In a squealing, hyperventilating, pants-shitting editorial, the Washington Post editorial board* scribbles (boldface mine):
Now, a man who believes that capitalism is “theft” is in line to lead the country’s biggest city and the world’s financial capital. His signature ideas are “city-owned grocery stores,” no bus fares, freezing rent on 1 million regulated apartments and increasing the minimum wage to $30. No doubt these might strike some voters as tempting ideas. But, as with so many proposals from America’s far left, the trade-offs would hurt the people they are supposed to help.
The federal government already runs grocery stores: the Army & Air Force Exchange Service, often known as the “PX” (or “BX”). They seem to be quite popular due to their lower prices. Mamdani isn’t guaranteed to win, but even if he does–and if the City Council lets him do this (and if more taxes are required, if the state allows those taxes)–it’s just providing the residents of New York City a ‘People’s PX.’
As market failures go, the lack of affordable food is pretty high on the list.
A People’s PX is worth trying. It beats the moderate and centrist Democratic strategy of “The Audacity of Nope.” Hell, it might even work…
*Yes, the paper is run by a fucking Tory. What could possibly go wrong?
mikethemadbiologist
The only way city-owned grocery stores could beat the big chains on price would be for the city to subsidize grocery prices. Grocery chains compete viciously with each other, and their profit margins are very slim. I’m as left as it gets on most economic issues, but this idea is a can of worms.
By avoiding rent and property taxes city-owned markets probably could lower food prices, and at least people wouldn’t be sending profits to distant corporate overlords. I would be concerned about the effect on local small businesses, but I think this kind of idea could be particularly successful in “food desert” areas which tend to have lower incomes and for which an increase in healthy food availability and drop in prices could have a major positive impact on the health and wellbeing of the residents.
Kroger tried to buy Albertsons for $24b to obtain net earnings of nearly $700m per year. Their P/E ratio is about 1/2 that of your average listed company. What the industry lacks is glamourus growth. Otherwise, they do OK. And “subsidies” are not necessarily a bad thing (ask any f*cking farmer). It all depends on whose ox is getting gored and, yes, a judgement with respect to the public good. Thanks.
“Groceries” is too vague a term. I live in a dense and downmarket city, just across the river from a big thriving city. There are three supermarkets and two “dollar stores” within walking distance of my home. The supermarkets carry a pretty robust inventory of fresh fruits and vegetables, butchered meats, specialty pastries baked in-house, yadda yadda– but sell pasta and canned goods at noticeably higher prices than the dollar stores. I assume this is because there are now big parts of this country where dollar stores are the primary suppliers of food (and such household necessities as soap and detergents). By avoiding brand name products and perishable goods (foodstuffs are predominantly canned or industrially baked) they can offer their customers adequate nutrition and hygiene.
About 10% of NYC’s housing stock is public housing. The idea of city provided or city subsidized housing is far from radical. NYC has been running day care centers since World War II, and while the program has been shrinking, the basic idea is far from radical. Having the city run some kind of PX/BX system is also far from radical. It ran the school lunch program for years.
Nowadays, not stealing a blind man’s cane is considered a radical act of un-American society destroying malice. It wasn’t always that way. Maybe we need to teach history better. There was a reason America used to be great, and it wasn’t because Americans were overworked, underpaid and had no future.