Price gouging as her first policy announcement? Really?

[Anonymous]

My cheap hair mousse went from $2.99 to $4.99 in two years. Almost every product I buy has doubled in price since COVID. In the meantime, I was laid off.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:My cheap hair mousse went from $2.99 to $4.99 in two years. Almost every product I buy has doubled in price since COVID. In the meantime, I was laid off.

That isn't a result of price gouging.
It is the result of higher labor costs, higher gas prices - everything is impacted by higher gas prices, and more regulations. In other words, inflation.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:I’m a PhD economist, want Trump out at all costs, and this stuff is indefensible. Kamala, stick to social issues and you’ll win. Then you can hire competent economists to conduct policy. No populist/instagram-tier policies like price controls.

+1

-Another PhD economist and fervent Democrat

[Anonymous]

If there was any presidential candidate, ever, who had a better understanding of economic principles than the VP does, I would be surprised. Add that to a lawyer’s laser-like ability to prosecute the case, as it were, we are so very fortunate to live in these political times.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It’s actually forward thinking to look at price gouging and price fixing now. Sticky prices has always been a thing in economics. For example, orange crops fail in Florida due to a weather event. Prices spike because of a shortage in supply. People blame the storm not the grocery store or farmer. Next year, crops are fine but prices do not reduce? Why? People got used to paying the higher prices. Farmers try to produce more oranges because they are profitable. Too many oranges so farmers drop prices to get grocery chains/distributors to buy their oranges. Distributors grab the lower prices but do not drop their prices. They pocket the profits. It is easier and more reliable for companies to make a higher profit margin on lower volume than lower profit on higher volume. As long as the competition doesn’t cut their prices to the consumer this model keeps working for them.

Supply/demand dynamics are broken because companies are not competing they are colluding.

This is what has been happening post COVID. It’s why many companies have been experiencing record profits. It’s unfettered capitalism at work.

well then consumers adjust and substitute - also capitalism. I stopped using door dash and eating out because it’s too expensive. I cook at home but opt for Amazon Fresh and TJ because they are cheaper. eventually the market will adjust to this too.

This is exactly what should happen. But some of these Dems think certain products and services should be available to everyone. There is no more “don’t buy it if you can’t afford it”. It’s now “we’ll do everything to make it affordable for you.” [b]Like housing. They think everyone is entitled to live in Bethesda or Potomac. It’s nuts.

I agree with this 100%. Basic food staples should be affordable to everyone. I a, not a fan of “can’t afford basic cereal and milk, don’t eat breakfast”. Kids should not be skipping meals so a conglomerate with a monopoly can rake in billions in profits, and profits well above inflation year over year.

Oatmeal is still super cheap. Switch from $7/box cereal and eat oatmeal.
There are cheap things kids can eat for breakfast. No one is “entitled” to expensive cereal. No one needs to skip breakfast. There are options.

School age children get free breakfast and lunch, and the fed gov is paying the conglomerates to feed them.

Paying corporations to feed our children is abysmal and unnecessary. [b]Let the kids choose what they want for lunch in the morning, cook only the amount you need, source locally and make from scratch where you can. Many districts in US still do this but DC area illustrates what happens when you get overcrowded schools, too many regulations, and too many lined pockets.

This is a great resource

https://www.thelunchbox.org/

You cannot cook " what they want " for 100+ kids.

provide 2-3 choices in the morning and cook only the amount you need based on their selections. Not cook to order like a restaurant.

I can’t imagine providing 3 separate choices for hundreds of children each morning. Hot cooked choices. Are you in reality?

Most schools that do this have 1 hot choice, 1 meal-sized salad choice, or PBJ & fruit & veg. Not sure why you feel the need to argue specifics, feeding lunch to children is not a new concept.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:If there was any presidential candidate, ever, who had a better understanding of economic principles than the VP does, I would be surprised. Add that to a lawyer’s laser-like ability to prosecute the case, as it were, we are so very fortunate to live in these political times.

THIS VP? Surely you jest.
She has NO understanding of economics.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My cheap hair mousse went from $2.99 to $4.99 in two years. Almost every product I buy has doubled in price since COVID. In the meantime, I was laid off.

That isn't a result of price gouging.
It is the result of higher labor costs, higher gas prices - everything is impacted by higher gas prices, and more regulations. In other words, inflation.

Gas prices are currently 30% lower than they were 2 years ago. Why didn't prices come down?
Wages and labor cost have not increased anywhere near enough to account for 40% price hikes.

Try again. This time without the bogus excuses of gas prices and labor cost, because those can only account for a very small fraction of price increases.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:If there was any presidential candidate, ever, who had a better understanding of economic principles than the VP does, I would be surprised. Add that to a lawyer’s laser-like ability to prosecute the case, as it were, we are so very fortunate to live in these political times.

THIS VP? Surely you jest.
She has NO understanding of economics.

Trump is a complete moron on economics and doesn't understand how tariffs work.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My cheap hair mousse went from $2.99 to $4.99 in two years. Almost every product I buy has doubled in price since COVID. In the meantime, I was laid off.

That isn't a result of price gouging.
It is the result of higher labor costs, higher gas prices - everything is impacted by higher gas prices, and more regulations. In other words, inflation.

Gas prices are currently 30% lower than they were 2 years ago. Why didn't prices come down?
Wages and labor cost have not increased anywhere near enough to account for 40% price hikes.

Try again. This time without the bogus excuses of gas prices and labor cost, because those can only account for a very small fraction of price increases.

Lemme guess…. You never took an accounting course?

There are many components to COGS.

[Anonymous]

NP. Not an economist, and haven't seen it since grade school. For those arguing that this is not price gouging, could you explain why it's not, like you're talking to a 5 year old?

Let's say for instance that cost of making a widget is $10.00. This is sold for $20.00, for a profit of $10.00 per widget. Because of increased labor/material cost, say 20%, that price is now $12.00. If they passed the entirety of the $2.00 increase to the consumer, the price increases to $22.00. Again, profit of $10.00 per widget. If this were the case, then the company's profit margins stay the same, and they would report similar earnings as they did previously.

So why is it that certain companies are reporting earnings that are well in excess of what they had previously reported (record profits)? If they claim that they raised prices in line with their increased COGS, how would they generate excess profits?

[Anonymous]

Eh, she's just trying as she can to get Never Trumpers to vote for Trump.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. Not an economist, and haven't seen it since grade school. For those arguing that this is not price gouging, could you explain why it's not, like you're talking to a 5 year old?

Let's say for instance that cost of making a widget is $10.00. This is sold for $20.00, for a profit of $10.00 per widget. Because of increased labor/material cost, say 20%, that price is now $12.00. If they passed the entirety of the $2.00 increase to the consumer, the price increases to $22.00. Again, profit of $10.00 per widget. If this were the case, then the company's profit margins stay the same, and they would report similar earnings as they did previously.

So why is it that certain companies are reporting earnings that are well in excess of what they had previously reported (record profits)? If they claim that they raised prices in line with their increased COGS, how would they generate excess profits?

Volume.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:NP. Not an economist, and haven't seen it since grade school. For those arguing that this is not price gouging, could you explain why it's not, like you're talking to a 5 year old?

Let's say for instance that cost of making a widget is $10.00. This is sold for $20.00, for a profit of $10.00 per widget. Because of increased labor/material cost, say 20%, that price is now $12.00. If they passed the entirety of the $2.00 increase to the consumer, the price increases to $22.00. Again, profit of $10.00 per widget. If this were the case, then the company's profit margins stay the same, and they would report similar earnings as they did previously.

So why is it that certain companies are reporting earnings that are well in excess of what they had previously reported (record profits)? If they claim that they raised prices in line with their increased COGS, how would they generate excess profits?

You appear to be using a non-fiat currency. Pretend someone, like a government, dumps trillions of dollars into the money supply. Now, your widget that cost $10 to produce, actually costs $15 to produce a few years later. It sells for $30 and it looks like your profits have increased. They haven't though because your $15 has the same spending power as a few years ago.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OK, I think she just put her first foot wrong. Prices were up 1% on groceries this past year. This is bizarre - brings back memories of ‘70s price controls.

What do you think?

Y'all have been yapping about how inflation and the economy is the most important issue for you. Well, here you go.

+1. Y’all keep saying inflation in areas where consumers spend money, like food, is one of the most serious issues of this election (as Fox goes on and one about how much more the July 4 picnic costs than last year, and blames Biden). And that “real Americans” care more about food inflation than things like abortion. Are you now saying it’s NBD? Because I’m looking at a landscape where 2-3 giant food companies control a significant amount of our food supply and are making record profits while raising food costs well above inflation. And yes, I think it’s a big issue.

Here’s one of those companies also thinking it’s a big issue too.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:You could fix the oil & gas situation, which would decrease the price of gas, which would decrease the cost of goods.

Oh wait, that’s a Trump policy you won’t like that one.

The US is producing more energy now than any country on earth, ever. What exactly is “the oil & gas situation” that needs to be fixed?