Cost of living hitting food banks in Canada so hard that visits are limited to once a month (www.ctvnews.ca)

submitted 5 days ago by yogthos@lemmy.ml to c/canada@lemmy.ca

28 comments fedilink hide all child comments

top 28 comments

sorted by: hot top controversial new old

[-] a_gee_dizzle@lemmy.ca 25 points 5 days ago

So what are people supposed to do if they can’t afford food? Starve? This is getting ridiculous. All the big grocery corps need to be broken up to create more competition

[-] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 15 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

That is on the new NDP leader's platform.

https://lewisforleader.ca/ideas/public-options

[-] a_gee_dizzle@lemmy.ca 6 points 4 days ago

That’s awesome

[-] Teppa@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

The problem with grocery stores in Canada is their margins on food are tiny, less than 4%. So a government run entity cant be appreciably cheaper.

Where Loblaws makes its margin is real estate, which is a monopoly our government fosters and calls peoples nest egg, and they state openly that real estate prices cant be allowed to fall.

So you're calling on the entity that makes things unaffordable to make it affordable, which we just voted back in the same people who made things far more unaffordable the last decade. People had their say during the election, and they wanted higher asset prices; price inflation is then collateral damage of high real estate prices.

[-] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 1 points 4 days ago

So a government run entity cant be appreciably cheaper.

That's simply bullshit.

Did you know that US runs the biggest government own grocery chain in the world? It's literally in the law that they must have at least 23.7% savings compared to other stores. And wouldn't you know, it actually works. Not only prices are a lot cheaper but the selection of goods is even better than many commercial chains.

[-] Teppa@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Looking into it it appears to be subsidized by the US military budget, and is therefore funded by their exorbitant privilege. Would that be the plan, to borrow money to run them, while also paying union salaries and whatnot?

[-] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

8,3 million households, $5 billion in annual sales, $1 billion in subsidies. Count me in.

That's half the Canada's total households. So $2 billions in subsidies can lower the grocery prices by 23.7% for every single Canadian and allow those 23.7% of savings back into the economy. Mind blowing when think about it.

As far as Avi Lewis, he's not planning to use military budget, but instead tax the 1% pedophile class that has been robbing Canadians blind for decades.

[-] Teppa@lemmy.world 0 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

Like I guess its cool if its possible, I mean it would be fantastic, but I have some questions and some doubts.

Where is the margin appearing, if grocery store profits in Canada are mainly due to real estate and their owned REITS then where are the savings coming from? How do we even know the government can do a better job?

Another question is how if theyre paying union wage, which they would as a left leaning policy, where do the efficiencies and low prices come from. If the person person buying food makes minimum wage as a pizza maker or walmart greeter is he subsidizing a union wage for someone providing him food?

[-] definitemaybe@lemmy.ca 1 points 3 days ago

That's the cool thing: there's plenty of wealth to cover all of that, it's just currently being hoarded by the ultra wealthy.

There's no reason that people in Canada should face food insecurity. Basic nutrition is a human right, necessary for survival.

The PC party in charge right now is better than the Reform Party they beat to gain power, but neither of those parties have any plans to help 90% of Canadians with meaningful reforms to income and business tax.

For example, the "Liberals" (PC party, in all but name) axed their legislation to a modest increase on capital gains tax advice $10K/year. You know who's earning over $10K/year in non-tax-deferred investment accounts? Only the 1%.

Bring back 70% marginal income tax rates for income in 7 figures and no special status for capital gains (except for being able to subtract capital losses at par). That alone would pay for basic life necessities for every Canadian who can't afford to live.

[-] Teppa@lemmy.world 1 points 2 days ago* (last edited 2 days ago)

Well do you think wealth can really horded, isnt it true that if those rich people dont consume then the money supply grows, until somebody consumes. Which is how interest rates get so low in a recession, people stop consuming and the wealthy are made richer until somebody has the money and the desire to consume.

[-] definitemaybe@lemmy.ca 1 points 1 day ago

That's not really how it works.

Interest rates get low during recessions by deliberate choice from central banks. They reduce interest rates directly to stimulate economic activity. This works because the cost of longer-term investment in growth is, largely, based on interest rates.

You're slightly right that holding wealth increases money supply, but only indirectly, and only to a certain extent. Most importantly, the amount of money held in banks and investments isn't affected much by market cycles—the amount saved changes dramatically, but that's a small percentage of total wealth holdings, so it doesn't matter much in the short term.

The bigger factor for increasing financial activity is something called monetary velocity, which is a measure of how many times the same dollar is spent per year. Like, you buy something from a store, they pay their employees with that dollar, the employee pays their rent, then the landlord... etc. Monetary velocity can change suddenly in a recession, so it has a far bigger impact.

If you're interested in this, I'd suggest taking an introductory macroeconomics course. There are lots of free MOOC course options for this, but it'll take 50-200 hours to complete one of them, likely, depending on your academic background and academic skills.

[-] Teppa@lemmy.world 1 points 1 day ago* (last edited 1 day ago)

The rich hoarding wealth does directly increase money supply because they generally reinvest, which is excluded from the CPI, which decreases interest rates leading to further money supply growth. Their wealth isnt really real when viewed through the lens of monetary policy, its inflated based on past consumption and things like hedonic adjustments or substitutions.

Money velocity increases more when the poor get the money, via things like Covid stimulus, which lead to the large inflation print. While the rich just put it into assets, driving up the stock market and real estate, which made them nominally wealthier.

I think this is why QE hurts the poor and benefits the rich, their salaries are being debased to push up asset values, until someone with a propensity to consume receives that nominal windfall; whether its a home sale or an equity sale. I dont see how the rich is at fault for any of this however, and I think if they did give their money away then nominal asset values would fall and inflation would rise.

What I'd perhaps like to see is instead of dropping interest rates taxes were tied to inflation, where they rise if deflation occurs. That I could perhaps see working, though its a working theory for me at the moment.

[-] dom@lemmy.ca 19 points 5 days ago

We need subsidized grocers. Theres no reason the government cant run grocery stores that keeps things as close to cost as possible.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 19 points 5 days ago* (last edited 5 days ago)

That's a slippery slope there. I mean, what's next, nationalizing our energy production to make gas and utilities affordable?

[-] theacharnian@lemmy.ca 7 points 4 days ago

Fuck yea.

[-] unbanshee@lemmy.dbzer0.com 6 points 4 days ago

Then pharmacare. Then dental care. Then all the rest of healthcare that our strangled system has left to the private market. Then the telecoms. Then public transit.

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 3 points 4 days ago

we can dream

[-] dubyakay@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 days ago

Québec did it. Why can't the rest?!

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 10 points 4 days ago

Theres no reason the government cant run grocery stores

Even if they did, as soon as there is a conservative government again, they'll privatize it and sell it off for pennies on the dollar to their friends.

[-] unbanshee@lemmy.dbzer0.com 3 points 4 days ago

Since when does the LPC need the Cons to privatize public services?

[-] kent_eh@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 days ago

Historically it's been the Cons that have privatized more government assets than any other party.

[-] unbanshee@lemmy.dbzer0.com 2 points 4 days ago

For sure, they did. Most of the big stuff was started, if not completed, by Conservative administrations.

But Chrétien and Martin continued the process. Air Canada, Petro-Can, and CN Rail were all initiated by Mulroney but completed by Liberal PMs.

My point is, I don't see the LPC as reliable defenders of public services and I think it's dangerous to view them as an ally in that context.

[-] a_non_monotonic_function@lemmy.world 2 points 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago)

This point hits hard in the US right now.

[-] dom@lemmy.ca 2 points 4 days ago

Too true. Too many dumb dumbs who fall for the cons shit

[-] huquad@lemmy.ml 6 points 5 days ago

Steal food, completely serious

[-] yogthos@lemmy.ml 2 points 5 days ago

Look, the important part is that we hit the 2% NATO spending target. Some people at home are just going to have to starve so that we can keep bombing brown people around the world.

[-] Teppa@lemmy.world 1 points 4 days ago

The problem with grocery stores in Canada is their margins on food are tiny, less than 4%. So a government run entity cant be appreciably cheaper.

Where Loblaws makes its margin is real estate, which is a monopoly our government fosters and calls peoples nest egg. So you're calling on the entity that makes things unaffordable to make it affordable, which we just voted back in the same people who made things far more unaffordable the last decade.