Zohran Mamdani...

[Anonymous]

Israel is a socialist country.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this board still pretending he isn’t a communist as video surfaces of him describing his end goal of seizing the means of production? Open your eyes.

https://thepostmillennial.com/communist-zohran-mamdani-admitted-in-2021-the-end-goal-was-seizing-the-means-of-production

The first thing you should do is to learn the difference between socialism and communism. Then you should learn about socialist systems that exist. Once there, maybe spend five minutes learning about successful social democracies. Ok, once you have that background down you can think about what you actually could implement in the US (probably not much of it) and how almost any of it would improve the lives of average Americans. I know that republicans have you convinced that you should lick the boot of billionaires, and you can, but the rest of us aren’t.

Oh please. Stop pretending. This guy is using the veil of “social democracy” to promote blatantly communist concepts such as seizing the means of production. It’s plain as day.

But when the "means of production" are not producing for the people, what is wrong with government intervention?

Mamdani is rich. Obviously our system has worked just fine for him.
Go back and read your history book about the millions killed in communism.

Again, you are confusing socialism with communism.

I’m glad that this is all happening. Using socialism as some boogeyman has to end. Social Security, public education, libraries, infrastructure, all SOCIAL SYSTEMS. You know, socialism.

Don’t worry, though, the republicans are convincing a bunch of fools that they don’t even deserve that return on their own money. You’ll pay taxes and you’ll get nothing from them and you’ll like it.

+100. Social security is the most popular social program.

Good grief. The US is based on capitalism. Not socialism.
Socialism, as Mamdani would like, is NOT a good thing. The piece that was linked upthread about socialistm has this little bit that you all are ignoring:

"Capitalism, with its belief in private ownership and the maximizing of profits, stands in contrast to socialism, but most capitalist economies today have some socialist aspects."

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/socialism.asp

Just because the US has some aspect of socialism, that doesn't mean that socialism is good or that the US is a socialist country.

That's your opinion, and the great thing about democracy is that this country can be whatever the people want it to be.

It’s not my opinion. It’s fact. The US is not a socialist country. And will hopefully never become one.

The opinion part was your characterization of socialism, genius. I know we're currently a capitalist country. But like I said, we can be whatever we choose to be.

Society has undergone many transformations, of which the adoption of capitalism is only one. Perhaps it served its purpose and it's time to move on. Scarcity isn't a real thing anymore. It's something we are artificially imposing on ourselves to prop up an outdated economic system. That same system is literally destroying our planet. You cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet with finite resources forever, and capitalism demands infinite growth. It's high time we move on to a more sustainable and equitable system that distributes resources in a way that serves society as a whole, not just the fortunate few.

I think you mean "redistributes." That is what socialism is. A redistribution of wealth.
As Margaret Thatcher said...... “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

Money isn't real. Resources are real. We could just...share.

how did that play out for adherents of Marx and Lenin? We got the Soviet union, the PRC, N. Korea, and other workers' paradises.

The PRC is well on its way to challenging the U.S.. One of the country’s secrets is that they crack down on billionaires, knowing that their corruption results in a backward society.

You're seriously holding up the PRC as an example of a desirable model for governance?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this board still pretending he isn’t a communist as video surfaces of him describing his end goal of seizing the means of production? Open your eyes.

https://thepostmillennial.com/communist-zohran-mamdani-admitted-in-2021-the-end-goal-was-seizing-the-means-of-production

The first thing you should do is to learn the difference between socialism and communism. Then you should learn about socialist systems that exist. Once there, maybe spend five minutes learning about successful social democracies. Ok, once you have that background down you can think about what you actually could implement in the US (probably not much of it) and how almost any of it would improve the lives of average Americans. I know that republicans have you convinced that you should lick the boot of billionaires, and you can, but the rest of us aren’t.

Oh please. Stop pretending. This guy is using the veil of “social democracy” to promote blatantly communist concepts such as seizing the means of production. It’s plain as day.

But when the "means of production" are not producing for the people, what is wrong with government intervention?

Mamdani is rich. Obviously our system has worked just fine for him.
Go back and read your history book about the millions killed in communism.

Again, you are confusing socialism with communism.

I’m glad that this is all happening. Using socialism as some boogeyman has to end. Social Security, public education, libraries, infrastructure, all SOCIAL SYSTEMS. You know, socialism.

Don’t worry, though, the republicans are convincing a bunch of fools that they don’t even deserve that return on their own money. You’ll pay taxes and you’ll get nothing from them and you’ll like it.

+100. Social security is the most popular social program.

Good grief. The US is based on capitalism. Not socialism.
Socialism, as Mamdani would like, is NOT a good thing. The piece that was linked upthread about socialistm has this little bit that you all are ignoring:

"Capitalism, with its belief in private ownership and the maximizing of profits, stands in contrast to socialism, but most capitalist economies today have some socialist aspects."

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/socialism.asp

Just because the US has some aspect of socialism, that doesn't mean that socialism is good or that the US is a socialist country.

That's your opinion, and the great thing about democracy is that this country can be whatever the people want it to be.

It’s not my opinion. It’s fact. The US is not a socialist country. And will hopefully never become one.

The fire and police department is a socialist concept. Highway and public roads are socialist as well. Parks and libraries are socialist as well.

The most popular parts of our society are socialist.

There is nothing "socialist" about public services. Do you think that democracies and free markets only exist without public services? Socialism refers to the state owning, directing, and controlling the means of production; it says nothing about public services.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Israel is a socialist country.

It is actually a parliamentary democracy operating on a free-market model after some early experimentation with socialist economic policies which failed dramatically in the 1970s. It now has a highly developed economy with a strong private sector, features not present in socialist states. Having some social welfare programs and some people living in kibbutzim does not make a country "socialist"; the defining characteristic is whether the means of production are owned only by the state.

Socialism believes the government makes better decisions for people than people can make for themselves, the fundamental approach taken by Communist nations behind the Iron Curtain which all had extremely feeble economies - inefficient, unmotivated to innovate, and incapable of actually providing what people want.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Israel is a socialist country.

It is actually a parliamentary democracy operating on a free-market model after some early experimentation with socialist economic policies which failed dramatically in the 1970s. It now has a highly developed economy with a strong private sector, features not present in socialist states. Having some social welfare programs and some people living in kibbutzim does not make a country "socialist"; the defining characteristic is whether the means of production are owned only by the state.

Socialism believes the government makes better decisions for people than people can make for themselves, the fundamental approach taken by Communist nations behind the Iron Curtain which all had extremely feeble economies - inefficient, unmotivated to innovate, and incapable of actually providing what people want.

This is capitalist propaganda. No socialist project has been allowed to exist without interference from the West. We literally will not allow them to succeed. Ask yourself why that is. If socialism is such a bad system, why do we have to interfere so heavily to make them fail?

And the idea that socialism believes government makes better decisions than people can make for themselves is ridiculous on it's face. Under socialism, the government literally IS the people. Our current system is IMPOSED on us. We spend huge chunks of our lives at work, in an entirely undemocratic environment where everything is imposed on us. Everything you accuse socialism of being is true of our capitalist system.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this board still pretending he isn’t a communist as video surfaces of him describing his end goal of seizing the means of production? Open your eyes.

https://thepostmillennial.com/communist-zohran-mamdani-admitted-in-2021-the-end-goal-was-seizing-the-means-of-production

The first thing you should do is to learn the difference between socialism and communism. Then you should learn about socialist systems that exist. Once there, maybe spend five minutes learning about successful social democracies. Ok, once you have that background down you can think about what you actually could implement in the US (probably not much of it) and how almost any of it would improve the lives of average Americans. I know that republicans have you convinced that you should lick the boot of billionaires, and you can, but the rest of us aren’t.

Oh please. Stop pretending. This guy is using the veil of “social democracy” to promote blatantly communist concepts such as seizing the means of production. It’s plain as day.

But when the "means of production" are not producing for the people, what is wrong with government intervention?

Mamdani is rich. Obviously our system has worked just fine for him.
Go back and read your history book about the millions killed in communism.

Again, you are confusing socialism with communism.

I’m glad that this is all happening. Using socialism as some boogeyman has to end. Social Security, public education, libraries, infrastructure, all SOCIAL SYSTEMS. You know, socialism.

Don’t worry, though, the republicans are convincing a bunch of fools that they don’t even deserve that return on their own money. You’ll pay taxes and you’ll get nothing from them and you’ll like it.

+100. Social security is the most popular social program.

Good grief. The US is based on capitalism. Not socialism.
Socialism, as Mamdani would like, is NOT a good thing. The piece that was linked upthread about socialistm has this little bit that you all are ignoring:

"Capitalism, with its belief in private ownership and the maximizing of profits, stands in contrast to socialism, but most capitalist economies today have some socialist aspects."

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/socialism.asp

Just because the US has some aspect of socialism, that doesn't mean that socialism is good or that the US is a socialist country.

That's your opinion, and the great thing about democracy is that this country can be whatever the people want it to be.

It’s not my opinion. It’s fact. The US is not a socialist country. And will hopefully never become one.

The opinion part was your characterization of socialism, genius. I know we're currently a capitalist country. But like I said, we can be whatever we choose to be.

Society has undergone many transformations, of which the adoption of capitalism is only one. Perhaps it served its purpose and it's time to move on. Scarcity isn't a real thing anymore. It's something we are artificially imposing on ourselves to prop up an outdated economic system. That same system is literally destroying our planet. You cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet with finite resources forever, and capitalism demands infinite growth. It's high time we move on to a more sustainable and equitable system that distributes resources in a way that serves society as a whole, not just the fortunate few.

I think you mean "redistributes." That is what socialism is. A redistribution of wealth.
As Margaret Thatcher said...... “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

No, I meant what I said. The resources of this planet belong to us all. The fact that the wealthy have stolen it from us does not actually make it theirs. The idea that socialism is "redistribution" as though it is society that would be stealing from the wealthy is ridiculous.

I’m new to this thread and I agree with you completely.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:White House press secretary. Leavitt indicates the administration is open to a denaturalization-oriented investigation against Zohran Mamdani

This is how you know they are not planning on there ever being another Presidential election in the US. They aren't worried about retaliation from another Admin coming in and doing the same thing to the Trump family members or to naturalized/birth-right GOP House and Senate members.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mamdami learned from the Democratic party failures in the 2024 presidential election. You have to listen to the young people.

The young people told Biden and Harris that if they didn't speak out against Israel, they wouldn't vote for them...and they did not vote for them.

Also, if you get on BlueSky and TikTok where most Gen Z and Millennials are communicating, you'll realize the young people have learned a valuable lesson: there are more of us than old people. If we band together and vote, we can get the candidate we want who will enact the policies we want. Older generations roll their eyes at millennials, but we are the most educated generation and also the generation with the least (in terms of wealth, real estate holdings, and kids). We are also one of the most well-traveled generations. We've been to other places in the world and seen how the citizens of other countries live better than us because of proper taxation of the wealthy and corporations. We have learned that we could have all that in the US if our government simply taxed the rich and corporations at appropriate rates.

Also, just for reference, because for some reason reason people on DCUM have it perpetually stuck in their heads that Gen Z are teenagers and Millennials are 20-somethings, here are the official age breakdowns:

Baby Boomers: 1946-1964 (ages 79-61)
Gen X: 1965-1980 (ages 60-45)
Millennials: 1981-1996 (ages 44-29)
Gen Z: 1997-2012 (ages 28-13)

I'm 43. I make more right now than both of my parents did combined at this age. I don't own a house. I live with a partner, but we are not married. We do not want kids because of the cost of everything. My parents owned a house, 2 cars, and took 3 kids on 2-3 vacations each year when they were in their 40s and they did that on the salaries of a tow truck driver and an office admin.

43 is not “young”. You are middle aged (as am I, also 43).

Your observations are generally correct and applicable to millennials (but not universal; I enjoy a much better standard of living than my parents did, I am married and I have 3 kids). ZM is not going to deliver a standard of living you seek, and, if his policy proposals are actually implemented, it will make your problems worse.

NP here. Do you not think there is an affordability and housing crisis in our country? That fact seems undeniable to me and should not be surprising given the energy of the occupy wall street movement over a decade ago and the growing inequality since then. So if there are problems with affordability/housing, why not try to some ideas? What I find refreshing about Mamdani is that he does not seem wed to ideology - listen to him talk about his grocery stores. It's one in each borough (which can be funded through existing city food programs) and he outright says if it doesn't work, then he will close them. Food deserts are a huge issue that the private sector has not tried so why not experiment with a public sector solution?

PP.

Yes, there is a housing/affordability crisis. The problem with “trying ideas” is that it can make problems much worse and destroy capital, making the road to recovery that much harder. Look at California: they’ve tried many ideas for making housing affordable and it’s only gotten worse and they are in a deeper hole. Most of ZM’s proposals will make the problems worse. The answer is and will continue to be more supply, but ZM isn’t going near that. Instead he’s proposing ideas that have been proven to fail.

To be fair, as much as I disagree with him about most things, his idea to let property tax valuations float to be more aligned with market value is a correct position.

The grocery store issue does highlight how he can make problems worse as well as the incoherence of his positions.

There is no such thing as just trying changes to an economic ecosystem. Once you introduce the government stores it will be extremely difficult to get rid of them and they will destabilize the economic system. Whoever runs them will be incentivized to expand their footprint/mandate. While the bodegas are a real problem, grocery stores have notoriously thin margins and undercutting them on price will be destabilizing.

ZM simultaneously believes that greedy capitalists will exploit everyone but for some reason food deserts exist where capitalists don’t go do business. Perhaps his mental model is off….

How does 5 grocery stores (one in each burrough in food desserts where there are no private grocery stores operating) risk “destabilizing the economic system”?

And, why might there be food deserts in the city? Is it because crime drove businesses that used to be there out? If so, how do you think these government run grocery stores will fare?

And, as to your question.....

Economists and business leaders are sounding alarms over New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s plan to roll out city-owned grocery stores that he says will lower food costs.

"You don’t lower grocery bills by having government-run stores," Ryan Bourne, a top economist at the libertarian leaning Cato Institute think tank, told Fox Business. "Government-run entities have no market discipline — no need to earn profits, compete, or serve customers efficiently. That leads to bloated costs, empty shelves, and zero accountability."

Bourne called Mamdani's city-run grocery stores "the height of political hubris" by failing to acknowledge that grocers operate in competitive arenas and on razor-thin profit margins.

"If we just do the simple math here, there's no way you can sell these products at lower prices and still make money," said E.J. Antoni, chief economist at the conservative leaning Heritage Foundation think tank.

"The other problem is that if he (Mamdani) is selling things substantially less than the private market, who is going to want to go to the private market? Everyone is going to want to go to these grocery stores," Antoni told Fox Business, adding that the city-run grocery stores have the potential to exacerbate food shortages in New York City.

"If the government is going to make it impossible for the private market to compete, then the private market will stop competing. If you make it unprofitable for a grocer to do business in Manhattan, then people like John Catsimatidis are going to pull the plug," Antoni said, referencing the billionaire supermarket magnate.

In an interview with Fox Business, Catsimatidis said retail food was the toughest company in his Red Apple Group portfolio, which also includes real estate, energy and insurance assets.

"If the city of New York is going socialist, I will definitely close, or sell, or move or franchise the Gristedes locations," he said. Catsimatidis, a high-profile political donor in conservative circles, operates more than 15 Gristedes and nearly a dozen D'Agostino grocery stores in Manhattan.

"It’s going to hurt New York," Catsimatidis said of Mamdani's economic agenda should he win the November general election. He added that he is considering moving his corporate offices to New Jersey if that happens.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/mamdanis-public-grocery-stores-may-have-devastating-effects-citys-food-supply

I live in Manhattan and didn’t vote for Mamdani, but… have you ever been to a Gristedes or D’Agostino? It would not be a loss if they all shut down. They are all extortionately priced and somehow still gross. Even Whole Foods is at least 25-40% cheaper. I would love for the free market to deal with them.

This news actually makes me like Mamdani more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Israel is a socialist country.

It is actually a parliamentary democracy operating on a free-market model after some early experimentation with socialist economic policies which failed dramatically in the 1970s. It now has a highly developed economy with a strong private sector, features not present in socialist states. Having some social welfare programs and some people living in kibbutzim does not make a country "socialist"; the defining characteristic is whether the means of production are owned only by the state.

Socialism believes the government makes better decisions for people than people can make for themselves, the fundamental approach taken by Communist nations behind the Iron Curtain which all had extremely feeble economies - inefficient, unmotivated to innovate, and incapable of actually providing what people want.

This is capitalist propaganda. No socialist project has been allowed to exist without interference from the West. We literally will not allow them to succeed. Ask yourself why that is. If socialism is such a bad system, why do we have to interfere so heavily to make them fail?

And the idea that socialism believes government makes better decisions than people can make for themselves is ridiculous on it's face. Under socialism, the government literally IS the people. Our current system is IMPOSED on us. We spend huge chunks of our lives at work, in an entirely undemocratic environment where everything is imposed on us. Everything you accuse socialism of being is true of our capitalist system.

Communist and socialist states fall under their own weight, although some take longer to fall than others. The list of formerly socialist countries is a long one, none ever had successful economies. Those which survive presently afford their people wretched standards of living. A few countries with socialist features, like Iceland, manage to provide a decent standard of living, but they are exceedingly rare.

As far as the people being the government, that's nonsense - "the people" have no say in their government's composition, priorities, or activities in countries like the PRC, Russia, N. Korea, Vietnam, Cuba and other socialist paradises.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:White House press secretary. Leavitt indicates the administration is open to a denaturalization-oriented investigation against Zohran Mamdani

Good way to increase his popularity. I’m sure my GenZ kids, and their friends, will be all over it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Is this board still pretending he isn’t a communist as video surfaces of him describing his end goal of seizing the means of production? Open your eyes.

https://thepostmillennial.com/communist-zohran-mamdani-admitted-in-2021-the-end-goal-was-seizing-the-means-of-production

The first thing you should do is to learn the difference between socialism and communism. Then you should learn about socialist systems that exist. Once there, maybe spend five minutes learning about successful social democracies. Ok, once you have that background down you can think about what you actually could implement in the US (probably not much of it) and how almost any of it would improve the lives of average Americans. I know that republicans have you convinced that you should lick the boot of billionaires, and you can, but the rest of us aren’t.

Oh please. Stop pretending. This guy is using the veil of “social democracy” to promote blatantly communist concepts such as seizing the means of production. It’s plain as day.

But when the "means of production" are not producing for the people, what is wrong with government intervention?

Mamdani is rich. Obviously our system has worked just fine for him.
Go back and read your history book about the millions killed in communism.

Again, you are confusing socialism with communism.

I’m glad that this is all happening. Using socialism as some boogeyman has to end. Social Security, public education, libraries, infrastructure, all SOCIAL SYSTEMS. You know, socialism.

Don’t worry, though, the republicans are convincing a bunch of fools that they don’t even deserve that return on their own money. You’ll pay taxes and you’ll get nothing from them and you’ll like it.

+100. Social security is the most popular social program.

Good grief. The US is based on capitalism. Not socialism.
Socialism, as Mamdani would like, is NOT a good thing. The piece that was linked upthread about socialistm has this little bit that you all are ignoring:

"Capitalism, with its belief in private ownership and the maximizing of profits, stands in contrast to socialism, but most capitalist economies today have some socialist aspects."

https://www.investopedia.com/terms/s/socialism.asp

Just because the US has some aspect of socialism, that doesn't mean that socialism is good or that the US is a socialist country.

That's your opinion, and the great thing about democracy is that this country can be whatever the people want it to be.

It’s not my opinion. It’s fact. The US is not a socialist country. And will hopefully never become one.

The opinion part was your characterization of socialism, genius. I know we're currently a capitalist country. But like I said, we can be whatever we choose to be.

Society has undergone many transformations, of which the adoption of capitalism is only one. Perhaps it served its purpose and it's time to move on. Scarcity isn't a real thing anymore. It's something we are artificially imposing on ourselves to prop up an outdated economic system. That same system is literally destroying our planet. You cannot have infinite growth on a finite planet with finite resources forever, and capitalism demands infinite growth. It's high time we move on to a more sustainable and equitable system that distributes resources in a way that serves society as a whole, not just the fortunate few.

I think you mean "redistributes." That is what socialism is. A redistribution of wealth.
As Margaret Thatcher said...... “The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money.”

No, I meant what I said. The resources of this planet belong to us all. The fact that the wealthy have stolen it from us does not actually make it theirs. The idea that socialism is "redistribution" as though it is society that would be stealing from the wealthy is ridiculous.

I’m new to this thread and I agree with you completely.

Well, get it back then. I’ll watch.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:White House press secretary. Leavitt indicates the administration is open to a denaturalization-oriented investigation against Zohran Mamdani

Nazis promoting Nazi behavior: denaturalization. Ask the Jews in Germany how that went. Oh you can’t…

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:White House press secretary. Leavitt indicates the administration is open to a denaturalization-oriented investigation against Zohran Mamdani

This is how you know they are not planning on there ever being another Presidential election in the US. They aren't worried about retaliation from another Admin coming in and doing the same thing to the Trump family members or to naturalized/birth-right GOP House and Senate members.

He is scaring the crap out of the Republicans for some reason.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:White House press secretary. Leavitt indicates the administration is open to a denaturalization-oriented investigation against Zohran Mamdani

This is how you know they are not planning on there ever being another Presidential election in the US. They aren't worried about retaliation from another Admin coming in and doing the same thing to the Trump family members or to naturalized/birth-right GOP House and Senate members.

He is scaring the crap out of the Republicans for some reason.

No he's not. as a conservative/Republican I hope that Mamdani continues to get traction and attention in NY so on a national level, people can see the destructive effects of leftism and de-funding the police.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Mamdami learned from the Democratic party failures in the 2024 presidential election. You have to listen to the young people.

The young people told Biden and Harris that if they didn't speak out against Israel, they wouldn't vote for them...and they did not vote for them.

Also, if you get on BlueSky and TikTok where most Gen Z and Millennials are communicating, you'll realize the young people have learned a valuable lesson: there are more of us than old people. If we band together and vote, we can get the candidate we want who will enact the policies we want. Older generations roll their eyes at millennials, but we are the most educated generation and also the generation with the least (in terms of wealth, real estate holdings, and kids). We are also one of the most well-traveled generations. We've been to other places in the world and seen how the citizens of other countries live better than us because of proper taxation of the wealthy and corporations. We have learned that we could have all that in the US if our government simply taxed the rich and corporations at appropriate rates.

Also, just for reference, because for some reason reason people on DCUM have it perpetually stuck in their heads that Gen Z are teenagers and Millennials are 20-somethings, here are the official age breakdowns:

Baby Boomers: 1946-1964 (ages 79-61)
Gen X: 1965-1980 (ages 60-45)
Millennials: 1981-1996 (ages 44-29)
Gen Z: 1997-2012 (ages 28-13)

I'm 43. I make more right now than both of my parents did combined at this age. I don't own a house. I live with a partner, but we are not married. We do not want kids because of the cost of everything. My parents owned a house, 2 cars, and took 3 kids on 2-3 vacations each year when they were in their 40s and they did that on the salaries of a tow truck driver and an office admin.

43 is not “young”. You are middle aged (as am I, also 43).

Your observations are generally correct and applicable to millennials (but not universal; I enjoy a much better standard of living than my parents did, I am married and I have 3 kids). ZM is not going to deliver a standard of living you seek, and, if his policy proposals are actually implemented, it will make your problems worse.

NP here. Do you not think there is an affordability and housing crisis in our country? That fact seems undeniable to me and should not be surprising given the energy of the occupy wall street movement over a decade ago and the growing inequality since then. So if there are problems with affordability/housing, why not try to some ideas? What I find refreshing about Mamdani is that he does not seem wed to ideology - listen to him talk about his grocery stores. It's one in each borough (which can be funded through existing city food programs) and he outright says if it doesn't work, then he will close them. Food deserts are a huge issue that the private sector has not tried so why not experiment with a public sector solution?

PP.

Yes, there is a housing/affordability crisis. The problem with “trying ideas” is that it can make problems much worse and destroy capital, making the road to recovery that much harder. Look at California: they’ve tried many ideas for making housing affordable and it’s only gotten worse and they are in a deeper hole. Most of ZM’s proposals will make the problems worse. The answer is and will continue to be more supply, but ZM isn’t going near that. Instead he’s proposing ideas that have been proven to fail.

To be fair, as much as I disagree with him about most things, his idea to let property tax valuations float to be more aligned with market value is a correct position.

The grocery store issue does highlight how he can make problems worse as well as the incoherence of his positions.

There is no such thing as just trying changes to an economic ecosystem. Once you introduce the government stores it will be extremely difficult to get rid of them and they will destabilize the economic system. Whoever runs them will be incentivized to expand their footprint/mandate. While the bodegas are a real problem, grocery stores have notoriously thin margins and undercutting them on price will be destabilizing.

ZM simultaneously believes that greedy capitalists will exploit everyone but for some reason food deserts exist where capitalists don’t go do business. Perhaps his mental model is off….

How does 5 grocery stores (one in each burrough in food desserts where there are no private grocery stores operating) risk “destabilizing the economic system”?

And, why might there be food deserts in the city? Is it because crime drove businesses that used to be there out? If so, how do you think these government run grocery stores will fare?

And, as to your question.....

Economists and business leaders are sounding alarms over New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani’s plan to roll out city-owned grocery stores that he says will lower food costs.

"You don’t lower grocery bills by having government-run stores," Ryan Bourne, a top economist at the libertarian leaning Cato Institute think tank, told Fox Business. "Government-run entities have no market discipline — no need to earn profits, compete, or serve customers efficiently. That leads to bloated costs, empty shelves, and zero accountability."

Bourne called Mamdani's city-run grocery stores "the height of political hubris" by failing to acknowledge that grocers operate in competitive arenas and on razor-thin profit margins.

"If we just do the simple math here, there's no way you can sell these products at lower prices and still make money," said E.J. Antoni, chief economist at the conservative leaning Heritage Foundation think tank.

"The other problem is that if he (Mamdani) is selling things substantially less than the private market, who is going to want to go to the private market? Everyone is going to want to go to these grocery stores," Antoni told Fox Business, adding that the city-run grocery stores have the potential to exacerbate food shortages in New York City.

"If the government is going to make it impossible for the private market to compete, then the private market will stop competing. If you make it unprofitable for a grocer to do business in Manhattan, then people like John Catsimatidis are going to pull the plug," Antoni said, referencing the billionaire supermarket magnate.

In an interview with Fox Business, Catsimatidis said retail food was the toughest company in his Red Apple Group portfolio, which also includes real estate, energy and insurance assets.

"If the city of New York is going socialist, I will definitely close, or sell, or move or franchise the Gristedes locations," he said. Catsimatidis, a high-profile political donor in conservative circles, operates more than 15 Gristedes and nearly a dozen D'Agostino grocery stores in Manhattan.

"It’s going to hurt New York," Catsimatidis said of Mamdani's economic agenda should he win the November general election. He added that he is considering moving his corporate offices to New Jersey if that happens.

https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/mamdanis-public-grocery-stores-may-have-devastating-effects-citys-food-supply

I live in Manhattan and didn’t vote for Mamdani, but… have you ever been to a Gristedes or D’Agostino? It would not be a loss if they all shut down. They are all extortionately priced and somehow still gross. Even Whole Foods is at least 25-40% cheaper. I would love for the free market to deal with them.

This news actually makes me like Mamdani more.

DP. A government grocery store is not the free market.