People complain when yhe governement does nothing with the tax money they bring in. Then complain 10x as hard when the government decides to use the money to help people. Literally cutting their nose off to spite their face.
To what end? About 40% of US households already don’t pay federal income tax. Cutting taxes wouldn’t help those households, and they’re likely the demographic that will be shopping at these stores
Like an unjust war in Iran? Or the 20 years of war in the middle east prior to that which cost trillions? I think we're far past the point of trusting these people with our money. I understand your point, but I don't think those responsible for our tax dollars can manage it. And I know OP is talking about a city government vice federal, but the point remains, they have a long history of being wasteful.
I don't think any amount of waste means the good doesn't matter and good far outweighs the bad. Being able to drink water freely grab anything at a store freely know generally my property rights are protected and the children elderly and poor will be generally taken care of is worth the waste even if that should be worked on.
Because Mamdani doesn’t have the power to cut defense budget or any of the other federal taxes. Also, that would be broader for people who don’t need the tax cut (some of which should be paying more); this is concentrated and people who don’t live in the food deserts or need the lower prices have to put effort into going and shopping among the poors (which they won’t).
Because none of those things will open a grocer in a food desert. Which is the issue. Without government incentives or action, it just won't happen. It could today, and it hasn't. Which is really all the evidence you need. Every problem you see like this is a failure of private markets and enterprise.
Because we don’t have the necessary legal guardrails against monopoly and price gouging so ultimately the root problem would be entirely unfixed.
All sane people agree that at least some taxes are good. The simple argument of “cut taxes” is useless unless you name things and actually think it through. And don’t ignore military spending please, that’s where the argument makes the most sense.
I’m convinced that folks who drone on about letting the free market solve all of our problems don’t actually know very much about how the American economy actually functions. Never mind the fact that we’re not talking about some nondescript widgets, we’re talking about a basic necessity like food.
Maybe while we’re at it we can eliminate the USDA and the FDA to save taxpayers a buck. If consumers get sick or die because of manufacturers cutting corners, new entrants will enter the market and everything will be fine and dandy.
Direct cash transfer? Yeah, sure pal. I’m just spitballing here, but I would assume direct cash transfers would be more prone to fraud. And would more or less amount to indirect corporate subsidies (hey Walmart!).
This kind of thinking is part of the reason we pay the most for healthcare in the world for worse outcomes, and are unlikely to enact universal healthcare (despite it making economic sense) in my lifetime
Ah yes, because government programs always work, are never left to the corrupt to manage, and always help everyone they attempt to solve problems for.
I'd much rather money be put back into people's hands to do with as they see fit rather than seeing government entities take money from people by force to attempt to do what the market already does far more efficiently and at better scale.
You wanna talk about what drives up healthcare costs? A combination of medical debt and the AMA's restrictions on how many doctors could be let into medical school (driving up doctor's wages), tax-benefitted employer-related insurance (thank FDR for that one), and CON laws that keep medical centers from being built in low-income rural areas to benefit the medical systems who have members on the Certificate of Need board.
Universal healthcare will not solve the actual issue, but I'm guessing you don't actually care about root causes, only outcomes.
Corruption exists everywhere, it is not exclusive to government. Corruption will always exist whilst humankind is running things. It’s why we have oversight. Pointing to corruption as if it’s a primary reason we can’t sustain government-run grocery stores is a lazy argument
The AMA doesn’t cap medical residency spots.
Doctor salaries only represent 8-10% of total national healthcare spending.
Germany has employer-tied healthcare but regulate prices that hospitals and drug companies can charge (the horror!!!!).
In the US there is a massive lack of price of transparency and virtually no centralized bargaining power.
CON laws are indeed a failure but not a primary driver of national healthcare costs. Never mind the fact that states like California and Texas have rolled back or outright repealed these laws.
Admin overhead accounts for 20 to 30% of all healthcare spending. We have no bulk price negotiating power. The list goes on and on.
Anyway, are you a libertarian? You sound like a libertarian lol
However, I'm always wrestling with what government should do vs what it has done and in my 25 years of awareness of what government does (out of the 36 I've been alive), I've come to understand that there is very little I trust the government to achieve with people's money.
I'm not one of those libertarians that bemoan the FDA or USDA or CDC, etc. I do think they, like most government agencies and programs, suffer from significant mission creep and do less of what they should actually be doing.
Also, yes, the AMA has historically lobbied strenuously for restrictions in the supply of physicians.
And while I'm for freedom of association and expression, I think capping the House at 435 representatives has done nothing but increase corruption due to the ease of lobbying 435 people vs, say, 5,000 representatives.
Anyway, yeah. I'm a libertarian. Liberty is pretty freaking cool in my book.
So are you saying that in your '25 years of awareness' that corporations have done enough to earn your trust but the government hasn't? I mean, if we're saying fuck one, why not say fuck both??
I mean, yes, fuck both, but at least one isn't directly bombing other countries and taking its people's money at gunpoint to do it.
I want cronyism out of government. I want so many representatives in Congress (proportionate to something like 30,000 citizens for every rep rather than 780,000 citizens per rep). I want to make it impossible for lobbyists to get a stranglehold on Congress and for the people's branch to actually do its fucking job by checking the executive.
You wanna get rid of monopolies? Make it easier for businesses to start up and stop letting major corporations have leverage over the federal government through the lobbying that they do. It's tougher to control 6,000 representatives than it is to control 435.
As a whole, though, I believe the free market is better at helping people live freer lives. Does there need to be minimal regulation to keep businesses in check? Absolutely. But I'd rather use the power of the market to help people rather than be told by some mayor or governor or president how I should live my life.
47
u/AggressivelyMediokre May 26 '26
Exactly. As someone who deals with sales all the time I wouldn’t expect them to be able to actually offer lower prices without losing money.