“A prosperous commerce is now perceived and acknowledged by all enlightened statesmen to be the most useful as well as the most productive source of national wealth.”
—Alexander Hamilton, The Federalist No. 12 (1787).1 Hamilton served as aide-de-camp to General George Washington, wrote most of the influential Federalist Papers, and was the first Secretary of the Treasury and founder of the United States financial system.
There was once a time when New York represented the heart of American progress. In the 1930s and 1940s, while the world still trembled between wars, the city managed to build a virtuous balance between economic freedom, labor, and public vision. The skyscrapers were not merely steel structures: they were monuments to confidence in the future. That confidence, grounded in fiscal discipline and productive investment, forged a metropolis that seemed immune to failure. Over time, prudence gave way to negligence, and the idea of unlimited entitlement replaced the principle of responsibility. Today, with the rise to power of progressive socialist Zohran Mamdani, New York once again walks on the edge of the same precipice. His victory is the direct consequence of the fiscal disorder inherited from Bill de Blasio and the incapacity of Eric Adams, whose administration degraded services and eroded trust in local government. It is a warning for those who believe fiscal balance can be separated from growth, and above all for the future of Guatemala.2
The modern cycle of New York prosperity began with Fiorello La Guardia (1934–1945), a reformist Republican who transformed the city under one simple principle: spend only what is sustainable. His administration cut unemployment in half and raised per capita income above the American average, while consolidating major public works responsibly. La Guardia believed prosperity was the consequence of order, not spending.3
But prosperity has silent enemies. After the postwar boom, the administrations of William O’Dwyer and Robert Wagner Jr. turned social spending into a political instrument. In 1955, the municipal budget amounted to 10% of the city’s GDP; twenty years later, it exceeded 20%. Productivity stagnated and debt doubled. The first major crisis had already arrived in 1933, during the Depression, when New York nearly went bankrupt. The second, devastating crisis exploded in 1975: banks cut off credit, debt surpassed USD 14 billion, and the city was literally left in darkness; traffic became unmanageable, and there were shortages of electricity, food, and services. That era is remembered as the great New York blackout, when President Gerald Ford delivered his famous refusal: “Ford to City: Drop Dead.”4 (meaning, essentially, “solve your own problems.”)
It took a couple of decades to find the path again. Edward Koch, Rudy Giuliani, and Michael Bloomberg rebuilt the city with austerity, private investment, and confidence in the market. Between 1994 and 2013, GDP per capita grew 65% and private investment tripled. New York shined once more: fiscal balance is not an obstacle to growth, but its indispensable condition.5
But the cycle turned again. Under Bill de Blasio (2014–2021), spending grew 46% in seven years, the municipal payroll added 30,000 employees, and services deteriorated. Eric Adams inherited a disordered city and a deficit exceeding USD 12 billion. His weak and improvised administration became the perfect prelude for the rise of Mamdani, a radical socialist who promises to “redistribute wealth,” “control rents,” and “solve the cost of living.” His victory is the result of excessive spending and institutional degradation.6 Voters embraced a populist promise: justice, subsidies, free transportation, and persecution of the rich; and the rich are already packing their bags for Texas and Florida.7
The problem with demagoguery is contradiction. During the presidential campaign in Guatemala, it was promised that by eliminating corruption —estimated at 40% of the budget— there would be sufficient resources for everything. Today, already in power, that same administration has increased public spending by 40%, almost as much in three years as Bill de Blasio did in seven.8 The risk is evident: when the State spends more than it earns and fails to improve efficiency, it opens the door to a crisis like the one that sank New York in 1977. Mamdani’s election is a warning for Guatemala: populism, whether from the right or the left, always promises redemption and ends by leaving ruins behind.
In Guatemala, several moderate candidates exist. From there emerges the possibility of a candidate of order: authority, discipline, and law. Such a profile connects with a citizenry exhausted by insecurity, but order without deep economic reforms is merely a pause. Stability is achieved through investment and productivity, not solely through control.
There is also an urban administrator, offering results and experience. However, traffic chaos and the lack of structural solutions damage his credibility. Managing is not transforming. His challenge is to demonstrate that efficiency can become a national vision.
Another profile is that of a conciliatory diplomat, who bets on balance and civility. He believes in political reconciliation and institutional respect as starting points. But moderation, without a clear agenda for competitiveness and investment, risks remaining only a gesture.
There is also the emergence of a modern, pragmatic, and visionary Indigenous leader who speaks about productivity, innovation, and infrastructure. He does not seek division, but construction. His discourse resembles Silicon Valley more than old ideological manuals: engineers before tribunes, projects before slogans.
There is also the social welfare candidate, with government experience and an emphasis on assistance, but without a public definition of whether she will commit to investment and cooperation with productive capital. Her challenge is to move from assistance to wealth creation.
The problem is that the polls are led by the new right-wing populists, those who promise redemption without sacrifice. Their discourse is simple and dangerous: distribute before producing, govern without limits, confuse popularity with prosperity. They transform exhaustion into resentment and frustration into spectacle. Populism always begins with a show and ends in tragedy.
But the greatest risk lies in the possible radical left-wing populist candidates, who turn politics into confrontation, promise free tickets that others will pay for, and transform the State into an ideological spoils system. Their message captivates young people tired of waiting, but ignores that history demonstrates radical socialism has never worked. It is the same road that led New York from the disorder of Adams to the radicalism of Mamdani: from exhaustion to a leap into the void. If Guatemala repeats that sequence, we will end up exchanging freedom for control and future prosperity for poverty.9
But above all, the country needs a candidate who restores the Republic: a libertarian who returns hope in freedom and individual responsibility; who understands that prosperity is not born from spending, but from wealth creation; and who also has the capacity to be president for everyone —from the humblest citizen to the most powerful— and who can provoke the national unity we have historically lacked.
Let us not forget that progress is not built through confrontation, but through prudent governments that invest justly and citizens who produce freely. I suggest that politicians begin preparing now their plans to build a free and prosperous Guatemala. The people will demand it sooner or later. And if it is too late, the tortuous path of Cuba, Venezuela, Colombia —governed by a former guerrilla who chose confrontation over unity— or even New York itself awaits us.
Reference Notes
[1] “The prosperity of commerce is now perceived and acknowledged by all enlightened statesmen to be the most useful as well as the most productive source of national wealth, and has accordingly become a primary object of their political cares.” Alexander Hamilton, James Madison, and John Hay. The Federalist: A Collection of Essays Written in Favour of the New Constitution, as Agreed Upon by the Federal Convention, September 17, 1787. (London: J. Stockdale, 1788), p. 61.
2 NYC Comptroller, “Historical Budget Reports,” 2023; The City Journal, “De Blasio’s Legacy of Debt and Disorder,” 2024.
3 U.S. Census Bureau, “Historical Statistics of New York City,” 1950–1970; NYC Department of Records, Mayor’s Annual Reports 1934–1965.
4 Federal Reserve Bank of New York, “Municipal Crisis Case Study,” 1985; Daily News Archive, October 29, 1975.
5 Bureau of Economic Analysis, “Regional Economic Accounts – New York City,” 2013.
6 NYC Comptroller, “Historical Budget Reports,” 2023; The City Journal, “De Blasio’s Legacy of Debt and Disorder,” 2024.
7 The New York Times Exit Polls, Mayoral Election 2025; BEA, “Regional Accounts,” 2024.
8 Ministry of Public Finance, 2025 Budget Proposal, p. 12.
9 Federal Reserve Bank of New York, “Historical Urban Fiscal Crises,” 2024.
