Price of food gone up
Nofbar:
A key takeaway of this is while prices might be fixed to deal with high prices, supply will necessarily go down. Why produce a good if you're not going to be paid for doing so?
A key takeaway of this is while prices might be fixed to deal with high prices, supply will necessarily go down. Why produce a good if you're not going to be paid for doing so?
The supply will go down if the cost of production goes up, while prices remain fixed. If the cost of production (what needs to be done for one unit of out put) remains more or less the same, then the supply of food will remain more or less the same. A solution for this, is a price & wage freeze will stop any inflation the moment it is implemented. Nixon did this and it was sucesfull! It did have side-effects but it immedientaly stopped the inflation, and economic activity remained pretty stable.
But your point is of concern only in a market economy. If the production and distribution of food were to be planned by the state, based on the total needs for food of the population that it governs (plus some extra to be safe) meaning, state enterprises that have the priority of output (and not profits from sales) then the issue youre proposing simply does not exist.
There are other issues in that case, notably that the state will have a lot of power in its hands and may decide to use it to coerse people to do all short of things, but thats a completely seperate issue.
To deal with it, nontheless, i want to begin by saying that there is no easy solution for this. All solutions are beyond the comfort zone of the people, so they will simply not vote for them. They are more likely to even self destruct that way. Either they will have to be brave and at least try to learn what theory is beyond neoliberalism (and i dont care if it carries the tag "progressive" or "concervative" because either of them is neoliberalism) or the solution will have to be enacted without popular consent (which limits how much they can be scaled up).
The solution i would prefer requires basically a complete overhall of the political economy (which is what makes it hard). I think that the production of goods and services should happen within worker cooperatives (that is to abolish the dychotomy of employers vs employees) and those cooperatives should operate in the context of a bottom-up planned economy. Decision making should happen through debates that will follow the Hegelian dialectic, not majority voting. And the primary principle should be the "From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs".
This is possible and we know because it is already done! Here is a good video that explains this:
There are lots of false arguments against it, but i want you to understand that all the people who say "this is impossible" or "it can never be done in a large scale" are people who also think that free will is a reality. And our entier political system has been based on this hypothesis, which has never been proved to be true. In fact psychology exists because the oposite is true. Peoples' wills are explainable, to some heavy degree, therefore deterministic. If someone chooses to believe whatever is more comfortable to accept, rather than first analyze whats actually going and then conclude, then that person is delusional.
To conclude, most people who would opose the proposal i made, not on the basis that its difficult but on the basis that its impossible, that we should not even attempt to get to it, are either delusional or try to delude you.
Sorry if i sound harsh but this topic is handled by people based on what they believe, which are fantasies and lies, not reality. And we need, as in any other science, to examine reality. Not to decide based on a fantasy.
3 months
