If there is demand for cheap food as well as an assure flow of money into the hands of that demand, it seems reasonable to believe the market will address that demand. Am I missing something?
Markets have been given almost half a century to solve world problems, and we haven't seen these problems solved.
I understand that one may argue that they didn't get the opportunity. But from macro indicators to flagship cases, what we see is that while market brought us a wealth of new products, they are slow to solve acute problems, especially when these problems are hard to explain to the population.
You answered my question with a question? Ok. Yes, in answer to your question, my understanding would be that if there is a market/demand for cheap food, then yes, someone will supply cheap food. However, let's assume for a minute that "cheap food" is a finite resource, and lets assume people are being guaranteed money to purchase the aformentioned "cheap food". Eventually that cheap food becomes more expensive. You know, demand being greater than supply. So someone else comes along and produces cheaper food to address the situation but they face the same eventual problem. Also, its only so cheap you can make food without gov't subsidies b/c a) the cost to produce/distribute and b) gov't regulation on quality. But what we have here, in a sense is artificially created demand b/c of free money, free being money given, not necessarily earned. Again, I know nothing about these things and I want someone who does to actually educate me not give me some bullshit snarky fucking reply.
I understand that one may argue that they didn't get the opportunity. But from macro indicators to flagship cases, what we see is that while market brought us a wealth of new products, they are slow to solve acute problems, especially when these problems are hard to explain to the population.