this post was submitted on 05 Sep 2023
225 points (98.7% liked)

Canada

7209 readers
496 users here now

What's going on Canada?



Communities


🍁 Meta


πŸ—ΊοΈ Provinces / Territories


πŸ™οΈ Cities / Local Communities


πŸ’ SportsHockey

Football (NFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Football (CFL)

  • List of All Teams: unknown

Baseball

Basketball

Soccer


πŸ’» Universities


πŸ’΅ Finance / Shopping


πŸ—£οΈ Politics


🍁 Social and Culture


Rules

Reminder that the rules for lemmy.ca also apply here. See the sidebar on the homepage:

https://lemmy.ca/


founded 3 years ago
MODERATORS
you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] SCB@lemmy.world 2 points 1 year ago (4 children)

for example through strategic price controls on energy, food, and other key inputs

I don't know why anyone ever takes Jacobin seriously at this point.

The solution to rising food costs is not, in fact, to exacerbate the problem by giving producers a strong incentive to not produce food.

[–] mooniyaw@lemmy.ca 3 points 1 year ago (2 children)

Agreed, the level of concentration in grocery distribution is worse than the telecoms. At this point they need to be broken up and run as non-profits!

[–] Rocket@lemmy.ca 4 points 1 year ago* (last edited 1 year ago)

the level of concentration in grocery distribution is worse than the telecoms.

Telecoms can fall into being natural monopolies for technical reasons, like there only being so much radio spectrum to go around. Grocery distribution, not so much. Literally anyone can start selling groceries right now.

Which, during the height of COVID, when going to restaurant was not allowed, we saw exactly that – a number of restaurants transitioned into being grocery stores.

We had our chance to change our ways. Nobody wanted to. There is concentration in the grocery business because that's what we desire. Plain and simple.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world 1 points 1 year ago

This has nothing to do with price ceilings on food being a universally bad decision.

load more comments (1 replies)