Wait--did you say "capitalism has to answer to reality?" In what universe? In American capitalism a handful of millionaires and billionaires get bailed out again and again (golden parachute, anyone?) while millions of people go hungry and die of preventable diseases. In reality, no one needs multiple mansions or yachts or $5,000 cashmere sweaters and everyone needs to eat. I haven't made up my mind yet about Mamdani, but your argument is wildly unconvincing, barely humane, and thoughtlessly unmoved by how systems actually work and affect human behavior. Capitalism is not an individual choice and neither is its antidote. It's a compulsory system that can't be hacked by shopping at thrift stores. It is literally the government's job to make sure people don't go hungry. Considering how many people do go hungry in the current system, I'm willing to at least entertain the possibility of state-run grocery stores, etc.
Hi Jenny—thanks for the pushback. It’s important to surface these disagreements clearly.
It sounds like we’re using the word capitalism to describe two entirely different things. I’m talking about a decentralized system of voluntary exchange, property rights, and competitive feedback—where success is earned and failure costs you. That’s what I mean when I say capitalism “answers to reality.” If your product sucks or your costs balloon, you don’t get a feelings-based exemption. You go out of business.
You’re describing cronyism—where government rigs the game and insulates large firms from failure. And I agree: bailouts, golden parachutes, and corporate welfare are grotesque. But they aren’t symptoms of too much capitalism—they’re symptoms of government interference shielding capitalism from doing what it does best: correct misallocation through loss.
That’s not a small distinction. It’s the difference between a system that scales value creation—and one that clings to failing institutions for ideological reasons.
And we know how the latter turns out.
In systems where prices don’t matter and profit is seen as immoral, we get:
- Empty shelves in Venezuela
- 6-hour bread lines in Cuba
- San Francisco’s public housing waitlists, where people die before their number comes up
- NYC’s $400,000 “affordable” apartments that cost more than market-rate units to build
None of this helps the poor. It traps them in systems that don’t have to work—because nobody gets fired when they fail. That’s what happens when you replace feedback with bureaucracy. It feels humane, but it delivers indifference at scale.
Meanwhile, in the past three decades alone, global extreme poverty fell by nearly 75%—not because of vibes, but because more countries opened their markets and let capitalism do what central planning never could: produce real surplus.
You’re right about one thing: everyone deserves to eat. But if you want more food, you need a system that produces more of it. And historically, that hasn’t been government warehouses—it’s been competitive supply chains responding to demand. You can’t legislate away scarcity, and you can’t bureaucrat your way into abundance.
As for the wealth gap, punishing surplus doesn’t fix deficit.
And about capitalism being “compulsory”—that’s not wrong, but not for the reason you think. It’s not imposed. It’s just… undefeated. Every time a society’s tried to replace voluntary exchange with central planning, things broke. Fast. That’s not ideology—it’s a pattern. You can opt out of capitalism. You just don’t get a functioning food system when you do.
So if we’re serious about outcomes, not aesthetics, we need to stop romanticizing the idea of government grocery stores and start asking a harder question:
What has actually delivered results for the people who need it most?
Spoiler: it’s not council meetings. It’s prices, incentives, and competition.
I’m open to any model that works. But we don’t get to declare war on the one model that’s done more than any other to feed, clothe, and shelter the world and then act shocked when it doesn't work.
We can debate morality all day—but at some point, someone has to grow the food, move the food, and sell the food. Capitalism does that. Bureaucracy doesn’t.
I was discussing with hubby yesterday, what really scares me is the low quality of education these college graduates have. Just take a look at the opposition you are receiving here on your well argued and EXPLAINED ( for those who never took an econ course) breakdown of his policies. They are wearing a metaphorical paper mache helmet. $5000 sweaters? What does that have to do with anything?
“they’re wearing a metaphorical paper mache helmet” is so spot on
it’s not just that they disagree—it’s that they don’t even understand what they’re disagreeing with
we’ve replaced economic literacy with vibes, and now people think “free food” means it magically appears without cost, trade-offs, or systems to sustain it
I'm not an economist, and I think it's probably pretty obvious that my comment above is informed largely by "vibes," but they are the feelings of an observant person who has spent a life beholden to American capitalism. It seems understandable that a person like myself could conflate theoretical capitalism (which exists where in the world exactly?) with the iterations of it that over my lifetime have steadily concentrated wealth and laid waste to environments, communities, and individual lives across the world. When I was 20, one in every 5 or 7 (I forget which) people on earth was a Chinese peasant. Now there are virtually no peasants in China, thanks to Nike and plastic stuff sold at Walmart. While this is a win for capitalism, it ultimately leads us further into environmental crisis without providing real liberation for people. Are the Chinese middle-class better regarded by their government than Chinese peasants were? Debatable.
Your original point (as I understand it) that individuals are responsible for their values and ethics and can either be responsible consumers or flaky materialists is well-taken. I'm suggesting that the capitalism we live within is so rigged against us in so many ways, our desire for gratification and security so hard-wired and turned against us by nefarious advertising geniuses, that it is the exceptional person who does not become a willing slave, a product rather than a person, and a complicit partner in the destruction of everything that has real life-affirming value. The word that comes before any "-ism" is the center and focus of that paradigm, and so in capitalism, we are always led back to an obsessive attention to capital. I long to exist in a world that places that kind of attention on beauty, justice, healthy flourishing, and the unquestioned rights of all living things. I don't believe that world can be found within a capitalist model. Until we figure out how best to right this foundering earth, I'm at least going to listen to leaders who want to use state power, or bureaucracy, to work for someone besides billionaires. If bureaucracy can be so effective in creating inequality, surely it can also be used to reverse course and set us on a more life-affirming track. I trust true public servants more than wealthy capitalists, who all seem prone to an extreme form of hoarding sickness but have somehow escaped the straitjackets they so richly deserve.
you’re right that we don’t live in some pure utopia of free markets. but the answer to corrupted capitalism isn’t more bureaucracy—it’s less insulation from failure
capitalism, at its core, is just a system that rewards what works and punishes what doesn’t. bureaucracies don’t do that. they scale inefficiency and protect failure with layers of moral language
you long for a system built on beauty, justice, and flourishing. so do i. but good intentions don’t fill grocery shelves. competition does. incentives do. feedback loops do
you mentioned China: yes, 600+ million people exited poverty—largely because they integrated markets, property rights, and trade. not because they nationalized grocery stores
between 1981 and 2015, China’s extreme poverty rate fell from 88% to under 2%—that’s the single largest poverty reduction event in human history
you don’t need to love capitalism. but you should ask—what system has ever done more to feed people, raise living standards, or hold bad ideas accountable? would love some examples.
I wish I could provide you examples. I wish we had a model to apply to the problems we're up against at this moment in history. Capitalism raises living standards but in its current expression has also brought us to a crisis of empty materialism, nihilism, loneliness and disconnection, inequality, and environmental degradation. Are humans able to parse out free markets from corporate greed and tyranny? It doesn't seem so. So it is working, as far as billionaires are concerned. Maybe capitalism is the best system we've yet devised and maybe it isn't, but either way, it seems to have reached the end of its utility and has entered an extreme mode with potentially existential repercussions. We better come up with something more workable, less vulnerable to humanity's worst instincts, and putting an emphasis on care--for one another and for the world we inhabit--seems to me a significant course correction.
I do want to thank you, Stepfanie, for helping me think through some of these "feels." I'm gratified for the engagement even if we're not 100% eye to eye, and I'm actually moved that we're both motivated toward a more generally flourishing existence on planet earth. That's hopeful.
thank you for the thoughtful reply Jenny, truly. i respect that you’re grappling with this sincerely
that said—“i wish i could provide examples” is kind of the whole point. if capitalism has flaws (and it does), it still has receipts. it built the systems we rely on, lifted billions out of poverty, and—despite the mess—still feeds most of the world
what worries me isn’t critique (that’s healthy); it’s abandoning functional systems without a better one ready. “care” is not a supply chain. “community” is not a logistics model. vibes aren’t policy. and we’ve seen, time and again, what happens when idealism replaces accountability: shelves go bare, corruption thrives, and the poorest suffer first
if we’re going to redesign society, i just think we should start with what works—even if it’s imperfect
I would argue that anyone born after ‘88 has never experienced full and true capitalism. Things really took a turn for the worse in 2001 with the start of our middle eastern forever wars. In 2008, instead of businesses dying and paying the consequences for poor practices, we saw massive bailouts which is a rigged market rather than a free market. The details around 2008 are too numerous for me to explore in a single response, but Stepfanie is correct in her distinctions.
I’ve attempted to make these distinctions clear in several conversations I’ve had over the years, but often it is revealed that many folks aren’t actually looking for solutions.
Your line “If bureaucracy can be so effective in creating inequality, surely it can also be used to reverse course and set us on a more life-affirming track.” has been proven wrong time immemorial, and it is in fact a powerful bureaucracy that enables the distorted version of capitalism we all despise.
A free market is a beautiful and organic method of proving an idea or business. The problems arise when any group begins to place “shoulds” upon outcomes, thus trying to manipulate what would otherwise be organic and true freedom. Ironically, many far left folks understand this idea in terms of self expression i.e. Pride celebrations and embracing non traditional lifestyles. What’s fascinating is the disconnect. On the one hand, it’s virtuous to allow humans to freely express themselves and seek communities which embrace this freedom, but for some reason, it’s morally wrong to freely create and express one’s desire to serve by creating successful businesses. See the incoherence?
I will concede that corporations and private equity have created massive problems. We have allowed poison in our food for years, we have allowed private equity to gobble up a third or more of the housing stock, and we have allowed American workers to be replaced with indentured servants from across the globe. These are all caused by the intense drive to max out profit, and in a secular/amoral society, government regulation needs to set protections for its citizens. This does not however mean the government should replace the function of private enterprise.
thank you—this is such a clear, grounded response. you articulated the exact tension we were trying to surface: a distorted market isn’t the same thing as a free one. and the more people try to fix the distortions with more centralized control (instead of removing the original interference), the worse it gets.
appreciate you adding the nuance. the private equity/housing point especially hits. it’s not that markets are flawless—it’s that every time the state steps in to ‘correct’ them, it seems to create a new class of insiders and an even more rigged game.
if only we could apply the left’s commitment to personal freedom across domains, not just selectively. great points all around.
I mostly disagree with the practicality of your response but resonate with the sentiment you hold of wanting to explore new ways of doing things. What I will say is, Mamdani’s ideas sound half baked. If we really believed we could use bureaucratic systems to improve the average New Yorker’s day to day reality, there seem to be substantially better proposals that don’t forfeit power to a system that has proved its incompetence one too many times. Off the top of my head, instead of a state led grocery store, why not subsidize or provide grants to local community food co-ops or public gardens that produce and share produce with local communities? I feel there are ways of offering assistance that do not completely remove the power from the people and instead still incentivizes and rewards the free market.
Also how are you “beholden” to a capitalist system? Especially when a capitalist system wouldn’t have progressive taxes, welfare etc? We are more akin to a social democracy than a capitalist system.
Yes--love that Preamble! "...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
I didn't say anything about taking from one to give to another either. I'm just pointing out that it's the government's job to maintain a framework that makes "the general welfare" possible. It is not my experience or opinion that the US functions well as a social democracy. It is increasingly a kleptocracy veering alarmingly close to oligarchy.
Notice it says “Provide…defence” and “promote…general welfare”
One is to be provided and paid for by the government, the other is to be enabled.
You said it is “literally the government’s job…”. The only way the government can do that job is to take, ie tax, from one to give to another. That is how government run grocery stores would work. The government has consistently proven it can’t run anything at cost thus these grocery stores would lose money that would need to be covered by the tax payer. Taking from one to give to another.
With respect to yachts and cashmere sweaters you do realize there are people who get paid to make those thus they create jobs. Making fewer would cause hardship and job loss for those who make them, not the billionaires.
Remember in 2009 when people like you were upset about CEOs flying on private jets? Y’all won a victory by making them give those jets up. But what did you really do? You caused them to fly 1st class. Meanwhile, and I can say this with knowledge as I’m in the industry, you caused massive layoffs of the people who built those jets, the pilots, the workers who fueled them, the staffs who did the scheduling, the flight attendants who provided service on them, the engineers who designed them, and all the people who supplied parts, engines etc. You made the CEOs fly first class without realizing you put 10s of thousands of workers out of work.
Now you want to put yacht builders and cashmere sweaters makers out of work?
people forget that luxury isn’t waste, it’s jobs. every cashmere sweater and private jet is a tiny supply chain feeding families, funding skills, and keeping entire industries alive. destroy the demand and you don’t humble billionaires—you bankrupt craftsmen
and yep, government “provision” means force. there’s no magic money drawer at city hall. if the state wants to give someone free groceries, it has to take that money from someone else. redistribution isn’t evil—but pretending it’s free definitely is
if we want abundance, we should build systems that create more—not punish the ones that already do
I most definitely do not want cashmere to go away. And I am not responsible for putting people out of work or massive layoffs. I can't imagine who you are thinking of when you say "People like you." I don't believe we've ever met, Jeff.
And yes, I would like for the government to do better at promoting the general welfare, part of which is economic.
Yep. You could say that those uber-wealthy are taking from everyone else. I'm pointing out that they have those things while many, many have nowhere near enough. Is this the framework the authors of the Constitution envisioned? I'm no mind reader, but I'm guessing not. So can we build a system where everyone has enough even if it means fewer yachts and mansions for billionaires? Or is that an unreasonable hope?
Why stop at grocery stores? New York needs public brothels. Young nubile woman have an abundance of sexiness and soft flesh that they could be sharing with those in need. The need is tremendous. Don't worry, the young women will be fairly compensated based upon what a committee of their fellow citizens deems is fair. Don't be a bigot, support public brothels to ensure an equal distribution of happiness.
Sounds like the author is out of touch… or very much in touch with the ideology of business schools: greed and selfishness will make a better society. I see where you’re coming from: the classic trickle-down theory, which has never worked and never will.
I’m a socialist and agree that capitalism works but let’s get out of the “communist vs capitalist” lens by always citing extreme examples of countries like Cuba or Venezuela. There’s a balance to strike and alarmist opinions like this do not help move the conversation forward.
More capitalism is not what we need at the moment.
This article is completely uninformed about economics, it’s just an ideological (thatcherite) blurb.
Hi there—appreciate the engagement, but this is a misread.
I never said greed makes a better society. I said incentives do.
Capitalism—at its core—isn’t about trickle-down theory or Ayn Rand fantasies. It’s about voluntary exchange, competition, and feedback loops. When something doesn’t work, it dies. That’s the discipline that keeps systems honest.
And while it’s trendy to dismiss Venezuela and Cuba as “extreme examples,” they’re not edge cases—they’re the logical outcomes of central planning without price signals. It’s not alarmist to point that out; it’s pattern recognition.
Yes, there are balances to strike. But Mamdani’s proposal isn’t a “balance”—it’s a city-run, no-profit grocery monopoly with no plan for supply, logistics, or incentives. That’s not economic nuance—it’s fantasy.
And if your idea of a rebuttal is to say “you sound like a Thatcherite,” then you’re not actually engaging with the substance. You’re just flinching at tone.
Let’s debate ideas. But at least make it clear you’ve read them first.
I agree capitalism in theory has interesting mechanisms which improve resources allocation however it’s a bit naive to think it’s sufficient on its own.
Does the current system of incentives work ? Not anymore, it’s partly broken because the system incentivise accumulation of capital more than work.
We are still in that trickle-down capitalism at the moment, it’s been 40 years of it and we are seeing the consequences unravelling: deep levels of poverty and inequality.
It’s increasingly difficult to live under a roof, put food on the table and access healthcare.
Working is not sufficient to live and progress in society anymore. The middle class is eroding and the assets of the state are being stripped by the wealthiest.
That’s what your article is not engaging with.
Having a handful of grocery stores selling food at affordable prices is a drop in the ocean of our current system, but it will make a huge difference for some people. They have some in France and it definitely helps. Not everything needs to be a market based solution, especially when it doesn’t work.
Free transport is not unheard of, we have it in some cities in Europe, it works and they have not gone bankrupt.
A wealth tax is a good idea to address the deep inequality of tax between employment income and capital gains. Not sure how it will work just to implement in one city rather than nationally. I think not as many of the wealthy will leave the city as they claim they’ll do. They have a life in that city, it offers them a lifestyle.
So this isn’t fantasy if it’s implemented, like in other places.
Running an election is always vibes whether it’s left or right so nothing new on that front. As you rightly say let’s see what happens now.
I think you need to open your mind to other ways societies organise themselves, outside of the “capitalist vs communist” lens.
I’m not even thinking of a utopian future; there are plenty of initiatives, whether by the state or other organisations, that help address what the pricing / competition / incentive do not or not entirely. That’s the nuance we have in our economies. The policies of that mayor candidate go in this direction.
As much as I have found your other articles brilliant and insightful, this one seems a bit closed minded and uninformed.
Maybe it’s you who is out of touch. You claim we don’t need more capitalism as though we actually had any. A capitalist system wouldn’t have 70k pages of progressive tax code nor the safety nets and welfare programs we have. We are closer to a social democracy than capitalism.
The problem isn’t how many pages but what percentage of tax.
We live in an era where taxes on capital revenues are much lower than on work.
On top of that large corporations do schemes to pay even less taxes.
So you are effectively living in an empty shell of a social democracy because the redistribution is not happening effectively. The result is a deeply unequal capitalist society.
So yes when I say we don’t need more capitalism I mean increasing taxes for the capitalists (even if it’s just the wealthiest 1%).
Saying that we don’t live in a capitalist system is not the truth.
A progressive tax system where the top 1% pay 45% of all taxes
and the top 50% pay 97% of all taxes isn’t capitalism.
It’s not that the rich need to pay more it’s that the bottom 50% don’t pay their fair share.
With respect to corporations they set their profit goals at the beginning of the year and factor all of their cost, including taxes, into the sales price of their product, ie you pay corporate sales tax thus there shouldn’t be any.
The proper term for the American system is “a mixed-market economic system”. It has facets of both capitalism and socialism.
With respect to taxes those numbers include people capital gains. Capital gains are considered income and are reported when you calculate your income tax.
With respect to the capital gains rates the are lower 1) to incentives investment which why the short term tax rate is significantly higher than the long term rate and 2) it is money you already paid tax on.
Why do you think taking 30% of someone else’s earnings is ok? What did you do to deserve it?
And yes, the bottom 50% should pay more. A large portion of that 50% pay 0% in taxes. Taxes don’t work by taxing a few for the many. There just isn’t enough money there, ie you could take 100% of all the U.S. billionaires wealth and not even fund the U.S. government for one year. In order for a tax system to work everyone should contribute an equal percentage. Forcing a few to carry the burden for the rest is what is immoral.
Interesting how you think financial success is immoral.
I think we fundamentally have a different view of what is moral and immoral, and what constitute a fair working tax system.
We already have flat taxes as you describe: VAT (and here in the UK council tax) so the bottom 50% pay their fair share, especially since they contribute the most to consumption spending.
Beyond the moral aspect, I don’t think it makes sense to have a flat income rate economically as you cut the disposable income of households, which then reduces consumption.
Encouraging investment if you don’t have a middle class able to spend what you produce is pointless.
I see your point, and on paper capitalism sounds great in terms of finding the most optimal outcomes. However, like so many things, capitalism is not binary and neither is any governing system, and the issues relating to it are very nuanced . I'd argue that the West's emphasis and overreliance on capitalism and belief it to be the solution to all inefficiencies is wrong. I think you the distinction should be made between capitalism and competition (which is typically a feature of capitalism).
My biggest grudge with capitalism comes from the values it teaches and instills. Greed and selfishness. Exploitation. The housing crisis would never occur without capitalism. Moreover, in times where in many societies people lack religion to provide with values they will naturally turn to what the system values. I believe societies which overemphasise capitals as well as value greed and selfishness cannot function correctly.
Totally fair to say capitalism isn’t binary—nothing is. But your critique is aimed at a caricature, not the system I’m defending.
Greed and selfishness aren’t taught by capitalism. They exist in humans. Capitalism just acknowledges that and builds systems that channel self-interest into productive behavior—by forcing businesses to serve others in order to survive. If you don’t create value, you don’t last.
The housing crisis wasn’t caused by capitalism—it was caused by a mix of restricted supply, zoning laws, and misaligned incentives, many of which stem from government interference in the market, not laissez-faire policy.
As for values: yes, systems shape culture. But I’d argue a society where people trade value freely, keep what they earn, and are free to build without state permission teaches responsibility better than a system that outsources all morality to bureaucrats.
The alternative isn’t a values-free utopia. It’s a top-down morality handed out by whoever wins the next election. Choose carefully.
I'd argue that is the the system you're defending, or at least, what the system you defend inevitably evolves into without any government interference. But I ask you this, if the system continously rewards self-interest and individualism how will that not naturally translate into teaching that greed and selfishness are required to get ahead in life?
In my eyes, the housing crisis ultimately stems from housing being seen as an investment, not as the basic necessity which it is. I've had many acquaintances and family who bought property specifically for the sole purpose of renting and keeping as an asset. In the meantime homelessness rates are skyrocketimg and first time buyers are priced out of the property market. Is that not the system rewarding greed and selfishness?
What about certain markets and industries which naturally result in monopolies and unfair competition. Should the government allow monopolies to act freely without any restriction?
I'm afraid neither capitalism nor socialism will be the solution, as I mentioned these things are not binary however, well planned and executed government intervention is necessary to restrict the worst capitalist tendencies.
you bring up valid frustrations—housing speculation, monopolistic behavior, widening inequality. but i’d argue these are distortions of capitalism, not inherent to it
a functioning capitalist system isn’t one where greed runs wild—it’s one where risk is real, failure is allowed, and profit reflects actual value creation. when governments bail out failed firms, block competition through red tape, or artificially inflate asset markets, that’s not capitalism—it’s cronyism. and it’s usually government interference that causes those distortions
that said, i’m genuinely curious: if capitalism’s flaws are baked in, what system do you think works better? not hypothetically, but in practice. because the places most often cited—nordic countries, germany, etc.—aren’t anti-capitalist. they rely on markets, property rights, and competition just as much as we do. they’ve just made different regulatory tradeoffs
so i’m open to tuning the system. but the core engine—free exchange, voluntary trade, real feedback from failure—is what makes prosperity scale. take that away, and you’re left with central planning, wishful thinking, and empty shelves
I agree with your points, and it seems we acknowledge similar issues although our definitions and solutions appear to differ.
Its clear our system in its current form is failing most people with rapidly rising wealth inequality being a clear and imo most important issue. In my eyes, more government intervention is required, as long as its carefully planned and competently executed.
Honestly I don't know what system would be better, it might not even exist. These things are so unbelievably complex it would be impossible for one person to know the answer. However something has to change. I agree with your original point, government grocery shops and other Mamdani policies are practically completely unreasonable but so are so many other politicians and party manifestos.
Most people are desperate for change which can be largely attributed to the system failing most people.
The fatal flaw in this essay is that it's taken the colorful garden of human life and presented it to us in black and white. No nuance, no awareness of how a garden actually grows. A paean to capitalism. And a sort of closet refutal of the idea that government should serve it's citizens in favor of capitalists (those who build things). This in spite of our lived experience.
Run away capitalism, a capitalism with few breaks on it, results in vast harm to ordinary citizens. I wonder if Stepfanie is aware of the age of the robber barrons and if she sees anything similar to that going on now. I wonder how she squares her position with the fact that just a handful of individuals own 90% of the wealth and the benefits of that wealth have decidely not trickled down. I wonder if she knows anything about the feudal system and how that worked out for people.
I wonder whether or not she's ever traveled extensively in or lived anywhere but the country she's in now because she for sure hasn't had any experience with social democracies (e.g. the Nordic countries, Germany, UK and others) - she doesn't mention them, it's as though they don't exist for her. She seems unaware that they are baseline capitalist but with a heavy emphasis on the fact that citizens' needs must be prioritized as well.
Hi there—appreciate your passion, but you might be arguing with a version of me that doesn’t exist.
Yes, I’m aware of the robber barons. I’m also aware that today’s richest companies largely deliver things people voluntarily use daily—phones, delivery, communication, energy—and that the modern poor, in most capitalist countries, live with amenities unimaginable to kings a century ago.
Yes, I’ve traveled. And yes, I know that Nordic countries are not socialist—they’re market economies with high taxes and strong welfare states. The engine is still capitalism. The safety net rides on its surplus.
Yes, inequality exists. But that’s not the same thing as systemic failure. Capitalism allocates rewards for value—not perfectly, but far more dynamically than any system humans have tried.
No one is denying that governments should serve citizens. The question is how. Centralized control doesn’t fix dysfunction—it often produces it. You want a system that scales competence and corrects failure. That’s what markets do, when allowed to operate.
So before calling it black-and-white, maybe consider that clarity isn’t the absence of nuance—it’s the result of working through it.
Of course companies get rich by delivering things people consume daily, things they need as well as those that serve no other purpose than making them happy or their lives easier. But you seem to avoid any discussion of how things actually work, preferring to focus on a platitude: "life is better now than ever before". I think that could be said at any point in human existance.
Capitalism is based on the free market. It's also based on profit. The reason people who own companies produce goods that people want is to make money for themselves. All good when that system is in balance but as we've seen throughout history that system can be abused. Company A is losing market share to companies B and C. But Co A has a fat bank accouny and an army of folks who can come up with a plan and before you know it they've swallowed B and C. And then jack their prices astronomically. We see it all the time; it's particularly clear in the medication market and agriculture which now has very few family run farms. Few (if any) corporations have ever willingly not focused on increasing their profit. In social democracies the governemnt sees that as their job.
You say you've traveled. I don't know what that means to you. Traveled and saw the sights? Stayed in hotels? Spent ages wandering neighborhoods/sitting in pubs getting to know the locals? I don't know. But I've lived in other countries and I can tell you that life is gentler there. There's a huge awareness of the importance of quality of life/life balance so even the part time grocery clerk is free to take two weeks worth of vacation. There's a community understanding that people should not suffer because they can't afford to see a doctor or be unable to read a book because they can't afford glasses. There's an understanding that when one group benefits, everyone benefits. Is it perfect? Of course not. But the sense of people caring for people is ingrained and evident in general.
I really wish that someone would love me like people who love capitalism. Most points was already made in the previous comment so I just put it simply: check on your privlages, love. You must be really privlages to see system that failing AWFULY working class as something that is advantages to most of us. Capitalism used to work but now we are in the late stage capitalism and if you're not rich already- you won't be, or die trying. You're closer to an immigrant on a boat than you'll ever be to Elon Musk. Wish you reflection ❤️
i agree with most of what you are saying to a point. yes, mamdani aesthetic politics if he wins will cause damage and launch thousands of research papers, almost like a political experiment. and the speaking for, not to, his target audience(cause it really does feel theatrical) really paints a picture of get behind me i'll fix the big bad government. however, i think this essay speaks too cold to the idea of helping the barely helping themselves. is mamdani selling hopium, absolutely. is it impossible for systems to be tuned and tweaked to support those who need it while also sticking to the pure form of capitalism you refer to but seemingly does not exist due to unnecessary regulatory and corrupt governmental interference, i don't think so. all in all, mamdani speaks to a hunger people have, of the government doing its duty and caring for its people, and that support is so high that even without any concrete workable policies, that shamble of a party should take note....and while there are at it, get some competent people to give people what they need.
i'm still really stuck on him being a governance and sociological experiment tho
Appreciate this, Eric—it’s one of the more honest and nuanced comments I've received on this piece.
I agree: Mamdani is a governance experiment in aesthetic politics. A vibe-first candidate with no plan, banking on narrative over infrastructure. And yes, the hunger he’s tapping into is real. People are exhausted with systems that feel extractive and indifferent. But that’s exactly why it’s dangerous to mistake symbolic gestures for functioning policy.
We should be pushing for better systems—ones that do help the most vulnerable—but that requires competence, not slogans. And the hard truth is: systems that work are often boring. They’re not utopian. They don’t sell on Instagram. They just… function.
You’re right to say capitalism needs guardrails. But Mamdani isn’t tweaking a system—he’s proposing a replacement without knowing how the original worked. That’s not revolution. That’s malpractice.
Wait--did you say "capitalism has to answer to reality?" In what universe? In American capitalism a handful of millionaires and billionaires get bailed out again and again (golden parachute, anyone?) while millions of people go hungry and die of preventable diseases. In reality, no one needs multiple mansions or yachts or $5,000 cashmere sweaters and everyone needs to eat. I haven't made up my mind yet about Mamdani, but your argument is wildly unconvincing, barely humane, and thoughtlessly unmoved by how systems actually work and affect human behavior. Capitalism is not an individual choice and neither is its antidote. It's a compulsory system that can't be hacked by shopping at thrift stores. It is literally the government's job to make sure people don't go hungry. Considering how many people do go hungry in the current system, I'm willing to at least entertain the possibility of state-run grocery stores, etc.
Hi Jenny—thanks for the pushback. It’s important to surface these disagreements clearly.
It sounds like we’re using the word capitalism to describe two entirely different things. I’m talking about a decentralized system of voluntary exchange, property rights, and competitive feedback—where success is earned and failure costs you. That’s what I mean when I say capitalism “answers to reality.” If your product sucks or your costs balloon, you don’t get a feelings-based exemption. You go out of business.
You’re describing cronyism—where government rigs the game and insulates large firms from failure. And I agree: bailouts, golden parachutes, and corporate welfare are grotesque. But they aren’t symptoms of too much capitalism—they’re symptoms of government interference shielding capitalism from doing what it does best: correct misallocation through loss.
That’s not a small distinction. It’s the difference between a system that scales value creation—and one that clings to failing institutions for ideological reasons.
And we know how the latter turns out.
In systems where prices don’t matter and profit is seen as immoral, we get:
- Empty shelves in Venezuela
- 6-hour bread lines in Cuba
- San Francisco’s public housing waitlists, where people die before their number comes up
- NYC’s $400,000 “affordable” apartments that cost more than market-rate units to build
None of this helps the poor. It traps them in systems that don’t have to work—because nobody gets fired when they fail. That’s what happens when you replace feedback with bureaucracy. It feels humane, but it delivers indifference at scale.
Meanwhile, in the past three decades alone, global extreme poverty fell by nearly 75%—not because of vibes, but because more countries opened their markets and let capitalism do what central planning never could: produce real surplus.
You’re right about one thing: everyone deserves to eat. But if you want more food, you need a system that produces more of it. And historically, that hasn’t been government warehouses—it’s been competitive supply chains responding to demand. You can’t legislate away scarcity, and you can’t bureaucrat your way into abundance.
As for the wealth gap, punishing surplus doesn’t fix deficit.
And about capitalism being “compulsory”—that’s not wrong, but not for the reason you think. It’s not imposed. It’s just… undefeated. Every time a society’s tried to replace voluntary exchange with central planning, things broke. Fast. That’s not ideology—it’s a pattern. You can opt out of capitalism. You just don’t get a functioning food system when you do.
So if we’re serious about outcomes, not aesthetics, we need to stop romanticizing the idea of government grocery stores and start asking a harder question:
What has actually delivered results for the people who need it most?
Spoiler: it’s not council meetings. It’s prices, incentives, and competition.
I’m open to any model that works. But we don’t get to declare war on the one model that’s done more than any other to feed, clothe, and shelter the world and then act shocked when it doesn't work.
We can debate morality all day—but at some point, someone has to grow the food, move the food, and sell the food. Capitalism does that. Bureaucracy doesn’t.
I was discussing with hubby yesterday, what really scares me is the low quality of education these college graduates have. Just take a look at the opposition you are receiving here on your well argued and EXPLAINED ( for those who never took an econ course) breakdown of his policies. They are wearing a metaphorical paper mache helmet. $5000 sweaters? What does that have to do with anything?
one of my favorite replies, thanks Lucy!
“they’re wearing a metaphorical paper mache helmet” is so spot on
it’s not just that they disagree—it’s that they don’t even understand what they’re disagreeing with
we’ve replaced economic literacy with vibes, and now people think “free food” means it magically appears without cost, trade-offs, or systems to sustain it
the $5k sweater sent me too
I'm not an economist, and I think it's probably pretty obvious that my comment above is informed largely by "vibes," but they are the feelings of an observant person who has spent a life beholden to American capitalism. It seems understandable that a person like myself could conflate theoretical capitalism (which exists where in the world exactly?) with the iterations of it that over my lifetime have steadily concentrated wealth and laid waste to environments, communities, and individual lives across the world. When I was 20, one in every 5 or 7 (I forget which) people on earth was a Chinese peasant. Now there are virtually no peasants in China, thanks to Nike and plastic stuff sold at Walmart. While this is a win for capitalism, it ultimately leads us further into environmental crisis without providing real liberation for people. Are the Chinese middle-class better regarded by their government than Chinese peasants were? Debatable.
Your original point (as I understand it) that individuals are responsible for their values and ethics and can either be responsible consumers or flaky materialists is well-taken. I'm suggesting that the capitalism we live within is so rigged against us in so many ways, our desire for gratification and security so hard-wired and turned against us by nefarious advertising geniuses, that it is the exceptional person who does not become a willing slave, a product rather than a person, and a complicit partner in the destruction of everything that has real life-affirming value. The word that comes before any "-ism" is the center and focus of that paradigm, and so in capitalism, we are always led back to an obsessive attention to capital. I long to exist in a world that places that kind of attention on beauty, justice, healthy flourishing, and the unquestioned rights of all living things. I don't believe that world can be found within a capitalist model. Until we figure out how best to right this foundering earth, I'm at least going to listen to leaders who want to use state power, or bureaucracy, to work for someone besides billionaires. If bureaucracy can be so effective in creating inequality, surely it can also be used to reverse course and set us on a more life-affirming track. I trust true public servants more than wealthy capitalists, who all seem prone to an extreme form of hoarding sickness but have somehow escaped the straitjackets they so richly deserve.
you’re right that we don’t live in some pure utopia of free markets. but the answer to corrupted capitalism isn’t more bureaucracy—it’s less insulation from failure
capitalism, at its core, is just a system that rewards what works and punishes what doesn’t. bureaucracies don’t do that. they scale inefficiency and protect failure with layers of moral language
you long for a system built on beauty, justice, and flourishing. so do i. but good intentions don’t fill grocery shelves. competition does. incentives do. feedback loops do
you mentioned China: yes, 600+ million people exited poverty—largely because they integrated markets, property rights, and trade. not because they nationalized grocery stores
between 1981 and 2015, China’s extreme poverty rate fell from 88% to under 2%—that’s the single largest poverty reduction event in human history
you don’t need to love capitalism. but you should ask—what system has ever done more to feed people, raise living standards, or hold bad ideas accountable? would love some examples.
I wish I could provide you examples. I wish we had a model to apply to the problems we're up against at this moment in history. Capitalism raises living standards but in its current expression has also brought us to a crisis of empty materialism, nihilism, loneliness and disconnection, inequality, and environmental degradation. Are humans able to parse out free markets from corporate greed and tyranny? It doesn't seem so. So it is working, as far as billionaires are concerned. Maybe capitalism is the best system we've yet devised and maybe it isn't, but either way, it seems to have reached the end of its utility and has entered an extreme mode with potentially existential repercussions. We better come up with something more workable, less vulnerable to humanity's worst instincts, and putting an emphasis on care--for one another and for the world we inhabit--seems to me a significant course correction.
I do want to thank you, Stepfanie, for helping me think through some of these "feels." I'm gratified for the engagement even if we're not 100% eye to eye, and I'm actually moved that we're both motivated toward a more generally flourishing existence on planet earth. That's hopeful.
thank you for the thoughtful reply Jenny, truly. i respect that you’re grappling with this sincerely
that said—“i wish i could provide examples” is kind of the whole point. if capitalism has flaws (and it does), it still has receipts. it built the systems we rely on, lifted billions out of poverty, and—despite the mess—still feeds most of the world
what worries me isn’t critique (that’s healthy); it’s abandoning functional systems without a better one ready. “care” is not a supply chain. “community” is not a logistics model. vibes aren’t policy. and we’ve seen, time and again, what happens when idealism replaces accountability: shelves go bare, corruption thrives, and the poorest suffer first
if we’re going to redesign society, i just think we should start with what works—even if it’s imperfect
i really appreciate the honest exchange, x
I would argue that anyone born after ‘88 has never experienced full and true capitalism. Things really took a turn for the worse in 2001 with the start of our middle eastern forever wars. In 2008, instead of businesses dying and paying the consequences for poor practices, we saw massive bailouts which is a rigged market rather than a free market. The details around 2008 are too numerous for me to explore in a single response, but Stepfanie is correct in her distinctions.
I’ve attempted to make these distinctions clear in several conversations I’ve had over the years, but often it is revealed that many folks aren’t actually looking for solutions.
Your line “If bureaucracy can be so effective in creating inequality, surely it can also be used to reverse course and set us on a more life-affirming track.” has been proven wrong time immemorial, and it is in fact a powerful bureaucracy that enables the distorted version of capitalism we all despise.
A free market is a beautiful and organic method of proving an idea or business. The problems arise when any group begins to place “shoulds” upon outcomes, thus trying to manipulate what would otherwise be organic and true freedom. Ironically, many far left folks understand this idea in terms of self expression i.e. Pride celebrations and embracing non traditional lifestyles. What’s fascinating is the disconnect. On the one hand, it’s virtuous to allow humans to freely express themselves and seek communities which embrace this freedom, but for some reason, it’s morally wrong to freely create and express one’s desire to serve by creating successful businesses. See the incoherence?
I will concede that corporations and private equity have created massive problems. We have allowed poison in our food for years, we have allowed private equity to gobble up a third or more of the housing stock, and we have allowed American workers to be replaced with indentured servants from across the globe. These are all caused by the intense drive to max out profit, and in a secular/amoral society, government regulation needs to set protections for its citizens. This does not however mean the government should replace the function of private enterprise.
thank you—this is such a clear, grounded response. you articulated the exact tension we were trying to surface: a distorted market isn’t the same thing as a free one. and the more people try to fix the distortions with more centralized control (instead of removing the original interference), the worse it gets.
appreciate you adding the nuance. the private equity/housing point especially hits. it’s not that markets are flawless—it’s that every time the state steps in to ‘correct’ them, it seems to create a new class of insiders and an even more rigged game.
if only we could apply the left’s commitment to personal freedom across domains, not just selectively. great points all around.
I mostly disagree with the practicality of your response but resonate with the sentiment you hold of wanting to explore new ways of doing things. What I will say is, Mamdani’s ideas sound half baked. If we really believed we could use bureaucratic systems to improve the average New Yorker’s day to day reality, there seem to be substantially better proposals that don’t forfeit power to a system that has proved its incompetence one too many times. Off the top of my head, instead of a state led grocery store, why not subsidize or provide grants to local community food co-ops or public gardens that produce and share produce with local communities? I feel there are ways of offering assistance that do not completely remove the power from the people and instead still incentivizes and rewards the free market.
It is not the government’s job to feed people.
What is the government's job, then, Jeff? If not to provide for the safety and well-being of its people?
Also how are you “beholden” to a capitalist system? Especially when a capitalist system wouldn’t have progressive taxes, welfare etc? We are more akin to a social democracy than a capitalist system.
It can be found here
https://constitution.congress.gov/constitution/
Nothing in there about taking from one to give to another.
Yes--love that Preamble! "...establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity..."
I didn't say anything about taking from one to give to another either. I'm just pointing out that it's the government's job to maintain a framework that makes "the general welfare" possible. It is not my experience or opinion that the US functions well as a social democracy. It is increasingly a kleptocracy veering alarmingly close to oligarchy.
Notice it says “Provide…defence” and “promote…general welfare”
One is to be provided and paid for by the government, the other is to be enabled.
You said it is “literally the government’s job…”. The only way the government can do that job is to take, ie tax, from one to give to another. That is how government run grocery stores would work. The government has consistently proven it can’t run anything at cost thus these grocery stores would lose money that would need to be covered by the tax payer. Taking from one to give to another.
With respect to yachts and cashmere sweaters you do realize there are people who get paid to make those thus they create jobs. Making fewer would cause hardship and job loss for those who make them, not the billionaires.
Remember in 2009 when people like you were upset about CEOs flying on private jets? Y’all won a victory by making them give those jets up. But what did you really do? You caused them to fly 1st class. Meanwhile, and I can say this with knowledge as I’m in the industry, you caused massive layoffs of the people who built those jets, the pilots, the workers who fueled them, the staffs who did the scheduling, the flight attendants who provided service on them, the engineers who designed them, and all the people who supplied parts, engines etc. You made the CEOs fly first class without realizing you put 10s of thousands of workers out of work.
Now you want to put yacht builders and cashmere sweaters makers out of work?
this is such a clean breakdown—thank you
people forget that luxury isn’t waste, it’s jobs. every cashmere sweater and private jet is a tiny supply chain feeding families, funding skills, and keeping entire industries alive. destroy the demand and you don’t humble billionaires—you bankrupt craftsmen
and yep, government “provision” means force. there’s no magic money drawer at city hall. if the state wants to give someone free groceries, it has to take that money from someone else. redistribution isn’t evil—but pretending it’s free definitely is
if we want abundance, we should build systems that create more—not punish the ones that already do
I most definitely do not want cashmere to go away. And I am not responsible for putting people out of work or massive layoffs. I can't imagine who you are thinking of when you say "People like you." I don't believe we've ever met, Jeff.
And yes, I would like for the government to do better at promoting the general welfare, part of which is economic.
Please, more craftsmen--less plastic...
I mean, you literally wrote this:
"In reality, no one needs multiple mansions or yachts or $5,000 cashmere sweaters and everyone needs to eat."
Yep. You could say that those uber-wealthy are taking from everyone else. I'm pointing out that they have those things while many, many have nowhere near enough. Is this the framework the authors of the Constitution envisioned? I'm no mind reader, but I'm guessing not. So can we build a system where everyone has enough even if it means fewer yachts and mansions for billionaires? Or is that an unreasonable hope?
Why stop at grocery stores? New York needs public brothels. Young nubile woman have an abundance of sexiness and soft flesh that they could be sharing with those in need. The need is tremendous. Don't worry, the young women will be fairly compensated based upon what a committee of their fellow citizens deems is fair. Don't be a bigot, support public brothels to ensure an equal distribution of happiness.
finally, someone brave enough to say it: state-run coochie for the greater good
Sounds like the author is out of touch… or very much in touch with the ideology of business schools: greed and selfishness will make a better society. I see where you’re coming from: the classic trickle-down theory, which has never worked and never will.
I’m a socialist and agree that capitalism works but let’s get out of the “communist vs capitalist” lens by always citing extreme examples of countries like Cuba or Venezuela. There’s a balance to strike and alarmist opinions like this do not help move the conversation forward.
More capitalism is not what we need at the moment.
This article is completely uninformed about economics, it’s just an ideological (thatcherite) blurb.
You are barking at the wrong tree I think.
Hi there—appreciate the engagement, but this is a misread.
I never said greed makes a better society. I said incentives do.
Capitalism—at its core—isn’t about trickle-down theory or Ayn Rand fantasies. It’s about voluntary exchange, competition, and feedback loops. When something doesn’t work, it dies. That’s the discipline that keeps systems honest.
And while it’s trendy to dismiss Venezuela and Cuba as “extreme examples,” they’re not edge cases—they’re the logical outcomes of central planning without price signals. It’s not alarmist to point that out; it’s pattern recognition.
Yes, there are balances to strike. But Mamdani’s proposal isn’t a “balance”—it’s a city-run, no-profit grocery monopoly with no plan for supply, logistics, or incentives. That’s not economic nuance—it’s fantasy.
And if your idea of a rebuttal is to say “you sound like a Thatcherite,” then you’re not actually engaging with the substance. You’re just flinching at tone.
Let’s debate ideas. But at least make it clear you’ve read them first.
I agree capitalism in theory has interesting mechanisms which improve resources allocation however it’s a bit naive to think it’s sufficient on its own.
Does the current system of incentives work ? Not anymore, it’s partly broken because the system incentivise accumulation of capital more than work.
We are still in that trickle-down capitalism at the moment, it’s been 40 years of it and we are seeing the consequences unravelling: deep levels of poverty and inequality.
It’s increasingly difficult to live under a roof, put food on the table and access healthcare.
Working is not sufficient to live and progress in society anymore. The middle class is eroding and the assets of the state are being stripped by the wealthiest.
That’s what your article is not engaging with.
Having a handful of grocery stores selling food at affordable prices is a drop in the ocean of our current system, but it will make a huge difference for some people. They have some in France and it definitely helps. Not everything needs to be a market based solution, especially when it doesn’t work.
Free transport is not unheard of, we have it in some cities in Europe, it works and they have not gone bankrupt.
A wealth tax is a good idea to address the deep inequality of tax between employment income and capital gains. Not sure how it will work just to implement in one city rather than nationally. I think not as many of the wealthy will leave the city as they claim they’ll do. They have a life in that city, it offers them a lifestyle.
So this isn’t fantasy if it’s implemented, like in other places.
Running an election is always vibes whether it’s left or right so nothing new on that front. As you rightly say let’s see what happens now.
I think you need to open your mind to other ways societies organise themselves, outside of the “capitalist vs communist” lens.
I’m not even thinking of a utopian future; there are plenty of initiatives, whether by the state or other organisations, that help address what the pricing / competition / incentive do not or not entirely. That’s the nuance we have in our economies. The policies of that mayor candidate go in this direction.
As much as I have found your other articles brilliant and insightful, this one seems a bit closed minded and uninformed.
Maybe it’s you who is out of touch. You claim we don’t need more capitalism as though we actually had any. A capitalist system wouldn’t have 70k pages of progressive tax code nor the safety nets and welfare programs we have. We are closer to a social democracy than capitalism.
The problem isn’t how many pages but what percentage of tax.
We live in an era where taxes on capital revenues are much lower than on work.
On top of that large corporations do schemes to pay even less taxes.
So you are effectively living in an empty shell of a social democracy because the redistribution is not happening effectively. The result is a deeply unequal capitalist society.
So yes when I say we don’t need more capitalism I mean increasing taxes for the capitalists (even if it’s just the wealthiest 1%).
Saying that we don’t live in a capitalist system is not the truth.
A progressive tax system where the top 1% pay 45% of all taxes
and the top 50% pay 97% of all taxes isn’t capitalism.
It’s not that the rich need to pay more it’s that the bottom 50% don’t pay their fair share.
With respect to corporations they set their profit goals at the beginning of the year and factor all of their cost, including taxes, into the sales price of their product, ie you pay corporate sales tax thus there shouldn’t be any.
We live in a capitalist system, period. Ask any economist.
You are talking about income tax. For capital gains tax the rates are considerably lower compared to income tax from employment.
This is where it needs to change.
The top 1% wealthiest which mostly benefit from capital (properties, shares) is taxed at 30% top (in the UK).
A doctor or lawyer is paying more tax than that, which doesn’t seem fair.
Wealth tax would be different than income tax.
So no the bottom 50% earners shouldn’t pay more, this is a misleading solution and kind of immoral.
The proper term for the American system is “a mixed-market economic system”. It has facets of both capitalism and socialism.
With respect to taxes those numbers include people capital gains. Capital gains are considered income and are reported when you calculate your income tax.
With respect to the capital gains rates the are lower 1) to incentives investment which why the short term tax rate is significantly higher than the long term rate and 2) it is money you already paid tax on.
Why do you think taking 30% of someone else’s earnings is ok? What did you do to deserve it?
And yes, the bottom 50% should pay more. A large portion of that 50% pay 0% in taxes. Taxes don’t work by taxing a few for the many. There just isn’t enough money there, ie you could take 100% of all the U.S. billionaires wealth and not even fund the U.S. government for one year. In order for a tax system to work everyone should contribute an equal percentage. Forcing a few to carry the burden for the rest is what is immoral.
Interesting how you think financial success is immoral.
I think we fundamentally have a different view of what is moral and immoral, and what constitute a fair working tax system.
We already have flat taxes as you describe: VAT (and here in the UK council tax) so the bottom 50% pay their fair share, especially since they contribute the most to consumption spending.
Beyond the moral aspect, I don’t think it makes sense to have a flat income rate economically as you cut the disposable income of households, which then reduces consumption.
Encouraging investment if you don’t have a middle class able to spend what you produce is pointless.
All the best,
I see your point, and on paper capitalism sounds great in terms of finding the most optimal outcomes. However, like so many things, capitalism is not binary and neither is any governing system, and the issues relating to it are very nuanced . I'd argue that the West's emphasis and overreliance on capitalism and belief it to be the solution to all inefficiencies is wrong. I think you the distinction should be made between capitalism and competition (which is typically a feature of capitalism).
My biggest grudge with capitalism comes from the values it teaches and instills. Greed and selfishness. Exploitation. The housing crisis would never occur without capitalism. Moreover, in times where in many societies people lack religion to provide with values they will naturally turn to what the system values. I believe societies which overemphasise capitals as well as value greed and selfishness cannot function correctly.
Totally fair to say capitalism isn’t binary—nothing is. But your critique is aimed at a caricature, not the system I’m defending.
Greed and selfishness aren’t taught by capitalism. They exist in humans. Capitalism just acknowledges that and builds systems that channel self-interest into productive behavior—by forcing businesses to serve others in order to survive. If you don’t create value, you don’t last.
The housing crisis wasn’t caused by capitalism—it was caused by a mix of restricted supply, zoning laws, and misaligned incentives, many of which stem from government interference in the market, not laissez-faire policy.
As for values: yes, systems shape culture. But I’d argue a society where people trade value freely, keep what they earn, and are free to build without state permission teaches responsibility better than a system that outsources all morality to bureaucrats.
The alternative isn’t a values-free utopia. It’s a top-down morality handed out by whoever wins the next election. Choose carefully.
I'd argue that is the the system you're defending, or at least, what the system you defend inevitably evolves into without any government interference. But I ask you this, if the system continously rewards self-interest and individualism how will that not naturally translate into teaching that greed and selfishness are required to get ahead in life?
In my eyes, the housing crisis ultimately stems from housing being seen as an investment, not as the basic necessity which it is. I've had many acquaintances and family who bought property specifically for the sole purpose of renting and keeping as an asset. In the meantime homelessness rates are skyrocketimg and first time buyers are priced out of the property market. Is that not the system rewarding greed and selfishness?
What about certain markets and industries which naturally result in monopolies and unfair competition. Should the government allow monopolies to act freely without any restriction?
I'm afraid neither capitalism nor socialism will be the solution, as I mentioned these things are not binary however, well planned and executed government intervention is necessary to restrict the worst capitalist tendencies.
you bring up valid frustrations—housing speculation, monopolistic behavior, widening inequality. but i’d argue these are distortions of capitalism, not inherent to it
a functioning capitalist system isn’t one where greed runs wild—it’s one where risk is real, failure is allowed, and profit reflects actual value creation. when governments bail out failed firms, block competition through red tape, or artificially inflate asset markets, that’s not capitalism—it’s cronyism. and it’s usually government interference that causes those distortions
that said, i’m genuinely curious: if capitalism’s flaws are baked in, what system do you think works better? not hypothetically, but in practice. because the places most often cited—nordic countries, germany, etc.—aren’t anti-capitalist. they rely on markets, property rights, and competition just as much as we do. they’ve just made different regulatory tradeoffs
so i’m open to tuning the system. but the core engine—free exchange, voluntary trade, real feedback from failure—is what makes prosperity scale. take that away, and you’re left with central planning, wishful thinking, and empty shelves
I agree with your points, and it seems we acknowledge similar issues although our definitions and solutions appear to differ.
Its clear our system in its current form is failing most people with rapidly rising wealth inequality being a clear and imo most important issue. In my eyes, more government intervention is required, as long as its carefully planned and competently executed.
Honestly I don't know what system would be better, it might not even exist. These things are so unbelievably complex it would be impossible for one person to know the answer. However something has to change. I agree with your original point, government grocery shops and other Mamdani policies are practically completely unreasonable but so are so many other politicians and party manifestos.
Most people are desperate for change which can be largely attributed to the system failing most people.
The fatal flaw in this essay is that it's taken the colorful garden of human life and presented it to us in black and white. No nuance, no awareness of how a garden actually grows. A paean to capitalism. And a sort of closet refutal of the idea that government should serve it's citizens in favor of capitalists (those who build things). This in spite of our lived experience.
Run away capitalism, a capitalism with few breaks on it, results in vast harm to ordinary citizens. I wonder if Stepfanie is aware of the age of the robber barrons and if she sees anything similar to that going on now. I wonder how she squares her position with the fact that just a handful of individuals own 90% of the wealth and the benefits of that wealth have decidely not trickled down. I wonder if she knows anything about the feudal system and how that worked out for people.
I wonder whether or not she's ever traveled extensively in or lived anywhere but the country she's in now because she for sure hasn't had any experience with social democracies (e.g. the Nordic countries, Germany, UK and others) - she doesn't mention them, it's as though they don't exist for her. She seems unaware that they are baseline capitalist but with a heavy emphasis on the fact that citizens' needs must be prioritized as well.
socialism ≠ democratic socialism/social democracy
communism ≠ democratic socialism/social democracy
All systems can be abused.
Hi there—appreciate your passion, but you might be arguing with a version of me that doesn’t exist.
Yes, I’m aware of the robber barons. I’m also aware that today’s richest companies largely deliver things people voluntarily use daily—phones, delivery, communication, energy—and that the modern poor, in most capitalist countries, live with amenities unimaginable to kings a century ago.
Yes, I’ve traveled. And yes, I know that Nordic countries are not socialist—they’re market economies with high taxes and strong welfare states. The engine is still capitalism. The safety net rides on its surplus.
Yes, inequality exists. But that’s not the same thing as systemic failure. Capitalism allocates rewards for value—not perfectly, but far more dynamically than any system humans have tried.
No one is denying that governments should serve citizens. The question is how. Centralized control doesn’t fix dysfunction—it often produces it. You want a system that scales competence and corrects failure. That’s what markets do, when allowed to operate.
So before calling it black-and-white, maybe consider that clarity isn’t the absence of nuance—it’s the result of working through it.
Of course companies get rich by delivering things people consume daily, things they need as well as those that serve no other purpose than making them happy or their lives easier. But you seem to avoid any discussion of how things actually work, preferring to focus on a platitude: "life is better now than ever before". I think that could be said at any point in human existance.
Capitalism is based on the free market. It's also based on profit. The reason people who own companies produce goods that people want is to make money for themselves. All good when that system is in balance but as we've seen throughout history that system can be abused. Company A is losing market share to companies B and C. But Co A has a fat bank accouny and an army of folks who can come up with a plan and before you know it they've swallowed B and C. And then jack their prices astronomically. We see it all the time; it's particularly clear in the medication market and agriculture which now has very few family run farms. Few (if any) corporations have ever willingly not focused on increasing their profit. In social democracies the governemnt sees that as their job.
You say you've traveled. I don't know what that means to you. Traveled and saw the sights? Stayed in hotels? Spent ages wandering neighborhoods/sitting in pubs getting to know the locals? I don't know. But I've lived in other countries and I can tell you that life is gentler there. There's a huge awareness of the importance of quality of life/life balance so even the part time grocery clerk is free to take two weeks worth of vacation. There's a community understanding that people should not suffer because they can't afford to see a doctor or be unable to read a book because they can't afford glasses. There's an understanding that when one group benefits, everyone benefits. Is it perfect? Of course not. But the sense of people caring for people is ingrained and evident in general.
reading this is like a dribble of lukewarm drool. Alas!
In what way? Please elaborate.
what a lovely and poetic way to say “I didn’t like this, but I lack the intellectual stamina to explain why.” alas! indeed.
I really wish that someone would love me like people who love capitalism. Most points was already made in the previous comment so I just put it simply: check on your privlages, love. You must be really privlages to see system that failing AWFULY working class as something that is advantages to most of us. Capitalism used to work but now we are in the late stage capitalism and if you're not rich already- you won't be, or die trying. You're closer to an immigrant on a boat than you'll ever be to Elon Musk. Wish you reflection ❤️
you're right—i am—bc my great grandfather literally came here from the Philippines
i built my own business from scratch and made my own way
what you call "privilege" is also called hard work
people who love capitalism love people who generate value—if you want to be loved "like that" i recommend being useful
i wish you the same reflection, sounds like you need it more than i do xo
i agree with most of what you are saying to a point. yes, mamdani aesthetic politics if he wins will cause damage and launch thousands of research papers, almost like a political experiment. and the speaking for, not to, his target audience(cause it really does feel theatrical) really paints a picture of get behind me i'll fix the big bad government. however, i think this essay speaks too cold to the idea of helping the barely helping themselves. is mamdani selling hopium, absolutely. is it impossible for systems to be tuned and tweaked to support those who need it while also sticking to the pure form of capitalism you refer to but seemingly does not exist due to unnecessary regulatory and corrupt governmental interference, i don't think so. all in all, mamdani speaks to a hunger people have, of the government doing its duty and caring for its people, and that support is so high that even without any concrete workable policies, that shamble of a party should take note....and while there are at it, get some competent people to give people what they need.
i'm still really stuck on him being a governance and sociological experiment tho
Appreciate this, Eric—it’s one of the more honest and nuanced comments I've received on this piece.
I agree: Mamdani is a governance experiment in aesthetic politics. A vibe-first candidate with no plan, banking on narrative over infrastructure. And yes, the hunger he’s tapping into is real. People are exhausted with systems that feel extractive and indifferent. But that’s exactly why it’s dangerous to mistake symbolic gestures for functioning policy.
We should be pushing for better systems—ones that do help the most vulnerable—but that requires competence, not slogans. And the hard truth is: systems that work are often boring. They’re not utopian. They don’t sell on Instagram. They just… function.
You’re right to say capitalism needs guardrails. But Mamdani isn’t tweaking a system—he’s proposing a replacement without knowing how the original worked. That’s not revolution. That’s malpractice.