> The USSR has tried this. Lets not.

The USSR tried lots of things we do successfully.

This is actually something governments have a proven ability to do, at least in some contexts, without becoming a corrupt boondoggle.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Defense_Commissary_Agency

Yeah it was so successful that people would line up around the block for bananas the one time a year. Or when boots came into the store you'd pick up whatever size you could, as you'd trade later.

(true stories)

Again:

> The USSR has tried this. Lets not.

would rule out things like "going to the moon" or "building roads". It's a pretty useless rubric.

I am not doubting the USSR fucked all sorts of things up. I'm doubting that that inherently means those things must be impossible.

Updated - since my text was confusing. The subject at hand is subsidized grocery stores, the USSR is an example of failed centrally planned subsidized grocery stores.

The text isn't confusing; the conclusion you draw is just unsupported.

The USSR is an example of many failed things. That they failed at those things does not mean those things cannot be done.

If it wasn't confusing what made you bring up the space program and fixing roads?

I was offering a tangible example of where the thing being proposed was a failure.

> If it wasn't confusing what made you bring up the space program and fixing roads?

They are examples of the USSR failing at a possible thing. They illustrate my critique of your claim.

My fil owns a bunch of grocery stores in Russia. The gov't still essentially subsidizes the cost of basic goods to keep prices low for the poor. Because of this, even the poorest have access to what they need, and they worship Putin because of it - "he makes sure we're taken care of". Obviously we could get into the corruption, why they're so poor in the first place, etc, but it is clearly working pretty well.

Also in Israel, stable basic products (like milk) have a government mandated pricing, not even subsidized. It’s a good idea in its simplistic form, and works well most of the times, but once every 2 years you get a crunch where the manufacturers just decline to produce products at a loss, so we don’t have milk or butter for 2 weeks.

NY Post wailing aside, it’s unclear that hizzoner has engaged in that much personal graft. There’s also no evidence presented that the staff of this program are being hired through a graft scheme.

You could be right about it losing millions of dollars, we’ll see. Millions isn’t very much on the scale of NYC’s civic infrastructure; it would be difficult to even call it a waste at that scale, since the results will themselves be valuable.

(This is in pointed contrast to our last mayor.)

Por que no los dos?

The kei truck thing might be a good idea, but so is groceries managed as a public service.

The USSR had a problem with corruption. Ok? There have been gov run groceries outside the USSR, and in recent times - not decades ago.

If you don’t have an example of this leading to corruption more recent than the USSR, i gotta assume it was a USSR problem, not a gov grocery problem.

> The USSR has tried this. Lets not.

The USSR fell before I spoke my first words. The world is a very different place, and the United States works very differently from the USSR.

At worst, some people will get some cheaper groceries out of this. If you want to get mad about government spending, maybe we shouldn't be building a ballroom attached to the White House.

*bunker.

Sounds like it’s a bunker of some kind, and the ballroom was just a cover story

(https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/us-politic...)

Even better. Because lord knows we need the guy who started all these wars protected from their potential consequences.

> It will lose millions of tax dollars

As opposed to the millions that come out of your pocket on top of the taxes you pay? At least this brings some of the tax money back to the people. When you let grocery store price gouge you without competition, the money goes to executive pay and shareholder value.

It also doesn't seem fair to compete against stores that have to pay rent and taxes.

A gov run grocery store will have to pay rent and taxes.

The only difference is it doesn’t have to make profits to pay its owners.

The question is, why are you prioritizing being “fair” to people profiting off hunger, over being fair to working people trying to eat? Even if it is “unfair” this is a kind of unfair we should all support (assuming it succeeds at feeding people).

The working people who own grocery stores and bodegas are trying to eat.

Afaik bodegas make most of their money from cigarettes and booze, so this is unlikely to cut into their income in any real way. As for grocery stores owned and operated by the people who work in them, there aren’t many of those but I would expect they’ll be aware of that and open these gov stores far away from small local grocers (who tend to have cheap food already).

As for people who own grocery stores and don’t work in them? That’s an investment not a job, gov has no duty to protect individual investments over people’s basic needs.

And even worse, last estimate I saw was 30 million to open a store! 30 million! Graft is alive and well. Communism is a dismal failure, and I don't want to live through it myself. Say no to communism.