SHOULD FOOD PRICES BE REGULATED TO FIGHT INFLATION?

[Ziskinberg]

It's hard to regulate food prices when those factors that are affecting the food prices like pandemics, global trade issues, war and animal and plant disease outbreaks seem to be out of control of the government. So even if they will try to regulate it, prices will eventually bounce back due to different circumstances.

The best solution is, develop your own farming resources. Do not rely on what the government can offer, but if you can grow your own necessities at home, then do it not just to save your family, but also to help other people who can hardly survive in life because of too much expenses.

[JiiBs]

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.

What is there to know is that, there is a cost of production and making certain commodities that are sold available to the public. These are a major cause to the hike in food prices around the world. It doesn’t end in regulating just how much food and food items are sold, it is in the regulating of those channels of distribution, cost of production and we just might find these items a lot more affordable for the masses.

Mind you, those into the sales of these food and food items do need money for the purchase of own needs too and it is the money they generate from these sales that would be used in these purchases and so, they need to sell at a price that allows them to make something for themselves.

[Onyeeze]

Inflation is a dangerous problem capable of causing all sort of issues in a country and a proper control measure should be introduced to avoid hardship and other related issues. And to archive this, price control system should be mitigated and practiced is such a way the poor masses could be able to gain access to the products as at when due because they are the ones responsible for high turn over and should be considered in all.
Considering price control as a strategic point for making life considerable and comfortable, I believe we be a good starting point for all nation.

a hardship is being caused by inflation and the inflation is being caused by lack of governance in a country so if the country is suffering for inflation it means that the Citizens of that particular country is going to face it raw for sufferness so it is people who have the wisdom and the understanding that can escape from such suffering in that country by being independent instead of depending on the government they will establish a business of their own that will make them to survive the inflation, why people who is not innovative and they don't have any strategies to survive will be the one suffering it, when inflation occurs in a country it affect other commodities

[coolcoinz]

Government intervention in food prices? Does that mean capping prices? That's a socialist idea and never leads to anything good. The only way to thrive is to allow markets to run free.

It's actually ridiculous when you think about government regulating food prices to fight inflation that they are causing themselves.
Government dilutes money supply by making more out of thin air. This makes the price of goods and services go up because the value of money goes down. Then the government tells you to ignore this and keep prices steady at your own loss, because you have to pay your workers wages adjusted for inflation, unless we go deeper and cap wages too. You see where this is going? You start regulating the food market, you end up regulating everything.

[Roseline492]

Where there is no government regulations of the prices of food, citizens take advantage of such situations to exploit their counterparts who are not informed about the state of prices of such goods. They form associations and have a common goal which makes it hard for citizens to see the lapses in this, to know that they’re been taken advantage of because of their naiveness and government inability to regulate prices of goods.

Regulation of food price is different from when the market exist without regulations, so nobody or market union can decide to take advantage of the buyers in terms of going against the stipulated price of everything they have passed on the order, regulation is when the government is involved, before price regulation they must have already announce what they would do to any seller if they are using a back way to counter the law, although government would also no about bypassing but you will be surprised how everybody will comply. An inflation of a country will be hardly felt if everybody is not having problem of feeding.

[DrBeer]

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?

Government regulation of pricing is a very delicate and fragile issue.
The problem is that when the government intervenes in market models to solve a problem, it almost always ends up creating even bigger problems.
Let's look at a simple example: you have a bakery where you bake bread. Bread is a social and basic product. You buy grain, you have employees whom you pay wages. You rent the premises for grinding grain into flour and baking.
You pay for electricity and gas. For example, the cost of 1 kg of bread is $1 (I am using this price as an example). And then the government says, starting tomorrow, you must sell bread for $0.50! Tell me, how would you react and what would you do? In the best-case scenario, you would continue to work for some time using your grain and flour reserves and sell them at a loss. But after a while, your costs would exceed your income... Then you will close down, your employees will leave you, and your landlord will evict you from your rented premises.
 
The right option is for the state to buy bread from you at your price and distribute it to those in need, because the state is responsible for its citizens and collects taxes from them. But the state rarely makes such a decision, as it would greatly complicate their lives...

[SuperBitMan]

Where there is no government regulations of the prices of food, citizens take advantage of such situations to exploit their counterparts who are not informed about the state of prices of such goods. They form associations and have a common goal which makes it hard for citizens to see the lapses in this, to know that they’re been taken advantage of because of their naiveness and government inability to regulate prices of goods.

Regulation of food price is different from when the market exist without regulations, so nobody or market union can decide to take advantage of the buyers in terms of going against the stipulated price of everything they have passed on the order, regulation is when the government is involved, before price regulation they must have already announce what they would do to any seller if they are using a back way to counter the law, although government would also no about bypassing but you will be surprised how everybody will comply. An inflation of a country will be hardly felt if everybody is not having problem of feeding.

Yes the only institution or people that can make food regulation work or effective in a country is the government when the government put a price tag on every food item they will also put a punishment for those who will break it or sell higher than that.
Having a price tag for every food item or every goods in a country is very good the reason why some things are very expensive in some countries is because they don't have a price tag and some people usually want to exploit people and make more money for themselves that is why having a price tag for every goods in the country is very important, some countries things are very expensive and not because there government has a bad economy but because they don't have or regulate price of items.

[slapper]

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?

Government regulation of pricing is a very delicate and fragile issue.
The problem is that when the government intervenes in market models to solve a problem, it almost always ends up creating even bigger problems.
Let's look at a simple example: you have a bakery where you bake bread. Bread is a social and basic product. You buy grain, you have employees whom you pay wages. You rent the premises for grinding grain into flour and baking.
You pay for electricity and gas. For example, the cost of 1 kg of bread is $1 (I am using this price as an example). And then the government says, starting tomorrow, you must sell bread for $0.50! Tell me, how would you react and what would you do? In the best-case scenario, you would continue to work for some time using your grain and flour reserves and sell them at a loss. But after a while, your costs would exceed your income... Then you will close down, your employees will leave you, and your landlord will evict you from your rented premises.
 
The right option is for the state to buy bread from you at your price and distribute it to those in need, because the state is responsible for its citizens and collects taxes from them. But the state rarely makes such a decision, as it would greatly complicate their lives...

I understand your bakery example, however, I believe that you are simplifying both government and markets

Price controls can literally destroy supply when they are established under cost without support. I wouldd close my bread shop as well when I was compelled to sell with a loss. But that is not all the tools we have got. As a matter of fact, most governments combine a combination of these: specific subsidies, progressive taxation, public procurement, social nets, temporary price controls

In my opinion, the better question would be: who insures the shock when the price of grain rises?
When it is all consumers only, the poor will skip meals
When it is just small producers, they go under
If it is government only you get deficits you'll have them screaming about later

I am more concerned with captured regulators than with regulation. With industry effectively dictating the rules, you will have counterfeit, legalised extraction, or fake markets

I do not, therefore, subscribe to the government intervenes -> always worse line
It gets worse when things are poorly designed
Good design is rare because it's politically painful and long term thinking which democracies and dictatorships suck at in different ways

[Joy- maker]

It depends on the reason for the inflation.

Sometimes there are events that are out of our control like a natural disaster such as flood that destroys the crops and creates shortage which leads to food price inflation. In these cases the government must intervene and by helping the producers and maybe even covering part of the cost, keep the prices from skyrocketing.

But sometimes the prices are just going up due to inflation itself which is the result of government actions such as printing money due to their budget deficit. In these cases the intervention is bad because it would create more inflation in the long run since the government facing a deficit will have to print even more money to keep food prices low which leads to higher inflation.
In these cases the solution should be fixing the root cause of the problem which was the initial government budget deficit and money printing to cover it up.

As you see the answer to your question is not a simple yes or no. That also means both critics and supporters of it are wrong because as I said it depends on the situation and it has to only be analyzed on a case by case basis.

Am glad we have people like you on this forum who have good knowledge and better understanding on how things work,  and you really made an educative comment above with a lot of sense in it, inflation is a persistent issue in some cases, depending on various economic factors, and what we are actually discussing here  is supply and demand imbalances which is often temporary, and When it comes to this supply and demand imbalances (demand pull inflation) government are not actually the cause of it, because it is already obvious that people are thinking that government are actually the cause of it, but that's not although government also have their way of causing inflation, but natural disasters as you mentioned earlier are what actually cause this supply and demand imbalances, making the price of goods to be expensive in the market.

[DrBeer]

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?

Government regulation of pricing is a very delicate and fragile issue.
The problem is that when the government intervenes in market models to solve a problem, it almost always ends up creating even bigger problems.
Let's look at a simple example: you have a bakery where you bake bread. Bread is a social and basic product. You buy grain, you have employees whom you pay wages. You rent the premises for grinding grain into flour and baking.
You pay for electricity and gas. For example, the cost of 1 kg of bread is $1 (I am using this price as an example). And then the government says, starting tomorrow, you must sell bread for $0.50! Tell me, how would you react and what would you do? In the best-case scenario, you would continue to work for some time using your grain and flour reserves and sell them at a loss. But after a while, your costs would exceed your income... Then you will close down, your employees will leave you, and your landlord will evict you from your rented premises.
 
The right option is for the state to buy bread from you at your price and distribute it to those in need, because the state is responsible for its citizens and collects taxes from them. But the state rarely makes such a decision, as it would greatly complicate their lives...

I understand your bakery example, however, I believe that you are simplifying both government and markets

Price controls can literally destroy supply when they are established under cost without support. I wouldd close my bread shop as well when I was compelled to sell with a loss. But that is not all the tools we have got. As a matter of fact, most governments combine a combination of these: specific subsidies, progressive taxation, public procurement, social nets, temporary price controls

In my opinion, the better question would be: who insures the shock when the price of grain rises?
When it is all consumers only, the poor will skip meals
When it is just small producers, they go under
If it is government only you get deficits you'll have them screaming about later

I am more concerned with captured regulators than with regulation. With industry effectively dictating the rules, you will have counterfeit, legalised extraction, or fake markets

I do not, therefore, subscribe to the government intervenes -> always worse line
It gets worse when things are poorly designed
Good design is rare because it's politically painful and long term thinking which democracies and dictatorships suck at in different ways

I agree that I greatly exaggerated the example, but it is extremely simple and clearly understandable to everyone, unlike complex economic theories and terms
I am also categorically against government price regulation, and as I wrote above, I believe it is more effective to solve the state's problems not at the expense of the population, but by fulfilling the state's responsibility to its citizens, by redirecting part of the budget funds to compensate for “fixed prices,” at the expense of less significant items, or by reducing the costs of maintaining the government itself.
 People already pay taxes to the state their entire lives — from their salaries for goods and services, excise taxes, and other fees... Perhaps the state should behave loyally toward those who, in essence, SUPPORT it and pay their salaries.

[Unknown Op]

I agree that I greatly exaggerated the example, but it is extremely simple and clearly understandable to everyone, unlike complex economic theories and terms
I am also categorically against government price regulation, and as I wrote above, I believe it is more effective to solve the state's problems not at the expense of the population, but by fulfilling the state's responsibility to its citizens, by redirecting part of the budget funds to compensate for “fixed prices,” at the expense of less significant items, or by reducing the costs of maintaining the government itself.
 People already pay taxes to the state their entire lives — from their salaries for goods and services, excise taxes, and other fees... Perhaps the state should behave loyally toward those who, in essence, SUPPORT it and pay their salaries.

Food prices are different in different countries. People are facing different conditions and food is the item which is necessary of all human because nobody could alive without food. In every country food price fluctuate due to government rules and subsides because we saw Many times when government gave subsidy to the common people and whole burden was up on the government. People are living in south, east , West and they are poor , middle class or rich And they are becoming rich and they have money to eat but they want to save because food prices are high for poor people. Inflation is common in all country but percentage of inflation always matters a lot but when born in poor country and you are doing work in rich country.

[DrBeer]

I agree that I greatly exaggerated the example, but it is extremely simple and clearly understandable to everyone, unlike complex economic theories and terms
I am also categorically against government price regulation, and as I wrote above, I believe it is more effective to solve the state's problems not at the expense of the population, but by fulfilling the state's responsibility to its citizens, by redirecting part of the budget funds to compensate for “fixed prices,” at the expense of less significant items, or by reducing the costs of maintaining the government itself.
 People already pay taxes to the state their entire lives — from their salaries for goods and services, excise taxes, and other fees... Perhaps the state should behave loyally toward those who, in essence, SUPPORT it and pay their salaries.

Food prices are different in different countries. People are facing different conditions and food is the item which is necessary of all human because nobody could alive without food. In every country food price fluctuate due to government rules and subsides because we saw Many times when government gave subsidy to the common people and whole burden was up on the government. People are living in south, east , West and they are poor , middle class or rich And they are becoming rich and they have money to eat but they want to save because food prices are high for poor people. Inflation is common in all country but percentage of inflation always matters a lot but when born in poor country and you are doing work in rich country.

I completely agree with you that prices for the same products vary from country to country, and that's normal. I have been to virtually every continent and have seen this for myself.  The reason is simple: the final price of a product includes not only the basic cost of the raw materials, but also a host of other costs, such as taxes, salaries, the use of automated systems or manual labor, and much more.
Therefore, in poor countries, basic food products (and we are talking about them) are low in price. Or, more correctly, the cost of basic products is approximately proportional to the standard of living in the country, although there are exceptions, but that's another story. But I must say that in developed countries, the state tries to keep food prices low for its citizens, but this is achieved through taxes and subsidies.

[SmartGold01]

If I am not mistakenly there were some agency that sent within our state to check and compare food prices across the various and major market within our state, and across the state to regulate the price to make sure they are not too expensive and higher for the others to purchase it. Food is one of the major which people need to consume on their daily basis to live as humans, so food prices should be look into to reduce overcosting.

[DYING_S0UL]

If I am not mistakenly there were some agency that sent within our state to check and compare food prices across the various and major market within our state, and across the state to regulate the price to make sure they are not too expensive and higher for the others to purchase it. Food is one of the major which people need to consume on their daily basis to live as humans, so food prices should be look into to reduce overcosting.

Things like this are available in every other country! Market monitoring is essential if you wanna keep the prices stable! Where I'm from, unfortunately these monitoring agencies are not 100% efficient. Even after several raid, arrests, jails, fines, discussion, awareness campaigns, greedy vendors are manipulating the prices, by stocking up the goods and releasing less than the demand. Which ultimately leads to food prices being too high, unbearable for the general people to consume. What we need at this moment, is a stricter rules and punishment and increasing manpower to monitor the market properly!

[Fortify]

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?

Trying to regulate any goods market is fraught with difficulties and the food market is probably the worst of them all, because it's perishable. So many attempts have been tried and failed, often resulting in far worse waste outcomes or unbalanced deals. You might end up paying farmers too much, distorting the market towards certain items which wouldn't necessarily be grown, or paying them too little which means they shut down and the food situation can escalate. Even on single goods like rice, unless the government is producing it - they're notoriously inefficient by default - then they will not have a good understanding of the requirements. It's an idea that sounds nice in principal but just doesn't work well in practice.

[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.

[Woodie]

If it's a free market economy and the government starts to control prices ... It could be a bad idea in the long term because firstly the farmers that actually know how much resources are needed to produce this food would feel it's a waste of time venturing in this industry especially if market price is below cost of production, then it wouldn't make economical sense for producers despite being a good deal for the consumer's.

Best approach is tax cuts, incentives on farming equipment and anything related in those lines.

[~speedx~]

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 will call this idea a flop idea here that fighting inflation by regulating food prices, because it may only make the situation look like inflation is decreasing for a short period but after a while it will no longer work and will again take on a more dangerous form. It may be that the government of a country has taken such measures to appease its political resistance. However, overall, to eliminate inflation from a country, the corruption of that country must first be suppressed and the black markets must be closed.

[hyudien]

Regulating food prices can have an effect, but only temporarily and cannot combat food inflation. In the long term, the government needs to invest significantly, improve agricultural infrastructure, and fully support farmers with policies that benefit them, as this will increase productivity and growth.
These two approaches have their advantages; it's best to use both, as successful countries are those that use both in balance.

[Makus]

There're many people that are dealing with challenges, the price of food affects and not being able get what they want makes it even worse. When it comes to inflation a lot of things can be done to regulate it. Like I said, this isn't the only need thing that needs of immediate attention. The price of goods is the reason why a lot of things are expensive ...inflation can ge tackled when these areas are being taken care of..in my country one of the reasons why food is expensive is due to the price of petrol which affects transportation of goods at an affordable amount. If the government can this problem it is going to be of help to citizens