SHOULD FOOD PRICES BE REGULATED TO FIGHT INFLATION?

[hafiztalha]

Price controls sound good on paper, but they usually backfire imo. If you cap food prices, producers lose incentive, shortages happen, and black markets pop up. Inflation isn’t fixed by hiding prices, it’s fixed by fixing money supply and production.

It depends on how it is managed, sir. If it is managed well, how to regulate food prices by adjusting supply and demand is what the government must pay attention to. Open price regulation means covering the original price but making a standard price that is affordable for the community, so the government basically initiates adjustments so that the inequality in prices that the community can afford with the capital spent by producers is fairly balanced and the economy continues to run well in a country.

Food price should be low in the country in which we are living because we need food to survive which is high in demand. If prices of food are high then rich people have benefits because they will start after that because they will get more profit at that time. But poor people have no opinion to do job and they have limited money and they want less money usage and if food prices are high then they will not be able to save money for the future. Food supply is limited and every country want the food prices low but business owner want more profit and they are selling the goods to the foreign countries and in the result food prices are high in the country and poor people are in depression because they have no future.

[passwordnow]

It's sad that there are rich agricultural countries and yet, their people are the ones struggling to make ends meet because of how inflation hits them and how pricey their food are. That doesn't help to fight inflation and it keeps on adding more impact to it because it's making people suffer due to the third parties involved with logistics, middlemen and other people involve in this trade. That's why government should be the one to be accountable for its impact and they should allow no party to get involved if it's about food production. Or if they do, they need a thorough process for approval.

[khiholangkang]

Price controls sound good on paper, but they usually backfire imo. If you cap food prices, producers lose incentive, shortages happen, and black markets pop up. Inflation isn’t fixed by hiding prices, it’s fixed by fixing money supply and production.

It depends on how it is managed, sir. If it is managed well, how to regulate food prices by adjusting supply and demand is what the government must pay attention to. Open price regulation means covering the original price but making a standard price that is affordable for the community, so the government basically initiates adjustments so that the inequality in prices that the community can afford with the capital spent by producers is fairly balanced and the economy continues to run well in a country.

Food price should be low in the country in which we are living because we need food to survive which is high in demand. If prices of food are high then rich people have benefits because they will start after that because they will get more profit at that time. But poor people have no opinion to do job and they have limited money and they want less money usage and if food prices are high then they will not be able to save money for the future. Food supply is limited and every country want the food prices low but business owner want more profit and they are selling the goods to the foreign countries and in the result food prices are high in the country and poor people are in depression because they have no future.

There must be an economic index to consider to understand this. We can't keep food prices as low as possible because there are price adjustments for other parties, such as farmers themselves. If prices are too low, how will farmers survive, given the high cost of agricultural maintenance? This situation is truly confusing. The key to finding affordable prices, or prices that the people can afford, is that governments generally assess price adjustments based on the purchasing power index. Therefore, there is always a minimum wage for workers in a region.

The current logic is not cheap prices, but affordable prices.

[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?

I have a couple of questions for clarification.
1. Tell me, at whose expense should the state regulate food prices? Let me clarify: food has a cost price, and it can rise, yes, that's a normal process. So here's the question: if, for example, the cost price of bread is 10 units of currency, then in order to set a maximum price of 5 units of currency, the state must pay the producer the difference, otherwise the producer will simply not produce bread.
2. Are you willing to pay additional taxes to pay for these compensation mechanisms?
3. Where does the state get the money? I am interested in your ideas on this issue.

[|MINER|]

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 would like to say here that we cannot survive by fighting inflation by regulating food prices alone. Apart from regulating food prices, we also need to eliminate other factors that are mainly responsible for increasing inflation in our economy.
For example, providing employment through which unemployment will be eliminated and at the same time increasing the amount of exports rather than imports, of course, after meeting the needs of the country, so I would say in this case that food prices are regulated at a very low percentage, which is basically not able to fully combat inflation.

[DeeppRockk]

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 would like to say here that we cannot survive by fighting inflation by regulating food prices alone. Apart from regulating food prices, we also need to eliminate other factors that are mainly responsible for increasing inflation in our economy.
For example, providing employment through which unemployment will be eliminated and at the same time increasing the amount of exports rather than imports, of course, after meeting the needs of the country, so I would say in this case that food prices are regulated at a very low percentage, which is basically not able to fully combat inflation.

You're absolutely right that tackling inflation isn't just about slapping price controls on groceries. That's a start, but it can backfire badly if we're not careful. Think about it: if you make essentials super cheap artificially, stores might just run out, or worse, stuff starts selling under the table for way more. Its a mess.

So, we need smarter tools. Getting the balance right between what's available and what people want is key. Maybe offering better deals for farmers to sell overseas? That could help keep shelves full here at home without wrecking their profits. But honestly, keeping prices steady on the basics families need every day usually means doing specific things *and* fixing bigger economic problems at the same time. Its not a magic bullet, more like using different wrenches for different bolts.

[|MINER|]

You're absolutely right that tackling inflation isn't just about slapping price controls on groceries. That's a start, but it can backfire badly if we're not careful. Think about it: if you make essentials super cheap artificially, stores might just run out, or worse, stuff starts selling under the table for way more. Its a mess.
So, we need smarter tools. Getting the balance right between what's available and what people want is key. Maybe offering better deals for farmers to sell overseas? That could help keep shelves full here at home without wrecking their profits. But honestly, keeping prices steady on the basics families need every day usually means doing specific things *and* fixing bigger economic problems at the same time. Its not a magic bullet, more like using different wrenches for different bolts.

You are also right, I have already said that the biggest role that a country can play in eliminating INFLATION is to increase the amount of exports of that country, but we must meet our own needs and then do it.
Then another thing that will play the biggest role in creating inflation is to suppress corruption in that country. If I talk about one point here, then all the reasons for money laundering must be suppressed first and if these are done in stages, the INFLATION rate will definitely start decreasing gradually.

[abhiseshakana]

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 have a couple of questions for clarification.
1. Tell me, at whose expense should the state regulate food prices? Let me clarify: food has a cost price, and it can rise, yes, that's a normal process. So here's the question: if, for example, the cost price of bread is 10 units of currency, then in order to set a maximum price of 5 units of currency, the state must pay the producer the difference, otherwise the producer will simply not produce bread.
2. Are you willing to pay additional taxes to pay for these compensation mechanisms?
3. Where does the state get the money? I am interested in your ideas on this issue.

I don't think food price control about choosing laizes faire or command economy, it is about government present to protect citizen from starvation. Government must not replace the market but they mustn't also only be audience if market can not provide food with affordable/reasonable price. My country has mixed economy system, control of food price has practiced but using price management not extreem or strict control. Rice is staple food in my country. Problem on rice supply and  price can cause political and social pressure, thats why government do intervention on rice price not hand rice price fully into market. Government controling rice price by applied benchmark price (floor price and ceiling price), government regulate price temporalily, not all commodities and has flexibility response to market condition. There are specific institution who handle this named (BULOG = The State Logistics Agency) they play role as market stabilizer, ensuring goverment rice and food supply, do direct intervention on food price especially rice, they also do price subsidies to stabilize price.

[Knight Hider]

Government creates inflation. Think about that. Regulating food prices does not address the problem: government itself.

[Localhostspeed]

It's sad that there are rich agricultural countries and yet, their people are the ones struggling to make ends meet because of how inflation hits them and how pricey their food are. That doesn't help to fight inflation and it keeps on adding more impact to it because it's making people suffer due to the third parties involved with logistics, middlemen and other people involve in this trade. That's why government should be the one to be accountable for its impact and they should allow no party to get involved if it's about food production. Or if they do, they need a thorough process for approval.

Agriculture is the only thing any country can rely on and build their country as independent country but some of this countries that are blessed with agriculture fertile lands has other natural mineral resources deposit in abundance, they have crude oil, plenty of Gold, they also have silver, they have some countries that are rich with diamonds, some countries are bless with Lithium and many more, due to the existence of this natural resources they have become lazy.

My country is an example of one, we are bless with natural resources and one of them is crude oil. This crude oil is the reason why each region have common interests for power. They will promised the common man all kind of things but when it's time to execute this promises, they turn blind eye and do what they like, some of them don't even care about the basic things they need to provide for people, some even go there and loot the public tax through project developments, this is why many countries remain backward forever.

[Jateng]

It's sad that there are rich agricultural countries and yet, their people are the ones struggling to make ends meet because of how inflation hits them and how pricey their food are. That doesn't help to fight inflation and it keeps on adding more impact to it because it's making people suffer due to the third parties involved with logistics, middlemen and other people involve in this trade. That's why government should be the one to be accountable for its impact and they should allow no party to get involved if it's about food production. Or if they do, they need a thorough process for approval.

It's important for parents to teach the upcoming young generation how to deal with personal problems. Some parents out of pampering do not inform their children about the coming responsibilities. Most parents try to solve every problem of their child themselves. In this way the child is not properly corrected and such children start to dominate others and try to live their lives without working hard.You are right. There is a certain age when a child is raise that parents should protect him from every problem

[Emeraldo]

It is essential to have a society where the poor of the poorest can be able to afford a meal, food is supposed to be one of the most accessible things that can be where everyone can be able to afford a meal. Inflation is not supposed to affect food if the government is concerned about food production and regulation.
Also everyone knows that the system of government doesn't really care about the citizens so it is important to face the future straight up and get the mindset that everyone is responsible for him or herself and you owe yourself the responsibility to provide for yourself at Everytime and mind you wether the price of things are favorable or not you will definitely have to provide for yourself and family.

[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?

I have a couple of questions for clarification.
1. Tell me, at whose expense should the state regulate food prices? Let me clarify: food has a cost price, and it can rise, yes, that's a normal process. So here's the question: if, for example, the cost price of bread is 10 units of currency, then in order to set a maximum price of 5 units of currency, the state must pay the producer the difference, otherwise the producer will simply not produce bread.
2. Are you willing to pay additional taxes to pay for these compensation mechanisms?
3. Where does the state get the money? I am interested in your ideas on this issue.

I don't think food price control about choosing laizes faire or command economy, it is about government present to protect citizen from starvation. Government must not replace the market but they mustn't also only be audience if market can not provide food with affordable/reasonable price. My country has mixed economy system, control of food price has practiced but using price management not extreem or strict control. Rice is staple food in my country. Problem on rice supply and  price can cause political and social pressure, thats why government do intervention on rice price not hand rice price fully into market. Government controling rice price by applied benchmark price (floor price and ceiling price), government regulate price temporalily, not all commodities and has flexibility response to market condition. There are specific institution who handle this named (BULOG = The State Logistics Agency) they play role as market stabilizer, ensuring goverment rice and food supply, do direct intervention on food price especially rice, they also do price subsidies to stabilize price.

The flexible approach you describe is a good solution, unlike rigid administrative measures. Direct coercion to lower prices does not produce the desired result, as manufacturers may simply refuse to produce goods (in this case, food products) for purely economic reasons—it may simply become unprofitable. A well-thought-out flexible approach, some subsidies, and possibly tax breaks, would allow both producers to be retained and the population's demand for critically important products to be met.