I’ll be attending the amazing YIMBYtown 2026 | Raleigh, NC on November 17, 2026 at Raleigh Convention Center. Let me know if you’re planning to attend so that we can say Hi! 👋
Or register now and join me at the event! whova.com/portal/registratio…
via #Whova event app
I'll be attending the amazing YIMBYtown 2026 | Raleigh, NC. Let me know if you're planning to attend so that we can say Hi! 👋
Or register now and join me at the event! whova.com/portal/registratio…
via #Whova event app whova.com/portal/registratio…
Greg Smith retweeted
But yes, if you are going to take a huge loss making any repairs to the apartments you own, because you are legally prohibited from ever charging enough to earn back the costs of maintenance in the year of our lord 2026, that is a problem.
People forget that buildings have active costs associated with them. Everything is in a state of entropy. Rent is not a made up number that greedy landlords collect because they are evil. There is an active, ongoing cost to keeping a building running.
Greg Smith retweeted
You cannot make repairs if the tenants don't let you in the door! That is very often a big part of the problem.
Greg Smith retweeted
Yeah dude, I've had bad landlords and really great landlords, such is the nature of any transactional relationship.
Now explain to me why a law prohibiting someone from being able to afford to make repairs to an apartment is supposed to *prevent* something like this from happening.
Greg Smith retweeted
I’M WRITING A BOOK!! GOOD BOUNDARES: Essays on The Age of Risk-Aversion is coming in 2027 with @randomhouse
Essays on therapy culture, Luigi Mangione, tradwives, AI girlfriends, and how risk-aversion drives Gen Z’s loneliness and alienation, headed your way soon!
Greg Smith retweeted
My dear American friends, in my last post I gave you a snapshot of where France stands today. Now let me show you how we got here. I want you to see the whole movie before you buy the ticket.
After the war, France was a machine. We called it the Trente Glorieuses, thirty glorious years. We built Concorde, the most beautiful aircraft ever made. We built a fleet of nuclear reactors in about fifteen years and gave ourselves some of the cleanest, cheapest electricity in the world. We built Ariane and put Europe in space. We built the TGV, the fastest train on earth. We invented the Minitel, an online network in millions of homes before most of you had heard of the internet. We were not a museum. We were builders.
Then came 1981. François Mitterrand. Think of him as our Bernie Sanders, except he actually won. At his side, in the office next to his at the Élysée, sat a 37-year-old prodigy named Jacques Attali, his special adviser for the next ten years. The brightest minds of the left, convinced they could run an economy from a ministry.
Here's what they did. They governed with Communist ministers. In 1982 they nationalized dozens of banks and the biggest industrial groups in the country: Paribas, Suez, Saint-Gobain, Thomson, Pechiney, Rhône-Poulenc. They lowered the retirement age to 60. They cut the work week to 39 hours and added a fifth week of paid vacation. They created a wealth tax. They hired massively into the public sector.
Reality hit in less than two years. Capital fled, inflation ran wild, and the franc was devalued three times. In March 1983 Mitterrand had to slam on the brakes and impose austerity just to stay in the European monetary system.
But here's the trick: the brakes never reversed anything. They just slowed the ratchet. The so-called right came back with Jacques Chirac, and nothing was undone. Under Chirac's presidency, France passed the 35-hour work week. Left or right, every government added one more program, one more rule, one more tax, and nobody ever took one away.
At the same time, the political class did something even more destructive than bad economics. It turned the youth into a political instrument. Instead of teaching young people, including millions of children of immigrants, to love the country they lived in, it taught them a story of guilt and grievance: France as the oppressor, France as the thing to resent. You cannot integrate people into a country you've taught them to despise. We are living with the consequences of that narrative today, in our schools, our suburbs, our streets.
Then forty years of slow decline, all the way to Macron. And the story has a perfect ending. In 2007, Jacques Attali chaired a commission on how to unleash French growth. Its deputy rapporteur was a young civil servant named Emmanuel Macron. The commission proposed more than 300 reforms to free the economy. Almost none were ever implemented. Even the men who built the system knew it wasn't working, and even they couldn't undo it.
No balanced budget since 1974. Public spending around 57% of GDP. Debt above 3,300 billion euros. Growth stuck under 1%.
Now the number that should keep you up at night. In 1995, GDP per person in France was about $27,000. In America, about $29,000. We were neck and neck. Today France is around $49,000. America is around $90,000. You are now nearly twice as rich per person as we are.
What changed? Not our talent. Not our engineers. Not our schools of mathematics. The only thing that changed is that we went all in on socialism. The 35 hours, the endless regulation, the taxes that chase out anyone who builds, the belief that the state should do everything and the individual should ask permission for everything.
There's a line people love to attribute to Einstein: insanity is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results. We tried. For forty years, we tried. Every government promised that one more program, one more tax, one more regulation would finally fix things. You just saw where it got us.
So if you choose the Democratic Party, which is literally turning socialist in front of your eyes, you will deserve what comes next.
Let me tell you exactly what will happen if you go down that road. Nobody will vote for decline. Every single measure will sound generous, compassionate, reasonable. Your builders will slowly leave or stop building. Your state will grow every year and never shrink. Your debt will compound. And in thirty years, your kids will look at a chart like the one I just described and wonder when it all went wrong.
You still have something we lost. You have Elon Musk sending rockets to orbit and landing them on their tail. You have Palmer Luckey building the defense industry of the future. You have Jeff Bezos, Jensen Huang, and thousands of founders nobody has heard of yet, building in garages right now.
Trust your entrepreneurs. Don't trust your politicians.
I come from your future. Don't make it yours.
I’m French. I want to talk to Americans who are about to vote Democrat. Not to insult you. To warn you.
I come from your future.
In France we did everything your progressive politicians promise. Free healthcare, free college, generous welfare, strong unions, heavy regulation, high taxes on the rich, a state that takes care of everything. Public spending close to 57% of GDP, one of the highest on the planet. On paper, it’s the dream.
Here’s what it looks like from the inside. France hasn’t passed a balanced budget since 1974. Our debt is above 3,300 billion euros. Interest on that debt is becoming one of the biggest items in the national budget. Our hospitals are collapsing despite record funding. Our schools rank lower every year. Young people with degrees can’t afford an apartment in the city they were born in. Our best engineers leave for London, Zurich and San Francisco. And the rich you wanted to tax? They left too, and took the jobs with them.
The promise was protection. The result is stagnation.
The worst part is that nobody in France voted for decline. Every single step sounded generous, compassionate, reasonable. One more program. One more regulation. One more tax to fund it. Each step alone makes sense. Fifty years of them, and you wake up in a country that can no longer build a nuclear plant on time or keep its streets safe.
I love America because it’s the one place on earth where people still believe they can build something from nothing. I came to Silicon Valley as a self-taught kid and it changed my life. That spirit is the most precious thing your country has.
Before you vote, ask yourself one question: is the program you’re voting for making America more like America, or more like France?
Trust me. You don’t want to be France.
Greg Smith retweeted
Bernie Sanders says the top 1% owns more than the bottom 93%, that fewer than a thousand billionaires got $2.2 trillion richer last year, and that it's "obscene."
It's the most seductive and most wrong economic argument of our time. Let me explain why.
First, wealth distribution follows a power law. Always. Everywhere. Books, music, startups, followers on X, goals in soccer. A small minority captures most of the value. That's not a bug of capitalism. It's the mathematical signature of every system where value gets created.
So the only question that matters isn't "how big is the rich's slice?" It's "is the cake growing, and is the slice of the poorest growing with it?"
And the answer is yes. In 1990, more than one human in three lived in extreme poverty. Today it's about one in ten. During exactly the period when billionaires multiplied.
Bernie shows you the slice. He never shows you the cake.
Second thing he won't tell you: past a certain level, wealth stops being consumption. It becomes capital allocation.
Elon Musk isn't sleeping on a pile of cash. He owns stakes in Tesla, SpaceX, xAI. Jeff Bezos owns Amazon stock. That "$2.2 trillion" isn't sitting in a checking account. It's factories, rockets, data centers, millions of jobs. Nobody can eat $100 billion. You can only decide where to invest it.
Once you understand that, the whole debate changes. The real question becomes: who allocates capital better?
The people who built Amazon, SpaceX and Nvidia? Or politicians?
A 5% wealth tax isn't "taking money from the rich." It's taking investment decisions away from people who proved they can create value and handing them to people who proved the opposite.
Because the fundamental difference between an entrepreneur and a politician is consequences.
The entrepreneur invests his own money. If he allocates badly, he loses everything. The market corrects him brutally, no appeal. That's why most startups die: the system kills bad decisions.
The politician invests other people's money. If he allocates badly, nothing happens. Worse, he gets a bigger budget to "fix the problem."
Milton Friedman put it better than anyone. There are four ways to spend money. Your money on yourself: you care about price and quality. Your money on others: you care about price. Others' money on yourself: you care about quality. Others' money on others: you care about nothing.
Government is the fourth box. By design.
Perfect example: California high-speed rail. Approved in 2008 for about $33 billion. Current estimated cost: over $100 billion. Passengers carried: zero. No entrepreneur would have survived that. The politicians who pushed it built careers on it.
And when allocation has no consequences, it eventually finds a buyer. A politician who controls billions without accountability becomes the most profitable target in the world for anyone who wants to steer that money.
The irony is that the left that rails against billionaires is itself funded by billionaires. George Soros is one of the biggest Democratic donors in history. The Gates Foundation shapes public health policy across the planet.
Politicians don't fight billionaires. They pick their own. The ones who fund the state over the ones who compete with it.
So if we actually want fewer poor people, we have to stop judging ideas by their intentions and start judging them by their results. And the results are brutally clear.
China, 1978: Deng Xiaoping opens the economy to markets. More than 800 million people escape extreme poverty. The largest retreat of misery in human history. Not through redistribution. Through the freedom to build.
India, 1991: liberalization. Same movie.
South Korea and North Korea: same people, same language, same starting point in 1953. One became one of the most advanced economies on earth. The other has famines.
Poland and Ukraine: comparable living standards in 1990. Today the average Pole is more than three times richer than the average Ukrainian.
Argentina: a year and a half of liberalization, and the poverty rate falls from over 50% to around 30%.
No country in history escaped poverty by punishing the people who build. Every single one did it by letting them build.
And if you want to see what Bernie's program looks like in real life, you don't have to imagine it. It exists. It's called France. We've been running it for 45 years.
Mass nationalizations in 1981. Two years later, Socialist president Mitterrand has to reverse course into austerity.
Retirement at 60. The 35-hour workweek.
A wealth tax for 35 years. Hundreds of wealthy households left every year for Belgium, Switzerland, London, taking their capital, their companies and their future taxes with them. Macron finally scrapped it in 2018.
Hollande's 75% tax: raised a few hundred million, drove talent out, abandoned after two years.
One of the highest tax burdens in the OECD. Public spending around 57% of GDP, a record in the developed world.
Last balanced budget: 1974. Public debt: over €3.4 trillion. Mass unemployment for four decades.
If taxing the rich and growing the state made people prosperous, France would be the richest country on the planet.
It isn't. GDP per capita in France is barely more than half of America's. It's lower than Mississippi, the poorest state in the US. Not a single global tech giant. Our best engineers build Silicon Valley instead. I've been going back and forth between Paris and San Francisco for years. I see it every week.
And California is about to replay the movie. Prop 40, on the ballot November 3rd, would take 5% of billionaires' net worth. Even Gavin Newsom, a Democratic governor, opposes it. The state's own nonpartisan budget analyst warns that income tax revenue could drop every year if the wealthy leave. Larry Page, Sergey Brin and Peter Thiel have reportedly already started moving their assets out.
You don't fight poverty by shrinking the top. You fight it by growing the cake.
Bernie wants a society where nobody has too much. I want a society where nobody has too little.
The first has been tried everywhere and produces equality in stagnation. The second lifted a billion people out of misery.
Choose.
The top 1% owns more wealth than the bottom 93%.
1 man owns more wealth than the bottom 53% of households.
Less than a thousand billionaires got $2.2 trillion richer in the last year.
Obscene.
Yes. We need a 5% billionaire wealth tax in California and throughout America.
Greg Smith retweeted
Recuerde que 19 niñas yazidíes fueron quemadas vivas en jaulas de hierro por ISIS por negarse a convertirse al Islam y convertirse en esclavas sexuales.
ISIS las hizo desfilar por las calles de Mosul y luego las quemó delante de cientos de personas.
¡Ningún activista pro-palestino protestó por ellas!
Greg Smith retweeted
Yea. Sometimes you can blame greedy landlords, but no one on earth is paying $100k to repair apartments that rent for $600 a month.
The law used to allow raising rent to recoup repairs. We need to return!
These NYC apartments are standing empty, not because the owners don't want to rent them, but because rent stabilization laws prohibit them from charging enough to earn back the costs of necessary repairs.
My latest for @WSJFreeEx
Greg Smith retweeted
My post about France went viral. Thousands of likes. Many Americans told me: "Democrats aren't socialists. America will never be France." I want to answer that seriously, step by step.
Start with a simple observation. Look at what has gotten cheaper in America over the last 25 years: TVs, phones, software, clothes, toys. Now look at what has exploded: college tuition, healthcare, childcare, housing.
What separates the two lists? The first lives in competitive markets. The second is exactly where government is most involved: subsidies, mandates, licensing, zoning, regulation.
College. Washington lends students almost unlimited money. Universities know the money will always come, so they raise tuition and hire more administrators. The student pays the bill for twenty years. More government money, higher prices.
Housing. Why can't a nurse buy a home in the city where she works? Not because of capitalism. Because of zoning laws, permits, environmental reviews, years of procedure to build a single building. The most expensive places to live in America are the places where it's hardest to build. When building is nearly illegal, prices explode.
Healthcare. The patient almost never sees the price. A third party pays, regulations limit who can compete, and costs climb year after year with no one able to say no.
So here is the trap. The problems you suffer from are not the failure of free markets. They are the places where the market has already been replaced by the state. And the solution you're being offered is more of the same.
That's the Trojan horse. It always works the same way. A real problem. A generous-sounding promise. A program that makes things worse. Then the failure of that program becomes the argument for the next one. People who lived under communism in Poland learned to recognize the lie and the mask the lie wears. The lie never presents itself as a lie. It presents itself as compassion.
In France we are at the end of that road. Debt we can never repay. Young people who can't afford a home. Our best people leaving. And every few years our cities burn. Nobody voted for this. They voted for one more generous promise, fifty years in a row.
If you're a Republican, share this with the Democrat in your life. Not to win an argument. To start a conversation.
If you're a Democrat, I'm not asking you to switch teams. I'm asking you to look at the pattern. Wherever the state took over, life became unaffordable. Don't fix the failures of government with more government.
Stay American. Ask for less state, not more.
I’m French. I want to talk to Americans who are about to vote Democrat. Not to insult you. To warn you.
I come from your future.
In France we did everything your progressive politicians promise. Free healthcare, free college, generous welfare, strong unions, heavy regulation, high taxes on the rich, a state that takes care of everything. Public spending close to 57% of GDP, one of the highest on the planet. On paper, it’s the dream.
Here’s what it looks like from the inside. France hasn’t passed a balanced budget since 1974. Our debt is above 3,300 billion euros. Interest on that debt is becoming one of the biggest items in the national budget. Our hospitals are collapsing despite record funding. Our schools rank lower every year. Young people with degrees can’t afford an apartment in the city they were born in. Our best engineers leave for London, Zurich and San Francisco. And the rich you wanted to tax? They left too, and took the jobs with them.
The promise was protection. The result is stagnation.
The worst part is that nobody in France voted for decline. Every single step sounded generous, compassionate, reasonable. One more program. One more regulation. One more tax to fund it. Each step alone makes sense. Fifty years of them, and you wake up in a country that can no longer build a nuclear plant on time or keep its streets safe.
I love America because it’s the one place on earth where people still believe they can build something from nothing. I came to Silicon Valley as a self-taught kid and it changed my life. That spirit is the most precious thing your country has.
Before you vote, ask yourself one question: is the program you’re voting for making America more like America, or more like France?
Trust me. You don’t want to be France.
Greg Smith retweeted
If you don't believe in the laws of supply and demand, just look at Phoenix's apartment market.
Since COVID, Phoenix ranks Top 5 for apartment demand and yet ranks in the Bottom 10 for rent growth.
Why? Not rent control. Supply. Phoenix ranks No. 3 for supply over the same period.
It ain't complicated. If you want to help rent affordability, embrace the science. Embrace the one and only solution proven to work.
The math is getting harder these days for new construction, so it's an opportunity for cities and states to find creative ways to get more development to work -- expedited timelines, public/private partnerships, tax abatements (in exchange for affordability requirements), etc.
Greg Smith retweeted
ONE GIRL WAS THROWN FROM A MOVING CAR. ANOTHER WAS BURNED. SIX RETURNED WITH SEXUALLY TRANSMITTED DISEASES. FOUR BECAME PREGNANT.
Some were just 13 years old. These were children in the care of Birmingham City Council. Girls who should have been protected by the very authorities responsible for their safety.
In 1991, Dr Jill Jesson exposed what was happening to them. She identified links to Asian private-hire drivers and subsequently revealed that she had been ordered to remove the ethnicity of the men from her findings.
Copies of her report were ordered destroyed. Birmingham councillors later voted against an inquiry. Years later, the council investigated itself and declared there had been no cover-up.
NOW LOOK AT THE POLITICIANS REPRESENTING BIRMINGHAM.
Jess Phillips, MP for Birmingham Yardley, became the Minister for Safeguarding and Violence Against Women and Girls. When demands for a government-led grooming gangs inquiry were made, she rejected Oldham's request and supported powerless locally led investigations instead. Are we to believe she did not know what was happening in her own backyard?
And then there is Shabana Mahmood.
Mahmood has represented Birmingham Ladywood since 2010. Her own website proudly documents years of campaigning for Palestine. But where is the equivalent record of her campaigning for the girls sexually exploited in her own city? Where was her campaign to uncover what happened to the Jill Jesson Report?
Mahmood is now the Home Secretary, responsible for the national statutory grooming gangs inquiry.
A FOR BIRMINGHAM TODAY
98 live child sexual exploitation investigations. Six suspected grooming gangs roaming the streets. Two private-hire drivers stripped of their licences following police intelligence about potential sexual offences against children.
And the ethnicity of the men involved is still hidden.
My latest article follows the evidence through successive Birmingham administrations. I identify the politicians, chief executives and senior officials who held power when the decisions were made, and set out who Baroness Longfield must now call to account.
Read it here and get ready for my live transmission where I line by line analyse the Jesson Report.
Raja Miah MBE
redwallandtherabble.co.uk/fo…
_________
Unfortunately, we are reaching the end of the road where I can continue working this way.
The paid subscriptions have stalled. Worse, tens of thousands of people are now reading these articles without even joining the free mailing list. The audience is growing, but the number of people actually standing behind the work is not growing with it.
This is becoming impossible to sustain.
You know what we are up against. The mainstream media will not touch my work. Institutions I investigate do not volunteer their records. Politicians do not suddenly decide to hold themselves to account.
And yet, despite all of that, we forced the national inquiry. We did that because enough ordinary people refused to go away.
But getting the inquiry was never the end of this campaign. In many ways it was only the beginning. Now we have to watch where it goes, what it investigates, which places it avoids, which witnesses it calls, which records it obtains and whether the same institutions that failed these children are allowed to control the story again.
Nobody else is going to do that work for us. And I cannot do it indefinitely working on my own. That is why I keep talking about 50,000 committed subscribers.
It is not a vanity number. I did not pluck it out of the air. With fifty thousand people with me means when we uncover something important, it does not depend on a newspaper editor, a television producer or an algorithm deciding whether you are allowed to see it.
It gives us reach they cannot easily shut down.
But there is another reason. I need to build a proper backroom operation around this work. At the moment I am investigating, researching, writing, publishing, producing the videos, running the newsletter, dealing with the technology and then starting again. It is unsustainable.
I need people behind me who can take care of the technical and production work so that I can spend my time doing the thing I do best. That is why we have been pushing so hard for new paid subscribers.
🔴 SIGN UP HERE
👉 redwallandtherabble.co.uk
If you read my work and want it to continue, I need your help. Sign up for free. There are no paywalls to access any of my work. If you can afford the £3 a month or £30 for the year, please become a paid subscriber.
We forced the inquiry. Now we need the numbers to make sure they cannot control what happens next.
Raja Miah MBE
Greg Smith retweeted
美国华裔脱口秀演员Jimmy O. Yang上Joe Rogan节目时直言:
“我平时尽量不在脱口秀里谈政治,但看到嬉皮士(白左)在家里挂毛主席海报、穿毛主席T恤就生气。毛泽东杀了很多人,这和在家里挂希特勒海报没什么两样。。
这段访谈的内容要点(从视频字幕和对话):
• 主持人问他对香港失去自主权怎么看。他回答很失望(disheartening),但说他爸爸早就预见了。
• 他们2000年移民美国,当时他13岁,是回归后三年。
• 主要原因包括:教育、在美国有更多机会,以及「他们看到了即将发生的事」(they saw it coming)。
• 他爸爸经历过50-60年代共产主义革命(文革时期),说「那些人会踹开你家门,把所有东西都拿走」。两边祖父母都因为是「知识分子」被关过牢(他爷爷是化学老师)。叔叔们也因为说错话被抓。
• 他补充:我平时尽量不在脱口秀里谈政治,但看到嬉皮士家里挂毛主席海报、穿毛主席T恤就生气。毛主席杀了很多人,这和在家里挂希特勒海报没什么两样。
背景核实:
Jimmy(欧陽萬成)1987年生于香港,父母原籍上海,后来搬到香港。2000年全家移民洛杉矶,官方说法主要是为了让他和哥哥接受更好的教育(他后来进了Beverly Hills High School)。他在自己的单口喜剧和书里也多次用「妈妈嫁给爸爸是为了逃离共产主义中国,不是爱情,是笔好交易」这类梗开玩笑。家族确实有文革创伤记忆。
点评:
这段话真实反映了不少有大陆背景的香港家庭在回归前后的心态:对共产党统治有直接或间接的负面记忆(尤其是知识分子家庭),对「一国两制」的长期前景不乐观,因此选择提前离开。他并没有把移民原因完全归结为「单纯反共」,而是把教育、机会和「看见趋势」并列,这和很多实际移民决策相符——政治风险是重要考量之一,但不是唯一。
总体而言,这是一段真实的家庭史口述,对理解部分香港移民动机有参考价值,而不是单纯的政治宣传剪辑。
Jimmy本人后来成为美国公民,也在美国发展喜剧和演艺事业,这类经历在他的内容里反复出现。
Greg Smith retweeted
Amazing. The enrollment in Seattle Public Schools is the same as it was in 2014, but there are an extra 1000 full-time employees on the payroll, and the budget has doubled. All while test scores have declined considerably.
Replying to @stevesi
this all from SPD. wish i could find the part time employees that I suspect grew even more, but notice expenditures soared, even if adjust for inflation
Expanding Austin’s hosing story. open.substack.com/pub/cityof…
Greg Smith retweeted
🇫🇷🇨🇭 France is now widely described as the sick man of Europe, yet Switzerland is rarely mentioned as a compelling counterfactual. The two countries followed almost identical fiscal paths between 1990 and 2000, with Switzerland also carrying substantial public debt by the standards of the time and facing a rising debt trajectory. In 2001, however, Switzerland enshrined an optimal fiscal rule in its constitution and subsequently implemented it to the letter, with extraordinary results. The question remains the same, why does the economics profession not study the Swiss case more thoroughly?
Greg Smith retweeted
if you're wondering why socialism is becoming more popular with the younger generations, this is probably one of the reasons:
Greg Smith retweeted
Last night I did a very un-Seattle thing: I participated in a @weheartseattle panel discussion about some of Seattle’s most polarizing, hot button issues - homelessness and addiction - with people “on the other side” with whom I substantively disagree on some important and consequential things.
I feel like we dipped below the surface of what divides us as we talked about seemingly incompatible approaches like “Recovery First” vs. “Housing First,” which has some value, but even better I also think we just scratched the surface of where we actually (in some instances surprisingly) converged towards some important and potentially consequential opportunities to find common ground.
No doubt @lisadaugaard and I will take some flack for engaging in good faith dialogue with, rather than condemning, San Francisco-based recovery advocate @Twolfrecovery and Washington Policy Center’s Eric Zimmerman, at an event organized by @weheartfounder Andrea Suarez no less, and moderated by @KIROCharlie Harger, but I’m glad I did it.
Naive fool and unrepentant sellout that I am, it seems to me we would benefit from more of these sorts of nuanced and sometimes fraught conversations, rather than dining out yet again on the oh-so-satisfying empty calories of self-righteous condemnation and tribal self-congratulatory groupthink that still dominates much of the menu of Seattle’s civic discourse these days.




























