Anonymous wrote:Government price controls on consumer goods is COMMUNISM.

That’s all.

Anonymous wrote:No wonder gold is at an all time high, $2,500 / oz. The end of our democracy is before us.

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?

Perception is reality, so to all the people who are struggling to afford groceries because of corporate greed, this may play well no matter what the price data says.

+1 this is the answer

The proposal will likely not impact prices very much but will aim to send a message her administration cares about inflation. Consumers don't understand that reduced inflation (which has already happened) doesn't mean prices go down again, so this is how they tell voters "we hear you and we care".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Food and Grocery companies are not price gouging and aren't getting rich, the cost of these things have gone up. The only real price gouging is contractors doing work on houses of that is because of govt regulations subsidizing home repairs and renovations for energy savings. So it's short sighted to go after grocery stores when its deeper than that.

The food and grocery industry have been making huge profits. They started jacking prices up during the pandemic, initially due to supply chain issues, but as the supply chain issues were resolved, they continued jacking up prices and increasing their profit margins. They very much are gouging.

https://qz.com/supermarket-prices-grocery-food-inflation-pandemic-1851369826

Because consumers have too much money, dimwit. Companies keep raising prices yet demand is barely dented. Companies will stop raising prices once consumers stop buying yet consumers don’t stop buying. You fail to ask the fundamental question of why do consumers have so much stamina for these price increases? That’s because they’re too flush with cash due to the trillions of dollars the govt printed and spent with stimulus injections into the economy.


You think all those stimi checks, extensions of unemployment that were paying people more than they made at their jobs, student loan repayment moratoriums, rent moratoriums, and billions handed out to states to spend have no consequences and are free money? The piper must be paid and it comes in the form of inflation.

WTF is wrong with you? Is your brain stunted? Are you stuck in 2020? All of those things you're talking about are from the pandemic. Biden ENDED the Trump "stimmy checks" and most of those other things ended as well, A COUPLE OF YEARS AGO.

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?

Perception is reality, so to all the people who are struggling to afford groceries because of corporate greed, this may play well no matter what the price data says.

+1 this is the answer

The proposal will likely not impact prices very much but will aim to send a message her administration cares about inflation. Consumers don't understand that reduced inflation (which has already happened) doesn't mean prices go down again, so this is how they tell voters "we hear you and we care".

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My opinion: this is a straw man argument to deflect attention and commentary about inflation and gas prices under the Biden/Harris administration.

Uh, she is trying to address the costs of things in a way that a government can.

Use the power of the government to negotiate the prices of certain drugs for medicare recipients
Provide block grants to increase the supply of housing while also providing incentives for home ownership
Incentivize competition to help reduce food prices.

And gas prices? It is cheap relative to historic costs. I can get it for under $3.50 a gallon in DC. On the eastern shore, it is closer to $3.25.

The only reason it was at $2.00 in 2020 was because the economy ground to a halt and the refineries couldn't give it away.

You know what the government could do that would be far more helpful? Rein in the out of control spending that has been going on for several years, and pursue a more balanced budget. That would do a ton to reduce or control inflation. Not these BS ideas that the Harris campaign is pretending will do anything. It's foolhardy to think these are anything beyond more nice sounding, but actually ineffective or even harmful policies like the Democrats so often like to propose.

How about we first rein in all of the unpaid-for, out-of-control Republican tax cuts for the rich and big corporations, which absolutely did not trickle down to the poor and the middle class and did nothing to help small business. That would do a lot to rein in budget deficit.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Here's the thing. I don't care anything about this, but when people are constantly complaining about prices and inflation, and then she tries to propose a solution, it's heresy.

What do you want from her exactly? Trump hasn't said 2 words beyond, prices are up. Ok.

He’s talked repeatedly about fixing gas pipelines and bringing the US back to a place of energy independence and then energy dominance. Decreasing gas prices will naturally decrease the cost of goods across the board.

But this is all based on a lie, like everything else he says. The US is already energy independent. He wants to open national parks for drilling, which will only hurt the environment and help oil companies when we should be focusing on clean energy. It’s such bunk.

We import more oil than we export, so we’re not energy independent.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, this was not a good move. WaPo featuring her backers saying that free enterprise is dead is not going to help win the middle.

And they will look dumb when her actual proposal still allows the market to set prices unless they want to increase them by massive amounts

Ok, it’s not good that people who support her look dumb.

Can you share and specifically quote who is saying "free enterprise is dead"?

“Harris has made a set of policy choices over the last several weeks that make it clear that the Democratic Party is committed to a pro working-family agenda. The days of ‘What’s good for free enterprise is good for America’ are over,” said Felicia Wong, president of Roosevelt Forward, a left-leaning think tank.”

Stupid. Free enterprise is good for America. Market failures are bad, but those can be addressed through smart policy. Attacking free enterprise is a really bad look and I’m hoping this point of view doesn’t permeate the actual campaign.

That's....not saying "free enterprise is dead" it's saying free enterprise isn't the only factor in families' well being.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Honestly, this was not a good move. WaPo featuring her backers saying that free enterprise is dead is not going to help win the middle.

And they will look dumb when her actual proposal still allows the market to set prices unless they want to increase them by massive amounts

Ok, it’s not good that people who support her look dumb.

Proceed at your peril. I am telling you what it sounds like to the voters you need to win. Stop doing this.

Can you share and specifically quote who is saying "free enterprise is dead"?

“Harris has made a set of policy choices over the last several weeks that make it clear that the Democratic Party is committed to a pro working-family agenda. The days of ‘What’s good for free enterprise is good for America’ are over,” said Felicia Wong, president of Roosevelt Forward, a left-leaning think tank.”

Stupid. Free enterprise is good for America. Market failures are bad, but those can be addressed through smart policy. Attacking free enterprise is a really bad look and I’m hoping this point of view doesn’t permeate the actual campaign.

That's....not saying "free enterprise is dead" it's saying free enterprise isn't the only factor in families' well being.

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?

Perception is reality, so to all the people who are struggling to afford groceries because of corporate greed, this may play well no matter what the price data says.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:My opinion: this is a straw man argument to deflect attention and commentary about inflation and gas prices under the Biden/Harris administration.

Uh, she is trying to address the costs of things in a way that a government can.

Use the power of the government to negotiate the prices of certain drugs for medicare recipients
Provide block grants to increase the supply of housing while also providing incentives for home ownership
Incentivize competition to help reduce food prices.

And gas prices? It is cheap relative to historic costs. I can get it for under $3.50 a gallon in DC. On the eastern shore, it is closer to $3.25.

The only reason it was at $2.00 in 2020 was because the economy ground to a halt and the refineries couldn't give it away.

You know what the government could do that would be far more helpful? Rein in the out of control spending that has been going on for several years, and pursue a more balanced budget. That would do a ton to reduce or control inflation. Not these BS ideas that the Harris campaign is pretending will do anything. It's foolhardy to think these are anything beyond more nice sounding, but actually ineffective or even harmful policies like the Democrats so often like to propose.