Kamala Harris for Pres

[PJF]

Here's the Simple Question That Tripped Up Kamala Harris in PA

townhall.com

 

[RandyForRubio]

Doing this amount of work to bring actual data to the discussion is appreciated. Thank you.

Like I said, I copied it.

 

[fishonjazz]

Beshear says Harris’s economic plan to ensure ‘capitalism stays within the guardrails’

Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear (D) defended Vice President Harris’s newly unveiled economic agenda, saying it will help ensure the economy is working properly. “I do because I’ve been an attorney general, just like the vice president, I pursued price-gouging statutes and their violations when it...

www.yahoo.com

“I do because I’ve been an attorney general, just like the vice president, I pursued price-gouging statutes and their violations when it comes to the price of gas in Kentucky, and we won and ultimately returned millions of dollars to our people. This isn’t about trying to price fix. It’s just making sure that the economy is operating the way it should, that this is really supply and demand, which we all respect,” he said Sunday on CBS’s “Face the Nation.”

“It’s no different than what Teddy Roosevelt did in breaking up monopolies. It’s just making sure we have the right regulations and tools in place to make sure everybody is playing the game fairly and by the rules,” he added.

Beshear defended the economic plan, noting that price gouging remains an issue in the wake of disasters and crises.

“So, you have to have the evidence that this is beyond supply and demand, that this is people taking advantage of us. Certainly, we’ve seen it after natural disasters in red states and blue states. It’s just making sure that coming out of the pandemic or in difficult times, that people aren’t increasing the price of food just to make a bigger profit,” he said.

“All it is is making sure that capitalism stays within the guardrails. And it’s not new. We’ve been doing this in the states for a long time,” he added.

Sent from my OPD2203 using Tapatalk

 

[PJF]

EXCLUSIVE MRC POLL: Most Dem Voters Don’t Know About Harris’s Radicalism

"It's 2020 all over again. As it stands now, another leftist media coverup will decide the election." -- L. Brent Bozell III, Media Research Center founder and president

newsbusters.org

 

[LogGrad98]

It's funny how people who aren't in an industry talk to someone with first hand knowledge like he doesn't know what he's talking about. FWIW, I do have first hand knowledge of P&L statements for many food companies I've worked with.

Could you please send a link on the Pepsi and Coke example you shared? Specifically I'm looking at understanding significant increases in profit margins and not just revenue.

There are already laws against collusion and price fixing. If what you are all alluding to is true, that big companies work together to increase costs for consumers, then all Kamala Harris needs to do is to enforce the laws that have already been put in to place.

Enforcing the laws is exactly the problem. We haven't been doing that as we should be. Hence why most major industries are dominated by 5 or fewer large corporations.

Google is your friend, this was one of the top articles in the list. There are others. If you are privvy to Pepsi's top-line financials and so well-versed you should be able to show us the progressive rise in their profit margins tied directly to price hikes, even while those price hikes drove a decrease in overall demand.

Why Diet Coke got so expensive

The economy, explained by your Diet Coke and soda prices, kind of.

www.vox.com

Here is a simplified breakdown of oligopolies in our markets:

THE MONOPOLIZATION OF AMERICA: The Biggest Economic Problem You’re Hearing Almost Nothing About

Not long ago I visited some farmers in Missouri whose profits are disappearing. Why? Monsanto alone owns the key genetic traits to more than 90 percent of the soybeans planted by farmers in the United...

robertreich.org

 

[Safetydan]

There are already laws against collusion and price fixing. If what you are all alluding to is true, that big companies work together to increase costs for consumers, then all Kamala Harris needs to do is to enforce the laws that have already been put in to place.

None of the companies in this oligopoly scenario have to actually collude to price fix. Through mechanisms such as price leadership and incoming technologies like Dynamic Pricing, they don't have to communicate directly so technically what they're doing is completely legal. But it also completely sidesteps your normal market principles and the result is the same.

 

[fishonjazz]

Can we at least agree that IF price gouging is going on, that would be a bad thing and we all WOULD want something to be done about it?

Sent from my OPD2203 using Tapatalk

 

[Safetydan]

Can we at least agree that IF price gouging is going on, that would be a bad thing and we all WOULD want something to be done about it?

Sent from my OPD2203 using Tapatalk

But RandyForRubio found a guy on Twitter who said 5 companies had no EBITDA increase in the last 5 years.

Edit: I'm just poking fun don't get mad at me. According to the Harris campaign, they only wanted to go after a few bad actors for price gouging. They haven't given specifics yet.

 

[str8line]

I just put Political Jazz Fan on ignore. Even though I want to see Kamala pros and cons his copy paste carpet bombing is just too much. Too bad he can't come up with a though of his own.

 

[SoberasHotRod]

Enforcing the laws is exactly the problem. We haven't been doing that as we should be. Hence why most major industries are dominated by 5 or fewer large corporations.

Google is your friend, this was one of the top articles in the list. There are others. If you are privvy to Pepsi's top-line financials and so well-versed you should be able to show us the progressive rise in their profit margins tied directly to price hikes, even while those price hikes drove a decrease in overall demand.

Why Diet Coke got so expensive

The economy, explained by your Diet Coke and soda prices, kind of.

www.vox.com

Here is a simplified breakdown of oligopolies in our markets:

THE MONOPOLIZATION OF AMERICA: The Biggest Economic Problem You’re Hearing Almost Nothing About

Not long ago I visited some farmers in Missouri whose profits are disappearing. Why? Monsanto alone owns the key genetic traits to more than 90 percent of the soybeans planted by farmers in the United...

robertreich.org

I agree that we should enforce our laws. If that's what Kamala Harris is talking about then I'm on board, even though I don't think it's a huge problem in the food industry.

Your article you posted didn't have any evidence for what you shared before about record profits for coke and pepsi and alluding to them working together to screw over the consumer. There is one guy saying that coke had record profits without sharing any details or facts to back it up. In fact the article kind of goes through how the market works and corrects itself out, which is what I believe in.

One of the main points, where I can see an issue is on price stickiness, where the price increases due to costs and then stays high even when costs go down. What people don't see is there is price stickiness the other way. When costs go up, companies can't typically pass those along to the consumers immediately, and so their margins are temporarily eroded until the costs go back down or they are forced to increase prices.

I actually do have a friend who works for Pepsi, and would have access to their P&Ls. She obviously can't share with me anything proprietary, but I can at least get her perspective. From the companies that I have seen their P&L, I can share that costs went up as much or more than prices, and so far haven't come down much. Maybe there is a little stickiness right now due to costs going down some without prices going down, but in the end we are just getting back to the margins pre costs increase.

I didn't find the article from Robert Reich very compelling. He didn't really provide any evidence on why having multiple large companies in a category is bad for the consumer. Theoretically having multiple large players in a category is the best case scenario for the consumer because as long as they are being competitive the larger companies have the best opportunity to reduce costs and leverage volume to give the most competitive costs. Typically large companies are large companies because they have grown due to giving the most competitive offering/pricing in their category.

 

[SoberasHotRod]

Can we at least agree that IF price gouging is going on, that would be a bad thing and we all WOULD want something to be done about it?

Sent from my OPD2203 using Tapatalk

Sure, and if there is real evidence of this happening it should stop.

Hopefully non food industry people can also respect and understand that the food industry is extremely competitive, already has very low margins, and that commodity pricing in a global market makes price gouging in those categories less likely.

 

[fishonjazz]

Sure, and if there is real evidence of this happening it should stop.

Hopefully non food industry people can also respect and understand that the food industry is extremely competitive, already has very low margins, and that commodity pricing in a global market makes price gouging in those categories less likely.

No doubt

Sent from my CPH2451 using Tapatalk

 

[Bucknutz]

I don’t know if either candidate wants to win. You can see that with Trump with all the posts in his 5 threads.

The more Kamala speaks and puts out policies the worse she is doing.


View: https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/1825617176675369001?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ


I know a lot of posters here will like this tax rate, but I don’t know if this is the right move in our economic situation right now.


View: https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/1824480757726814289?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ


Then suggests this:

View: https://x.com/bitcoinmagazine/status/1825615435884003797?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ

 

[Sardines]

I just put Political Jazz Fan on ignore. Even though I want to see Kamala pros and cons his copy paste carpet bombing is just too much. Too bad he can't come up with a though of his own.

Well now you won't get to see him post Babylon Bee tweets unironically as if they were legit news articles. I mean that's how smart this guys is and how good he is at evaluating the value of information.

 

[PJF]

View: https://x.com/TheBabylonBee/status/1825577415705289055

 

[RandyForRubio]

But RandyForRubio found a guy on Twitter who said 5 companies had no EBITDA increase in the last 5 years.

Edit: I'm just poking fun don't get mad at me. According to the Harris campaign, they only wanted to go after a few bad actors for price gouging. They haven't given specifics yet.

I’m shocked that the Harris campaign hasn’t given specifics yet.

I mostly laugh at this because the average voter doesn’t care about specifics. They want to hear what makes them feel good. And this is absolutely on both sides.

I try not to care too much. We’re on a downhill side that doesn’t seem very fixable long term without a major culture shift, and that just doesn’t seem likely to me. I don’t think a centrist can win anymore. The extremists on both sides push the issues, and nobody can ride the middle anymore.

 

[TheStormofWar]

I don’t know if either candidate wants to win. You can see that with Trump with all the posts in his 5 threads.

The more Kamala speaks and puts out policies the worse she is doing.


View: https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/1825617176675369001?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ


I know a lot of posters here will like this tax rate, but I don’t know if this is the right move in our economic situation right now.


View: https://x.com/kobeissiletter/status/1824480757726814289?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ


Then suggests this:

View: https://x.com/bitcoinmagazine/status/1825615435884003797?s=46&t=BMMZjW7vq0_zwnmLDjNTgQ

The Corporate Tax rate was 38% from 1989 to 2017 and the economy was pretty good during overall that period. Also, a small percentage of small businesses seeing worse sales since 10 month ago after which they recovered means absolutely ****. I don't think you should be barking up that tree homie.

 

[RandyForRubio]

I agree that we should enforce our laws. If that's what Kamala Harris is talking about then I'm on board, even though I don't think it's a huge problem in the food industry.

Your article you posted didn't have any evidence for what you shared before about record profits for coke and pepsi and alluding to them working together to screw over the consumer. There is one guy saying that coke had record profits without sharing any details or facts to back it up. In fact the article kind of goes through how the market works and corrects itself out, which is what I believe in.

One of the main points, where I can see an issue is on price stickiness, where the price increases due to costs and then stays high even when costs go down. What people don't see is there is price stickiness the other way. When costs go up, companies can't typically pass those along to the consumers immediately, and so their margins are temporarily eroded until the costs go back down or they are forced to increase prices.

I actually do have a friend who works for Pepsi, and would have access to their P&Ls. She obviously can't share with me anything proprietary, but I can at least get her perspective. From the companies that I have seen their P&L, I can share that costs went up as much or more than prices, and so far haven't come down much. Maybe there is a little stickiness right now due to costs going down some without prices going down, but in the end we are just getting back to the margins pre costs increase.

I didn't find the article from Robert Reich very compelling. He didn't really provide any evidence on why having multiple large companies in a category is bad for the consumer. Theoretically having multiple large players in a category is the best case scenario for the consumer because as long as they are being competitive the larger companies have the best opportunity to reduce costs and leverage volume to give the most competitive costs. Typically large companies are large companies because they have grown due to giving the most competitive offering/pricing in their category.

This is very minor in the grand scheme, but my industry saw something similar. We have multi year contracts, so it’s a little different.

Regardless, few years ago our inputs doubled in some places, up 50% in others. Couldn’t raise our contract price for two years. Then we adjusted, got our margins backs, and then inputs went down in some places (not in freaking power bills though), so then our margins were better than before. It’ll adjust again. Everybody within the business realm gets this.

 

[Rubashov]

It is funny how people who do not get into the meat of the issue fall back on 2nd year college econ classes to make judgements. Don't get stuck on "a monopoly is a single company controlling everything". If you get into the economics of a few large companies controlling an industry, you would see the greatly reduced competition affects prices, and the ease at which price fixing can occur. Take pepsi and coke, both of whom raised their prices, literally within months of each other, in the past few years, way beyond any cost of materials for their product, and both of whom then saw windfall profits in the following couple of years. Profits on the back of price fixing across an industry dominated by 2 behemoths. Monopolistic practices begin to occur when an industry becomes dominated by a few very large companies. Technically this is an oligopoly, and it tends to follow the same economic forces that a monopoly does. It doesn't take it falling to a single company true "monopoly" to see the same market forces come to bear.



Damn it, Dan beat me to it again, and this time with more snark! Sonofabitch! +110 internets.

Post in thread 'Kamala Harris for Pres'

Aug 18, 2024

Thanks for posting the link. I'll check it out later when I have time, although from just what you've posted I have some BS alarms going on in my head. First of all as Al already pointed out these aren't monopolies.

A lot of the food industry, including some of the examples from your post are commodities, which almost by definition means they are priced based on supply and demand. Some of the other things, like corn and feed, are already managed by the government through subsidies and other programs. Most of the commodities, like meat, are tied in to a global market where it gets...

• Safetydan

• 

Take the Australian grocery market, two companies control around 70 percent I think it might slightly higher. Now om the shelves at Coles and Woolworths 8 companies supply 80 percent of all stock and they've already been caught fixing prices detergents and laundry goods. This is a market ripe for exploitation by functioning monopolies, the government here has very weak powers in relations to preventing this, if they manage to impose fines they will be well below the profits made. I block of chocolate from the supermarket is like 8 dollars, the prices are just insane.

 

[LogGrad98]

The Corporate Tax rate was 38% from 1989 to 2017 and the economy was pretty good during overall that period. Also, a small percentage of small businesses seeing worse sales since 10 month ago after which they recovered means absolutely ****. I don't think you should be barking up that tree homie.

There is effectively no correlation between tax rate and GPD growth over time. It was essentially the same correlation in the 50's vs the 2010's with drastically different corporate tax rates. The only difference is corporation took in windfall profits in the 2010s compared to the 1950's. Showing that giving the corporations the extra money back causes them to pocket it, not to reinvest or "trickle it down" through the economy. Corporations and ultra-high-wealth individuals are being under-taxed, plain and simple. That combined with lax enforcement of anti-trust laws allows corporations to set higher prices and reap a windfall at the expense of the average consumer.

Corporate tax rates and economic growth since 1947

Cutting corporate taxes won't spur economic growth, and there is no evidence that high corporate taxes have a negative impact on the economy. In fact, there is no correlation at all between corporate tax rates and economic growth.

www.epi.org

Corporate profits are at a 70-year high. Will the Inflation Reduction Act change that?

Even through the choppy waters of recent years, corporate profits have seen a boom.

finance.yahoo.com

Commentary: Soaring grocery prices are not acts of God

<p>Since the pandemic, going to the grocery store has become a jarring experience. On a recent visit, I packed my purchased items into my tote bag and then gawked at the receipt in disbelief.</p>

www.timesleader.com

So during a time when everyone else’s costs have escalated, grocery chains have been able to control costs even as their prices soared.

For example, Pepsi and Coca-Cola dominate the beverage industry. In 2021, during the middle of the pandemic, Pepsi raised its prices, blaming it on alleged higher costs. Yet somehow it still raked in $11 billion in profits. Then in 2023, even though the pandemic was over and inflation was dropping, Pepsi still hiked its prices by double digits for the seventh consecutive quarter. Its profits soared another 14%.

Pepsi’s only major competitor, Coca-Cola, announced the same price hikes around the same time. If Pepsi and Coke had other large competitors, consumers would have more choices. But Pepsi and Coke own most of the substitute beverage products!

That’s what’s called a market monopoly, and soft drinks are not the only food products dominated by a handful of businesses. Only four companies control the processing of 80% of beef, nearly 70% of pork and almost 60% of poultry. With so few businesses competing, it is pretty easy for them to coordinate price increases. Consequently, at the end of 2023, Americans were paying at least 30% more for beef, poultry and pork products than they were before the pandemic.

The number of grocery stores itself has fallen 30% in the past 25 years, resulting in more than a third of grocery sales coming from only four retailers. Walmart alone has nearly a quarter of the grocery market. Low competition gives these retailers more market power to raise prices.