They aren't "reasonable prices" if they are subsidized by the state. The state can sell things far below market value because it could not care less about losing money.
Bad for the thousands (turns out there's somewhere between 7k and 13k bodegas across the five boroughs) of immigrant bodega owners they'll be undercutting.
And then as demand shifts from the immigrant-run bodegas (which will be forced to close and go bankrupt) to the state-subsidised stores, demand will increase, meaning that the supply (and thus the subsidies) will need to go up too.
The only massive issue is that those stores start hemorrhaging money like no other and go out of business in record time. It has happened every time in the US where these plans were drawn up. We have to learn from the mistakes of the past or we are just going to continually repeat them
The harm goes to the taxpayer, the people who this plan is supposedly to help. I’m saying this cause his plan is a carbon copy of the plans that already failed. People don’t learn and instead of changing plans so they flourish, they do the same stuff which leads to the people taking the brunt of it, which puts people out of jobs, which makes people more desperate for change, which allows power hungry individuals to grab and keep power for themselves
Simple. It wipes out the small businesses in the area before it hemorrhages money and goes out of business itself. Then the city raises taxes to try and mitigate the losses, which hurts the taxpayers twice
You do realize when actually looking at the plan Mamdani was proposing, I compared it to the other times other cities in the US tried it? It failed cause the stores could not keep up with demand at all, and didn’t have the money to stay afloat and keep up with the private owned stores. That is also factoring in they were completely mismanaged cause the government was managing it, and there were too many things that needed attention the local governments couldn’t keep up with.
This isn’t factoring in the small businesses that needed the business or they close won’t get it(cause of the marked down prices at the public owned ones), and will close their doors. That means people lose their jobs, which means the unemployment rates go up. Also, the city would be continually subsidizing the public owned stores to keep the afloat, until they can’t cause it would be too much spent for a failing item. As a result, to cover losses, the city will raise taxes until the losses are recovered, or get a bailout from the state.
This is all a simple analysis using previous examples of this being done, cause throughout the US, this exact plan was done, and it failed every time for that reason.
It’s basic pattern recognition based on historical evidence
14
u/Unfair_Ad6161 Sep 15 '26
They aren't "reasonable prices" if they are subsidized by the state. The state can sell things far below market value because it could not care less about losing money.