I keep thinking about this...how would this succeed at a bigger scale? Assume it were to take marketshare from private grocery stores. Does the government "scale up" this concept and open 20 stores? 100? 500? Where do the funds come from to support such an endeavor?

Further, what incentive do most food suppliers have to sell products in these gov't run stores? It immediately undercuts their other food store customers (all of whom operate on razor thin margins)...which could lead to the private grocers refusing to take the suppliers' products. (because why would you support someone who is working with another group to kneecap your business?)

A version of this already takes place with how food companies treat mainline grocers vs. dollar stores vs. warehouse concepts. There is far less choice in a dollar store relative to a traditional grocer...why would there be any more selection in a government run grocer that operates at a loss by design?

It would seem that the potential outcomes are:

a.) The Mamdani Marts fail out of the gate for a myriad of reasons.

b.) They succeed and scale up, putting traditional grocers out of business, and requiring massive public funds to operate.

c.) They continue to operate, but with minimal selection and poor quality products because of the above-discussed factors. And not "minimal" selection like at Whole Foods (fucking lmao at this comparison), but minimal selection as in how Cuba doles out food to people.

Finally, you have to just laugh at the idea that this will save an "estimated $1,000" per family per year. Less than $100 per month. If someone wanted to save $1,000 per year on food, they could make it happen in the snap of a finger. But no, we must create a Shitlib Rube Goldberg Device to do it for them. LMAO.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5887350&forum_id=2...#50031902)

Mamdani will have government employees running the program. because the low prices will be set by policy and subsidized by the taxpayers the Mamdani stores will tend toward very high COG.

am i wrong about that?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5887350&forum_id=2...#50031995)

I am not looking for the "communists seek to eliminate private property and privately-owned businesses" argument. I am looking for the practical argument from people who seem to earnestly support this endeavor.

Thus far all I get are "WHY ARE YOU SO MAD CONS?!?" I don't think anyone is mad. Speaking for myself, I am mostly perplexed. Hence my continued effort to have someone earnestly answer my straightforward questions.

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5887350&forum_id=2...#50031971)

My biggest problem with it is that they're using city-owned land. That land is fucking priceless. Sell it or do a lucrative long-term lease to somebody who can make some real money off the property. If you want to help poors, throw that money at them. It's better than this boondoggle.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/media/city-owned-missouri-grocery-store-closes-mamdani-campaigns-some-new-york

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5887350&forum_id=2...#50032120)

"In a TikTok video, Mamdani said that his city-run grocery stores will "operate without a profit motive," instead of focusing on "price gouging" as he alleged some private stores do. He claimed that without having to pay rent or property taxes, these city-run stores would buy and sell at wholesale prices, centralize warehousing and distribution and be able to offer New York residents lower prices than privately-owned stores in the city."

It's just so easy. Why didn't anyone think of this before?

(http://www.autoadmit.com/thread.php?thread_id=5887350&forum_id=2...#50032176)