A Deeper dive into Mamdani grocery stores...

[Ichabod Stain]

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.

its better to just give the people welfare to buy food at the for profit stores. like we have now.

this government run store is more opportunity for fraud and graft.

you have to MSIA Make Shoplifting Illegal Again.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

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 impossible, actually.



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.



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.

I actually like this one.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

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.

yes.

globalism has destroyed the dream of independence.

banker fascism is worse than monarchy.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

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.

yes.

this fuse was lit in 1913.

this what the hidden hand does.

Rome, Venice, Netherlands,London, D.C..... and beyond

 

[Ichabod Stain]

the solution is to resist the allure of the bubblecrafters on wall street.

we must not let them cash out their fake dollars in return for ....everything.

no. fuck you people.

 

[Lionfish]

 

[Taichiliberal]

Free market competition is ALWAYS the best option.

Banking Industry issues specifically are more complicated because the big US Banks have gained Oligarchy status via bad US policy going back Nixon and from most Administrations since. What that has meant, that if the big banks go bankrupt, they can take down the Capital markets, see massive amounts of citizen wealth wiped out and other knock on problems that could put America in deep recession.

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.

That would have provided the SAME amount of liquidity to the markets overall but most of it would have went to State banks (where most mortgages and credit cards are held) and that would have lead to far more homes being kept by the owners thus reducing the cascade forced sales that kept happening as the neighbors house sold at great discount, reducing home values and thus putting the next neighbors value and mortgage at risk.

Also by giving the tax payer BACK their money instead of giving it to Wall Street banks, it would have kept them more liquid thus more spending in the market after leading to an even quicker recovery with the benefit of being 'the too big to fail, Wall Street banks' would have been greatly reduced in Oligarchy power as State banks were strengthened.

Bravo!

 

[QP!]

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

no task payer would agree with you. NONE.

Assuming both are failing no taxpayer would say i think Mamdani's grocery store loss of $10M in taxpayer money is more concerning or worse to them then the DoD wasting hundred of billions of tax payers dollars.

You think the taxpayer would say 'but it is percent of budget i care about and not the total amount of the tax dollars i paid that are wasted' and you think that as you are a stupid person.

 

[Lionfish]

no task payer would agree with you. NONE.

Assuming both are failing no taxpayer would say i think Mamdani's grocery store loss of $10M in taxpayer money is more concerning or worse to them then the DoD wasting hundred of billions of tax payers dollars.

You think the taxpayer would say 'but it is percent of budget i care about and not the total amount of the tax dollars i paid that are wasted' and you think that as you are a stupid person.

QPeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeee,
Ask all the big money people fleeing NY.

Don't you wish you weren't so stupid?

 

[QP!]

Bravo!

So that begs the question of WHY Obama did not do the Populist thing, that would have helped so many citizens, and his base more, and instead choose to help the uber rich?

I think there are two potential answers to that.

1 - all of his top advisors and insiders are mostly connected to the rich Wall Street class and they only told him of one option to 'save America' and he was never made aware of the more Populist option and it did not occur to him.

2 - He knew about it but chose his new and growing group of friends and allies (the uber rich) over the average citizen who made up his Populist base.

My guess is it was Point 2 more than 1. I do not think his Advisors would have presented to him or even worked earnestly on the plan to diminish Wall Street banks and give all the money back to citizens.

If Obama did do the Populist path, the massive decline in wealth, instead of being spread across the entire middle class in the form, mostly of home devaluations and losses, would have come directly out of the pocket of the uber rich who over whelming own the shares of the Wall street big banks. Yes the MC would have taken a hit too in their retirement and other funds that own those big banks, but it would have relatively small compared to the hit they took on their homes. But the hit the uber rich, who owned huge chunk of those big banks shares directly would have taken would have really been substantial.

Yes they would still be uber rich but they would take arguably the biggest sector losses of their lives.

I think, based on that, Obama chose to do what all other POTUS do in these crisis situation and that is to spread the losses and crises across the vast middle class, thinking that due to numbers they can sustain it.

I think it was a betrayal of his Populist base that put him in office.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

So that begs the question of WHY Obama did not do the Populist thing, that would have helped so many citizens, and his base more, and instead choose to help the uber rich?

I think there are two potential answers to that.

1 - all of his top advisors and insiders are mostly connected to the rich Wall Street class and they only told him of one option to 'save America' and he was never made aware of the more Populist option and it did not occur to him.

2 - He knew about it but chose his new and growing group of friends and allies (the uber rich) over the average citizen who made up his Populist base.

My guess is it was Point 2 more than 1. I do not think his Advisors would have presented to him or even worked earnestly on the plan to diminish Wall Street banks and give all the money back to citizens.

If Obama did do the Populist path, the massive decline in wealth, instead of being spread across the entire middle class in the form, mostly of home devaluations and losses, would have come directly out of the pocket of the uber rich who over whelming own the shares of the Wall street big banks. Yes the MC would have taken a hit too in their retirement and other funds that own those big banks, but it would have relatively small compared to the hit they took on their homes. But the hit the uber rich, who owned huge chunk of those big banks shares directly would have taken would have really been substantial.

Yes they would still be uber rich but they would take arguably the biggest sector losses of their lives.

I think, based on that, Obama chose to do what all other POTUS do in these crisis situation and that is to spread the losses and crises across the vast middle class, thinking that due to numbers they can sustain it.

I think it was a betrayal of his Populist base that put him in office.

of course it was a betrayal.

and it wasn't a necessary thing to do.

humanity would have learned the lesson about banker lie-bags.

but Obama is a fascist too, funnelling billions to private companies.

"but they paid it back" <--fuck this guy

 

[Into the Night]

Capitalists hate free markets,

Capitalism IS free market.

which is why they do everything they can to prevent that, including buying politicians.

Socialism is not capitalism.

Few people are really serious about 'free markets';

The free market is immortal. You cannot kill it. See your local drug dealer for details.

if they were they would also be sniveling about the massive 'limited liability' privileges the govt.

It doesn't. LLC's do not benefit the government at all, other than another business contributing to the tax base.

provides corporation owners as personal protection from their own bad decisions and/or corruption and criminal activities.

LLC's do NOT protect owners from corruption or criminal activities. It does not protect them from their own bad decisions.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

Only by losing money, which is paid for by taxpayers.
Communism never works.

 

[Into the Night]

fascism is the union of state and corporate power.

Redefinition fallacy. Go learn what 'fascism' means.

 

[Ichabod Stain]

Redefinition fallacy. Go learn what 'fascism' means.

fascism is the union of state and corporate power.

and church too if they can get.

all the sticks bound together. true faggotry.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

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.

These were all oligarchs and monopolists. Rockefeller was even found libel for his oil monopoly and had it broken up. Vanderbilt pretty much had a railroad monopoly. Morgan was the epitome of an oligarch.

It would be impossible, actually.

Pretty much.

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.

Poor culture and morality simply ignore laws and regulations oppressive or not. In the Soviet Union, for example, black markets were rampant. They became a major part of the economy. Where regulation and law in economics work is when they seek to level the playing field and keep players from cheating. When government starts putting its thumb on the scale, closed shop unions and huge licensing fees or requirements to participate like the medical and legal fields today as two examples, then it stops being a referee and starts being in a sense a bookie.

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.

Where a monopoly must or has to exist, it should be carefully and closely watched by government and the public in general. There will always be those that want to game the system to their enrichment. With infrastructure like you list, what often happens today is the developer or private business building something and needing those as part of their development put them in and then give them to government to operate in exchange for tax or other breaks to recoup the costs.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

no task payer would agree with you. NONE.

I'm a taxpayer...

Assuming both are failing no taxpayer would say i think Mamdani's grocery store loss of $10M in taxpayer money is more concerning or worse to them then the DoD wasting hundred of billions of tax payers dollars.

I'm a taxpayer and I think Mamdani's grocery stores are far more stupid than Trump doing another corporate bailout, not that the later is all that bright.

You think the taxpayer would say 'but it is percent of budget i care about and not the total amount of the tax dollars i paid that are wasted' and you think that as you are a stupid person.

This taxpayer says exactly that.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

"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.

I see waste, in this case as Mamdani opening a state run grocery store right across the street from a successful privately run grocery store, another privately run grocery store just a couple of blocks away, and several smaller grocery and specialty stores that sell products you might find in a grocery like deli items and baked goods.

Bailing out an airline isn't all that smart but the US government has a long history of this with very mixed results: Amtrack, GM, Chrysler, American Motors, etc. Here's a list of corporations that have received government bailouts.

Bailout Tracker

ProPublica is still tracking where every dollar of taxpayer money from the 2008 bailout of the financial system has gone. See for yourself.

projects.propublica.org

Most of the time, the corporation was able to turn itself around and make a profit paying back the bailout. There are failures, however. Of the ones with outstanding debt, almost all of it is in mortgages that are still active and not paid off. That seems far better than government opening a business that competes directly with private businesses, receives an endless subsidy for being poorly run and managed, and never generates a profit.

 

[Into the Night]

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.

What is dishonorable about building oil refineries?
What is dishonorable about making steel cheaper?
What is dishonorable about someone building a railroad?
What is dishonorable about build a computer?
What is dishonorable about stealing software? Ok...you got me on Gates.

It would be impossible, actually.

Not at all. The free market is immortal. You can't kill it. It IS capitalism. It is the only economic system that creates wealth.

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.

A monopoly can only exist with government help. In the free market, monopolies are unstable. Sooner, rather than later, some little startup will build a better product, or cheaper, and blow the kneecaps off a monopoly that is too large to maneuver out of the way.

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.

Nothing wrong with owning a road. People do.
Nothing wrong with owning a canal. People do.
ALL successful businesses serve the public interest. It cannot survive without it's customers.

 

[Into the Night]

So that begs the question of WHY Obama did not do the Populist thing, that would have helped so many citizens, and his base more, and instead choose to help the uber rich?

I think there are two potential answers to that.

1 - all of his top advisors and insiders are mostly connected to the rich Wall Street class and they only told him of one option to 'save America' and he was never made aware of the more Populist option and it did not occur to him.

2 - He knew about it but chose his new and growing group of friends and allies (the uber rich) over the average citizen who made up his Populist base.

My guess is it was Point 2 more than 1. I do not think his Advisors would have presented to him or even worked earnestly on the plan to diminish Wall Street banks and give all the money back to citizens.

If Obama did do the Populist path, the massive decline in wealth, instead of being spread across the entire middle class in the form, mostly of home devaluations and losses, would have come directly out of the pocket of the uber rich who over whelming own the shares of the Wall street big banks. Yes the MC would have taken a hit too in their retirement and other funds that own those big banks, but it would have relatively small compared to the hit they took on their homes. But the hit the uber rich, who owned huge chunk of those big banks shares directly would have taken would have really been substantial.

Yes they would still be uber rich but they would take arguably the biggest sector losses of their lives.

I think, based on that, Obama chose to do what all other POTUS do in these crisis situation and that is to spread the losses and crises across the vast middle class, thinking that due to numbers they can sustain it.

I think it was a betrayal of his Populist base that put him in office.

Obama caused a nine year economic depression. During that depression, the dollar was devalued by over 50%.