• gaiussabinus@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    3 months ago

    So you spend taxes for product at market rate and then depress the price using your money? The government doesn’t make anything so it would need to acquire the materials with some kind of cost that will always come from the tax base 100% of the time.

    • CrimeDad@lemmy.crimedad.workOP
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      There’s no reason the government can’t produce things, but, to your point, the stockpiles would be built up when prices are low and only sold off when prices start increasing too quickly. The program might still operate at a net loss, but that’s okay if it successfully protects working class people from price gouging.

    • hotelbravo722@slrpnk.net
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      3 months ago

      I agree the money is going to come from the monetary supply and government acting as buyer and distributor of goods would be incredibly problematic. A subsidy of some kind for domestic production + placing a max profit markup IMO would be a more effective method.

      • gaiussabinus@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        3 months ago

        What your suggesting had been done, and it causes a price floor and the formation of a black market 100% of the time. This is not a solution.

        • hotelbravo722@slrpnk.net
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 months ago

          Then perhaps reforming the commons? Agricultural land & surplus are owned in common by the people who live in the area. Government pays for the production of those food stuffs and only gets a nominal % tax on the surplus.

          • gaiussabinus@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            3
            ·
            3 months ago

            The Soviets tried that and it is the root cause of some of the most serious famines ever seen. Not a good idea. Government, by its nature, is an inefficiency engine. You want the government in the picture as little as possible. This increases that and will cause more inequality not less.

            • hotelbravo722@slrpnk.net
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              3 months ago

              Who said Gov is an inefficiency engine? That sounds more like neo-liberal dogma then actual peer reviewed work.

            • davel [he/him]@lemmy.ml
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              3 months ago

              The Soviets tried that and it is the root cause of some of the most serious famines ever seen.

              There was one famine, and it happened near the beginning of the Soviet Union’s history, after a civil war. And this was a country where for centuries under tsarist rule famines had been a common occurrence. What the Soviet Union did was end famines.

              Government, by its nature, is an inefficiency engine.

              This sounds like neoliberal Road to Serfdom nonsense. Inefficient compared to what, the invisible hand?

              This increases that and will cause more inequality not less.

              Inequality in Russia has risen since the fall of the Soviet Union. Are you unaware of the shock therapy that befell many of the Warsaw pact states? As shock therapist Jeffrey Sachs will tell you, the reason Poland was the sole “success story” is that the US chose to allow it to be a success.