As explained if you can't raise the prices the supply will dry up and then 3rd parties will make a market and make the money as they buy up the supply and charge 10x-100X for the items . During COVID the supply of Raspberry PI machines dried up and there were a ton of very shady 3rd party markets selling questionable machines with no returns or warranties . This was a great example of not raising the prices to meet the demand and supply , the Raspberry makers did not want to be accused of price gouging , with the effect of a shady market growing up and price gouging with no warranties and returns and lots of fakes stealing peoples money . So witch is worse , or pick your poison ? If the makers had raised prices the demand would have slow down but you would be able to buy a few without the shady market .
Will any of the Dems read this , hell no, they don't care because they need a scapegoat and this will give them one . Yes it will tank the economy but then there will be more controls to pass and put on , it's just so much press and it hides the real work that will go one in the back round to shut down free speech and start putting people that run against them in the jail . USSR here we come !
Somewhat simplified analysis here, to basically argue for something that no one wants to be the victim of. I assume the opposition here is more political than economic.
So, you are saying that Kamala Harris is not really going to prohibit "price gouging," but is merely going to prevent "price-fixing" among competitors? The latter is already prohibited by anti-trust laws.
Citing the NY Times as authoritative as authoritative for what Harris is thinking is truly laughable. The NYT is just offering its spin on term price-gouging and trying to put a patina of reasonableness on this truly reckless proposal. Besides, the NYT article doesn't give any more detail about the ban than Harris herself has given. The article quotes "people familiar with Ms. Harris’s thinking on the ban" to explain what's in her head. Right.
This is just another half-baked idea by an intellectually mediocre candidate who has no business being the chief executive officer of this or any nation.
She is talking about going after companies that aren’t playing by the rules that are already on the books. The Free Press is praising the glories of price gouging. The NY Times is trying to report on what her policy will actually look like, and they are reporting, accurately, that her plan is very thin on details and that leaves others free to define what she means. The campaign is making it very clear that they are not planning on fixing grocery prices by government fiat, which is what her opponents are saying.
If the the problem is "thin on details" then they can go and fill in the details no ? The problem is she is not giving anyone any details so it's a open check policy or trust me policy . Do you trust any politician today ? I don't , so of course this scares me big time. We have seen what Trump does and he talks a crazy long tail with clues in it , so he doesn't scare me as much . She doesn't say anything and won't take any questions this is very scary !
Price fixing and price gouging are not the same thing. If Harris is talking about fixing rather than gouging, she should say so. Cartel-like behavior with collusion to fix prices is already illegal. Here is what some serious economists have been saying about this:
"..... aggregate markups—the more relevant measure for overall inflation—have stayed essentially flat since the start of the recovery. As such, rising markups have not been a main driver of the recent surge and subsequent decline in inflation during the current recovery."
Taken from this article, from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco:
Yes. She is talking about going after companies that are not playing by the rules that are already on the books. Her opponents are dishonestly saying that she wants to fix prices by government fiat.
But the problem is what are the rules , if a company holds a copyright on something they are the sole producer and if the is a supply chain shortage would cause a shortage of items and thus 3rd party markets will buy up any supply and cause price increases or just shortages . If such company increases prices to slow demand they could be accused by the rules and cause fix prices by the government . Then this would cause 3rd party markets that cause price gouging and quality issues and fake markets . So the bottom line there is no difference here between the idea of gouging and regular markets with price increases ! That is why this idea is nonenforceable and most economist will tell you it's just stupid. This has been tried before and it has always fails .
I grew up in newly independent India. Its constitution has a short introductory statement: It declares India to be a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic committed to Justice, Equality and Liberty for the people.
All major business areas and services were owned and operated by the government - Railways, airlines, telecommunications, banks, life insurance, and so on. Those business entities that were not yet govt. operated had price controls on their output.
The result simplistically stating Everything was eternally in short supply. Twenty year wait for a telephone, 5-6 years for a scooter like Vespa, 3 years for a car. I volunteer to give an hour long presentation to the politicians who promote this agenda.
We had ration cards for all dry groceries, in Bombay a separate ration card for govt. supplied milk.
In 1977 January when we migrated to the US (legally) I was shocked to discover Washington DC had 12 - 15 commissions that set prices. FERC (Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm.) set prices for natural gas and gasoline. Trucking commission set prices for truck delivery between all US cities. IATA set prices for airline tickets. I am grateful to Pres. Carter who started deregulation of all of them. Some of the deregulation was completed in Reagan years.
A couple of additional points: In addition to the effects discussed, what the “price gouging” minimizes is having folks with more money grabbing up all of the resource when they get news of a problem coming. Then those with lesser means being left empty handed.
I also see such “controls” as a typical denial of reality. Our Left is doing this for everything else, why not throw supply and demand in ? I don’t like being gouged, but when I feel it I find another solution, and the gougers get their punishment in the long term. During the toilet paper scares of COVID, I went out and bought a simple hand held “bidet” that is in a short “hose” with a nozzle threads onto the bathroom sink faucet and hangs onto the toilet flush handle when not in use (never had to use, but it’s a backup for whenever).
I just returned from a lovely shopping trip with merchandise I purchased on sale due to overproduction. I got stuff below cost because someone misread the market. No one complains when they get the great deal from a glut of product. This is the other side of the supply\demand story, the side we love, we just need to remember there are two sides.
Excellent article! Having spent some time studying microeconomics my worldview changed dramatically from what my emotions told me to be true to what data showed me to be true. The nuance of economic reality is easily missed or dismissed by demogogues.
Anyone , like you who has had some microeconomics knows the idea of price control , price fixing , or anti gouging, is just a stupid idea , and the kicker this has been done before in the US and of course in the USSR etc . The bottom line it's just a stupid idea , that fails on many levels and causes many other problems because we all know 3rd party markets are bad for the consumer in many ways . 3rd party markets are the result of this kind of intervention .
Remember when egg prices rocketed allegedly due to avian flu? Remember when Robert Reich pointed out that the actual reduction in eggs produced was only about 4% while egg-producer profits rose significantly, and right-libertarians said he was full of shit?
Now, Kraft and other major food companies persuaded a federal jury in Chicago that top U.S. egg producers are liable for unlawfully inflating prices, paving the way for a second trial to determine damages.
What about the price increases for bread, meat, vegetables and other basic foods? Where are the disasters that caused this? The right-libertarian mind is so blindedby
Publicly available financial data shows that gross margin ratios for major grocery chains have actually decreased since 2020:
Kroger's gross margin ratio dropped from 0.229 in Q3 2020 to 0.217 in Q3 2021, a 5.2% decrease
For the first 9 months of 2021, Kroger's gross margin was 0.220, down from 0.234 in the same period of 2020
Publix saw its gross margin decrease from 0.281 in the first 9 months of 2020 to 0.277 in the same period of 2021
Albertsons' gross margin ratio fell from 0.295 to 0.289 when comparing 28-week periods in 2020 and 2021
Input Costs vs. Selling Prices
Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of Economic Analysis shows:
Input costs for food and beverage stores rose 9.3% since January 2020
Selling prices increased by only 6.8% in the same period
This indicates that rising consumer prices are largely due to retailers passing on higher costs, not excessive markups.
Broader Economic Factors
Several factors beyond retailer pricing have contributed to increased food costs:
Supply chain disruptions
Labor shortages
Increased consumer demand post-lockdowns
Pandemic relief spending
Foreign conflicts impacting trade of goods like wheat and fertilizers
While some elevated profit margins were observed in 2021-2022, most economists agree that corporate markups have not been a major driver of overall inflation
In conclusion, the available gross margin data and broader economic analysis do not support claims of systemic price gouging by major U.S. grocery retailers. The increases in food prices appear to be primarily driven by increased input costs and other macroeconomic factors rather than excessive retailer markups.
Ideology blinds. I don't agree with Harris's call for price controls. It didn't work for Nixon. But right libertarians find it impossible to conceive of business leaders saying amongst themselves, "Look, there's general inflation afoot, here's our chance to increase our profit margins while blaming forces beyond our control."
"But right libertarians find it impossible to conceive of business leaders saying amongst themselves, "Look, there's general inflation afoot, here's our chance to increase our profit margins while blaming forces beyond our control.""
I would say That's because They Don't. It doesn't work that way.
A couple quick points. Supply is also aided whenever market demand pricing is allowed to prevail. As an example, when a natural disaster (I live in a hurricane prone area) strikes, it’s the price gouging laws that artificially keep supply away. We’ll use portable generators as an example; If retailers, mom and pop shops, or just a couple guys in a truck could cover the added cost of getting them (generators) to the affected region at a higher price (even windfall pricing), there would be a line across the state of entrepreneurial types trucking in needed generators. What happens next? The prices come down as people race to bring in more supplies (supply/demand curve); equilibrium is eventually struck, people made more money and most importantly, to the articles main point, more people get what they need. If Home Depot could empty its shelves in every other non-affected state, ship every generator in stock and cover the added cost at a higher price they would. But the well intended, but economically ignorant, price gouging rules don’t allow it (and Home Depot wouldn’t want the bad press). So instead we hold the prices the same as pre-hurricane, run out of all supplies, and people suffer. Imagine how much more gas, food, water, etc would rush to an area if prices could be raised, profits made, and price discovery found. Instead, we hold to feel good, ineffective policies.
I don't disagree with the basic theory of all this, but I find this article a typical representation of "naive libertarianism."
I mean, really, this is too much, for example: "He took a big risk holding those rooms for us. Thank him and be grateful!" No, the fellow you're talking about was aiming to make a profit, and he was definitely taking advantage of your NEED. If another family had come along that had greater NEED than you, and either wasn't able to pay or you got there first, then they're f'd and you're sitting pretty. Let's take off the rose-colored glasses, shall we?
Here's another example: "Price gouging directs scarce supply to the people who really need it, encourages new supply to come in, encourages holding stockpiles for a rainy day, and encourages people to substitute for less scarce goods when they can." No qualms with this except the first part: market dynamics in times of scarcity do not get resources to those who NEED them, but to those who can AFFORD them.
A rich dude who likes a really clean butt might purchase all the toilet paper he wants before others get there first, especially if he has access to information others don't, and the poor family who is just trying to survive is sh*t out of luck, literally. And what does the Almighty Market have to say about this? Justice has been served. Maybe the rich clean guy can now sell his stock to that poor family at a sweet profit, making him richer and the family poorer. That's American progress and efficiency for you. All worship the Invisible Hand.
Mind you, I'm not wanting price controls, etc., but this Pollyanish nonsense from Reason types, et al., makes me roll my eyes in disgust. The world they live in is a cartoon.
All markets work the same , the US, USSR etc all work the same i.e. this is not libertarian-ism it's an economy . If you price fix you will cause a 3rd party market or underground markets , this works the same in the US and USSR . 3rd party markets are bad , no controls , no warranties , no returns etc . So best practices are to create regular fair markets that use prices to keep supply and demand in play . if prices go up it creates less demand and more instinctive to produce which will lower prices . Problems in markets are many but in general 3rd party markets are very bad and no one wants them, but are created when you price fix . This is not a theory but how all economies work .
Sorry... but the article is inane. There are multiple articles about food providers (eggs etc) recording significantly higher profits from price gouging.
I am not a fan of price controls, but am willing to wait for the details of Harris's plan before attacking it with such silly rationalizations as to how it performs a "vital economic function". And the example of 'disaster' area shortages are often handled by reputable retailers in the form of purchase quantity limits.
I went on Harris’s website to check out her plan, the only thing on it is a huge promo for donations and the bios of Harris & Walz. Is there a place to find her economic plan? I saw on Facebook that she wants to raise capital gains to 44% 😳. Hope this is misinformation.
You are wrong. It's not right for the prices to stay high years after the catastrophic event. When there is plenty the prices should return as well. Which they don't and haven't while corporate profits soar. And guess whose governments pay for the roads and sanitation and clean water and parks? Ever heard of the Commons? Read the constitution. It does not prioritize profits over community.
As explained if you can't raise the prices the supply will dry up and then 3rd parties will make a market and make the money as they buy up the supply and charge 10x-100X for the items . During COVID the supply of Raspberry PI machines dried up and there were a ton of very shady 3rd party markets selling questionable machines with no returns or warranties . This was a great example of not raising the prices to meet the demand and supply , the Raspberry makers did not want to be accused of price gouging , with the effect of a shady market growing up and price gouging with no warranties and returns and lots of fakes stealing peoples money . So witch is worse , or pick your poison ? If the makers had raised prices the demand would have slow down but you would be able to buy a few without the shady market .
Will any of the Dems read this , hell no, they don't care because they need a scapegoat and this will give them one . Yes it will tank the economy but then there will be more controls to pass and put on , it's just so much press and it hides the real work that will go one in the back round to shut down free speech and start putting people that run against them in the jail . USSR here we come !
Thank you free press for this truthful piece .
She has no business ever running any business let alone our country.
Somewhat simplified analysis here, to basically argue for something that no one wants to be the victim of. I assume the opposition here is more political than economic.
She's talking about cracking down on illegal price fixing. This column is assuming way too much about her intentions. If you want to know how high-quality journalists are covering this issue, read this: https://www.nytimes.com/2024/08/21/business/economy/harris-price-gouging-ban-groceries.html
So, you are saying that Kamala Harris is not really going to prohibit "price gouging," but is merely going to prevent "price-fixing" among competitors? The latter is already prohibited by anti-trust laws.
Citing the NY Times as authoritative as authoritative for what Harris is thinking is truly laughable. The NYT is just offering its spin on term price-gouging and trying to put a patina of reasonableness on this truly reckless proposal. Besides, the NYT article doesn't give any more detail about the ban than Harris herself has given. The article quotes "people familiar with Ms. Harris’s thinking on the ban" to explain what's in her head. Right.
This is just another half-baked idea by an intellectually mediocre candidate who has no business being the chief executive officer of this or any nation.
She is talking about going after companies that aren’t playing by the rules that are already on the books. The Free Press is praising the glories of price gouging. The NY Times is trying to report on what her policy will actually look like, and they are reporting, accurately, that her plan is very thin on details and that leaves others free to define what she means. The campaign is making it very clear that they are not planning on fixing grocery prices by government fiat, which is what her opponents are saying.
If the the problem is "thin on details" then they can go and fill in the details no ? The problem is she is not giving anyone any details so it's a open check policy or trust me policy . Do you trust any politician today ? I don't , so of course this scares me big time. We have seen what Trump does and he talks a crazy long tail with clues in it , so he doesn't scare me as much . She doesn't say anything and won't take any questions this is very scary !
Price fixing and price gouging are not the same thing. If Harris is talking about fixing rather than gouging, she should say so. Cartel-like behavior with collusion to fix prices is already illegal. Here is what some serious economists have been saying about this:
"..... aggregate markups—the more relevant measure for overall inflation—have stayed essentially flat since the start of the recovery. As such, rising markups have not been a main driver of the recent surge and subsequent decline in inflation during the current recovery."
Taken from this article, from the Federal Reserve Bank of San Francisco:
https://www.frbsf.org/research-and-insights/publications/economic-letter/2024/05/are-markups-driving-ups-and-downs-of-inflation/#toc_The-role-of-aggregate-markups-in-the-economy
Yes. She is talking about going after companies that are not playing by the rules that are already on the books. Her opponents are dishonestly saying that she wants to fix prices by government fiat.
But the problem is what are the rules , if a company holds a copyright on something they are the sole producer and if the is a supply chain shortage would cause a shortage of items and thus 3rd party markets will buy up any supply and cause price increases or just shortages . If such company increases prices to slow demand they could be accused by the rules and cause fix prices by the government . Then this would cause 3rd party markets that cause price gouging and quality issues and fake markets . So the bottom line there is no difference here between the idea of gouging and regular markets with price increases ! That is why this idea is nonenforceable and most economist will tell you it's just stupid. This has been tried before and it has always fails .
I grew up in newly independent India. Its constitution has a short introductory statement: It declares India to be a Sovereign Socialist Secular Democratic Republic committed to Justice, Equality and Liberty for the people.
All major business areas and services were owned and operated by the government - Railways, airlines, telecommunications, banks, life insurance, and so on. Those business entities that were not yet govt. operated had price controls on their output.
The result simplistically stating Everything was eternally in short supply. Twenty year wait for a telephone, 5-6 years for a scooter like Vespa, 3 years for a car. I volunteer to give an hour long presentation to the politicians who promote this agenda.
We had ration cards for all dry groceries, in Bombay a separate ration card for govt. supplied milk.
In 1977 January when we migrated to the US (legally) I was shocked to discover Washington DC had 12 - 15 commissions that set prices. FERC (Fed. Energy Regulatory Comm.) set prices for natural gas and gasoline. Trucking commission set prices for truck delivery between all US cities. IATA set prices for airline tickets. I am grateful to Pres. Carter who started deregulation of all of them. Some of the deregulation was completed in Reagan years.
I agree with you and the article.
A couple of additional points: In addition to the effects discussed, what the “price gouging” minimizes is having folks with more money grabbing up all of the resource when they get news of a problem coming. Then those with lesser means being left empty handed.
I also see such “controls” as a typical denial of reality. Our Left is doing this for everything else, why not throw supply and demand in ? I don’t like being gouged, but when I feel it I find another solution, and the gougers get their punishment in the long term. During the toilet paper scares of COVID, I went out and bought a simple hand held “bidet” that is in a short “hose” with a nozzle threads onto the bathroom sink faucet and hangs onto the toilet flush handle when not in use (never had to use, but it’s a backup for whenever).
I just returned from a lovely shopping trip with merchandise I purchased on sale due to overproduction. I got stuff below cost because someone misread the market. No one complains when they get the great deal from a glut of product. This is the other side of the supply\demand story, the side we love, we just need to remember there are two sides.
I guess your mom was, and if it’s was, still is and always will be for centuries , a democrat.
But you use the wrong term. It’s not price gouging. It’s demand pricing.
And Kammy calls it price gauging.
Excellent article! Having spent some time studying microeconomics my worldview changed dramatically from what my emotions told me to be true to what data showed me to be true. The nuance of economic reality is easily missed or dismissed by demogogues.
Anyone , like you who has had some microeconomics knows the idea of price control , price fixing , or anti gouging, is just a stupid idea , and the kicker this has been done before in the US and of course in the USSR etc . The bottom line it's just a stupid idea , that fails on many levels and causes many other problems because we all know 3rd party markets are bad for the consumer in many ways . 3rd party markets are the result of this kind of intervention .
Remember when egg prices rocketed allegedly due to avian flu? Remember when Robert Reich pointed out that the actual reduction in eggs produced was only about 4% while egg-producer profits rose significantly, and right-libertarians said he was full of shit?
Now, Kraft and other major food companies persuaded a federal jury in Chicago that top U.S. egg producers are liable for unlawfully inflating prices, paving the way for a second trial to determine damages.
What about the price increases for bread, meat, vegetables and other basic foods? Where are the disasters that caused this? The right-libertarian mind is so blindedby
A few more relevant facts from my favorite A.I. provider:
Question: Based on available gross margin data for U.S. Grocers, is there evidence of price gouging?
Answer (Perplexity.AI):
Gross Margin Data
Publicly available financial data shows that gross margin ratios for major grocery chains have actually decreased since 2020:
Kroger's gross margin ratio dropped from 0.229 in Q3 2020 to 0.217 in Q3 2021, a 5.2% decrease
For the first 9 months of 2021, Kroger's gross margin was 0.220, down from 0.234 in the same period of 2020
Publix saw its gross margin decrease from 0.281 in the first 9 months of 2020 to 0.277 in the same period of 2021
Albertsons' gross margin ratio fell from 0.295 to 0.289 when comparing 28-week periods in 2020 and 2021
Input Costs vs. Selling Prices
Data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics and Bureau of Economic Analysis shows:
Input costs for food and beverage stores rose 9.3% since January 2020
Selling prices increased by only 6.8% in the same period
This indicates that rising consumer prices are largely due to retailers passing on higher costs, not excessive markups.
Broader Economic Factors
Several factors beyond retailer pricing have contributed to increased food costs:
Supply chain disruptions
Labor shortages
Increased consumer demand post-lockdowns
Pandemic relief spending
Foreign conflicts impacting trade of goods like wheat and fertilizers
While some elevated profit margins were observed in 2021-2022, most economists agree that corporate markups have not been a major driver of overall inflation
In conclusion, the available gross margin data and broader economic analysis do not support claims of systemic price gouging by major U.S. grocery retailers. The increases in food prices appear to be primarily driven by increased input costs and other macroeconomic factors rather than excessive retailer markups.
The Disasters are Joe Biden and Kamala Harris. And The Inflation Reduction Act.
Ideology blinds. I don't agree with Harris's call for price controls. It didn't work for Nixon. But right libertarians find it impossible to conceive of business leaders saying amongst themselves, "Look, there's general inflation afoot, here's our chance to increase our profit margins while blaming forces beyond our control."
"But right libertarians find it impossible to conceive of business leaders saying amongst themselves, "Look, there's general inflation afoot, here's our chance to increase our profit margins while blaming forces beyond our control.""
I would say That's because They Don't. It doesn't work that way.
A couple quick points. Supply is also aided whenever market demand pricing is allowed to prevail. As an example, when a natural disaster (I live in a hurricane prone area) strikes, it’s the price gouging laws that artificially keep supply away. We’ll use portable generators as an example; If retailers, mom and pop shops, or just a couple guys in a truck could cover the added cost of getting them (generators) to the affected region at a higher price (even windfall pricing), there would be a line across the state of entrepreneurial types trucking in needed generators. What happens next? The prices come down as people race to bring in more supplies (supply/demand curve); equilibrium is eventually struck, people made more money and most importantly, to the articles main point, more people get what they need. If Home Depot could empty its shelves in every other non-affected state, ship every generator in stock and cover the added cost at a higher price they would. But the well intended, but economically ignorant, price gouging rules don’t allow it (and Home Depot wouldn’t want the bad press). So instead we hold the prices the same as pre-hurricane, run out of all supplies, and people suffer. Imagine how much more gas, food, water, etc would rush to an area if prices could be raised, profits made, and price discovery found. Instead, we hold to feel good, ineffective policies.
What an interesting perspective!
I don't disagree with the basic theory of all this, but I find this article a typical representation of "naive libertarianism."
I mean, really, this is too much, for example: "He took a big risk holding those rooms for us. Thank him and be grateful!" No, the fellow you're talking about was aiming to make a profit, and he was definitely taking advantage of your NEED. If another family had come along that had greater NEED than you, and either wasn't able to pay or you got there first, then they're f'd and you're sitting pretty. Let's take off the rose-colored glasses, shall we?
Here's another example: "Price gouging directs scarce supply to the people who really need it, encourages new supply to come in, encourages holding stockpiles for a rainy day, and encourages people to substitute for less scarce goods when they can." No qualms with this except the first part: market dynamics in times of scarcity do not get resources to those who NEED them, but to those who can AFFORD them.
A rich dude who likes a really clean butt might purchase all the toilet paper he wants before others get there first, especially if he has access to information others don't, and the poor family who is just trying to survive is sh*t out of luck, literally. And what does the Almighty Market have to say about this? Justice has been served. Maybe the rich clean guy can now sell his stock to that poor family at a sweet profit, making him richer and the family poorer. That's American progress and efficiency for you. All worship the Invisible Hand.
Mind you, I'm not wanting price controls, etc., but this Pollyanish nonsense from Reason types, et al., makes me roll my eyes in disgust. The world they live in is a cartoon.
All markets work the same , the US, USSR etc all work the same i.e. this is not libertarian-ism it's an economy . If you price fix you will cause a 3rd party market or underground markets , this works the same in the US and USSR . 3rd party markets are bad , no controls , no warranties , no returns etc . So best practices are to create regular fair markets that use prices to keep supply and demand in play . if prices go up it creates less demand and more instinctive to produce which will lower prices . Problems in markets are many but in general 3rd party markets are very bad and no one wants them, but are created when you price fix . This is not a theory but how all economies work .
I don’t think the author thought the room was held literally for them. But for the person most willing to pay the demand price.
I guess this is where charity would come in -- giving to those in need, from those who can afford it.
Neither Harris nor Walz have ever worked day in the private sector and it shows.
It would appear that neither have the folks at Hoover, Reason, and Cato given their Pollyanish view of the market.
I tell people who are excited about this to prepare for shortages and black/grey markets.
If any of you youngsters want to know where fun sized candy bars came from: price controls in the 70s.
Sorry... but the article is inane. There are multiple articles about food providers (eggs etc) recording significantly higher profits from price gouging.
I am not a fan of price controls, but am willing to wait for the details of Harris's plan before attacking it with such silly rationalizations as to how it performs a "vital economic function". And the example of 'disaster' area shortages are often handled by reputable retailers in the form of purchase quantity limits.
I went on Harris’s website to check out her plan, the only thing on it is a huge promo for donations and the bios of Harris & Walz. Is there a place to find her economic plan? I saw on Facebook that she wants to raise capital gains to 44% 😳. Hope this is misinformation.
Heaven forbid a for-profit food provider should record a profit. The typical grocer’s net is like 1.5%.
The price signal isn’t a vital economic function?
🙄
You are wrong. It's not right for the prices to stay high years after the catastrophic event. When there is plenty the prices should return as well. Which they don't and haven't while corporate profits soar. And guess whose governments pay for the roads and sanitation and clean water and parks? Ever heard of the Commons? Read the constitution. It does not prioritize profits over community.
You’d have loved life in the eastern bloc under communism. They had little and were told to be happy.
But we're don't. Wake up
I have no idea what you’re trying to say