this post was submitted on 31 Aug 2023
128 points (87.2% liked)

Asklemmy

43520 readers
2225 users here now

A loosely moderated place to ask open-ended questions

Search asklemmy ๐Ÿ”

If your post meets the following criteria, it's welcome here!

  1. Open-ended question
  2. Not offensive: at this point, we do not have the bandwidth to moderate overtly political discussions. Assume best intent and be excellent to each other.
  3. Not regarding using or support for Lemmy: context, see the list of support communities and tools for finding communities below
  4. Not ad nauseam inducing: please make sure it is a question that would be new to most members
  5. An actual topic of discussion

Looking for support?

Looking for a community?

~Icon~ ~by~ ~@Double_A@discuss.tchncs.de~

founded 5 years ago
MODERATORS
 

rt, will you ban it?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[โ€“] kava@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

I think government should be a strong regulator in terms of breaking up monopolies. I also agree that the subsidies impact the free market. It's a bit of a complicated subject because price of food being volatile has often led to revolutions in the past.

So governments have a lot of incentive to subsidize food staples like corn or dairy. Without the subsidies we may see a sharp increase in inflation, at least temporarily. And whichever administration carries this out is virtually guaranteed to lose the next election.

Perhaps a better solution is instead of subsidies, we have a sort of basic command economy for staples while still allowing a private market for luxury food items. Not sure. Haven't thought about this much.

I don't like subsidies because groups that get fat off government's teat end up buying up our politicians and we start looking more like China where private & state power become intertwined. But maybe it's a necessary evil when it comes to food, I'm not sure.