Where Loblaws makes its real 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. As a franchise they lease this land out and profit off appreciation of their REIT, and have benefited tremendously from price appreciation like everyone else who owns land in Canada; appreciation caused by sprawled zoning laws, slow permitting time, mass immigration, and a massive greenbelt.

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; goods inflation is then collateral damage of high real estate prices.

[–] BrikoX@lemmy.zip 1 points 6 days ago (1 children)

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 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

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 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

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 you 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 6 days ago* (last edited 6 days ago) (1 children)

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 5 days ago (1 children)

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 4 days ago* (last edited 4 days ago) (1 children)

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 4 days ago (1 children)

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 3 days ago* (last edited 3 days 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.