127 sats \ 3 replies \ @79c9095526 21 Aug \ on: If Joe Biden Saved the Economy, Why Do We Need Kamala Harris’ Price Controls? econ
This is just politics my friend.
Trump was president for 4 years and said if he is not re-elected in 2020 there will "be a great depression the likes of which we have never seen" and "world war 3". Neither one happened. He is now saying the exact same thing will happen if Kamala is elected.
It is always better to run as the 'outsider' who can be the savior and come in and fix everything. You can promise to drain the swamp, lock her up, negotiate the best healthcare plan, fix social security, etc... (all trump promises) because no one can argue with you as you have no record yet.
The problem now is both candidates have a record. Although I would argue Trump's record is much more 'pinnable' to him vs. Kamala's. He was the president, the buck stopped with him, there was no final decision making authority above him. He filled his cabinet with more swamp creatures, he hired all the people who later said he was unfit for office who he later said were stupid. On the other hand, history (and the TV show Veep) have shown that being a vice president is essentially a zero power position where you wait until a president potentially dies.
I know it seems hard to believe in the political environment as it exists now, where everyone has to pick a team to root for, but I didn't post this to defend Trump, and I doubt Reason did either. Both parties are a disaster. For me, Trump pressuring Powell to cut interest rates to juice the stock market is just one example that I recall, in addition to those you mentioned.
Price Controls are not the answer. Corporations are an easy scapegoat. History proves this. The last time it was tried in the US was 1971, by a Republican president. It was a disaster.
reply
Yeah, I am not doubting your or Reason's intention of posting/writing.
I'm just observing that this is simply how politics works. You portray yourself as the savior who will swoop in and fix everything for everyone. That's just the game as I've observed it over my lifetime.
Agreed price controls are not the answer. However, I think media spinning of the facts is also important to observe. Kamala's proposal (which literally no one has seen, and I would bet has not even been written) is a price gouging proposal.
Most US states already have similar price gouging laws on the books, including very conservative states. From the extremely limited information we have heard from Kamala about this, it appears she wants to implement some type of national version of this so the federal government could also police corporations who price gouge.
Personally, I don't care for it, but I also think it is hypocritical for folks to yell and scream about this national proposal (which again, no one has seen or knows any detail about) vs yelling and screaming to get rid of the laws that are already on the books to prevent price gouging such as:
Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act: § 4-88-301
Alabama Unconscionable Pricing Act: § 8-31-1
South Carolina Unfair Trade Practice Act: § 39-5-145
Tennessee Price-Gouging Act § 47-18-5101
Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act: § 17.4627
Lastly, I'd note that without having the house/senate/presidency, basically no law gets passed in modern America (save for Biden's presidency where there were unusually some bipartisan bills passed).
reply
No doubt price gouging laws are on the books of many states. I would argue that price gouging is a euphemism for price control, and it's much more dangerous on the federal level, as it affects everyday interstate commerce, as opposed to the state laws that are limited geographically and usually are only applied in short term, emergency situations.
economist Brian Albretch has laid out clearly why she in fact did, writing that "any policy that gives the government the power to decide what price increases are 'fair' or 'unfair' is effectively a price control system.
reply