• Mongostein@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    22
    ·
    15 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.

    • sunflowercowboy@feddit.org
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      7
      ·
      7 hours ago

      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.

      • emergencyfood@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        3 hours ago

        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.)