“Freezing the rent: Mamdani’s signature campaign promise was to freeze the rent for more than 2 million tenants living in rent-controlled housing. But the city’s cost of living has grown unabated despite decades of rent control—which, coupled with restrictive zoning, has made the city’s housing shortage worse.
$30 minimum wage: There’s good reason for New Yorkers to be skeptical of Mamdani’s plan to raise the minimum wage. When the city raised the minimum wage to $15 an hour in 2018, the predictable result was increased unemployment and black markets in labor. Nearly doubling the current minimum wage of $16.50 by 2030 would produce similar consequences.
“Free” buses: On the campaign trail, Mamdani promised to eliminate the fare on every city bus to make them “fast” and “free.” The plan would cost taxpayers $600 million–$800 million annually and likely result in slower speeds, which is what happened when the city piloted five fare-free bus lines in 2023 and 2024.
Government-run grocery stores: Mamdani has proposed not-for-profit, government-run grocery stores—subsidized to the tune of $140 million a year—to reduce prices at the checkout counter. New York’s grocery stores, like others across the country, operate on razor-thin margins. The profit motive isn’t to blame for high grocery prices; inflation and supply chain disruptions are.
…
$5 billion corporate tax: Naturally, Mamdani promises that you won’t pay for his multi-billion dollar programs—greedy corporations will! If Mamdani manages to convince state lawmakers to increase the city’s corporate tax rate from 7.5 percent to 11.5 percent, New Yorkers should expect companies to reduce salaries, benefits, and headcount to remain in business. Some might opt to abandon the city altogether, leaving the taxpayers of the People’s Republic of New York to foot the bill for their socialist utopia.”
“Mamdani said that he is going to pay for his grocery stores by “redirecting” $140 million worth of city funding that is already being spent subsidizing corporate grocers. As the Washington Examiner’s Timothy Carney was the first to notice, that number is based on a misreading of a city website. The city subsidizes some private grocery stores at a cost of about $3.3 million per year. As some Bronx residents told Fox News’ Kennedy in a new video published by Reason, the city should focus instead on helping the homeless, dealing with “rats the size of cats,” and cleaning “all of the needles on the street.”
Direct assistance is a more cost-effective and less destructive way to support low-income households than government-run supermarkets, and it’s something the federal government already does in abundance. Through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), or food stamps, 1.79 million New Yorkers—20 percent of the city’s population—receive help purchasing groceries each month.”
“It was a no-name market in one of the city’s low-income districts — not much to look at from the outside. But inside were shelves packed with bread, lentils, cheese, oil and even basic household appliances. Most of the items were cheaper brands sourced from small manufacturers that I had never heard of — companies happy to donate goods to the city stores because they could write them off their taxes. The non-profit stores run by the municipality were only available to households whose low-income status had been verified by the city. Prices were low, and families received pre-loaded monthly loyalty cards that worked exclusively at these municipal markets. The balance wasn’t tied to wages or a bank account — it was direct public support, and it was very popular with residents of the neighborhood.
…
the markets created both a safety net for the poor and a distribution channel for small producers who rarely made it into high-end supermarkets in wealthier neighborhoods.
…
Across Europe, Latin America and Asia, local governments have long used targeted subsidies to ease the burden of urban living.
In Europe, subsidized housing and free health care are pretty much the norm. Berlin, London and Vienna have spent decades building and maintaining public housing that keeps rents within reach for working-class residents and young families. In Mexico City, programs like Leche Liconsa provide subsidized milk and other food staples to low-income households. Bogotá runs transit subsidies that lower fares for the poor. Seoul has built youth dormitories to help students cope with sky-high housing costs. Barcelona has experimented with rent caps and municipal housing support.
These programs aren’t revolutions. They don’t come with Karl Marx Boulevards or Rosa Luxemburg libraries. They’re pragmatic, relatively low-cost subsidies with outsized political impact — and a familiar part of modern urban governance around the world. And while Mamdani’s critics seem to suggest that such ideas are un-American, the truth is that the U.S. has its own history of subsidies and income support, from the New Deal to food stamps to Medicare and Medicaid — programs now recognized even by Republicans as critical components of public welfare.
…
Mamdani’s municipal populism may or may not work in New York. But the idea behind it is hardly fringe.
Pragmatic, relatively modest redistribution that people can see and feel won’t be the end of capitalism — or America.”
“The case against government grocery stores is straightforward. Government providers have no incentive to spend money wisely or respond to customers’ needs. Unlike private businesses, which must compete for customers by offering quality goods at reasonable prices, government entities get paid regardless of performance. Tax dollars flow into the system whether the shelves are stocked or empty, whether the service is stellar or abysmal.”
“Trump talked repeatedly about runaway grocery prices during the campaign, pledging that if elected, paying over $4 for a carton of eggs would be a thing of the past. “When I win, I will immediately bring prices down, starting on Day 1,” he pledged. But after
“The FTC’s stated motivation for challenging the merger was to avoid “higher prices for groceries and other essential household items for millions of Americans.””
…
“Kroger and Albertsons would still only account for 9 percent of overall grocery sales, as C. Jarrett Dieterle has noted in Reason, belying the FTC’s concerns that the merger would grant them significant market power. The FTC’s overly narrow definition of the grocery market is the actual cause of concern: The Commission’s definition includes traditional supermarkets and “hypermarkets” like Walmart and Target, but excludes Amazon and Costco, the second and third largest grocery retailers, respectively.
Considering Kroger’s and Albertsons’ single-digit shares of the properly defined market, and competition from other grocers not recognized by the FTC, the merger was more likely to save Albertsons from insolvency, not afford them enough market power to increase prices. Kroger and Albertsons projected the merger would create $500 million in cost savings—at least some of which would be passed onto consumers. The pair also planned to invest $1.3 billion to improve customer service, according to Nate Scherer, a policy analyst with the American Consumer Institute, a nonprofit research institute dedicated to the promotion of consumer welfare.”
“European countries take a much more precautionary approach to additives in their food, Benesh says. “If there are doubts about whether a chemical is safe or if there’s no data to back up safety, the EU is much more likely to put a restriction on that chemical or just not allow it into the food supply at all.”
In the US, we’re more likely to see action at the state level. California banned four chemicals in 2023: brominated vegetable oil, Red Dye No. 3, propylparaben, and potassium bromate. This year, lawmakers in about a dozen states have introduced legislation banning those same chemicals and, in some states, additional chemicals as well. But federal oversight has been limited, constrained by priorities, authority, and by a lack of resources.”
“Kroger is the fourth-largest grocery store chain in America—behind Walmart, Amazon, and Costco—and Albertsons is the fifth-largest. Once merged, the combined company would rise to third on the list. On the surface, this may seem to provide some support for the FTC’s position, but American shoppers would be wise to read the fine print.
In truth, if the deal were to proceed, a merged version of Kroger and Albertsons would still only make up 9 percent of overall grocery sales. To put this in further perspective, consider that Walmart—the nation’s largest grocery provider—would continue to operate more stores (including its Sam’s Club outlets) than a Kroger-Albertson combo and maintain grocery revenue that is more than twice that of the merged company.”
“a Kroger-Albertsons merger would not create a monopoly in the grocery market. According to a recent report by Retail Info Systems, Walmart remains the nation’s largest grocer, controlling 17 percent of the grocery market. The second and third largest grocers are Amazon and Costco. Kroger and Albertsons are only a distant fourth and sixth with market shares of 4.4 percent and 2.2 percent, respectively.
Grocery stores have experienced a declining market share, while superstores and online competitors have grown. For example, like many traditional grocers, Kroger’s market share has declined in recent years while Walmart’s has increased. Even if Kroger and Albertsons were to merge, it’s not clear that their combined market share wouldn’t continue to decline. The merger would simply enable Albertsons and Kroger to bulk up and compete with larger competitors, like Walmart.
In addition, Kroger’s decision to sell stores in overlapping markets where Albertsons operates means the merger would not increase concentration in any market. This has traditionally been enough for the FTC.
The national grocery market is also becoming more competitive, not less. No longer limited to brick-and-mortar supermarkets and independent grocery stores, the grocery market now includes a growing assortment of e-commerce stores, like Amazon, discount grocers like Aldi and Lidl, and delivery providers like FreshDirect and Instacart. These newer market entrants have fundamentally altered grocery shopping.
The merger will heighten competition among larger competitors, which will drive down prices for consumers. While a merger would not make Kroger and Albertsons the dominant industry players, it would allow them to compete more effectively with others, putting pressure on all major retailers to keep prices low as they fight to preserve their customer base. In fact, Kroger and Albertsons have indicated that the merger will generate $500 million in new cost savings for them that they plan to use to cut consumer prices. In addition, they plan to expand their lineup of affordable store brand products and spend $1.3 billion on improving customer service at Albertsons stores.”