I know exactly what it is. When my tax dollars are used to make them money through a state or federal program to create artificial low pricesā¦they love that. Because they make profit off of my tax dollars.
Fuck them unless they cut me a refund check for that, itās been 50ish years they were happy to take that windfall.
It really is funny to hear people talk this way. As it is, grocery stores offer discounts through "loyalty cards." Pricing is a game. Mamdani is trying to cut through all that bullshit and keep prices as low as possible while still turning a marginal profit. The city provides the space but rents the stores to private-sector operators. Taxpayers pay for the initial start-up. In time they will be reimbursed. Sounds like win-win to me.
I just now looked into it and it seems that the plan is to subsidize some groceries listed as essentials. So, the plan is not to have lower prices simply by not having profits or procing bullshit. It is subsidies from tax payers.Ā
This is not planned to turn a "marginal profit" or be self sufficient. They take a loss on the groceries and do not pay rent or property tax for a location that a business would.
Not arguing if this is good or bad, but just trying to clarify according tp the published plans.
EDIT: there is actually going to be a private-public model. The locations are going to be privately run for profit. But the city is subsidizing the initiative through the capital investment to built and/or refit the locations and through incentives like not having to pay rent or certain taxes. Not taxing is of course an indirect subsidy. The private operators then have strict requirements about pricing, labor practices, operating practices etc. So, they are required to keep prices low, but are planning to turn a profit from the subsidized operating expenses.
The military doesn't make a profit, the USPS doesn't make a profit. These are services. I don't agree with the military, it's outrageously big. Id much rather tax dollars come back to us with cheap or free services and groceries or healthcare directly, instead of funnelling them into private organizations and hoping for the best
That is correct, but it is also a misunderstood fact often pushed by people who want to privatize all mail and disband the USPS. The "losses" were essentially manufactured unintentionally by the federal government.
A significant chunk of those $120 billion in recorded losses stemmed from the Postal Accountability and Enhancement Act of 2006. This law forced the USPS to prefund 75 years worth of future retiree health benefits over a single decade. This is a strict financial burden placed on virtually no other government agency or private corporation. The USPS ultimately defaulted on tens of billions of dollars of these payments because it simply didn't have the cash. What organization would?
The act in 2006 was a bipartisan act with overwhelming support largely because congress thought they were cleverly fixing an accounting issue. The USPS was doing so well prior to this that it was overpaying into its pension funds in order to protect pensions in case of future liquidity issues. But due to quirks in federal accounting this would mean that when they stopped overpaying (because they got the rainy day funds they intended) it would have a hugely negative impact on the federal budget.
So, congress tried to keep those overpayments going with the 2006 act. But it was a huge mistake because they put the burden way too high and there was a pending revenue problem with first class mail demand plummeting. This was also bipartisanly recognized as a blunder. USPS was allowed to default on its payment obligations established in the 2006 act. Those defaulted funds are booked as losses and accumulated debts. The the act was repealed in 2022. But USPS is still dealing with the consequences.
So, these losses are basically an accounting issue caused by a legal trap that no one really intended and they have never been subsidized by tax payer dollars.
The military is government-run because of a very specific, well-understood market failure (free rider problem). There is no comparable market failure in the grocery retail sector that justifies nationalizing that industry.
Everything in the current economy is subsidized by the tax payer, look into how many grants SpaceX receives to do the same shit as NASA but worse and private. Its the same in every sector but you only hear conservatoids bitch if its going towards helping people instead of megacorporations.
Space X is actually efficient unfortunately, they do save money compared to NASA controlled missions. Now do they offer the same societal spillover benefits, research, and employment? No, they just specialize in profiteering space. Which is cool to think we're at that point in space travel. It's just bad when only one is doing it efficiently and there is no real competition for government contracts. This is when costs can skyrocket.
how is that cool when all it means is that space travel is going to exclusively be for the rich and powerful? if we keep going on this trajectory, we're going to end up with a situation not too dissimilar to the one in The Expanse (you know, minus all the obvious fiction stuff).
Cool insofar as the technology has progressed enough for that to be possible. I'm in my early 30s, and there's a very real possibility that, assuming we seize the technology at some point so it benefits the public, my grandkids or great grandkids could go on day trips to the moon for shits and giggles.
It's cool in that a non government can produce rockets at scale comparable to a government on a smaller budget. I literally follow up with that its bad when one is the only one that can do it. I'd prefer it to be 200 firms competing for contracts and grants like china currently. Air travel was privatized, auto, ship, and rail. It's government regulation, policy, oversight and support infrastructure that can make our break these forms of travel. It's always been expensive to travel to space and return.
Well yeah but only because NASA doesnāt really launch any rockets lol. The SLS is the only NASA-built rocket currently in use, and itās only launching once every couple of years.
The rockets that SpaceX is losing are Starship, which is still experimental. They lose very few of their regular rockets.
The military started the PX system in 1895 to prevent soldiers being charged unfair prices. Price fixed goods have been a sucessful thing for a long time
That's not how it's set up. The idea is to be self-supporting. Obviously they need start up money. 70 million I believe for five fully stocked flagship stores. It will take several years to recover that investment but if it goes well it should succeed. Why else do you think the National Supermarket Association is so concerned. It's not a novel idea. Co-ops have been doing this for decades.
Yeah this is why itās bad. Iāll say it. Communism never works because of things like this. Itās very easy to reason out if you look into it at all.
What is market value? A kilogram of Lavazza coffee, my personal favourite, sells for over 30 euros but is often āon saleā for 19. I always buy it on sale. I assume the retailer still makes a profit. Same goes for staples. There are 4 or 5 brands of butter. One of them is always on sale at 30 to 50 percent off. Thatās the one I buy. I think it is easy enough to bring down the overall price of groceries 20 to 30 percent and still make a profit.
The plan is to subsidize using government money or exemptions on taxes creating unfair competition for real grocery store having to pay wholesale prices, taxes, and rent.
Wrong... the price cuts are directly paid for by the taxpayers. They buy in less than bulk so they dont get the deals that chains get. To undercut prices they lose money on every ite.
This store will be built way over budget and will be closed in 2-4 years. Itāll be an abject failure just like almost all leftist - democrat policies
I donāt really have a point. I was just trying to understand yours. I sincerely doubt, however, that making a cheeky point about grocers charging more than they could by a few percentage points matters more than simply offering tax payers steeper discounts. Doesnāt seem politically savvy as a strategy.
Thatās not how it works. And you will see it is not a win win, in time. But they will do everything they can to make this look good to sell this idea to the American people. The problem is it isnāt viable or realistic and has never worked in history.
Look into how well Soviet grocery stores and supply chains worked by having actual oligarchs, like Mamdani but unelected, in charge.
It destroys not only the good grocery stores, but the suppliers and farmers as well. Itās brilliant in how great it is at destroying economic systems and countries from the bottom up.
Fuck em all the way. Im making sure Im obnoxiously loud of how much I hate corporations and want them all to fail. They get zero sympathy from me. I could find a corporation bleeding out, alone in the street and rest assured Im leaving it with more holes than I found it with. Fuck corporate America to death
When my tax dollars are used to make them money through a state or federal program to create artificial low pricesā¦they love that. Because they make profit off of my tax dollars.
Mamdani admin said he will now use tax dollars to give grants to grocery stores impacted by this new grocery store. I am sure you love that.
Well with snap itās an equal playing field, people will still go use them at the best private shop of their choice, any store can accept them.Ā
With this, the gov run stores are not limited to people of a lower income and since the store does not need to make a profit, they can offer products at a low price that is not sustainable to compete with if you are a private business.
The long tailed extrapolation of this if it grows is private groceries canāt compete and go out of business, and everyone becomes dependent on gov run groceries that operate at a loss and are fully subsided for all by taxes.
This is just not understanding how any of this works. Some people pay prices that help the business keep lights on and pay workers and pay suppliers. People on government assistance get help paying for their stuff but it still pays for these things.
Grocery stores factor into everything how much they need to make to keep enough supplies to provide for their customers. When supplies are getting old or they have more than they need of a certain product, they put on a sale or just lower prices on those items.
The system we have allows us to have basically everything we need available all the time. What you seem to want is to be able to pay the bare minimum for products all the time, but that would be at the cost of having those products available whenever you want among many other things like quality products and quality grocery stores etc.
This is why communist supply chains run out of stuff or destroy the value of items all the time. Itās also part of why communists are so good at starving people to death. They have ACTUAL food deserts. Not inconveniently located stores, the stores just donāt have food, much less all of the specific items you felt like getting today.
Damn that was awesome- you will be down voted. I got into an discussion with someone about fast food wages. The guys argument was fuck the owners they can pay more. They can but your price will go up because they operate on fixed margins - every thinks you can just print money or add costs without any repercussions.
Have my tax dollars artificially lowered prices for purchases that major grocery store chains made a profit on?
One word answer, yes or no?
They're fine with it when it makes them money. Focus on the one question of if this is hypocrisy. Forget the idea that 5 local city grocery stores is a good or bad idea that would work or not work. I know you really want to make me into some champion of communist grocery stores but I'm not saying that, that's something you invented in your own brain.
It's beyond clear if they can make a buck off tax payers they like it, if they face competition because of government policy they don't like it.
You do not have any idea what you are talking about.
A state-run grocery store paid for by taxes and subsidized in a dozen ways private grocery stores are not, are nothing like public money that helps pay for food stamps.
The state-run grocery store has no need to keep prices reasonable, they can set them to anything, with no reality check at all. Thatās a terrible system and has nothing to do with federal programs that allow some people to purchase food.
27
u/Snoo93550 Sep 15 '26
I know exactly what it is. When my tax dollars are used to make them money through a state or federal program to create artificial low pricesā¦they love that. Because they make profit off of my tax dollars.
Fuck them unless they cut me a refund check for that, itās been 50ish years they were happy to take that windfall.