Lol.
Capitalist leech says he'll willingly lose capital.
Liiiiiiiiiiar.
The dollar is holy to these freaks. They won't jeopardize a single one.
this post was submitted on 26 Jun 2025
595 points (97.9% liked)
Memes
51169 readers
1118 users here now
Rules:
- Be civil and nice.
- Try not to excessively repost, as a rule of thumb, wait at least 2 months to do it if you have to.
founded 6 years ago
MODERATORS
Instead of closing them, accept NYC offer of 5cents on the dollar to take over their lease. Everyone gets what they want.
Great, now do Amazon.
Do it. Someone will fill the gap in the market.
Bullshit, billionaires are too greedy and morally bankrupt to leave exploited money on the table.
They won't close the highest producing stores and effectively kill a revenue stream out of conviction in something that isn't money, because if they had any beliefs or values above "gimme gimme gimme moar moar moar" they wouldn't be billionaires.
It's not a matter of not needing it, no shit, they have a socially encouraged mental illness.
It would be better for the new socialist stores if they did vacate the market, but they won't. They'll even pull a Walmart and try to do some loss leaders to convince idiots that der free merket menes lower prices for as long as they can stomach it until they find a vector to make the state stores illegal and Jack those prices back up forever.
Gristedes is an expensive yuppie supermarket chain like Whole Foods, in some rich areas. I don't think they have to worry about some city-run stores in underserved neighborhoods. It's just pouting.
If a billionaire grocer has decided it's not worth the effort to build a grocery store for a community, why would they be upset that the state fills in the gaps left by them? Be reasonable.
It is because they are going to use the billionaires tax dollars to open a grocery store that he would have to compete against.
Oh wait, he probably doesn't pay taxes.
Seize his stores then. The city can run them for the people.
Didn't starbucks do something like this where they just shut a store down the moment it got unionized?
Probably, it's super common as a union busting tactic. Because once labor is organized you can't really put that cat back in the bag.
More reason to boycott starbucks
Yep, slap it on the list right next to their zionism.
And the garbage coffee???
Fair, lol. Way too darkly roasted for my liking. Plus, there's the brutal exploitation of the global south to source these beans at the price they are sourced at, too.
Oh no /s
Its always the same excuses with these mfers. Do it, we dont care. Take your family and go to africa or russia. Most of the assets however belong, rightfully so, to the society that created them.
Yes! Seriously if they don't like it, just go somewhere else. Go live in your bunker, I don't care just don't come back complaining about it and don't pretend like you can still own all the resources and land from down there.
There ability to skim money from those that actually do labor doesn't seem like to matter to the farmers who need to grow food to sell it, and the people buying it will continue to do so. I don't get how these skimmers/leeches think they are the beginning and end of all social contracts.
oh no but think of the shareholders?
Gettin pretty real sick of the class war waged by billionaires against the rest of us. Every one of those wackos on cable news reactionary outlets who went REEEEEEEEEEEEE over the results need to be hunted down like the rabid feral pigs they are.
Call his fucking bluff. The only way anything would close is if it isn't profitable (enough). And if they can't turn a profit, well then they need to be better at business! (/s).
So if it’s city owned it’s bad because any profits would go back to the city. But if it private owned it’s good because the profits go to a few rich people? I must be missing something
In fact you could do one better - it doesn't need to make a profit, just break even, so you could either have lower prices, helping the community save money, or higher wages, helping the community spend money. But since it helps most people instead of a few people, it's bad according to capitalism.
That'll cause competition with the private owned stores and force them to push down prices / raise wages until their profit margins are gone, putting them out of business.
The only entity that will buy the defunct stores will be the state , or maybe some actual non-profits , and now the state owns all the grocery stores and communism will be achieved. Then we get bread lines, is that what you want? /s.
Even if people believe that (and I know they do 🙄) that then gives you a niche for a private business to fill. City store always busy? This private store is more expensive but you don't have to wait in line as long. People will pay that difference to save time, especially in NYC.
I am fond of bread
Yes!
I think that the problem is you’re looking at this from a reasonable perspective.
Yes but if it‘s city owned, the profits won‘t go towards exploitation of (mostly) non-white laborers and dismantling the social system. Just think of how many humanitarian aid programs could be defunded and how much the environment could be stripped of its resources if we let the private sector maximize their profits!
/s
If you're inclined to be charitable, I believe the capitalist-brained reasoning goes something like:
These grocery stores will inevitably run at a loss and/or need to be subsidised - costing the taxpayers money - because the state couldn't possibly run them as efficiently as a private enterprise competing in the free market.
(Not saying I agree.)
The reasoning is actually that a food desert means greater revenues from a larger market circle for the desert wanderers to travel so they can eat. Company gets most of the profit without offering convenient service from the captives.
There is zero reason to run grocery stores at a loss. Competition that doesn't extort as strongly as other cartel members does screw over the cartel.
load more comments
(1 replies)
load more comments
(1 replies)
Fuck him. They raise prices if people vote for a Democrat. They raise prices if people vote for a Republican.
All the while depending on a system based on obfuscation of the fact that a large portion of the time a worker labors for is unpaid.
Close it and let the city run it.
Socialism != Communism
Socialism advocates for collective or government ownership of key industries to reduce inequality, while communism seeks a classless, stateless society with communal ownership of all property.
Kinda? Socialism is a transitional status towards communism. Socialism is largely categorized as a system where public property is the principle aspect, ie large firms and key industries, rather than private. Communism is when socialism has developed to the point where all production has become centralized, and collectively owned, thereby eliminating class and the modern conception of a state.
They are disinct in that they have functional differences, but are the same in that they are largely the same concept but at different historical stages.
load more comments
(9 replies)
Welcome cheap and wholesome cooperative
Good. And while you're at it close all your other stores, fucking parasite.
It sounds like a great plan, this way there will be plenty of nice store locations available for these state own groceries store.
view more: next ›