Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s calling out a property owner in New York City, Attorney General James of New York attacking President Trump in a decision that was overturned in 2025, Elon Musk’s Delaware pay package ruling subsequently overruled by shareholders — all have something in common: Attack capital, and do not be shocked by the flight of capital from your communities or states.
Read more Just Because AI Does Things That ‘Look Human,’ That Does Not Give It Consciousness
New York City, Seattle, and Los Angeles are just a few of the cities experimenting with the Democratic Socialists of America agenda, a modified form of communism. The consequences of their actions have not yet begun to be felt, but the outcomes will be catastrophic.
These trends will lead our nation to a decision point: bailout or no bailout. The decision will have to be made, and the timing will be the next major recession.
In the past, our nation has taken a “bailout” approach almost always, preventing the needed lessons from being learned. Instead, others have been called upon to pay the price. No lessons learned, and the behavior gets replicated, as we as see playing out today.
Years ago, while serving in the Marine Corps, I spent considerable time in Haiti. It taught me an economic lesson I have never forgotten. Following the 1991 military coup, the United States and international community imposed economic sanctions on Haiti. Those actions may have been justified, but justified decisions still have consequences.
I watched businesses leave. The economic statistics eventually documented the devastation. Between 1991 and 1994, Haiti’s real GDP declined by roughly 30 percent. Investment collapsed from approximately 11 percent of GDP to about 2 percent. Export-oriented assembly industries, which had been enormously important to the country’s exports, virtually ceased operating.
But statistics do not fully describe what I saw. Businesses that left did not come back. Capital found another home. Customers found other suppliers. Managers relocated while Haitian workers were left without jobs. Supply chains were rebuilt excluding Haiti, and investors learned to consider other opportunities.
We are seeing the same issues play out in New York City, Los Angeles, and other similar cities. The outcomes will not be good!
Haiti taught me something that applies far beyond Haiti: Economic activity can disappear much faster than it can be recreated. That lesson may be worth remembering as Americans make increasingly consequential economic choices today that threaten unsustainable economic costs.
Who ultimately bears the cost is now a decision we must all make. We are at a crossroads.
Consider an experiment underway in New York City. Beginning with the 2026–27 property tax year, New York City imposed a new annual surcharge on certain high-value residential properties that are not used as primary residences.
What happens next is the issue. People have choices. Some owners may sell. Some potential purchasers may decide not to buy. Some may rent instead. Some may spend less time or money in New York. And some future investor may simply conclude that another city offers a more attractive opportunity.
We do not yet know for certain. That uncertainty is precisely the point. Government can determine the tax rate, but government cannot determine how people will respond to it.
Capital flight often produces an image of a factory closing and moving to other states or localities. But some of the most important economic movements are invisible. A factory does not close; the next factory simply gets built somewhere else. A company does not relocate its headquarters; its next expansion occurs in another state. An entrepreneur does not shut down a business; she decides not to start it there in the first place. A wealthy family does not announce its departure; the next generation simply establishes residency somewhere else.
Nothing appears in the accounting records, because the economic activity never existed. Yet the community is poorer.
Read more I Am Woman, Hear Me Roar—But Blame It On The Boogeyman
We must also consider the economic activity that changes because the policy exists. States and cities should be allowed to experiment, but what happens when those experiments go wrong? Who should bear the cost?
Sometimes we should help one another, but when is helping not a good idea? There are legitimate reasons for federal intervention, but misfortune and consequences are not always the same thing.
If a jurisdiction knowingly makes economic choices, receives the benefits of those choices, and then asks citizens elsewhere to absorb the costs when those choices fail, something important has changed. The benefits remained local, but the consequences became national.
That creates a moral hazard. When people are insulated from the consequences of risk, their willingness to assume risk can grow. We understand the principle when discussing banks. Why would it disappear when discussing governments?
This is where the phrase “tough love” matters. Tough love is not abandoning people who need help. It is recognizing that helping someone and insulating someone from every consequence of a decision are not necessarily the same thing. When the people making a decision can transfer its ultimate cost to people who had no voice in making it, accountability weakens.
That should concern both conservatives and progressives. Without accountability, we lose one of the most valuable features of federalism: the ability to discover what works.
Responsible capitalism requires intellectual honesty. We cannot demand that experiments be allowed only when we expect to agree with their results. But neither should we erase the results when an experiment fails. That is the balance.
Federal assistance is not free money. It ultimately comes from taxation, borrowing, inflationary pressures under some circumstances, or resources that cannot be used somewhere else.
A federal bailout redistributes the cost. That should force us to ask more than whether the people receiving assistance would benefit. We should also ask about the people being required to provide it.
Our economic system depends upon freedom. Freedom separated from responsibility eventually becomes something else. If profits remain private while losses become public, we distort capitalism. If communities retain the benefits of their decisions while transferring the losses nationally, we distort federalism. If citizens are protected indefinitely from the reasonably foreseeable consequences of their choices, we weaken accountability.
None of this means America should stop helping Americans. It means assistance should be designed carefully enough that compassion does not destroy the feedback mechanism that helps free societies learn.
Haiti taught me long ago that economic consequences can outlive the policy that produced them. The lessons soon to be learned in New York City, Los Angeles, and Seattle should not be lost. The next recession is the deciding point, when we must decide if the socialist/communist experiment fails or gets bailed out. If we choose the latter, we all will suffer.
We will have privatized the freedom to choose while socializing the consequences of the choice. That is not tough love. It is not responsible governing, either.
Read more The Case Against Surrender
Image via Pixabay.