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.
In an ideal world, yes that would be the competition. However, in reality if the governance sets the standard, they can have almost always the cheapest prices. Wide reach, built transportation systems and probably incentivized contracts. Essentially everything that fucked up India with the British during ww2.
Well if another company can go lower, it inherently implies they are skimping somewhere so quality is lost or regulations circumvented. Any government correction can overstep.
Go start your not-for-profit competition. Farm for yourself, grow crops at home, reduce your footprint. Find community in your neighborhood.
However, in reality if the governance sets the standard, they can have almost always the cheapest prices. Wide reach, built transportation systems and probably incentivized contracts.
Yes, and yes, but why are either of these a bad thing? Cheap, good quality food seems like a good thing to me.
Essentially everything that fucked up India with the British during ww2.
If the British provided cheap food, they could actually have avoided the Bengal famine. (Unless you mean some other fuckup I’m not aware of.)
I never said they are a bad thing. I am saying it is forfeiting a lot to the governance - seizing the means of production to them.
The bengali famine was a multifaceted issue, however primarily it was the contracts and forced control of the British. In which they withhold food availability for war time embargos along with a focus on textile farming. All the contractees then essentially focused on money rather than food, as that was the profit of a contract.
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.
In an ideal world, yes that would be the competition. However, in reality if the governance sets the standard, they can have almost always the cheapest prices. Wide reach, built transportation systems and probably incentivized contracts. Essentially everything that fucked up India with the British during ww2.
Well if another company can go lower, it inherently implies they are skimping somewhere so quality is lost or regulations circumvented. Any government correction can overstep.
Go start your not-for-profit competition. Farm for yourself, grow crops at home, reduce your footprint. Find community in your neighborhood.
Yes, and yes, but why are either of these a bad thing? Cheap, good quality food seems like a good thing to me.
If the British provided cheap food, they could actually have avoided the Bengal famine. (Unless you mean some other fuckup I’m not aware of.)
I never said they are a bad thing. I am saying it is forfeiting a lot to the governance - seizing the means of production to them.
The bengali famine was a multifaceted issue, however primarily it was the contracts and forced control of the British. In which they withhold food availability for war time embargos along with a focus on textile farming. All the contractees then essentially focused on money rather than food, as that was the profit of a contract.