Capitalism, My Good Old Friend: Please Don’t Leave Me—These Godawful Leftists Want My Hard-Earned Money
Got your attention, didn’t I? You know exactly who you are, dear reader.
Some disclaimers to get out of the way as this has been a recurring popular topic among colleagues and friends: I’m not a socialist. I like money. Yay, money! I like markets. I invest in markets. I design markets. I am—quite literally—a market design economist. I’m so sick of the accusation. If I hear one more “but this is communism” as a response to literally any economic reform, I might actually scream.
Pick up any book by Thomas Piketty, Gabriel Zucman, Mariana Mazzucato, Ha-Joon Chang, Kate Raworth, Ingrid Robeyns, or Timothée Parrique. You will see that the idea that calling for redistribution, public investment, democratic ownership models, or rethinking who gets to shape markets is somehow communism is not just wrong—it’s hilarious and intellectually lazy.
It’s hilarious because it really doesn’t take an economics degree to grasp that you don’t need gulags or a five-year plan to address obscene inequality.
And it’s intellectually lazy because it shows how broken our political imagination has become. “Communism” is an actual economic system with very specific political implications. Asking whether billionaires should exist, or whether hoarded wealth might be redistributed through fair taxation, is not that.
Wanting to reduce inequality and hence extreme wealth concentration doesn’t mean abolishing markets. You’d still have private property, private companies, and yes, overpriced smoothies and matcha lattes. You just wouldn’t have an economy that rewards hoarding and speculation while people can’t afford rent or medicine.
So… relax.
This piece is the first in a three-part series. Each part will build on the last, and I hope you’ll stick with me for the ride.
For now, let’s begin with Part One: here goes nothing. Allez-hop!
Sooooo, NYC is in the middle of an election cycle, and things are getting... spicy. Once again, it’s becoming painfully clear that many elected Democrats are ideologically closer to MAGA than to the actual left.
One telling sign? The Democratic establishment seems far more interested in stopping Zohran Mamdani than stopping Donald Trump.
The guy’s platform is basically: “Let’s make things slightly better instead of slightly worse,” and people are having full-blown aneurysms.
But I digress.
Recently, I’ve been hearing a lot of similar concerns—some raised by loved ones in NYC and across the U.S., others by friends in Montréal, as well as France. These are people I respect: entrepreneurs, business owners, homeowners. People who’ve worked hard and are understandably wary of anything that sounds like “hate the rich” or “take from the rich.”
So let me be crystal clear:
This is not about “milking the rich.”
This is not about coming for your house, your Shopify or Instagram store, or your hard-earned savings.
And honestly? You’re probably not the kind of “rich” we’re even talking about. And no, none of what I’m about to discuss would require you to pay more taxes.
Unless you’re running a Ponzi scheme or hiding your wealth in offshore shell companies, you’re probably safe. You can exhale.
What I am talking about is a system that’s overdue for rethinking. And—brace yourself—if we take honest and hard-working steps towards this rethinking, that system might even allow you to pay less. 🤯😱 Yet, the “honesty” aspect of all things in such an individualistic, populist, partisan, and opportunistic society indeed becomes tricky. That might be the sad part.
Anywho, let’s dig in.
1. A guy who’s skeptical of capitalism? Yikes. Why do Democrats/Leftists keep backing the utopia crowd?
What we call “capitalism” isn’t a single, fixed system. The American version—with weak labor protections, minimal public services, and corporate dominance—is just one of many models.
In fact, the most successful economies—Germany, Sweden, even post-war South Korea—got rich not by embracing free-market orthodoxy, but by doing the opposite: strong states, industrial policy, and massive public investments were the norm. So, questioning the narrow American model isn’t utopian—it’s historically grounded realism.
Calling such alternatives “utopian” is often just a rhetorical move to avoid engaging with their merits.
The idea that a political candidate must “exercise capitalism” in a narrow, market-first, corporate-friendly way reveals just how ideological our economic discourse has become.
As Ha-Joon Chang reminds us in 23 Things They Don’t Tell You About Capitalism, “there is no such thing as a free market.” Every market operates within a framework of political and institutional rules—governing labor, finance, ownership, and redistribution. What we call “capitalism” varies across time and place.
So, when candidates like Mamdani are dismissed as “refusing capitalism,” it misrepresents their intent. They are not rejecting markets—they’re proposing a different strategy for shaping them: one that challenges neoliberal assumptions, prioritizes social infrastructure, and treats the economy as a tool for collective well-being rather than private accumulation.
People often label candidates like Mamdani “anti-capitalist,” when what they’re actually doing is reconfiguring the rules of capitalism—not in the familiar investor-first mold, but toward equity and resilience. That frightens some, because capitalism has been equated with order, stability, and personal freedom—even though history shows successful capitalist systems were built on strong public institutions, strategic planning, and protection from unfettered markets.
2. Public services like rent interventions? Public-owned grocery stores? Free buses? Really? Sounds utopian, so, No Sirree Bob.
In Kicking Away the Ladder, Ha-Joon Chang shows how today’s wealthiest countries got rich not by embracing free markets, but through heavy state intervention: tariffs (yes, even my boi Trump knows a thing or two about that), subsidies, public enterprises, and large-scale infrastructure investment.
(Of course, I tend to lose my boi the moment I utter the words “public” or “subsidies”—he’s strictly a tariffs-only kind of guy.)
The irony? After reaching prosperity through these very tools, these countries turned around and preached “free market” orthodoxy to everyone else—while quietly holding onto their own protections.
So, rent stabilization, municipal grocery stores, or free public transit aren’t utopian—they’re historically normal. They only seem radical because neoliberalism has erased much of our institutional memory of what’s possible.
I get the instinct to roll your eyes at proposals like “free buses” or city-run grocery stores—especially if you’ve internalized the belief that only markets can provide. But some of the most stable and equitable economies have long relied on public provisioning to promote social cohesion and economic productivity.
These aren’t fantasies. They’re practical investments in human capability. The idea that only markets work is not a proven fact—it’s an ideology. Chang backs this up with decades of empirical research.
We already accept public schools, roads, and fire departments. Why should free transit be treated differently?
City-owned grocery stores and public housing are not theoretical—they exist. In Singapore, 80% of the population lives in public housing. In postwar Britain, council housing was a cornerstone of national rebuilding.
The assumption that markets are always better at delivering basic needs is not evidence-based—it’s dogma.
3. Rent freezes cannot solve a crisis.
Well, duh.
Rent freezes aren’t a silver bullet—but markets alone aren’t solving the housing crisis either. If they were, we wouldn’t be having this conversation.
Soaring rents and speculative bubbles aren’t “natural” outcomes—they’re the result of policy decisions: tax structures, zoning laws, and the financialization of housing. Rent controls can offer short-term relief and reduce harm while more systemic, long-term solutions—public housing, land use reform, and the de-financialization of land—are developed. Let’s stop pretending the market is some benevolent force that always self-corrects.
Before the real estate investors and agents have a heart attack, let’s pause for a hug:
You don’t need to be somewhat skeptical of markets or critical of neoliberalism to recognize that housing isn’t just another asset class—it’s about shelter, dignity, and stability. When we treat homes primarily as speculative investments, we don’t get efficiency—we get inequality, volatility, and the occasional housing crisis.
And no, de-financialization of property does not mean abolishing the housing market. It means rebalancing it—so housing stays rooted in its social function, not just its return-on-investment potential. Real estate professionals still matter in that world—perhaps even more so—just with a renewed focus on access, affordability, and long-term value.
Because when asset appreciation is prioritized over access, we’re not just inflating housing prices—we’re inflating risk, instability, and backlash. And that doesn’t serve anyone, including investors.
This isn’t about vilifying anyone. Real estate agents help people find homes—that’s real value. But when the system rewards extraction over contribution—through speculation and rent-seeking—we all lose.
A mission-oriented housing economy—featuring public housing, zoning and land reform, and de-financialization—isn’t about cutting real estate actors out. It’s about shifting the rules to reward those contributing to a livable, stable, and just city. That shift doesn’t shrink your role; it reshapes it. Think: more purpose, less panic.
Now that we’ve hugged it out with the homeowners and real estate folks, back to our regularly scheduled programming:
No single policy—especially in a complex system—can solve a problem on its own. Rent controls or freezes are not a (magic) fix. They’re a stabilizing tool—a way to protect tenants and buy time while bigger reforms take shape. They create breathing room while structural changes—expanding public housing, fixing zoning, and curbing speculative land practices—are debated, designed, and won.
We don’t expect central banks to tackle inflation with a single lever—so why expect rent freezes to do everything? Sound policy isn’t about purity or panic. It’s about building a toolbox—and knowing when to use which tool.
4. “Constraints of America” and the despair around transformative change.
Here’s the irony: the so-called “constraints of America” are, more often than not, just the constraints of capitalism.
(This always makes me chuckle—especially when I hear a loved one defend capitalism and neoliberalism while simultaneously complaining about Canada’s public healthcare system. Yes, I have my own critiques of it too. But believing that private equity and market logic will magically give us better care? I wouldn’t bet on that—and yes, pun very much intended. We’ve got work to do, folks.)
So let’s ask the real question: why are these constraints treated as fixed? Economic systems are designed. They’re not handed down like the laws of gravity.
What constrains the U.S. isn’t some cosmic truth—it’s the result of decades of political choices: defunding public institutions, hollowing out state capacity, delegitimizing collective action, and insisting that government can’t do big things.
If those choices created the constraints, then those are the very things we should be challenging—not accepting as immovable.
Countries like the U.S. and the U.K. were once heavily protectionist and state-led during their own industrialization. However, they later turned around and imposed “free market” constraints on others through global trade and finance rules.
In other words: the “constraints of America” are not natural. They’re manufactured. Deregulation, financialization, tax policy, austerity—these were choices. Which means: they can be unmade.
So yes, the fatigue is real. But when someone says, “That kind of policy just doesn’t work in America,” the better question is: which America?
Because the America that built NASA, the interstate highway system, public universities, and rural electrification certainly didn’t act like markets alone could get the job done.
The constraints we face today aren’t economic laws. They’re ideological habits. And once we see that, we can begin to loosen their grip.
5. I have lost hope in major issues. Why can’t we just want to move the needle?
Totally understandable. Burnout is real. But here’s the caution: moving the needle without a vision can quietly end up reinforcing the very system that caused the harm in the first place.
Progress doesn’t always come through slow, incremental steps. Often, it requires a shift in the underlying logic—a change in the frame, not just the numbers. The New Deal didn’t just “move the needle.” Neither did the UK’s National Health System.1 Those were structural realignments born from bold reimagining—not cautious tweaks.
Economic debate today has been deliberately narrowed, also known as the murder of heterodox thinking. Within that narrow frame, we’re told the best we can hope for is to nudge, tweak, or optimize within the status quo.
But history tells a different story. Universal healthcare, public education, environmental protections—these weren’t born from technocratic fine-tuning. They came from movements that dared to question the assumptions beneath the system.
So yes, I hear the desire to “move the needle.” But we have to ask: in which direction, and guided by what compass? Otherwise, we’re just moving in circles.
If we want meaningful change, we need to ask questions about power, purpose, and who gets to decide what’s possible.
Incrementalism may feel safe—but without vision, it too easily becomes a defense of the very system we set out to transform.
Yay EXAMPLES! Consider this your Appendix:
The idea that there is only one version of capitalism—American, deregulated, finance-driven—is a myth. Capitalism can take many forms.
Examples:
Germany’s social market economy blends capitalist production with strong labor protections, worker co-determination (Mitbestimmung), and industrial policy.
Singapore is ranked highly by free-market think tanks, yet 80% of its population lives in state-built public housing, and the government owns stakes in key sectors.
Finland’s education system is entirely public, free at every level, and achieves world-class results. No one accuses Finland of refusing capitalism.
There’s a long, global history of productive, inclusive capitalism that doesn’t rely on privatizing everything and weakening the state.
City-owned grocery stores? Free buses? Sounds utopian?
If you call something utopian, ask: has it ever worked?
Public groceries:
Carrefour began as a state-supported cooperative in France before expanding globally.
Korea’s National Agricultural Cooperative Federation (NongHyup) runs retail grocery outlets nationwide, stabilizing prices and supporting farmers.
Free buses:
Tallinn, Estonia offers free public transit to all registered residents, funded through local taxes. Result: lower car use, better air, and higher social inclusion.
Chapel Hill, NC in the U.S. has had fare-free transit since 2002. It’s popular, cost-effective, and efficient.
Childcare:
Québec’s universal childcare system costs parents as little as $10/day and is associated with increased female labor force participation and child well-being.
What makes them sound unrealistic is not their economics, but the ideological constraints we impose on what an entrepreneurial government is allowed to do.
Rent freezes? I hate it!
Don’t expect a band-aid to cure a systemic disease—but that doesn’t mean the band-aid is useless.
Berlin implemented a rent freeze (Mietendeckel) for five years. Though struck down in court, it did significantly slow rent growth and sparked broader debates on public housing and real estate speculation.
Vienna has long pursued a housing model where 60% of residents live in rent-controlled or city-owned housing. It maintains affordability without stifling construction.
South Korea’s “Jeonse” system is a hybrid of rent and investment, where tenants deposit a large sum with landlords instead of paying monthly rent. This has historically reduced monthly housing costs.
When housing markets are broken by speculation and under-regulation, temporary controls are damage mitigation, not ideology.
Alternatives to Rent Freezes (A Policy Menu that is Less Triggering for Some Folks)
Let’s take a pluralist approach that would advocate for a mix of short-term interventions and long-term structural reforms. Here’s a menu of non-dogmatic tools:
1. Public and Non-Market Housing Development
Expand municipal housing agencies (e.g., Vienna model).
Support cooperative housing, land trusts, and social housing outside the speculative market.
2. Land Value Taxation (Henry George meets Ha-Joon Chang)
Tax land, not buildings—captures unearned value gains and discourages speculation. Tax unearned land rents and recycle the proceeds into public goods—active state design, productive investment, and curbing rent-seeking.2
It rewards productive use over passive hoarding and helps fund public goods without distorting economic activity.
3. Regulate Financialization of Housing
Restrict foreign and institutional investor ownership in residential property (as Canada and New Zealand have done).
Tax vacancy and speculation to disincentivize ghost homes.
4. Zoning and Permitting Reform
Simplify permitting processes to reduce costs and delays (yes, a technocratic fix—but necessary). Rigid zoning laws often entrench exclusion and scarcity; reform can unlock more diverse, affordable, and climate-resilient housing options without handing the reins entirely to developers.
Incentivize infill and mixed-income development.
5. Create Municipal Housing Banks or Developers
Use public land and capital to develop affordable housing outside the market—a model supported in Seoul and Stockholm.
6. Reframe Housing as Infrastructure
Shift federal funding from indirect subsidies (like mortgage interest deductions) to direct investment in affordable homes.
The National Health Service—the publicly funded healthcare system of the United Kingdom was established in 1948 after World War II as part of a broader welfare state effort, offering healthcare to all UK residents free at the point of use.
The NHS alongside the New Deal are powerful because:
They illustrate a paradigm-shifting public policy that redefined what governments could do.
They remind us that what now feels “normal” (like public healthcare in the UK) was once a radical proposal.
Cities like Harrisburg, Pennsylvania and parts of Australia have used land value taxes to curb vacancy, promote development, and stabilize municipal revenue—without punishing investment or construction.