• sunflowercowboy@feddit.org
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    28
    arrow-down
    7
    ·
    8 hours ago

    Government should probably provide the cheapest food and set the standard.

    However ideology like this leads to issues in reality.

    If a competitor gets lower prices would hint at some questionability. Government correction becomes suppression. Suppression leads to . . .?

    • Mongostein@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      11
      ·
      3 hours ago

      Uhh what?

      It’s called competition. Having a competitor in the market who’s goal is to keep people fed instead of making money hand over fist would both bring prices down and bring quality up on higher priced items.

      If we have to do capitalism, let’s get some not-for-profit competition happening.

    • 3abas@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      2 hours ago

      However ideology like this leads to issues in reality.

      Issues for who? The consumer? Or the capitalists?

      If a competitor gets lower prices would hint at some questionability.

      It would hint that it’s a shitty product, presuming no foul play by the government and the product is not overpriced (doesn’t appear to be).

      Government correction becomes suppression. Suppression leads to . . .?

      Government correction how? From suppression I think you mean lowering their price? The scenario you’re laying out doesn’t make sense.

      The point of this kind of product is to be the baseline, no capitalist should be able to afford to offer the same product for less, because the government already has the lowest possible margin.

      You start by making a better product, and you can charge whatever people decide the improved product is worth. It’s a good thing that an asshole capitalist can’t market a $7 bar of chocolate when a very good quality one is $1. At that price difference, your chocolate better be amazing.