[throwaway81523]

Plenty of red states have government run liquor stores. And army bases have government run grocery stores along with government run everything else. I don't see the problem here. Progressive version presumably would be free groceries for everyone.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_grocery_store

[moregrist]

When I lived in Pennsylvania, the state-run liquor stores had a monopoly on selling wine and liquor. This survived Republican and Democratic administrations for decades.

Mamdani’s proposed grocery stores aren’t a monopoly. Whether they’re a good idea remains to be seen, but they’d be competing against privately owned grocery stores. As I understand them, they’re mostly intended for areas without a local grocery store (food deserts), which seems like a reasonable thing to explore.

[aeternum]

Note that they don't have to be a monopoly to cause a problem. Usually the way things go is these state-run grocery stores get subsidies. The goal is to provide food in food deserts, not to be profitable. Over time the subsidy inevitably grows meaning higher taxes for non-gov grocery stores. This leads to a cycle where the state-run stores pushes out the corp-run stores with the thinnest margins.

Ultimately only the bougie grocery stores remain in rich neighborhoods and now you have to really hope that you can continue funding those state-run stores or you just made the food desert problem a whole lot worse.

[ecshafer]

And people hate the government run liquor stores so much they drive to Delaware to buy in wine and liquor in bulk, since the stores are expensive.

[camel_Snake]

Hi, that's not why people go to Delaware for those kind of purchases. It's the lack of tax.

The actual MSRP from PA wine and liquor stores is very competitive, since it's one of the largest single buyers of alcohol. Selection could be better though.

[spatialspice]

Hard agree. I may cross state lines for large purchases like laptops, but the liquor prices aren’t so bad that I’d drive >30min for better deals.

[ch4s3]

State liquor stores are terrible, and I’ve never heard anyone say a nice word about on base grocery stores.

[ikety]

Highly disagree. The commissary on most military bases are awesome. Spent most of my life going there with my parents. Not sure where you heard they were bad. Never got that impression from any military serving people, like ever.

[mothballed]

Now imagine how the commissary would turn out if instead of being placed in a spot where any commercial business would love to exploit (center of military base where every family has employment, a process for permanently kicking out people who engage in major crime, and private competition controlled unless you go through a security checkpoint) -- instead you put them in many of the places I witnessed food deserts in major US cities that had underemployment, elevated crime, outsiders afraid to enter during the day and ~never enter at night, bars on every window, and every other establishment has you slide your cash in a rotating tray adjacent to a bulletproof window.

[cityofdelusion]

I feel like the commissary these days is really far behind private grocers. Yeah, 15 or 25 years ago they were awesome, but now it just resembles a poorly stocked (and much smaller) Walmart. Regional grocers have gotten really good in my lifetime. Used to go to the commissary regularly to save money and have a good selection, but those days are just long past. Same deal with base liquor stores, they are merely "OK", but again your regional private option is just so much nicer in the 2020s.

[afavour]

That’s just goal post shifting. The point is that government owned direct to consumer stores exist in areas of all political leaning.

[Ferret7446]

You suggested that this is good because it is similar to a thing, and many people pointed out that thing you compared it to is bad. That is not goalpost shifting, that is you demonstrating that this is in fact bad.

[afavour]

I never said anything about good or bad. It was a response to:

> Government run grocery stores are middle of the road?

[throwaway3060]

That's because liquor stores originated from an earlier incarnation of the culture wars. That was a long time ago, and I don't think anyone seriously believes in that justification now, but the inertia remains.

[cogman10]

They still exist in Idaho (where I live) because the state doesn't believe in advertising alcohol.

I think that's a pretty good reason for them to exist even today. We don't need the market competing to get people to drink more.

[ch4s3]

> I think that's a pretty good reason for them to exist even today.

Only if you think the government should be telling people what to buy and what not to buy. I personally find that highly objectionable, particularly given the outsized power of primary voters in most places.

[ch4s3]

It’s the goalpost you set. They’re hardly mainstream if everyone hates them.

[afavour]

> They’re hardly mainstream if everyone hates them.

I think maybe you and I have different definitions for the word "mainstream". To me it has nothing to do with popularity and everything to do with what is normal and everyday.

[cogman10]

I don't hate them. I have one in walking distance from my home. It's a liquor store, what should I hate about it?

The only people I see complaining about them are religious teetotalers.

[ch4s3]

> what should I hate about it?

The prices are usually higher than private stores, the merchandising is worse, the selection is usually bad, and they're generally just a miserable shopping experience. Compare them to a nice wine and liquor store in states where those are allowed and the difference is quite apparent. They also never have staff that know anything about the products which is just a shitty DMV like experience.

[cogman10]

Other than merchandising (why is that important?) nothing you describe is an issue with the Idaho liquor stores.

Prices are pretty in line with market rates. The selection is really pretty good. The shopping experience is the same as any other store (what makes a shopping experience "miserable?")

> Compare them to a nice wine

In Idaho, wine is allowed to be sold in grocery stores and specialty shops. The liquor stores are for hard beverages.

> They also never have staff that know anything about the products

Staff seems just fine with the products. But again, don't see why that's important in general.

> just a shitty DMV like experience.

I don't really know what you mean by this. You go in, find the booze you like, pay for it at the register, or ask a clerk a question if you have one (Do you have a lot of questions purchasing alcohol? Every time?) If you want a more expensive experience you can go to a wine shop in Idaho and let someone blow smoke up your ass about the notes.

Look, Idaho might just be particularly good at running a booze shop, but I doubt it. It may be that because Idaho only has liquor stores for hard alcoholic beverages it's made for a better experience all around. It certainly doesn't suffer from selection, knowledge, or experience problems. I think the only issue you might take is that it's just sorted shelves of alcohol with little flashy theming.

[senordevnyc]

I was in the Navy and I loved the on-base grocery store. A big part of it was that I was overseas and it felt like home, but also the prices were great, it was clean, and had a decent selection.

[PyWoody]

I love my state liquor stores.

The staff are treated and paid well, the stores are well stocked and clean, and I pay tax free on some of the lowest prices in the country.

[lotsofpulp]

But why? Liquor is the cause for a very high portion of police, insurance (property and health), and other costs that can’t be translated into dollars.

Why shouldn’t society recoup some of those costs from the users? And why should society subsidize those costs?

It’s interesting that it was politically acceptable to charge tobacco users more for health insurance, but not politically acceptable to charge alcohol users more for health insurance.

[ch4s3]

> And why should society subsidize those costs?

Allowing private business isn't a subsidy.

> Why shouldn’t society recoup some of those costs from the users?

That's what the taxes are for.

[lotsofpulp]

The government running liquor stores at no profit is a subsidy.

> That's what the taxes are for.

Taxes are not (should not be) for subsidizing behavior that results in a loss for society.

[fragmede]

Is people drinking alcohol a loss for society? Because the thing is, society needs to continue to produce children in order to continue existing. It's called a social lubricant for a reason, and while it is exceeding obvious that alcohol abuse is a problem, that's exactly why the state runs the liquor stores. To limit products available and limit hours to ideally prevent the worst of abuses. So the unanswerable question is, how many children is alcohol ultimately responsible for? If it were successfully banned (using magic) would civilization survive past the end of the incoming generation? Given alcohol's ubiquity on all corners of the globe, I don't think that's decided or even decidable.

As we're only considering children being born, the health effects of alcohol while pregnant are known, (aka fetal alcohol syndrome) but since they're known, they can be dismissed if we assume pregnant mothers aren't drinking. The other thing we can discount is the long term health effects of alcohol consumption. Yes there are health ramifications, but as long as people are able to create healthy babies, what happens later on in life is less relevant to the question of making babies, which civilization needs in order to continue.

[PyWoody]

> The government running liquor stores at no profit is a subsidy.

New Hampshire liquor stores contribute over $150MM to community programs a year. [0]. They had an annual profit of $170MM in FY2023.

[0] https://www.90yearsofcheers.com/where-the-money-goes/

[shawn_w]

I have fond memories of the Navy commissary my parents did most of our food shopping at when I was growing up. Huge variety of reasonably priced goods.

[bogomipz]

I would say that state-run liquor stores and subsidized city-run grocery stores such as what Mamdani proposes are not at all comparable. The former is a giant cash cow - a profit center while the latter is an entitlement program i.e a mandatory budget expense. To give an idea of the amount of money involved in state-run liquor stores, consider the state of New Hampshire's report from last year:

>"In FY2024, total income before transfers was $144.7 million with the total net profit transfer of $140.0 million. Of the $140.0 million, the Liquor Commission transferred $122.0 million to the General Fund"[1]

[1] https://gov.liquorandwineoutlets.com/wp-content/uploads/2025...

[cogman10]

Why does a government ran entity need to be a huge money maker?

NYC has a $6B cop budget. They even have subs. Yet nobody worries about that. A grocery store could be ran at a deficit. More than likely it will be neutral or will turn a slight profit.

[bogomipz]

>"More than likely it will be neutral or will turn a slight profit."

Based on what exactly, just your opinion? Obviously you know nothing about the grocery business which is a notoriously low-margin business, between 1-3%. The only way that large grocers like Krogers and Albertsons are profitable is purely based on volume. You also realize that groceries are perishable items right? You also realize these are labor and energy inensive operations right? And that there's tons of competition? And of course shrinkage. There is zero chance that it would operate at a profit or break even. By the way it's been tried before look up Baldwin, Florida or Erie, Kansas for examples of city-run grocery failures. There are others as well.

Lastly, nothing about any of this in any way comparable to NYPD as a budgetary item. Comparing retail food to public safety is just really bizarre.

[cogman10]

Baldwin and Erie were both in small towns. I can't find any information on Erie, but Baldwin ultimately saw a $100->$200k yearly shortfall for a city of 1400.

If they wanted to accommodate that shortfall, then that translates to a $150 yearly tax burden per person. They instead chose to shutter the store.

The stores lost money in both cities, but in the process baldwin sold over $1M in produce breaking even at least once.

> There is zero chance that it would operate at a profit or break even.

The Baldwin example shows that breaking even is definitely possible. And for a city with the population density of NY, it's probably easier to pull off. It's certainly easier to support these stores if there's a shortfall.

> Lastly, nothing about any of this in any way comparable to NYPD as a budgetary item. Comparing retail food to public safety is just really bizarre.

But it is. The NYPD is simply overfunded. They can buy toys and tanks while paying the cops to catch people jumping turnstiles and play candy crush.

A pretty small fraction of the NYPD budget could cover shortfalls. That's why it's brought up. These grocery stores, even if they never turn a profit, won't be costing the city $100M, or $10M. They likely won't even shortfall to $1M. For a city with a budget of billions, adding 1M in is really just a drop in bucket.

And in the process, such a grocery store will help far more people than the average NYPD cop does.

[nobody9999]

>A pretty small fraction of the NYPD budget could cover shortfalls. That's why it's brought up. These grocery stores, even if they never turn a profit, won't be costing the city $100M, or $10M. They likely won't even shortfall to $1M. For a city with a budget of billions, adding 1M in is really just a drop in bucket.

This. A city with not just a budget of "billions" but of USD$116 billion[0].

Even if each of the five pilot stores required USD$1 million in subsidies, that's 0.0000431% of the city budget or USD$0.61 per NY resident. We're definitely going bankrupt over that right?

And if it results in the poorest NYers getting access to cheaper, healthier food, that's good for business (healthier people work more), education (healthier people learn better), healthcare (healthier people consume less healthcare), quality of life (reasonably priced healthy food allows folks to live better lives) and a host of other benefits.

As a NYC resident, I'm happy to give the poorest folks in the city $0.61 a year or even $2.00 a year. Isn't $0.61 a reasonable price to pay for making the lives of thousands of your neighbors demonstrably better?

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

[dboreham]

Was going to say our state had government liquor stores until a couple of years ago. The sky remained in place.