• chunkystyles
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    arrow-down
    2
    ·
    11 months ago

    Read a history book sometime. It’s been done in the past.

    • Fox@pawb.social
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      3
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      11 months ago

      I’m not sure why you’d advocate for it if you’ve actually read the history, it’s a terrible idea that has failed spectacularly in the past

        • Fox@pawb.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          5
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          11 months ago

          Talking about price controls which are not the same thing at all. Read about the Nixon shock, for example.

          • Ensign_Crab@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            2
            ·
            11 months ago

            Yeah, the relief doesn’t go to agribusiness and might stand a chance of benefiting individual humans, so both parties agree it’s always bad and they’ll never do it.

            • Fox@pawb.social
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              1
              ·
              edit-2
              11 months ago

              Sure, instead it’s true based on a simple observation that the president isn’t using executive power to set an upper limit (price control) on the cost of groceries. A subsidy might reduce the starting price of something but a grocery store can still charge whatever they want for it. Which I’m pretty sure is the whole point of this thread?

      • mlg@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        7
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        11 months ago

        I know about a ton of food subsidies that we’re pretty useful, dunno about groceries though.

        Any source?