New Ideas

Longtime Friend & Reader Weetabix writes:

Given your history with grocery stores, do you have any thoughts on the Mamdani (Commie, Muslim) plan for government-run grocery stores (“public option”) in NYC?

I foresee:
– low prices because subsidized
– private stores and bodegas priced out of business
– “public option” stores lock everything up because of theft/vandalism
– public outrage at people’s unfair treatment due to what they brought on themselves
– “public option” stores close
– wailing and gnashing of teeth at the new “food desert”

…but, of course, I’m a cynic.

I have no thoughts other than Mr. Bix’s well-reasoned points — in fact, many thanks are due for saving me from having to think about the situation.

Every time Commies try this nonsense they encounter what we call “market experience”, and they call “greedy capitalism”.  There are many such (as outlined above) but allow to address but one, that of prices.

You can’t sell anything at “cost” (i.e. what you paid for the merchandise as it arrives at the store, or F.O.B. — free on board — as usually stated).  What that does is make your retail outlet a losing proposition (what’s nowadays referred to as “unsustainable”).  This remains true even if the operating costs of the establishment (rent, utilities, equipment, salaries etc.) are wholly assumed by city government, as this Marxist asshole proposes.  The drain on tax revenue will be horrendous, even for just the six stores — which by the way will also be denied the benefits of non-issued sales taxes under this loony scheme.  And I haven’t even touched on the city’s subsidization of yet-lower prices, which will not only drain revenues but also increase demand.  And speaking of which:

…ummm only six stores to cover the whole five boroughs of NYfC?  Expect long queues and lengthy waits at the registers as the stores struggle to cope with the (unexpectedly) high demand — and high demand there will be in plenty because if they think that only the Pore&Starvin denizens of NYfC will attempt to avail themselves of these lower prices, they don’t know much about New York.  [200 examples from personal experience omitted for reasons of brevity]

To use a not-so-long-ago example from Marxist establishments of, say, Soviet Russia (Moscow Version):

Whether the famously-impatient Noo Yawkers will stay as docile as their Moscow counterparts will be established on Day One of this Glorious Leap Forward — let me get out ahead of the thing by stating that there’ll be riots and rampant looting, you betcha.

But hey:  never let it be said that I stood in the way of stupid people making stupid decisions and trying stupid experiments, especially when the victims of said stupidity actually voted for all that.

I look forward to Comrade Mamdani’s “new” initiatives (and their unexpected! outcomes) with great anticipation, as will Reader Weetabix and the rest of you.

Let the (Hunger) Games begin.

About Those Tariffs…

…from a guy who’s had many years’ experience in the field:

“The tariffs are only in the cost of goods. They’re not on the retail price. So you put a tariff on the cost of the goods of 20%, it doesn’t mean the retail price goes up by 20%, not unless you can buy everything at a cost somewhere. Additionally, when they put tariffs on toys back in the first Trump administration, studies show 87% of the increase was borne by the Chinese manufacturers. China has a huge toy industry and they have everything to gain and nothing to lose by keeping the sale rather than have it moved to America, like a lot of it will do. Additionally, there are substitute products, you know, products that you can sell that are made in the U.S. instead of differences, promote those. And then, of course, there will be transfers, some sales to the U.S.”

“I think people are hysterical. It’s not nearly the magnitude of what they’re talking about.”

Yeah, of course.  Internet economists, mostly relying on journalists’ “expertise” for their prognoses… what could possibly go wrong?

Listen to the guys with experience.  Nine times out of ten, that experience will beat academic theory like an old carpet.

LOL Xi

Don’t make me laugh, asshole:

Chinese President Xi Jinping said Thursday Beijing and Washington must find a way to “get along” in a message to US president-elect Donald Trump, state media reported.

In his first message to Trump since the former president secured a second term, Xi said “history has shown that China and the United States benefit from cooperation and suffer from confrontation”, state broadcaster CCTV said.

“A stable, healthy and sustainable China-US relationship is in the common interest of both countries and is in line with the expectations of the international community,” Xi said.

He called for Washington and Beijing to “strengthen dialogue and communication” and “properly manage differences”.

Yeah, sure.  Stop trying to invade Taiwan, stop trying to colonize the entire SE Asia area, stop hassling India’s border, stop supporting Iran with arms and munitions, stop vetoing the US in the UN, and stop doing a few other things I can’t remember at the moment (but I bet Trump has a list).

Do all that, and we can talk.  No?

Then fuck you, you Commie shitbrain, and buckle in because it’s going to be a rough ride… for you.

Working Towards Extinction

In this post at Insty’s  which discusses how San Francisco retailing is going down the rat-infested tubes, Stephen Green opines:

The future of shopping in America’s Democrat-run cities will eventually evolve into the Soviet model of paying a clerk first at one counter, then waiting for your goods to be delivered at the next counter. Shoppers won’t be allowed near any of the merchandise. But that’s what happens when you elect Soviet-minded politicians.

Our remaining advantage over the Soviet model is that enough of America still works that there are goods behind the counter.

So far.  But the Communists in the Democratic Socialist party are working hard to create the other reality — you know, the one where the State ends up owning the means of production and pretends to pay people while people pretend to work. [/Stalinism]

Quote Of The Day

From Steve Kruiser:

“The radical leftists don’t have the numbers on any issue, they merely have volume.”

He’s writing in the present tense specifically about the trannie issue, but the truth of the matter is that the radical Left has never had the numbers on any issue, ever.

Which is why they try to rule with a Vanguard, or an unelected Politburo, or by bureaucratic regulation when they can’t get their laws passed.

Always a minority, posing as a majority — just another of their parade of lies ever since they began.

Nazzo Fast, Guida

Then we have this lunacy:

The goal is to “reimagine” the traditional family beyond fatherhood and motherhood with such roles being replaced, in a “more universal sense,” where children are not “property” of their parents, but “raised by society as a whole.” 

“I suppose that I’m called to the challenge of thinking about these really difficult questions of how those intimate spheres are affected by capitalism and how they are political.

“The left needs to get a little bit braver also at challenging the rhetoric of motherhood. Because a lot of the people who do mothering, I call them mother-ers to just ram home the point, that we can mother one another after the abolition of the family, this is what will hopefully be lifted up.

“To abolish the family is not to destroy relationships of care and nurturance, but on the contrary, to expand and proliferate them. Reflecting on the conditions of possibility for such universally xenofamilial — that is to say, comradely — kin relations … argues for utopia(nism) in feminist kinship studies.”

Nurturance?  Xenofamilial?  Seriously?

The author of this Marxist lunacy is named Sophie Lewis:

Really?

Nah, I’m kidding — that’s another Sophie Lewis altogether.  This is the expert on “feminist, trans and queer politics and philosophy”, who looks exactly as you’d suspect she would:

There’s never a ducking-stool at hand when you need one, is there?

I don’t know what Sophie #1’s opinion on child-rearing is, but I’ll take hers ahead of the Marxist’s, sight unseen.