> there's obviously a really big incentive to the government and everyone that's not living in rural areas to not have the cost of food increase
> would've just had the government pay to install rural phone lines
you didn't decrease the price of food. you may have decreased the cost paid out of pocket by the consumer, but you haven't changed the actual cost of producing food. if the cost of those phone lines was $100MM, then either a) the government installs those phone lines for $100MM, or b) the farmers bear the cost of those phone lines and raise prices to make up $100MM. either way, someone has to pay that $100MM. you can pay for it either with your taxes or by paying more for food.
this socialist scheme never really changed anything, except it distorted the visible prices so that they do not match real costs. now all you've done is made it harder for the market to optimally allocate limited resources.
"this socialist scheme never really changed anything, except it distorted the visible prices so that they do not match real costs. now all you've done is made it harder for the market to optimally allocate limited resources."
Unfortunately, "the market" is only going to optimize for the metrics used to evaluate it. When those metrics are almost exclusively "profit" and "shareholder value", the market optimizations aren't always going to align with "societies expectations". Without external pressure, "the market" will optimize for Haliburton being in control of military budgets, investment banking being in control of police departments, and farmers having no phone access.
> would've just had the government pay to install rural phone lines
you didn't decrease the price of food. you may have decreased the cost paid out of pocket by the consumer, but you haven't changed the actual cost of producing food. if the cost of those phone lines was $100MM, then either a) the government installs those phone lines for $100MM, or b) the farmers bear the cost of those phone lines and raise prices to make up $100MM. either way, someone has to pay that $100MM. you can pay for it either with your taxes or by paying more for food.
this socialist scheme never really changed anything, except it distorted the visible prices so that they do not match real costs. now all you've done is made it harder for the market to optimally allocate limited resources.