• undercrust@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    10 months ago

    You’re right, what HAS the Trudeau government done about something it has nothing to do with?!?

    AND WHY HAVEN’T THEY DONE IT YET?!?

    Look into dairy controls and egg quotas. Shit we even had the Canadian Wheat Board until 2015. Price controls in Canada have been in place for decades.

    Government doesn’t gouge you for profits; Loblaws, Metro, Empire, and other for-profit grocery companies do. Hell, the Loblaws/Weston cartel secretly fixed high prices for bread for years, gouging consumers to line their pockets.

    Unless you’re suggesting that the entire food production chain and grocery stores are nationalized, there’s pretty much sweet fuck all the government CAN do. If you’re going to throw blame around, at least educate yourself about what causes inflation first and blame the right people. Otherwise it’s just a shrill straw man argument.

    • Rodeo@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      4
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      10 months ago

      Uh how about they break up the dairy and egg cartels and abolish quotas so there can be some real fucking competition.

      You literally listed dairy quotas in your comment as if it’s a good thing. It’s anti competitive, plain and simple, and guess who has the jurisdiction to deal with anti competitive business practices on a national scale.

      • undercrust@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        3
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        10 months ago

        Oh, totally it’s anti-competitive, and I don’t disagree with you, but we were talking anti-inflationary / price stability measures. It’s not a good solution (we regularly pay more for milk and eggs), but it does keep the price from jumping around, and for-profit companies from price gouging.

      • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        2
        ·
        9 months ago

        Conservatives would be even less likely to abolish the quotas. Their main voters are farmers, which benefit the most without having to compete as much.

      • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        9 months ago

        Do that and we’ll instead have to subsidize the industry like it’s done elsewhere. We’ll also see the rise of even bigger producers that will buy smaller producers and a huge increase in the waste of dairy products and eggs. Prices would start fluctuating a lot more instead of being fairly stable compared to most things found in groceries.

        Stop blaming the government (especially the federal one as it has less power over things that affect the population directly) and start looking at the profits made by grocery stores, that’s where you’ll find your money.

    • TotallyHuman@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      4
      ·
      10 months ago

      Corporations serve society, not visa versa. If lighter measures do not work, nationalize 'em all. (Many lighter measures have not yet been tried.)

      PP would be worse, though.

      • karlhungus@lemmy.ca
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        7
        ·
        10 months ago

        In my experience corporations serve their shareholders (and maybe board and executive s).

        • Kecessa@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          9 months ago

          Their point is that it’s the corporations job to serve society, not the contrary, and if they don’t do their job (like you said) they should be nationalized.

          • karlhungus@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            9 months ago

            We might live better if this were true (maybe not), but it is not at all their job. Neither is it our job to serve them.

              • karlhungus@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                9 months ago
                1. You are free to not spend money there
                2. If you took this logic and turned it around, i could see an argument saying the moment you stop helping society why should we let you exist

                I agree that in the best interests of having a pleasant place to live, or elected officials should force them to sell at not so great a profit. I feel like “they shouldn’t be allowed to exist” is a poor way to put it.