A Deeper dive into Mamdani grocery stores...

[QP!]

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?

No you are wrong and stupid as the "waste" is total dollars. You earn your income in total dollars. You pay your taxes in total dollars.

Again if the Federal gov't takes in $5T total dollars in a year in tax payer dollars and the DoD wastes 30% of their almost $1 Trillion budget and that wipes out $300B of taxpayer money that is far worse than the smallest gov't department wasting 50% on a budget of $10m and thus the waste is $5m.

That you keep arguing 'no, no, the citizens would be more angry about the $5m loss as it represents 50% and they would not care as much about the $300B taxpayer dollar lost as it is 30%' is a function of how stupid you are and how badly your brain functions.

 

[QP!]

No you are wrong and stupid as the "waste" is total dollars. You earn your income in total dollars. You pay your taxes in total dollars.

Again if the Federal gov't takes in $5T total dollars in a year in tax payer dollars and the DoD wastes 30% of their almost $1 Trillion budget and that wipes out $300B of taxpayer money that is far worse than the smallest gov't department wasting 50% on a budget of $10m and thus the waste is $5m.

That you keep arguing 'no, no, the citizens would be more angry about the $5m loss as it represents 50% and they would not care as much about the $300B taxpayer dollar lost as it is 30%' is a function of how stupid you are and how badly your brain functions.

Put another way Terry you are saying if the government recouped $5m from the $10M waste above the citizens would be happier and it is better than recouping $150B of the $300b waste, because Terry says 'percent of budget' is what people care about' and not 'what percent of their tax dollars given are recouped'.

That is stupid Terry. You are stupid. Percent of 'tax dollars given used efficiently or wasted' is what citizens care about the most.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Put another way Terry you are saying if the government recouped $5m from the $10M waste above the citizens would be happier and it is better than recouping $150B of the $300b waste, because Terry says 'percent of budget' is what people care about' and not 'what percent of their tax dollars given are recouped'.

That is stupid Terry. You are stupid. Percent of 'tax dollars given used efficiently or wasted' is what citizens care about the most.

Define "waste" first.

 

[QP!]

Define "waste" first.

"waste" in the context you and i have been discussing and already agreed upon is the taking of tax payer money and putting it both to airlines and to grocery stores. We are both opposed to both generally and think those taxpayers dollars would be better used elsewhere.

 

[Steinbeck]

Trump for whatever reason is trying to correct Obama's venal error in refusing to allow Spirit to merge with another company and save 14,000 jobs.

 

[QP!]

Define "waste" first.

Now i answered your question so you answer this one based on my hypothetical.

Terry is acting as his own sub contractor on building himself a house.

He lays out various budgets for each need, item and trade. With the roof being one of the more expensive at $15k and his Kitchen faucets being one of the lesser expensive at $50.

Terry learns his roofer guy ripped him off to the tune of 30% wasting almost $5000 of Terrys money that he cannot get back.
Terry also learns that he was over charged by 50% on the $50 faucets meaning he lost $25.

Which of those two losses is Terry more concerned with? Which does he think more impactful to him? Which one harms Terry overall total funds he has to deploy on this project?

 

[Steinbeck]

Free market competition is ALWAYS the best option.

Capitalists hate free markets, which is why they do everything they can to prevent that, including buying politicians.

Few people are really serious about 'free markets'; if they were they would also be sniveling about the massive 'limited liability' privileges the govt. provides corporation owners as personal protection from their own bad decisions and/or corruption and criminal activities.

 

[goat]

Capitalists hate free markets, which is why they do everything they can to prevent that, including buying politicians.

Few people are really serious about 'free markets'; if they were they would also be sniveling about the massive 'limited liability' privileges the govt. provides corporation owners as personal protection from their own bad decisions and/or corruption and criminal activities.

Hamiltonian economics is more about fair trade than free trade. It's what separated the states from European imperialism. Our founders had some good ideas for socioeconomic mobility that we refused to fight to keep.

The US has become what we fought a revolution to defeat.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Capitalists hate free markets, which is why they do everything they can to prevent that, including buying politicians.

Not true. Oligarchs and trade protectionists (aka monopolists) hate free markets. It is they who buy politicians and encourage restrictive laws on trade because it benefits them.

Few people are really serious about 'free markets'; if they were they would also be sniveling about the massive 'limited liability' privileges the govt. provides corporation owners as personal protection from their own bad decisions and/or corruption and criminal activities.

It would be very hard to have an entirely free market. On the other hand, laws and regulations that affect all equally, like weights and measures, health and safety, and the like make sense. Corporations are a necessity to achieve larger economic goals.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Now i answered your question so you answer this one based on my hypothetical.

Terry is acting as his own sub contractor on building himself a house.

He lays out various budgets for each need, item and trade. With the roof being one of the more expensive at $15k and his Kitchen faucets being one of the lesser expensive at $50.

Terry learns his roofer guy ripped him off to the tune of 30% wasting almost $5000 of Terrys money that he cannot get back.
Terry also learns that he was over charged by 50% on the $50 faucets meaning he lost $25.

Which of those two losses is Terry more concerned with? Which does he think more impactful to him? Which one harms Terry overall total funds he has to deploy on this project?

I have clearly laid out that what constitutes "waste" is in the eye of the beholder. What you consider waste and what I consider waste can be very different things.

 

[QP!]

I have clearly laid out that what constitutes "waste" is in the eye of the beholder. What you consider waste and what I consider waste can be very different things.

Right but on this topic we already agreed that we both think it is waste and wrong for gov't to put taxpayer money into airlines and grocery stores.

So any broader disagreement does not matter for this discussion.

Where we are disagreeing is that you are saying if the DoD is seen to waste 15% or 'multi hundred billion dollars', and a small Federal department is seen to waste $30% of its budget equaling less than $1M, you are arguing what citizens care about is the less than $1m over the multi hundred billion of tax payer dollar wasted.

You are arguing they care about 'percent of budget' and not 'percent of their tax dollars' wasted.

What you are arguing is stupid.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Right but on this topic we already agreed that we both think it is waste and wrong for gov't to put taxpayer money into airlines and grocery stores.

So any broader disagreement does not matter for this discussion.

Where we are disagreeing is that you are saying if the DoD is seen to waste 15% or 'multi hundred billion dollars', and a small Federal department is seen to waste $30% of its budget equaling less than $1M, you are arguing what citizens care about is the less than $1m over the multi hundred billion of tax payer dollar wasted.

You are arguing they care about 'percent of budget' and not 'percent of their tax dollars' wasted.

What you are arguing is stupid.

And for the money each controls, Mamdani's grocery stores are by slight degree, worse.

 

[Into the Night]

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

The WERE the ratings agency.

 

[Into the Night]

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

Go learn what 'fascism' means. Go learn English.

 

[Into the Night]

Tax payer dollars are paid in absolute dollars

What is an 'absolute dollar'??

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

Attempted proof by contrivance.

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.

Buzzword fallacies (waste, smallest agency). Base rate fallacy.

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'.,

You don't get to speak for everyone. Omniscience fallacy.

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

You can't blame your TDS on anybody else, Kewpie. Inversion fallacy.

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.

And it won't happen. Spirit Airlines is done.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

There are two ways for Mandani to raise money. He can tax it, or he can borrow it.
There are three ways for the federal government to raise money. They can tax it, they can borrow it, or they can print it.

Borrowing means issuing a bond. You must entice people to buy that bond by offering an interest rate. This means the government must LOSE money by paying for that bond, and the interest. It must raise MORE money to cover the cost of the loan. Like any consumer living on tick, this can only go on so long. The result is a debt crash. People left with those bonds are hung out to dry. They do not get paid, and the government defaults.

If they tax too much, a revolt is sure to follow. Fleeing the area is one form of revolt. A tax crash.

If they just print it, you get inflation. That is the direct cause of inflation. Because the dollar has been devalued by printing, you must print more. This in the end results in a cash crash. The money becomes effectively worthless and people choose another form of currency. NOTHING the government can do will stop it.

ALL fiat currency is subject to this. The United States is better off than most any other nation, but it is headed there just the same. It has already hit Japan, Brazil, Mexico, and now China. NOTHING makes the United States immune.

For Mandani, he is stuck requiring huge amounts of cash to implement his socialistic programs, including the communistic grocery store. As with all socialism, it must steal wealth from productive individuals to pay for the socialism. For this reason, socialism always fails. Sooner or later, it runs out of people to steal from.

 

[Into the Night]

Concerning Spirit Airlines. Trump's desire to 'save it' (he can't) is going nowhere fast. Frankly, I am surprised that a capitalist like Trump would try socialism here. The FAA won't touch it. No one else will either. Spirit Airlines is done. It must be liquidated. It's filed too many bankruptcy proceedings in too short a time.

IF the court can find a buyer, it will be sold at firehouse price just to recoup SOME of the money. The fools that made the loans to this airline will lose their bet, even if a buyer is found.

Mandani, on the other hand, has a harder row to hoe. A private investor, if he is so inclined, could open a supermarket type grocery store for about 3 million or so.
Mandani wants to spend $150 million, or about FIFTY TIMES to the cost a private investor would spend.

But a private investor won't invest in such a crime ridden place. The looting that will occur will prevent any chance of making a profit.

Mandani doesn't need to make a profit, pay attention to the market or what people actually WANT, and so spends fifty times what a private investor would and winds up getting the store looted just the same.

The money that Mandani is spending isn't free. It comes from taxpayers through high taxes, or bonds that only fools will buy; and taxpayers are fleeing (don't blame them!), leaving no way to pay for the fiasco, or the bonds that fund it.

 

[tsuke11]

At first I said I had no problem with government run grocery stores because they were supposed to be put in food deserts where the people had no other options. Apparently this location will be in the middle of at least 2 supermarkets and a bunch of bodegas. Whatever benefits this store will bring will be offset by the loss of income of the nearby businesses. BYD proved your not going to be able to compete with a government run business because they can sell products at below cost.

 

[Steinbeck]

Not true. Oligarchs and trade protectionists (aka monopolists) hate free markets. It is they who buy politicians and encourage restrictive laws on trade because it benefits them.

Well, the history of trusts, railroads, and banking tells a very different story. Rockefeller, J.P. Morgan, Carnegie, Vanderbilt, right on up to Jobs, Gates, and co. have been very diligent in destroying competition by less than honorable means.

It would be very hard to have an entirely free market.

It would be impossible, actually.

On the other hand, laws and regulations that affect all equally, like weights and measures, health and safety, and the like make sense.

Yes, but the govt. that has the power to achieve that also has the power to help destroy smaller competitors of big companies. This is where culture and morality comes in; the more that declines or is never there in the first place, the more oppressive laws and regulations become.

Corporations are a necessity to achieve larger economic goals.

Some are natural monopolies, and in some industries economies of scale win out very soon. Others just use the limited liability laws to operate criminal enterprises. Limiting ownership liability serves no public purpose when its a whisky selling business or a shoe maker or whatever. The concept was designed to benefit capital investment in such things as roads, canals, and services that serve the public interest, i.e. railroads, water projects, etc.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

Go learn what 'fascism' means. Go learn English.

fascism is the union of state and corporate power.

there's a common movement by fascists to add lots of other items to this definition, but they're just engaging in fascist apologia and denialism.

this is you.