SHOULD FOOD PRICES BE REGULATED TO FIGHT INFLATION?

[SUPERSAIAN]

If you control the food prices, then the farmers and manufacturers will go out of business, which results in less disruption of supply and demand of food prices that will increase the food prices this time not due to inflation but due to the high demand and less availability, do you think this is the solution?

Governments should not intervene in this matter or they should cover the loss made by the farmers that again goes from the tax money and economy will struggle.

Controlling the economy has never been a good thing. Trying to control it on one side only leads to problems elsewhere. Controlling food prices will be bad for producers and businesses. The government should provide incentives to producers to address food prices, provide low-interest loans, and, most importantly, prioritize education.

As education levels increase, so too will food prices, and the economy will improve. Education must be the first priority. Many ignorant farmers lead to a lot of wasted production.

[EFS]

Some food prices are regulated. Basic necessities, like bread already have fixed prices. But regulating all food products is technically impossible and economically wrong. The government should only set minimum and maximum prices for essential goods. When governments can't deal with inflation, they try to keep all prices under control and that kills the free market. It leads to fewer entrepreneurs and a drop in production.

[terrific]

Controlling the economy has never been a good thing. Trying to control it on one side only leads to problems elsewhere. Controlling food prices will be bad for producers and businesses. The government should provide incentives to producers to address food prices, provide low-interest loans, and, most importantly, prioritize education.

As education levels increase, so too will food prices, and the economy will improve. Education must be the first priority. Many ignorant farmers lead to a lot of wasted production.

You're right, controlling prices will lead the producers to stop doing it because it means no profit to them anymore.
But if they're going to help them subsidize the food they produce and help them product it, I think that's a good way of helping the economy and them.
Because if not, there will be capitalists that will come in and will import food from the other countries where they can outsource it and might be cheaper.
That's going to kill the industry and will give a huge problem to the farmers instead of helping them with mass production and food security.

[shield132]

I would say again that it depends on the country. In top countries like France and Germany, food prices aren't very regulated but there is a healthy competitiveness in the market, while in countries similar to mine, there is no healthy competition and food prices are extremely expensive, lots of people only work to eat. My country needs regulation on food because expensive food is the reason why people leave the country and migrate to other countries. Sadly, even regulated market will be abused in my country, so I would say that democracy should be achieved first and the mentality of people should be changed for the better and then there will be no need to regulate food prices, everything will settle well.

[punk.zink]

I would say again that it depends on the country. In top countries like France and Germany, food prices aren't very regulated but there is a healthy competitiveness in the market, while in countries similar to mine, there is no healthy competition and food prices are extremely expensive, lots of people only work to eat. My country needs regulation on food because expensive food is the reason why people leave the country and migrate to other countries. Sadly, even regulated market will be abused in my country, so I would say that democracy should be achieved first and the mentality of people should be changed for the better and then there will be no need to regulate food prices, everything will settle well.

On paper, democracy is portrayed as a system that advances the interests of the masses. But in practice, especially in developing countries, democracy is a utopia (beautiful political language, but in reality it often serves the interests of the upper classes or groups with economic and political access). The bottom of the pyramid (middle and low-income groups), who are most impacted by rising food prices, often lack consolidated political power. They lack the capital, networks, or representation to exert pressure on the government or the market. Meanwhile, major actors in the food supply chain (importers, large distributors, commodity market players) have far more organized economic interests and the ability to influence policy.

If food prices are left entirely to market mechanisms, the group with the strongest bargaining position usually wins. Meanwhile, the common people simply bear the burden of inflation without the power to fight for price stability. This is where the paradox of democracy emerges: everyone has a voice, but not everyone has the same power to shape policy.

So, food price regulation is actually a form of correction for structural inequalities within democracy. With government intervention through temporary price controls, food reserves, or direct aid, the state can serve as a balance of interests, especially for the most vulnerable but politically underrepresented groups. Hopefully, in your country, democracy will no longer be mere discourse, but will truly protect groups that have been voiceless. In an immature democracy and an unequal economic structure, food price regulation is not merely an economic policy, but a mechanism to ensure democracy thrives.

[Oluwa-btc]

This is where the government policy needs to be restrategize to be able to combat the issue of inflation. Let's look at it this way first it's by knowing the cause of inflation if it's really coming from the angle of food then the government can source out ways to outrun that by making sure there'll be sufficient productions of foods by investing in agriculture in large scale, because when this happens the smaller  countries are easily affected by it due to the hike in prices.

[Cgrexp]

Food is one of the basic needs of every human being. When the price increases due to a crisis, it has a negative impact on the livelihood of the people of that country. If there is no balance between demand and supply, then the price of food can increase if the demand is high or the supply is low. Especially when there is a flood or natural disaster, the supply of grains, oil or vegetables decreases and the price increases. Farmers who produce grains in the field do not sell them directly in the market, but these grains change hands with a few traders and come to the market. And here many traders form syndicates. They deliberately reduce the supply of the product and increase the price by making agreements among themselves.

[henmark]

When you regulate anything, you are putting government in charge of it, are you really sure that you want government to be in charge of anything at all? I mean I do not know where you guys are living, but I would like to see government meddle with nothing at all because they are horrible and doing a terrible job of it. Obviously it's a pipe dream to see them do nothing, but it would be better because whatever government touches ends up being terrible.

I would like to see even education and health to be let alone, but I understand it leads to USA type of situation which isn't okay at all, but that's all I am fine with, I think I wouldn't want them to be regulating anything else, just those two is more than enough.

[abhiseshakana]

When you regulate anything, you are putting government in charge of it, are you really sure that you want government to be in charge of anything at all? I mean I do not know where you guys are living, but I would like to see government meddle with nothing at all because they are horrible and doing a terrible job of it. Obviously it's a pipe dream to see them do nothing, but it would be better because whatever government touches ends up being terrible.

I would like to see even education and health to be let alone, but I understand it leads to USA type of situation which isn't okay at all, but that's all I am fine with, I think I wouldn't want them to be regulating anything else, just those two is more than enough.

Are you sure you prefer power to be in the hands of large private actors with no obligations to the public, rather than institutions with accountability mechanisms? In my opinion, placing entire sectors under market mechanisms without the state/total privatization actually returns society to conditions like the colonial era and economic thuggery, where wealthy groups monopolized resources.

Distrust of the state is legitimate, as the reality is that many countries are poor in governance and policy implementation. If the government doesn't regulate anything—including food prices, access to healthcare, education, energy, or vital resources—we are not creating an ideal free market but rather a return to colonial-style power structures.

The absence of the state simply transfers power to actors with capital and socio-economic weapons. Full privatization = natural monopoly. Regulation isn't about giving the government control over everything, but rather ensuring private power doesn't run wild. What's bad is not government intervention, but rather an unaccountable government. The solution is to improve governance, not eliminate the role of the state.

[DrBeer]

Both of raising economic growth factors and regulating and putting the price of the food lower will help the people.

Inflation is a key given factor of all counties. It happens everywhere and so to fight it, the two are ideal things to be done by the government.

It doesn't only fight inflation and help people to deal with it but, it shows that they care for them when they are taking actions that are decreasing the heavy effect of it.

Price regulation is the worst possible approach. It does not solve any problems. The only thing it can do is temporarily lower prices. But after that, goods will simply disappear from store shelves. Manufacturers cannot sell below cost when there is inflation and economic instability in the country.
 
Here's a simple example: you work at a bread factory. The government regulates prices, and the factory owner calls you in and asks: Dear livingfree! At your request, the state has introduced price regulation. Now I can't sell bread at the real price and am forced to sell it at half the cost price. To compensate for this and avoid going bankrupt, I am reducing your salary by 2.5 times. Thank you for your understanding, have a nice day!

What do you say to that?

[livingfree]

Both of raising economic growth factors and regulating and putting the price of the food lower will help the people.

Inflation is a key given factor of all counties. It happens everywhere and so to fight it, the two are ideal things to be done by the government.

It doesn't only fight inflation and help people to deal with it but, it shows that they care for them when they are taking actions that are decreasing the heavy effect of it.

Price regulation is the worst possible approach. It does not solve any problems. The only thing it can do is temporarily lower prices. But after that, goods will simply disappear from store shelves. Manufacturers cannot sell below cost when there is inflation and economic instability in the country.
 
Here's a simple example: you work at a bread factory. The government regulates prices, and the factory owner calls you in and asks: Dear livingfree! At your request, the state has introduced price regulation. Now I can't sell bread at the real price and am forced to sell it at half the cost price. To compensate for this and avoid going bankrupt, I am reducing your salary by 2.5 times. Thank you for your understanding, have a nice day!

What do you say to that?

Of course no.

And what could be worst with that situation is to cut expenses through employees by firing me. That's what they don't look that.

These price controls really are just temporary solutions. Once they see the impact of it to the little men who's behind in the production and supply, they're the ones to likely give up first with what the government likes.

It's a band aid solution.

[DrBeer]

...
Of course no.

And what could be worst with that situation is to cut expenses through employees by firing me. That's what they don't look that.

These price controls really are just temporary solutions. Once they see the impact of it to the little men who's behind in the production and supply, they're the ones to likely give up first with what the government likes.

It's a band aid solution.

And I understand you perfectly well; you don't want to be responsible for any problems with your well-being. But if you look at the big picture, in most cases, an economic crisis is the fault of the government, not business. I understand the situation, for example, with natural disasters, when help from everyone is really important. But I think that in such situations, people themselves begin to help the victims. But if the government itself has driven the economy into collapse, why should the people suffering from this problem pay for it? I can only accept one option: manufacturers maintain the recommended prices, and the state compensates them for these losses or lost profits. Everything else is an attempt to shift responsibility “from the sick head to the healthy head.”

[Cheema02]

Some food prices are regulated. Basic necessities, like bread already have fixed prices. But regulating all food products is technically impossible and economically wrong. The government should only set minimum and maximum prices for essential goods. When governments can't deal with inflation, they try to keep all prices under control and that kills the free market. It leads to fewer entrepreneurs and a drop in production.

You highlight the issues about price regulations very clearly. And in normal conditions basic necessities like bread, medicine and wheat have fixed  prices in the market for a long period of time and during inflation these fixed prices can help a lot of poor families and they efforts it easily but if the government is trying to regulate the prices of all food included necessary foods than its create problem for poor families and also for market because when government trying to take changing in prices its stop the free market and market not works properly and producers earn less profit and many new interpreneurs avoid to invest in market so this situation leads to shortage of stuff and black market prices high. So if the government wants to decrease in inflation then it needs to improve supply chain and productivity.

[M47AK16]

And I understand you perfectly well; you don't want to be responsible for any problems with your well-being. But if you look at the big picture, in most cases, an economic crisis is the fault of the government, not business. I understand the situation, for example, with natural disasters, when help from everyone is really important. But I think that in such situations, people themselves begin to help the victims. But if the government itself has driven the economy into collapse, why should the people suffering from this problem pay for it? I can only accept one option: manufacturers maintain the recommended prices, and the state compensates them for these losses or lost profits. Everything else is an attempt to shift responsibility “from the sick head to the healthy head.”

While it is true that it's regards to government, but we also have to remember who bribes those government people that make those bad decisions as well. Government doesn't ruin a nations economy just because they do not know what they should be doing to fix it, they know how to make the economy stronger, everyone does, but they don't, because those big companies pay the nations for it.

We are talking about Nvidia and Tesla size companies that pays governments hundreds of billions of dollars in investments and "job creation" bribes and in return they ruin your water that is getting already very little with the way the climate is changing. I am sitting at home wit ha shirt, it's December, this was unthinkable 30 years ago, and just because we are not dying right now, people think climate change isn't real.

With water becoming a lot more scarce, water wars are about to happen in a decade or two, and yet for some reason people think that these companies do not bribe the nations to ruin? Of course not, politicians would sell your entire future for a brand new car. Your life, your future, your child's future, means nothing to a corrupt politician.

[DrBeer]

And I understand you perfectly well; you don't want to be responsible for any problems with your well-being. But if you look at the big picture, in most cases, an economic crisis is the fault of the government, not business. I understand the situation, for example, with natural disasters, when help from everyone is really important. But I think that in such situations, people themselves begin to help the victims. But if the government itself has driven the economy into collapse, why should the people suffering from this problem pay for it? I can only accept one option: manufacturers maintain the recommended prices, and the state compensates them for these losses or lost profits. Everything else is an attempt to shift responsibility “from the sick head to the healthy head.”

While it is true that it's regards to government, but we also have to remember who bribes those government people that make those bad decisions as well. Government doesn't ruin a nations economy just because they do not know what they should be doing to fix it, they know how to make the economy stronger, everyone does, but they don't, because those big companies pay the nations for it.

We are talking about Nvidia and Tesla size companies that pays governments hundreds of billions of dollars in investments and "job creation" bribes and in return they ruin your water that is getting already very little with the way the climate is changing. I am sitting at home wit ha shirt, it's December, this was unthinkable 30 years ago, and just because we are not dying right now, people think climate change isn't real.

With water becoming a lot more scarce, water wars are about to happen in a decade or two, and yet for some reason people think that these companies do not bribe the nations to ruin? Of course not, politicians would sell your entire future for a brand new car. Your life, your future, your child's future, means nothing to a corrupt politician.

I disagree, with all due respect!
Giant companies are certainly a source of high-level corruption; it's hard to argue with that. But they also provide many jobs, generate huge taxes, and develop infrastructure. As for environmental pollution, look around you—mining, chemical production, non-eco-friendly packaging, and household goods. And read up on who the main contributors to climate change emissions are. It's not Nvidia or Tesla...

[Bushdark]

This is where the government policy needs to be restrategize to be able to combat the issue of inflation. Let's look at it this way first it's by knowing the cause of inflation if it's really coming from the angle of food then the government can source out ways to outrun that by making sure there'll be sufficient productions of foods by investing in agriculture in large scale, because when this happens the smaller  countries are easily affected by it due to the hike in prices.

When the government is not able to do this, it will jump on the masses and increases inflation on food which is going to definitely affect other industries. Food is the number basic need of many even when we have other basic needs.

Whether you have a cloth to wear or shelter to stay, you will need food on a daily to quench your hunger so that dont steal food so you can stay alive. This is the main reason why the government need to work with the food sector so that they can reduce the price of food in the society even though they need to pay subsidy for it to work efficiently.

[Nothingtodo]

Food price control has become essential in my country, like in other countries around the world, especially since more than half of our monthly income goes to managing food. If 50% of a family's total income goes to managing food, how will the family maintain the remaining expenses? No matter how much the government does to develop agriculture, develop fertilizers, seeds, and develop improved varieties, if it cannot control the prices of food items, it will never be possible for the people of the country to live a normal life. The people of a country continue to live in difficult conditions due to high food prices, rampant inflation, low income, etc. In this situation, the government should control the prices of food items against inflation.

[Stavri]

Food, basic human necessity, must be affordable especially by the poorer citizens & have nots. When the prices of ood spiral, survival becomes difficult and the standard of living reduces. Price control can make the market prices of goods stable even during crisis, such as, drought or wars, preventing inflation and protecting citizens from hunger. Supporters say that government intervention is essential and not just for economic reasons, but for social stability & human dignity. But, critics argue that instead of distorting the market, government should tackle inflation through better farming policies, investment in food production, improved infrastructure and so on. They see regulating prices as treating the symptoms, and not the disease itself.

Needless to say that these arguments are based on the age old doctrines of the classical and Keynesian Economists. Which fo you think is better, should the government regulate food prices in order to fight inflation or raise economic growth factors?

I think governments should focus on preventing poverty rather than suppressing food prices. They should not be regulated.
Because when prices are forced down producers may no longer make a profit. And this is more dangerous. that could lead to a decrease in food production in the country.

[free-bit.co.in]

I think governments should focus on preventing poverty rather than suppressing food prices. They should not be regulated.
Because when prices are forced down producers may no longer make a profit. And this is more dangerous. that could lead to a decrease in food production in the country.

Regulating and stabilizing food prices is also one way to reduce poverty. Because food prices are stable and may even become cheaper, the poor will be able to meet their daily needs at a cheaper cost. From there, they can save more and gradually escape poverty.

What the Government needs to do is stabilize and balance prices, preventing them from rising too high, not force food prices down too low causing businesses to lose profits.

[wozzek23]

When are we going to learn that governments are not going to help the people, they never did, look at the world and look at how nations are ruled and you will see that asking government to do something is a bad mistake. Never been a good idea, and will never be a good one.

Here, we are asking them to regulate, what in reality will happen is they will regulate to benefit the highest bribery payer, if one pays a lot, they will get good regulations, if others don't, government will blackmail with bad regulations. Different countries are having different definition for calculating inflation which must be having different items and if those items are food then regulating food price will obvious impact on inflation.