649 years ago, a prominent Muslim scholar warned us about Mayor Mamdani’s ideas
A Fox News opinion piece argues that New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani's plan for city-owned grocery stores echoes warnings made 649 years ago by the 14th-century Muslim scholar Ibn Khaldun, whose 1377 work the Muqaddimah described a historical pattern in which governments that subsidise and enter commerce directly end up undermining private enterprise, shrinking the tax base and weakening the state. The author, who studied Islamic political thought in Cairo, uses Khaldun's analysis to criticise Mamdani's proposal as economically self-defeating, arguing it will distort competition, drive out independent grocers and ultimately harm the city's finances rather than help residents facing high food costs.
The piece explains that Mamdani's plan calls for one city-owned grocery store in each of New York's boroughs, with the first due to open in the Bronx in 2027 and further stores by the end of his term; the city would own the land, fund construction with tens of millions of dollars already allocated, waive rent and taxes, and subsidise staple goods to sell around 30% below typical retail prices, while a private operator handles daily management under city rules. The author quotes Khaldun directly on the dangers of rulers engaging in commerce, and notes the irony that Mamdani, son of a scholar of postcolonial societies, might be expected to be familiar with such historical warnings, concluding that the scheme risks compounding New York's existing high costs and business flight rather than easing them.
- Op-ed likens Mamdani's city-grocery plan to 14th-century scholar's warnings
- Ibn Khaldun argued state commerce undermines private business and tax revenue
- First city-owned store planned for the Bronx in 2027, others to follow
New here? Start with this
Ibn Khaldun was a 14th-century North African scholar and historian, best known for the Muqaddimah, an early work of social and economic theory written in 1377. In it, he set out patterns he observed in how states rise and fall, including the idea that when rulers or governments start competing directly with private traders and merchants, it can squeeze out private business over time and ultimately weaken the state's own finances.
Zohran Mamdani is the Mayor of New York City, and one of his policies is a plan for the city itself to own and run grocery stores, starting with one in the Bronx, as a way of addressing high food prices for residents. Under the proposal, the city would provide land and construction funding, waive rent and taxes on the stores, and subsidise the price of basic goods, while day-to-day running would be handled by a private operator following city rules.
This background matters because the article in question connects these two things, using Khaldun's centuries-old observations about government involvement in trade as a lens through which to assess Mamdani's grocery store plan. It reflects a broader, ongoing debate about the merits and risks of public versus private provision of everyday goods and services in cities facing high living costs.
Both sides, in good faith
The strongest fair case each way — we don't pick a winner.
The case for
Supporters argue that city-owned grocery stores are a targeted, modest intervention (one per borough) aimed squarely at food deserts and high grocery prices that private supermarkets have not solved on their own, particularly in underserved neighbourhoods like the Bronx. Because the stores need not turn a profit, they argue, the city can pass savings directly to residents on essentials, acting as a public option that puts competitive pressure on private retailers to lower prices rather than replacing them outright. They point out that day-to-day operations remain in private hands under city rules, which they see as a pragmatic hybrid that borrows market efficiency while directing public resources towards affordability for low-income families. To them, this is no different in principle from public utilities or transit systems filling gaps the private market leaves unaddressed.
The case against
Critics, drawing on the historical pattern the article cites, argue that when government enters commerce with rent waivers, tax exemptions and construction subsidies, it does not merely compete with private grocers but competes unfairly, since independent stores must still pay the rent, taxes and overheads their city-backed rival is excused from. They contend this risks driving out small grocers who cannot match subsidised prices, ultimately narrowing consumer choice and shrinking the very tax base the city relies on to fund services. They further argue that tens of millions of dollars in construction costs and ongoing subsidies represent a significant fiscal gamble on a venture prone to the inefficiencies and political pressures that public enterprises often face, and that more targeted measures, such as direct food assistance or incentives for private grocers to open in underserved areas, would address affordability without distorting the broader market.