- It’s dumb. He shouldn’t do it. Completely unnecessary. Absolutely pointless.
- It’s not government control. If Mamdani were to succeed in implementing his grocery store plan, they would just…be there.
- The particular argument that it’s bad because it’ll undercut normal supermarkets is…not a good one. Sure, these stores wouldn’t pay property taxes, but in that case the complaint is that it’s fundamentally unfair to normal grocers. The motivation behind the plan, however, places it outside of a fair-versus-unfair dynamic because it is not about fairness to competing businesses but about making food available at lower cost for the poorest, so other angles of attack must be used.
- Expand welfare if food prices are actually that much of a problem.
- Again, it’s just stupid and unnecessary.
1 Like
■■■■ me how many more threads are we going to have on this 
So do the ‘poorest’ get their EBT $$$ reduced too?
1 Like
Well if this one stays focused, then it will be an imprivment over the others.
1 Like
To claim the stores won’t compete with private grocery stores for customers is false. They definitely will compete and provide lower prices through tax payer subsidized purchasing power. Essentially they will use taxpayer dollars to stock the shelves, then sell the products at a loss. The stores will be open to the public, which means people able to afford private store prices will still go to the government store for the artificially lower subsidized prices. The private grocery stores can’t match the prices and remain in business, because operating at a loss would put them out of business. And when the private stores close, the employees (local citizens) will lose their employment and the city will lose tax base.
7 Likes
This.
This candidate’s rich upbringing ignores the importance of the corner store which he will promptly effect by his government subsidized groceries.
4 Likes
Whereas the other ones seem to want to bang on the guy for other reasons, this has the potential to be a good thread focused on an actual policy idea.
I agree because the stores would have to be subsidized to stay in business and if food prices are so bad for poor people, increasing the welfare subsidy to offset that would be more efficient imo. Just like the OPer said. Government grocery stores are as convoluted a subsidy as when NYC tried to be a landlord with city housing. The quality of a government run grocery offering would likely be just as ■■■■■■ as the housing was.
Every place “city-owned” grocery stores have been tried, they end up either being heavily subsidized or rely on volunteer labor and donations.
4 Likes
I have an alternate proposal.
How about
- ) Instead of paying for grocery stores, pay for cops so grocery stores can stay in business and expand.
- ) Instead of paying for grocery stores, pay for tax cuts for grocerys stores.
4 Likes
This guy is promising hopes and dreams that are impossible to implement.
1 Like
The taxpayer will pay his salary and perks of office. All the while he will spend other people’s money to move more and more people from economic freedom, to economic dependence.
2 Likes
I want to know how he is going to arrange the purchasing from the wholesalers at Hunts Point. When I was driving over the road I used to make deliveries, mostly bulk meat, to there.
They completely destroyed my thread with there BS.
1 Like
Well, they have been implemented before in other countries and failed. I was hoping the left would start transforming the party back to something recognizable not pull out the USSR playbook.
1 Like
Never been lucky enough for my threads to stay on topic.
1 Like
Did I say that? No, I didn’t say that. I said that it is aimed solving a non-commercial problem, so the topic does not admit questions of fairness to competition.
Haw haw.
Donkey?
No. The laugh of that kid from Barnyard.
The whole issue is about individuals not having the economic means to achieve the desired outcome in the existing commercial environment. Trying to waive your hand and claim that it is outside of the commercial environment, and thus ignore the negative impact the proposed action will have on that same commercial environment, including the negative economic impacts of increased unemployment and loss of tax base on government finances, is disingenuous at best. The program won’t exist in a vacume, and neither will the consequences of implementing it.
Well, it is not unusal for a city to provide extra policing for specific area or industries. (nightlife district, ports etc.). These of course worl best when prosecutors do their jobs. (I vear in NYC they don’t)
It is not unusual for government to provided targeted, industry-spedific tax breaks eg for the film industry, for agriculture, for manufacturing, esp tech manufacturing. I am not always in favor os such industry-specific measures, but I think a person could make the case for one now.
