A Deeper dive into Mamdani grocery stores...

[QP!]

no thats not what you said.

it is what i said liar and here are the two posts i mentioned it and the quoted.

...Obama actually had a chance to fix a lot of that problem, after the Sub Prime Credit big Bank collapse issue, by NOT bailing out the Big Banks and instead pouring all that same amount of tax payer money into Mortgage and Credit Card credits given directly to tax payers to pay down their personal debt.
...
Also by giving the tax payer BACK their money instead of giving it to Wall Street banks,...

...
I felt bailouts were necessary,... And i felt Obama had a chance to correct it and be a true populist (give tax payers BACK their money instead of giving it to Wall Street banks) and he caved and gave to the Big banks instead.

...

That is when you said you do not believe in the gov't giving any tax payer back their money and that the gov't should only take in money and not give any back.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Wrong.

I'm very much interested in a much deeper dive into the Mamdani Socialist grocery store and set as a benchmark the Trump socialism.

We all agree as @T. A. Gardner admitted the Trump socialism is bad and no one is denying it so let's figure out on a scale of 1 to 10 how Mamdani's socialism compares.

I rate Mamdani at around 2 of 10 and for scale Trump socialism at 7 of 10.

How do you rank it?

Mamdani's Socialism is local, whereas the Trump example of Spirit airlines is national. There are competitors to Spirit and a government take over in that case doesn't equate to customers moving to Spirit. The reason is Spirit, right now, is bottom end of the market. Many people who fly simply will not put up with the poor quality of service and delivery offered.

On the other hand, we can assume that Mamdani's grocery stores on a local level will be roughly equivalent in goods and services to existing ones. If that is so, and the government market is cheaper due to subsidies, people will generally choose the government market. That means the competition may have to leave the market in turn creating less choice.

What's really pressing the airlines is the simple cost of flying planes. They have high overhead and can only cut prices so deep before they stop making money. Spirit took that to the extreme.

Ranking wise? Both are 7 out of 10 within their market.

 

[Into the Night]

Great.

Glad you are willing to admit this Trump admin is making what you guys point out as Mamdani socialism and danger to private businesses, look tame in comparison.

Trump is showing no signs of slowing this consistent run of socialist corporate investments.

What 'consistent run', Kewpie?

 

[Into the Night]

False. You need to learn how to read better.

I pointed out that for decades bad US policy created this 'Too Big To Fail ' oligarchy banks that if allowed to fail would massively harm massive amounts of tax payers while driving the US into deep recession due to they're severe liquidity crisis.

MY ANSWER WAS NOT bank bailouts but instead tax payer bailouts. Give the taxpayers back their money in the Tax Payer bailouts which then would go directly to mid sized State banks mostly, addressing the broader liquidity crisis and greatly diminishing the power of those Too big to Fail, banks.

You supported "Too Big To Fail".

 

[Ichabod Stain]

you said bailouts were necessary again.

 

[Into the Night]

People should have gone to jail for that bank stuff.

they resold known bad mortgages and forced the ratings agency to rate them AAA.

The 'ratings agency' was the banks themselves making the bad mortgages and reselling them as combined investments.

 

[Into the Night]

Again i said they were necessary as part of a tax payer bailout.

The liquidity crisis was real and taxpayers were about to get even more hurt so as part of a taxpayer bailout, with the government giving taxpayers back their money it was necessary.

You replied taxpayers should never get money back and should only pay government

So you supported "Too Big to Fail".

 

[QP!]

Mamdani's Socialism is local, whereas the Trump example of Spirit airlines is national.

Right and National Socialism is much more worse and more impactful than small local ones limited to a region.

There are competitors to Spirit and a government take over in that case doesn't equate to customers moving to Spirit. The reason is Spirit, right now, is bottom end of the market. Many people who fly simply will not put up with the poor quality of service and delivery offered.

Yes and there are competitors to the Mamdani grocery stores even though in some of the areas he is looking it non of the competitors chose to set up shop there thus the impact of his stores is nothing in those cases.

Discount airlines are already a thing, and Spirit was already taking business from the others, even if you say they gave poor service, and giving a discount airline government to spend means they can improve service while driving prices down even more thus squeezing and hurting and the other discount providers.

On the other hand, we can assume that Mamdani's grocery stores on a local level will be roughly equivalent in goods and services to existing ones.

If you can assume that then we can assume that Spirit, with free tax payer money to compete can CONTINUE to compete with other discount and improve service while lowering costs even more.

If that is so, and the government market is cheaper due to subsidies, people will generally choose the government market. That means the competition may have to leave the market in turn creating less choice.

Yes that is exactly what i am saying with Spirit, already a competitor with some market share in the Discount airline space, now with gov't money and able to compete even harder while improving services. You are right. it will likely hurt NATIONAL competition in the airline industry which is far worse.

What's really pressing the airlines is the simple cost of flying planes. They have high overhead and can only cut prices so deep before they stop making money. Spirit took that to the extreme.

That is why having government money (tax payer money) to spend is such a game changer as you and i both know those normal market dynamics do not matter to over spending, do not care about tax payer money returns, bureaucrats.

All of the things that Spirit had to worry about (running at profit level) go out the door once the government owns it.

That is unless you will now argue this will be the EXCEPTION government that will run efficiently and make good profit.

You are not arguing that are you Terry?

Ranking wise? Both are 7 out of 10 within their market.

National Airlines once bailed out need CONSTANT bailouts, as history has taught us and at huge cost. That the feds want to OWN this one means they would run it more like the USPS than just making an investment but not taking full ownership.

To say a few localized grocery stores, whose only impact will be absolutely minor is comparable is just TDS and shows you have no ability to look at Trump related issues without TDS making you spin every topic.

 

[Into the Night]

it is what i said liar and here are the two posts i mentioned it and the quoted.






That is when you said you do not believe in the gov't giving any tax payer back their money and that the gov't should only take in money and not give any back.

Socialism doesn't work, Kewpie.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

The 'ratings agency' was the banks themselves making the bad mortgages and reselling them as combined investments.

no. they bribed or forced a ratings agency to rate them triple AAA.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

you people are all idiots just making up boutique differences betweens grades of fascism so you don;t realize you;re all fascists.

 

[QP!]

you people are all idiots just making up boutique differences betweens grades of fascism so you don;t realize you;re all fascists.

Says the guy who says he supports governments taking ever more money from citizens and does not support the government ever giving back to the citizens even in challenging times.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Right and National Socialism is much more worse and more impactful than small local ones limited to a region.


Yes and there are competitors to the Mamdani grocery stores even though in some of the areas he is looking it non of the competitors chose to set up shop there thus the impact of his stores is nothing in those cases.

Discount airlines are already a thing, and Spirit was already taking business from the others, even if you say they gave poor service, and giving a discount airline government to spend means they can improve service while driving prices down even more thus squeezing and hurting and the other discount providers.


If you can assume that then we can assume that Spirit, with free tax payer money to compete can CONTINUE to compete with other discount and improve service while lowering costs even more.


Yes that is exactly what i am saying with Spirit, already a competitor with some market share in the Discount airline space, now with gov't money and able to compete even harder while improving services. You are right. it will likely hurt NATIONAL competition in the airline industry which is far worse.


That is why having government money (tax payer money) to spend is such a game changer as you and i both know those normal market dynamics do not matter to over spending, do not care about tax payer money returns, bureaucrats.

All of the things that Spirit had to worry about (running at profit level) go out the door once the government owns it.

That is unless you will now argue this will be the EXCEPTION government that will run efficiently and make good profit.

You are not arguing that are you Terry?


National Airlines once bailed out need CONSTANT bailouts, as history has taught us and at huge cost. That the feds want to OWN this one means they would run it more like the USPS than just making an investment but not taking full ownership.

To say a few localized grocery stores, whose only impact will be absolutely minor is comparable is just TDS and shows you have no ability to look at Trump related issues without TDS making you spin every topic.

You are looking at it wrong. Compare the magnitude of each's action in this regard as a part of their overall budget / spending. All of a sudden, Mamdani plopping down $70 million to open, at most, 5 grocery stores versus $500 million out of a $5 trillion dollar budget versus a $117 billion budget. That's .06% for Mamdani and .01% for Trump. So, in terms of the budget each controls, Mamdani is worse by 6 times.

 

[QP!]

You are looking at it wrong. Compare the magnitude of each's action in this regard as a part of their overall budget / spending. All of a sudden, Mamdani plopping down $70 million to open, at most, 5 grocery stores versus $500 million out of a $5 trillion dollar budget versus a $117 billion budget. That's .06% for Mamdani and .01% for Trump. So, in terms of the budget each controls, Mamdani is worse by 6 times.

Tax payer dollars are paid in absolute dollars so wasting $500m tax payer dollars, instead of leaving that in their pocket is worse than wasting $70M.

What you are saying is dumb. It is like saying if the Military wastes billions in taxpayer dollars that is of less concern than the smallest agency in gov't wasting thousands of taxpayers dollars as long as the percent of the budget is lower.

No citizen would agree with you and say 'ok wasting the billions is no big deal as it is a small part of the budget'.,

Your TDS is making you try to spin again and you tipped into stupidity.

Add to that an airline bailed out and then owned and ran on taxpayer money will almost certainly become a CONSTANT sink for losses and new tax payer cash going in but it will just come directly from the transportation or another budget directly going forward.

 

[QP!]

You are looking at it wrong. Compare the magnitude of each's action in this regard as a part of their overall budget / spending. All of a sudden, Mamdani plopping down $70 million to open, at most, 5 grocery stores versus $500 million out of a $5 trillion dollar budget versus a $117 billion budget. That's .06% for Mamdani and .01% for Trump. So, in terms of the budget each controls, Mamdani is worse by 6 times.

put another way Terry.

If you take a local small school board with $10M budget and a 5% wasted money determination that is $500k wasted money. If you take the Pentagon almost $1T budget and it was found that 3% was wasted that is $30B wasted tax payer money.

If you are saying what matters is the percent and not the total dollars wasted you do not understand tax payers. Tax payers will care a lot, LOT more about $30B of their dollars being wasted and no argument Terry might make trying to tell them to be more concerned about the $500k because 'percent of budget', will change their view.

And that again is because tax payer dollar waste is in absolute dollars. Stop that $30b waste and the taxpayer gets the massive benefit of that as that money can be deployed elsewhere.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Tax payer dollars are paid in absolute dollars so wasting $500m tax payer dollars, instead of leaving that in their pocket is worse than wasting $70M.

What you are saying is dumb. It is like saying if the Military wastes billions in taxpayer dollars that is of less concern than the smallest agency in gov't wasting thousands of taxpayers dollars as long as the percent of the budget is lower.

No citizen would agree with you and say 'ok wasting the billions is no big deal as it is a small part of the budget'.,

Your TDS is making you try to spin again and you tipped into stupidity.

Add to that an airline bailed out and then owned and ran on taxpayer money will almost certainly become a CONSTANT sink for losses and new tax payer cash going in but it will just come directly from the transportation or another budget directly going forward.

Your comparison fails entirely.

For Mamdani to spend as much or more on grocery stores as Trump has on this bail out, he'd have to use up nearly half of 1% his budget. $500 million / $117 billion.

That clearly isn't going to happen.

Trump spending $500 million out of a total budget of $5 trillion is .01% of his budget. That is 100 times less as a percentage of the budget than Mamdani.

That's the only fair way you can compare the two-- as a ratio of what they spent to what they have to spend in total.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

put another way Terry.

If you take a local small school board with $10M budget and a 5% wasted money determination that is $500k wasted money. If you take the Pentagon almost $1T budget and it was found that 3% was wasted that is $30B wasted tax payer money.

If you are saying what matters is the percent and not the total dollars wasted you do not understand tax payers. Tax payers will care a lot, LOT more about $30B of their dollars being wasted and no argument Terry might make trying to tell them to be more concerned about the $500k because 'percent of budget', will change their view.

And that again is because tax payer dollar waste is in absolute dollars. Stop that $30b waste and the taxpayer gets the massive benefit of that as that money can be deployed elsewhere.

Taxpayers pay in regardless of how the money is spent. The total budget + borrowing when done = money available. Spending out of that pile on various things occurs. What you, or I consider waste, or poor choices is going to vary. For a comparison on the importance of some line item in a budget the only thing that matters is its percentage to the whole. It is a separate debate as to whether a line item is a good or bad idea.

 

[QP!]

Your comparison fails entirely.

For Mamdani to spend as much or more on grocery stores as Trump has on this bail out, he'd have to use up nearly half of 1% his budget. $500 million / $117 billion.

That clearly isn't going to happen.

Trump spending $500 million out of a total budget of $5 trillion is .01% of his budget. That is 100 times less as a percentage of the budget than Mamdani.

That's the only fair way you can compare the two-- as a ratio of what they spent to what they have to spend in total.

that is stupid and you are being stupid as i used YOUR MATH and did not do my own in that example.

And no, see my second post and understand citizens DO NOT CARE about percent when you tell them you have 3 agencies the first of whom wasted $100, the second wasted $70M and the third $500M taxpayer dollars.

No citizen will care about the $100 dollars more if it represents the largest percent of budget. Similarly for the $70m versus the $500M wasted tax payer dollars.

Citizens provide a TOTAL AMOUNT of dollars to gov't to use for ALL their needs. That number is estimated at about $5 Trillion a year.

The $70M wasted = about 0.0014% of the total taxpayer money taken in and wasted. (Using a similar sized federal program.)
The $500M waste = about 0.01% of the total taxpayer money taken in and wasted.

Again what citizens CARE ABOUT is 'how much money do gov'ts take from me and how much of that is wasted' and looking at that as a total number and percent in that regard is what matters.

Again no one is going to say, as you are arguing that a tiny school board wasting thousands of dollars, but at a 10% of its budget is more serious than the Pentagon wasting billions because Terry argues, like an idiot percent of budget is all that matters.

What matters is percent of dollars citizens give the govt as custodian and how much is used well and how much is wasted.

 

[QP!]

Taxpayers pay in regardless of how the money is spent. The total budget + borrowing when done = money available. Spending out of that pile on various things occurs. What you, or I consider waste, or poor choices is going to vary. For a comparison on the importance of some line item in a budget the only thing that matters is its percentage to the whole. It is a separate debate as to whether a line item is a good or bad idea.

Eaxctly.

Tax payers pay in regardless and what they expect is that that total amount of money be used wisely.

The more of it is wasted, the less they get back in services and other, and then the more the gov't will demand the next time.

Thus Billons wasted of that total amount sent in hurts them more than million wasted or thousands wasted, no matter the percent of bduget.

Be less stupid Terry.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Again what citizens CARE ABOUT is 'how much money do gov'ts take from me and how much of that is wasted' and looking at that as a total number and percent in that regard is what matters.

You are wrong because what you call "waste" is another person's "necessity." I think a large portion of government spending on social-welfare programs is a waste. You likely think a good portion of the defense budget is a waste. See how that works?