[zanny]

If producers are able to totally game a commodity market and control prices so completely than you have bigger problems than just poverty.

And yea, we do. If we had UBI tomorrow and people wanted more apples because they could afford more fresh fruit the apple cartels of today would collude prices up and use regulatory capture to block competition from entering the market to supply the elevated demand for apples.

But thats basically saying "hey, you want a government in your interest, you should probably get to a democracy first". If businesses control the legislature you don't have a democracy to begin with and should probably get that first before talking about... pretty much anything else. Because any other conversation is eminently pointless if you aren't influential upon your government.

[ktaylora]

> If producers are able to totally game a commodity market and control prices so completely than you have bigger problems than just poverty.

Game is probably more strongly worded than what actually happens : a shift in the demand curve. It's not that a cabal of producers are colluding to raise prices. Its more that, in aggregate, producers will decide to independently raise prices when consumer demand increases [0].

[0] https://www.economicsdiscussion.net/demand/shifts-in-demand-...

[zanny]

Except if its just a price shock than the increased profitability of apples will attract investment in apple farming to produce more apples because of unmet demand and fair market conditions. The price would go up, the profitability margin would be exploited by increased competitive production up to near break even costs, and prices would fall back to where they are today just with way more apples being grown.

In practice in pretty much every industry in the US incumbents put up regulatory barriers behind themselves to prevent competition from emerging.