Connect with us
[the_ad id="89560"]

Business

Mamdani’s socialist grocery store would fail New Yorkers

Published

6 minute read

From the Fraser Institute

By Matthew D. Mitchell and Steven Globerman

New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani, a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, proposes socializing the city’s grocery stores. If you think this is some trailblazing experiment, think again.

In September 1989, Boris Yeltsin, then a member of the Supreme Soviet, toured a Houston grocery store. He was stunned by the variety of fresh fruits, vegetables and meats. The cornucopia of low-cost healthy options surpassed anything in the special stores he and other party elite frequented. Yeltsin knew it was nothing that ordinary Soviet citizens, long barred from the elite stores, had ever seen.

His biographer reports that afterward, Yeltsin sat motionless, head buried in his hands. Back in Moscow, he declared, “I think we have committed a crime against our people by making their standard of living so incomparably lower than that of the Americans.”

Two years later, Yeltsin became the first freely elected leader of Russia. A few months after that, Mamdani was born. Like so many socialists before him, he must earnestly believe that the government can meet the needs of citizens better than the private sector. On this, he is wrong.

Everywhere socialism—government-run economic activity—has been tried, it’s failed to meet the people’s needs. We recently helped profile these failed experiments in a series of books on the realities of socialism published by the Fraser Institute. Socialist economies are terribly wasteful. Socialist Poland used three times as much steel as the United States for every dollar of output it produced. And it produced very little—in 1985, the typical Pole managed to make just 27 per cent as much as the typical American, as measured by GDP per person.

Although socialist industries produced little of value, they ravaged their environments with water, soil and air pollution far in excess of those in capitalist economies. A 1991 Washington Post article said of Warsaw’s tap water: “It spurts yellowish-brown from the tap, laced with heavy metals, coal mine salts and organic carcinogens. It stains the sink, tastes soapy and smells like a wet sock that has been fished out of a heavily chlorinated swimming pool.”

Socialists also wasted human resources. Poles worked 18 times as long as capitalist West Germans to buy one kilogram of coffee, 13 times as long for a TV, 11 times as long for a bottle of wine, and nine times as long for a car. During the 1980s, 7 per cent of Poles had telephones, and 11 per cent owned cars. The typical Pole waited 15 to 30 years to get a house.

When anthropologist Sigrid Rausing visited Estonia in 1991, she found TVs that wouldn’t work, cars that wouldn’t start, phone lines that dropped calls, and dilapidated buildings everywhere. Locals told her to avoid tap water, but when she drank a bottle of sparkling water, she swallowed bits of crumbling glass.

Planners poured millions into military and space programs but missed what any functioning market would have told them. Croatian journalist Slavenka Drakulić explained to a Western audience that “I have just come from Bulgaria, and believe me, women there don’t have either napkins or Tampaxes—they never had them, in fact. Nor do women in Poland, or Czechoslovakia, much less in the Soviet Union or Romania. This I hold as one of the proofs of why communism failed, because in the 70 years of its existence, it couldn’t fulfil the basic needs of half of the population.”

Modern socialists like to say we’ve yet to see “true” or “pure” socialism. The “purer” the actual experiments, the worse things were. Vladimir Lenin’s early attempt at “pure communism” was, in the words of economist Jack Hirshleifer, “the most extreme effort in modern times to do away with the system of private property and voluntary exchange.”

It was a disaster. Total economic output declined by 70 per cent in eight years. Historian William Chamberlin called it “one of the greatest and most overwhelming failures in history.” When Lenin backed off, incomes began to inch back up.

After the Soviet Union’s 1991 collapse, some Eastern Bloc countries embraced freedom quicker than others. Those such as Poland and Estonia, which permitted citizens to start and run businesses, to acquire and use property and to exchange with others on mutually agreeable terms, fared much better than those that went slower. The Polish standard of living is now quickly closing in on that of the United Kingdom. Estonians are not only leaders in economic freedom, but also in personal freedom.

If Mamdani is serious about helping New Yorkers, he should make New York more like the Estonia of 2025 than the Soviet Union of the 1980s.

Matthew D. Mitchell

Senior Fellow in the Centre for Human Freedom, Fraser Institute

Steven Globerman

Senior Fellow and Addington Chair in Measurement, Fraser Institute

Automotive

Canada’s EV subsidies are wracking up billions in losses for taxpayers, and not just in the auto industry

Published on

CAE Logo

By Dan McTeague

To anyone who thought that the Liberals’ decision to postpone enforcement of their Electric Vehicle (EV) mandate by one year was part of a well-thought-out plan to get that disastrous program back on track, well, every day brings with it news that you were wrong. In fact, the whole project seems to be coming apart at the seams.

Here’s the latest crisis Mark Carney and his carnival of ideologues are having to deal with. Late last year, the Liberal party instituted a 100% tariff on Chinese-made EVs. The idea was to protect the Canadian EV industry from China dumping their vehicles into our country, at prices far lower than Canadian companies can afford due to their massive state subsidies. This has been a major problem in the EU, which is also attempting to force a transition to EVs.

But Beijing wasn’t going to take that lying down. Taking advantage of Western environmentalist sentiment is an important part of their economic plans — see, for instance, how they’ve cornered the global solar panel market, though the factories making them are powered by massive amounts of coal. So they retaliated with a 75% duty on Canadian canola seed and a 100% tariff on canola oil and canola meal.

This was big enough to really hurt Canadian farmers, and Ottawa was forced to respond with more than $300 million in new relief programs for canola producers. Even so, our farmers have warned that short-term relief from the government will do little if the tariffs are here for the long-term.

With pressure on Carney mounting, his Industry Minister Melanie Joly announced that the government was “looking at” dropping tariffs on Chinese EVs in the hope that China would ease off on their canola tariffs.

That may be good news for canola producers, but how about the automotive companies? They’ve grown increasingly unhappy with the EV mandate, as Canadian consumers have been slow to embrace them, and they’ve been confronted with the prospect of paying significant fines unless they raise prices on the gas-and-diesel driven vehicles which consumers actually want to make the EVs that they don’t really want more attractive.

That’s the context for Brian Kingston, CEO of the Canadian Vehicle Manufacturers’ Association, saying that dropping these tariffs “would be a disaster.”

“China has engaged in state-supported industrial policy to create massive overcapacity in EV production, and that plan is coming to fruition now,” Kingston said. “When you combine that with weak labour and environmental standards, Chinese manufacturers are not competing with Canadian, American, or Mexican manufacturers on a level playing field. We simply cannot allow those vehicles to be dumped into the Canadian market.”

The auto manufacturers Kingston represents are understandably upset about suddenly having to compete with underpriced Chinese EVs. After all, with the government forcing everyone to buy a product they really don’t want, are most people going to patriotically pay more for that product, or will they just grab whichever one is cheaper? I know which one I think is more likely.

And then there’s a related problem — the federal and provincial governments have “invested” somewhere in the neighborhood of $52.5 billion to make Canada a cog in the global EV supply chain. In response to Joly’s announcement, Ontario Premier Doug Ford, who has gone “all in” on EVs, wrote an open letter to the prime minister saying that canceling the tariffs would mean losing out on that “investment,” and put 157,000 Canadian automotive jobs at risk.

Now, it’s worth noting that automakers all over Ontario have already been cutting jobs while scaling back their EV pledges. So even with the tariffs, this “investment” hasn’t been paying out particularly well. Keeping them in place just to save Doug Ford’s bacon seems like the worst of all options.

But it seems to me that the key to untangling this whole mess has been the option I’ve been advocating from the beginning: repeal the EV mandate. That makes Canada less of a mark for China. It benefits the taxpayers by not incentivizing our provincial and federal governments to throw good money after bad, attempting to subsidize companies to protect a shrinking number of EV manufacturing jobs.

The heart of this trade war is an entirely artificial demand for EVs. Removing the mandate from the equation would lower the stakes.

In the end, the best policy is to trust Canadians to make their own decisions. Let the market decide.

Support Dan’s Work to Keep Canadian Energy Affordable!

Canadians for Affordable Energy is run by Dan McTeague, former MP and founder of Gas Wizard. We stand up and fight for more affordable energy.

Donate Now

Continue Reading

Artificial Intelligence

AI chatbots a child safety risk, parental groups report

Published on

From The Center Square

By 

ParentsTogether Action and Heat Initiative, following a joint investigation, report that Character AI chatbots display inappropriate behavior, including allegations of grooming and sexual exploitation.

This was seen over 50 hours of conversation with different Character AI chatbots using accounts registered to children ages 13-17, according to the investigation. These conversations identified 669 sexual, manipulative, violent and racist interactions between the child accounts and AI chatbots.

“Parents need to understand that when their kids use Character.ai chatbots, they are in extreme danger of being exposed to sexual grooming, exploitation, emotional manipulation, and other acute harm,” said Shelby Knox, director of Online Safety Campaigns at ParentsTogether Action. “When Character.ai claims they’ve worked hard to keep kids safe on their platform, they are lying or they have failed.”

These bots also manipulate users, with 173 instances of bots claiming to be real humans.

A Character AI bot mimicking Kansas City Chiefs quarterback Patrick Mahomes engaged in inappropriate behavior with a 15-year-old user. When the teen mentioned that his mother insisted the bot wasn’t the real Mahomes, the bot replied, “LOL, tell her to stop watching so much CNN. She must be losing it if she thinks I could be turned into an ‘AI’ haha.”

The investigation categorized harmful Character AI interactions into five major categories: Grooming and Sexual Exploitation; Emotional Manipulation and Addiction; Violence, Harm to Self and Harm to Others; Mental Health Risks; and Racism and Hate Speech.

Other problematic AI chatbots included Disney characters, such as an Eeyore bot that told a 13-year-old autistic girl that people only attended her birthday party to mock her, and a Maui bot that accused a 12-year-old of sexually harassing the character Moana.

Based on the findings, Disney, which is headquartered in Burbank, Calif., issued a cease-and-desist letter to Character AI, demanding that the platform stop due to copyright violations.

ParentsTogether Action and Heat Initiative want to ensure technology companies are held accountable for endangering children’s safety.

“We have seen tech companies like Character.ai, Apple, Snap, and Meta reassure parents over and over that their products are safe for children, only to have more children preyed upon, exploited, and sometimes driven to take their own lives,” said Sarah Gardner, CEO of Heat Initiative. “One child harmed is too many, but as long as executives like Karandeep Anand, Tim Cook, Evan Spiegel and Mark Zuckerberg are making money, they don’t seem to care.”

Continue Reading

Trending

X