Business
More government interventions hamper capitalism

From the Fraser Institute
By Philip Cross
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:
Business
Chinese firm unveils palm-based biometric ID payments, sparking fresh privacy concerns

By Ken Macon
Alipay’s biometric PL1 scanner uses vein and palm-print data for processing payments, raising security concerns over the storage and use of permanent biometric data.
Alipay, the financial arm of Alibaba, has introduced a new palm-based biometric terminal, dubbed the PL1, which enables individuals to make purchases simply by presenting their hand – no phone, card, or PIN required. Positioned as a faster, touch-free alternative for payment, this system reflects a growing industry shift toward frictionless biometric transactions.
At the core of the PL1 is a dual-mode recognition system that combines surface palm print detection with internal vein mapping. This multi-layered authentication relies on deeply unique biological signatures that are significantly harder to replicate than more common methods like fingerprints or facial scans. Alipay reports that the device maintains a false acceptance rate of less than one in a million, suggesting a substantial improvement in resisting identity spoofing.
Enrollment is designed to be quick: users hover their palm over the sensor and link their account through a QR code. Once registered, purchases are completed in around two seconds without physical interaction. During early trials in Hangzhou, this system reportedly accelerated checkout lines and contributed to more hygienic point-of-sale environments.
The PL1 arrives at a time of rapid expansion in the biometric payments sector. Forecasts estimate that more than 3 billion people will use biometrics for transactions by 2026, with total payments surpassing $5 trillion. Major players are already onboard: Amazon has integrated palm authentication across U.S. retail and healthcare facilities, while JP Morgan is gearing up for a national deployment in the same year.
Alipay envisions the PL1’s use extending well beyond checkout counters. It is exploring applications in public transit, controlled access facilities, and healthcare check-ins, reflecting a broader trend toward embedding biometric systems in daily infrastructure. However, while domestic deployment benefits from favorable policy conditions, international expansion may be constrained by differing legal standards, particularly in jurisdictions that enforce stringent rules on biometric data usage and consent.
Despite the technological advancements and convenience the PL1 offers, privacy remains a major point of contention. Unlike passwords or cards that can be reset or replaced, biometric data is immutable. If compromised, individuals cannot simply “change” their palm patterns or vein structures. This permanence heightens the stakes of any potential data breach and raises long-term concerns about identity theft and surveillance.
Alipay’s approach, storing encrypted biometric templates locally on devices and restricting data flow within national border, does address certain regulatory demands, especially within China, but the broader implications of biometrics are likely to be a growing privacy and surveillance concern in the coming years.
Business
Trump considers $5K bonus for moms to increase birthrate

MxM News
Quick Hit:
President Trump voiced support Tuesday for a $5,000 cash bonus for new mothers, as his administration weighs policies to counter the country’s declining birthrate. The idea is part of a broader push to promote family growth and revive the American family structure.
Key Details:
- Trump said a reported “baby bonus” plan “sounds like a good idea to me” during an Oval Office interview.
- Proposals under consideration include a $5,000 birth bonus, prioritizing Fulbright scholarships for parents, and fertility education programs.
- U.S. birthrates hit a 44-year low in 2023, with fewer than 3.6 million babies born.
Diving Deeper:
President Donald Trump signaled his support Tuesday for offering financial incentives to new mothers, including a potential $5,000 cash bonus for each child born, as part of an effort to reverse America’s falling birthrate. “Sounds like a good idea to me,” Trump told The New York Post in response to reports his administration is exploring such measures.
The discussions highlight growing concern among Trump administration officials and allies about the long-term implications of declining fertility and family formation in the United States. According to the report, administration aides have been consulting with pro-family advocates and policy experts to brainstorm solutions aimed at encouraging larger families.
Among the proposals: a $5,000 direct payment to new mothers, allocating 30% of all Fulbright scholarships to married applicants or those with children, and launching federally supported fertility education programs for women. One such program would educate women on their ovulation cycles to help them better understand their reproductive health and increase their chances of conceiving.
The concern stems from sharp demographic shifts. The number of babies born in the U.S. fell to just under 3.6 million in 2023—down 76,000 from 2022 and the lowest figure since 1979. The average American family now has fewer than two children, a dramatic drop from the once-common “2.5 children” norm.
Though the birthrate briefly rose from 2021 to 2022, that bump appears to have been temporary. Additionally, the age of motherhood is trending older, with fewer teens and young women having children, while more women in their 30s and 40s are giving birth.
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt underscored the administration’s commitment to families, saying, “The President wants America to be a country where all children can safely grow up and achieve the American dream.” Leavitt, herself a mother, added, “I am proud to work for a president who is taking significant action to leave a better country for the next generation.”
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Ottawa Confirms China interfering with 2025 federal election: Beijing Seeks to Block Joe Tay’s Election
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
BREAKING: THE FEDERAL BRIEF THAT SHOULD SINK CARNEY
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
How Canada’s Mainstream Media Lost the Public Trust
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Real Homes vs. Modular Shoeboxes: The Housing Battle Between Poilievre and Carney
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
CHINESE ELECTION THREAT WARNING: Conservative Candidate Joe Tay Paused Public Campaign
-
Media1 day ago
CBC retracts false claims about residential schools after accusing Rebel News of ‘misinformation’
-
John Stossel2 days ago
Climate Change Myths Part 2: Wildfires, Drought, Rising Sea Level, and Coral Reefs
-
Business1 day ago
‘Great Reset’ champion Klaus Schwab resigns from WEF