[Taek]

It's not clear to me why a multigenerational dynasty specifically is a bad thing? Presumably the kids can learn from the parents, get connected, etc.

Also, Mamdani's policies are incredibly controversial, that's why it's such big news. Lots of people predicting that Mamdani's criminal policies, economic policies, and lack of experienced staffers will lead the city to dark days.

[JumpCrisscross]

> not clear to me why a multigenerational dynasty specifically is a bad thing?

Aristocracies are more stable but less efficient. That creates an incentive for corruption when growth inevitably stalls. Which leads to catastrophic instability.

[terminalshort]

There is minimal incentive for corruption in a hereditary aristocracy. Status is determined by birthright rather than accumulation of money. And if you are a lord and do need money, you have the power to tax it legally anyway. So what incentive is there to make or take a bribe? It won't change who your parents are.

[JumpCrisscross]

> Status is determined by birthright rather than accumulation of money. And if you are a lord and do need money, you have the power to tax it legally anyway

Lords being unconcerned with—and constrained by—wealth characterises all (EDIT: none of the) non-market societies that I know of. In part because basic economics constrains the society as a whole, even if they’re ignorant of its principles.

[terminalshort]

Right. I'm not saying anything about economics not applying, only that the incentive for corruption is absent.

[JumpCrisscross]

Sorry, I managed to reverse my argument with a typo.

> only that the incentive for corruption is absent

What historic civilisation are you thinking of?

[TheCoelacanth]

Aristocracy itself is state sanctioned corruption. The law is made to privilege certain people above others instead of serving the common good.

[terminalshort]

Corruption has a meaning, and it's not "the law is unfair."

[TheCoelacanth]

"illegal, bad, or dishonest behaviour, especially by people in positions of power"[1]

"Corruption is the dishonest, fraudulent, or criminal use of entrusted authority or power for personal gain or other unlawful or unethical benefits."[2]

Every single aristocracy absolutely fits those definitions. The norm in every aristocracy is to disregard the law in favor of what benefits those in power and to apply the law unequally depending on the desires of rulers.

[1] https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/corrupti...

[2] https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/corruption

[ceejayoz]

This is so deeply wrong on so many levels I'm rather fascinated by it.

[nobody9999]

>Mamdani's policies are incredibly controversial, that's why it's such big news.

Which policies are "incredibly controversial?" And be specific.

Here'a a direct link to his platform for your reference"

https://www.zohranfornyc.com/platform

No rush. I'll wait.

[Taek]

His policies around being soft on crime (do you know what NYC was like in the 90's? It's not some distant history), the free bus fare, the city owned grocery stores, the rent control, are all policies that many feel threaten the economic viability and safety of the city.

If you don't think any of those policies are contentious, you are living in a bubble and greatly disconnected from huge portions of the population.

[eesmith]

You mean the 1990s which brought us "broken windows" policing and the frequent use of racist stop-and-frisk? When I visited Queens 15 years ago, what worried me most was the chance of interacting with cops on a power-trip.

The 1990s when NYPD cops Sean Carroll, Richard Murphy, Edward McMellon, and Kenneth Boss shot Amadou Diallo? When NYPD cop Justin Volpe sodomized Abner Louima with a broken broom handle? When NYPD cop Francis X. Livoti choked Anthony Baez for accidentally hitting a police car with a football?

If you don't think the history of being hard on crime is contentious, you are living in a bubble and greatly disconnected from huge portions of the population.

Other places have free public transport (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Free_public_transport). How has that threatened the economic viability and safety of those places?

And isn't it funny how the people who complain the most about free public transport have a large overlap with the people who didn't want congestion charges but instead wanted free access to city streets for their multi-ton private vehicles?

How could city owned grocery stores threaten the economic viability and safety of NYC? The only way that makes sense to me is if the economics of NYC depended on having a working class which is always on the edge of food insecurity. Were that the case, the economics structure of NYC must change, yes?

Since homeless shelters threaten the economic viability of hotels and rental companies, and libraries threaten the economic viability of bookstores, I suppose we should get rid of those too.

[nobody9999]

>(do you know what NYC was like in the 90's? It's not some distant history)

I do. And today is light years better than it was in the 90s. In fact, there were crack dealers on my corner in the 90s. They're not there any more. Or on 95th street and Amsterdam.

And there aren't any hookers on 90th street and Broadway or 58th and Sixth like there were in the 80s.

And I didn't know Verdi Park was called "Verdi Park" back then either. I just thought they called it "needle park" because it was kind of shaped like a needle. Silly me.

Or the side streets between 38th and 42nd streets from 10th Avenue to the West Side Highway literally covered in hundreds/thousands of used condoms every morning

And the 80s were much, much worse than the 90s. And don't even get me started on the 1970s, when there were street gangs every few blocks.

Oh, and back then (not much change AFAICT), the cops were just the biggest and best-armed gang.

Oh, I'm sorry haven't you lived in NYC for nearly 60 years too?

Soft on crime because Mamdani wants to send non-cops to help people having mental episodes? Soft on crime because he wants to enforce the law and close Rikers?

Free buses? Really? that's not exactly going to break the bank. And even so, the MTA needs to approve that -- and the MTA is controlled by the Governor, not the Mayor.

Five grocery stores in areas which aren't served by private ones? How exactly is that going to threaten[0] (perhaps USD$10 million to acquire space and set them all up, then presumably it can cover its costs from, you know, selling groceries -- or even USD$2.5 million in subsidies) the economic viability of NYC which has a budget of USD$116 Billion[1]?

Crime is down at levels not seen since the early 1960s (before I was born -- that's relevant because I've lived in, with the exception of a year here, six months, three months elsewhere, etc. in NYC my whole life) and crime is at its lowest in all that time. Free buses are a few tens of millions and a few grocery stores are chump change[2] in NYC.

>If you don't think any of those policies are contentious, you are living in a bubble and greatly disconnected from huge portions of the population.

I take issue with that characterization. How long have you lived in NYC?

[0] https://pos.toasttab.com/blog/on-the-line/cost-to-open-a-sup...

[1] https://www.nydailynews.com/2025/06/30/nyc-council-passes-11...

[2] https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/chump%20change

Edit: Fixed prose/punctuation.

[Izkata]

Good point, I agree Mamdani's soft-on-crime policies are bad. Really wouldn't want to go back to the era you're describing.

[nobody9999]

>I agree Mamdani's soft-on-crime policies are bad.

which policies?

I really don't know what you're talking about.

I read through his platform[0] and I don't see anything that's "soft" on crime.

Please do enlighten me as I'm apparently quite confused.

[0] https://docs.google.com/document/d/1a7ejjSZWWIAcxfcWnkYaqvnj...

[ComplexSystems]

I don't feel that you're going to get a lot of engagement with this attitude. It doesn't come off like a good-faith effort to have an honest intellectual conversation, which is what this forum is about.

There are clearly policies on that page that break from the NYC status quo (like freezing the rent). Perhaps you are interested in explaining to us why you think these are economically sound ideas, rather than insisting they aren't controversial?

[eesmith]

> NYC status quo (like freezing the rent).

The platform page points out how the status quo was recently broken: "Eric Adams has taken every opportunity to squeeze tenants, with his hand-picked appointees to the Rent Guidelines Board jacking up rents on stabilized apartments by 12.6% (and counting)–the most since a Republican ran City Hall."

Sure sounds like Adams made a controversial change to the status quo to me.

The position is "As Mayor, Zohran will immediately freeze the rent for all stabilized tenants".

I read that as want to return to status quo ante Adams.

[cosmicgadget]

There is a lot of daylight between "break from the status quo" and "incredibly controversial". I am not getting much from either of you.

[nobody9999]

>There are clearly policies on that page that break from the NYC status quo (like freezing the rent). Perhaps you are interested in explaining to us why you think these are economically sound ideas, rather than insisting they aren't controversial?

You mean like the rent freeze[0] in 2020/2021 (and apparently in 2014-2016[1], although I don't recall that and am too lazy to check my old leases) on the very same apartments that Mamdani is proposing the same?

>I don't feel that you're going to get a lot of engagement with this attitude. It doesn't come off like a good-faith effort to have an honest intellectual conversation, which is what this forum is about.

Really? Funny that. As a resident of NYC, I reviewed the policies proposed by Mamdani and none of them seem all that controversial (or even all that much in the way of veering from the status quo). I will say that the whole public grocery stores seems a little over the top, but market forces haven't eliminated food deserts in many lower income neighborhoods. As such, why is it bad to try such a thing?

GP called Mamdani's policy proposals "incredibly controversial." I haven't seen even one such policy. As such, I asked for an example of such a "controversial" policy to help me understand where GP was coming from and provided a comprehensive list of Mamdani's policy proposals as an aid to identifying such policies.

I explicitly asked for specific proposals so we could discuss why (or why not) they might be "controversial."

How is that a bad "attitude"?

[0] https://hcr.ny.gov/system/files/documents/2025/07/fact-sheet...

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=45819654

Edit: Fixed prose.

[Spivak]

I really don't get the doom and gloom on this, NYC now has a mayor that might inadvertently fuck over the city trying to do right by working class folks instead of a mayor who does it as a matter of course. Forget policy disagreements, just the fact that we have a successful politician any side of the isle that is not currently gargling the balls of rich people and actually has some principles is so refreshing.

You are demand better of your government than "the blatant corruption you've learned to live with."

[lisbbb]

I'm against any and all political dynasties. They fly in the face of what representative government should be about. We have many people qualified to become political leaders but they never get the chance due to how the system operates.

I'm not sure NYC knows what it is getting into with this guy, but yeah, the alternatives were lousy. Sliwa? The whole Guardian Angels thing was one hell of a marketing job, I'll say that. Does anyone really believe a bunch of former gang thugs with some martial arts training accomplished very much?

The Cuomo family is corrupt to the core. Terrible for NY State.

Good luck, NYC. You're gonna need it!

[dmbche]

You want your elected officials to "keep connections" accross generations?

You also think New York can't find someone that's at least as competent as someone in a multigenerational dynasty?

[Taek]

Based on what I saw in the debates, I'm sure there are lots of people in NYC more capable than anyone on the ballet.

But yes, someone with connections is going to be more operationally effective than someone without them. If the leader isn't themselves well connected, they should at least have close advisors who do.

[kelnos]

> It's not clear to me why a multigenerational dynasty specifically is a bad thing?

Because they're undemocratic.

Concentrating political capital within a family means raises barriers to entry. People with new -- possibly better -- ideas don't get a meaningful chance to see those ideas implemented.

These sorts of setups destroy the idea that politics and elections can be a meritocracy, but instead are determined by birthright. You end up with aristocracies populated by the extended family, friends, and business partners of the family in power.

You also get stagnation. You're less likely to see other points of view represented in the political process, and that affects outcomes.

[Taek]

It's a tradeoff between new ideas and operational effectiveness. Yes, there are benefits to rotating out a dynasty, but there are also benefits to keeping one.

A dynasty is only undemocratic if people aren't voting for them. If they are winning elections, it's still a democracy.