2024 General Election - Trump vs Kamala Harris

[Justafan]

24 minutes ago, Mercalius said:

@Justafan I’m here for you man.  You clearly see what’s in front of you.  No spin, no partisan skew - she said what she said.  And it’s not great, as you obviously know.  I know you’re not on “my side” in politics but maybe this is an eye opener on why people like me, who were once definitively in the middle, moved a little bit.  She hid for a month, then when finally felt compelled to speak on the policy that’s lead to where we are basically promoted the beginning stages of communism.  It’s fucking scary for anyone that’s read a history book.  

I think it's hyperbole to suggest she's going to implement communism but we can find common ground in the bad policy. 

[Justafan]

37 minutes ago, ctm said:

No where does it say the government will set the price of any product. 

 

And more importantly, no where has she said the government will set the price of any product.

Lol. Okay. 

 

That's exactly what it says, but I'm not gonna go back and forth with you. Enjoy la la land. 

[Mercalius]

11 minutes ago, Justafan said:

I think it's hyperbole to suggest she's going to implement communism but we can find common ground in the bad policy. 

Im not going to try and convince you of that - but look back to some of her comments particularly about the government stripping people of their IPs.  Her dad was literally a Marxist professor.  Politicians like her are how those policies creep their foot in the door.   I initially thought she’d be more moderate than advertised but upon further research I’m really not sure.  She’s either a bad communicator and just wants to try to please the audience in front of her with dopamine-fueled immediate gratification without actually knowing what she’s promoting.  Or she truly does know what she’s promoting.  Both are bad.  Really bad.  

[Justafan]

4 minutes ago, Mercalius said:

Im not going to try and convince you of that - but look back to some of her comments particularly about the government stripping people of their IPs.  Her dad was literally a Marxist professor.  Politicians like her are how those policies creep their foot in the door.   I initially thought she’d be more moderate than advertised but upon further research I’m really not sure.  She’s either a bad communicator and just wants to try to please the audience in front of her with dopamine-fueled immediate gratification without actually knowing what she’s promoting.  Or she truly does know what she’s promoting.  Both are bad.  Really bad.  

What I will say is that Republicans have tried HARD to label her and most Dems as communists or at least die-hard far-left socialists. I don't think that's really true, but these are far more progressive policies than I initially thought she was going to lead with. I also think this gives Republicans legitimate ammo to attack her along that line because price controls IS a marxist policy. 

 

I think there's room for nuance here and I don't think Kamala is a marxist and maybe she'll reign some of this stuff back in but on the face, most economists will tell you this is just bad policy. I'm not talking about conservative economists either, just good ones. 

[OzTitan]

I don't see regulation against corporate price gouging as very different to many other regulations that put a limiter on unfettered capitalism, of which there are plenty and of which only someone being silly would argue should 100% all go. Whether this would be one probably comes down to the finer details but I think the principle of consumers needing protection from corruption is more than reasonable.

 

Also, ideally, a policy like this is there to deter corrupt practices. It's like telling markets with oligopolies to self-regulate or risk facing regulation. I think there's a good chance this is what it would amount to.

 

First home buyer policies is firmly in the region of "great on paper, ???? in reality" as it almost certainly doesn't lead to lower prices for FHBs, at least not at 100% of the value of the grant/concession, because prices will simply rise to capture the new capital available to FHBs. Housing policy that doesn't involve improving supply seems like a waste of time most of the time.

[ctm]

2 hours ago, Justafan said:

Lol. Okay. 

 

That's exactly what it says, but I'm not gonna go back and forth with you. Enjoy la la land. 

 

https://www.whitehouse.gov/briefing-room/speeches-remarks/2024/08/16/remarks-by-vice-president-harris-at-a-campaign-event-in-raleigh-nc/

 

This is the actual text of her speech:

 

    We all know that prices went up during the pandemic when the supply chains shut down and failed, but our supply chains have now improved and prices are still too high. 
     A lo- — a loaf of bread costs 50 percent more today than it did before the pandemic.  Ground beef is up almost 50 percent.  Many of the big food companies are seeing their highest profits in two decades.  And while many grocery chains pass along these savings, others still aren’t. 

    As attorney general in California, I went after companies that illegally increased prices, including wholesalers that inflated the price of prescription medication and companies that conspired with competitors to keep prices of electronics high.  I won more than $1 billion for consumers.  (Applause.) 
     So, believe me, as president, I will go after the bad actors.  (Applause.)  And I will work to pass the first-ever federal ban on prou- — price gauging [gouging] on food.  (Applause.)

     My plan will include new penalties for opportunistic companies that exploit crises and break the rules, and we will support smaller food businesses that are trying to play by the rules and get ahead.  (Applause.) 
     We will help the food industry become more competitive, because I believe competition is the lifeblood of our economy.  More competition means lower prices for you and your families.  (Applause.)

 

 

Here's the actual text......Feel free to quote the part where she talks about wage price controls or the government setting prices.   

 

 

[OzTitan]

Based on that text alone, and if that's the totality of what she said, then I don't think you're being honest if you think this equates to literal communistic government price controls. It's just too big a leap to make unless you want to make it.

 

And it's really hard to truly analyze without the specific details. Like, what penalties for exploitive companies? what constitutes being a company that exploits crises? without details and some analysis of what it would have done had it been in place these past few years, it is impossible to say what sort of impact it might have.

 

Like I said, it seems like more of a threat to offending corporations and very very likely won't ever come close to anything like Government mandating prices.

 

Making smaller business more competitive is a great idea in general but I suspect communist-chicken-littles will be conditioned to attack that idea as well if it came to it.

[ctm]

15 minutes ago, OzTitan said:

Based on that text alone, and if that's the totality of what she said, then I don't think you're being honest if you think this equates to literal communistic government price controls. It's just too big a leap to make unless you want to make it.

 

And it's really hard to truly analyze without the specific details. Like, what penalties for exploitive companies? what constitutes being a company that exploits crises? without details and some analysis of what it would have done had it been in place these past few years, it is impossible to say what sort of impact it might have.

 

Like I said, it seems like more of a threat to offending corporations and very very likely won't ever come close to anything like Government mandating prices.

 

Making smaller business more competitive is a great idea in general but I suspect communist-chicken-littles will be conditioned to attack that idea as well if it came to it.

 

Republicans won't be able to resist overstating what she wants to do here.  It's in their DNA to exaggerate it.  What she proposed was a new law on food price gouging and going after the companies that violate it.

 

Harris has a proven record as Cal AG of recovering money for consumers. It's easy to look up.  A jury found that Trump ripped off the taxpayers of NY for over 400M.

 

If the battlefield is who is on the side of consumers and who isn't, she wins every time.  And she's virtually inviting them to debate on the issue of consumer protection.  I say....bring it.

Edited August 17, 2024 by ctm

[headhunter]

I'm glad yall are talking about Kamala's Soviet Union ideas to federally control food prices, 25k subsidy for first time home buyers. People are pissed about these ideas. Shows you she grew up with a marxist

Edited August 17, 2024 by headhunter

[OILERMAN]

 

[oldschool]

3 hours ago, OzTitan said:

I don't see regulation against corporate price gouging as very different to many other regulations that put a limiter on unfettered capitalism, of which there are plenty and of which only someone being silly would argue should 100% all go. Whether this would be one probably comes down to the finer details but I think the principle of consumers needing protection from corruption is more than reasonable.

 

Also, ideally, a policy like this is there to deter corrupt practices. It's like telling markets with oligopolies to self-regulate or risk facing regulation. I think there's a good chance this is what it would amount to.

 

First home buyer policies is firmly in the region of "great on paper, ???? in reality" as it almost certainly doesn't lead to lower prices for FHBs, at least not at 100% of the value of the grant/concession, because prices will simply rise to capture the new capital available to FHBs. Housing policy that doesn't involve improving supply seems like a waste of time most of the time.

 

There is a massive shortage of housing of all types which drives up demand which drives up costs. It's a classic case of supply vs demand. The real challenge of her policy is getting local and state governments to go along with it. I can already see GOP AGs in states like MO, TX, and even VA suing the admin to block it or even downright not taking advantage of it like they've done with Medicare expansion. 

[ChesterCopperpot1]

5 hours ago, Justafan said:

Better than any other economic system in human history, yes. Federal price control is communism my friend. It hasn't worked out well in the past. 

Price gouging laws already exist. 

[headhunter]

3 minutes ago, ChesterCopperpot1 said:

Price gouging laws already exist. 

If you do that to food they'll be a food shortage. This will only increase inflation, then add the 25k help for first time home buyers then you're gonna have alot of people defaulting on their loans , which is what happened in 2009, or it's gonna price out homes even further. 

Edited August 17, 2024 by headhunter

[OILERMAN]

3 minutes ago, oldschool said:

 

There is a massive shortage of housing of all types which drives up demand which drives up costs. It's a classic case of supply vs demand. The real challenge of her policy is getting local and state governments to go along with it. I can already see GOP AGs in states like MO, TX, and even VA suing the admin to block it or even downright not taking advantage of it like they've done with Medicare expansion. 

 

Like when the started Obamacare and red states refused to participate and fucked over their constituents 

[nine]

I’m quite ignorant to the inner workings of supply chain economics…but we all know price-gouging when we see it.     I find it hard to believe there can’t be a middle ground that would discourage and penalize flagrant  price gouging without significantly influencing or disrupting consumer and supply chain business models. 
 

According to a recent podcast….over the last 40-50 years, corporate profits typically accounted for roughly 12% of food manufacturers’ price increases.   Which is fair.

 

(This is based on the numbers reported to the manufacturers’ shareholders).  
 

However….during the wave of dramatic price increases over the past 4+ years since the pandemic started, shareholder reports show that corporate profit now accounts for a full 54% of price increases.  
 

If we assume the numbers they reported are accurate…these manufacturers literally increased their profit margins by 450%.   In some cases, these companies reported dramatic decreases in production and sales quantities year over year…yet somehow their revenue and profits more than doubled, despite selling far less product.
 

I’m all for capitalism…but the corporate suppliers and sellers have turned it into a power play and are now actively putting the screws to consumers.  The delicate balance of consumer supply-and-demand had been thrown all out of whack, forcing consumers to choose:  either pay these exorbitant price increases….or go without.

 

I don’t like the idea of government regulating industry any more than the next guy….but whatever sense of restraint or self-regulation these corporations once had has clearly gone out the window.   
 

The fact that price gouging and federal price controls is even topic of conversation underscores how screwed up things have gotten.    I certainly don’t have an answer….but something’s gotta give.  And these corporations clearly can’t be trusted to right the ship on their own.