Anonymous wrote:Most packaged goods have a store brand version of them too. If the brand name is unreasonably price gouging wouldn’t people be shifting to buy the store brand and the store making a lot more $ off that shift?

I think people don’t want to shift their buying habits despite elevated prices and so the brands are not getting the right “go back down” signal that the economy would otherwise deliver. Maybe with the exception of meat there are store brand options

I'd be interested in data about this. I know I have switched to the cheapest cuts of meat (bone-in, chicken drumsticks and so on) and my friend was appalled and said she could never cook and serve that to her family.

Anonymous wrote:Got some bad news for all of you MAGAs saying "KaMaLA HarRis iS a LitERaL CoMMuNist BecAusE ShE waNTs tO StOP PriCE GouGiNG!!!1!!!"

How about you do us all a favor and stop making such huge fools of yourselves.

+1
Omg that’s from 2020. You know, during the actual pandemic.

^…for almost everything processed that the grocery store sells.

Most packaged goods have a store brand version of them too. If the brand name is unreasonably price gouging wouldn’t people be shifting to buy the store brand and the store making a lot more $ off that shift?

I think people don’t want to shift their buying habits despite elevated prices and so the brands are not getting the right “go back down” signal that the economy would otherwise deliver. Maybe with the exception of meat there are store brand options

I work in a sector of the food industry. It tends to be cyclical - you have a couple bad years of low prices (for the producers) and then you have a “good” year of higher prices for the producers. They wouldn’t be able to survive without the up part of the cycle happening too.

Also - input costs at all levels plus labor costs at the processing plant level went up a lot and have not gone down.

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.

Company collusion on prices already is a crime. There is no need for further legislation.

Exactly. There needs to be enforcement. Which is what Harris is promising to do. And no, as VP she cannot do it now.

I hope the democrats launch an investigation into every business in the US, including private home sellers, to try to prove hundreds of millions of people are “colluding” to sell consumer goods and services and private homes at exorbitant prices to profit. It’s bizzaro world that an entity (fed gov) that is trillions in debt is going after businesses and citizens because they make a profit, while they themselves owe American citizens trillions and can’t exist without taking money from the people who are making profits.

Anonymous wrote:Got some bad news for all of you MAGAs saying "KaMaLA HarRis iS a LitERaL CoMMuNist BecAusE ShE waNTs tO StOP PriCE GouGiNG!!!1!!!"

How about you do us all a favor and stop making such huge fools of yourselves.

Actual price gouging occurred at that time. Face masks, hand sanitizer, toilet paper, cleaning products, etc, were sold at extremely high prices. The situation was the legal definition of price gouging. Like when a hurricane is coming and people sell cases of water and plywood for covering up windows for exorbitant prices because they know people need such items.

Or generators when the power is out for weeks. That’s the legal definition of price gouging. Democrats are just using a term incorrectly and trying to fool low information voters into believing the president can make food production companies and grocery stores produce and sell food at a loss.

The fed government does everything at a loss with zero consequence because they can take taxpayer dollars no matter what. If the fed gov had to make even a 1-3% profit or face going out of business, they’d have been out of business decades ago. Kamala and democrats want companies and businesses that produce food and sell food to make no profit because it’s “greedy.” In reality, where fed gov doesn’t live, it’s essential to make a profit to stay in business.

Kamala can’t pronounce gouging, so her credibility is gone at the most basic level. How does she even know the definition of the word if she has so little knowledge of it she can’t pronounce it?

Anonymous wrote:She is the current VP!!! She should be working on this right now!!!!! Actually past couple years as Biden is a lame duck and is handing over his duties to her…


She is useless…

What are you blathering about? VPs do not themselves make or implement policy. Their job is to be ready to step in at a moment’s notice to replace the president if the president is incapacitated. Their other job is to never outshine the president. What did Pence accomplish?

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.

Company collusion on prices already is a crime. There is no need for further legislation.

Exactly. There needs to be enforcement. Which is what Harris is promising to do. And no, as VP she cannot do it now.

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. [b]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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:JBS , meat processing, enjoyed a 70% increase in profits. Ranchers lost money.

Throttling supply to increase decrease demand and rake in insane profit increases on staple food products isn’t capitalism. Ranchers don’t have a wide choice of processing companies.

Wouldn’t that be a monopoly issue?

Why yes. Especially because mega mergers in the food industry mean that there are conglomerates 1-3 conglomerates providing many food staples. Capitalism can’t work if there is no marketplace competition. Because ranchers and farmers on the front end and consumers on the back end have no meaningful choice (I mean, “buy local agriculture” is nice— if you have local agriculture and the time and ability to go to a farmers market. But many Americans don’t). And those conglomerates raised prices during and after COVID in response to supply chain issues— and never lowered them when supply chain stabilized. And the don’t have to— because no competition. And they are raking in in the profits.

10 companies control the worlds food supply. And three— General Mills, Unilever, and Kellogg control almost all food commodities. And these three don’t offer the same commodores. In many cases, they aren’t even competing among each other.

https://www.good.is/Business/food-brands-owners-rp

This isn’t telling Food Lion what to charge. It’s saying we need competition because General Mills had $670+ million in profit For Q3 2024.. Not for the year. For one fiscal quarter. In part because they have monopolies on some food staples.

https://accountable.us/relying-on-price-hikes-general-mills-rakes-in-millions/#:~:text=As%20General%20Mills%20posts%20massive,many%20American%20families%20food%20insecure.

And unlike many poster here, I don’t think American families should do without food staples to feed their kids because one or two companies control all of the market in these areas and would rather charge more for less.


Harris is not proposing price fixing. She’s proposing using antitrust laws to eliminate monopolies on food staples create more competition (heck— in many cases some competition), because capitalism needs competition. Otherwise, why would a corporation lower prices?

This is not price fixing. Or socialist. In fact, it’s creating a system where there is competition so capitalism can work.

If you are going to yell about how awful the plan is, at least be honest about what it does and how we got here (spoiler alert: Republican administrations are against regulating markets and mergers and mergers of merged companies so that monopolies on food staples happen).

Debate in good faith. And educate yourself beyond Faux News.

She is the current VP!!! She should be working on this right now!!!!! Actually past couple years as Biden is a lame duck and is handing over his duties to her…


She is useless…

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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

I’m ready for a return to a gold standard. Throw the Federal Reserve out the window.

Nixon is the one who got rid of the Gold Standard with the same bill that froze consumer prices and wages. August 15, 1971.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock

The end of the gold standard started in ‘33 with Roosevelt and phased out slowly until Nixon ended it completely in ‘71.

Well actually it started when the Federal Reserve was created, as that was never to be allowed by the Constitution.

https://deanclancy.com/the-constitutions-seven-money-clauses/

Anonymous wrote:

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

I’m ready for a return to a gold standard. Throw the Federal Reserve out the window.

Nixon is the one who got rid of the Gold Standard with the same bill that froze consumer prices and wages. August 15, 1971.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock

"I think she’s a communist spouting communist policies."

When Nixon put a freeze on prices and wages in 1971 was it communism?