New York’s Socialist Temptation: Young People’s Idealism Ignores Economics
Socialism,” said the British free speech campaigner Lord Young, “Always begins with a universal vision for the brotherhood of man and ends with people having to eat their own pets.” While exaggerated, the point stands — socialism never delivers what it promises. Yet now, the world capital of capitalism is flirting with that catastrophe. The Democratic nomination for Mayor of New York has been won by an avowed socialist: Zohran Mamdani.
Mamdani doesn’t hide his socialism. It’s all over his campaign website, the socialist magazine Jacobin hails him as one of their own, and he is comfortable with socialist shibboleths like “seize the means of production.” Despite espousing a political philosophy that has seen little electoral success outside of Vermont in recent years, the Democratic voters of the New York City primary swung to him in large numbers as the campaign closed, and he won with a plurality of the vote (though the final ranked choice tally saw him him win a majority).
Among Mamdani’s policies are a rent freeze, shifting the burden of taxation to “richer and whiter neighborhoods,” and city-run grocery stores, one per borough. These are not, shall we say, policies with a stunning track record of success. Countless cities have tried rent control, all with the same inevitable results — supply dries up, properties fall into disrepair, and families are unable to find homes. As the Swedish socialist economist Assar Lindbeck summarized, perhaps understating the problem, “In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city — except for bombing.”
Leaving aside the question of whether taxing “whiter” neighborhoods more can possibly be constitutional, soaking the rich doesn’t work either, as richer people can simply relocate to less punitive jurisdictions. It’s already happening, and Mamdani’s policies will simply exacerbate the “brain drain.” Of course, with fewer entrepreneurs and high-earning professionals, New York will cease to be the crossroads of the world and may well turn into Detroit-on-the-Hudson.
As for city-run stores, municipalities like Erie, Kansas, have been unable to keep the lights on, with customers preferring other ways to get their groceries. Yet New York City owning grocery stores may be more like a nation owning them than a rural township. There the prospects are even worse. Venezuela may be an extreme example, with shortages and bureaucracy making grocery shopping a nightmare, but you don’t even have to imagine Latin American levels of corruption to realize the problems involved. While the stores may be rent- and tax-free, they will still have to compete against the economies of scale, efficient supply lines, and simple know-how of the established grocery chains.
All this is predictable and indeed is a major reason why mainstream economics exists. Yet people still fall for the promises. Why?
Read more at The Daily Economy