Zohran Mamdani has NYC's business community "terrified"
New York City business leaders woke up to the outcome they least expected Wednesday morning — young, popular socialist Zohran Mamdani cruising to apparent victory in the New York City Democratic mayoral primary.
Why it matters: There's a reason Kathryn Wylde, long the voice of the city's business community, said this week that leaders were " terrified" of Mamdani's rise.
For Wall Street, it's not just about Mamdani — some fear a broader rise of socialism could destabilize markets and the economy.
Zoom out: Bradley Tusk, CEO of Tusk Ventures and former campaign manager for Michael Bloomberg's 2009 mayoral race, said investors need to watch for a rise of "demagogues" on either side of the political spectrum.
"If you have a super high profile socialist mayor creating all types of new government entitlements, taxes, you know, big anti-capitalism sort of campaign…that reverberates everywhere and that generally puts pressure on markets," Tusk told Axios.
Zoom in: Tusk pointed to what he sees as a rise in "very, very progressive mayors," citing Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson and Boston Mayor Michelle Wu as examples, albeit with mixed track records.
Johnson's approval has been at a record low for the office, while voters view Wu much more favorably.
What they're saying: Jim Bianco, president and macro strategist at Bianco Research, wrote "it appears that NYC is electing to commit suicide by Mayor" in a post on X.
One well-known investor deleted an X post suggesting Mamdani's win was a nightmare for billionaire investors, name-checking the Bloombergs, Ackmans, and Loebs of the world.
The intrigue: " Wall Street South," the movement of financial firms to Florida from New York, was already gaining traction, particularly after Ken Griffin relocated Citadel's headquarters to Miami.
Tusk warned that, while unlikely, New York could go the way of "once very prosperous" cities like "Detroit and Baltimore…that had really big tax bases and then…got dirty and dangerous and the taxes went up too much and people left."
After the results, Tusk added in an email that "There's a lot about Zohran Mamdani we still don't know but there's a very good chance he will be our next mayor and if you love this city, you'll do what you can to help him succeed."
Reality check: The "people will flee" reaction is nothing new in NYC.
When progressive candidate Bill de Blasio ran to replace Michael Bloomberg in 2013, investors were concerned about him raising income taxes on the top 1% of earners, a push that hit a wall in Albany.
De Blasio met with a slew of industry leaders, like former Goldman Sachs CEO Lloyd Blankfein and Rupert Murdoch, to ease industry concerns ahead of the election. It appeared to work. Wall Street stayed.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The White House makes its closing argument for Trump's Big Beautiful Bill: ‘Very big' economic benefits
The White House is making its closing argument for President Trump's "One Big Beautiful Bill Act,' and it involves some eye-popping projections for the US economy that don't line up with predictions of independent economists. How eye-popping? Try economic growth of 4.9% in the short term and up to $11.1 trillion in deficit reduction over the next decade if the Senate bill is passed and Trump's agenda is enacted. "Those are very big numbers," acknowledged Council of Economic Advisers Chair Stephen Miran on a call with reporters as he laid out a 27-page report. The findings were immediately met with skepticism by economists who have come to very different conclusions. The report nevertheless concludes that Trump's entire 'suite' of policies — from the bill itself to unilateral deregulation efforts to tariffs — could lead in Miran's words to 'very material increases in GDP growth, very material increases in investment activity, and very material increases in real wages and take-home pay.' The case is essentially that certain provisions in the bill — especially deductions for businesses around things like research and development — will lead to a spike in corporate investment that will then fuel 4.6% to 4.9% in additional GDP growth over the next four years. It's an aggressive projection to say the least. For context, a recent Tax Foundation estimate pegged that figure at 1.1%. But that outsized 4%+ growth will then fuel, the White House says, a reduction in federal deficits by roughly $8.5-$11.1 trillion over the standard 10-year budget window. That would lead to thousands of dollars in additional income for a typical family and stabilize America's debt-to-GDP ratio, according to the report. The rosy predictions from the White House were immediately slammed by a range of economists. 'Well I guess if you are going to make stuff up, go big or go home,' offered former Democratic Congresswoman Carolyn Bourdeaux. 'No credible economist believes this bill is going to reduce the deficit,' she added, noting that 'it adds $3+ trillion.' Bourdeaux currently runs the Concord Coalition, a group focused on the national debt. A range of independent projections — from the Congressional Budget Office to the Tax Foundation to the Penn-Wharton Budget Model — have looked at different versions of the bill and reached a similar conclusion of much lower economic growth and a price tag in the neighborhood of $3 trillion over the next decade. The back and forth comes after the House passed a first version of the bill last month that was then followed by amendments in the Senate. Majority Leader John Thune hopes to finalize those amendments and put the entire package up for a series of votes starting Friday. The deliberations are also being closely watched by Wall Street with the mega-bill also responsible for raising a debt ceiling that is ticking towards a government default as early as Aug. 15, the Bipartisan Policy Center projected in a new report also released Wednesday. The problem for Thune and other Republicans is that a series of fights over different pieces of the bill remain unresolved, with GOP leaders facing a daunting to-do list in the days ahead before another round of voting can begin. In addition to lawmaker objections over issues like state and local tax (SALT) deductions and Medicaid cuts, recent Senate changes already appear likely to increase the price tag further and have further inflamed the concerns of fiscal hawks. A look at the tax provisions of the bill in recent days from the Joint Committee on Taxation offered a new price tag that tops $4 trillion. Wednesday's White House report offered a breakdown of how officials say the top figure of $11.1 trillion is achievable, suggesting that roughly $2.1-2.2 trillion in deficit declines come from the bill itself. Other cost savings will come from additional reductions in discretionary spending (about $1.8 trillion) and more tariff revenue (another $3.2 trillion). The tariff revenue figure is an increase from a recent Congressional Budget Office calculation of $2.8 trillion in revenues, but only if tariffs stay at current levels for the next decade. The final piece of the report focused on deregulatory and energy policies. The White House concluded those steps could reduce the deficit somewhere between an additional $1.3 and $3.7 trillion over the coming decade. The new numbers further reinforced a divide between between economists and the White House. After the House bill was released, there was an $11 trillion chasm between what economists said the bill's effects would be and what the White House said Trump's agenda will bring. The divide is now now even wider, with $15 trillion separating projections released in recent days from each side. The bill is "far from deficit neutral" added Heather Boushey, a former member of Joe Biden's Council of Economic Advisors on Wednesday afternoon. "There are a lot of shenanigans in how they are calculating their numbers." Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance. Click here for political news related to business and money policies that will shape tomorrow's stock prices Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
USA Today
an hour ago
- USA Today
Newark congresswoman pleads not guilty to federal charges over ICE facility
New Jersey Democratic Rep. LaMonica McIver appeared in court June 25 to face federal charges after her visit last month to the Delaney Hall detention center. New Jersey Democratic Rep. LaMonica McIver pled not guilty in federal court June 25 to charges of "assaulting, resisting, and impeding' Homeland Security investigators while visiting the Delaney Hall detention center in Newark in May. The trial date has been set for Nov. 10. 'l pleaded not guilty because I am not guilty," she said to supporters and press outside the courtroom, flanked by her lawyers Paul Fishman and Lee Cortes. "We will fight this.' She then rushed off to go back to Washington, D.C. McIver, who appeared by Zoom at an initial hearing on May 21, was present for the June 25 hearing in the courtroom of Judge Jamel Semper. It was two weeks after a three-count indictment announced by Alina Habba, the interim U.S. Attorney for New Jersey. An indictment is a formal accusation by a grand jury, which leads to a formal plea being entered. Supporters of McIver filled the courtroom — which was without air conditioning but somehow bearable on a sweltering 90-degree day — as the judge spoke for a few minutes. Newark Mayor Ras Baraka said the charges against McIver had nothing to do with justice or the law. McIver and her fellow New Jersey Democratic Reps. Bonnie Watson Coleman and Rob Menendez visited the Newark detention facility on May 9 as part of their congressional oversight duties to inspect the treatment of detainees, accompanied by Baraka. The 1,196-bed Delaney Hall is the first immigrant detention center to open during the second term of President Donald Trump, during which the president has vowed to deport at least 11 million undocumented immigrants. In February, the federal Immigration and Customs Enforcement Agency awarded GEO Group a contract to hold migrants facing deportation at Delaney Hall. In May, the detention center opened. During that visit, Baraka was arrested by Department of Homeland Security agents after an argument with the agents. He was later charged with trespass by the U.S. Attorney's Office for the District of New Jersey, but that charge was dropped on May 19. Baraka, who was running in the Democratic primary for New Jersey governor, filed a lawsuit against Habba and Homeland Security Special Agent Ricky Patel over his arrest. The same day that Baraka's charge was dropped, McIver was charged. In the complaint filed by Homeland Security Special Agent Roger Tansey, he said that McIver "attempted to thwart the arrest" of Baraka as she "slammed her forearm" into the body of one agent and forcibly grabbed him. Tansey then said in the complaint that following Baraka's arrest, McIver pushed another federal agent and used "each of her forearms to forcibly strike" that agent. Video shared by the Baraka gubernatorial campaign with and the USA TODAY Network after Baraka's arrest shows Watson Coleman and McIver — and later Menendez — attempting to stop federal Homeland Security Investigations agents from detaining Baraka. At one point, a federal agent put his hands on McIver to reach Baraka with handcuffs. McIver, 38, who represents the 10th Congressional District that includes her hometown of Newark, said in a statement issued May 19 that the charges against her are "purely political" and "mischaracterize and distort my actions." Paul Fishman, who served as U.S. Attorney in New Jersey during former President Barack Obama's term, issued a statement calling the decision to charge as "spectacularly inappropriate," and that she was doing her job of congressional oversight to ensure when federal agents "chose to escalate what should have been a peaceful situation into chaos." "Congresswoman McIver pleaded not guilty because she is not guilty," he said in a separate statement on June 25. "On May 9, she was at Delaney Hall to carry out her responsibilities as member of Congress. She was there to inspect an ICE detention facility and to see for herself whether the Trump administration is obeying the laws and Constitution of the United States. ICE responded by creating a risky and dangerous situation, and now the Justice Department is doubling down by trying to punish the Congresswoman for doing her job. We are eager to challenge this case on multiple grounds and we are confident that the legal process will ultimately vindicate the congresswoman."
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
The better Israel/Iran explanation: Trump got played
On June 12, Axios reported, the U.S. regime refused to support Israeli strikes on Iran ... but U.S. president Donald Trump said such strikes "might very well happen" even though he wouldn't want Israel to "blow it" ("it" being a new nuclear deal to replace the one Trump began violating in 2018). Hours later, Israeli aircraft attacked, apparently damaging Iranian nuclear facilities and killing top military figures. U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio described the action as "unilateral" and emphasized that "we are not involved." Within hours, however, Trump described the Israeli strikes as, effectively, an outsourcing of U.S. policy. "We knew just about everything," he said. "We knew enough that we gave Iran 60 days to make a deal and today is 61, right? So, you know, we knew everything." After which U.S. forces put its air defense capabilities in the region to work helping Israel blunt the impact of Iranian counterstrikes. One reasonable conclusion, drawn by any number of reasonable people, is that Trump and Rubio were lying to begin with and that the Israeli strikes enjoyed U.S. approval and possibly even active, direct US support (such as the use of U.S. aerial refueling for the Israeli aircraft). That certainly seems possible, but I'd like to offer a different theory: Trump got played. The Israelis said they intended to strike. Trump said not to. The Israelis struck anyway, betting that Trump would circle back to claim prior knowledge and tacit approval, then throw in to defend Israel from the consequences of its actions. I don't know that either theory will ever be fully proven as correct, but the latter theory tracks with everything we know about Trump's history and method. As a "leader," Trump is congenitally incapable of admitting either of two things: Error or weakness. Prior to running for politics, he operated entirely on "brand," not actual accomplishment. Opinion: America cannot retreat from the world stage. Our values must be shared abroad. Over decades as a real estate developer, casino operator, etc., he racked up multiple business bankruptcies and built a smaller fortune than he'd have earned from investing his inheritance in an S&P 500-indexed mutual fund and going on permanent vacation. When sequential failures in real business moved him to go full Hollywood with The Apprentice, the focus was on being a "boss" dispensing sage advice to (or yelling "you're fired" at) future business moguls (most of whom subsequently sank from view). Having failed upward into the presidency, his strategy remains the same: Promote a Trump "brand" built on the pretense that he's either competent or in charge. When both prove false, just change the story to fit the image. In my opinion, the Israelis correctly saw Trump as an easy mark and acted accordingly. We'll get stuck with the bill, in treasure and quite possibly blood. Thomas L. Knapp is director and senior news analyst at the William Lloyd Garrison Center for Libertarian Advocacy Journalism ( He lives and works in north central Florida. This article originally appeared on Palm Beach Post: Trump's Israel/Iran intervention looks like he got played | Opinion
