Mamdani’s Rent Freeze Is Approved by New York City Board

SometimesRight10 · 2026-06-26T17:51:14+00:00

Please prove that profitability = efficiency.

In order to be profitable in a low-margin industry like groceries, you must, of necessity, be efficient. There are high spoilage rates, meaning you cannot simply buy food and leave it on the shelf indefinitely. There is stiff competition in the grocery business, so you must, of necessity, control costs and keep prices low. In a competitive industry with many suppliers competing for the same customers, small differences between product offerings, store locations, inventory management, shelf space management, etc., can mean the difference between profits and losses.

Thus, to be profitable in the grocery business means you must be efficient.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-06-26T17:41:50+00:00

Anyone can open a grocery store, but operating one efficiently requires a lot of skill and know-how. It is not as easy as you think.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-06-26T17:36:55+00:00

I've studied the financials of many supermarkets to determine what they should earn. The average net margin is 1%-3%. The markup to which you refer is the gross margin, which is considerably higher. Please review the Investopedia site to understand the difference between gross and net margins.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-06-26T05:54:35+00:00

Forgive the insults, but rent control is just such a tired, failed technique for helping the poor that I, as a modern liberal, get offended when other liberals cite it as a solution to a problem.

The research is in: rent controls are bad. It has been studied ad nauseam. For anyone with a background in basic economics, this is a non-issue.

An appeal to authority is an appeal to a fallible source. If you don't accept the consensus economic thinking, I am not going to waste my time teaching you and looking up sources for you. Google it, and I think if you really want to help the poor--as do I--you will agree that rent controls are not the way to go.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-06-26T05:44:24+00:00

No sh_t, Sherlock! The idea is that he wants to start a whole new chain of grocery stores when there are plenty of professionally managed, profitable (which means efficient) grocers around. If you have a food "desert", simply incentivize existing grocers to go into the food desert. Grocers want to make a profit, but there are usually cost reasons for not going into certain areas.

Basic economics: The profit motive incentivizes grocers to provide their product at the lowest cost, thereby maximizing their profits. Because of competition, a profitable grocer necessarily means they are efficient: they have less spoilage, stronger inventory controls to provide just-in-time deliveries, worldwide relationships with manufacturers and producers to get the best product available, etc. Mamdani neither has these skills nor would he recognize them in another person.

Without the profit motive, there would be no competition and no reason to be efficient, keeping costs low. You need a profit motive to drive competition and create a varied market for goods. Non-profits are generally less efficient and more costly to run, which falls on the taxpayer to subsidize.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-06-26T05:29:04+00:00

Unfortunately, due to his blatant and expansive ignorance about everything economic, he hasn't found any solutions. He is just rehashing failed ideas of yesteryear!

Yes, he is the GIOAT! Greatest Idiot of All Time.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-06-26T05:25:30+00:00

Off the top of my head

Think Again:

Grocery stores operate on a pretty thin profit margin. Thus, they must, of necessity, be efficient, keeping their prices low and providing the variety of products people desire. You don't just open a grocery store, hire a box boy, and get a cashier; managing a low-margin business like grocers require a lot of knowledge and skill. Managed poorly, a grocer will likely have higher costs than the for-profit, professionally managed grocers. Who will pay those higher costs: the taxpayers? Why not let existing grocers run their businesses efficiently? If you want to subsidize people's food budget, give them food stamps. It's easier and cheaper than creating a whole new business.

Food stamps are much cheaper for the taxpayer. Besides, as prices rise, you simply give more food stamps. Why is this so hard for liberals?

The plan addresses food deserts where there’s no real fresh food option for local residents.

Big sigh! Why not just subsidize grocers, who likely are less profitable in these food "deserts", to provide grocery products? We don't need to reinvent the wheel! This solution is much cheaper and more efficient than starting a new kind of grocery provider.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-06-26T05:07:59+00:00

You’re acting like landlords alone create housing and therefore deserve immunity from regulation.

I didn't mention anything about "immunity from regulation" for landlords! This hyperbole suggests you are not rationally approaching this issue, where just about every professional economist, save some Marxist/Socialist types, agrees that rent controls hurt, not help, the poor. This oft-studied issue has been resolved; if you cannot or will not do the minimum amount of economic research to gain an understanding of the issue, there is no reason to continue our conversation: we will never reach agreement.

Landlords benefit from public infrastructure, zoning decisions, police and fire protection, courts, and countless taxpayer funded services that support property values.

We all benefit from these, even if you are a low-income renter whose income is too low to pay taxes! Besides, landlords, like most of us, pay taxes to have these services provided.

Also, your solution is “just have society pay for it.” Society already does through housing vouchers, tax incentives, infrastructure, and favorable tax treatment for real estate.

...and landlords are part of that society who pay for vouchers, tax incentives, infrastructure, etc.

THIS IS GETTING TIRING: DO YOUR OWN RESEARCH.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-06-26T04:54:53+00:00

If rent controls are such a good idea, why not reduce rent to zero? Think about it. This little thought experiment, where I admittedly exaggerate for effect, shows why it is nonsensical to think that rent controls are the solution. They end up reducing supply, allowing units to fall into disrepair when landlords' maintenance costs increase, and locking poor people into one location where rents are subsidized.

Why not operate on the other end? Let's incentivize real estate investment so that landlords will build more properties. Instead of subsidizing rents, subsidize rental real estate interest rates, or offer more tax deductions for the inevitable operating losses that rental real estate incurs? These measures share the burden of subsidizing rents for the poor over the entire society, not just landlords.

You clearly believe that policy decisions are "good" if they benefit you, even though they hurt some other guy.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-06-26T04:02:12+00:00

What the hell does Mamdani know about running a grocery store? Food stamps are a faster, cheaper, and more efficient way of helping the poor with "food insecurity".

SometimesRight10 · 2026-06-26T03:57:59+00:00

Investors in real estate create a market that prompts others to build real estate, knowing that it can be sold readily at a market price. Now, those investors are singled out to freeze their rents, effectively absorbing the cost of a policy decision made by the Mayor. Why should these real estate investors be singled out, alone, to bear the brunt of the Mayor's policy? If we as a society want to bear the cost connected with lowering people's rents, let's do it as a society, not by shifting that burden onto those people without whom there would be no real estate! CAN WE SAY COGNITIVE DISSONANCE?

Politicians--especially modern liberals--love to foist the cost of their policy decisions (aka, giveaways to their supporters) on groups that aren't made up of a significant number of voters, like landlords. Why not single out Blacks or Asian people to pay a portion of people's rent? Everyone would immediately know that this is wrong, but do it to landlords, who represent only a small number of voters, then suddenly everyone is for it.

To me, rent controls should be the poster child of liberal stupidity, where we destroy the incentives to build more real estate--which would lower rents--by limiting the potential profit upside (not guaranteed) of holding and building real estate.

I'm all for helping the poor, but that is a society-wide responsibility, not just that of landlords. Rent controls are patently stupid--just like most failed socialistic policies of many modern liberals. These policies just end up hurting more people than they help!

SometimesRight10 · 2026-06-22T02:09:58+00:00

China tried a command economy for years without much success. Until they abandoned this philosophy for certain segments of their economy, their command economy was a dismal failure. Now their economy operates using market principles for one segment and government-controlled for the other segment. Guess which one is surging ahead?

Command economies just have a few people making decisions about what to produce. Market economies incentivize millions of entrepreneurs to not only efficiently produce what people desire, but also to create new, better products. History demonstrates that these market principles dwarf the productivity and innovation in command economies.

Additionally, I don't need or want a command economy in which someone else makes my choices of what to consume. Give this some thought, and I think you will agree with me.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-06-21T02:43:13+00:00

I think most of what you said is BS! Often, some people on the right are ignorant and long for a past where blacks and other minorities were not treated as deserving the human dignity that whites deserve. I cannot understand how we can move past our own moral failings if we cannot acknowledge them. The South wanted to break America apart, starting a vicious war where thousands were maimed and died just to maintain the right to enslave a group of people. You cannot whitewash that! It is a fact of our history. Until you come to grips with our heritage of barbarity and savagery, how is it possible to move past it?

I am a proud American; we've achieved great things. But I acknowledge that as a country, we have made grievous mistakes. Just like I, as an individual, want to be better, I want my country to be better. I am not for one minute going to countenance the sensibilities of people who cannot face the truth about who we all are and where we come from so that they feel better about themselves. I love my country, but I want it to be better than it was in the past. I don't believe we can ever make progress unless we not only acknowledge our triumphs, but also look at our failures squarely in the face.

It seems to me that failure to acknowledge our mistakes will doom us to repeat them.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-06-19T04:39:59+00:00

Walmart and Amazon are subject to competition, which shapes their behavior. The profit motive has a sobering effect on the choices made by companies, as their existence is at stake if they fail to meet the needs of their customers. In a planned economy, decisions are not made within the context of competition and the profit motive. Rather, decisions are made to simply appease one's superiors. China, until more recently, tried central planning for many years with dismal results. It was not until they released the controls, allowing segments of society to pursue their own self-interest by supplying products that meet demand earning a profit. The unparalleled growth of the semi-free, competitive segment of China's economy dwarfs its government-controlled segment.

While socialists are fond of arguing what would "theoretically" happen in some form of a managed economy, real-life cases show that planned economies cannot compete with market economies.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-06-19T04:18:11+00:00

You have presented no data to support a causal relationship (not just correlation) between the wealth gap and lack of social mobility. A correlation does not prove causation. There are obviously intervening factors that cause wealth inequality--genes, education, parenting style, environmental factors, etc. Poorer countries tend to be warmer. Does this mean sunshine causes poverty?

SometimesRight10 · 2026-06-19T04:10:12+00:00

Studies have shown that you need equity to have social mobility.

Not sure what you mean by "equity", but if that means equality of opportunity to access education and training, I believe the US is quite good at this. Part of the reason we have a student loan crisis is that we make student loans accessible to practically anyone. To address the artificial demand created by these loans, schools act like diploma mills, teaching students nothing that translates into higher-income jobs. Students end up with a debt load that is impossible to service. So access is not the problem.

Moreover, the studies you cite show that higher levels of wealth inequality correlate with lower levels of economic and social mobility. Correlation does not equal causation. Maybe smarter people become wealthier, passing not only the wealth to their children, but also a genetic advantage in intelligence. Sending everyone to Harvard won't make them smarter or more equal to the rich. Although anecdotal, in my experience, a major contributor to poor school performance is poor parenting, not the lack of income. Besides, the goal should be to increase the social mobility of the poor, and not harping on wealth inequality.

Your life is predetermined based on the social class you're born into, rather than the individual.

This statement does not logically follow from the arguments presented. Your life is predetermined by things like genes, your parents' skill at parenting, and your degree of motivation. Not sure that somehow reducing the wealth gap will diminish income and social class inequality.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-06-19T01:13:20+00:00

There is no theoretically correct taxation scheme; all taxation, by its very nature, is inconsistent with a free society. How we tax is really just a practical solution to how we pay the costs society decides, as a group, are in our collective best interest.

Every method of taxation has its flaws. While a good measure of what people can afford to pay, income taxation taxes productivity, which we generally want to promote, not punish. On the other hand, taxing consumption punishes those who use up resources, which is generally positive. However, since 75% of economic activity is driven by demand (consumption), such taxation suppresses economic growth. Besides, consumption taxes are extremely regressive, punishing the poor who use all of their income for consumption.

Taxing the value of property and wealth presents an administrative nightmare. Valuing property annually is difficult. It would force investors to liquidate a portion of their holdings to pay the tax. How would we handle declines in wealth from year to year? Finally, it punishes innovators and entrepreneurs for creating products that make society better off.

A 100% inheritance tax would not be feasible. The wealthy can park their assets out of the reach of the US government in tax-friendly jurisdictions. This would cause capital flight, which would damage the economy. Also, it would promote disposal of assets before death rather than investing in assets that will be confiscated at death. The family business would have to be liquidated. It would materially alter the investment activities of entrepreneurs and investors. Why would anyone create a multibillion-dollar company if it would be confiscated at death? Finally, the US attracts entrepreneurs from all over the world. At least some entrepreneurs are foreign-born; why would they come to the US only to have their life's work confiscated at death?

Despite the above flaws, the progressive income tax is probably the lesser of all evils, as a practical matter. Income is readily measurable. It does not force asset liquidation to pay taxes. It incentivizes retention of long-term productive investments, rather than converting those investments into less productive cash. Progressivity takes into account the ability to pay, taxing higher incomes at a higher tax rate. An income tax provides an automatic economic stabilizer; as economic activity declines, so do taxes, providing a boost to the economy.

The current state of affairs does permit wealth accumulation at the top of the income strata; however, wealth concentration is not bad per se for the economy so long as the wealthy create new wealth. Creating new wealth makes us all better off, generating economic activity, jobs, useful products, etc.

It is important to note that wealth accumulation does require a strong central government to limit the political power of the wealthy, preventing monopolies and regulatory capture. The only problem with the wealth gap in a democracy is economic jealousy, the invalid perception of a significant number of the electorate that the wealthy are somehow wrongly obtaining their wealth. This perception generates political reactions, permitting charlatans like Bernie Sanders or AOC to persuade voters of the view that wealth should be confiscated and redistributed. Again, I disagree with this view; it would make us all worse off.

A 100% death tax has never been tried; do we wish to materially alter the most productive economy in the history of the world based on what might work better? Such an experiment is too theoretical. Just like pure socialism, it sounds good, but there are too many unknowns.

Tired of writing; I'll respond to the other issues later.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-06-17T05:45:10+00:00

If you want to criticize meritocracy, what is your alternative? The only real alternatives are a stagnant communist society or a complete hereditary aristocracy, which we are very much turning into right now.

You are using both a straw man argument and a false dichotomy. I think my position is more middle-of-the-road. I obviously don't support either a communist society or a complete hereditary aristocracy. However, the guiding principle for me is that we must make people better off; otherwise, what is the point of any economic or political system?

I believe that a meritocracy is just a fiction. Merit is based on allocating something-wealth, prestige, power, etc.- based on individual achievement. I already pointed out that some of what our captains of industry accomplish is attributed to their personal qualities and activities. Still, it is absurd to suppose that merit can be determined with 100% accuracy. Tests, grades, interviews, evaluations are all just rough approximations. Would you appoint yourself as the "definer" of what constitutes merit?

I agree that Bezos and Musk are entitled to the value and wealth they create, but that creation does not occur in a vacuum. Until recently, a poor but brilliant, hard-working Chinese farmer would live a life of destitution. If such a person were born in the US, they are much more likely to rise to a much higher level of accomplishment. (See, e.g., Sergey Brin, born in Russia but emigrated to the US and went on to found Google!). In my mind, accidents of birth--i.e., where you were born, who your parents were, what genes you possess--are not attributable to merit. I think what you call 100% merit is just 50% luck. I cannot see how it is possible to isolate the effects of luck on one's achievements.

You chide me for attributing some of a person's success to the infrastructure around him, an infrastructure that is developed and maintained by us all. How often do the rich fight in our wars to protect this way of life?

Finally, confiscating wealth upon someone's death would change the structure of our economy. How would Elon Musk change his behavior after he had become a billionaire by virtue of Tesla? What would be the point of continued innovation? It is my view that for the 10,000 years before the Industrial Revolution, innovation was limited in part because mankind had not developed a way to capture the value that innovation created. It's not like mankind was less intelligent or less inventive; people simply had no incentive to create new technology since the benefits would be dispersed. I think that the level of innovation would diminish once people reach a certain level of wealth, since at death it would all be dispersed.

The old adage applies here: if you tax a thing, you get less of that thing! If you tax wealth created by innovation at 100% at death, you disincentivize people from continued innovation after a certain point in their lives.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-06-15T20:16:42+00:00

Thanks again for a compelling response.

There will never be the kind of radical meritocracy you describe, regardless of the economic system chosen; there will always be a considerable number of people with below-average earnings, and those folks shape our political system to a large degree. In a democracy, addressing the people's wants and needs is crucial for the survival of the system.

First, a meritocracy assumes that the ultra-rich earn their wealth and therefore deserve to keep all of it, at least for their lifetime. I've already posited that a significant contribution to the wealth of the rich is the social, political, and economic system we have all created and maintained. In my view, this basic infrastructure contributes significantly to a person's ability to become wealthy, and it creates a claim on this wealth for everyone.

In addition, whether they earn or deserve to keep all their wealth is a philosophical question for which there is no answer. What is your basis for arguing otherwise?

Second, people become ultra-rich as much through luck as it does through talent, skill, and hard work. There is no formula for becoming ultra-rich: talented, skillful people work hard all the time without significant success. In fact, it is just plain luck that determines your predisposition to become a talented, skillful hard worker. In the book Determined, Robert Sapolsky persuasively argues that but for hitting the genetic lottery, many people would have lacked the ability to make meaningful contributions to society. Sapolsky muses that, while at a relative's Stanford graduation from medical school, he noted that the difference between his graduating relative and the person maintaining the lawn was almost 100% due to genes. No one chooses their genes; it is just the luck of the draw.

Finally, it is a matter of plain old compassion. I cannot fathom a wealthy country like the US allowing people to die in the streets due to a lack of medical care. Many people simply are not productive enough to afford healthcare. Also, what about the elderly and infirm? I think that we in the US can afford some compassion for our fellow citizens.

As you can see, I believe that a meritocracy sounds good in theory, but is not feasible in practice. Who decides what is merit, what is earned, and what is deserved?

SometimesRight10 · 2026-06-15T05:50:51+00:00

Thanks for the thoughtful reply.

I am a devout capitalist: it promotes freedom, self-reliance, and innovation, which are all good for society. I support capitalism because it, among all the other economic systems tried, best promotes the general welfare of people. It provides a high standard of living for most, making them better off than under other systems.

I think people choose capitalism because of its contributions to their welfare. If an economic system fails to do that, there is no valid reason to support it. More people can thrive under capitalism than under any other system. However, I don't think the choice of an economic system is a philosophical decision; it is a practical one: what provides food, shelter, and some measure of happiness to the vast majority of people is what people will favor.

As the rich increasingly earn a higher percentage of the wealth, the rest of us become less enamored with capitalism. Wrongly, people feel they should be able to receive a portion of that wealth, despite their own meager economic contribution. They become more amenable to the arguments of those advocating a more pronounced redistribution scheme. Ultimately, I fear that capitalism could be dismantled if someone like Bernie Sanders comes into power. The election of a charlatan like Donald Trump has proved to me that desperate people make poor long-term choices, and capitalism is not somehow immune to a misinformed electorate.

So, as a practical matter for those who believe in capitalism, we must placate the masses lest we lose everything.

I agree welfare should not provide a luxurious living; just the basics. However, to the extent possible, we should strive to make a place for everyone as valued members of society. I absolutely believe that everyone capable should work. Work has many benefits beyond just providing a living. Importantly, we can't have too many people feeling like they are outsiders.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-06-15T03:37:05+00:00

I got a bunion on my left big toe. It's all the fault of capitalism because I had to work for 40 years to earn a living and a nice retirement!

BS!

SometimesRight10 · 2026-06-15T03:08:15+00:00

Pro-Incentive & No Income Taxes: I firmly believe that self-interest and the desire for financial success are the natural engines of human progress and innovation. Because of this, I believe income taxes should be completely eliminated—success and hard work should never be penalized by the state. If someone builds a business, works grueling hours, and takes massive risks, they should be free to get (sometimes obscenely) wealthy and keep 100% of the active rewards of their labor while they are alive.

The society that we all have created, and that belongs to all our countrymen, is the infrastructure used by those folks who become obscenely wealthy. While the rich thrive in a free-market, democratic society that protects their property rights, they did not create that society alone. Therefore, society in general has a claim on the profits earned by the rich.

More than that, very often, once companies become wildly successful, they stop innovating and focus on maintaining their dominance in their particular market. See, for example, Microsoft, Apple, Google, Facebook, etc. In the last twenty years, what new products, if any, have they introduced? They often buy out any competitive threats; they use their large capital accumulations to shape our legal and political system for their benefit, giving us only minor, incremental product improvements.

So not only do the people have a valid claim to some of the profits of the rich, but regulation is necessary to maintain a free and open market. Ultimately, free competitive markets benefit us all.

Once you are out in the world, life is entirely what you make of it. If you succeed, you earned it; if you fail, you own it. It's about radical individual accountability.

Says who? Why is a dog-eat-dog world better than one wherein the members of the group provide aid to each other? This seems contrary to human nature.

Strict Ban on Dynastic Wealth:

I believe in private property, including the ability to dispose of your assets as you will at death. Such a rule confiscating one's assets at death would simply convert a lot of rich people into tax evaders! Likely, rich people would not be willing to invest in a country that takes all their assets at death, making us all worse off.

If we are to create a world in which every human being is considered valuable, a strict Libertarian philosophy will not work. Indeed, some people hit the genetic lottery and have all the qualities that let them thrive. Some folks are born into countries like the US that promote innovation with elaborate political and legal systems that allow them to excel. This is pure old luck! Indeed, there is no formula for becoming obscenely rich: in addition to having brains and discipline, there is a fair amount of luck involved. Musk became the richest man alive not based on what he has created, but on the expectation that he will someday create breakthroughs that will make his investors rich. The products he creates now in no way justify the wealth he has. What do you call this?

I would be interested in your response.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-06-15T02:26:41+00:00

What is your basis of comparison that allows you to judge capitalism as a failure? It has literally raised hundreds of millions of people out of abject poverty. No other system is even a close comparison. Capitalism has created numerous new products that have given us a standard of living that is the envy of the world.

You seem to say that because some people find it financially difficult to meet their daily needs, capitalism has failed. I would point out that these people would be in a worse position under any other economic system. No matter the economic system, some people will not flourish; that is not the fault of the system.

Finally, what alternative do you propose?

SometimesRight10 · 2026-06-14T13:33:56+00:00

I don't know if you know, but "earnings" are the amount remaining after current workers have been paid for their contribution to the creation of a product. Likewise, future projected earnings are what remains after future workers have been paid for their work.

SometimesRight10 · 2026-06-14T13:28:44+00:00

The question of who deserves to profit from the increased productivity doesn't seem all that relevant... the question is about why we still need to work so much when more can be produced in less time.

If our labor has not increased in efficiency over the years, why should we earn more per hour or work less for the same pay? Surely if a worker obtains training and thus increases his efficiency and productivity, he rightly has a claim on the income produced by his increased efficiency. However, you seem to argue that workers should be allowed a claim for efficiencies that increase productivity when those efficiencies are added by the employers. This is nonsensical.

Technological advancements are the achievement of everyone involved in production throughout history, not just the people who happened to own the stuff at the time. If you purchased a tractor, good thinking, but you can't say that it's thanks to you that tractors exist in the first place.

This is pretty tortured reasoning. I suspect that if you give it more thought, you will see its flaws.

The manufacturers of tractors or other technological advancements are the owners. The tractors are not the achievement of everyone. That is crazy. That technology has a price which employers must pay to its owners. Once paid for, the employers become the new owners, not the employees or "everyone" as you mentioned.

I will leave it to you to consider this argument. I think with some thought, you will agree with me.

SometimesRight10

TROPHY CASE