Probably because that requires a ton of logistics in order to build up and store the reserve, not to mention whatever you're imagining is done with the reserve in order to discourage price gouging.
this post was submitted on 23 Aug 2024
3 points (100.0% liked)
Home
27 readers
2 users here now
Kind of a WIP. Only mods may post to this community. Also, this community is on a Lemmy instance that is just for its owner. You need a Lemmy account from another instance if you would like to comment t on any of these posts. You can get one from here: https://join-lemmy.org/
founded 11 months ago
MODERATORS
I'm not sure what you think is supposed to be so difficult about the logistics. When regular supplies of certain good fall off the government would just sell from its stockpiles to increase the market supply and prevent gouging.
What stops private companies from gouging anyway?
The market. Consumers won't have to pay more for toilet paper or whatever than for the price the government is selling it from the stockpile.
How are consumers getting it from the stockpile? Sounds like an even bigger logistics nightmare than companies switching suppliers.
There's a reason people don't buy barrels of oil in bulk when they need to refuel their commuter vehicles.
I still don't understand. Why wouldn't retailers buy from government stockpiles when their regular suppliers are short? The idea is to make up for the shortage so there's no basis for gouging.
Gouging is thus called because it's inherently gratuitous, and not truly due to market conditions.
How does gouging work when there's no shortage of a given product?
Google "government cheese"
One of the great examples of how the government participating in industry is seldom good for people.
TLDR: The government bought milk to give ice cream to the troops in WWII and that lead to the cheesy double down and "Got Milk?".
"The Fat Electrician" on YouTube has a fairly succinct rundown on government cheese and WWII ice cream.
Government cheese was created to maintain the price of dairy as a correction for previous policies that had lead to a surplus and falling prices. I'm suggesting using stockpiles of goods to do the opposite and suppress prices.
This is done in some instances, notably the strategic petroleum reserve.
But that is basically a special case, as petroleum is so central to the logistics of basically all economic activity.
But with ... groceries? The main obvious problem is expiration dates. You can do this with food that does not perish so quickly, but thats like a hold over from great depression/cold war/nuclear apocalypse type policies.
It would still be a massive logistical effort to distribute even dry goods or preserves.
Currently we can barely operate a postal service and have the developed world's most laughable 'public' train service.
Most industries, and groceries in particular, run on Just In Time delivery, ie, grocery stores get the food they are selling tomorrow on trucks that come in that night.
It is far, far easier for the government to say, eh you cannot raise prices by more than x amount in y amount of time, and then just monitor them, than it is to undertake a massively complex logistical endeavor.
If you wanted to do that, you would just nationalize Walmart and Amazon and Kroger.
But this is America, and that's c o m m u n i s m!
We don't even have actual government run internet even though the government basically fucking invented it, its basic infrastructure at this point, nope, we just give the corps a whole bunch of money to build out infrastructure, and then they don't do that and pocket the money instead.
If you wanted to do that, you would just nationalize Walmart and Amazon and Kroger.
I'd be okay with that.
My soul says yes, but my brain says 'look at how poorly our infrastructure is ran and maintained.'
They would still be Amazon, Walmart, and Kroger. The government would just own a controlling stake and sit back except to require that these companies carry enough inventory of certain products. However, I don't believe that a government can only do things badly. There are plenty of current and historic examples of how that doesn't have to be the case.