Oh boy, here we go. I'm not entirely sure what his point is. Are the left-wing populists wrong because of their messaging strategy, are they wrong on a policy level, or are they just plain wrong?...
Exemplary
Oh boy, here we go. I'm not entirely sure what his point is. Are the left-wing populists wrong because of their messaging strategy, are they wrong on a policy level, or are they just plain wrong? It seems like he's trying to say all of the above. And once again, I find myself frustrated by The Atlantic's refusal to acknowledge the colossal influence of the money that goes towards crippling these movements.
One of the great mysteries about the rise of populism, in both the United States and Europe, is why it has benefited the political right so much more than the left. For years, American progressives have been trying to get people worked up over rising rates of economic inequality, with the expectation that this anger could fuel greater support for the Democratic Party. Yet the electoral fruits of this effort have been pretty much nonexistent.
Now, I'm just a big fat stupidy stupid person whose intellect could never match that of the great philosopher kings wonks, but perhaps this mystery could have something to do with the fact that right-wing populism supports the interests of the ultra wealthy? Maybe it makes a difference when those powerful corporations and individuals use their massive fortunes, media influence, and political connections to kneecap their left-wing opponents at every step? Sure, it doesn't completely solve the mystery, but it seems like it could be a clue. (Also, last time I checked, the populist argument appeared to be more popular than the other Democrat-proposed alternatives, and progressives like AOC and Bernie are two of the most popular Democrats, but that's neither here nor there.)
I think the author should reconsider the candidacy of Zohran Mamdani, only this time, he should imagine Mamdani lost. What would be the source of Mamdani's failure?
After winning the primary, Mamdani was shut out by the two most powerful NY Democrats, who just so happen to be close with the donor class. In addition, Mamdani faced upwards of $40m in attack ads from billionaire backed PACs, and an...abnormally hostile media (which happens to be owned and operated by massive corporations). Such is the life of the left-wing populist candidate.
However, Mamdani was lucky enough to face an extremely unlikeable opponent, and had the added benefit of public financing, a robust progressive (DSA-backed) ground game unlike anywhere else in the country, and a whole lotta cunning, uniqueness, nerve, and talent tucked into a handsome and friendly package. Oh, and his opponents didn't understand the majority position on Israel when they relentlessly attacked him on it. Had it not been for that fortuitous combination, would the author add Mamdani's name to the list of failures, despite his focus on specifics over the abstract? After all, Mamdani also spent a lot of time criticizing billionaires. How big is the messaging gap between Mamdani and the other (failed) left-wing populists? Other populist/progressive Democrats have offered concrete proposals, like raising the minimum wage, M4A, and universal childcare. Come to think of it, the left-wing populists laid out a pretty specific set of proposals in the Green New Deal, but you'll never guess what happened to it. Is the message too abstract for people to fully grasp, or does it get muddled amidst the massive onslaught of attacks from big money PACs and conservative grifters that occupy space on every news program and op-ed section?
This doesn't mean I disagree with everything in the article, but it feels like we're leaving out some extremely important details, no? Like this part on United Healthcare, for example:
Last December, the targeted shooting of a UnitedHealthcare executive on a Manhattan street ignited a populist brushfire, leading to widespread veneration of Luigi Mangione, the man accused of the killing. In that case too, wonks tried to correct the record, pointing out that health-insurance companies also have relatively slim profit margins, and are not really responsible for much of the excess cost of the U.S. health-care system.
They aren't? Don't you think it might be relevant to include the fact that these companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to maintain the status quo of our healthcare system? Doesn't that make them a bit more responsible than we're letting on? Setting aside people's actual experiences with insurance companies and everything else about for-profit healthcare, maybe that justifies some of the ire directed at insurance companies and the unimaginably wealthy people who run them. I dunno, I guess not. People are just stupid for not understanding the profit margins of a company that made $14 billion last year while millions of people go bankrupt and/or lack adequate access to healthcare. This is your brain on wonkism.
Quick sidebar because I got a kick out of this little nugget:
Obviously, a plausible plan for lowering the price of food would require dealing with issues such as agricultural subsidies, transportation costs, and retail overhead, but a political candidate is not going to get the average person excited by talking this way. People who are angry about the cost of living are going to focus on the last link in the chain, the consumer-facing organization, and that means the grocery store.
Again, I don't disagree, but I really wish he would elaborate on how the mayor of New York City can influence agricultural subsidies and transportation costs. After so much time hearing about the things he can't do, it'd be nice to read something about the things he can do, especially in something as niche and counterintuitive like agriculture subsidies.
To be for real for a second, these types of articles - which are very prevalent in The Atlantic - really bum me out. I'd like to think that I am open to a nuanced take that challenges my perspectives, but when I come across something like this, it makes me feel like a zealot. Throughout the article there is an underlying implication that the key idea behind left-wing populism - that billionaires and corporations control the levers of power and use that power to benefit themselves at the expense of the average person - is actually bullshit, and that the real solutions are the technocratic ones that work within the existing system. It's not just the "abstract" message, but the very idea itself.
For all I know, I could be an emotional, hot-headed dummy who doesn't understand the nuances of the problems we face. Who am I kidding, I most certainly am an emotional, hot-headed dummy who doesn't understand the nuances of problems we face. But anyone who fails to mention the corrupting influence of big money in their analysis of these problems is also lacking a bit of nuance. Or maybe they have too much.
This is anecdotal from working in the industry but any company that processes healthcare claims right now is making bank There is SO much money in the algorithms that decide how claims get handled...
This is anecdotal from working in the industry but any company that processes healthcare claims right now is making bank
There is SO much money in the algorithms that decide how claims get handled its been basically free money for the past like, 20 years. The companies that own and run them get a cut of every single claim processed.
I’m talking about like, the software backbone of this whole entire shitty system. Thousands in counting of these mid size dysfunctional companies that landed accidentally on a gold mine who’s purpose is specifically to waste everyones time.
When companies like that talk about profit margins, they are talking net, not gross. Paying the c-suite salaries and bonuses counts as money spent, those billions of dollars or whatever are an...
When companies like that talk about profit margins, they are talking net, not gross. Paying the c-suite salaries and bonuses counts as money spent, those billions of dollars or whatever are an expense and not part of their profit. Paying lobbyists is an expense. If there's a corporate jet, that's an expense.
Big companies are experts at having negative or zero profits on paper to avoid taxes.
I understand that people say this all the time, but if you look at the actual data, it's not true. Big companies definitely try to minimize their tax burden - no question about that - but that...
Big companies are experts at having negative or zero profits on paper to avoid taxes.
I understand that people say this all the time, but if you look at the actual data, it's not true. Big companies definitely try to minimize their tax burden - no question about that - but that doesn't mean that they avoid taxes.
https://archive.is/ognrV This is another essay by Canadian philosopher Joseph Heath. We've discussed his articles previously. Like some of the others it seems provocative but a bit short on...
This is another essay by Canadian philosopher Joseph Heath. We've discussed his articles previously. Like some of the others it seems provocative but a bit short on specific evidence backing up his claims. Still, maybe worth discussing?
From the article:
Populism is popular because it speaks to voters in concrete terms and tells them that their first instincts—about economics and more—are correct. This year, at least one person solved the puzzle of creating a successful left-wing populist message: New York Mayor–Elect Zohran Mamdani, a democratic socialist who rose from 1 percent in early primary polls to more than 50 percent of the general-election vote, explicitly promised to make groceries cheaper and freeze rents. Many Democrats would love to know how to bottle the Mamdani lightning.
...
[...] Populist politicians focus on primary representations of the world, such as the price of groceries, rather than abstract concepts, such as affordability. Everyone can picture the price of orange juice or bread on the supermarket shelf. During his presidential campaign last year, President Donald Trump spent a great deal of time summoning such mental images. “Groceries, such a simple word,” he has repeatedly said by way of explaining his victory. Many liberals made fun of his rhetoric.
Mamdani was apparently one of the few to draw the obvious conclusion from Trump’s remarks, which was that instead of mocking him, perhaps the left should also be talking about groceries. So one of the major promises Mamdani made was to lower the price of groceries in New York by creating publicly owned, city-run grocery stores. Experts objected that grocery stores typically operate on slim margins and that the major costs occur further up the supply chain. Like most educated people, Mamdani probably knows this. The problem is that a supply chain is an entirely abstract concept, and so might as well not exist for the average person. Nobody gets worked up about a supply chain.
...
To do populism effectively, politicians must not only focus on problems that the public cares about; by and large, they must also accept the public’s framing of those problems. This creates a dilemma for the left, because that framing, in a complex modern society, will usually be incorrect. As a result, left-wing politicians struggle to find issues on which they can be authentically populist. Many of the problems that they hope to resolve, such as climate change, housing scarcity, and surging health-care costs, are complicated. This means that the policies needed to fix them are also complicated, and cannot be explained without ascending to the realm of abstraction. Slogans that resonate with the public seldom translate literally into successful policy.
Sorry, because I feel like I'm going insane here, but wasn't Mamdani's exact pledge with grocery stores to open like four or five publicly owned ones in food deserts that don't already have any?...
one of the major promises Mamdani made was to lower the price of groceries in New York by creating publicly owned, city-run grocery stores. Experts objected that grocery stores typically operate on slim margins and that the major costs occur further up the supply chain. Like most educated people, Mamdani probably knows this.
Sorry, because I feel like I'm going insane here, but wasn't Mamdani's exact pledge with grocery stores to open like four or five publicly owned ones in food deserts that don't already have any? Either I've completely got my facts wrong or the above quoted (any many other opinion pieces like it) doesn't really apply to his policy at all.
That was the pledge. Plus, people buying food in food deserts are typically buying from more expensive convenience stores rather than a traditional grocery store. The costs and margins there are...
That was the pledge. Plus, people buying food in food deserts are typically buying from more expensive convenience stores rather than a traditional grocery store. The costs and margins there are different and a public entity would have some collective buying power as well ( personally I'm curious if Whole Foods and Walmart have the same margins)
My kindest read is that the author is the victim of the telephone game of news blurbs and pundits talking about Mamdani's promises, especially not being in NYC or the US. A less kind one would suspect the author of intentional misrepresentation.
ETA I will add a few things - the five stores have been described as a pilot and the intent is that they would have significantly reduced overhead and collective buying power leading to lower prices. Opinion writers seem to focus on the idea that grocery stores are being perceived as greedy price gougers when I believe Mamdani has been focusing on access to cheaper groceries.
I don't think your facts are entirely wrong, but they are a little bit wrong. Per Mamdani, But his spokesperson has also said stuff like So yeah, the issue is quite confused. It's not really clear...
I don't think your facts are entirely wrong, but they are a little bit wrong.
We will redirect city funds from corporate supermarkets to city-owned grocery stores, whose mission is lower prices, not price gouging.
But his spokesperson has also said stuff like
We can’t keep ignoring a crisis that’s making the city unlivable for working families. Zohran Mamdani has a clear plan: build grocery stores in food deserts that guarantee lower prices so every New Yorker can put affordable, healthy food on the table.
So yeah, the issue is quite confused. It's not really clear what the link is between food deserts and price gouging; usually those have very different root causes.
Personally, I like Mamdani; if I was a resident of NYC, I would've voted for him. But the grocery store plan doesn't make much sense. It is almost archetypical of left-wing populism in that it's a good sound byte, briefs well, easy to campaign on, but falls apart on the details.
Generally businesses want to turn a profit. And given the option, they'd like to turn more of a profit rather than less. There can even be uneven wholesale pricing by major manufacturers to...
Generally businesses want to turn a profit. And given the option, they'd like to turn more of a profit rather than less. There can even be uneven wholesale pricing by major manufacturers to benefit one grocery chain over another. See the recent news of collusion between Pepsico and Walmart for an easy example. So an independent grocery store will often get worse terms for their purchases than a chain would because they have no bargaining power. And if no large chains want to be in a poor neighborhood because the margins would be slim, no independent alternative can grow.
City-run grocery stores resist both of these trends. NYC would be a larger customer and have better negotiating power than an independent grocer, and if they just broke even but provided better food for the citizens that would be a success. They don't have to make enough profit to keep shareholders happy.
This is a plan that may have challenges in day to day operations, but holds up on the details.
I should note that I’m far more in favor of the “food deserts” part of the plan than the “make groceries cheaper everywhere part of the plan.” Even so - respectfully - what you wrote isn’t the...
I should note that I’m far more in favor of the “food deserts” part of the plan than the “make groceries cheaper everywhere part of the plan.”
Even so - respectfully - what you wrote isn’t the details, it’s the elevator pitch. The highest possible level overview. And while several of your initial points are true (major chains have supply cost advantages; sometimes they even illegally collude), those points don’t support the rest of your argument. In some sense, they actually undermine it: if major chains, for which the deck is stacked in every conceivable way, can’t make it work, we should be very skeptical that the government can. I completely recognize that the government doesn’t need to make a profit, but margins on grocery stores are usually pretty tight in the first place, so “not needing to be profitable” isn’t as big of an advantage as it initially seems to be. This is especially true since New York City has, for years, offered substantial tax breaks to businesses willing to open in food deserts, so even that won’t be a government advantage.
And in a lot of ways, being the government comes with substantial disadvantages:
NYC would be a larger customer and have better negotiating power than an independent grocer
Without putting too fine a point on it, do we generally think of the government as an effective negotiator? Securing the lowest possible price for inputs? Even in the (IMO, fantastical) scenario in which NYC both bargains as effectively as, say, Wal-Mart and opens hundreds of stores, that still would pale in comparison to Wal-Mart’s size.
Ultimately the track record of government-owned grocery stores is simply not great.
We don't know that big chains couldn't make it work, we only know they aren't doing it. Your link doesn't talk about government-owned stores, only ones that were subsidized and then fell prey to...
We don't know that big chains couldn't make it work, we only know they aren't doing it.
Your link doesn't talk about government-owned stores, only ones that were subsidized and then fell prey to the lack of negotiating power I already discussed.
Okay, fair, but what’s the counterargument as to why they aren’t interested in making money in this one specific location? Fair enough; the track record of explicitly-government owned stores is...
We don't know that big chains couldn't make it work, we only know they aren't doing it.
Okay, fair, but what’s the counterargument as to why they aren’t interested in making money in this one specific location?
Your link doesn't talk about government-owned stores, only ones that were subsidized and then fell prey to the lack of negotiating power I already discussed.
Fair enough; the track record of explicitly-governmentownedstores is slightly better but still not great. Most of these are local, yes, but to my earlier point 5 city-owned stores (in the case of NYC) is hardly sufficient to secure significant bargaining power.
I don't think they aren't interested in making money; I think that food deserts are legitimately areas where the economics of running a grocery store at a profit are questionable. But it seems...
I don't think they aren't interested in making money; I think that food deserts are legitimately areas where the economics of running a grocery store at a profit are questionable. But it seems that NYC is big enough that the efficiency of scale can make the stores more efficient? The three examples you linked were for towns that were tiny and struggling to support a single grocery. With regards to bargaining power, five stores may have less power than Walmart, but stores controlled by NYC will have more comparative weight. I suppose we'll see how it turns out.
But those two parties have different definitions of "making it work". Private businesses fail to make it work if they don't turn a profit long term. What would constitute government "not making it...
if major chains, for which the deck is stacked in every conceivable way, can’t make it work, we should be very skeptical that the government can
But those two parties have different definitions of "making it work". Private businesses fail to make it work if they don't turn a profit long term. What would constitute government "not making it work"? If the stores exist and make food accessible in food deserts, but it operates at a loss, that's just a worthwhile social service being funded by taxes, one of many. I think they'd have to be losing quite a lot of money to be considered a failure and risk closure. Can you imagine the electoral risk to a future mayor who tried to shutter them?
In principle, I completely agree. (That's why I support the food deserts part of the plan more.) However, I think we need to be very cautious about the details of the plan and the consequences. As...
If the stores exist and make food accessible in food deserts, but it operates at a loss, that's just a worthwhile social service being funded by taxes, one of many.
In principle, I completely agree. (That's why I support the food deserts part of the plan more.) However, I think we need to be very cautious about the details of the plan and the consequences.
As I linked above, many (not all! Some have succeeded!) state-owned grocery stores eventually folded, even those that were never attempting to be profitable. In many of these cases they ended up losing even more money than expected and eventually became such an albatross that despite the political good will, it just didn't make sense to keep them open anymore. The stores don't need to be profitable, but I think it's a mistake to write off all concerns about revenue vs. cost. The more money these stores lose, the more challenges they're going to get from across the city, right?
Can you imagine the electoral risk to a future mayor who tried to shutter them?
Honestly, I think this is more of a negative than a positive. The reason for this is unintuitive, but touched on what I meant about consequences: what's the long-term plan? Let's take a food desert in the Bronx. The city opens a grocery store there. The best-case scenario is that the store is either profitable or doesn't run much of a loss -- not to save the taxpayer money (I agree with you that this is basically a social service), but because the farther in the red a state store has to run, the more impossible it is for regular commercial business to open in that area. Every negative percentage point of margin is another percentage point that a regular store would have to make up somewhere to compete. Otherwise, you've effectively made it impossible for regular stores to open, because they have to compete against a store that can run at a loss indefinitely. I know that the obvious first thought is "so what?" but that has a whole host of follow-on implications that we should be very cautious of.
It's not that there's no world where this isn't still worth doing. As a society we make all kinds of tradeoffs because we deem the social benefits are worth it. I just think democratic socialists should be more epistemically humble when building systems that make it impossible for the market to compete.
That's an interesting point. I suppose it comes down to the circumstances that cause the food desert in the first place. Are they likely to last long term? Is it possible to know when the game has...
That's an interesting point. I suppose it comes down to the circumstances that cause the food desert in the first place. Are they likely to last long term? Is it possible to know when the game has changed and therefore pick the right time to privatise the public stores? Situations will vary greatly, I'm sure.
Does it matter if a privately pwned store wouldn't able to compete when these stores are going into food deserts? The whole point is that no one is interested in providing groceries there to begin...
Does it matter if a privately pwned store wouldn't able to compete when these stores are going into food deserts? The whole point is that no one is interested in providing groceries there to begin with.
In the short term, sure. But again, what's the long term plan? I assume it's not for these areas to remain food deserts forever? Moreover, in NYC "food desert" is a very relative term. It's more...
In the short term, sure. But again, what's the long term plan? I assume it's not for these areas to remain food deserts forever?
Moreover, in NYC "food desert" is a very relative term. It's more like "cheap/healthy food desert." Obviously I'm not saying that's not a problem that needs to be fixed, but there are actual business being competed against.
You're trying to redefine "food desert" when lack of access to a supermarket/large grocery store is key to the USDA definition. More broadly access to large grocery stores functions as a stand in...
You're trying to redefine "food desert" when lack of access to a supermarket/large grocery store is key to the USDA definition. More broadly access to large grocery stores functions as a stand in for access to affordable nutritious/healthy foods including fresh fruit and veg. Income is also a factor so wealthier suburbs who are content to drive to Sprouts don't get included.
But the definition assumes the presence of bodegas, corner/convenience stores and fast food places and does not count them.
Fwiw the bodega owners supported Mamdani (their money comes from lottery, alcohol, tobacco, and possibly hot prepared food, not sure the margins on those).
If the public stores are low quality, expensive, or demonstrate a higher demand than retailers were anticipating, they may get competition. But probably the food deserts will only change when the neighborhood population changes - via gentrification or other income increases - leading to grocery stores being interested in moving in again. But it doesn't make sense to me to not try something because it might interfere with other businesses who are currently not serving those areas nor planning to.
I guess more broadly I would say that I would appreciate if you assumed good intent on my part. I am trying to understand this problem, not blowing it off by saying "who cares."
I am not assuming ill intention. The closest I said about your intentions was that you were "trying to redefine..." Which says nothing "ill" about them. The urban food desert is not a "healthy...
I am not assuming ill intention. The closest I said about your intentions was that you were "trying to redefine..." Which says nothing "ill" about them. The urban food desert is not a "healthy food" desert, all food deserts are. I could have worded it differently but I felt anything else would sound harsher.
I appreciate the additional context about distance as I didn't pull up maps, just definitions to provide the correct ones. (Staten Island is the exception in NYC though). I'm not sure what standard they're using, or whether there are nuances to NYC not being caught by the USDA 's maps, but regardless, presuming good faith from the incoming mayoral campaign these are underserved areas and the current businesses and subsidizations aren't sufficient.
Once again, no assuming ill intentions here. Just stating info and my opinion.
If they put in a city-run grocery store it's not a food desert anymore. If the area improves or other chains see that there's demand there and so much competition arrives that the store isn't...
In the short term, sure. But again, what's the long term plan? I assume it's not for these areas to remain food deserts forever?
If they put in a city-run grocery store it's not a food desert anymore. If the area improves or other chains see that there's demand there and so much competition arrives that the store isn't needed anymore, mission accomplished. If it stays poor and people get inexpensive healthy food, also mission accomplished.
Moreover, in NYC "food desert" is a very relative term. It's more like "cheap/healthy food desert."
Yes, that's what food desertmeans. It's not a 100% lack of any food of any sort.
I have to admit, being on an app that tag search did not work so I started out by reading the "article". Had it worked, I would've seen that one of his articles discussed here was the waste of...
We've discussed his articles previously. Like some of the others it seems provocative but a bit short on specific evidence backing up his claims. Still, maybe worth discussing?
I have to admit, being on an app that tag search did not work so I started out by reading the "article".
Had it worked, I would've seen that one of his articles discussed here was the waste of electricity, storage, and time of his "article" regarding Co-Ops.
Given that, I have to give you credit for that attempted warning, I would not have bothered reading this had I known.
Oh boy, here we go. I'm not entirely sure what his point is. Are the left-wing populists wrong because of their messaging strategy, are they wrong on a policy level, or are they just plain wrong? It seems like he's trying to say all of the above. And once again, I find myself frustrated by The Atlantic's refusal to acknowledge the colossal influence of the money that goes towards crippling these movements.
Now, I'm just a big fat stupidy stupid person whose intellect could never match that of the great
philosopher kingswonks, but perhaps this mystery could have something to do with the fact that right-wing populism supports the interests of the ultra wealthy? Maybe it makes a difference when those powerful corporations and individuals use their massive fortunes, media influence, and political connections to kneecap their left-wing opponents at every step? Sure, it doesn't completely solve the mystery, but it seems like it could be a clue. (Also, last time I checked, the populist argument appeared to be more popular than the other Democrat-proposed alternatives, and progressives like AOC and Bernie are two of the most popular Democrats, but that's neither here nor there.)I think the author should reconsider the candidacy of Zohran Mamdani, only this time, he should imagine Mamdani lost. What would be the source of Mamdani's failure?
After winning the primary, Mamdani was shut out by the two most powerful NY Democrats, who just so happen to be close with the donor class. In addition, Mamdani faced upwards of $40m in attack ads from billionaire backed PACs, and an...abnormally hostile media (which happens to be owned and operated by massive corporations). Such is the life of the left-wing populist candidate.
However, Mamdani was lucky enough to face an extremely unlikeable opponent, and had the added benefit of public financing, a robust progressive (DSA-backed) ground game unlike anywhere else in the country, and a whole lotta cunning, uniqueness, nerve, and talent tucked into a handsome and friendly package. Oh, and his opponents didn't understand the majority position on Israel when they relentlessly attacked him on it. Had it not been for that fortuitous combination, would the author add Mamdani's name to the list of failures, despite his focus on specifics over the abstract? After all, Mamdani also spent a lot of time criticizing billionaires. How big is the messaging gap between Mamdani and the other (failed) left-wing populists? Other populist/progressive Democrats have offered concrete proposals, like raising the minimum wage, M4A, and universal childcare. Come to think of it, the left-wing populists laid out a pretty specific set of proposals in the Green New Deal, but you'll never guess what happened to it. Is the message too abstract for people to fully grasp, or does it get muddled amidst the massive onslaught of attacks from big money PACs and conservative grifters that occupy space on every news program and op-ed section?
This doesn't mean I disagree with everything in the article, but it feels like we're leaving out some extremely important details, no? Like this part on United Healthcare, for example:
They aren't? Don't you think it might be relevant to include the fact that these companies have spent hundreds of millions of dollars trying to maintain the status quo of our healthcare system? Doesn't that make them a bit more responsible than we're letting on? Setting aside people's actual experiences with insurance companies and everything else about for-profit healthcare, maybe that justifies some of the ire directed at insurance companies and the unimaginably wealthy people who run them. I dunno, I guess not. People are just stupid for not understanding the profit margins of a company that made $14 billion last year while millions of people go bankrupt and/or lack adequate access to healthcare. This is your brain on wonkism.
Quick sidebar because I got a kick out of this little nugget:
Again, I don't disagree, but I really wish he would elaborate on how the mayor of New York City can influence agricultural subsidies and transportation costs. After so much time hearing about the things he can't do, it'd be nice to read something about the things he can do, especially in something as niche and counterintuitive like agriculture subsidies.
To be for real for a second, these types of articles - which are very prevalent in The Atlantic - really bum me out. I'd like to think that I am open to a nuanced take that challenges my perspectives, but when I come across something like this, it makes me feel like a zealot. Throughout the article there is an underlying implication that the key idea behind left-wing populism - that billionaires and corporations control the levers of power and use that power to benefit themselves at the expense of the average person - is actually bullshit, and that the real solutions are the technocratic ones that work within the existing system. It's not just the "abstract" message, but the very idea itself.
For all I know, I could be an emotional, hot-headed dummy who doesn't understand the nuances of the problems we face. Who am I kidding, I most certainly am an emotional, hot-headed dummy who doesn't understand the nuances of problems we face. But anyone who fails to mention the corrupting influence of big money in their analysis of these problems is also lacking a bit of nuance. Or maybe they have too much.
This is anecdotal from working in the industry but any company that processes healthcare claims right now is making bank
There is SO much money in the algorithms that decide how claims get handled its been basically free money for the past like, 20 years. The companies that own and run them get a cut of every single claim processed.
I’m talking about like, the software backbone of this whole entire shitty system. Thousands in counting of these mid size dysfunctional companies that landed accidentally on a gold mine who’s purpose is specifically to waste everyones time.
When companies like that talk about profit margins, they are talking net, not gross. Paying the c-suite salaries and bonuses counts as money spent, those billions of dollars or whatever are an expense and not part of their profit. Paying lobbyists is an expense. If there's a corporate jet, that's an expense.
Big companies are experts at having negative or zero profits on paper to avoid taxes.
I understand that people say this all the time, but if you look at the actual data, it's not true. Big companies definitely try to minimize their tax burden - no question about that - but that doesn't mean that they avoid taxes.
Last year:
NVIDIA paid 17 billion in taxes.
Apple paid 20 billion.
Alphabet paid ~20 billion.
Microsoft paid ~19.
Amazon paid ~12.
https://archive.is/ognrV
This is another essay by Canadian philosopher Joseph Heath. We've discussed his articles previously. Like some of the others it seems provocative but a bit short on specific evidence backing up his claims. Still, maybe worth discussing?
From the article:
...
...
Sorry, because I feel like I'm going insane here, but wasn't Mamdani's exact pledge with grocery stores to open like four or five publicly owned ones in food deserts that don't already have any? Either I've completely got my facts wrong or the above quoted (any many other opinion pieces like it) doesn't really apply to his policy at all.
That was the pledge. Plus, people buying food in food deserts are typically buying from more expensive convenience stores rather than a traditional grocery store. The costs and margins there are different and a public entity would have some collective buying power as well ( personally I'm curious if Whole Foods and Walmart have the same margins)
My kindest read is that the author is the victim of the telephone game of news blurbs and pundits talking about Mamdani's promises, especially not being in NYC or the US. A less kind one would suspect the author of intentional misrepresentation.
ETA I will add a few things - the five stores have been described as a pilot and the intent is that they would have significantly reduced overhead and collective buying power leading to lower prices. Opinion writers seem to focus on the idea that grocery stores are being perceived as greedy price gougers when I believe Mamdani has been focusing on access to cheaper groceries.
I don't think your facts are entirely wrong, but they are a little bit wrong.
Per Mamdani,
But his spokesperson has also said stuff like
So yeah, the issue is quite confused. It's not really clear what the link is between food deserts and price gouging; usually those have very different root causes.
Personally, I like Mamdani; if I was a resident of NYC, I would've voted for him. But the grocery store plan doesn't make much sense. It is almost archetypical of left-wing populism in that it's a good sound byte, briefs well, easy to campaign on, but falls apart on the details.
Generally businesses want to turn a profit. And given the option, they'd like to turn more of a profit rather than less. There can even be uneven wholesale pricing by major manufacturers to benefit one grocery chain over another. See the recent news of collusion between Pepsico and Walmart for an easy example. So an independent grocery store will often get worse terms for their purchases than a chain would because they have no bargaining power. And if no large chains want to be in a poor neighborhood because the margins would be slim, no independent alternative can grow.
City-run grocery stores resist both of these trends. NYC would be a larger customer and have better negotiating power than an independent grocer, and if they just broke even but provided better food for the citizens that would be a success. They don't have to make enough profit to keep shareholders happy.
This is a plan that may have challenges in day to day operations, but holds up on the details.
I should note that I’m far more in favor of the “food deserts” part of the plan than the “make groceries cheaper everywhere part of the plan.”
Even so - respectfully - what you wrote isn’t the details, it’s the elevator pitch. The highest possible level overview. And while several of your initial points are true (major chains have supply cost advantages; sometimes they even illegally collude), those points don’t support the rest of your argument. In some sense, they actually undermine it: if major chains, for which the deck is stacked in every conceivable way, can’t make it work, we should be very skeptical that the government can. I completely recognize that the government doesn’t need to make a profit, but margins on grocery stores are usually pretty tight in the first place, so “not needing to be profitable” isn’t as big of an advantage as it initially seems to be. This is especially true since New York City has, for years, offered substantial tax breaks to businesses willing to open in food deserts, so even that won’t be a government advantage.
And in a lot of ways, being the government comes with substantial disadvantages:
Without putting too fine a point on it, do we generally think of the government as an effective negotiator? Securing the lowest possible price for inputs? Even in the (IMO, fantastical) scenario in which NYC both bargains as effectively as, say, Wal-Mart and opens hundreds of stores, that still would pale in comparison to Wal-Mart’s size.
Ultimately the track record of government-owned grocery stores is simply not great.
Okay, fair, but what’s the counterargument as to why they aren’t interested in making money in this one specific location?
Fair enough; the track record of explicitly-government owned stores is slightly better but still not great. Most of these are local, yes, but to my earlier point 5 city-owned stores (in the case of NYC) is hardly sufficient to secure significant bargaining power.
I don't think they aren't interested in making money; I think that food deserts are legitimately areas where the economics of running a grocery store at a profit are questionable. But it seems that NYC is big enough that the efficiency of scale can make the stores more efficient? The three examples you linked were for towns that were tiny and struggling to support a single grocery. With regards to bargaining power, five stores may have less power than Walmart, but stores controlled by NYC will have more comparative weight. I suppose we'll see how it turns out.
But those two parties have different definitions of "making it work". Private businesses fail to make it work if they don't turn a profit long term. What would constitute government "not making it work"? If the stores exist and make food accessible in food deserts, but it operates at a loss, that's just a worthwhile social service being funded by taxes, one of many. I think they'd have to be losing quite a lot of money to be considered a failure and risk closure. Can you imagine the electoral risk to a future mayor who tried to shutter them?
In principle, I completely agree. (That's why I support the food deserts part of the plan more.) However, I think we need to be very cautious about the details of the plan and the consequences.
As I linked above, many (not all! Some have succeeded!) state-owned grocery stores eventually folded, even those that were never attempting to be profitable. In many of these cases they ended up losing even more money than expected and eventually became such an albatross that despite the political good will, it just didn't make sense to keep them open anymore. The stores don't need to be profitable, but I think it's a mistake to write off all concerns about revenue vs. cost. The more money these stores lose, the more challenges they're going to get from across the city, right?
Honestly, I think this is more of a negative than a positive. The reason for this is unintuitive, but touched on what I meant about consequences: what's the long-term plan? Let's take a food desert in the Bronx. The city opens a grocery store there. The best-case scenario is that the store is either profitable or doesn't run much of a loss -- not to save the taxpayer money (I agree with you that this is basically a social service), but because the farther in the red a state store has to run, the more impossible it is for regular commercial business to open in that area. Every negative percentage point of margin is another percentage point that a regular store would have to make up somewhere to compete. Otherwise, you've effectively made it impossible for regular stores to open, because they have to compete against a store that can run at a loss indefinitely. I know that the obvious first thought is "so what?" but that has a whole host of follow-on implications that we should be very cautious of.
It's not that there's no world where this isn't still worth doing. As a society we make all kinds of tradeoffs because we deem the social benefits are worth it. I just think democratic socialists should be more epistemically humble when building systems that make it impossible for the market to compete.
That's an interesting point. I suppose it comes down to the circumstances that cause the food desert in the first place. Are they likely to last long term? Is it possible to know when the game has changed and therefore pick the right time to privatise the public stores? Situations will vary greatly, I'm sure.
Does it matter if a privately pwned store wouldn't able to compete when these stores are going into food deserts? The whole point is that no one is interested in providing groceries there to begin with.
In the short term, sure. But again, what's the long term plan? I assume it's not for these areas to remain food deserts forever?
Moreover, in NYC "food desert" is a very relative term. It's more like "cheap/healthy food desert." Obviously I'm not saying that's not a problem that needs to be fixed, but there are actual business being competed against.
You're trying to redefine "food desert" when lack of access to a supermarket/large grocery store is key to the USDA definition. More broadly access to large grocery stores functions as a stand in for access to affordable nutritious/healthy foods including fresh fruit and veg. Income is also a factor so wealthier suburbs who are content to drive to Sprouts don't get included.
But the definition assumes the presence of bodegas, corner/convenience stores and fast food places and does not count them.
Fwiw the bodega owners supported Mamdani (their money comes from lottery, alcohol, tobacco, and possibly hot prepared food, not sure the margins on those).
If the public stores are low quality, expensive, or demonstrate a higher demand than retailers were anticipating, they may get competition. But probably the food deserts will only change when the neighborhood population changes - via gentrification or other income increases - leading to grocery stores being interested in moving in again. But it doesn't make sense to me to not try something because it might interfere with other businesses who are currently not serving those areas nor planning to.
I know, but based on that definition New York City doesn't have any food deserts in it, which obviously isn't true or useful.
https://bpb-us-e1.wpmucdn.com/sites.tufts.edu/dist/8/8205/files/2019/05/Herman-Rachel_GIS101_Fall2018.pdf
I guess more broadly I would say that I would appreciate if you assumed good intent on my part. I am trying to understand this problem, not blowing it off by saying "who cares."
I am not assuming ill intention. The closest I said about your intentions was that you were "trying to redefine..." Which says nothing "ill" about them. The urban food desert is not a "healthy food" desert, all food deserts are. I could have worded it differently but I felt anything else would sound harsher.
I appreciate the additional context about distance as I didn't pull up maps, just definitions to provide the correct ones. (Staten Island is the exception in NYC though). I'm not sure what standard they're using, or whether there are nuances to NYC not being caught by the USDA 's maps, but regardless, presuming good faith from the incoming mayoral campaign these are underserved areas and the current businesses and subsidizations aren't sufficient.
Once again, no assuming ill intentions here. Just stating info and my opinion.
If they put in a city-run grocery store it's not a food desert anymore. If the area improves or other chains see that there's demand there and so much competition arrives that the store isn't needed anymore, mission accomplished. If it stays poor and people get inexpensive healthy food, also mission accomplished.
Yes, that's what food desert means. It's not a 100% lack of any food of any sort.
I have to admit, being on an app that tag search did not work so I started out by reading the "article".
Had it worked, I would've seen that one of his articles discussed here was the waste of electricity, storage, and time of his "article" regarding Co-Ops.
Given that, I have to give you credit for that attempted warning, I would not have bothered reading this had I known.
gift link: https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/2025/12/populism-left-wing-mamdani/685238/?gift=eGjCypnHsndY6-G2sn97lcuLrxSE1pEflV4tzzKSb4M