The third option is the one that would've stopped millions of people starving in China and Russia: centralising decision-making in government does not make for better decisions.

Better decisions for whom? As bad as governments can be, I can't think of a better way to make sure the less fortunate have at least some of their basic necessities.

What makes you believe that companies would be any better? I am astounded every time someone says something like this. Companies do not care about public good and are not your friends. They are not magically efficient structures run by super-human wizards. They are run by the same greedy psychopaths, except that you cannot vote them out.

To stay on the subject: what incentive would a private company have to sell their books at a reasonable price when they could just find a niche and seek rent? This is not hypothetical, it’s exactly what they are doing. What the fuck does this have to do with China?

Except you cannot vote them out? It's the other way round. You don't have to vote between two candidates, who have a thousand positions each. If a company is doing badly, you don't give it your money. That's far more powerful and precise feedback than political voting.

The incentive companies (unlike governments) have to lower prices is competition. If competition is not happening, then that needs fixing. If competition is happening, but the journals are providing enough value that no one can compete usefully, then I don't see what can fix that, as that doesn't sound broken.

As for China, if you read the comments you'll see someone broadened the scope of the conversation.

Good luck voting with your money if there’s no government with a monopoly of violence.

If our government contributed to famine alleviation in Russia, and that funneled money away from addressing the homeless crisis in San Francisco, how would that make you feel?

That’s a large trolley you got there.