekked from Staten Island to Brooklyn on a rainy day for the town hall, said it would be “outrageous” for the president to get involved in the race.

    “I want to have an honest politician,” said Donlon, a retired attorney. “I’d like to have someone who you can believe what they’re saying.”

    Through the town hall, Mamdani and Sanders, an independent who represents Vermont, fielded mostly friendly questions, though there was one raucous moment where a man was removed by security.

    Just a few minutes into Mamdani’s opening remarks, a man with a shirt that read Cuba and had a Cuban flag approached the stage and began to yell, saying you are a Communist.

    “You know that something has changed when it’s not enough to call us democratic socialists anymore,” Mamdani said as the man was removed by security.

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Bob Murphy: Welcome to MAGA socialism

    [ad_1]

    What do you call it when the state takes partial ownership of a private company? Just asking questions.

    Ten percent of Intel now belongs to the U.S. government. Today’s guest says it’s time to start using the “F word.”

    Economist Bob Murphy is no anti–Donald Trump #resistance fighter quick to shriek “fascism.” In fact, he says he was relieved when Trump won the last election. But the Austrian school economist and host of the Human Action Podcast and The Bob Murphy Show tells us he’s alarmed by the Intel news and the hints from Trump’s chief economist that more companies are next.

    This didn’t start with Trump. Remember the bank bailouts? Ever heard of Fannie Mae? What about the G.M. takeover? This moment has been a longtime coming, and Murphy says one surprising culprit is another institution the president is now trying to exert control over: the Federal Reserve.

    Watch or listen above as we discuss America’s troubling lurch toward China-style “state capitalism,” the bipartisan enthusiasm for consolidating state power over private industry, and why it’s finally time to end the Federal Reserve and how to actually do it.

    00:00 Intro monologue

    00:01:30 Government ownership and capitalism

    00:05:17 Historical context of government intervention

    00:09:24 Sovereign wealth funds: pros and cons

    00:13:20 The role of AI in government policy

    00:17:13 Concerns over nationalization and corporate influence

    00:21:09 The future of corporate partnerships with government

    00:36:13 Trump’s war on the Federal Reserve

    00:39:25 The Federal Reserve’s independence and accountability

    00:46:05 Critique of the Federal Reserve’s effectiveness

    00:55:20 The case against the Federal Reserve

    01:06:14 Navigating the current economic landscape

    Mentioned in the podcast:

    1. “Masa Son Pitches $1 Trillion US AI Hub to TSMC, Trump Team,” by Min-Jeong Lee, Mackenzie Hawkins, and Anto Antony
    2. “Decoding the Structure of the Federal Reserve System,” by TradingView
    3. U.S. Core Inflation Rate, according to Trading Economics
    4. Economic volatlity pre– and post–Federal Reserve, by the Heritage Foundation
    5. Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) on Truth Social: “The CEO of INTEL is highly CONFLICTED and must resign, immediately. There is no other solution to this problem. Thank you for your attention to this problem!“
    6. Acyn on X: “Lutnick: Intel agreed to give us 10% of their company—It is not socialism. This is capitalism.”
    7. “NEC Director Kevin Hassett on Intel deal: It’s possible government will take stake in more companies,” by CNBC
    8. “Trump announces $500 billion ‘Stargate’ AI infrastructure project,” by LiveNOW from FOX
    9. Bob Murphy on X: “maga rn“
    10. “A Comprehensive Case for Ending the Fed,” by Bob Murphy on The Human Action Podcast
    11. Has the Fed been a failure? by George Selgin, William D. Lastrapes, and Lawrence White
    12. “ZEROHEDGE DEBATE! Should We End the Fed? Bob Murphy vs David Beckworth (George Gammon moderates),” by Robert Murphy
    13. “Kelsey Piper: The AI Race is Accelerating,” by Just Asking Questions podcast

    [ad_2]

    Liz Wolfe

    Source link

  • Intel Deal: Trump’s Industrial Policy Is Realism, Not Socialism

    [ad_1]



    Is it Comrade President now?

    Some conservatives are up in arms about President Donald Trump’s decision to have the government buy a stake in Intel.

    That’s state ownership of the means of production, isn’t it? Classic, textbook socialism.

    “If there is anyone who was a halfway prominent mainstream conservative … 10 years ago who now tells me they wouldn’t have screamed about incipient ‘socialism!’ or ‘fascism!’ about Trump’s Intel ‘investment,’” writes Jonah Goldberg on X, “I presumptively assume they are lying … .”

    In fact, a whole school of thought on the Right, going back decades, has championed industrial policies as bold as Trump’s, if not bolder.

    The public face of that school was Pat Buchanan, who was way ahead of the national debate on industrial policy—just as he was on immigration.

    Trump is not a socialist, and America has a long history of government getting involved in owning companies—Amtrak is a familiar example.

    The for-profit but government-owned passenger-rail company was created under Republican President Richard Nixon.

    What Trump is doing with Intel is different from earlier precedents, however.

    Trump sees the Intel deal as a first step toward creating an American “sovereign wealth fund,” with many more investments to follow.

    The president isn’t looking to the past: This is about keeping America competitive with other nations in the 21st century, including communist China, which controls the world’s second- and third-largest sovereign wealth funds.

    A sovereign wealth fund is much like private investment funds, consisting of stocks, bonds, and other assets expected to appreciate in value.

    Traditionally, countries rich in national resources, particularly oil, have used sovereign wealth funds to diversify and grow their economies.

    Instead of being at the mercy of oil prices, petroleum-rich nations such as Norway and Saudi Arabia channel some of their oil revenue into sovereign wealth funds, which then—much like, say, multibillion-dollar university endowments in America—can produce enormous returns.

    Norway pays for about 20% to 25% of its national budget with the world’s largest sovereign wealth fund, the Government Pension Fund, which holds more than $1.7 trillion in assets.

    Is it a bad thing to pay for government with market profits, rather than by raising taxes on citizens or selling debt that eventually has to be repaid with interest?

    A nation pays interest on its national debt but earns interest from a sovereign wealth fund.

    Mainstream conservatives more than 10 years ago were already behind a plan with many of the same advantages and disadvantages of a sovereign wealth fund; namely, “privatizing” Social Security.

    The idea was to let Americans put their compulsory Social Security payments into government-approved funds of their own choosing, which would generate higher returns from market investments than the Social Security Trust Fund could reap from investing exclusively in U.S. Treasury securities.

    Conservatives embraced that as a good free-market idea.

    Is a sovereign wealth fund any different?

    They both carry the same risks, above all what economists call “moral hazard.”

    The country got a taste of it in the Great Recession, when financial institutions that bankrupted themselves with bad investments were declared “too big to fail” and had to be bailed out by Washington and the Federal Reserve.

    The government can’t allow Social Security to go bust, and if the retirement system’s money is invested in private funds, how many of those could Washington allow to fail, even if they made lousy investments?

    Trump is actually taking a double risk—most sovereign wealth funds only aim to maximize returns, producing revenue for the government.

    The president, however, also wants to conduct industrial policy with a sovereign wealth fund, by buying into strategically important but economically troubled companies like Intel.

    Yet the question isn’t just whether America can run a sovereign wealth fund right. It’s also what happens if we do nothing and rivals perfect the strategy.

    Beijing has the $1.3 trillion China Investment Corporation, Hong Kong’s $1 trillion SAFE Investment Company, as well as smaller funds with billions in assets.

    During the Cold War, when America faced an international communist threat sponsored by Moscow, conservatives knew absolute devotion to free markets was self-defeating.

    William F. Buckley Jr., just coming into his own as a conservative leader in 1952, was staunchly committed to capitalism and small government.

    Nevertheless, he wrote:

    “Conservatives, and many Republicans, have got to think this problem through. And if they deem Soviet power a menace to our freedom (as I happen to), they will have to support large armies and air forces, atomic energy, central intelligence, war production boards and the attendant centralization of power in Washington … .”

    Trump is thinking through the problem of our time and how a sovereign wealth fund can tackle it.

    Syndicated with permission from The Daily Signal.

    [ad_2]

    The Daily Signal

    Source link

  • Socialist candidate Mamdani meets with NY Dems as they withhold endorsements

    [ad_1]

    NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

    New York City Democratic mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani met with House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., and Rep. Yvette Clarke, D-N.Y., on Tuesday, as New York Democrats continue to withhold their endorsements ahead of the November election. 

    “Zohran joined Congresswoman Clarke and Congressman Jeffries today to meet with Black clergy leaders from across central Brooklyn,” Mamdani campaign spokesperson Dora Pekec told Fox News. 

    Jeffries and Clarke are among the Democratic leaders, including Gov. Kathy Hochul and Senate Minority Leader Sen. Chuck Schumer, who have yet to endorse Mamdani following his primary win in June. 

    “They engaged in a wide-ranging discussion on a number of issues, including the urgent affordability crisis and the exodus of Black New Yorkers from the five boroughs—and Zohran shared his agenda to make sure every New Yorker can afford to continue to call this city home and live a life of dignity,” Mamdani’s campaign said. 

    JEFFRIES DECLINES TO ENDORSE MAMDANI, SAYS THEY WILL MEET AFTER UGANDA TRIP

    Zohran Mamdani during an election night event on Wednesday, June 25, 2025.  (Christian Monterrosa/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

    Tuesday’s meeting was held at a church in Beford-Stuyvesant, Brooklyn, which is in the heart of Jeffries’ congressional district. Clarke, who also represents parts of Brooklyn, is chair of the Black Congressional Caucus. 

    JEFFRIES GIVES ANSWER FOR NOT YET ENDORSING MAMDANI FOR NYC MAYOR

    “I think there was a very meaningful exchange,” Clarke told NY1 after the meeting. “Assemblyman Mamdani has a platform that he’s been running on, and they wanted to know how that’s applicable to the communities they reside in.”

    Clarke said the pastors “wanted an intimate setting where they could really speak to their lived experiences, the lived experiences of their congregants.”

    She told the same outlet last month that she wanted to ask Mamdani about his past refusal to condemn the term “globalize the intifada,” a term he has since said he would discourage others from using. 

    “I think that it’s best that I have this conversation so that my credibility among my constituents is, you know, intact,” she told NY1, referencing the large Jewish community in her Brooklyn district. 

    Jeffries at Capitol presser

    House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y., conducts his weekly news conference in the Capitol Visitor Center on May 23, 2024. (Tom Williams/CQ-Roll Call, Inc via Getty Images)

    Jeffries met with Mamdani earlier this summer, but the House minority leader has stopped short of endorsing the self-described democratic socialist candidate. 

    Jeffries confirmed to CNN’s “State of the Union” on Sunday his plan to meet with Mamdani this week, while reiterating that his first meeting with Mamdani in July was “very candid and constructive and community-centered.”

    “I don’t think we’ve withheld an endorsement,” Jeffries said. “We are engaging in a conversation about the future of New York City, about the issues that need to be addressed.”

    AOC Bernie Sanders at rally

    Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez and Sen. Bernie Sanders participate in a stop on the “Fighting Oligarchy” tour at the Dignity Health Arena, Theater in Bakersfield, California, on April 15, 2025. (Reuters/Aude Guerrucci)

    While both Democrats stopped short of endorsing Mamdani after their meeting on Tuesday, other New York Democrats, including Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Nydia Velázquez, Jerry Nadler and Adriano Espaillat have thrown their political weight behind the 33-year-old candidate. 

    Mamdani also traveled to Washington, D.C., earlier this summer, where the mayoral hopeful and Ocasio-Cortez hosted a breakfast with national Democrats. Mamdani met with several progressive leaders, including Sen. Bernie Sanders, an early endorser of his campaign. 

    CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

    Still, New York Democratic Reps. Tom Suozzi, Dan Goldman, Gregory Meeks, Ritchie Torres, George Latimer and Grace Meng have yet to endorse Mamdani. 

    Fox News Digital reached out to Jeffries and Clarke for comment but did not immediately receive a response. 

    Deirdre Heavey is a politics writer for Fox News Digital. 

    [ad_2]

    Source link

  • Trump’s Acquisition of Stake in Intel Highlights Similiarities Between Right-Wing Nationalist and Left-Wing Socialist Economic Policies

    [ad_1]

    NA

    Donald Trump’s acquisition of a 10% federal government stake in Intel, a major electronics firm, is an example of the dangerous similarities between right-wing nationalist and left-wing socialist economic policies. Both favor extensive government control, direction, and – as in this case – even ownership of industry. As Reason’s Eric Boehm points out, the idea of US government ownership of major computer chip manufacturers was previously advanced by socialist Senator Bernie Sanders. More generally, Steven Greenhut notes, “MAGA’s ‘right-wing’ policies sometimes seem indistinguishable from left-wing ones.” Government control of the economy is central to Trump’s massive imposition of new tariffs, his immigration restrictions, and more.

    In our 2024 article “The Case Against Nationalism,” my Cato Institute colleague Alex Nowrasteh outline a wide range of similarities between nationalist and socialist economic policies, and also explained how they have common flaws:

    Nationalists in the United States and elsewhere advocate wide-ranging government control of the economy, most notably in the form of industrial policy, protectionism, and immigration restrictionism. In this respect, the nationalism of the right has much in common with the socialism of the left. It’s no accident that the more extreme early 20th-century nationalists, such as the Nazis and Italian fascists, explicitly sought to appropriate socialist economic policies for purposes of helping their preferred ethnic groups, as opposed to the more expressly universalist objectives of left-wing socialists. It should not, therefore, be surprising that nationalist economic policies have many of the same flaws as their socialist counterparts…

    Given the overlap between nationalism and socialism, it should not be surprising that their economic policies have many of the same pitfalls. The most significant are knowledge problems and perverse incentives arising from dangerous concentrations of power.

    During the mid-20th century, Nobel Prize-winning economist Friedrich Hayek famously argued that socialism cannot work because central planners lack the knowledge needed to determine which goods to produce and in what quantities — a concept commonly referred to as the “knowledge problem.” Market prices, he argued, enable producers to know the relative value of different goods and services, and to determine how much consumers value their products.

    Nationalist economic planners, like their socialist counterparts, have no way of knowing this information. They also have no good way of determining which industries government should promote and how much it should promote them….

    For these reasons, nationalist economic planning has produced poverty and stagnation — much like its socialist counterpart. Such were the results in nations like Argentina (where nationalism wrecked one of Latin America’s most successful economies), Spain, and Portugal under their nationalist regimes.

    As for the incentive problem, nationalist economic policy — like socialism — requires concentrated government power. Only thus can politicians and bureaucrats promote their favored industries, exclude foreign goods and workers, and so on. Yet government actors are not disciplined by market prices, nor are they incentivized to seek profit by satisfying consumers like firms in the private sector. They are instead guided by the demands of political leaders and direct their energies toward pleasing state authorities, who increasingly control the purse strings….

    Nationalism does not resolve the knowledge or incentive problems that undermine socialism; government-dominated economies have the same deficiencies regardless of whether the state swears allegiance to a mythical international proletariat, an ethno-cultural group, or a leader who supposedly embodies its culture and virtues… Depending on the degree of state control of the economy, the results may include mismanagement, cronyism, and economic ossification. Nationalism is no substitute for market prices and incentives.

    As Alex likes to put it, nationalism is socialism with different flags, and more ethnic chauvinism.

    Obviously, we are not the first to point out the similarities between nationalism and socialism. The great libertarian economist F.A. Hayek warned about the same tendency in his 1960 essay “Why I am Not a Conservative”:

    [T]his nationalistic bias… frequently provides the bridge from conservatism to
    collectivism: to think in terms of “our” industry or resource is only a short step away
    from demanding that these national assets be directed in the national interest.

    Not all conservatives are nationalistic in this way. Those who are not would do well to condemn right-wing central planning of the economy no less than the left-wing version. Both are harmful and dangerous, for many of the same reasons.

    In addition to it similarities with socialism, nationalist ideology also poses some distinct dangers of its own, such as promoting ethnic bigotry and xenophobia and undermining democratic institutions in ways somewhat different from those characteristic of socialism. Nowrasteh and I cover them in some detail in other parts of our article.

    [ad_2]

    Ilya Somin

    Source link