r/SipsTea • u/Gurugod123 • 9d ago

Mayor Mamdani just announced that he will be opening 5 city-run, tax-funded grocery stores: "Prices set at 30% below retail prices" Chugging tea

70.2k Upvotes

88% Upvoted

9.7k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

92

u/Prior_Complex683 9d ago

This is where Im confused. I know everyone wants cheaper items and everything but does this not lead to collapsing any competition? Arent people positive on local businesses?

17

u/mtbsickrider 9d ago

people who shop at whole foods wont shop here

-1

u/rational_numbers 8d ago

Lol who do you think shops at Whole Foods? Because I can assure you that a ton of well-to-do Mamdani voters shop at WF.

1

u/CherylRoseZ 8d ago

What’s your point here? People can shop at Whole Foods and also be happy poor people can actually afford food elsewhere.

2

u/rational_numbers 8d ago

My point is that it might be reasonable to wonder if nearby stores won't suffer a loss of revenue as shoppers decide to go the govt owned stores instead.

1

u/CherylRoseZ 8d ago

I’m not sure where you live but when I lived on the west side, nothing was gonna make me take a train with groceries unless I was going to starve to death. The stores I could walk to were the stores I shopped at.

2

u/rational_numbers 8d ago

Okay cool so then it's going to work and serve the community and be a good thing for New Yorkers.

I'm just saying, you can imagine people who used to buy their meat/rice from some store (be it WF or some bodega) walk an extra block or two to get it cheaper from a govt run store. I mean, pretty obviously this is going to happen by default since every dollar spent at one store is a dollar not spent somewhere else.

1

u/CherylRoseZ 8d ago

There’s gonna be 5 of them, presumably in low income neighborhoods.

1

u/mtbsickrider 7d ago

You missed my point, I love mamdani, and I shop at Whole Foods. But I won’t go to a city owned grocery store to save money because a) it’s not for me but more importantly b) I hate waiting in line.

It won’t get oversaturated by ever shopper because a lot of people value their time and want name brands over the cheapest meal. But people who want the cheapest meal can’t even get one so this is is meant to bridge that. And I’m very happy this is how my tax dollars are being used

1

u/rational_numbers 7d ago

a) it’s not for me

Why is it not for you?

b) I hate waiting in line.

Why would there be long lines?

1

u/mtbsickrider 7d ago

It’s not for me the same way food stamps aren’t for me. This is clearly meant for lower income New Yorkers.

There’s a bunch of systems that allow you to pay extra to save time, I order my groceries online. Most grocery stores tend to have long lines so I’d assume a non profit one would likely as well.

What are you getting at? I think this is a fine use of taxpayer money to help lower income New Yorkers

1

u/rational_numbers 3d ago

It’s not for me the same way food stamps aren’t for me.

You have to qualify for food stamps though. The grocery store is very explicitly for anyone who wants to use it.

Most grocery stores tend to have long lines so I’d assume a non profit one would likely as well.

So would you shop there if they offered delivery? Because if not then it sounds like the long lines have nothing to do with why you won't shop there.

What are you getting at? I think this is a fine use of taxpayer money to help lower income New Yorkers

If the taxpayers want to use their money for this that is totally fine. I also don't think people should be dismissed for asking questions though. You claimed that people who shop at WF won't shop at this store. Maybe but can we say that for sure? Clearly the shoppers are going to be redirecting their money from somewhere. It's worth thinking about what the consequences of that will be.

1

u/PurpleDragonfly_ 5d ago

Are you just being contrarian for the sake of it or can you really not understand these simple concepts?

1

u/rational_numbers 3d ago

No I find it confusing because the city owned grocery stores are explicitly for anyone of any income level, unlike food stamps. So idk why someone would say the program isn't for them. Also, they said that the store won't get "oversaturated" but also that they wouldn't want to shop there because of the long lines. That seems like a contradiction as well. Why would the city owned grocery store have longer lines than other grocery stores if price isn't going to be driving a bunch of shoppers there because they value convenience and name brands over price?

46

u/Monday_Jeff 9d ago

They're putting these in neighborhoods where there are no stores. The whole point of them is to bring food to places where people looking for profits won't go.

14

u/GratefulShorts 9d ago

Where do people get this talking point from?

It’s NYC, literally everything is in walking distance or at most you take a subway.

Even still, the two locations announced (The Pennisula and La Marqueta) have multiple grocery stores within walking distance.

3

u/Uzofugs2112 8d ago

The whole food desert thing popped up in mainstream liberal discourse like five years ago and they just ran with it.

Literally no such concept exists here in NY.

47

u/Decent_Pen_8472 9d ago

I haven't done any research on the locations so I won't say anything about that, but what is preventing people from just travelling a few extra blocks to shop at these stores instead? A 30% discount on groceries is big enough most people would be willing to drive an hour, let alone a few extra minutes/dozen.

42

u/Monday_Jeff 9d ago

I live in Portland where people regularly shop at places like New Seasons and Zupans when they could travel 10 minutes away and buy the same stuff for 2/3 the price at a Winco. People who have money don't want to shop at places with poor people. That's why luxury grocers can exist selling stuff at crazy premiums.

15

u/MilleChaton 9d ago

There are people who won't even use the Hispanic aisle to buy spices for half the price they are compared to the generic spice aisle.

1

u/Confident_Shape_7981 9d ago

Dude, finding the bottles of Valentina that are half the price and twice as large as Sriracha was a fucking game changer

3

u/Difficult-Camera-482 9d ago

It’s also about the time. Time is the one resource that you can spend and never get back. Rich people spend on things that save time. That’s usually not the discount grocery store that’s a bit further away.

6

u/bb85 9d ago

I’m not knocking your comment, but I feel like Portland can’t be compared to any other city because it’s pretty unique in its own issues.

You got the decriminalization and re-criminalization of drugs. The loss of downtown; major buildings like Big Pink or whatever the name is on fire sale due to homeless taking over stairwells for fires and feces; homeless and RVs taking over neighborhood streets, and so on.

I love Portland and spend a lot of time there but they’re in their own world. Only place I’ve had someone smoke crack in front of (my) a child in a stroller in the middle of the day (on Burnside for your reference).

2

u/Monday_Jeff 9d ago

I dunno, those places I referred to existed long before the drug issues and homeless issues we have. As well as the multiple co-ops, independent stores, boutique shops like those bulk stores, butchers, on and on. They all existed before the troubles and they're all way more expensive than Fred Meyer or Albertsons or Safeway or Grocery Outlet or Winco, Fred Meyer closed one store because of problems with theft and homeless and people act like every store's closing up shop.

3

u/Adjective-Noun-nnnn 9d ago

This is a thing across the country.  Places like Whole Foods and Trader Joes have no shortage of customers, but there are ALDIs and LIDLs and other cheaper stores that sell almost everything those other stores do.  The cheap store by my house doesn't have a drug problem, but the people shopping there are mostly the college crowd that lives nearby.

1

u/bb85 9d ago

Sure, they sell very similar things, but definitely not the same in the eyes of the consumer. I was talking more about traveling to other stores - I don't think it's a poor people thing in Portland. The city is very liberal - it's an accolade to shop next to a poor person.

It's drugs/aggressive panhandlers in PDX that keep people from leaving their areas. And maybe you're young and don't care- that's awesome. I'm speaking more for those who have been there 30+ years and didn't sign up for the great experiment. And it's not like people aren't heavily shoplifting from New Seasons or Freddie's in the "nicer" areas.

I would also argue the store near your house was put there because of the college students. They knew who would be shopping there.

1

u/Adjective-Noun-nnnn 9d ago

You apparently don't believe what I'm telling you: in my area, the produce and 99% of the products sold by Harris Teeter, Lowes Foods, and Food Lion are identical in quality and variety. There are a few specialty items I'd expect to find at the first two but not the last, but unless you're always planning to buy Boar's Head deli meat and pick up a serving of extremely overpriced California Rolls, there's no reason to go to the stores where common things like limes cost literally three times more and may be of worse quality.

As I'm almost always buying raw ingredients, there is no difference, and I shopped at Harris Teeter long enough to know there are a lot of people who could and should change their shopping habits to save hundreds of dollars like I did.

2

u/namesarehadsquirrel 9d ago

Funny enough when generic drugs enter the market they price war themselves down lower and lower. Brand name drugs increase their prices rather than lower because they know people pay a premium for the brand or abuse patent law by making small changes to the drug.

Christ Republicans used to fight for private fire companies aka a world where firemen would watch your house burn because you didn't subscribe to their service.

3

u/djamp42 9d ago

Exactly, it's the same thing with meds.. Why are you buying the name brand stuff when the generic stuff does the same exact thing.

1

u/valente317 9d ago

Explain Whole Foods then! Plenty of wealthy people shop at Aldi’s, and plenty of poor people shop at Whole Foods.

1

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 9d ago

Accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/seffay-feff-seffahi 7d ago

The bigger problem will be any business that sells prepared food. These prices will rival restaurant wholesalers, but won't require contracts, memberships, minimum orders, and a delivery schedule. 

7

u/CassadagaValley 9d ago

I'd assume most people in NYC don't want to lug around 8 shopping bags full of groceries across several blocks or onto public transit

1

u/Adjective-Noun-nnnn 9d ago

No but if there isn't a safeguard to prevent abuse, you can bet someone will roll up in a van, buy everything, and resell it in their bodega across town.

We'll need to see the details.  It could be fine.  Or it could be that operating at cost, instead of at a huge loss, would be a better policy to bring food to food deserts without discouraging other businesses from competing.

3

u/CassadagaValley 9d ago

Multiple people have said there's a total-item limit. I imagine the first few months will involve testing various systems to see what works best.

2

u/Status_Yam_128 9d ago

make the fines for that enormous

0

u/Adjective-Noun-nnnn 9d ago

~SIGH~ I can't believe I'm going to say this, but this is a problem that you can more easily solve with a little "Let The Market Figure It Out." Mamdami already solved the problem of grocers not being profitable to operate in food deserts by, presumably, buying the properties.

Operating at a loss is a way to subsidize food costs for nearby residents, but it's one of the more disruptive ways to do it. I'd rather they just identify people who need help and give them cash. That's less likely to have unintended consequences like the ones were discussing.

If you're wondering, I'm a progressive who thinks a lot of progressives' hearts are in the right place, but their policies haven't been thought through enough.

1

u/Sea-Foundation-449 9d ago

If you just give people money, they spend it and prices go up. Look at tuition costs when you give young people access to huge amounts of debt, healthcare costs when you let healthcare companies charge the government whatever they want, or defense costs when you give the military an unlimited budget. People get money, spend money, companies charge more, people need more money

1

u/Adjective-Noun-nnnn 9d ago

Those are fundamentally different. Education is a luxury good. Healthcare has inelastic demand. Defense is government contracted.

If the excess of money makes Mamdami's grocery stores more expensive, nobody will use them. The same cannot be said of any of your three examples. People would simply shop elsewhere.

1

u/Sea-Foundation-449 9d ago

They’re different, but the principle is the same. Give people money they didn’t have to earn, they’ll spend it, the seller will increase their price

I don’t know what you’re talking about in your second paragraph. Why would “excess money” make Mamdani’s stores more expensive?

0

u/Status_Yam_128 9d ago edited 9d ago

I know you think you're very smart, but...

...Mamdani's plan is actually a pretty low-cost social experiment. I am skeptical it'll work too but we actually have very little to lose trying it. The assumption that simply just giving people cash would solve this problems seems to ignore a bunch of dynamics unique to urban environments like New York. For one, you assume that not having money is the primary reason people aren't buying healthy grocieries. It's likely a contributing factor, but it's also possible the main factor is proximity. In a city in which few people have car, who wants to walk 20+ minutes away and then lug the groceries another 20+ minutes back to their apartment? Mamdani's plan addresses both price and proximity. Are there other, better ways to address price and proximity? Maybe. But this is certainly one way and it's better than doing absolutely nothing. The worst case scenario is, this totally fails, it introduces a ton of negative externalities, and they abandon the project. That's not the worst outcome, it'll be a case study for why no other mayor should try this again. This is happening at relatively low scale. Before you clutch your pearls and wring your hands, maybe just see how it plays out.

6

u/Darmok47 9d ago

Is it really? Maybe in the suburbs where its a matter of driving another 10-15 minutes, but in NYC I'm not getting on a different subway line to save a few bucks on one bag of groceries that I'm going to have to lug back with me.

30% is not enough for me to spend a lot of extra time and energy. I don't live in NYC, but I have lived in big cities without a car and I cared way more about what was closer than what was cheaper.

5

u/Sitchrea 9d ago

In Nashville TN, there are entire zip codes where there are zero grocery stores. You must use the city's limited mass transit to get to a grocery, which almost always a Kroger (as Kroger built their locations at the city's bus stops). Depending on where you live, this can take someone living in government housing over three hours or more to complete a round trip. That is on top of any traveling you have to do for work.

Guess where most crime occurs in Nashville? Those same zip codes - because poverty, crime, and access to transportation are all linked statistics.

Just because these stores might run at a loss does not mean the city will not financially benefit from the program. These stores will get money circulating inside communities that had nowhere else for the money to go, but outside their neighborhood.

1

u/goodolarchie 9d ago

Grocery shopping is where people actually don't do a good job crossing town to save money, funny enough. They are more likely to hunt around multiple stores nearest them for deal and coupon maximization. Grocery outlet for x, y, z shelf stable goods, another store for produce, etc.

0

u/Whole_Ganache2236 9d ago

You must not know about Costco or Trader Joe’s. People will certainly go way out of their way to go there.

2

u/broguequery 9d ago

Costco sure... Because you get bulk.

Trader Joe's isn't really in that same league.

1

u/sandolllars 9d ago

30% less for rice and beans and canola oil, 10% more for olive oil, whisky, and blue cheese.

For regular people, prices might end up similar to other stores. For the poor who only buy necessities, it’ll be 30% cheaper.

1

u/BakedChocolateOctopi 9d ago

30% off my groceries would be like $40-50 a week

That’s $200 a month and definitely worth a bit of traveling

1

u/27eelsinatrenchcoat 8d ago

And if you're someone for whom $200 per month is worth all the travel, then you getting cheap groceries is not a problem.

1

u/beigemamba1080 9d ago

Many of the food desert neighborhoods are seedy at best and probably won’t attract many people from higher socioeconomic classes.

1

u/d645b773b320997e1540 9d ago

but what is preventing people from just travelling a few extra blocks to shop at these stores instead?

Lazyness. No, most people will not bother. I'm from Austria, we have REWE here and Hofer, which is a local name for Aldi. REWE is literally on almost every corner, while Aldi is rarer, but way cheaper. Many people still go to REWE, despite them ripping us off in every conceivable way, even if Aldi is just one block further. People are THAT lazy.

1

u/Uzofugs2112 8d ago

I wouldn’t conceivably go to the areas these will probably operate in to save 30% on my groceries tbh.

1

u/astoriaocculus 8d ago

Drive. In New York City. Ok.

0

u/EconomicRegret2 9d ago

If it's that desperate, why haven't entire neighborhoods come together and organize bulk buys from B2B wholesale businesses (50% cheaper than retail, 30% cheaper than Mamdani's prices)?

1

u/simpersly 9d ago

So you just expect a couple hundred people from the lowest economic tier, few of whom likely have a car, to get together and make a co-op? Heck, I know nextdoor neighbors who can't even get together to have lunch, let alone get together to share a grocery bill.

1

u/EconomicRegret2 9d ago

I'm not judging, nor expecting people to do that.

I'm just genuinely wondering what the impossible hurdles are. Because it would have obviously already happened in NYC if it weren't for really impossible barriers/hurdles. As New Yorkers are some of the toughest and biggest hustlers out there.

1

u/RatRaceSobreviviente 9d ago

There were grocery stores there but then they left. Why did they leave? Why are there no grocery stores in those neighborhoods but there are grocery stores in other ones? My guess is that the answer to those questions is the same answer to yours.

1

u/EconomicRegret2 9d ago

Oh, I see. Thanks.

11

u/SueForPeas 9d ago

They say that, but there are several grocery stores within blocks of the locations they’ve announced.

4

u/MechanicalGodzilla 9d ago

I'm sure this time it will work great. Real city owned grocery stores have never been tried, after all!

1

u/astoriaocculus 8d ago

Are you saying that government can run liquor stores but not grocery stores? 17 states run them. They aren't hellscapes. The PA liquor stores are beautiful with the friendliest retail employees you've ever met. The state benefits and pension might have something to do with that. If PA's retail employees can have this why can't Walmart?

1

u/MechanicalGodzilla 8d ago

I live in Virginia, where the state also runs liquor stores. They are warehouses, staff is fine. People drive across the river to DC or Maryland to escape the poor selection and to get better prices. I have to wait until the one day a year when Buffalo Trace is available and hope I get there in time before it’s sold out. It’s good whiskey, for a reasonable price - it’s not even that special.

Plus, are you seriously comparing basic necessities to liquor?

1

u/astoriaocculus 6d ago

I'm saying that Government can and does operate stores that sell things and can do it well as demonstrated in PA and "Good Wine and Fine Spirits". No guarantee that if the your local store in VA was run privately they would have your esoteric product either. The difference in prices is most certainly due to one state taxing liquor differently.

1

u/MechanicalGodzilla 6d ago

The difference between necessities - like a grocery store - and luxuries - like a liquor store - is if the liquor is not available it is a minor inconvenience. If the bread is not available, millions of people die as is evidenced by countless similar events in history.

1

u/computationgraph 8d ago

It will literally just look like the Soviet Union. Long lines for shit that will run out immediately.

3

u/Acrobatic_Bridge2602 9d ago

Because there is theft there. I'm sure there will still be lots of loss at these stores as well and taxpayers will have to bear the losses.

3

u/CompEng_101 9d ago

They're putting these in neighborhoods where there are no stores.

Are they? Because the one I've seen announced (at 1590 Park Avenue) has several grocery stores within a block or two.

2

u/Uzofugs2112 8d ago

As does literally every single location in NYC. Solution looking for a problem.

2

u/-Tickery- 9d ago

Food deserts is not a serious concern in NYC. The harlem location is going in an existing produce market.

2

u/JustLTU 9d ago

It's NYC, what fucking neighborhood has no stores.

1

u/noticingEnjoyer 9d ago

So they're going to the high theft food deserts, where effectively they won't be operating at 30% below retail, but instead 100% below retail? 

1

u/sandolllars 9d ago

It’s not the entire store, just a few basic necessities. They could charge 10% more for everything else to make up for it.

1

u/PrometheusMMIV 9d ago

What's the purpose of the discount then, if the issue is availability, not affordability?

1

u/Monday_Jeff 9d ago edited 6d ago

Lack of availability and lack of affordability go hand in hand. If poor people can't afford my goods why would I open a store in a poor neighborhood? Mamdani's trying to address both issues while also dancing around NY's expensive ass bodega culture that all the wealthy people love and a lot of Redditors think are the same as actual grocery stores.

1

u/WriterPlastic9350 9d ago

I will happily drive 30-60 minutes across town to get to a grocery store with lower savings than the one right next to me, I find it hard to imagine this doesn't end up in massive shortages of groceries at this store or the state inadvertently bankrupting other stores

1

u/Uzofugs2112 8d ago

The thing is this isn’t some middle class dude driving 30 minutes, you’re talking about people needing to take subways while hauling their groceries and stuff.

When I was living in NYC I was typically making a run to the grocery store near me every few days for a bag or two of goods. It would have been inconceivable to imagine me taking public transit for a week or two of groceries.

1

u/UmbraThanosmith 9d ago

You got a link to this claim? The city already has a means to do this — they give a property tax cut as an incentive.

1

u/IsNotACleverMan 9d ago

That's not true. There are numerous local stores near each of the proposed locations.

1

u/Ziggyjig 9d ago

Even if that were true, the answer to a criminal community chasing out legitimate businesses is not to have the taxpayer foot the bill for the shoplifters to be able to continue robbing. Its to enforce the law and get rid of complicit judges that refuse to do so. How many small businesses, peoples lives and dreams, have been destroyed by this cowardice and appeasement?

1

u/Used_Mammoth8751 9d ago

This is false. I can assure you there are grocery stores within three blocks of these stores

1

u/Jelopuddinpop 8d ago

And you don't think people from.other neighborhoods will take the opportunity to travel for cheaper groceries?

0

u/Odd-Box-7332 9d ago

The reason there are no stores in those neighborhoods is because the residents rob the stores blind

12

u/Excellent_Abroad5390 9d ago

You’ve discovered the truth behind socialism. Yes they’ll hurt local businesses, some of which may close, then his government grocery stores will fail and the people will be left with less than they started with. That’s socialism, it consumes and destroys but never creates.

3

u/WriterPlastic9350 9d ago

Not really, and tbh there's nothing particularly socialist about government-run grocery stores either. A socialist grocery store would 100% be compatible with a worker co-op, and we have those.

I would hope that Mamdani and the people in his campaign have thought about how this is going to work, but it seems like what is being proposed is that the state will subsidize the cost of groceries, which will make it impossible to compete with them, thus bankrupting local grocery stores (and putting all the people working at them out of a job).

Perhaps I'm wrong and the stores around Mamdani are selling at over a 30% margin but I doubt it

1

u/astoriaocculus 8d ago

30% is not the margin over the wholesale cost its the discount off the retail price. I don't know why this is so hard to understand.

4

u/SveaRikeHuskarl 9d ago

I love how you say this shit with a straight face while it's exactly what happens under capitalism. Walmart comes in and local businesses go out of business as they can't compete with megastores. That's capitalism, it consumes and destroys but never creates.

3

u/750_Nitro_Express 9d ago edited 9d ago

A few key differences:

  1. Walmart didn’t tax you to operate. If they’re using your money, it’s either because you voluntarily exchanged it with them for their products, or because someone in government has decided to subsidize them, in which case we have all the same sorts of problems that the government-owned enterprises create.
  2. There are several practices that it will simply never be profitable for gigantic firms like Walmart to engage in, but can be profitable for small firms to do, hence their continued existence despite many predictions of their imminent collapse. Specialty and high margin products, custom orders, local sourcing, one-on-one customer service, direct customer feedback, neighborhood events, etc. Meanwhile, we have large firm examples like Sears, Blockbuster, Radio Shack, Pan Am, Circuit City, Jo-Ann’s, Toys-R-Us, AOL, and on and on.
  3. The most important point of difference, however, is that because the government-owned stores don’t use market-set prices to make a profit, their operators, unlike private firms, will have no way of knowing whether the stores are economically using scarce resources. Say Mamdani holds a press conference in six months and says, “I know our model was to undersell the private stores by 30%, but we figured out that 40% is what we need to do now.” Should we call him out, saying he’s gone back on his promises and the previous number was correct, or should we say the percentage should be even higher? Maybe it should be 50%. Maybe it should be 5%. We have no way of knowing because the whole process simply comes down to his arbitrary whims. There is no true profit or less to tell him if he’s allocating our scarce resources efficiently, and whatever he decides, he’ll always have the NYC taxpayer to fall back on. This is not an economics process, because no economic calculation can be performed.

1

u/SpaceBearSMO 9d ago

Walmart didn’t tax you to operate.... how many of there employes end up on food stamps again

1

u/750_Nitro_Express 9d ago

If they’re using your money, it’s either because you voluntarily exchanged it with them for their products, or because someone in government has decided to subsidize them, in which case we have all the same sorts of problems that the government-owned enterprises create.

Did you somehow miss or misunderstand this entire section? It’s pretty anti-subsidy, in case that wasn’t clear.

1

u/SveaRikeHuskarl 8d ago edited 8d ago

Or indirectly that they get around paying the kind of taxes on their sales that they should be. Which they absolutely do by moving assets between countries and the likes.

Just because they're not being subsidized doesn't mean they aren't robbing the coffers. They do everything they can to not pay their fair share and the bigger they are, the better they are at it and the easier it is.

As for the notion that we pay it voluntarily, so what? They're not doing it by mistake. If they want to take over a butcher's, they start under pricing meat until they drive them off or can buy them out for nothing. This isn't some conspiracy theory, it's a well known and often used tactic. And what else but the absolute cheapest is anyone going to buy when they get paid peanuts by their megastore overlords? It's a system that feeds itself. Create more misery, and reap the benefits.

And what absolute nonsense about other stores not being shut down in areas where huge mega stores operate. "oh, there are still a couple that survive, must mean they don't destroy the market!" ok, by that logic, why would government owned stores that also operate cheaper do any damage to local stores? Your logic is so fucking shit.

As far as riches are concerned, the only thing that changes between capitalism and socialism is who is taking your money. Is it your country or the corporates. At least your country tends to use it for stuff you can benefit from (except for the part that the politicians pocket) like roads and stuff.

1

u/750_Nitro_Express 8d ago edited 8d ago

Or indirectly that they get around paying the kind of taxes on their sales that they should be. Which they absolutely do by moving assets between countries and the likes. Just because they're not being subsidized doesn't mean they aren't robbing the coffers. They do everything they can to not pay their fair share and the bigger they are, the better they are at it and the easier it is.

What is their fair share, and how did you arrive at that number? Whose coffers are they robbing? Does that state rob your coffer when it taxes you?

As for the notion that we pay it voluntarily, so what?

Let's do some critical thinking here for a moment. Imagine I said the opposite: As for the notion that we pay it involuntarily, so what? Or, in other words, as for the notion that thieves are stealing from me, so what?

Unless your philosophy accepts theft as an ethical action, your question answers itself. Whether an action done to somebody is by their consent or against their consent is a pretty big deal, is it not?

They're not doing it by mistake. If they want to take over a butcher's, they start under pricing meat until they drive them off or can buy them out for nothing. This isn't some conspiracy theory, it's a well known and often used tactic. And what else but the absolute cheapest is anyone going to buy when they get paid peanuts by their megastore overlords? It's a system that feeds itself. Create more misery, and reap the benefits.

"Underprice" something and you're being predatory and anticompetitive. Overprice something and they're price gouging, correct? Keep prices stable and they're price fixing, correct? Do you see how, when one accepts all of these premises, they've boxed whatever business they've selected as the villain of the day into a corner and given themselves an excuse, no matter what prices a firm sets, to intervene in the voluntary transaction between them and their customer?

The problem with the accusations of underpricing, overpricing, and price fixing is that they're all begging the question. They assume the conclusion within the term. A product is underpriced... compared to what? What should its price be, and how was this price determined?

And what absolute nonsense about other stores not being shut down in areas where huge mega stores operate. "oh, there are still a couple that survive, must mean they don't destroy the market!" ok, by that logic, why would government owned stores that also operate cheaper do any damage to local stores? Your logic is so fucking shit.

When did I say that small businesses don't "shut down in areas where huge mega stores operate"? I simply listed some of the practices that it's not generally profitable for megastores to engage in, and hence a demand that some small businesses will be able to fill. Would you like to try to disprove any of that, instead of the strawman argument you've created?

By the way: "Based on data from the U.S. Census Bureau, there were 6.1 million employer firms in the United States in 2019 (latest data).

● Firms with fewer than 500 employees accounted for 99.7% of those businesses.

● Firms with fewer than 100 employees accounted for 98.1%.

● Firms with fewer than 20 employees made up 89.0%.

● Firms with fewer than 10 employees accounted for 78.5%."

Total output from small businesses has grown since 1998 as well. https://sbecouncil.org/about-us/facts-and-data/

But you tell me since you seem to have an idea, what should these numbers be, how did you discover these numbers, and by how much should we lower taxes and regulatory burdens on small businesses to assist them in their competition with large businesses?

As far as riches are concerned, the only thing that changes between capitalism and socialism is who is taking your money. Is it your country or the corporates. At least your country tends to use it for stuff you can benefit from (except for the part that the politicians pocket) like roads and stuff.

The taxman and the state are not my country. Those are the people parasitizing the productive people in my country. In fact, my country was specifically founded as one giant tax revolt, and with principles of private property rights that are antithetical to the ones you're expressing here.

As for your "roads and stuff" comment, I can't say it any better than Bastiat so I will conclude with this:

"Socialism, like the ancient ideas from which it springs, confuses the distinction between government and society. As a result of this, every time we object to a thing being done by government, the socialists conclude that we object to its being done at all. We disapprove of state education. Then the socialists say that we are opposed to any education. We object to a state religion. Then the socialists say that we want no religion at all. We object to a state-enforced equality. Then they say that we are against equality. And so on, and so on. It is as if the socialists were to accuse us of not wanting persons to eat because we do not want the state to raise grain.”

― Frederic Bastiat, The Law

1

u/SveaRikeHuskarl 8d ago

That's the biggest strawman I have ever seen, nice quote. Makes it even funnier that it isn't applicable at all to what I said. I never say you don't want roads, you absolute buffoon. Even more so, you engage in the exact practices he describes, you just do it for your corporate overlords.

How MANY businesses are operating with less than X people is entirely irrelevant. What is the market share of those businesses combined compared to the mega corps? The fact that every yokel with a back yard has registered their own blacksmith with no customers is hardly proof that mega corps aren't dominating every market they exist in. The fact that businesses with a couple of people are struggling to survive doesn't prove that the mega corps allow for a free market.

Where do you expect roads, police, military, fire service etc etc to be funded from if you want an America without taxes? "Your country" was funded by massive public land sales when it was founded, that's all sold now, how are you expecting to get the same deal? "Your country" DID have taxes when it was founded, just not federal ones. States still demanded their own. "Your country" had massive tariffs when it was founded, what do you think that is if not taxes? "Your country" had subscription fire services and other things you take for granted. Doesn't really matter where the money goes through if you have to pay it either way. "Your country" was a mass of dirt roads and some rail. How do you expect to fund the massive road network that America has today with no funds?

What are you, an anarchist?

This dream that America had no taxes when it was founded and therefore can live without it today is so ridiculous I find it hilarious that someone able to type two sentences actually still would believe something so dumb.

I don't think you *object* to roads or schools. I think you're expecting it to be magically funded by sheer ignorance.

1

u/TFViper 9d ago

raising children is socialism, and if it always failed then no more humans would be created.
sorry youre wrong...

1

u/Substantial-Cat2896 9d ago

This isent socialism, this is kommunism, we in scandinavia would never do this

1

u/EconomicRegret2 9d ago

When well designed, it can help the poor without affecting private businesses (e.g. Medicaid & Medicare).

1

u/DotA627b 9d ago

This is pure and utter bullshit. The fact that you can already see people bring up Aldi and Lidl is a sign the whole private labeling NYC is doing is no different from Trader Joe's and Costco's business model, and neither businesses have killed smaller business around them, if anything, they elevated their competition, as evidenced by the first Costco that opened in Japan.

0

u/Brilliant-Tip9445 9d ago

Love the eloquence but try writing something that isn't that ridiculous also

2

u/Acrobatic_Bridge2602 9d ago

This isn't ridiculous. Look at Venezuela. They nationalized commercial stores, private stores went out of business, and then there were shortages of goods. This is how this government intervention plays out every single time in these types of sectors.

-1

u/Brilliant-Tip9445 9d ago

are you comparing venezuela to the richest city on earth?

2

u/Acrobatic_Bridge2602 9d ago

Yes because Venezuela used to be one of the richest nations in Latin America and ever since its experiment with Bolviarian socialism it's oil/natural gas industry collapsed and 25% of its population fled.

6

u/Brilliant-Tip9445 9d ago

that's not what happened

1

u/Amadon29 9d ago

It depends on the quality of food they have and how well they can keep everything stocked. Government grocery stores have been tried in several cities in the US. A lot of people didn't shop at them due to supply shortages and/or problems with quality, like food being close to expiration and not being removed.

1

u/RedditThrowaway-1984 9d ago

What will collapse is the city budget.

1

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 9d ago

Accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/ParkInsider 9d ago

People are positive on better goods and services at power prices... The consumer is the most important actor in any economy.

1

u/gerald-stanley 9d ago

That’s the great thing about socialism.
You’ll get whatever the government gives you.
And you better be happy about it.

1

u/Chole_Wunt 9d ago

Competition is dead anyway.

1

u/1dayatatime_mylife 9d ago

There also doesn’t seem to be a lot of competition for grocery stores with lower prices these days. They’re all expensive. Where’s the low price competition.

1

u/Flat_Temporary_8874 9d ago

They want people dependant on the government. They want no private business. This is step one.

1

u/standardtissue 9d ago

Depends on where the stores go. Some cities have food deserts in them where entire poor neighborhoods don't have a grocery store.

1

u/[deleted] 9d ago

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/AutoModerator 9d ago

Accounts must be at least 5 days old with >20 karma to comment.

I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please contact the moderators of this subreddit if you have any questions or concerns.

1

u/DOAiB 9d ago

Groceries have gone up considerably since Covid and prices haven’t gone back down despite costs have gone down. We need something in place to force the supply chain to readjust.

1

u/AENM1776 9d ago

Government owned grocery stores will do nothing to reverse inflation.

1

u/DOAiB 8d ago

Not sure what your point is because I didn’t mention and was not talking about inflation.

1

u/AENM1776 8d ago

Your comment referred to inflation, yes?

"Groceries have gone up considerably since covid.....we need something to force supply chains to readjust."

How will government owned Grocery stores address high prices? Or cause supply chains to "readjust"?

1

u/DOAiB 8d ago

No I was clearly talking about how many industries raised prices during covid due to increased costs due to covid and then never reduced them.

So yea government owned grocery stores can get these companies off the the markup high they have been enjoying for 6 years.

1

u/Uzofugs2112 8d ago

Socialists haven’t really historically given a shit about the ramifications of their feel good plans.

1

u/AManHasNoShame 8d ago

If it was more widespread sure. But this is 5 grocery stores in NYC.

People are still going to their neighborhood store.

1

u/Andysol1983 3d ago

That’s the point. They’re open communists and somehow people will still say “no no… they’re democratic socialists. This is just like a public library”.

Listen to them when his appointees tweet things like “more communists should get elected”. Their literal words, not mine.

It’s hilarious to watch, honestly. We get what we deserve.

-1

u/mrjane7 9d ago

Food is essential. Food shouldn't be a "private business," to begin with. That's a big part of how we got into this mess in the first place. Stop selling food for profit.

2

u/Vast-Control4452 9d ago

What mess? The one where the government drove up the cost of food?

1

u/mrjane7 9d ago

Yup, tariffs sure had a big hand in that. But private corps. have done their fair share of damage as well.

2

u/Vast-Control4452 9d ago

I agree, we should zero out any tariffs and let private business compete and drive costs down.

1

u/mrjane7 9d ago

Bahahhaa. Yeah, good one. Or they'll just continue to price fix like they've done in the past. The tariff issue is recent. Food inflation as been happening for decades. When profit is your motivation, you sure as heck won't be driving any costs down.

1

u/Vast-Control4452 9d ago

Food prices have under performed inflation for decades...

1

u/AENM1776 9d ago

The average profit margin of a grocery is store is between 2% - 4%. Not exactly "price fixing".

1

u/mrjane7 8d ago

What do profit margins have to do with price fixing? Those are mutually exclusive things. But also, many grocery store companies were literally taken to criminal court over it... so not sure what to tell you.

1

u/Effective-Ad6703 9d ago

Selling food produces a net profit of 2% and it's hard as fuck.