|
Now that we have a new thread, in order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a complete and thorough read before posting! NOTE: When providing a source, please provide a very brief summary on what it's about and what purpose it adds to the discussion. The supporting statement should clearly explain why the subject is relevant and needs to be discussed. Please follow this rule especially for tweets.
Your supporting statement should always come BEFORE you provide the source.If you have any questions, comments, concern, or feedback regarding the USPMT, then please use this thread: http://www.teamliquid.net/forum/website-feedback/510156-us-politics-thread |
I'm fascinated by how big of a deal this mayor race seems to be to the entire republican party. Its like this is some kind of doomsday to them. All republican media, subreddits, all such things are absolutely laser focused on Mamdani like this is a massive deal.
Maybe NYC is more of a big deal as a political canary in the coal mine than I realize? I suppose NYC gave us our current president, lol.
I can understand why certain ideas of his are critically terrible for the ruling class, but the extent to which they are shrieking at Mamdani's success is really odd to me. I suppose NYC is the best possible model for showing ideas can work on large populations? Maybe an NYC mayor has the ability to showcase political change that is otherwise not possible?
Not really sure, but there is something very special about this race and I'm really interested to see how this develops.
|
On June 27 2025 05:54 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm fascinated by how big of a deal this mayor race seems to be to the entire republican party. Its like this is some kind of doomsday to them. All republican media, subreddits, all such things are absolutely laser focused on Mamdani like this is a massive deal.
Maybe NYC is more of a big deal as a political canary in the coal mine than I realize? I suppose NYC gave us our current president, lol.
I can understand why certain ideas of his are critically terrible for the ruling class, but the extent to which they are shrieking at Mamdani's success is really odd to me. I suppose NYC is the best possible model for showing ideas can work on large populations? Maybe an NYC mayor has the ability to showcase political change that is otherwise not possible?
Not really sure, but there is something very special about this race and I'm really interested to see how this develops.
Fascists need an enemy. The more enemies they have, interior and exterior once, the better. And those enemies need to be threatening enough to justify more fascism. There needs to be a constant threat or you wouldn't need the fascists anymore.
|
On June 27 2025 05:54 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm fascinated by how big of a deal this mayor race seems to be to the entire republican party. Its like this is some kind of doomsday to them. All republican media, subreddits, all such things are absolutely laser focused on Mamdani like this is a massive deal.
Maybe NYC is more of a big deal as a political canary in the coal mine than I realize? I suppose NYC gave us our current president, lol.
I can understand why certain ideas of his are critically terrible for the ruling class, but the extent to which they are shrieking at Mamdani's success is really odd to me. I suppose NYC is the best possible model for showing ideas can work on large populations? Maybe an NYC mayor has the ability to showcase political change that is otherwise not possible?
Not really sure, but there is something very special about this race and I'm really interested to see how this develops.
This isn't that much different than a Chicago or LA deal. Difference being NYC has more billionaires (and most of the money laundering via real estate) that are about to be taxed. Of course they don't like it. Chicago is more progressive but gets bogged down in old style politics (mafia/mob and crime rates by out of state guns) that kind of overshadow any good they do or could be doing. LA is LA. I don't know much about that area tbh.
I think Mamdani is just a new boogieman that has really good progressive ideas that the monied interests don't really like and are trying to scare people into voting against him.
|
It's not just MAGA that dislikes big city progressive mayors. Simply look at the approval ratings some of them are putting up. Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson was once clocked at something like 9% approval rating. MAGA is just not that big in Chicago, Kanye West excluded. They get primaried or recalled left and right. The residents openly criticize the state of affairs in their cities, which have zero republican obstructionism, by the way. They lament over how the votes went in the previous election, and then acknowledge that they will vote for someone along the same ideological lines next time. The weird cope they do is that if they sense the person doing the criticizing is right-wing then they pretend like everything is fine. It's like fans of a football club that shit talk the performance of their manager or players but if they know it's a fan of a rival team doing the shit talking then fuck that guy.
|
On June 27 2025 05:54 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm fascinated by how big of a deal this mayor race seems to be to the entire republican party. Its like this is some kind of doomsday to them. All republican media, subreddits, all such things are absolutely laser focused on Mamdani like this is a massive deal.
Maybe NYC is more of a big deal as a political canary in the coal mine than I realize? I suppose NYC gave us our current president, lol.
I can understand why certain ideas of his are critically terrible for the ruling class, but the extent to which they are shrieking at Mamdani's success is really odd to me. I suppose NYC is the best possible model for showing ideas can work on large populations? Maybe an NYC mayor has the ability to showcase political change that is otherwise not possible?
Not really sure, but there is something very special about this race and I'm really interested to see how this develops.
It is apparently still impossible for many lefties to realize that people on the right actually disagree with them. Instead of secretly "knowing" that they're right and just being stubborn to maintain whatever newly invented privilege in vogue this year. I assure you, no one is afraid that city run grocery stores, rent control, or replacing cops with social workers is going to *succeed.*
Second, the reason NYC gets so much attention is twofold. One, it's the biggest city on the country and it's near a large portion of the nation's population. California is the largest state but since we're 3 hours away by time-zone relatively little of what's happening over here gets national attention. Two, NY has a disproportionate amount of news concentration. Many national news services are hosted in NYC and it's a cultural center. People around the country often know and talk about NYC because that's the type of thing a lot of conversation makers are talking about. There are even multiple right of center publications in NYC like National Review and the Manhattan Institute/City Journal.
|
|
|
On June 27 2025 09:13 Introvert wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2025 05:54 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm fascinated by how big of a deal this mayor race seems to be to the entire republican party. Its like this is some kind of doomsday to them. All republican media, subreddits, all such things are absolutely laser focused on Mamdani like this is a massive deal.
Maybe NYC is more of a big deal as a political canary in the coal mine than I realize? I suppose NYC gave us our current president, lol.
I can understand why certain ideas of his are critically terrible for the ruling class, but the extent to which they are shrieking at Mamdani's success is really odd to me. I suppose NYC is the best possible model for showing ideas can work on large populations? Maybe an NYC mayor has the ability to showcase political change that is otherwise not possible?
Not really sure, but there is something very special about this race and I'm really interested to see how this develops. It is apparently still impossible for many lefties to realize that people on the right actually disagree with them. Instead of secretly "knowing" that they're right and just being stubborn to maintain whatever newly invented privilege in vogue this year. I assure you, no one is afraid that city run grocery stores, rent control, or replacing cops with social workers is going to *succeed.* Second, the reason NYC gets so much attention is twofold. One, it's the biggest city on the country and it's near a large portion of the nation's population. California is the largest state but since we're 3 hours away by time-zone relatively little of what's happening over here gets national attention. Two, NY has a disproportionate amount of news concentration. Many national news services are hosted in NYC and it's a cultural center. People around the country often know and talk about NYC because that's the type of thing a lot of conversation makers are talking about. There are even multiple right of center publications in NYC like National Review and the Manhattan Institute/City Journal.
I'm not assuming fake disagreement. I'm noting the extreme interest in the race, but your description of why NYC gets so much attention makes sense. I hadn't considered the stuff about national news and it cultural center, so thank you for that. Based on what you're saying, I think people on either the left or the right being worried about NYC's politics harming political desires is reasonable. People who advocate against xyz might be worried about xyz succeeding in NYC. Even if the NYC example doesn't readily to other cities/states, it being cited as an example could do a lot of harm to political efforts in other places.
Rent control and police reform isn't something I expect fruitful conversation from since its all been discussed a million times.
But I honestly don't see the issue with city run grocery stores. NYC having grocery stores that do not seek to turn a profit should be strictly good for people, right? Until he starts advocating for NYC to seize other grocery stores and control food supply generally speaking, it seems harmless at worst. A library isn't run for profit and still manages to provide a lot of value to people despite books still being sold in stores. I imagine a city-run grocery store would just be a cost-focused grocery store that is run with the intent of breaking even. In such a case, what goes wrong?
|
No ones going to talk about who the governor of Mississippi or west virginia is preforming because no one belives that things can ever get better for them. Trying to cut off what works at the knees before it catches on throughout the rest of the nation is just smart baseball. Republicans never have to worry about the consequences of their policies because they never try to make things better in the first place. They only fail when they fail to conserve the bad status quo in their communities, failure for them is the measure of success.
|
On the grocery stores. The anti-socialist argument would be: Grocery stores will be run at a loss and kept afloat by tax payers. Because they're run at a loss, they'll out compete and push out private business that can't afford to operate at a loss over a long period of time. As private business goes out of business, society becomes more and more reliant on the socialist grocery store. The socialist grocery stores corner the market and gain a monopoly. Unlike a traditional private monopoly, they probably won't jack up prices... although there will be pressure from taxpayers to not be such a financial burden, so it could happen. However, almost assuredly they'll A) let quality slip. B) No innovation.
You end up with a really shitty service and no pressure to improve. It won't happen overnight, it takes decades to actualize, but it's the slow rot of socialism. It's the argument against all socialized things because it happens everywhere where socialism takes hold.
I personally make an exception for things that naturally become a monopoly like emergency healthcare and would like to see us go to universal coverage for medicine. It'd be better than the private monopolies that exist. However, even there, the world would suffer from a lack of investment and new treatment if the US went to socialized medicine.
|
On June 27 2025 09:24 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2025 09:13 Introvert wrote:On June 27 2025 05:54 Mohdoo wrote:
I'm fascinated by how big of a deal this mayor race seems to be to the entire republican party. Its like this is some kind of doomsday to them. All republican media, subreddits, all such things are absolutely laser focused on Mamdani like this is a massive deal.
Maybe NYC is more of a big deal as a political canary in the coal mine than I realize? I suppose NYC gave us our current president, lol.
I can understand why certain ideas of his are critically terrible for the ruling class, but the extent to which they are shrieking at Mamdani's success is really odd to me. I suppose NYC is the best possible model for showing ideas can work on large populations? Maybe an NYC mayor has the ability to showcase political change that is otherwise not possible?
Not really sure, but there is something very special about this race and I'm really interested to see how this develops. It is apparently still impossible for many lefties to realize that people on the right actually disagree with them. Instead of secretly "knowing" that they're right and just being stubborn to maintain whatever newly invented privilege in vogue this year. I assure you, no one is afraid that city run grocery stores, rent control, or replacing cops with social workers is going to *succeed.* Second, the reason NYC gets so much attention is twofold. One, it's the biggest city on the country and it's near a large portion of the nation's population. California is the largest state but since we're 3 hours away by time-zone relatively little of what's happening over here gets national attention. Two, NY has a disproportionate amount of news concentration. Many national news services are hosted in NYC and it's a cultural center. People around the country often know and talk about NYC because that's the type of thing a lot of conversation makers are talking about. There are even multiple right of center publications in NYC like National Review and the Manhattan Institute/City Journal. I'm not assuming fake disagreement. I'm noting the extreme interest in the race, but your description of why NYC gets so much attention makes sense. I hadn't considered the stuff about national news and it cultural center, so thank you for that. Based on what you're saying, I think people on either the left or the right being worried about NYC's politics harming political desires is reasonable. People who advocate against xyz might be worried about xyz succeeding in NYC. Even if the NYC example doesn't readily to other cities/states, it being cited as an example could do a lot of harm to political efforts in other places. Rent control and police reform isn't something I expect fruitful conversation from since its all been discussed a million times. But I honestly don't see the issue with city run grocery stores. NYC having grocery stores that do not seek to turn a profit should be strictly good for people, right? Until he starts advocating for NYC to seize other grocery stores and control food supply generally speaking, it seems harmless at worst. A library isn't run for profit and still manages to provide a lot of value to people despite books still being sold in stores. I imagine a city-run grocery store would just be a cost-focused grocery store that is run with the intent of breaking even. In such a case, what goes wrong?
I think Ren above is mostly right. It seems to be that things like grocery stores would be a classic case of something that should be/stay private. For one thing, iirc the margins in that business are fairly low, so any savings you would gain from having no profit motive would be minimal, even theoretically. Second, retail, high volume industries can be very sensitive to price signals. When the price of a bunch of bananas goes up, it's probably not price-gouging. Trying to fight the market price signaling mechanism will just lead to less stuff that costs more. Third, the expanded risk of corruption and capture. Presumably, all employees would become city employees and would suddenly be bargaining against the very people their new job arrangement is meant to help. Depending on economic conditions, their wages could be stuck low because high prices would hurt the politicians, or they could at times be far too high as they negotiate against their own employer, if you will. Normally how it goes with government workers is the latter, but given how sensitive people are to grocery prices I could see the former happening. Which circles back to an above point. The politicians are tempted to essentially fix prices, something I think (hope) most people here know is almost always a bad idea. Nevermind all the current business owners and the other businesses they work with being put out of work potentially. I'm sure there are other arguments as well. Is there a single place in the western world, or anywhere, where there are publicly run grocery stores? In the final analysis it seems like a gimmick more than anything.
|
I think there are a lot of things that a municipal grocery store could do to keep costs down that most chains do not. Not spending money on marketing or beautifying the store, going for Costco-style warehouse packing where everything comes on pallets and then goes into its slot.
My town has a municipal bar and a liquor store and hopefully a dispensary as well, its a very small town and the focus on the "business" has always been a bare minimum experience and doing basic thing like burger+fries or Chicken and onion rings. There are two other establishments in town that have sell alchohol.
There are a dozen examples of excellent state run companies and a dozen of poorly run state run companies. To say that municipal-owned and operated businesses are a gimmick just seems like a very ignorant and poorly informed opinion. To say that the market can't outcompete a state run operation just seems like an anti-capitalist stance more than anything.
|
Grocery stores could potentially have a public option, it sounds good in theory, but on closer inspection that seems stupid for the government to get into when it specifically has public assistance at every level already. NYC has food banks, they have local assistance, state assistance, and of course they have SNAP and WIC which are federal. And the government subsidizes farming and food production in certain ways too.
What do people do with assistance? They load up on lobster, steak, and soda, and use their disposable income on flagship phones. Or they use the benefits to clean out grocery stores of all the cases of bottled water, open and dump the water out in the parking lot, return the bottles for the 10 cents deposits and use the redeemed cash to buy drugs and go use them at a government-designated site.
Like I'm sorry if personal taxi burritos cost $30 in NYC but the answer is not raise minimum wage to $30 and whatever else is in the socialist pipe dream. Eat something else.
The closest analogue is ABC states. States that control liquor/spirit sales. Because that, like food, is something people directly consume. If you, like me, are from somewhere where the state monopolizes retail sales of liquor/spirits, the effect is you don't notice anything. But that's because it's a monopoly. On paper the alcohol is supposedly more expensive than other states, because they jack it up a little to use as state revenue, in practice it's not noticed because the state liquor stores are the only place to get liquor so it's just like a local cost of living quirk (like oh housing is a bit higher in this state than that state, gas is a bit less expensive in this one, alcohol is this much here).
Prices are higher than they otherwise would be because the state wants tax money and wants to discourage rampant alcoholism. This is different than like a state running a train/bus service, which is a public good or necessity, which the market couldn't otherwise fill due to the investment needed, roadblocks involved in public projects, and low margins or operating losses.
If you were to open public supermarkets with the goal of undercutting actual businesses that exist on the taxpayer's dime, basically that scheme is assbackwards. You have consumers paying taxes, and businesses paying taxes, to fund a public grocery store that erodes the very tax revenue that supports it.
|
On June 27 2025 13:38 Sermokala wrote:
I think there are a lot of things that a municipal grocery store could do to keep costs down that most chains do not. Not spending money on marketing or beautifying the store, going for Costco-style warehouse packing where everything comes on pallets and then goes into its slot.
My town has a municipal bar and a liquor store and hopefully a dispensary as well, its a very small town and the focus on the "business" has always been a bare minimum experience and doing basic thing like burger+fries or Chicken and onion rings. There are two other establishments in town that have sell alchohol.
There are a dozen examples of excellent state run companies and a dozen of poorly run state run companies. To say that municipal-owned and operated businesses are a gimmick just seems like a very ignorant and poorly informed opinion. To say that the market can't outcompete a state run operation just seems like an anti-capitalist stance more than anything.
I've worked in both and in general public sector ends up with bloated overhead and worse service for sligthly lower prices.
There is very little incentive for top management to cut unecessary admin jobs (their own and their friends).
The government in Sweden is going to price fix dental care for older people from next year and it's going to be a disaster. Primarily for the public sector because
A) even though they have lower prices in general they will still go down significantly and they are already operating at a loss.
B) their often inexperienced and unmotivated dentists are unlikely to try hard to become more effective. They already have absolute shit working conditons and the whip is on their backa. And public sector have no idea of what a carrot is.
Public *anything* is a good idea if it's a natural monopoly or and can be OK if you for strategic reasons want a service in an area that can't support it (ie this area needs people for X industry but no one wants to live there because there is no service).
Communal companies however can work pretty great even with public support.
In general if you need more services in an area the best way is not a public one, or to subsidese private ones, it's just to give the people in the area more money. Either via tax cuts if they make money or just hand outs. They will sort the rest out themselves.
Unfortunately that almost never works politically.
|
On June 27 2025 14:29 oBlade wrote:
Grocery stores could potentially have a public option, it sounds good in theory, but on closer inspection that seems stupid for the government to get into when it specifically has public assistance at every level already. NYC has food banks, they have local assistance, state assistance, and of course they have SNAP and WIC which are federal. And the government subsidizes farming and food production in certain ways too.
What do people do with assistance? They load up on lobster, steak, and soda, and use their disposable income on flagship phones. Or they use the benefits to clean out grocery stores of all the cases of bottled water, open and dump the water out in the parking lot, return the bottles for the 10 cents deposits and use the redeemed cash to buy drugs and go use them at a government-designated site.
Like I'm sorry if personal taxi burritos cost $30 in NYC but the answer is not raise minimum wage to $30 and whatever else is in the socialist pipe dream. Eat something else.
The closest analogue is ABC states. States that control liquor/spirit sales. Because that, like food, is something people directly consume. If you, like me, are from somewhere where the state monopolizes retail sales of liquor/spirits, the effect is you don't notice anything. But that's because it's a monopoly. On paper the alcohol is supposedly more expensive than other states, because they jack it up a little to use as state revenue, in practice it's not noticed because the state liquor stores are the only place to get liquor so it's just like a local cost of living quirk (like oh housing is a bit higher in this state than that state, gas is a bit less expensive in this one, alcohol is this much here).
Prices are higher than they otherwise would be because the state wants tax money and wants to discourage rampant alcoholism. This is different than like a state running a train/bus service, which is a public good or necessity, which the market couldn't otherwise fill due to the investment needed, roadblocks involved in public projects, and low margins or operating losses.
If you were to open public supermarkets with the goal of undercutting actual businesses that exist on the taxpayer's dime, basically that scheme is assbackwards. You have consumers paying taxes, and businesses paying taxes, to fund a public grocery store that erodes the very tax revenue that supports it.
The welfare queen myth is a perfidious lie that doesn't exist in the real world. Stop propagating it. Nobody gets lobsters from the food bank and then spends their money on (other) luxury items.
|
|
|
Norway28711 Posts
So I don't really know exactly what is meant by 'city run grocery stores'. Even Norway doesn't have state or city-owned grocery stores (our liqour stores are a state-run monopoly though, and they're generally considered one of Norway's best run companies - it keeps winning polls (competing with all private companies too) on 'what is Norway's most reputable company').
However, what we do have is cooperatives. These are owned by the public - our 'Coop Norge' is owned by 2.6 million Norwegians (nearly half the population), who have paid between $10 and $30 in membership fees (this fee is reimbursed if people stop their membership), and then all the members receive annual dividends based on how much they have spent and how much profit their local Coop has made throughout the year. These stores aren't state funded or subsidized, they're slightly more expensive than the least expensive private option (however, if you consider the yearly dividends, you probably basically break even or close to it). They still have a CEO with a more than decent salary, however, that more than decent salary is something like 1/1000 of what the CEO's of the private run grocery chains end up with. (Three of Norway's richest 9 people have accrued their wealth through ownership of grocery chains).
For the record, about 30% of Norway's grocery stores are under the 'Coop'-umbrella.
I'm hugely supportive of this model, but I don't really know how Mamdani's suggestion compares or differs. In general, even as a self-avowed socialist, I think grocery stores are one of the areas where private ownership generally makes sense.
Like, I basically think there are a few criteria that can justify state ownership of a business sector. 1: There's a natural monopoly and no room for competition. 2: It's not something you can opt out of using. 3: Building infrastructure is a costly endeavor. 4 (a bit more debatable, this one can also be achieved through taxation) - the business revolves around the natural resources of the country.
Hospitals clearly belong here. Electricity does, too. Education, in a way, although I'm positive towards idealistic (not profit driven) alternatives. Public transportation and trains as well. I'm partial towards oil and mining being state run too.
But not grocery stores (or other stores in general for that matter). Now, I do favor strict(er) enforcement of anti-monopoly laws, higher taxes for the very wealthy owners, cooperative options, even stuff like enforcing a more equitable pay structure or stock options for employees so they can take actual ownership rather than just being replacable labor, but overall, it's not an area where I favor government ownership.
|
On June 27 2025 16:46 Liquid`Drone wrote:
So I don't really know exactly what is meant by 'city run grocery stores'. Even Norway doesn't have state or city-owned grocery stores (our liqour stores are a state-run monopoly though, and they're generally considered one of Norway's best run companies - it keeps winning polls (competing with all private companies too) on 'what is Norway's most reputable company').
However, what we do have is cooperatives. These are owned by the public - our 'Coop Norge' is owned by 2.6 million Norwegians (nearly half the population), who have paid between $10 and $30 in membership fees (this fee is reimbursed if people stop their membership), and then all the members receive annual dividends based on how much they have spent and how much profit their local Coop has made throughout the year. These stores aren't state funded or subsidized, they're slightly more expensive than the least expensive private option (however, if you consider the yearly dividends, you probably basically break even or close to it). They still have a CEO with a more than decent salary, however, that more than decent salary is something like 1/1000 of what the CEO's of the private run grocery chains end up with. (Three of Norway's richest 9 people have accrued their wealth through ownership of grocery chains).
For the record, about 30% of Norway's grocery stores are under the 'Coop'-umbrella.
I'm hugely supportive of this model, but I don't really know how Mamdani's suggestion compares or differs. In general, even as a self-avowed socialist, I think grocery stores are one of the areas where private ownership generally makes sense.
Like, I basically think there are a few criteria that can justify state ownership of a business sector. 1: There's a natural monopoly and no room for competition. 2: It's not something you can opt out of using. 3: Building infrastructure is a costly endeavor. 4 (a bit more debatable, this one can also be achieved through taxation) - the business revolves around the natural resources of the country.
Hospitals clearly belong here. Electricity does, too. Education, in a way, although I'm positive towards idealistic (not profit driven) alternatives. Public transportation and trains as well. I'm partial towards oil and mining being state run too.
But not grocery stores (or other stores in general for that matter). Now, I do favor strict(er) enforcement of anti-monopoly laws, higher taxes for the very wealthy owners, cooperative options, even stuff like enforcing a more equitable pay structure or stock options for employees so they can take actual ownership rather than just being replacable labor, but overall, it's not an area where I favor government ownership.
You almost make it sound like Norway ranks 7th on quality of life. Oh wait, it does? Yes, it does indeed.
But it definitely wouldn't work in the US because right-of-center publications say so.
|
It's fascinating how American right wingers descend on the thread to explain how anything other then unfettered capitalism can never work and how socialism is a horrible idea as if there aren't many countries with many socialist policies that have citizenship that is way better off because of it.
The hubris of these posts is hilarious to me, like no other country exists and US is the paragon of a well ran country, despite a huge list of things that the US citizenship is objectively worse off in then many "socialist hellholes" across the world are.
The anti-communist brainwashing is apparently incredibly effective, I guess it goes from generation to generation and it got supercharged in the last 30 years.
|
On June 27 2025 15:12 Acrofales wrote:Show nested quote +On June 27 2025 14:29 oBlade wrote:
Grocery stores could potentially have a public option, it sounds good in theory, but on closer inspection that seems stupid for the government to get into when it specifically has public assistance at every level already. NYC has food banks, they have local assistance, state assistance, and of course they have SNAP and WIC which are federal. And the government subsidizes farming and food production in certain ways too.
What do people do with assistance? They load up on lobster, steak, and soda, and use their disposable income on flagship phones. Or they use the benefits to clean out grocery stores of all the cases of bottled water, open and dump the water out in the parking lot, return the bottles for the 10 cents deposits and use the redeemed cash to buy drugs and go use them at a government-designated site.
Like I'm sorry if personal taxi burritos cost $30 in NYC but the answer is not raise minimum wage to $30 and whatever else is in the socialist pipe dream. Eat something else.
The closest analogue is ABC states. States that control liquor/spirit sales. Because that, like food, is something people directly consume. If you, like me, are from somewhere where the state monopolizes retail sales of liquor/spirits, the effect is you don't notice anything. But that's because it's a monopoly. On paper the alcohol is supposedly more expensive than other states, because they jack it up a little to use as state revenue, in practice it's not noticed because the state liquor stores are the only place to get liquor so it's just like a local cost of living quirk (like oh housing is a bit higher in this state than that state, gas is a bit less expensive in this one, alcohol is this much here).
Prices are higher than they otherwise would be because the state wants tax money and wants to discourage rampant alcoholism. This is different than like a state running a train/bus service, which is a public good or necessity, which the market couldn't otherwise fill due to the investment needed, roadblocks involved in public projects, and low margins or operating losses.
If you were to open public supermarkets with the goal of undercutting actual businesses that exist on the taxpayer's dime, basically that scheme is assbackwards. You have consumers paying taxes, and businesses paying taxes, to fund a public grocery store that erodes the very tax revenue that supports it. The welfare queen myth is a perfidious lie that doesn't exist in the real world. Stop propagating it. Nobody gets lobsters from the food bank and then spends their money on (other) luxury items.
Have you ever lived in America?
|
I'd love to do a poll on what's the first image that pops into people's heads when they think of a "welfare queen" in America. White? Black? Hispanic? Other?
I think we all know the overwhelming answer. TotallynotfueledbyracismTM though.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/83dbf0e68b395d5da50855786a2e6ca7.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/58da46c102b749808b22de7a46ef7d66.png)
![[image loading]](https://i.gyazo.com/16ca3affd84717a94a3ca314624c3493.png)
