Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

Mamdani is ignoring 40 centuries of economic lessons

Opinion

Mamdani is ignoring 40 centuries of economic lessons

New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani arrives prior to speaking about the fiscal year 2027 budget in New York City on May 12, 2026. Mamdani has led the charge to freeze rents on one- and two-year leases for New York City’s 1 million rent-regulated apartments.

(Timothy A. Clary/AFP/Getty Images/TNS)

Last week, New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani announced a citywide freeze on rents.

The response from economists can be summarized as “oy.”


Economists are famous for arguing “on one hand” this and “on the other hand” that. This is why President Truman famously wanted to hire a one-handed economist.

Nonetheless, there are few issues that enjoy a broader consensus among economists than the conclusion that rent control is counterproductive. Surveys of leading economists going back nearly four decades confirm this. A 1990 poll of 464 economists found that 93% of American respondents agreed that “a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available” — 95% of Canadian economists had a similar opinion. And another survey in 2012 had a similar result.

As Jason Furman, who chaired President Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, put it, “Rent control has been about as disgraced as any economic policy in the tool kit.” The Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck — a socialist, mind you — was pithier: “In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city — except for bombing.”

In response to the controversy over Mamdani’s rent control scheme, which applies to roughly 1 million of the city’s rent-stabilized apartments, progressive writer Jill Filipovic posted on X: “Am I the only person who has no strong feeling about the rent freeze other than ‘cool to try out a policy like this on a short-term basis so we can test if it actually works?’ My only hope is we all learn some important information from this experiment and are honest about the results, whatever it brings.”

But I don’t really want to write about rent control, a provably dumb policy that has been around for more than a century. The bigger issue is this attitude, which is running wild within the Democratic Party and on the increasingly confident hard left. Specifically, the idea that anything the democratic socialist insurgency is proposing is new.

“Together, we will usher in a generation of change,” Mamdani declared upon being elected last November as the new democratic socialist mayor of New York City. He vowed to take a “brave new course” and “chart a new path.” His rent freeze is seen as a fulfillment of his pledge.

That’s fair enough. But virtually everything on their agenda was old before anyone reading this was born. Take price controls. Sens. Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders, along with numerous other progressive politicians (and a few Republican ones), respond to every price hike and inflation report by arguing for price controls of one kind or another.

Price controls are older than Christianity.

If you don’t believe me, pick up a copy of "Forty Centuries of Wage and Price Controls," by Robert Schuettinger and Eamonn Butler. Hammurabi set prices 4,000 years ago. Diocletian issued his Edict on Maximum Prices in A.D. 301 President Nixon did it to disastrous effect in 1971.

Price controls are lies, fueling corruption and hiding economic reality. Prices reveal where supply and demand are, even when we cannot know all of the things that inform supply or demand. Prices, in the words of economist Alex Tabarrok, are “a signal wrapped up in an incentive.” Mask the signal and you remove the incentive. Controls on rent, food, gas, pharmaceuticals, etc., don’t just conceal the real costs of a good or service, they pass those costs elsewhere. Unable to recoup on the investment in housing, crops, oil development, medicine, there is less — or no — investment.

Oil-rich Venezuela became an economic basket case because the government fixed the price of fuel to a political benchmark. Its vast oil industry couldn’t afford to maintain itself and collapsed.

Some progressives, like Sen. Sanders, at least admit their ideas are old — how could he do otherwise, given that he hasn’t had a new idea since the Pleistocene? But they point to Scandinavian countries that abandoned command-and-control economic planning decades ago.

In other words, they point to “new ideas” from the old world that are now considered old over there.

Speaking of old, the new hotness on the left is wealth taxes. California Gov. Gavin Newsom has endorsed the idea of a national wealth tax to catch up with the cool kids. This, too, is a very old idea that began in prehistory as mere plunder. It’s also a failed idea, which is why most of the countries that adopt them end up repealing them.

Much has been written — including by me — about how Trump appeals to low-information voters who don’t know the history or facts behind a given policy (like, say, tariffs). That’s fine. But the most ardent opponents of Trump, the ones promising a bold and fresh alternative agenda, are appealing to the same kinds of voters — and journalists.

Jonah Goldberg is editor-in-chief of The Dispatch and the host of The Remnant podcast. His Twitter handle is @JonahDispatch.


Read More

The Populist Left and Right Just Bought the Same Housing Policy
white and red wooden house miniature on brown table

The Populist Left and Right Just Bought the Same Housing Policy

At midnight on July 11, the 21st Century ROAD to Housing Act became law without a presidential signature, the largest housing statute since 1990. President Trump refused to sign it, dismissing it as "a big yawn" and holding it hostage to an unrelated voter-identification bill. The timing matters because the price it is meant to address keeps climbing: the median existing home sold for $440,600 in June, roughly 49 percent higher than in 2020. Democrats say Trump snubbed struggling families. Republicans call it a win for homeownership. Both are selling a law that will do far less than either claims.

Start with the provision everyone is talking about. Section 901, titled "Homes are for People, Not Corporations," bars large institutional investors, defined as entities controlling 350 or more single-family homes, from buying additional single-family houses. It is the populist centerpiece, the line that lets a Republican Congress and a Democratic minority both claim they stood up to private equity.

Keep ReadingShow less
Person holds a check from the U.S. Treasury Department.

As America debates Social Security and federal spending, older adults face rising costs and financial insecurity. Here's why retirement policy affects every generation.

MargJohnsonVA/Getty Images

We Will All Grow Old Someday

America is debating budgets, taxes, deficits, and spending priorities. Those discussions are necessary. But amid the political arguments, we cannot lose sight of a simple truth: every budget reflects our values.

Nearly every American hopes to grow old. Yet growing old with dignity has become increasingly difficult for many seniors living on fixed incomes. Rising housing costs, groceries, utilities, insurance premiums, and prescription drug expenses continue to strain household budgets. For many older adults, retirement is no longer a season of security but one of constant financial calculation.

Keep ReadingShow less
As Trump’s Tariff War With Canada Drags On, This Border Community Suffers Without a Voice

A semitruck drives across the Sault Ste. Marie International Bridge from Canada into the United States.

Emily Iris Elconin/ProPublica

As Trump’s Tariff War With Canada Drags On, This Border Community Suffers Without a Voice

On the northeast edge of Michigan’s Upper Peninsula, nearly 1,100 people gathered in late June for the International Bridge Walk across the long span that links two cities with the same name: Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan, and Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario. Both the sun and the sentiments were bright.

“We don’t like to say there’s a border there, because we’re twin cities. We’re one family, the countries of Canada and the United States,” Don Gerrie, mayor of the Michigan Sault (pronounced “Soo”), told the crowd ahead of the annual walk.

Keep ReadingShow less
Empty money in wallet.

What does it mean to be the working poor? Explore the gap between poverty and a living wage, why millions of working Americans struggle, and solutions to reduce economic inequality.

photobyphotoboy/Getty Images

The Concept of the “Working Poor” Should Be Unacceptable

What does the phrase "working poor" mean? The first point is that you are working; you have a regular job—you aren't working catch as catch can; you are employed. But despite working, you are poor. What does it mean to be poor? It turns out that "poor” means different things depending on what standard you apply.

Some definitions seem rooted in the old institution of the poorhouse, which was a home for paupers. Thus, dictionary.com defines “poor” as having little or no money or other means of support. To me, that’s the definition of being destitute, not poor.

Keep ReadingShow less