~47~President Kamala D. Harris~47~

[youthathletics]

Harris and Walz slogan.... "Strength through Joy"; hmmm, sound familiar? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_Through_Joy

[NattyBohChamps04]

Harris and Walz slogan.... "Strength through Joy"; hmmm, sound familiar? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_Through_Joy

Where are you seeing that slogan?

[kramerica.inc]

Harris and Walz slogan.... "Strength through Joy"; hmmm, sound familiar? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_Through_Joy

Where are you seeing that slogan?

Haven't heard that one specifically.
But the joy bit was being pushed last week:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/har ... -112767906

[MDlaxfan76]

She said it here: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/1 ... h-00174112

Seems last time we wanted the gov't to control pricing......

We already do that. Have been for decades.

And many States have anti-gouging laws on the book, my man.

So....now what? Is your party going to get rid of the price controls and the Farm Bill and let the (snicker) free market work?

Or is the plan to keep pretending you don't support that, and throw stones at Dems for doing the same thing you and your party has supported for DECADES.

Been asking you chaps to kill the Farm Bill for YEARS now, and let rural Americans deal with the same market forces them lazy city folk have to deal with....

It’s interesting that people are actually buying the right wing claptrap that battling price gouging is the same as prce fixing. It’s not remotely close but it doesn’t stop idiots from calling it communism.

CEOs in their investor calls bragged about their “pricing power” with consumers as costs fell, enabling margin expansion. Moreover, there’s all sorts of signaling competitors which allows tacit collusion to keep prices higher even as other costs fall or moderate.

What is being proposed is to be able to challenge such situations and fine egregious such.

This effort needs to only be with the largest players who have such power and profits, say $100 million in annual profits or more.

Behavior will change, no price fixing.

Well, first I have to apologize to YA.....forgot for a second he left the R party. Apologies, lost my head there.

That said.....the rest stands. The R party has been claiming in the media that this is communism. Great news...then let's stop ALL of the fiddling in the free market.

No need to apologize, but thank you.

More intel and discussion on the matter, rather than calling people idiots and claiming to have all the answers, unless MD is working for Kamala and has laid out her plan: https://x.com/RobertMSterling/status/18 ... 8008391127

Uhhhh..that's the perspective of .01%er who wants his Monopolies left alone. So he builds a strawman that has NOTHING to do with what Kamala has mentioned. And then declares that America will burn down.

His solution is........what, exactly?

More idiots, according to MDLAX...... this time from the NYT: https://x.com/kylenabecker/status/1825350258110439711

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/brook ... -proposals

Brooks and Rampel are not idiots, however they are not actually calling her plan communism (though they use some hyperbole), but they are indeed among those who are contributing to "the right wing claptrap that battling price gouging is the same as price fixing." Rather than clarifying what she's actually proposing as differentiated from price fixing, Brooks tacks away to actually implying there's no longer a problem...because grocery inflation has only been 1% this past year. Which is totally tone deaf. That's a failed political strategy.

He's right (as is Rampel) that what happened was primarily due to supply chain disruption, primarily Covid and also Russian invasion impacts, but gouging is either raising prices faster than costs are actually rising or failing to pull them down after costs recede. And that happened, and continues to happen as costs have receded more than prices have...and it's throughout the supply chain. Moreover, the normal, much less ideal, dynamics of price competition don't kick in when there's oligopoly signaling, eg 'collusion' that keeps those prices high.

Pretending that it's not happening or that consumers don't continue to feel those impacts is both wrong and tone deaf.

Addressing it successfully is complicated and they are entirely correct that price fixing isn't remotely the answer. It's a failed technique whether it smacks of communism or not.

But that's NOT what she's proposing (at least as I understand the actually details). Instead, she's proposing a federal authority comparable to state authorities to challenge whether gouging is occurring and additionally whether there's collusive activity occurring...I've previously said that the execution details are critical and I suspect not yet fully hammered out but that's the essence of it.

So, we can imagine a potential FTC inquiry about pricing behaviors relative to costs occurring that would certainly make a large corporation think twice about margin expansion beyond some normal prior range. Again, this needs to be about the very largest players with major pricing influence on the market, not medium or small sized companies.

I think Brooks and Rampel should be helping voters understand the nuances of what good policy would be as well as what would not be in this area, not feeding the beast of right wing, corporatist reactionism. Help suggest good policy not just pee on what it might be if they're not smart. Calling it "illiteracy" is totally unhelpful, though good for clicks and eyeballs.

I also think that while they are correct that there proved to be a negative side of the various stimulus packages, including the Biden one, they are overstating that single stimulus as causal rather than making clear that a decade of hyper easy money and then enormous aggregate fiscal stimulus due to a worldwide pandemic financial crisis added up to the big inflation...not just the last stimulus. And yet our inflation was and is among the lowest of major developed economies...

Where I think the economists who are worried about government intervention are generally correct about all this is that prices do tend to adjust given enough time and competition. Government can be ham handed whereas the markets generally adjust. So, be careful with any intervention.

However, this is also heavily about politics and the biggest rap on the Biden Admin has been that they have been unable to convince people that they did what was necessary, and it worked, and to be patient about inflation...markets and Fed will get it with enough time. Voters aren't willing to accept that and Harris is changing that narrative going forward that her Admin would be complacent.

She's clearly communicating that she hears the public and she's going to push for lower prices.

I think that she and the Campaign surrogates need to lean into the collusion aspects particularly heavily. This is where there's really no question that such should be illegal and subject to real challenge...moreover, she has a prior successful record of using California's heft to go after such behaviors.

That's where this really does come together both politically and economically.

That said, the reality is that inflation is waning now and four years from now is quite unlikely to be a serious issue the way it is now. And that would be the case regardless of price gouging pushbacks...

[kramerica.inc]

Harris and Walz slogan.... "Strength through Joy"; hmmm, sound familiar? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_Through_Joy

Where are you seeing that slogan?

Haven't heard that one specifically.
But the joy bit was being pushed last week:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/har ... -112767906

Kamala Announces Plan To Hang 'Joy' Sign Above Bread Lines

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Beloved presidential candidate Kamala Harris recently unveiled a touching new plan to hang a sign reading "Joy" over every bread line in America if she is elected president.

According to her speech, the sign would help encourage Americans who will be forced to wait in miles-long bread lines for a small government handout of watery soup and gluten-free bread. Several journalists have already embraced Kamala's plan, pointing out the morale boost it will offer the American people.

"It's brilliant, actually," said Jim Acosta, a reporter for CNN. "Americans are facing record rates of depression and anxiety because of sky-high inflation, national debt, and a tanking economy, which Kamala Harris had absolutely nothing to do with. Kamala's plan will rectify all of the problems caused by the previous administration and give Americans a sweet reminder of the ‘Joy' they'll be able to experience by chatting with their neighbors in the bread lines. It's policy gold!"

Kamala was unfortunately unavailable to give comment as she was needed for an urgent meeting in the White House basement. Most Americans have expressed their disapproval of the proposed policy.

"That's nice, I guess," said Paul Gerry, an electrician. "But what about fixing inflation or taxes? And why do we need bread lines anyway? Wasn't that like a Soviet thing? That doesn't sound fun."

At publishing time, Kamala had also unveiled a plan to paint the word "Peace" on every tank and armored personnel carrier that her administration will ship overseas.

https://babylonbee.com/news/touching-ka ... read-lines

[a fan]

Harris and Walz slogan.... "Strength through Joy"; hmmm, sound familiar? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_Through_Joy

Where are you seeing that slogan?

Haven't heard that one specifically.
But the joy bit was being pushed last week:

https://abcnews.go.com/US/wireStory/har ... -112767906

Kamala Announces Plan To Hang 'Joy' Sign Above Bread Lines

WASHINGTON, D.C. — Beloved presidential candidate Kamala Harris recently unveiled a touching new plan to hang a sign reading "Joy" over every bread line in America if she is elected president.

According to her speech, the sign would help encourage Americans who will be forced to wait in miles-long bread lines for a small government handout of watery soup and gluten-free bread. Several journalists have already embraced Kamala's plan, pointing out the morale boost it will offer the American people.

"It's brilliant, actually," said Jim Acosta, a reporter for CNN. "Americans are facing record rates of depression and anxiety because of sky-high inflation, national debt, and a tanking economy, which Kamala Harris had absolutely nothing to do with. Kamala's plan will rectify all of the problems caused by the previous administration and give Americans a sweet reminder of the ‘Joy' they'll be able to experience by chatting with their neighbors in the bread lines. It's policy gold!"

Kamala was unfortunately unavailable to give comment as she was needed for an urgent meeting in the White House basement. Most Americans have expressed their disapproval of the proposed policy.

"That's nice, I guess," said Paul Gerry, an electrician. "But what about fixing inflation or taxes? And why do we need bread lines anyway? Wasn't that like a Soviet thing? That doesn't sound fun."

At publishing time, Kamala had also unveiled a plan to paint the word "Peace" on every tank and armored personnel carrier that her administration will ship overseas.

https://babylonbee.com/news/touching-ka ... read-lines

The knee jerk response from the .01%er Republicans is comical.....

.....when do we get to dismantle the Republican-led Farm Bill with its handouts, price controls, crop buybacks, free insurances, etc. etc. if this is the work of "communists"?

Been waiting for them to get rid of the Farm Bill for 40 years now. Strangely, they just keep making it bigger.

[a fan]

Harris and Walz slogan.... "Strength through Joy"; hmmm, sound familiar? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_Through_Joy

It's a page out of Reagan. That's what sounds familiar. Carter tried the gloom and doom message. Didn't work so well.

[MDlaxfan76]

Industry reaction...again, this needs to focus on largest players and on what is already illegal behavior in some states.

https://www.grocerydive.com/news/kamala ... ery%20Dive

[youthathletics]

She said it here: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/1 ... h-00174112

Seems last time we wanted the gov't to control pricing......

We already do that. Have been for decades.

And many States have anti-gouging laws on the book, my man.

So....now what? Is your party going to get rid of the price controls and the Farm Bill and let the (snicker) free market work?

Or is the plan to keep pretending you don't support that, and throw stones at Dems for doing the same thing you and your party has supported for DECADES.

Been asking you chaps to kill the Farm Bill for YEARS now, and let rural Americans deal with the same market forces them lazy city folk have to deal with....

It’s interesting that people are actually buying the right wing claptrap that battling price gouging is the same as prce fixing. It’s not remotely close but it doesn’t stop idiots from calling it communism.

CEOs in their investor calls bragged about their “pricing power” with consumers as costs fell, enabling margin expansion. Moreover, there’s all sorts of signaling competitors which allows tacit collusion to keep prices higher even as other costs fall or moderate.

What is being proposed is to be able to challenge such situations and fine egregious such.

This effort needs to only be with the largest players who have such power and profits, say $100 million in annual profits or more.

Behavior will change, no price fixing.

Well, first I have to apologize to YA.....forgot for a second he left the R party. Apologies, lost my head there.

That said.....the rest stands. The R party has been claiming in the media that this is communism. Great news...then let's stop ALL of the fiddling in the free market.

No need to apologize, but thank you.

More intel and discussion on the matter, rather than calling people idiots and claiming to have all the answers, unless MD is working for Kamala and has laid out her plan: https://x.com/RobertMSterling/status/18 ... 8008391127

Uhhhh..that's the perspective of .01%er who wants his Monopolies left alone. So he builds a strawman that has NOTHING to do with what Kamala has mentioned. And then declares that America will burn down.

His solution is........what, exactly?

More idiots, according to MDLAX...... this time from the NYT: https://x.com/kylenabecker/status/1825350258110439711

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/brook ... -proposals

Brooks and Rampel are not idiots, however they are not actually calling her plan communism (though they use some hyperbole), but they are indeed among those who are contributing to "the right wing claptrap that battling price gouging is the same as price fixing." Rather than clarifying what she's actually proposing as differentiated from price fixing, Brooks tacks away to actually implying there's no longer a problem...because grocery inflation has only been 1% this past year. Which is totally tone deaf. That's a failed political strategy.

He's right (as is Rampel) that what happened was primarily due to supply chain disruption, primarily Covid and also Russian invasion impacts, but gouging is either raising prices faster than costs are actually rising or failing to pull them down after costs recede. And that happened, and continues to happen as costs have receded more than prices have...and it's throughout the supply chain. Moreover, the normal, much less ideal, dynamics of price competition don't kick in when there's oligopoly signaling, eg 'collusion' that keeps those prices high.

Pretending that it's not happening or that consumers don't continue to feel those impacts is both wrong and tone deaf.

Addressing it successfully is complicated and they are entirely correct that price fixing isn't remotely the answer. It's a failed technique whether it smacks of communism or not.

But that's NOT what she's proposing (at least as I understand the actually details). Instead, she's proposing a federal authority comparable to state authorities to challenge whether gouging is occurring and additionally whether there's collusive activity occurring...I've previously said that the execution details are critical and I suspect not yet fully hammered out but that's the essence of it.

So, we can imagine a potential FTC inquiry about pricing behaviors relative to costs occurring that would certainly make a large corporation think twice about margin expansion beyond some normal prior range. Again, this needs to be about the very largest players with major pricing influence on the market, not medium or small sized companies.

I think Brooks and Rampel should be helping voters understand the nuances of what good policy would be as well as what would not be in this area, not feeding the beast of right wing, corporatist reactionism. Help suggest good policy not just pee on what it might be if they're not smart. Calling it "illiteracy" is totally unhelpful, though good for clicks and eyeballs.

I also think that while they are correct that there proved to be a negative side of the various stimulus packages, including the Biden one, they are overstating that single stimulus as causal rather than making clear that a decade of hyper easy money and then enormous aggregate fiscal stimulus due to a worldwide pandemic financial crisis added up to the big inflation...not just the last stimulus. And yet our inflation was and is among the lowest of major developed economies...

Where I think the economists who are worried about government intervention are generally correct about all this is that prices do tend to adjust given enough time and competition. Government can be ham handed whereas the markets generally adjust. So, be careful with any intervention.

However, this is also heavily about politics and the biggest rap on the Biden Admin has been that they have been unable to convince people that they did what was necessary, and it worked, and to be patient about inflation...markets and Fed will get it with enough time. Voters aren't willing to accept that and Harris is changing that narrative going forward that her Admin would be complacent.

She's clearly communicating that she hears the public and she's going to push for lower prices.

I think that she and the Campaign surrogates need to lean into the collusion aspects particularly heavily. This is where there's really no question that such should be illegal and subject to real challenge...moreover, she has a prior successful record of using California's heft to go after such behaviors.

That's where this really does come together both politically and economically.

That said, the reality is that inflation is waning now and four years from now is quite unlikely to be a serious issue the way it is now. And that would be the case regardless of price gouging pushbacks...

Usually, when you get long winded, its a sign you are apologizing or slowly eating some crow in some combination...in any event, we will accept your offer.

[youthathletics]

Harris and Walz slogan.... "Strength through Joy"; hmmm, sound familiar? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_Through_Joy

It's a page out of Reagan. That's what sounds familiar. Carter tried the gloom and doom message. Didn't work so well.

So move the goalpost 180 degrees...got it.

[MDlaxfan76]

She said it here: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/1 ... h-00174112

Seems last time we wanted the gov't to control pricing......

We already do that. Have been for decades.

And many States have anti-gouging laws on the book, my man.

So....now what? Is your party going to get rid of the price controls and the Farm Bill and let the (snicker) free market work?

Or is the plan to keep pretending you don't support that, and throw stones at Dems for doing the same thing you and your party has supported for DECADES.

Been asking you chaps to kill the Farm Bill for YEARS now, and let rural Americans deal with the same market forces them lazy city folk have to deal with....

It’s interesting that people are actually buying the right wing claptrap that battling price gouging is the same as prce fixing. It’s not remotely close but it doesn’t stop idiots from calling it communism.

CEOs in their investor calls bragged about their “pricing power” with consumers as costs fell, enabling margin expansion. Moreover, there’s all sorts of signaling competitors which allows tacit collusion to keep prices higher even as other costs fall or moderate.

What is being proposed is to be able to challenge such situations and fine egregious such.

This effort needs to only be with the largest players who have such power and profits, say $100 million in annual profits or more.

Behavior will change, no price fixing.

Well, first I have to apologize to YA.....forgot for a second he left the R party. Apologies, lost my head there.

That said.....the rest stands. The R party has been claiming in the media that this is communism. Great news...then let's stop ALL of the fiddling in the free market.

No need to apologize, but thank you.

More intel and discussion on the matter, rather than calling people idiots and claiming to have all the answers, unless MD is working for Kamala and has laid out her plan: https://x.com/RobertMSterling/status/18 ... 8008391127

Uhhhh..that's the perspective of .01%er who wants his Monopolies left alone. So he builds a strawman that has NOTHING to do with what Kamala has mentioned. And then declares that America will burn down.

His solution is........what, exactly?

More idiots, according to MDLAX...... this time from the NYT: https://x.com/kylenabecker/status/1825350258110439711

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/brook ... -proposals

Brooks and Rampel are not idiots, however they are not actually calling her plan communism (though they use some hyperbole), but they are indeed among those who are contributing to "the right wing claptrap that battling price gouging is the same as price fixing." Rather than clarifying what she's actually proposing as differentiated from price fixing, Brooks tacks away to actually implying there's no longer a problem...because grocery inflation has only been 1% this past year. Which is totally tone deaf. That's a failed political strategy.

He's right (as is Rampel) that what happened was primarily due to supply chain disruption, primarily Covid and also Russian invasion impacts, but gouging is either raising prices faster than costs are actually rising or failing to pull them down after costs recede. And that happened, and continues to happen as costs have receded more than prices have...and it's throughout the supply chain. Moreover, the normal, much less ideal, dynamics of price competition don't kick in when there's oligopoly signaling, eg 'collusion' that keeps those prices high.

Pretending that it's not happening or that consumers don't continue to feel those impacts is both wrong and tone deaf.

Addressing it successfully is complicated and they are entirely correct that price fixing isn't remotely the answer. It's a failed technique whether it smacks of communism or not.

But that's NOT what she's proposing (at least as I understand the actually details). Instead, she's proposing a federal authority comparable to state authorities to challenge whether gouging is occurring and additionally whether there's collusive activity occurring...I've previously said that the execution details are critical and I suspect not yet fully hammered out but that's the essence of it.

So, we can imagine a potential FTC inquiry about pricing behaviors relative to costs occurring that would certainly make a large corporation think twice about margin expansion beyond some normal prior range. Again, this needs to be about the very largest players with major pricing influence on the market, not medium or small sized companies.

I think Brooks and Rampel should be helping voters understand the nuances of what good policy would be as well as what would not be in this area, not feeding the beast of right wing, corporatist reactionism. Help suggest good policy not just pee on what it might be if they're not smart. Calling it "illiteracy" is totally unhelpful, though good for clicks and eyeballs.

I also think that while they are correct that there proved to be a negative side of the various stimulus packages, including the Biden one, they are overstating that single stimulus as causal rather than making clear that a decade of hyper easy money and then enormous aggregate fiscal stimulus due to a worldwide pandemic financial crisis added up to the big inflation...not just the last stimulus. And yet our inflation was and is among the lowest of major developed economies...

Where I think the economists who are worried about government intervention are generally correct about all this is that prices do tend to adjust given enough time and competition. Government can be ham handed whereas the markets generally adjust. So, be careful with any intervention.

However, this is also heavily about politics and the biggest rap on the Biden Admin has been that they have been unable to convince people that they did what was necessary, and it worked, and to be patient about inflation...markets and Fed will get it with enough time. Voters aren't willing to accept that and Harris is changing that narrative going forward that her Admin would be complacent.

She's clearly communicating that she hears the public and she's going to push for lower prices.

I think that she and the Campaign surrogates need to lean into the collusion aspects particularly heavily. This is where there's really no question that such should be illegal and subject to real challenge...moreover, she has a prior successful record of using California's heft to go after such behaviors.

That's where this really does come together both politically and economically.

That said, the reality is that inflation is waning now and four years from now is quite unlikely to be a serious issue the way it is now. And that would be the case regardless of price gouging pushbacks...

Usually, when you get long winded, its a sign you are apologizing or slowly eating some crow in some combination...in any event, we will accept your offer.

I thought this deserved a fulsome response as the issue is actually complicated.
It happens to involve an arena that I know quite a lot about.
Do you see any wavering in my thoughts from my original post?

Or just more detail?

BTW, another deeply conservative person endorses Harris.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/19/politics ... index.html

Worth also listening to:https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/19/politics ... -ip-digvid

[a fan]

Harris and Walz slogan.... "Strength through Joy"; hmmm, sound familiar? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_Through_Joy

It's a page out of Reagan. That's what sounds familiar. Carter tried the gloom and doom message. Didn't work so well.

So move the goalpost 180 degrees...got it.

Did Harris say "strength through joy". Or did "some guy on the internet"?

Her ACTUAL use of the word Joy is......straight out of Reagan' counter to Carter.

[youthathletics]

She said it here: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/1 ... h-00174112

Seems last time we wanted the gov't to control pricing......

We already do that. Have been for decades.

And many States have anti-gouging laws on the book, my man.

So....now what? Is your party going to get rid of the price controls and the Farm Bill and let the (snicker) free market work?

Or is the plan to keep pretending you don't support that, and throw stones at Dems for doing the same thing you and your party has supported for DECADES.

Been asking you chaps to kill the Farm Bill for YEARS now, and let rural Americans deal with the same market forces them lazy city folk have to deal with....

It’s interesting that people are actually buying the right wing claptrap that battling price gouging is the same as prce fixing. It’s not remotely close but it doesn’t stop idiots from calling it communism.

CEOs in their investor calls bragged about their “pricing power” with consumers as costs fell, enabling margin expansion. Moreover, there’s all sorts of signaling competitors which allows tacit collusion to keep prices higher even as other costs fall or moderate.

What is being proposed is to be able to challenge such situations and fine egregious such.

This effort needs to only be with the largest players who have such power and profits, say $100 million in annual profits or more.

Behavior will change, no price fixing.

Well, first I have to apologize to YA.....forgot for a second he left the R party. Apologies, lost my head there.

That said.....the rest stands. The R party has been claiming in the media that this is communism. Great news...then let's stop ALL of the fiddling in the free market.

No need to apologize, but thank you.

More intel and discussion on the matter, rather than calling people idiots and claiming to have all the answers, unless MD is working for Kamala and has laid out her plan: https://x.com/RobertMSterling/status/18 ... 8008391127

Uhhhh..that's the perspective of .01%er who wants his Monopolies left alone. So he builds a strawman that has NOTHING to do with what Kamala has mentioned. And then declares that America will burn down.

His solution is........what, exactly?

More idiots, according to MDLAX...... this time from the NYT: https://x.com/kylenabecker/status/1825350258110439711

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/brook ... -proposals

Brooks and Rampel are not idiots, however they are not actually calling her plan communism (though they use some hyperbole), but they are indeed among those who are contributing to "the right wing claptrap that battling price gouging is the same as price fixing." Rather than clarifying what she's actually proposing as differentiated from price fixing, Brooks tacks away to actually implying there's no longer a problem...because grocery inflation has only been 1% this past year. Which is totally tone deaf. That's a failed political strategy.

He's right (as is Rampel) that what happened was primarily due to supply chain disruption, primarily Covid and also Russian invasion impacts, but gouging is either raising prices faster than costs are actually rising or failing to pull them down after costs recede. And that happened, and continues to happen as costs have receded more than prices have...and it's throughout the supply chain. Moreover, the normal, much less ideal, dynamics of price competition don't kick in when there's oligopoly signaling, eg 'collusion' that keeps those prices high.

Pretending that it's not happening or that consumers don't continue to feel those impacts is both wrong and tone deaf.

Addressing it successfully is complicated and they are entirely correct that price fixing isn't remotely the answer. It's a failed technique whether it smacks of communism or not.

But that's NOT what she's proposing (at least as I understand the actually details). Instead, she's proposing a federal authority comparable to state authorities to challenge whether gouging is occurring and additionally whether there's collusive activity occurring...I've previously said that the execution details are critical and I suspect not yet fully hammered out but that's the essence of it.

So, we can imagine a potential FTC inquiry about pricing behaviors relative to costs occurring that would certainly make a large corporation think twice about margin expansion beyond some normal prior range. Again, this needs to be about the very largest players with major pricing influence on the market, not medium or small sized companies.

I think Brooks and Rampel should be helping voters understand the nuances of what good policy would be as well as what would not be in this area, not feeding the beast of right wing, corporatist reactionism. Help suggest good policy not just pee on what it might be if they're not smart. Calling it "illiteracy" is totally unhelpful, though good for clicks and eyeballs.

I also think that while they are correct that there proved to be a negative side of the various stimulus packages, including the Biden one, they are overstating that single stimulus as causal rather than making clear that a decade of hyper easy money and then enormous aggregate fiscal stimulus due to a worldwide pandemic financial crisis added up to the big inflation...not just the last stimulus. And yet our inflation was and is among the lowest of major developed economies...

Where I think the economists who are worried about government intervention are generally correct about all this is that prices do tend to adjust given enough time and competition. Government can be ham handed whereas the markets generally adjust. So, be careful with any intervention.

However, this is also heavily about politics and the biggest rap on the Biden Admin has been that they have been unable to convince people that they did what was necessary, and it worked, and to be patient about inflation...markets and Fed will get it with enough time. Voters aren't willing to accept that and Harris is changing that narrative going forward that her Admin would be complacent.

She's clearly communicating that she hears the public and she's going to push for lower prices.

I think that she and the Campaign surrogates need to lean into the collusion aspects particularly heavily. This is where there's really no question that such should be illegal and subject to real challenge...moreover, she has a prior successful record of using California's heft to go after such behaviors.

That's where this really does come together both politically and economically.

That said, the reality is that inflation is waning now and four years from now is quite unlikely to be a serious issue the way it is now. And that would be the case regardless of price gouging pushbacks...

Usually, when you get long winded, its a sign you are apologizing or slowly eating some crow in some combination...in any event, we will accept your offer.

I thought this deserved a fulsome response as the issue is actually complicated.
It happens to involve an arena that I know quite a lot about.
Do you see any wavering in my thoughts from my original post?

Or just more detail?

BTW, another deeply conservative person endorses Harris.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/19/politics ... index.html

It's how you went full on Trumplike...calling people idiots, which certainly appeared to directed at 'me', then 24 hours later begin walking back to crass response....I will give you credit, you did walk it back, whereas Trump would not...but you did start out like him, so you have that going for you.

Good, glad to see it. I still think Kamala, yet another manhole cover, is receiving far more votes against trump rather than for her. If Indies sit this one out...it could be an odd final result and not very close.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Harris and Walz slogan.... "Strength through Joy"; hmmm, sound familiar? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_Through_Joy

Yeah man, exactly like "arbeit macht frei." Sure. Keep trolling through the "internet" and posting the garbage here.

https://www.discogs.com/artist/49850-St ... hrough-Joy

[cradleandshoot]

Harris and Walz slogan.... "Strength through Joy"; hmmm, sound familiar? https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Strength_Through_Joy

Yeah man, exactly like "arbeit macht frei." Sure. Keep trolling through the "internet" and posting the garbage here.

https://www.discogs.com/artist/49850-St ... hrough-Joy

Kamala did say hard work should be rewarded in one of her TV ads. She never mentioned that it would also set you free.

[Seacoaster(1)]

Maybe the person most closely parroting the National Socialists is Vance: Kinder, Küche, Kirche -- as long as it's white?

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/19/opin ... vance.html

"While Donald Trump hides out in Mar-a-Lago, JD Vance has spent the past few weeks taking point on the G.O.P.’s continued struggle to define Kamala Harris. The Republican vice-presidential nominee’s beef with women who don’t have children, as outlined in an interview in 2021, has resurfaced. At the time, Vance derided Harris as emblematic of “childless cat ladies” who don’t have a “direct stake” in America. He now claims this “childless cat lady” routine was sarcasm, stating that he meant only that making more babies is a good thing for this nation. That still implies that not having children is un-American. It also underscores how Trump and Vance have very few pro-family policy proposals for actual babies, as opposed to talking about imagined babies that women should be having. Vance’s ham-handed attempts to have it both ways reveal the wink-wink of today’s egregious right-wing identity politics and point to the ways that this election’s identity politics might play out through innuendo and metaphor.

The idea of a childless cat lady is an uninspired dog whistle among others — old maid, crone, witch — that are designed to reduce a woman’s social value to her ability and willingness to reproduce. When Vance says that Harris is one of many childless cat ladies who are miserable and trying to make the rest of the world miserable, he is calling on a set of sexist, racist ideas about which women are even allowed to count as real women. Namely, married mothers are real women, and the rest of us are horrible divergences from the social contract.

Vance’s commentary hints at a decades-old idea, popular in overlapping antidemocratic circles, that this country has a demographic crisis, couched in the notion that declining birthrates are destabilizing the economy. That idea is rife with xenophobic fears that white Americans are not having enough children and immigration is an undesirable way to bolster demographic growth. Fears about population decline like this typically end up really being racist fears about this country’s declining white majority.

The gag is clear when you consider which issues pronatalists like Vance consider worthy and which he does not. Black women have the highest maternal mortality rates in this country, followed by Native American women. Yet his stated pro-birthing policy policies do not address the high cost of giving birth for minority women.

The G.O.P., in particular, has tapped into white male rage about women — especially educated white women — who can choose when and how they will have children. As a result, some commentators have begun to call this election the presidential contest of the genders, with male grievance finding an outlet in Trump’s brand of big man politics and women finding resonance for their post-Dobbs rage in the Democratic Party. Through Trump’s bluster and Vance’s comments, the G.O.P. has begun to lay a trap for Harris by calling her into a rhetorical war about motherhood that a Black woman of immigrant descent cannot win.

All female political candidates are expected to narrate their motherhood status or, at least, their mother-like qualities. But no other presidential candidate had to meet this challenge the way Harris will. Watching this campaign wrestle with the G.O.P.’s motherhood purity test, so far, has been a lesson in how not to fall for dog whistle traps.

In the 2020 primary contest, Harris introduced us to “Momala,” a term of endearment from her stepchildren. “Momala” gestures to her role as a woman who mothers but does not have biological children. That kind of mothering is familiar to millions of Americans who have blended families, but a broader concept of mothering is also cultural. In communities that do not hew as closely to the idea of a white Western nuclear family, anyone who invests in and cares for children and social relations can mother.

Vance’s cat lady comments are an early sign of the G.O.P.’s easiest attack on what “Momala” represents. In multiple public comments, Vance has hammered home that “real” Americans are those with children. His policy proposals show a preference for traditional, married households. Brad Wilcox, a professor of sociology at the University of Virginia, has said Vance deserves credit for the way that “family life, childbearing and pronatalism has gotten a lot more popular.” While Vance tries to backpedal from his 2021 remarks, he has a track record of claiming that people without children represent this nation’s “anti-child ideology.” He has referred to “our people” not having enough children, which raises the question: Who is included in “our,” and who is not?

It seems to exclude single parents, stepparents, gay parents and all manner of nontraditional families. These attacks are designed to bait Harris into attempting to prove that she is what many on the right imagine a real mother to be. That mother is not just a biological parent. She’s an iteration of another gendered G.O.P. trope: the mama bear. That’s the ferocious mother figure who enacts political consequences in defense of her children and in service of a white-first nation whose full franchise belongs to white men.

As much as Americans talk about Hillary Clinton when it comes to women in presidential politics, our country also owes a lot to Sarah Palin. In 2010 she was a political supernova. At an anti-abortion fund-raiser she introduced the world to a brand of “mama grizzly” conservative women in national politics. “Real” women, like her, did not enter the rough-and-tumble world of presidential politics for fame and glory. They ran and governed because they were afraid for their children’s future. And they carried guns — especially assault rifles — so they could defend their children, putting a charming face on the G.O.P.’s most important constituency: the N.R.A. evangelists.

Palin’s shtick had a clear message: Anything a mother like her did in defense of her young was also good for America. Since then, her archetype morphed into the mama bear brand of retail politics deployed by women like Kari Lake and Marjorie Taylor Greene. Whereas Palin’s branding played up her homespun Alaskan frontier image, mama bear politics encompass something bigger. It is a female conservative political brand that embraces gun rights and female aggression in defense of traditional family values.

Harris cannot be a mama bear. No one who looks like Harris can be a mama bear. When Black mothers take up arms in defense of their children, they are threats to social order. When Black mothers grieve their children’s deaths in public — like Mike Brown’s mother, like Eric Garner’s mother, like Emmett Till’s mother — they indict the very white violence that the mama bear symbolizes. The power of their grief visibly threatens the power structures of white supremacy.

Immigrant mothers, especially those of brown complexions, embody similar threats. In the imagination of many Americans, they have “anchor babies” to steal white Americans’ rights and tax dollars. They cross the border, dirtying the nation’s sovereignty. As a woman of color, Harris is more likely to embody the nation’s fears about violent nonwhite Americans, dangerous borders and a multiracial democracy than its hope for a white nation.

Given how powerful all of these triggers are in political discourse, it would be natural to want to fight back with proof that Harris is a real mother and women like her are real mothers. That would be a mistake. However charming “Momala” is as a political biography, it is in no way powerful enough to counter the racial fears that nonwhite motherhood stokes in this nation’s soul.

The Harris campaign has, so far, toned down the mother-in-chief narrative that her 2020 primary campaign prioritized. Instead, they are focusing on how, as vice president, she has championed policies that benefit all mothers, like child care, maternity leave and motherhood mortality research. She led the Biden administration’s first Maternal Health Day of Action. As a candidate, she is working family-friendly policies into her economic platform, such as restoring the administration’s child tax credit, giving families with a newborn a $6,000 credit, and expanding the earned-income tax credit for low-wage workers. That is not as powerful as the G.O.P. mama bear symbolism. But it does not have to be.

It just has to resist the temptation to fall for the trap that Vance has set — worrying about the talk of motherhood — and instead focus on policies that actually help parents of all types and their children."

[cradleandshoot]

Maybe the person most closely parroting the National Socialists is Vance: Kinder, Küche, Kirche -- as long as it's white?

https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/19/opin ... vance.html

"While Donald Trump hides out in Mar-a-Lago, JD Vance has spent the past few weeks taking point on the G.O.P.’s continued struggle to define Kamala Harris. The Republican vice-presidential nominee’s beef with women who don’t have children, as outlined in an interview in 2021, has resurfaced. At the time, Vance derided Harris as emblematic of “childless cat ladies” who don’t have a “direct stake” in America. He now claims this “childless cat lady” routine was sarcasm, stating that he meant only that making more babies is a good thing for this nation. That still implies that not having children is un-American. It also underscores how Trump and Vance have very few pro-family policy proposals for actual babies, as opposed to talking about imagined babies that women should be having. Vance’s ham-handed attempts to have it both ways reveal the wink-wink of today’s egregious right-wing identity politics and point to the ways that this election’s identity politics might play out through innuendo and metaphor.

The idea of a childless cat lady is an uninspired dog whistle among others — old maid, crone, witch — that are designed to reduce a woman’s social value to her ability and willingness to reproduce. When Vance says that Harris is one of many childless cat ladies who are miserable and trying to make the rest of the world miserable, he is calling on a set of sexist, racist ideas about which women are even allowed to count as real women. Namely, married mothers are real women, and the rest of us are horrible divergences from the social contract.

Vance’s commentary hints at a decades-old idea, popular in overlapping antidemocratic circles, that this country has a demographic crisis, couched in the notion that declining birthrates are destabilizing the economy. That idea is rife with xenophobic fears that white Americans are not having enough children and immigration is an undesirable way to bolster demographic growth. Fears about population decline like this typically end up really being racist fears about this country’s declining white majority.

The gag is clear when you consider which issues pronatalists like Vance consider worthy and which he does not. Black women have the highest maternal mortality rates in this country, followed by Native American women. Yet his stated pro-birthing policy policies do not address the high cost of giving birth for minority women.

The G.O.P., in particular, has tapped into white male rage about women — especially educated white women — who can choose when and how they will have children. As a result, some commentators have begun to call this election the presidential contest of the genders, with male grievance finding an outlet in Trump’s brand of big man politics and women finding resonance for their post-Dobbs rage in the Democratic Party. Through Trump’s bluster and Vance’s comments, the G.O.P. has begun to lay a trap for Harris by calling her into a rhetorical war about motherhood that a Black woman of immigrant descent cannot win.

All female political candidates are expected to narrate their motherhood status or, at least, their mother-like qualities. But no other presidential candidate had to meet this challenge the way Harris will. Watching this campaign wrestle with the G.O.P.’s motherhood purity test, so far, has been a lesson in how not to fall for dog whistle traps.

In the 2020 primary contest, Harris introduced us to “Momala,” a term of endearment from her stepchildren. “Momala” gestures to her role as a woman who mothers but does not have biological children. That kind of mothering is familiar to millions of Americans who have blended families, but a broader concept of mothering is also cultural. In communities that do not hew as closely to the idea of a white Western nuclear family, anyone who invests in and cares for children and social relations can mother.

Vance’s cat lady comments are an early sign of the G.O.P.’s easiest attack on what “Momala” represents. In multiple public comments, Vance has hammered home that “real” Americans are those with children. His policy proposals show a preference for traditional, married households. Brad Wilcox, a professor of sociology at the University of Virginia, has said Vance deserves credit for the way that “family life, childbearing and pronatalism has gotten a lot more popular.” While Vance tries to backpedal from his 2021 remarks, he has a track record of claiming that people without children represent this nation’s “anti-child ideology.” He has referred to “our people” not having enough children, which raises the question: Who is included in “our,” and who is not?

It seems to exclude single parents, stepparents, gay parents and all manner of nontraditional families. These attacks are designed to bait Harris into attempting to prove that she is what many on the right imagine a real mother to be. That mother is not just a biological parent. She’s an iteration of another gendered G.O.P. trope: the mama bear. That’s the ferocious mother figure who enacts political consequences in defense of her children and in service of a white-first nation whose full franchise belongs to white men.

As much as Americans talk about Hillary Clinton when it comes to women in presidential politics, our country also owes a lot to Sarah Palin. In 2010 she was a political supernova. At an anti-abortion fund-raiser she introduced the world to a brand of “mama grizzly” conservative women in national politics. “Real” women, like her, did not enter the rough-and-tumble world of presidential politics for fame and glory. They ran and governed because they were afraid for their children’s future. And they carried guns — especially assault rifles — so they could defend their children, putting a charming face on the G.O.P.’s most important constituency: the N.R.A. evangelists.

Palin’s shtick had a clear message: Anything a mother like her did in defense of her young was also good for America. Since then, her archetype morphed into the mama bear brand of retail politics deployed by women like Kari Lake and Marjorie Taylor Greene. Whereas Palin’s branding played up her homespun Alaskan frontier image, mama bear politics encompass something bigger. It is a female conservative political brand that embraces gun rights and female aggression in defense of traditional family values.

Harris cannot be a mama bear. No one who looks like Harris can be a mama bear. When Black mothers take up arms in defense of their children, they are threats to social order. When Black mothers grieve their children’s deaths in public — like Mike Brown’s mother, like Eric Garner’s mother, like Emmett Till’s mother — they indict the very white violence that the mama bear symbolizes. The power of their grief visibly threatens the power structures of white supremacy.

Immigrant mothers, especially those of brown complexions, embody similar threats. In the imagination of many Americans, they have “anchor babies” to steal white Americans’ rights and tax dollars. They cross the border, dirtying the nation’s sovereignty. As a woman of color, Harris is more likely to embody the nation’s fears about violent nonwhite Americans, dangerous borders and a multiracial democracy than its hope for a white nation.

Given how powerful all of these triggers are in political discourse, it would be natural to want to fight back with proof that Harris is a real mother and women like her are real mothers. That would be a mistake. However charming “Momala” is as a political biography, it is in no way powerful enough to counter the racial fears that nonwhite motherhood stokes in this nation’s soul.

The Harris campaign has, so far, toned down the mother-in-chief narrative that her 2020 primary campaign prioritized. Instead, they are focusing on how, as vice president, she has championed policies that benefit all mothers, like child care, maternity leave and motherhood mortality research. She led the Biden administration’s first Maternal Health Day of Action. As a candidate, she is working family-friendly policies into her economic platform, such as restoring the administration’s child tax credit, giving families with a newborn a $6,000 credit, and expanding the earned-income tax credit for low-wage workers. That is not as powerful as the G.O.P. mama bear symbolism. But it does not have to be.

It just has to resist the temptation to fall for the trap that Vance has set — worrying about the talk of motherhood — and instead focus on policies that actually help parents of all types and their children."

I have no opinion about Vance one way or another. I know he used to despise trump...good JD, once he became trumps VP...bad JD. The more hatred I see thrown at the man tells me Democrats are scared of him. The Vance vs Walz debate should be interesting to watch.

[MDlaxfan76]

She said it here: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/08/1 ... h-00174112

Seems last time we wanted the gov't to control pricing......

We already do that. Have been for decades.

And many States have anti-gouging laws on the book, my man.

So....now what? Is your party going to get rid of the price controls and the Farm Bill and let the (snicker) free market work?

Or is the plan to keep pretending you don't support that, and throw stones at Dems for doing the same thing you and your party has supported for DECADES.

Been asking you chaps to kill the Farm Bill for YEARS now, and let rural Americans deal with the same market forces them lazy city folk have to deal with....

It’s interesting that people are actually buying the right wing claptrap that battling price gouging is the same as prce fixing. It’s not remotely close but it doesn’t stop idiots from calling it communism.

CEOs in their investor calls bragged about their “pricing power” with consumers as costs fell, enabling margin expansion. Moreover, there’s all sorts of signaling competitors which allows tacit collusion to keep prices higher even as other costs fall or moderate.

What is being proposed is to be able to challenge such situations and fine egregious such.

This effort needs to only be with the largest players who have such power and profits, say $100 million in annual profits or more.

Behavior will change, no price fixing.

Well, first I have to apologize to YA.....forgot for a second he left the R party. Apologies, lost my head there.

That said.....the rest stands. The R party has been claiming in the media that this is communism. Great news...then let's stop ALL of the fiddling in the free market.

No need to apologize, but thank you.

More intel and discussion on the matter, rather than calling people idiots and claiming to have all the answers, unless MD is working for Kamala and has laid out her plan: https://x.com/RobertMSterling/status/18 ... 8008391127

Uhhhh..that's the perspective of .01%er who wants his Monopolies left alone. So he builds a strawman that has NOTHING to do with what Kamala has mentioned. And then declares that America will burn down.

His solution is........what, exactly?

More idiots, according to MDLAX...... this time from the NYT: https://x.com/kylenabecker/status/1825350258110439711

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/brook ... -proposals

Brooks and Rampel are not idiots, however they are not actually calling her plan communism (though they use some hyperbole), but they are indeed among those who are contributing to "the right wing claptrap that battling price gouging is the same as price fixing." Rather than clarifying what she's actually proposing as differentiated from price fixing, Brooks tacks away to actually implying there's no longer a problem...because grocery inflation has only been 1% this past year. Which is totally tone deaf. That's a failed political strategy.

He's right (as is Rampel) that what happened was primarily due to supply chain disruption, primarily Covid and also Russian invasion impacts, but gouging is either raising prices faster than costs are actually rising or failing to pull them down after costs recede. And that happened, and continues to happen as costs have receded more than prices have...and it's throughout the supply chain. Moreover, the normal, much less ideal, dynamics of price competition don't kick in when there's oligopoly signaling, eg 'collusion' that keeps those prices high.

Pretending that it's not happening or that consumers don't continue to feel those impacts is both wrong and tone deaf.

Addressing it successfully is complicated and they are entirely correct that price fixing isn't remotely the answer. It's a failed technique whether it smacks of communism or not.

But that's NOT what she's proposing (at least as I understand the actually details). Instead, she's proposing a federal authority comparable to state authorities to challenge whether gouging is occurring and additionally whether there's collusive activity occurring...I've previously said that the execution details are critical and I suspect not yet fully hammered out but that's the essence of it.

So, we can imagine a potential FTC inquiry about pricing behaviors relative to costs occurring that would certainly make a large corporation think twice about margin expansion beyond some normal prior range. Again, this needs to be about the very largest players with major pricing influence on the market, not medium or small sized companies.

I think Brooks and Rampel should be helping voters understand the nuances of what good policy would be as well as what would not be in this area, not feeding the beast of right wing, corporatist reactionism. Help suggest good policy not just pee on what it might be if they're not smart. Calling it "illiteracy" is totally unhelpful, though good for clicks and eyeballs.

I also think that while they are correct that there proved to be a negative side of the various stimulus packages, including the Biden one, they are overstating that single stimulus as causal rather than making clear that a decade of hyper easy money and then enormous aggregate fiscal stimulus due to a worldwide pandemic financial crisis added up to the big inflation...not just the last stimulus. And yet our inflation was and is among the lowest of major developed economies...

Where I think the economists who are worried about government intervention are generally correct about all this is that prices do tend to adjust given enough time and competition. Government can be ham handed whereas the markets generally adjust. So, be careful with any intervention.

However, this is also heavily about politics and the biggest rap on the Biden Admin has been that they have been unable to convince people that they did what was necessary, and it worked, and to be patient about inflation...markets and Fed will get it with enough time. Voters aren't willing to accept that and Harris is changing that narrative going forward that her Admin would be complacent.

She's clearly communicating that she hears the public and she's going to push for lower prices.

I think that she and the Campaign surrogates need to lean into the collusion aspects particularly heavily. This is where there's really no question that such should be illegal and subject to real challenge...moreover, she has a prior successful record of using California's heft to go after such behaviors.

That's where this really does come together both politically and economically.

That said, the reality is that inflation is waning now and four years from now is quite unlikely to be a serious issue the way it is now. And that would be the case regardless of price gouging pushbacks...

Usually, when you get long winded, its a sign you are apologizing or slowly eating some crow in some combination...in any event, we will accept your offer.

I thought this deserved a fulsome response as the issue is actually complicated.
It happens to involve an arena that I know quite a lot about.
Do you see any wavering in my thoughts from my original post?

Or just more detail?

BTW, another deeply conservative person endorses Harris.
https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/19/politics ... index.html

It's how you went full on Trumplike...calling people idiots, which certainly appeared to directed at 'me', then 24 hours later begin walking back to crass response....I will give you credit, you did walk it back, whereas Trump would not...but you did start out like him, so you have that going for you.

Good, glad to see it. I still think Kamala, yet another manhole cover, is receiving far more votes against trump rather than for her. If Indies sit this one out...it could be an odd final result and not very close.

I don't recall ever referring to you as an idiot.

Are we talking about some earlier instance, or this particular discussion?

Let me be clear, I DO think that anyone who actually thinks what Harris is proposing is "communism" is an IDIOT.

Folks can personally assess for themselves whether that applies to them personally or not...depends on what they actually think. I make no negative assumptions, particularly about my fellow posters, including you. I assume rationality.

But I have no illusions on this, there ARE a lot of idiots out there willing to believe all sorts of nonsense ("claptrap" they're told) if it feeds their little worldview. That can be left or right.

As to your assessment of whether there are more votes against Trump than for her personally, that might be correct in our binary world, but does that actually matter? What we do know is that the contrast between her and Trump is drawing a lot more voters, especially independents, than was being drawn by a contrast between Biden and Trump.

I don't find that surprising. Nor that 'double haters' are 2:1 moving to Harris, same for Haley voters, same for Independents generally. Same for younger voters previously undecided, 2:1.

I also don't find it surprising that so many actual conservatives, ala Luttig, Cheney, Kinzinger, etc are rejecting Trump. The permission structure is now there to reject Trump and the MAGA GOP...as a conservative. They don't "favor her policies" but are putting country over party and even country over ideology. There's even some evidence of a permission structure for evangelicals to reject Trump. Small but happening.

I also don't find it surprising that the women gap for her has grown a lot relative to Biden (and more than Clinton), whereas the male gap is basically the same for Trump as before. Women generally find her authentically an advocate for their priorities (Hillary had more doubters).

There's a significant subset of men who are attracted to Trump's excesses and anger and resentments and excuse any moral failings as a result of that attraction. That's perhaps the most unmovable segment of Trump base voters, whether college educated or not. It happens to be heavily non college educated, but certainly not exclusively.

I think we may see another record turnout achieved, though it's possible that exhaustion may set in on the GOP side if Trump stays on this fumbling, bumbling, angry, dark course...and I think he really can't help himself at this point.

And Harris may somehow stumble badly...lots of downside for her, for sure.

[Kismet]

That famous American communist - Tricky Dick Nixon instituted wage and price controls in 1971 - it didn't work


https://www.cato.org/commentary/remembe ... e-controls#

[kramerica.inc]

Industry reaction...again, this needs to focus on largest players and on what is already illegal behavior in some states.

https://www.grocerydive.com/news/kamala ... ery%20Dive

The Industry's reaction was interesting:

The NGA, which has led a crusade against what the group says are “unfair and discriminatory tactics” by large food retailers and suppliers that hurt independent grocers, criticized Harris’ proposal.

“The proposal calling for a ban on grocery price gouging is a solution in search of a problem,” NGA President and CEO Greg Ferrara said in a statement.

Laws aren't the issue in the US. Enforcement is.

Kinda reminds me: