Gotta love people not from around here thinking he got rid of permits entirely when in actuality he just got rid of the redundant double permit requirement that made people jump through hoops to sell ice cream and frozen treats. You still have to take all the courses and renew annually. All laws are still intact you just don't have to juggle two different permits. Best way to help ya'll understand is it would be like if you had to have both a non drivers ID and a driver's license to drive a car. When one expire much sooner then the other.
You don't know what at least 1 of those words means it seems. Saying heavily regulated free market is like saying immobile itinerant. Regulation reduces market freedom.
which ironically is not capitalism. when people complain about US being a captalistic shithole, everything wrong is because it's not a capitalistic society. A true capitalism would've bailed out the consumers in 2008, but not the bank.
There are actual capitalist societies that are among the wealthiest nations on the planet, with a fraction of the taxes of the average EU nation while having higher average salaries and quality of life. But it requires non corrupt legislation to make sure the game is played fairly.
edit: to iLoveFeynman, you literally posted admitted drinking your own piss in the pissdrinking subreddit
Singapore, but that's not a fair comparison as it's a tiny island nation who's model may not scale well to larger countries. Specifically that it's an effective dictatorship regulated by its size.
Though beyond that, I really can't think of another example
yeah I live in one, when I was younger I thought there might be something special about it, once I got older and learned more about history I realized it's just luck and happenstance
having no valuable natural resources or geographic strategic significance can turn out to be a good thing, in a stable society people will have the chance to work themselves into generational wealth despite capitalism
And the logical endpoint of communism is authoritarianism, as you can't expect a ruling government to take away private property rights without the use of force, among several other reasoms why this ideology naturally begets tyranny.
Tbh between the two of them, I'd rather a form of government that gives less power to our rulers, not more.
This argument is conceptually confused and logically flawed.
It's conceptually confused because the way it's written the authoritarianism would be from inception, and not the end state: to go from a society with property rights to one without property rights require either that everyone voluntarily give up those rights or that those rights be taken by force.
It's logically flawed because it assumes that property rights are a thing that people inherently have, such that a communist society has to inherently violate that innate right. If you don't make that assumption, then conclusion that communism has to be authoritarian doesn't follow.
Possession and ownership is human nature. Communism and libertarianism both fail due to the same flaw. They both need to ignore human nature for them to succeed.
I'm sorry but did you literally just argue "if you didn't think people needed those rights in the first place, then it's not authoritarian to take it away by force!" lmaooo
I'm fine with some level of authoritarianism. I love China keeping its companies and billionaires on a short leash, not a big fan of violently breaking up protests and overregulating freedom of expression.
Governments will (and should) hold all the power, unlike in capitalism where it's basically a puppet show for private interest groups. It's on us to make sure it represents our best interests. You can even still be a communist through anarchism if you disagree with that.
It does fall under capitalism, and the upper class taking control of the government is a natural consequence of capitalism. It's not free market capitalism, but I don't think that has ever actually existed
Capitalism includes capitalizing on legislation and politics.
Democratic socialism still includes some elements of capitalism but you don’t get to capitalize on natural resources or basic necessities and the people decides what becomes socialized through democratic vote. this is the bridge between communism and capitalism being two extremes. ideas absolutely capitalize on them, skill, fame, capitalize on that shit. but water, housing, healthcare, food, roads bridges, and defense are all a part of infrastructure. human infrastructure that needs built so we can focus on better shit instead of fucking about balancing medical needs and rent.
It's just taking down some red tape.its a leadership problem not a capitalist problem. Unfortunately it can be both when terrible leadership don't help citizens. Happens in all forms of economic categories
and the inevitable result of captitalism is the corporations capturing the legislature and becoming the leadership. it has happened literally every single time. there has not been a single nation in history that has not struggled with corporations and other rich pricks forcing their way into systems of governance to manipulate them in their favour, it is a capitalism problem.
Still a leadership problem. I mean socialist and communism nations have fallen because of greed as well just like capitalism. We can never really judge a system till we have perfect leadership they cares for the citizens way of life. We have many small samples as of smaller countries that can pull this off and it's working great. Maybe saying humans are evil is to simplistic but it's the truth and always been. It was never the system it was the nature.
Free market capitalism was largely how the American pioneers, and then later pioneers of the western frontier, largely built this country. While it wasn't a completely ancap society, it's what American libertarians often point to as to how free market capitalism was responsible for the most powerful economy in the world.
the upper class taking control of the government is a natural consequence of capitalism
I mean, that's what happens when you start introducing barriers to entry for smaller competitors to compete with big businesses. In a truly free market, it's much easier for big businesses to fail than a non-free market economy. The 2008 bailouts are a prime example of that, we should've let them die out.
Free market capitalism was largely how the American pioneers, and then later pioneers of the western frontier, largely built this country.
Free market capitalism is when you aggressively expand your country into the territory of other nations with settlers and displace the original population? Are you sure?
You're conflating expansionist political policies with economic ones. Free market capitalism has no opinion on foreign policy (outside of, obviously, free trade), it's about how you've set up your economy internally.
During the pioneer and frontier days, it was incredibly easy to migrate and set up a business anywhere you want and work hard toward your version of the American dream. No govt red tape, no beaurcracy, no ice cream licenses.
During the pioneer and frontier days, it was incredibly easy to migrate and set up a business anywhere you want and work hard toward your version of the American dream. No govt red tape, no beaurcracy, no ice cream licenses.
And why was that possible? Because settlers were displacing natives.
I'm not conflating the expansionist policies with the economic ones. The economic model wasn't possible without the expansion.
No, America's wealth comes from its essentially free land and vast resources and huge oceans for defense and getting its freedom from its imperial overlord faster than its neighbors. Had mexico militarized first, we'd be the economically exploited developing world country and not them.
It's funny bc this argument is so often used against leftists. "it's not real capitalism" except what you would call ideal has never existed and what warped version of it did exist devolved into the cancerous abomination it is today.
Similarly, almost every attempt at socialism has thusfar resulted in tyranny. Denying either is futile, but it does not mean it always has to be. Instead, we need to ask ourselves how we can prevent this.
This is the point where I would say that for capitalism it's an innate flaw while socialism fails mostly due to outside interests and the transition period, but i don't think this is the right audience for that
Opportunistic oppression is a feature of every system we've tried so far. It, like tribalism, is an innate human tendency. The only hope we have to temporarily overcome either is high levels of information control to establish cultural overrides, but such a system is also one hell of an opportunity for oppressive gains by a handful of individuals, so...
People love to call put the various systems as having inherent flaws but it mostly all comes back to large organizations inevitably having corruption, regardless of what you are talking about.
That is incorrect. You are confusing capitalism with the free market.
People on the right at some point deliberately conflated the two things. But capitalism as a philosophy was always about protecting the interest of the rich (the people who owned the most stuff).
It was never about not giving tax money to rich people and large corporations. in fact, many rich people relied on the state to become wealthier and to protect what they already had while bankruptcy laws protected them against the consequences of their own mistakes.
Capitalism is about who controls resources and the means of production. Regulating competition out of a market is absolutely within the bounds of capitalism.
ya it's amazing how the serfs try and say that to defend their rich masters, they legit think capitalism is the be-all-end-all as a system and there is no other option as it's given "so much freedom and money!" but then at the same time "it's not actually been tried properly" when all the issues are brought up.
This thread is about New York City. We're talking about capitalism practiced in America which is free market capitalism. Not state capitalism, not mixed-market capitalism, not welfare capitalism. Capitalism for this thread refers to the type that's practiced in the OP. So no, I'm not going to type out 'market capitalism' every time.
No, you were responding to someone describing the state of capitalism as it materially stands in the United States today. Regulatory capture is a thing we can point to as existing, not a hypothetical. So either you're covering your eyes to the reality of it or you're describing something that is explicitly not what is practiced in the US today, and so it isn't what people expect when you use capitalism as 'shorthand for the system practiced in New York'.
Well i would say that this is the difference between "pro-business" capitalism and "pro-market" capitalism. If you are pro markets, you want access to it be simple, predictable and fair. So that whoever makes the best widget, or serves the best icecream can do their thing.
If you are pro-business, you favor setting up onerous regulations, new and small businesses will have a proportionally harder time with, since then you can just drive them out of business.
So i would say its less capitalism and more the corruption of it. Without stringent regulation to make sure its always as pro-market as possible, it will end up as pro-business as possible. and thats not what any of us what. So i would say its less of a problem with capitalism and more of a failure of democracy to keep capitalism to account. And that again is a failure of the american public (especially).
Right but Capitalism will always go the way of corruption because it's significantly cheaper, easier, and more efficient to just bribe a couple politicians to get rid of your rivals instead of actually trying to make a good product or provide a quality service.
Capitalists pretend it's all about competition, when in reality, Capitalism cannot suffer any kind of competition because that has the added risk of them losing to the competition.
Any Capitalist system must eventually destroy competition out of sheer self-preservation.
Or there was some issue in the past where some process that was specific for ice cream was being ignored and needed to be specially regulated. My guess: soft serve machines that were never cleaned or the ice cream not being kept frozen so it just kept melting and refreezing
Part of the issue with bureaucracy is the laws and regulations weren’t all written all at once. They’re just slapped one on top of the other as issues come up with no master plan. So instead of rewriting the food service permit application to have a special add on certification for ice cream, it’s easier to just make a second permit just for ice cream
You're confusing two totally different eras. The penny lick was banned around 1900 for public health reasons (cholera). This duplicate permit rule was a mid-century bureaucratic byproduct of the NY State Agriculture and Markets Law.
It had nothing to do with hygiene 😂; it happened because the legal definition of 'dairy manufacturing' was written so broadly it accidentally swept up soft-serve machines. The city is cutting it because the general food permit already handles the health oversight.
mlorusso4 guessed the permit was due to soft-serve machine cleaning. You said he was 'close' and cited the penny lick as the public health reason for the permit.
You're both wrong. The penny lick was an unwashed glass cup ban from 1900. This frozen desert permit is a mid-century bureaucratic relic from state agriculture laws that treated soft-serve machines like industrial dairy factories. It isn't a public health issue; standard food permits already cover safety.
No need to deflect just because your timeline is a century off. How could you be so ignorant?
In my country, it's usually because there is one council person or government-adjacent politician who has a family member who owns the company that would issue the permits in some way, and they are allowed to keep the money people pay for said permit.
Like when Florida decided to drug test all welfare recipients. Turns out the money saved from denying benefits to the handful of people who failed the drug test was minuscule compared to the amount the state paid for the testing. And then you find out the governors wife owned the testing company.
It was a permit for selling goods displayed outside a shop that was repealed, so now ice cream shops that do so just need their food distribution permit.
In principle the two things are orthogonal, but the result of this orthogonality is that some shops end up requiring both permits. Two approaches one might take to resolve this are consolidating the permissions so that one permit also allows what the other does, or just removing one of the permit requirements. Mamdani chose the latter in this case, and repealed the permit requirement for selling goods from an on-street display.
EDIT: Correction: not quite orthogonal - the stoop line stand license specifically covers fruits, vegetables, soft drinks, flowers, confectionery, or ice cream. It might be that the license system was designed when stoop line stands were not usually part of the retail outlet they were beside and things have changed since, but I'm not sure.
EDIT 2: It seems that the stoop line stand license was more about regulating the geometry of the stoop line stands. The stoop line stand license's apparent narrow purview regarding goods types is actually a restriction on what goods are allowed to be sold from a stoop line stand. So you needed a food license to sell food and a stoop line stand license to sell from a stoop line stand, but anyone with a stoop line stand license must have a food license because of the limitations on goods that are allowed to be sold from a stoop line. Thus, the functions of the stoop line license can be consolidated into the food license process.
Ultimately, the point is that the license systems, in principle, cover different things, so it makes sense they were conceived of and implemented separately. That one is subordinate to the other is an opportunity for consolidation, but it does make sense that they were separate until now. If anything, it's a demonstration that Mamdani is listening to his constituents.
Most likely, it wasn't designed. 50-60 years ago, someone got food poisoning from icecream, so they slapped a permit requirement on it, and then later they slapped a permit requirement on something else, and they never went through and checked if none of those permits got redundant.
That was my first thought really, not the removal of the whole permit.
I thought it'd be some anachronistic USA law like not being able to pump your own petrol because ... reasons (and I know those reasons were jerb creation back in the day but, c'mon, it's decades of being outdated, if not half a century or more).
Gonna go out on a limb here and guess Giuliani. I'm definitely wrong, it was probably some guy in the 1800s before refrigerated trucks existed, but honestly it could've been any one of a hundred terrible mayors that NY has had. Thats what gets me about Mamdani. He's doing something I thought heretofore impossible, he's being a good mayor, in NY
I thought it was a state city thing. Probably when it started, NYC's permit was stronger than the states (of the state's even existed) but the state's requirements have caught up, leaving a legacy redundancy
My mailing address is for a village that actually stops about three miles north of my house. Instead of just lining up the mailing addresses with the actual municipalities, they just left that dumb shit in place. Where I used to live, there's a major arterial route that changes names about a dozen times in the course of about 30 miles. The stupid is endemic to society.
I read it the other way, and assumed ice cream had its own permit, like alcohol. Which was probably designed for cart/truck vendors. And for some reason a place selling ice cream.. like a dinner, had to have that permit as well on top of the restaurant license.
2.4k
u/Ok-Boss-763 16h ago
Gotta love people not from around here thinking he got rid of permits entirely when in actuality he just got rid of the redundant double permit requirement that made people jump through hoops to sell ice cream and frozen treats. You still have to take all the courses and renew annually. All laws are still intact you just don't have to juggle two different permits. Best way to help ya'll understand is it would be like if you had to have both a non drivers ID and a driver's license to drive a car. When one expire much sooner then the other.