sleeperkid
23891
922
22
Sep 13, 2026 3:52 PM
sleeperkid
23891
922
22
Sulanis
What what? We're going to put in a competitor in a capitalist society? How fucking dare you? We love capitalism, but only when we can create oligarchies per industry.
Isorikk
Being sued for capitalism, lol. You can't even complain that they're socially funded because the major retailers have been profiting from social systems to fill the gaps in paying their employees as little as possible.
Hootykai
Supermarkets can't compete with food banks. The food is given to those in need.
Poppypoppoppop
Just for comparison, the Waltons (Walmart) are 2-3 richer than the Saudis. Yes, the bloody Saudis.
SavageDrums
He's opening them in food deserts you fucking monsters.
They don't want these because without a profit motive, they'll be cheaper for everyone who shops there.
TheVillageGrouch9000
Grocers
FPAlpha
Aldi can compete because they cut out all the superflous bullshit that costs money and they use their purchasing power and the costs they save to keep their prices lower.
They realized they don't need to play the psychological marketing game by having flashy packaging and a dozen variations of the same thing because they know people would rather save money than having the choice between 10 different but ultimately the same cereals.
And their business is booming in a difficult economy.
miserycones
So we've gone from "the free market maximizes efficiency and will always create the best outcome for consumers, unlike inefficient govt run businesses that hurt consumers and will inevitably fail" to "govt run businesses aren't fair because they're better and more affordable and will drive us out of business :("
Camelspotting
How are those different?
or0b0ur0s
Do they actually think they can prove he's subsidizing them with taxpayer money? Because if he isn't - i.e., if they have to show enough of a profit to stay afloat - then they ought to be able to compete easily enough.
technoplume
Well fuck em and welcome in social capitalism
GwensBackOnHerBS
I thought industry was supposed to be more efficient?
Imustntrunaway
It's simple. These twats have spent a lot of time buying up and destroying or otherwise driving out any kind of competition, and having someone institute something like this invalidates all of that 'work'.
They want to keep playing on a monopoly board that's already been played out, running victory laps while the rest of us watch from the sidelines, unable to play. Fuck them.
EMHPicardo
xmaneds
this suit.... proves.... that the grocery stores are colluding on price-fixing, violating the Anti-Trust act. this suit is just absolutely dead on arrival
Camelspotting
No lmao
GodAintReal
I knew they were gonna. Our society isn’t set up to support people - it’s set up to make money for people who already have a shit ton of it.
And they absolutely don’t want any of us getting any ideas about changing that.
Larktonguesinadicecup
What if we just turn off the torment Nexus
foxpotate
Corporate overlords say "no the fuck you wont" watch a bunch of unsubstantiated or staged "food safety incidents" occur there and go viral.
NinjaBauer
I'd like to point out all 5 locations were selected to go into food deserts, where these POS chains weren't servicing anyways. What damages are they even trying to claim?
TheRallyStache
Call me whatever name you want but I really just don't give a rat's ass about the profit margins of a business built on basic survival needs. Anyways, fuck capitalism.
PeeterGrant
Can't compete? That sounds like a "YOU" problem. It's called capitalism baby.
clonedeeznuts
The same companies who always say they have no money and have to raise prices suddenly finds a ton to litigate
GoodChange
If they can’t compete maybe they shouldn’t.
RetrogradeLlama
I know that supermarkets work on very low margins compared to other retail. I can appreciate that.
However, when Walmart can sell the exact same product for literally half the price of (for example) Publix, a company with $63 BILLION in sales each year, something is fucky.
psugab
Well that's because Walmart strong arms companies and exploits cheap labor.
RetrogradeLlama
Walmart starts associates at $14/hour vs. Fed min $7.25, with higher wages in some states & areas. That's comparable to Stop & Shop, Hannafords, etc.
They do cut deals with vendors for cut rate prices in return for massive volume.
However, neither factor accounts for the huge difference in prices vs. other retailers. It's a business model that other grocery retailers ignore. Lower prices, grow your volume, accelerate.
psugab
I hadn't seen the new starting wages, so thanks. The produce is crap, but most other things are the same
Sechran
Even illiterate medieval kings realized that keeping people fed was more important than the profits of the bakers. The wisdom of not pooping in your drinking water was several cholera outbreaks away, but even they understood this.
This isn't some violent socialist revolution - Mamdani is just meeting the basic, nay, remedial requirements of governance. The fact that the bloated gluttonous middlemen are throwing a tantrum over this is largely inevitable, but a sign he's doing something right.
Clockworkdancerobot
"They can't compete" yet show some record profits... oligopolies really suck.
Poopette
but our infinite growwwwwth!!!
CleverUsernameDotCom
The really fucked up part is that these stores Mamdani is doing are privately owned businesses subsidized by gov funding to bring costs down. Also they are in areas that didn't already have grocery stores easily accessible for thr neighborhoods.
At least that how it was originally pitched. I assume that is still the plan. Which makes these lawsuits completely frivolous. They're just trying to intimidate.
Clockworkdancerobot
Hopefully they aren't judge shopping like has been done before. A good judge should deny them standing for not having stores in the areas. Food deserts are a problem.
Daliena06
Aw, c'mon, it's totally natural and reasonable that they'll be suing to stop the Mayor of New York City from doing things in NYC and filing the lawsuit in Texas /s
CleverUsernameDotCom
Hopefully this thing in Mississippi (i think?) will curb some of that judge shopping. I don't recall the whole story, but I think it was the state AG andþor legislature that just got held in contempt and threatened with jail time for trying to shop around when they didn't get tthe answer they wanted. The scotus even said they wouldn't take up the issue cause the lower courts already got it right, but reps kept going to new judges to find one that would side with them.
TheOneFreiman
Of course they can compete, but they won't make as much net profit, which is bad for shareholders and those at the top making bonuses. Last time I checked, the only horse shareholders had in the race was investing money they were willing and able to lose, aka gambling with their money on stocks. Fuck 'em.
J3lek
That's exactly it. There are a handful of grocery chains that own almost all grocery stores and they're collaborating to fix prices. The exact opposite of competition. If actually competition steps in, especially one with no profit motive, their oligopoly strategy fails.
ImJustHereAtThisPoint
"we're SUPPOSED to have a Monopoly GODDAMMIT"
BesticlesTesticles
Tell us you don’t understand what a monopoly means, without telling us you don’t understand what a monopoly means
ImJustHereAtThisPoint
It was a lazy joke bud. Don't clutch your pearls so hard.
dontrike
Yes, because what we have with grocery stores is a myriad of choices with no food deserts. There's mainly 4 major chains and that's about it
BesticlesTesticles
Nope. Kroger & Albertsons (the only national chains) together control less than 16% of the market. The other 84% is controlled by more than 50 separate regional chains.
I’m sorry, but the American grocery market is actually a textbook example of an efficient, competitive market. It’s one of the few examples.
The problem with government-subsidized grocery stores like Mamdani is doing is that they can out-compete every other store … which, if allowed to continue will lead to an ACTUAL MONOPOLY
dontrike
OH NO! Now what will happen if Walmart, Giant Eagle, Kroger, Whole Foods, and others like them can't gouge customers by charging 50% more for shit?
I won't feel whole if I can't be charged more for no reason.
CallMeCourierSix
Love how you utterly failed to include both Walmart and Costco. But sure buddy. Keep pretending.
BorkSamson
Hey how bout directing some of this feigned outrage towards real issues, mmkay cupcake? *cheek slaps* good lad.
LivingDeadX
We gave millions to Trump… where’s the monopoly we were promised!
bippityboppitybuttsex
It is more of a trust than a monopoly.
Radix865
"Cartel" is more like it I think?
bippityboppitybuttsex
'Cartel' and a price-fixing 'trust' are the same thing.
Radix865
They're not, trust is more "official" and binding where they more or less join together into a single entity under a board of trustees.
Cartel is more of a backroom agreement kinda thing where they all stay independent.
Caughtintheconcentricelipsesofchaosanditsinnatemadness
Cartel also doesn't give a shit if it happens to fuck everybody else over, no such thing as trust with cartels.
CompressedInfo
The cataclysm-level freakout over FIVE BODEGAS in my city is absolutely blowing my mind. FIVE STORES, guys ... even if it scales up, it'll be a few dozen, max. They're not going to carry everything, they're not going to be everywhere, they are not a structural threat. I live in New York City and I am probably going to do next to none of my shopping at these places because they're not conveniently located
CallMeCourierSix
New York city has over 5,600 grocery stores, and somewhere between 7,000 and 13,000 bodegas.
This should tell you everything you need to know about why they're suing Mamdani.
I'll spell it out (in case it's not obvious): IF MAMDANI IS SUCCESSFUL, OTHER CITIES WILL FOLLOW, AND THAT MEANS BILLIONAIRES WON'T GET THEIR TENTH MANSION AND FIFTH YACHT.
MothMonsterMan
I would consider going out of my way to shop from them just to fuck those other pricks over
CelestialSea
It's about the principle. If people discover groceries CAN be cheaper but are inflated by virtual monopolies, they might ask other levels of government to intervene.
Arcanum3000
And as I understand it the whole point is that they're going in places that lack a nearby grocery store.
CompressedInfo
And also ... if you're opening a publicly-run store, you're just not going to have the amenities and offerings and experience of a commercial market. They are just NOT going to be comparable
TheHappyHermit
They're trying to keep it from being done elsewhere. Few US cities are as or close to as walkable as NYC. So a market in each borough isn't going to have a huuuuuge impact because some will still opt for the convenience of proximity over the convenience of price. If it was a model that could work outside NYC, it'd have been done by now
BigDaddysMeatWagon
They don't want people to see what stuff can actually cost if didn't jack up the prices. That's all it is.
threepotatoesinatrenchcoat
Honestly, it would be great if they were a structural threat. I'd be all for non-profit or government subsidized staples. There's very little real downside to society
CallMeMcGyver
Conservatives will freak out about whatever they have been told to freak out over... which is always whatever remotely threatens the ever increasing flow of fat profits flowing to the greedy parasite class.
TinyBadger101
They're specifically placed in food deserts. You know, places where those grocery store companies won't open stores. So they're not direct competition because in places where there is access to fresh food, these bodegas aren't being placed.
Frenchgeek
Looks like the one thing capitalism fear the most is competition.
LivingDeadX
So much for the free market.
Caughtintheconcentricelipsesofchaosanditsinnatemadness
The global recession proved that beyond any doubts!
ImJustHereAtThisPoint
"if people see it work here, they'll want it everywhere" has been the excuse to crush A LOT of lives in the past
RuBisCO1
"It is just one ant"
ImJustHereAtThisPoint
I do find it INFINITELY funny how that movie (a bugs life) so easily taught generations the value of solidarity. Full on Accidental Socioeconomic Education.
or0b0ur0s
Yeah, it's the precedent and the de-normalization of their greed that they're worried about. The more people are shown hard evidence that a bag of chips can be $2 instead of $7, a pound of chicken can be $1 or $2 instead of $6 or $7, and a soda damned well doesn't need to be like $5.
CompressedInfo
I mean, I thoroughly support these things, but also knowing the grocery business, I doubt they will be able to discount that much. And if they do, it will be a direct subsidy from the city or state (which is good!), but THAT part of it almost certainly wouldn't scale elsewhere. If you're offering chicken at HALF the cost elsewhere, you're taking a bath on it.
CompressedInfo
Also, I suspect the economics of these things is dependent on dense urban fabric and small store sizes. You will need to keep spoilage losses to an absolute minimum in order to avoid being wildly underwater, which means small SKU totals and small amounts in stock at any one time, which can work with a small catchment area, but not with a drivable market
CompressedInfo
Also, the public groceries won't have nearly as much of a revenue stream from the brand fees for stocking many multiples of manufactured foods. This is also good! Many manufactured foods are nutritionally empty, high margin crap that people buy because brands pay a lot to shove in front of their faces. But these fees are really important to most of the grocery industry
Grimlock458
And to that I say. Yeah‽ Don't threaten me with a good time!
ExTechOp
Including Russia's "special military operation" in Ukraine.
UnicornsToxicRainbowFart
The ppl who can afford groceries at whole foods do not overlap in any significant way with the people who will visit those bodegas. It's like claiming thrift stores are going to put Macy's or Sears out of business, SO dumb
rickrickles
Only Sears can put Sears out of business
CompressedInfo
Exactly. I do almost all my shopping at Fresh Direct because they're a delivery service. I already pay a premium over another grocery store because I want the convenience. These things are not going to draw my business
Neednoggle
That's a fantastic analogy, well said!
blisfulloblivion
When you realise that a significant amount of grocery sales come from SNAP purchases it makes more sense why they're freaking out. About 10% of grocey sales. Since SNAP can't be used for hot/ready made food that money is spent at grocery stores.
If Macy's/Sears could make an extra 10% in sales from gov funded programs you bet your ass they would care about cheap competition like thrift stores.
UnicornsToxicRainbowFart
Ahhhhh there it is
UnicornsToxicRainbowFart
If 10% less puts you out of business, you might be a monopoly, and you might deserve it
cokebot9000
Didn’t somebody put Sears out of business?
rhixhikaru
They put themselves out of business.
UnicornsToxicRainbowFart
idk but it wasn't goodwill 😹
J3lek
It turns out the waste fraud and abuse was in the private sector all along.
paulwall117350
Always was. There's that one book that people quote all of the time that claims possibly up to 100 million people were killed by communism, but as it turns out, if you were to use the exact same metrics (waste, fraud, abuse, mismanagement, failed central planning, state-sponsored genocide, etc) to measure the amount of deaths caused by capitalism and private enterprise, capitalism has killed over 100 million people in India alone during only the period between 1970 to 2000.
usernameusedinlessplatforms2
And that "communism" was authoritarian oligarchy anyway (state ownership, party elite were the oligarchs)
bippityboppitybuttsex
Maybe their business model is broken?
Camelspotting
No not really, supermarkets run pretty thin margins.
Saxytimes
I don't understand how that's true. Giant made at least 2.2b in profits. A can of soup in Walmart is 2$ less than Giant. If you divide those profits by workers you can pay 57,000 hourly employees an additional 38,000 on top of their 15$ an hour. And that's my limited understanding of profits. Initially Google comes back with 24b in profit but I think much of that is reinvested
Camelspotting
Good point. Corporate and store profits are not the same.
ThePostPenultStraw
You spelled "exploitative" wrong. 8^)
BorkSamson
Nooo.... that cant be it. Guys, trust me. Its totally fair that we monopolize the market, underpay workers and get record profits... Guyssss cmonnn its supposed to be like thatttt... Guuuysssss pleassseeee-
cmonbropleaselaugh.meme
majortool
Communication, transportation, food, healthcare, and education are all things that should be public but are not.
DWolf
I upvoted but would put "utilities" in there (electricity, clean water, sewers) and maybe not communications and undefined "food." Can you elucidate on communications and food?
Transportation is also debatable because government handles mass transit and free rides for seniors in some places, as well as oversees (not well) the rail lines. I see it as a hybrid public/private, depending on usage. I think the Colorado co-op currently challenging Uber and Lyft also works.
majortool
Yes. Simple. Communications should be free for everyone provided by the government. Every person should get a lifelong open line to use the internet, phone, and text. Some things that would benefit from this switch is that 911 services would be able to locate anyone, the government would be forced to expand coverage into for poor and rural communities.
For food, private businesses should be allowed to compete for prepared and premium products, but the government should provide its own
majortool
logistic network and grocery stores that would also be forced to expand into rural and poor communities and since the government isn't making a profit, all staples should be at expense price. This will ensure that all farms are paid fairly for their produce and not monopolized. Also, the government should prevent life from being patented like Mosanto corn improvements. The government should fund research, they already do, at the best price and benefit to the taxpayer.
DWolf
Some will not like the lack of privacy from government, but the government should definitely put rural internet in like they did with the TVA.
Food could be handled by minimum basic income and regulation of cartels, trusts, monopolies, and megacorporations to get actual competition.
Also, government should crack down on rent by going after conglomerates that fix prices, causing others to raise prices for property tax estimations, as well as stopping venture capitalists from buying up houses.
majortool
There's less privacy with private companies. Anything you share with a third company is not protected. Anything you share with the government is the legal constitutional responsibility to be protected.
I'm not saying that no one can make money on food. I'm just saying government should provide logistics, stores, and staples.
There should be continuing rent caps. A landlord should not be allowed to raise the rent by more than the CPI annually even if a new tenant takes possession. This
DWolf
Agreed on the private companies, but let's consider reactions.
majortool
would disincentivize landlords to renovict.
majortool
Also, thank you for pointing out that utilities should be public. Still in my town, there are old PUC stickers on doors where maintenance access is. The government sold the Public Utility Commission and now private companies make money from poor working folks. They just increased the price of electricity and water by 33% this year. Just with the snap of a finger.
DWolf
Yep, and when I lived in Porter County, Ind., they sold their county hospital to a for-profit conglomerate, and now it shuttles between profiteer buyers while providing worse and worse service. One reason they sold it: it had a bad reputation for the care it provided and needed updating. Now it has a worse reputation, and the hospital moved from being next to the university, where students trained and learned up-to-date methods.
majortool
I live in Canada. I don't have that problem.
DWolf
Show off... /s