Such a misleading headline. Grocery stores tend to run on a 2-3% margin. The āreasonable pricesā are going to be using taxpayer funds to offset the difference.
Certainly not the argument for socialism that they are trying to push.
Free market doesn't mean no regulations. Neolibs for some reason made them synonyms. Markets to me and transactions, not the running of the businesses themselves.
Think of it as an extension of consumer sovereignty. Just as consumers have the right to shop where they want in a free market, they also have the right to vote to bring a cheaper alternative into existence funded by their tax dollars.
Why do you think it will be cheaper if paid in taxes instead of groceries?
If it's paying $50 less on groceries but $50 more on taxes, is it still good?
But realistically, the people getting cheaper groceries are only the ones living near these 5 stores. I'm a fan of redistributive taxes, but I generally want redistribution from rich to poor, not from rich to people who happen to live near these store locations.
AND we all know that big strong millionaire daddy really really needs that $70, while the average poor scum son of a bitch can easily afford to spend an extra $20! just put aside $2k a month!
False. Governments have better bargaining power and better bulk ordering power. They also don't rely on profit, so they can afford to sell at lower prices to simply cover operating costs.
They're also better for the people they provide products/services to, because they aren't beholden to share holders that demand profit increases. They're more likely to make consumer friendly choices.
Hmmm ok sir, see you in eco 100. The Soviet Union would like a word.
On your points:
Better bulk ordering power: Yeah 5 stores really will do that.
Don't rely on profit: Ok I'll give you this one. Walmart has 3% profit rate. So you're getting 3 dollars back when you pay $100.
They're also better for the people they provide products/services to.: This is just some made up shit.
You didn't take into consideration:
Less efficient, because noone needs to make profit.
Higher benefits and pay for employees.
These are pretty big. If you don't need to make a profit, you don't care about things rotting in your store, or putting merchandise correctly to maximize sales. You're getting payed no matter what. There's no incentive for you to do your job.
Kinda depends, if the owner is the one supposed to be getting that 2% margin, but the client is instead, who is benefitting most from these socialist stores? The owners?
32
u/MAATMOM Sep 15 '26
Canāt compete or wonāt compete? There is a big difference.