Housing Issues (f/k/a Harris Economic Agenda Speech)

  • Thread starter Thread starter nycfan
  • Start date Start date
  • Replies: 196
  • Views: 3K
nycfan said:




Restore EITC and Child Tax Credit, increase CTC to $6,000 in the first year of a child’s life. Claims they will do so and lower the deficit. So somebody has to pay more …
Click to expand...

an economic plan that does not promote the continuing transfer of wealth from the working and middle class to the 1%ers ? an economic plan designed to improve the lives of ordinary working and middle class families ?

It seems that Kamala wants to abandon trickle down economics.

Does America really want to enrich working and middle class families which will curb the continuing hyper- enrichment of corporations and the uber-wealthy ? We will get America's answer on November 5th.
 

Calheel said:
Price controls are pretty socialist, no?
Click to expand...
i may have missed it (and the devil’s in the details), but I didn’t hear a price control proposal. Which is not to say that I agree with all her economic proposals as described in her speech or otherwise by the media.
 
nycfan said:
i may have missed it (and the devil’s in the details), but I didn’t hear a price control proposal. Which is not to say that I agree with all her economic proposals as described in her speech or otherwise by the media.
Click to expand...
One man's (or woman's) price gouging restrictions is another man's price controls.

Let's say it is socialism adjacent to attempt to regulate how much Harris Teeter is charging for eggs. Obviously, all of this is just political fluff and none of it is going to result in any actual policy changes. But the idea that the government can tell the retailer or the store to charge less for a food staple because it thinks the price is "unfair" is at least starting down the socialism road. There are already laws on the books about true price gouging, so it is not exactly clear what additional government regulation would try to do here.
 
Calheel said:
One man's (or woman's) price gouging restrictions is another man's price controls.

Let's say it is socialism adjacent to attempt to regulate how much Harris Teeter is charging for eggs. Obviously, all of this is just political fluff and none of it is going to result in any actual policy changes. But the idea that the government can tell the retailer or the store to charge less for a food staple because it thinks the price is "unfair" is at least starting down the socialism uff worked??road. There are already laws on the books about true price gouging, so it is not exactly clear what additional government regulation would try to do here.
Click to expand...
Do you know how Nixons price control stuff worked? Was it, say in your example , Harris Teeter-or Eggland?
 
Calheel said:
One man's (or woman's) price gouging restrictions is another man's price controls.

Let's say it is socialism adjacent to attempt to regulate how much Harris Teeter is charging for eggs. Obviously, all of this is just political fluff and none of it is going to result in any actual policy changes. But the idea that the government can tell the retailer or the store to charge less for a food staple because it thinks the price is "unfair" is at least starting down the socialism road. There are already laws on the books about true price gouging, so it is not exactly clear what additional government regulation would try to do here.
Click to expand...
Season 9 Idk GIF by The Office
Socialism-adjacent I can live with, a lot would come down to what is considered gouging (collusion to keep prices unnaturally high) , which seems more like protecting the free market against bad actors, versus profit-taking in non-crisis circumstances.
 
nycfan said:
Season 9 Idk GIF by The Office
Socialism-adjacent I can live with, a lot would come down to what is considered gouging (collusion to keep prices unnaturally high) , which seems more like protecting the free market against bad actors, versus profit-taking in non-crisis circumstances.
Click to expand...
Collusion to keep prices high is already unlawful. Harris appears to be talking about new laws focused on the high price of certain food staples. Like a super-antitrust or something. I mean, if she just said, I am a prosecutor and I will prosecute the bad guys for charging you too much, that would be one thing. But presidential candidates like to talk about new laws, rather than just enforcing existing laws. So, who the heck knows what she really means. And not that it really matters anyway because it is just political theater. But to CFord's point, I at least hear a tinsy, winsy bit of populist socialism.
 
Calheel said:
By today's Republican standards, Nixon was a full-on communist. Starting the EPA? Passing Title IX? Endangered Species Act? Clean Water Act? Clean Air Act? Nixon was surely a RINO by today's standards.
Click to expand...
Opened China too. Nixon was the only person that could have done that at that time. If Nixon wasn’t president and those things happened, man Richard Nixon would have been so mad we were moving too far left
 
mpaer said:
Do you know how Nixons price control stuff worked? Was it, say in your example , Harris Teeter-or Eggland?
Click to expand...
It was every level of wholesale and retail. Wage and price controls. Everything was frozen.
 
Calheel said:
Collusion to keep prices high is already unlawful. Harris appears to be talking about new laws focused on the high price of certain food staples. Like a super-antitrust or something. I mean, if she just said, I am a prosecutor and I will prosecute the bad guys for charging you too much, that would be one thing. But presidential candidates like to talk about new laws, rather than just enforcing existing laws. So, who the heck knows what she really means. And not that it really matters anyway because it is just political theater. But to CFord's point, I at least hear a tinsy, winsy bit of populist socialism.
Click to expand...
Yes I agree with a lot of you say Like trump will deport 20 million people..........
 
Calheel said:
Collusion to keep prices high is already unlawful. Harris appears to be talking about new laws focused on the high price of certain food staples. Like a super-antitrust or something. I mean, if she just said, I am a prosecutor and I will prosecute the bad guys for charging you too much, that would be one thing. But presidential candidates like to talk about new laws, rather than just enforcing existing laws. So, who the heck knows what she really means. And not that it really matters anyway because it is just political theater. But to CFord's point, I at least hear a tinsy, winsy bit of populist socialism.
Click to expand...
I think what she’s really saying is that she’ll continue the antitrust initiatives of the last couple of years, which have been the most aggressive in decades. I know our antitrust lawyers are beyond slammed right now with the post-Trump DOJ/FTC activity.
 
Calheel said:
One man's (or woman's) price gouging restrictions is another man's price controls.

Let's say it is socialism adjacent to attempt to regulate how much Harris Teeter is charging for eggs. Obviously, all of this is just political fluff and none of it is going to result in any actual policy changes. But the idea that the government can tell the retailer or the store to charge less for a food staple because it thinks the price is "unfair" is at least starting down the socialism road. There are already laws on the books about true price gouging, so it is not exactly clear what additional government regulation would try to do here.
Click to expand...
I think Kamala is doing some jawboning which can be very effective now and after she wins the election.
 
heelinhell said:
I think Kamala is doing some jawboning which can be very effective now and after she wins the election.
Click to expand...
That is what I think, too.

And it is probably more jawboning theater, than actual jawboning. I mean, inflation probably won't even be one of the top 10 presidential concerns in 2025. But the residue still impacts this election, so she needs to pretend like it is important and has a strategy. The reality is that the post-Covid supply shocks will have completely worked themselves out by 2025 and this will be a distant memory.
 
lawtig02 said:
Wonks like us enjoy these policy speeches
Click to expand...
Is this a policy speech? None of the links provided here refer to actual policy. I mean, if Trump is going to run on bombastic empty promises, then so should Kamala but I'm not seeing an actual policy agenda.
 
Calheel said:
Collusion to keep prices high is already unlawful. Harris appears to be talking about new laws focused on the high price of certain food staples. Like a super-antitrust or something. I mean, if she just said, I am a prosecutor and I will prosecute the bad guys for charging you too much, that would be one thing. But presidential candidates like to talk about new laws, rather than just enforcing existing laws. So, who the heck knows what she really means. And not that it really matters anyway because it is just political theater. But to CFord's point, I at least hear a tinsy, winsy bit of populist socialism.
Click to expand...
It's like this: how do you talk to an electorate that has, for some reason, decided that they won't be happy unless prices go back to 2020 levels?

If you are trying to convince economic illiterates about something, then you need to use economically illiterate arguments -- especially if your opponent is doing that.

I don't know if even hard price controls on food would be "socialism," but it's obviously not workable and if it was, it would be quite bad.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top