Lol.
Capitalist leech says he'll willingly lose capital.
Liiiiiiiiiiar.
The dollar is holy to these freaks. They won't jeopardize a single one.
Closeted fearful European supremacists, lol. So what if everyone who looks like you and is in power is a liar, a thief and often a sex-pest? Just disassociate from them and pick someone because of their character! :D
Gristedes is an expensive yuppie supermarket chain like Whole Foods, in some rich areas. I don't think they have to worry about some city-run stores in underserved neighborhoods. It's just pouting.
Bullshit, billionaires are too greedy and morally bankrupt to leave exploited money on the table.
They won't close the highest producing stores and effectively kill a revenue stream out of conviction in something that isn't money, because if they had any beliefs or values above "gimme gimme gimme moar moar moar" they wouldn't be billionaires.
It's not a matter of not needing it, no shit, they have a socially encouraged mental illness.
It would be better for the new socialist stores if they did vacate the market, but they won't. They'll even pull a Walmart and try to do some loss leaders to convince idiots that der free merket menes lower prices for as long as they can stomach it until they find a vector to make the state stores illegal and Jack those prices back up forever.
If a billionaire grocer has decided it's not worth the effort to build a grocery store for a community, why would they be upset that the state fills in the gaps left by them? Be reasonable.
It is because they are going to use the billionaires tax dollars to open a grocery store that he would have to compete against.
Oh wait, he probably doesn't pay taxes.
Great, now do Amazon.
So if it’s city owned it’s bad because any profits would go back to the city. But if it private owned it’s good because the profits go to a few rich people? I must be missing something
I think that the problem is you’re looking at this from a reasonable perspective.
In fact you could do one better - it doesn't need to make a profit, just break even, so you could either have lower prices, helping the community save money, or higher wages, helping the community spend money. But since it helps most people instead of a few people, it's bad according to capitalism.
That'll cause competition with the private owned stores and force them to push down prices / raise wages until their profit margins are gone, putting them out of business.
The only entity that will buy the defunct stores will be the state , or maybe some actual non-profits , and now the state owns all the grocery stores and communism will be achieved. Then we get bread lines, is that what you want? /s.
If you're inclined to be charitable, I believe the capitalist-brained reasoning goes something like:
These grocery stores will inevitably run at a loss and/or need to be subsidised - costing the taxpayers money - because the state couldn't possibly run them as efficiently as a private enterprise competing in the free market.
(Not saying I agree.)
The reasoning is actually that a food desert means greater revenues from a larger market circle for the desert wanderers to travel so they can eat. Company gets most of the profit without offering convenient service from the captives.
There is zero reason to run grocery stores at a loss. Competition that doesn't extort as strongly as other cartel members does screw over the cartel.
Being government-run, the store will obviously have:
- a poor selection of products leaving you with no choice
- ugly packaging meaning only the poors will go there
- long waiting lists for entry
- yearly, quarterly and monthly subscriptions, all required and renewed seperately, taking hours in a queue and three trips to the social services hq each to renew
- quotas on all items, groups of items and time limited - whenever one is passed the rest don't matter
- no added value like delivery or good customer service
- no market research or innovation
- no incentive to do better or improve service
- an active loss of money due to bueraucratic ineficiencies
(Likewise, also spined it (almost) as much as possible.)
Yes but if it‘s city owned, the profits won‘t go towards exploitation of (mostly) non-white laborers and dismantling the social system. Just think of how many humanitarian aid programs could be defunded and how much the environment could be stripped of its resources if we let the private sector maximize their profits!
/s
"Won't somebody think off the job creators?" they'll unironically tell you after laying off thousands of people.
Do it. Someone will fill the gap in the market.
Aldi and Trader Joes will gladly take over all their locations.
Seize his stores then. The city can run them for the people.
My 5D chess move would be:
- Go: ok bet, you wanna shut it down? Your stores are now in immediate administration under some eminent domain law
- In order to mitigate political backlash, make it known that they're able to sell their business to someone else, or the city, provided that the subsequent owner is bound to either run it, or sell it to the city
Watch them get mad because you haven't technically seized it, they can still sell the business (maintaining the sacrosanct rights to private property capitalists love so much), you've just prevented them from closing it down, and everyone gets to keep their jobs :)
Instead of closing them, accept NYC offer of 5cents on the dollar to take over their lease. Everyone gets what they want.
Oh no /s
Its always the same excuses with these mfers. Do it, we dont care. Take your family and go to africa or russia. Most of the assets however belong, rightfully so, to the society that created them.
Yes! Seriously if they don't like it, just go somewhere else. Go live in your bunker, I don't care just don't come back complaining about it and don't pretend like you can still own all the resources and land from down there.
There ability to skim money from those that actually do labor doesn't seem like to matter to the farmers who need to grow food to sell it, and the people buying it will continue to do so. I don't get how these skimmers/leeches think they are the beginning and end of all social contracts.
Fuck him. They raise prices if people vote for a Democrat. They raise prices if people vote for a Republican.
All the while depending on a system based on obfuscation of the fact that a large portion of the time a worker labors for is unpaid.
Call his fucking bluff. The only way anything would close is if it isn't profitable (enough). And if they can't turn a profit, well then they need to be better at business! (/s).
Gettin pretty real sick of the class war waged by billionaires against the rest of us. Every one of those wackos on cable news reactionary outlets who went REEEEEEEEEEEEE over the results need to be hunted down like the rabid feral pigs they are.
Won't that just drive business to the city-owned stores? Sounds like he's trying to help!
Nice of the billionaire to vacate perfect real estate for city owned grocery stores
Indoor farmer's markets? I thought NYC was peak hipster already
Good. And while you're at it close all your other stores, fucking parasite.
Socialism != Communism
Socialism advocates for collective or government ownership of key industries to reduce inequality, while communism seeks a classless, stateless society with communal ownership of all property.
Kinda? Socialism is a transitional status towards communism. Socialism is largely categorized as a system where public property is the principle aspect, ie large firms and key industries, rather than private. Communism is when socialism has developed to the point where all production has become centralized, and collectively owned, thereby eliminating class and the modern conception of a state.
They are disinct in that they have functional differences, but are the same in that they are largely the same concept but at different historical stages.
Kinda? Socialism was initially described as a transitionary stage of Communism in the same way as totalitarian violent revolution was described as a transitionary stage of Communism. This view also contained the belief that Capitalism is simply a transitionary stage of Fascism. A mixed market economy then with Socialism and Capitalism then describes an economy that is in a superposition of transitioning to both Communism and Fascism. In reality the transitionary times if you call them that are just as validly real times that people live in and regimes change and come and go and we must strive to fight for justice, equity and self determination while preventing too much power from falling into the hands of too few now and try to find the best system for now rather than acting as though everything is an inevitable slope to one extreme destination and that nothing else matters.
I think this is way too narrow. Following Marx? For sure, you're right.. but if you look at "Liberalism" - which can span anything from "taxes and government are literal hell" to "we support LGBT rights" - and "Conservatism" - which can span anything from Angela Merkel to Trump to follow-my-millenia-old-book-by-the-letter-or-I-will-murder-you - the word "Socialism" in the modern age can definitely contain nuances as well. For instance the main centre-left party in Denmark is called the "Social Democrats" then right to the left of it you have the "Socialist People's Party" - which is far less revolutionary than it sounds - and then you have a few other parties, including one identifying as "Communist" but which doesn't even really fight for any kind of revolution or the total elimination of class but recognises the requirement for collaboration and compromising when in power.
I mean, sure, that's very funny, but please don't help feed the right-wing lie falsely equating democratic socialism with communism.
To be clear, all socialism, communism included, is democratic. "Democratic Socialism" just refers to reformist socialism, in most cases, or is used to make social democracy seem more appealing. Mamdani has expressed support for more radical groups online, though, so it's clear that he isn't just your typical social democrat at minimum.
Why? Maybe if people understand that what they are scared with to be "communism" is affordable housing, public transport and education and not being harassed by police, they will break out of the propaganda alltogether.
I think it's a bit confusing, but in my view almost all socialists (including democratic socialists) are communists since the end goal they are trying to achieve is communism. Socialism (which can be described as welfare state, majority-publicly owned capital, and planned or market-socialist economy) is almost always seen as a stepping stone towards communism (stateless, classless, moneyless society), even though it is would also be an improvement on its own.
(to confuse matters even further, Lenin's party was initially called Russian Social-Democratic Labour Party, even though today's understanding of social-democracy would only apply to the Menshevik wing).
Close it and let the city run it.
Welcome cheap and wholesome cooperative
It sounds like a great plan, this way there will be plenty of nice store locations available for these state own groceries store.
I like that lil commie ghost, where can I get stickers?
He is The Spectre of Communism!!! BOO!!
Ha! I like this one too looks like communism yawning, getting ready to get the day started.
You could make them and capitalism the hell out of it.
oh no but think of the shareholders?
socialist candidate
looks inside
another socdem
Think the billionaire is safe, even more so considering the proposed pro-business policies by the candidate
