More government interventions hamper capitalism

In his fourth book, What Went Wrong With Capitalism, investor and author Ruchir Sharma eloquently details how advanced market economies for decades have increasingly strayed from the basic principles of market-based competition and pricing, resulting in persistently slow growth which causes many to question whether capitalism works anymore. However, what is often attributed to market failure is often a failure of government.

Collectivists have successfully installed the narrative that the Reagan and Thatcher era in the 1980s ushered in an era of neoliberalism and government austerity. Nothing could be further from the truth. Keynesian counter-cyclical government spending was supposed to support the economy during a recession; instead, it is used to support the economy at every point of the business cycle. At most, the Reagan and Thatcher regimes only slowed the rate of increase of government spending. Combined with a growing public resistance to paying higher taxes, this created permanent budget deficits. Policymakers remain stuck on the stimulus treadmill: former European Central Bank head Mario Draghi recently recommended the EU spend an inconceivable US$900 billion a year to revive its flagging economy.

Moreover, the slowdown in the growth of government spending did little to stop a tidal wave of government rules and regulations, many of which favour entrenched interests and firms. Sharma’s observation that being “pro-business is not the same as pro-capitalism, and the distinction continues to elude us” is especially true for Canada. He documents the increasing use of government subsidies and bail-outs, which helps fuel the growth of so-called zombie firms—unprofitable companies that stay in business thanks to support from governments or lending institutions (who know problems caused by bad loans will be bailed out by government), which prevent labour and capital from moving to areas with better long-term growth potential. Most recently, we have seen governments embrace higher tariffs and industrial policy, notably for green energy projects in Canada and the United States.

Increased government meddling in the marketplace reduces competition and slows the process of creative destruction that is the lifeblood of capitalism by allowing “new firms to rise up and destroy the complacent ones, making the economy ever more productive over time,” according to Sharma. This was most evident during the pandemic, when business failures declined as government hand-outs outweighed the impact of unprecedented shutdown of large parts of the economy. But the decline in business startups and failures has persisted for decades.

Steadily rising government intervention in the economy results in lower productivity and slower growth. This pushes policymakers to resort to higher fiscal deficits and easy money policies in a forlorn attempt to boost long-term potential growth.

It is often said that the recent slowdown of productivity reflects a lack of business investment. That is certainly part of the problem outside of the U.S., especially for Canada over the past decade. However, Sharma notes it is the efficiency and not just the level of investment that is the problem. Pervasive government interventions in the economy distort prices and the allocation of capital, resulting in what the libertarian economist Friedrich Hayek called “malinvestments.” This is especially true for Canada, which for over a decade has shunned clearly profitable investment opportunities in the resource sector while pouring tens of billions into expensive public transit systems, which nevertheless failed to persuade commuters to leave their vehicles at home.

One theme Sharma does not develop is that this growing inability of governments to efficiently deliver results is not due to a lack of resources. Governments have expanded their workforce, their spending, and their regulatory power. Nevertheless, government programs falter because of bad management, chronic political meddling for short-term electoral gains, and a workforce which increasingly serves its own interests and not public’s.

Sharma concludes on both an optimistic and pessimistic note. He examines the ability of capitalism to thrive in countries such as Switzerland and Taiwan by balancing “a business-friendly environment alongside social equality.” Nevertheless, he’s concerned with the “supreme irony: modern voters, particularly the young, now demand that leaders show respect for the fragility of natural ecosystems… [but] at the same time, leaders are riding a popular wave when they propose to intervene in the economy—the global ecosystem in which 8 billion people do business.”

As disillusionment with capitalism spreads due to slow growth, the temptation is to increase government interventions, which only worse the economic outcome.

Author:

Philip Cross

Senior Fellow, Fraser Institute

Up Next

An exclusive interview with a Haitian immigrant from Charleroi, Pennsylvania

Don't Miss

In Charleroi, Pennsylvania, the local population grapples with a surge of Haitian migrants.

Todayville

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Hours after Liberal election win, Alberta Prosperity Project drumming up interest in referendum

2025 Federal Election / 8 hours ago

Post election…the chips fell where they fell

Banks / 8 hours ago

TD Bank Account Closures Expose Chinese Hybrid Warfare Threat

Banks

TD Bank Account Closures Expose Chinese Hybrid Warfare Threat

Published on April 29, 2025

Todayville

From the Frontier Centre for Public Policy

By Scott McGregor

Scott McGregor warns that Chinese hybrid warfare is no longer hypothetical—it’s unfolding in Canada now. TD Bank’s closure of CCP-linked accounts highlights the rising infiltration of financial interests. From cyberattacks to guanxi-driven influence, Canada’s institutions face a systemic threat. As banks sound the alarm, Ottawa dithers. McGregor calls for urgent, whole-of-society action before foreign interference further erodes our sovereignty.

Chinese hybrid warfare isn’t coming. It’s here. And Canada’s response has been dangerously complacent

The recent revelation by The Globe and Mail that TD Bank has closed accounts linked to pro-China groups—including those associated with former Liberal MP Han Dong—should not be dismissed as routine risk management. Rather, it is a visible sign of a much deeper and more insidious campaign: a hybrid war being waged by the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) across Canada’s political, economic and digital spheres.

TD Bank’s move—reportedly driven by “reputational risk” and concerns over foreign interference—marks a rare, public signal from the private sector. Politically exposed persons (PEPs), a term used in banking and intelligence circles to denote individuals vulnerable to corruption or manipulation, were reportedly among those flagged. When a leading Canadian bank takes action while the government remains hesitant, it suggests the threat is no longer theoretical. It is here.

Hybrid warfare refers to the use of non-military tools—such as cyberattacks, financial manipulation, political influence and disinformation—to erode a nation’s sovereignty and resilience from within. In The Mosaic Effect: How the Chinese Communist Party Started a Hybrid War in America’s Backyard, co-authored with Ina Mitchell, we detailed how the CCP has developed a complex and opaque architecture of influence within Canadian institutions. What we’re seeing now is the slow unravelling of that system, one bank record at a time.

Financial manipulation is a key component of this strategy. CCP-linked actors often use opaque payment systems—such as WeChat Pay, UnionPay or cryptocurrency—to move money outside traditional compliance structures. These platforms facilitate the unchecked flow of funds into Canadian sectors like real estate, academia and infrastructure, many of which are tied to national security and economic competitiveness.

Layered into this is China’s corporate-social credit system. While framed as a financial scoring tool, it also functions as a mechanism of political control, compelling Chinese firms and individuals—even abroad—to align with party objectives. In this context, there is no such thing as a genuinely independent Chinese company.

Complementing these structural tools is guanxi—a Chinese system of interpersonal networks and mutual obligations. Though rooted in trust, guanxi can be repurposed to quietly influence decision-makers, bypass oversight and secure insider deals. In the wrong hands, it becomes an informal channel of foreign control.

Meanwhile, Canada continues to face escalating cyberattacks linked to the Chinese state. These operations have targeted government agencies and private firms, stealing sensitive data, compromising infrastructure and undermining public confidence. These are not isolated intrusions—they are part of a broader effort to weaken Canada’s digital, economic and democratic institutions.

The TD Bank decision should be seen as a bellwether. Financial institutions are increasingly on the front lines of this undeclared conflict. Their actions raise an urgent question: if private-sector actors recognize the risk, why hasn’t the federal government acted more decisively?

The issue of Chinese interference has made headlines in recent years, from allegations of election meddling to intimidation of diaspora communities. TD’s decision adds a new financial layer to this growing concern.

Canada cannot afford to respond with fragmented, reactive policies. What’s needed is a whole-of-society response: new legislation to address foreign interference, strengthened compliance frameworks in finance and technology, and a clear-eyed recognition that hybrid warfare is already being waged on Canadian soil.

The CCP’s strategy is long-term, multidimensional and calculated. It blends political leverage, economic subversion, transnational organized crime and cyber operations. Canada must respond with equal sophistication, coordination and resolve.

The mosaic of influence isn’t forming. It’s already here. Recognizing the full picture is no longer optional. Canadians must demand transparency, accountability and action before more of our institutions fall under foreign control.

Scott McGregor is a defence and intelligence veteran, co-author of The Mosaic Effect: How the Chinese Communist Party Started a Hybrid War in America’s Backyard, and the managing partner of Close Hold Intelligence Consulting Ltd. He is a senior security adviser to the Council on Countering Hybrid Warfare and a former intelligence adviser to the RCMP and the B.C. Attorney General. He writes for the Frontier Centre for Public Policy.

Automotive

Major automakers push congress to block California’s 2035 EV mandate

Published on April 28, 2025

Todayville

MxM News

Quick Hit:

Major automakers are urging Congress to intervene and halt California’s aggressive plan to eliminate gasoline-only vehicles by 2035. With the Biden-era EPA waiver empowering California and 11 other states to enforce the rule, automakers warn of immediate impacts on vehicle availability and consumer choice. The U.S. House is preparing for a critical vote to determine if California’s sweeping environmental mandates will stand.

Key Details:

Automakers argue California’s rules will raise prices and limit consumer choices, especially amid high tariffs on auto imports.
The House is set to vote this week on repealing the EPA waiver that greenlit California’s mandate.
California’s regulations would require 35% of 2026 model year vehicles to be zero-emission, a figure manufacturers say is unrealistic.

Diving Deeper:

The Alliance for Automotive Innovation, representing industry giants such as General Motors, Toyota, Volkswagen, and Hyundai, issued a letter Monday warning Congress about the looming consequences of California’s radical environmental regulations. The automakers stressed that unless Congress acts swiftly, vehicle shipments across the country could be disrupted within months, forcing car companies to artificially limit sales of traditional vehicles to meet electric vehicle quotas.

California’s Air Resources Board rules have already spread to 11 other states—including New York, Massachusetts, and Oregon—together representing roughly 40% of the entire U.S. auto market. Despite repeated concerns from manufacturers, California officials have doubled down, insisting that their measures are essential for meeting lofty greenhouse gas reduction targets and combating smog. However, even some states like Maryland have recognized the impracticality of California’s timeline, opting to delay compliance.

A major legal hurdle complicates the path forward. The Government Accountability Office ruled in March that the EPA waiver issued under former President Joe Biden cannot be revoked under the Congressional Review Act, which requires only a simple Senate majority. This creates uncertainty over whether Congress can truly roll back California’s authority without more complex legislative action.

The House is also gearing up to tackle other elements of California’s environmental regime, including blocking the state from imposing stricter pollution standards on commercial trucks and halting its low-nitrogen oxide emissions regulations for heavy-duty vehicles. These moves reflect growing concerns that California’s progressive regulatory overreach is threatening national commerce and consumer choice.

Under California’s current rules, the state demands that 35% of light-duty vehicles for the 2026 model year be zero-emission, scaling up rapidly to 68% by 2030. Industry experts widely agree that these targets are disconnected from reality, given the current slow pace of electric vehicle adoption among the broader American public, particularly in rural and lower-income areas.

California first unveiled its plan in 2020, aiming to make at least 80% of new cars electric and the remainder plug-in hybrids by 2035. Now, under President Donald Trump’s leadership, the U.S. Transportation Department is working to undo the aggressive fuel economy regulations imposed during former President Joe Biden’s term, offering a much-needed course correction for an auto industry burdened by regulatory overreach.

As Congress debates, the larger question remains: Will America allow one state’s left-wing environmental ideology to dictate terms for the entire country’s auto industry?