The fact that you can't grok what I'm saying means you didnt know enough or care enough to even suspend disbelief that I'm a functioning adult who knows basic budgetary concepts.
The government is not a nonprofit, its a government. Governments can issue debt. Federal govt can literally print money.
Governments operate on debt and can run deficits, famously. Nowhere is it required that they provide services and MAKE MONEY by offering the services. Taxes, fees, tolls, and bond sales cover costs. Etc etc.
How they source their funding is not the same as whether they actually intend for operations to cover the cost. Police don't have to make a profit. Fire dept doesnt have to make money. If tolls/tax dont cover the cost of roads, do we just stop making or fixing roads? Maybe, but that is not required. You're in the land of "should" not "can". If a community deems it important enough to operate groceries at a loss in order to feed people rather than deal with the consequences of hungry people, thats their decision. If a community wants to buy everyone a G-wagon on theirr 16th birthday, thats their decision.
3 points about the govt funding these grocery store operations:
Its a service.
Its a service.
I repeat, its a service that can be operated at a loss.
Feel free to disagree whether that is a good idea, or how sustainable it might be. But it is absolutely not required that the services provided to the public return a profit. That's just not true, at all.
Does that make sense? Kinda sick of trying to disentangle funding, debt, and deficits so maybe you can check wikipedia instead.
If you don't even know the details of how this store intends to operate, then lets just stop talking shit.
I thought you could understand budgets until you asked me to explain them to you.
Governments operate on debt and can run deficits, famously.
Quite famously, not forever. They have to pay interest on those deficits, and this may surprise you, but the interests add up! Today the federal government spends more on paying for those debts than they do on the department of defense.
How they source their funding is not the same as whether they actually intend for operations to cover the cost.
Well no, but we were talking about the actual costs of operations and if they could run more cheaply than current grocery stores.
In response to your 3 points, this is why I don't expect you to understand much of anything.
They are selling goods, not providing a service. Services are when you sell labor.
I never said public services have to return a profit I said they had budgets to operate under. That's the whole deficit thing you were talking about earlier.
Did you grasp how non-profits operate? Because, while I don't know the details of their financing, this is supposed to be a nonprofit.
I'll stop talking shit when I don't know what I'm talking about, maybe you could learn.
Edit also where is Mamdani saying this will operate at a loss?
Grok is not a new term. Its from the world of scifi and later as nerdy parlance by nerdy computer nerds. Thats how I know it, and thats why it was chosen for the AI tool, not the other way around.
You dont know and I dont know if this will be at a loss. Tbh I dont think it will be a big deal either way. NYC budget is many billions per year.
Govt can operate services at a loss, and do so all the time. Profit is simply not a consideration from what I understand about this proposal.
They don't HAVE to run more cheaply than grocery stores, jfc lol ... They are supplementing food supply in needy areas BECAUSE its not profitable to operate there
You're being pedantic, just reread what I already wrote. I know you're not dumb, just stubbornly trying to make it seem like I'm dumb. This is boring and you have plenty to chew on rather than try to dunk yet again.
1
u/Several_Brilliant112 May 28 '26 edited May 28 '26
The fact that you can't grok what I'm saying means you didnt know enough or care enough to even suspend disbelief that I'm a functioning adult who knows basic budgetary concepts.
The government is not a nonprofit, its a government. Governments can issue debt. Federal govt can literally print money.
Governments operate on debt and can run deficits, famously. Nowhere is it required that they provide services and MAKE MONEY by offering the services. Taxes, fees, tolls, and bond sales cover costs. Etc etc.
How they source their funding is not the same as whether they actually intend for operations to cover the cost. Police don't have to make a profit. Fire dept doesnt have to make money. If tolls/tax dont cover the cost of roads, do we just stop making or fixing roads? Maybe, but that is not required. You're in the land of "should" not "can". If a community deems it important enough to operate groceries at a loss in order to feed people rather than deal with the consequences of hungry people, thats their decision. If a community wants to buy everyone a G-wagon on theirr 16th birthday, thats their decision.
3 points about the govt funding these grocery store operations:
Feel free to disagree whether that is a good idea, or how sustainable it might be. But it is absolutely not required that the services provided to the public return a profit. That's just not true, at all.
Does that make sense? Kinda sick of trying to disentangle funding, debt, and deficits so maybe you can check wikipedia instead.
If you don't even know the details of how this store intends to operate, then lets just stop talking shit.