Albert Edwards, the veteran Société Générale strategist famous for his in-house “alternative view,” thinks the rise of politicians like Zohran Mamdani is a warning shot from voters—and a backlash the corporate world largely created itself. Edwards, who has been challenging mainstream market narratives since the early 1980s, has built a cult following for his blunt skepticism. One of his most pointed calls came in 2023, when he argued that “greedflation”—companies expanding profit margins under the cover of post-pandemic inflation—represented a dangerous break in how capitalism is supposed to work. He hasn’t backed away from that view.
Back then, Edwards said most commentators pinned inflation on supply shocks from the Ukraine war and tight labor markets. He believed something else was happening. Historically, when unit costs rise, corporate margins fall. This time, margins rose instead. To Edwards, that reversal was not just unusual—it was a sign that heavy government stimulus had given firms the ability to push through price hikes and protect profits, using inflation as camouflage.
The result, he said, was a corporate windfall. Profit margins, in his words, shot “off to infinity” after COVID. He pointed to research showing U.S. corporate profits as a share of national income jumping sharply during the inflation surge—an outcome that stood out globally.
Edwards argues that this era of corporate overreach helped set the stage for today’s political volatility. He sees Mamdani’s victory in New York as part of a broader cost-of-living revolt. In his view, elections are increasingly being shaped by affordability—especially housing. For many voters, he said, the question isn’t abstract: it’s “what’s going on?” and why basic life feels out of reach.
That doesn’t mean Edwards supports the policy direction of the new populism. As an economist, he calls ideas associated with democratic socialism—like rent controls and broad price controls—“lunacy,” citing his own memories of the 1970s. But he thinks capitalism’s dysfunction naturally pushes societies toward these responses. When people feel locked out, they look for systems that promise protection.
Housing is central to that lockout. Edwards highlighted that the average first-time homebuyer is now around 40 years old—a stark marker of how younger voters are being frozen out of ownership. Institutional landlords see the same trend. Amherst Group CEO Sean Dobson recently estimated that the post-COVID economic setup has made housing unaffordable for an entire generation.
You reap what you sow
Edwards frames Mamdani’s election as a consequence of corporate behavior: a self-inflicted backlash. In his telling, excessive profit-taking during inflation planted the seeds of political revolt. More voters, he believes, are openly identifying corporate excess as part of the problem.
He ties this to what he calls “intergenerational strife.” For the first time in modern America, large numbers of young people don’t expect to be better off than their parents. They see wealth concentrating in fewer hands and a housing ladder they can’t climb. If they feel excluded from growth, Edwards says, capitalism loses its motivational engine.
Interestingly, this concern crosses ideological lines. Tech billionaire Peter Thiel has warned for years about a “broken generational compact.” Mamdani’s election rattled Silicon Valley’s right flank enough that Chamath Palihapitiya recently resurfaced a Thiel email from 2020. The message: if young people have no stake in the system, they may turn against it. Thiel later put it even more sharply—if the young are “proletarianized,” you shouldn’t be shocked when they drift toward communism.
A similar mood exists on the progressive side of the debate. Legal scholar Tim Wu has described an “economy-wide” decay where things quietly get worse instead of better. The political response, he argues, is anger mixed with resentment—and a recognition that the country has drifted away from broad-based prosperity.
Edwards’ view of greedflation is almost resigned, but not forgiving. He understands that chasing profit is part of capitalism. Yet he insists 2023 was a mistake of scale and timing. Without government or cultural pushback, he says, corporate behavior inevitably triggers revolt. He doesn’t frame this as a left-versus-right story, but as a structural one: the U.S. is culturally hesitant to rein in companies, and that reluctance makes the eventual correction more explosive. A reckoning, he believes, is coming.
Edwards also extends his skepticism to today’s market darlings, calling artificial intelligence a bubble. He compares his role to the servant who followed a Roman emperor reminding him, “you are mortal.” Markets, he says, are often too optimistic at the surface; look closer and “things are pretty crappy under the surface.” The affordability politics symbolized by Mamdani, in his eyes, are proof that the costs of corporate greed are no longer just economic—they’re reshaping mainstream politics.
In short, Edwards says the 2020s have a clear lesson for capitalism: you can’t squeeze society indefinitely without consequences. Or as he puts it, “you reap what you sow.”
