Elections Kamala Harris for POTUS


When your opponent calls you ‘communist,’ maybe don’t propose price controls?
It’s hard to exaggerate how bad Kamala Harris’s price-gouging proposal is.

"Price gouging” is the focus of Vice President Kamala Harris’s economic agenda, her presidential campaign says. She’ll crack down on “excessive prices” and “excessive corporate profits,” particularly for groceries.

So what level counts as “excessive,” you might ask? TBD, but Harris will ban it.

That’s the thing about price gouging: As has been said of hardcore pornography, you know it when you see it.

It’s not hard to figure out where this proposal came from. Voters want to blame someone for high grocery bills, and the presidential candidates have apparently decided the choices are either the Biden administration or corporate greed. Harris has chosen the latter.

In a news release Wednesday, her campaign said the first 100 days of her presidency would include the “first-ever federal ban on price gouging on food and groceries — setting clear rules of the road to make clear that big corporations can’t unfairly exploit consumers to run up excessive corporate profits on food and groceries.”

What are these “clear rules of the road” or the thresholds that determine when a price or profit level becomes “excessive”? The memo doesn’t say, and the campaign did not answer questions I sent seeking clarification.

The most likely template for Harris’s proposal is a recent bill from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). (Harris co-sponsored similar legislation with Warren in 2020, when Harris was a senator.) Warren’s bill would ban any “grossly excessive price” during any “atypical disruption” of a market. Alas, no definition was provided for these terms, either; rather, the bill would empower the Federal Trade Commission to enforce bans using any metric it deems appropriate.

It’s hard to exaggerate how bad this policy is. It is, in all but name, a sweeping set of government-enforced price controls across every industry, not only food. Supply and demand would no longer determine prices or profit levels. Far-off Washington bureaucrats would. The FTC would be able to tell, say, a Kroger in Ohio the acceptable price it can charge for milk.

At best, this would lead to shortages, black markets and hoarding, among other distortions seen previous times countries tried to limit price growth by fiat. (There’s a reason narrower “price gouging” laws that exist in some U.S. states are rarely invoked.) At worst, it might accidentally raise prices.

That’s because, among other things, the legislation would ban companies from offering lower prices to a big customer such as Costco than to Joe’s Corner Store, which means quantity discounts are in trouble. Worse, it would require public companies to publish detailed internal data about costs, margins, contracts and their future pricing strategies. Posting cost and pricing plans publicly is a fantastic way for companies to collude to keep prices higher — all facilitated by the government.

You know Kamala Harris's policy is bad if the Washington post is criticizing it.
 
GearSolidMetal said:
As crazy as she is I'm quite certain she's a victim of rape, but not by Trump.

By the way, its an open question for anyone to answer - Name another 'rape victim' what doesn't even recall what year the rape took place.

Go ahead, find one.
Click to expand...
“Yes someone raped her. But not the man who was proven to and not in the manner he openly admits to”

Got it.
 
DoctorTaco said:
Ok?


Ooooh, I get it. They’re corrupt because they’re black women! Of course.
Click to expand...

No, its been plainly more obvious that Democrats support any means to the ends that are in advantage to their party.

ALL of the appeal court judges are -
*Black
*Female
*Live in/close to NYC.
-Which means there's a 99% chance they're Democrats, all of them.

And judges commonly socialize with politicans, and politicians with judges. People with power commonly associate with other powerful people.
 
DoctorTaco said:
“Yes someone raped her. But not the man who was proven to and not in the manner he openly admits to”

Got it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, it was October 2016 the 'grab em by the pussy' tape went public, and E Jean Carroll suddenly remembers that Trump grabbed her by the pussy.... but not what year. It was either late 1995 or early 1996.

Does it really matter what year?
You must say you believe her or you might as well have raped her yourself.

#Believeallwomen
#PoundMeToo
#GrabMeByThePussyTooTrump.
 
White Whale said:

When your opponent calls you ‘communist,’ maybe don’t propose price controls?
It’s hard to exaggerate how bad Kamala Harris’s price-gouging proposal is.

"Price gouging” is the focus of Vice President Kamala Harris’s economic agenda, her presidential campaign says. She’ll crack down on “excessive prices” and “excessive corporate profits,” particularly for groceries.

So what level counts as “excessive,” you might ask? TBD, but Harris will ban it.

That’s the thing about price gouging: As has been said of hardcore pornography, you know it when you see it.

It’s not hard to figure out where this proposal came from. Voters want to blame someone for high grocery bills, and the presidential candidates have apparently decided the choices are either the Biden administration or corporate greed. Harris has chosen the latter.

In a news release Wednesday, her campaign said the first 100 days of her presidency would include the “first-ever federal ban on price gouging on food and groceries — setting clear rules of the road to make clear that big corporations can’t unfairly exploit consumers to run up excessive corporate profits on food and groceries.”

What are these “clear rules of the road” or the thresholds that determine when a price or profit level becomes “excessive”? The memo doesn’t say, and the campaign did not answer questions I sent seeking clarification.

The most likely template for Harris’s proposal is a recent bill from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). (Harris co-sponsored similar legislation with Warren in 2020, when Harris was a senator.) Warren’s bill would ban any “grossly excessive price” during any “atypical disruption” of a market. Alas, no definition was provided for these terms, either; rather, the bill would empower the Federal Trade Commission to enforce bans using any metric it deems appropriate.

It’s hard to exaggerate how bad this policy is. It is, in all but name, a sweeping set of government-enforced price controls across every industry, not only food. Supply and demand would no longer determine prices or profit levels. Far-off Washington bureaucrats would. The FTC would be able to tell, say, a Kroger in Ohio the acceptable price it can charge for milk.

At best, this would lead to shortages, black markets and hoarding, among other distortions seen previous times countries tried to limit price growth by fiat. (There’s a reason narrower “price gouging” laws that exist in some U.S. states are rarely invoked.) At worst, it might accidentally raise prices.

That’s because, among other things, the legislation would ban companies from offering lower prices to a big customer such as Costco than to Joe’s Corner Store, which means quantity discounts are in trouble. Worse, it would require public companies to publish detailed internal data about costs, margins, contracts and their future pricing strategies. Posting cost and pricing plans publicly is a fantastic way for companies to collude to keep prices higher — all facilitated by the government.

You know Kamala Harris's policy is bad if the Washington post is criticizing it.
Click to expand...

I hate to break it to you, but the government already regulates the price of milk between the dairy farmers and the milk processors. But for some strange reason, there will be mass shortages on milk if the corporation is capped on milk prices lol.

Also, hilarious that you mention Kroger. Here's their CEO talking about full throating the consumers lol. Also a bunch of other executives talking about the same shit. These people used inflation as an excuse to price gouge you, brother. You don't have to believe me,listen to them. They are telling you this loud and clear.

 
idrankyourbeer's maid said:
Click to expand...


I'm tired of these types of so-called enlightened black activists, if you don't want to be on what you call the Democratic plantation grab your tiki torch and light your way over to the Republication plantation and get yourself one of them black jobs and be happy living that MAGA Jim Crowe life was better back then.
 
DoctorTaco said:
Ok?


Ooooh, I get it. They’re corrupt because they’re black women! Of course.
Click to expand...

No. Because they are monotone in ideology and they bring their politics to the bench.

As far as race goes, what are the odds that they all come from a demographic that is less than 7% of the population. What the hell is that? Where is the balance since you Left Cult types want to play the demographic game everywhere?
 
Now we finally get to hear some of her policy and it's straight up Communism. She actually wants to put food under price controls which is a disaster and the last move of despots when they have wrecked economies.

Who is ready for food lines when the farmers can't make a profit?
 
White Whale said:

When your opponent calls you ‘communist,’ maybe don’t propose price controls?
It’s hard to exaggerate how bad Kamala Harris’s price-gouging proposal is.

"Price gouging” is the focus of Vice President Kamala Harris’s economic agenda, her presidential campaign says. She’ll crack down on “excessive prices” and “excessive corporate profits,” particularly for groceries.

So what level counts as “excessive,” you might ask? TBD, but Harris will ban it.

That’s the thing about price gouging: As has been said of hardcore pornography, you know it when you see it.

It’s not hard to figure out where this proposal came from. Voters want to blame someone for high grocery bills, and the presidential candidates have apparently decided the choices are either the Biden administration or corporate greed. Harris has chosen the latter.

In a news release Wednesday, her campaign said the first 100 days of her presidency would include the “first-ever federal ban on price gouging on food and groceries — setting clear rules of the road to make clear that big corporations can’t unfairly exploit consumers to run up excessive corporate profits on food and groceries.”

What are these “clear rules of the road” or the thresholds that determine when a price or profit level becomes “excessive”? The memo doesn’t say, and the campaign did not answer questions I sent seeking clarification.

The most likely template for Harris’s proposal is a recent bill from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). (Harris co-sponsored similar legislation with Warren in 2020, when Harris was a senator.) Warren’s bill would ban any “grossly excessive price” during any “atypical disruption” of a market. Alas, no definition was provided for these terms, either; rather, the bill would empower the Federal Trade Commission to enforce bans using any metric it deems appropriate.

It’s hard to exaggerate how bad this policy is. It is, in all but name, a sweeping set of government-enforced price controls across every industry, not only food. Supply and demand would no longer determine prices or profit levels. Far-off Washington bureaucrats would. The FTC would be able to tell, say, a Kroger in Ohio the acceptable price it can charge for milk.

At best, this would lead to shortages, black markets and hoarding, among other distortions seen previous times countries tried to limit price growth by fiat. (There’s a reason narrower “price gouging” laws that exist in some U.S. states are rarely invoked.) At worst, it might accidentally raise prices.

That’s because, among other things, the legislation would ban companies from offering lower prices to a big customer such as Costco than to Joe’s Corner Store, which means quantity discounts are in trouble. Worse, it would require public companies to publish detailed internal data about costs, margins, contracts and their future pricing strategies. Posting cost and pricing plans publicly is a fantastic way for companies to collude to keep prices higher — all facilitated by the government.

You know Kamala Harris's policy is bad if the Washington post is criticizing it.
Click to expand...
Whippy McGee said:
Now we finally get to hear some of her policy and it's straight up Communism. She actually wants to put food under price controls which is a disaster and the last move of despots when they have wrecked economies.

Who is ready for food lines when the farmers can't make a profit?
Click to expand...
0h no! cheaper groceries! <Ellaria01> the monster!
 
Paynebringer said:
I'm tired of these types of so-called enlightened black activists, if you don't want to be on what you call the Democratic plantation grab your tiki torch and light your way over to the Republication plantation and get yourself one of them black jobs and be happy living that MAGA Jim Crowe life was better back then.
Click to expand...
LMAO @ "pro-black" activist.

Is that an example of a "black job"?
 
GearSolidMetal said:
No, its been plainly more obvious that Democrats support any means to the ends that are in advantage to their party.

ALL of the appeal court judges are -
*Black
*Female
*Live in/close to NYC.
-Which means there's a 99% chance they're Democrats, all of them.

And judges commonly socialize with politicans, and politicians with judges. People with power commonly associate with other powerful people.
Click to expand...
“They are black and they are women so they must be biased and think the same way”

You ain’t beating the racism allegations, bud
 
Last edited:
Andy Capp said:
LMAO @ "pro-black" activist.

Is that an example of a "black job"?
Click to expand...
Dr. Umar is a racist that hates white people and inter-racial marriage. I dunno why MAGA dorks here are promoting him like he would agree with them either…
 
Last edited:
White Whale said:

When your opponent calls you ‘communist,’ maybe don’t propose price controls?
It’s hard to exaggerate how bad Kamala Harris’s price-gouging proposal is.

"Price gouging” is the focus of Vice President Kamala Harris’s economic agenda, her presidential campaign says. She’ll crack down on “excessive prices” and “excessive corporate profits,” particularly for groceries.

So what level counts as “excessive,” you might ask? TBD, but Harris will ban it.

That’s the thing about price gouging: As has been said of hardcore pornography, you know it when you see it.

It’s not hard to figure out where this proposal came from. Voters want to blame someone for high grocery bills, and the presidential candidates have apparently decided the choices are either the Biden administration or corporate greed. Harris has chosen the latter.

In a news release Wednesday, her campaign said the first 100 days of her presidency would include the “first-ever federal ban on price gouging on food and groceries — setting clear rules of the road to make clear that big corporations can’t unfairly exploit consumers to run up excessive corporate profits on food and groceries.”

What are these “clear rules of the road” or the thresholds that determine when a price or profit level becomes “excessive”? The memo doesn’t say, and the campaign did not answer questions I sent seeking clarification.

The most likely template for Harris’s proposal is a recent bill from Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.). (Harris co-sponsored similar legislation with Warren in 2020, when Harris was a senator.) Warren’s bill would ban any “grossly excessive price” during any “atypical disruption” of a market. Alas, no definition was provided for these terms, either; rather, the bill would empower the Federal Trade Commission to enforce bans using any metric it deems appropriate.

It’s hard to exaggerate how bad this policy is. It is, in all but name, a sweeping set of government-enforced price controls across every industry, not only food. Supply and demand would no longer determine prices or profit levels. Far-off Washington bureaucrats would. The FTC would be able to tell, say, a Kroger in Ohio the acceptable price it can charge for milk.

At best, this would lead to shortages, black markets and hoarding, among other distortions seen previous times countries tried to limit price growth by fiat. (There’s a reason narrower “price gouging” laws that exist in some U.S. states are rarely invoked.) At worst, it might accidentally raise prices.

That’s because, among other things, the legislation would ban companies from offering lower prices to a big customer such as Costco than to Joe’s Corner Store, which means quantity discounts are in trouble. Worse, it would require public companies to publish detailed internal data about costs, margins, contracts and their future pricing strategies. Posting cost and pricing plans publicly is a fantastic way for companies to collude to keep prices higher — all facilitated by the government.

You know Kamala Harris's policy is bad if the Washington post is criticizing it.
Click to expand...
Eh, voters want to hear that politicians have a solution for inflation, which, as long as we live in a market economy, they don't.

They chance that price controls are extended over large swatches of the economy is null.

However, there are places where prices can and should be negotiated, for example how Medicare negotiates drug prices. This hasn't crashed the world economy so far that I'm aware of.... in fact, pretty sure big pharma is still doing OK.

Whippy McGee said:
Now we finally get to hear some of her policy and it's straight up Communism. She actually wants to put food under price controls which is a disaster and the last move of despots when they have wrecked economies.

Who is ready for food lines when the farmers can't make a profit?
Click to expand...
Literally was crying about the price of groceries yesterday.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Latest posts

Forum statistics

Threads
1,281,057
Messages
58,337,841
Members
176,004
Latest member
SehagEvez

Share this page

Back
Top