But I’ve come around. Let’s try something new! Let’s show people that local governments in the United States really are capable of making a difference in their daily lives. If it fails, well, we tried & we’ll keep trying.
I honestly don't understand the desire for municipal grocery stores at all. Grocery stores famously operate on super slim margins, so it's not like they're raking in the dough. Many of them are often run extremely well. In Texas, HEB is so beloved that a lot of people consider it far better at disaster recovery operations than the actual government.
I'm not against plans to better help people afford groceries, but somebody needs to at least explain how the plan is economically rationally viable, not just "let's try something new!"
There gotta be a lot of accounting magics working here. Otherwise you can't explain why they simply don't sell everything and buy bonds. I don't have a theory so hopefully some finance people can explain.
Error 1: "Something must be done, this is something, therefore this must be done." Yeah, but "this" is something stupid, with no real-world chance of working.
Error 2: "We will not do anything until we can prove that it will work." You can analyze things to death and waste years in the process, and never do anything.
Somewhere in between is the right answer. You see plausible success, but still far from certain. Then you experiment.
Now, is New York striking the right balance? I have no idea. I'm not privy to their internal discussions. But I know that, if it fails, everyone is going to mock them for trying. That is, everyone is going to assume they fell into error 1. But did they? Getting the balance right still means that the experiments fail a fair amount of the time.
Governments should do more experiments, and this does seem to have been thought out enough to not be a total waste of money.
So many conservative states and cities absolutely running things into the ground, making people miserable and oppressed and their cost of living skyrocketing for years, decades, look at Texas look at Florida, so many examples
So why not try something progressive for a change and see what happens?
Why the heck not just try?
Here's how this will pan out.
- A number of "officials" (friends) will get cushy jobs for running this program.
- It will lose millions of tax dollars
- a small portion of the population will get cheaper produce for a photo op
- Mamdani and friends will call it a success
- But net, this will be net negative for the city (ie. tax dollars to crony jobs and subsidizing food for some).
Whats the point? The USSR has tried this (subsidized grocery stores centrally planned). Lets not.
If on the other hand, the issue was hey its expensive to bring produce XYZ, so why don't we work to reduce that cost by legalizing Kei [1] trucks and exempt from tolls. Now that would be something interesting.
The USSR tried lots of things we do successfully.
This is actually something governments have a proven ability to do, at least in some contexts, without becoming a corrupt boondoggle.
(true stories)
> The USSR has tried this. Lets not.
would rule out things like "going to the moon" or "building roads". It's a pretty useless rubric.
I am not doubting the USSR fucked all sorts of things up. I'm doubting that that inherently means those things must be impossible.
The USSR is an example of many failed things. That they failed at those things does not mean those things cannot be done.
I was offering a tangible example of where the thing being proposed was a failure.
They are examples of the USSR failing at a possible thing. They illustrate my critique of your claim.
The only difference is it doesn’t have to make profits to pay its owners.
The question is, why are you prioritizing being “fair” to people profiting off hunger, over being fair to working people trying to eat? Even if it is “unfair” this is a kind of unfair we should all support (assuming it succeeds at feeding people).
As for people who own grocery stores and don’t work in them? That’s an investment not a job, gov has no duty to protect individual investments over people’s basic needs.
As opposed to the millions that come out of your pocket on top of the taxes you pay? At least this brings some of the tax money back to the people. When you let grocery store price gouge you without competition, the money goes to executive pay and shareholder value.
You could be right about it losing millions of dollars, we’ll see. Millions isn’t very much on the scale of NYC’s civic infrastructure; it would be difficult to even call it a waste at that scale, since the results will themselves be valuable.
(This is in pointed contrast to our last mayor.)
The USSR fell before I spoke my first words. The world is a very different place, and the United States works very differently from the USSR.
At worst, some people will get some cheaper groceries out of this. If you want to get mad about government spending, maybe we shouldn't be building a ballroom attached to the White House.
Sounds like it’s a bunker of some kind, and the ballroom was just a cover story
(https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...)
The kei truck thing might be a good idea, but so is groceries managed as a public service.
The USSR had a problem with corruption. Ok? There have been gov run groceries outside the USSR, and in recent times - not decades ago.
If you don’t have an example of this leading to corruption more recent than the USSR, i gotta assume it was a USSR problem, not a gov grocery problem.