Anonymous wrote:In 2023, profit margins in the grocery industry hit 1.6% — the lowest level since it was 1% in 2019 — as total expenses increased, FMI found.

https://www.grocerydive.com/news/grocery-industry-profit-margins-fall-to-pre-pandemic-levels-fmi/720517/#:~:text=Societal%20challenges%20like%20lack%20of,total%20expenses%20increased%2C%20FMI%20found.


Let’s get that profit margin down to zero! We don’t need greedy store owners making any profit. Groceries are a necessity.

And yet in gross dollars, they are at all time highs.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:



Idaho vs CA price gouging law

It looks like all these you are posting only apply during a state of emergency. Are we currently in a state of emergency?

DP... There was an emergency, 4 years ago.
Prices went up during the pandemic due to supply chain issues and hoarding.

There are no longer supply chain issues and people are no longer hoarding. Companies just refused to roll prices back down to where they should be because they got greedy and are enjoying the profits too much.

https://www.nbcnews.com/news/amp/rcna9200

Alternatively, the "under" regulated US market is more responsive and flexible to changing demand and shortages.

Isn't Trump carrying around a bunch of price gouged grocery items as props for his list of grievances, right now?

How would this not be relevant to regular Americans trying to get by?

In 2023, profit margins in the grocery industry hit 1.6% — the lowest level since it was 1% in 2019 — as total expenses increased, FMI found.

https://www.grocerydive.com/news/grocery-industry-profit-margins-fall-to-pre-pandemic-levels-fmi/720517/#:~:text=Societal%20challenges%20like%20lack%20of,total%20expenses%20increased%2C%20FMI%20found.


Let’s get that profit margin down to zero! We don’t need greedy store owners making any profit. Groceries are a necessity.

With more extreme weather and climate events, getting a handle on price gouging and price fixing is important.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think she’s a communist spouting communist policies.

The new Republican talking point. It’s funny how my very Republican home state passed anti-price gouging legislation a few months ago — but I guess that’s OK for them, but not for Kamala.

Almost all state anti-price gouging laws pertain to very high price hikes put in during a declared state of emergency and do not pertain at all to periods outside that. The idea is that, for example, a gas station should not be allowed to hike its prices three times when people are fleeing a hurricane and have no alternative options to fuel their cars.

That is very different from the ban on price gouging Harris is proposing that would apply in the absence of a declared state of emergency and in the presence of a multitude of options for lower price alternatives.

That said, there are economists who believe that even the anti-price gouging laws during states of emergency actually hinder the free market from coming in and greatly increasing the supply of food and fuel available to naturally decreasing prices. (Not sure though if there has been a real life test of this).

Ok, so what is Kamala’s definition of price gouging? Why is she using an established legal term to define whatever she’s talking about?

Jesus we can’t have an intelligent conversation until you realize it’s not price gouging it’s price gauging.

Lord you people are stupid.

WTF? It's gouging.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/gouging

gouging
noun
UK /ˈɡaʊ.dʒɪŋ/ US /ˈɡaʊ.dʒɪŋ/

the action of charging someone too much money for something, in a way that is dishonest or unfair:

"He has received complaints about price gouging, with some vets charging $50 per dose."

"The chairman of the Senate Banking Committee accused the banks of gouging."

Are you confused, trolling or just an idiot?

I guess you didn’t see the clip of Kamala calling it price gauging.

No, because you made it up.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5128534/user-clip-kamala-price-gauging

Idiotic.
It was obvious what she meant. You've never misspoken in your life? You're a liar if you say you haven't. And have you not seen the incoherent cofvefe coming out of Trump?
Piss off, fool.

You told me I made it up. I proved you wrong.
Piss off, fool.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

So riddle me this: how come this wasn’t done months/years ago? First we were dismissed and told inflation was transitory. Now we’re told it was the corporations all along, Biden/harris admin failed to observe this phenomena or they did observe but didn’t care until right before the election. The DNC is run by amateurs with an overinflated sense of self-importance.

She is assuming a House not controlled by the GOP- what bills have been passed since January 2023? Do you think a president under our system, can just make it happen by saying it?

So her plan is to hope for a house not controlled by her political opponents. Sounds like not much of a plan. Just a dangling carrot to get votes but no real action but blame the GOP for failures.

ALL politics is about what someone hopes to do. What a baseless criticism.

+1

Anonymous wrote:It is not price gouging. They have to raise prices to deal with the expensive over regulations the Biden admin places on companies

What new regulations did Biden place on companies? Be specific.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know where price gouging is actually happening?

The US colleges and universities. And, instead of working to change that... this administration has decided to use taxpayer money to pay off the loans for millions of people who signed for the loans. That does NOTHING to help bring down the cost of college. In fact, it makes it worse.

She will probably come out with an economic plan to deal with this.

We already know what her plan is--more student debt cancellation. She is also proposing cancellation of all medical debt. That should be fun; no medical services unless you pay cash upfront.

She doesn’t even have the legal authority to cancel private medical debt. There is no way she can accomplish this one.

The way Presidents to this is by working with Congress. You should know that by now.

Congress is not able to cancel medical debt, unless they are going use taxpayer funds to pay it off. Canceling medical debt without paying for it would violate the fifth amendment. This is would be considered a takings clause issue and the courts would not allow it.

It's perfectly ok for business to take from citizens in life-or-death need, to the point of bankruptcy and also financially, physically and emotionally breaking them and destroying them, versus it's bad to help citizens.

It's perfectly ok to bail out big banks and corporations with billions in taxpayer dollars but it's not ok to bail out struggling citizens.

Got it. Totally see where some of you stand - on the side of wrong.

I support a single payer system for healthcare, but I am just pointing out factual information. Neither Kamala Harris nor Congress, can just waive private medical debt. It would be a takings clause violation unless congress pays off the debt.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Controlling prices is insane. Look what rent control does. It boosts the price for everyone else. There’s no such thing as a free lunch. That’s the first thing anyone learns in econ 101. Part of the reason DC or Manhattan apartment rent is so expensive today is because of rent control.

Rent control allows for the elderly to stay in the city that they lived forever in. It also allows low income service workers, those who provide services to the public like you, to live and work in the city. I knew a teacher who had to work two jobs to afford to live in the city she taught in. That's ridiculous.

Rent control arbitrarily benefits those who already have an apartment at the expense of future renters who will have to pay even more for housing. There is a ton of data that shows how rent control does not help long term affordability and actually leads to shortages. San Francisco and New York both have had rent control for decades and yet they are still the most expensive and difficult markets to rent in. Please follow facts and science rather than emotion and empty promises by politicians who just want your vote.

so, kick grandma out of her apartment she's lived in for 50 years so that someone can make more money and younger people have a place to live.

Nice.

It is not price gouging. They have to raise prices to deal with the expensive over regulations the Biden admin places on companies

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:I think she’s a communist spouting communist policies.

The new Republican talking point. It’s funny how my very Republican home state passed anti-price gouging legislation a few months ago — but I guess that’s OK for them, but not for Kamala.

Almost all state anti-price gouging laws pertain to very high price hikes put in during a declared state of emergency and do not pertain at all to periods outside that. The idea is that, for example, a gas station should not be allowed to hike its prices three times when people are fleeing a hurricane and have no alternative options to fuel their cars.

That is very different from the ban on price gouging Harris is proposing that would apply in the absence of a declared state of emergency and in the presence of a multitude of options for lower price alternatives.

That said, there are economists who believe that even the anti-price gouging laws during states of emergency actually hinder the free market from coming in and greatly increasing the supply of food and fuel available to naturally decreasing prices. (Not sure though if there has been a real life test of this).

Ok, so what is Kamala’s definition of price gouging? Why is she using an established legal term to define whatever she’s talking about?

Jesus we can’t have an intelligent conversation until you realize it’s not price gouging it’s price gauging.

Lord you people are stupid.

WTF? It's gouging.

https://dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/english/gouging

gouging
noun
UK /ˈɡaʊ.dʒɪŋ/ US /ˈɡaʊ.dʒɪŋ/

the action of charging someone too much money for something, in a way that is dishonest or unfair:

"He has received complaints about price gouging, with some vets charging $50 per dose."

"The chairman of the Senate Banking Committee accused the banks of gouging."

Are you confused, trolling or just an idiot?

I guess you didn’t see the clip of Kamala calling it price gauging.

No, because you made it up.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c5128534/user-clip-kamala-price-gauging

Idiotic.
It was obvious what she meant. You've never misspoken in your life? You're a liar if you say you haven't. And have you not seen the incoherent cofvefe coming out of Trump?
Piss off, fool.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:You know where price gouging is actually happening?

The US colleges and universities. And, instead of working to change that... this administration has decided to use taxpayer money to pay off the loans for millions of people who signed for the loans. That does NOTHING to help bring down the cost of college. In fact, it makes it worse.

She will probably come out with an economic plan to deal with this.

We already know what her plan is--more student debt cancellation. She is also proposing cancellation of all medical debt. That should be fun; no medical services unless you pay cash upfront.

She doesn’t even have the legal authority to cancel private medical debt. There is no way she can accomplish this one.

The way Presidents to this is by working with Congress. You should know that by now.

Congress is not able to cancel medical debt, unless they are going use taxpayer funds to pay it off. Canceling medical debt without paying for it would violate the fifth amendment. This is would be considered a takings clause issue and the courts would not allow it.

It's perfectly ok for business to take from citizens in life-or-death need, to the point of bankruptcy and also financially, physically and emotionally breaking them and destroying them, versus it's bad to help citizens.

It's perfectly ok to bail out big banks and corporations with billions in taxpayer dollars but it's not ok to bail out struggling citizens.

Got it. Totally see where some of you stand - on the side of wrong.

So some love T for saying he will fix the worst inflation, but are against fixing price gauging”inflation” when the other candidate makes it a priority?