Harris Wants to Ban Price Gouging on Groceries: Clearly, She's Out of Touch with Reality

Is it just me, or is anyone else getting the passing of the buck on inflation that has been dealt time and time again by the Biden administration, and now Harris, as she campaigns following Biden dropping out of the race?

She wants to propose a federal ban on "corporate price gouging" on food and groceries if she is elected.

Sure, some grocers, namely meat packers, have enjoyed record profits. But is that a result of price gouging and greed? The fact is that inflation is here because of the policies that Joe Biden put into effect that caused prices on everything to skyrocket.

You can even pin the damn timeline!

Within hours of Biden taking his oath of office he signed executive orders reversing Trump's energy prices and in March of 2021 he signed the American Rescue Plan into law, and by December 2021 inflation jumped to 10% and has risen year over year since well beyond the desired 2% rate the Fed prefers.

This inflation is not because of corporate greed. It is because of Biden's policies, which presumably would become Harris' policies if she is elected. What it should tell voters is that her eye is not on the ball. If she won't admit responsibility for the inflation, how can we expect her to have the right ideas to solve the issue?

To my mind, it's just the wrong focus and someone needs to call her out on this, and hard and fast. Perhaps Trump will do that and lay out exactly why we have inflation, which is for reasons other than the now Harris campaign is trying to sell us on.

I think the silver lining is that most Americans do know where the real blame lies. Based on the polls, Trump is still winning handily on the economy. But the problem is that there are enough haters of the rich who will side with Harris and give her a pass and agree with her.

But it won't solve the problem, of course, because it doesn't get at the heart of the cause. Beyond that, this will only put more restraints on businesses to operate profitably and effectively, and who does that hurt?

It hurts the consumer, and it hurts the workers.

It hurts the consumer because if suddenly a business is accused of gouging, it's going to have to adjust the way it makes its products. Quality may be compromised as recipes are tweaked. Packaging may change to adjust for the accusation.

And of course, if businesses make less profits, they can't pass any of that along to workers in terms of benefits and wages—or even new job creation.

You don't encourage a strong economic environment by stifling growth and progress in business. You encourage it by fostering growth and progress. Beyond that, you have to first prove gouging is happening, and I question how on Earth you do that?

What measure will be used to determine what a fair price is and what isn't? What method will be determined to decide whether a profit is good or exaggerated? How do you tell a business, "This is how much you can legally make on this item?"

It's more dictation and control over things the government has no business controlling or even deciding, for that matter.

The thing is that Harris really has no plan to tackle inflation at all, but because inflation is still here and it's a major concern to Americans, she has to say something. She has to at least look like she is interested in doing something about it.

Even Biden said price gouging was happening. If they truly believed it was, they'd have already done something about it. They haven't because, of course, it is something that only lives in their imagination and they are hoping the American people will join them on their fantasy trip.

Like the way I write or the things I write about? Follow me on my Facebook page to keep up with the latest writings wherever I may write them.

© 2024 Jim Bauer

Timing For Amazon Prime Rate Increases Suspect

I AM NOT CHASTISING JEFF BEZOS OF AMAZON FOR RECENTLY ANNOUNCING HE WILL RAISE MONTHLY AMAZON PRIME RATES—ALTHOUGH HE WILL KEEP THE ANNUAL AMOUNT AT $99—but I do think that the timing of making such a decision may be a bit...well, off. The thing is not just that Amazon is nearly a trillion dollar market cap company, nor that Jeff Bezos recently took the lead in becoming not only the richest man in the world, but the richest man in history.

For me the decision is simply a bit confusing considering that at the same time we have the Trump tax cuts which will no doubt provide a significant boost to Amazon's bottom line, if you look at all of the numbers for the company...

AMAZON IS NOT EXACTLY HURTING FOR MONEY.

Amazon will be raising both its monthly prime rates from $10.99 to $12.99 and student prime rates from $5.49 to $6.49. That's an 18% increase for anyone who wanted to know, which I also think is quite a substantial increase.

Back in 2014 Amazon did also significantly increase its annual prime membership from $79 to $99 a year.

While Amazon cannot be denied anything at all for its benefit to American workers seeking jobs, and ones mind you that don't pay all that poorly either, and they also recently announced they have narrowed down their options for a second headquarters which will provide upwards of 50,000 new jobs, they also have not announced any worker bonuses after the tax cuts became law, nor have they mentioned increasing anyone's wages.

It should be mentioned that Jeff Bezos is also unusually non-philanthropic when compared to other billionaires on a percentage basis. Although he did recently announce offering $33 million to Dreamers for college—a bit of a controversial move no doubt.

But it begs a question for me when you put both that donation for the Dreamers into view along with his decision to raise prime rates and not offer bonuses or wage increases.

IS THIS JEFF BEZOS' WAY OF STICKING IT BACK TO PRESIDENT TRUMP?

Because we all know that there is a bit of a rivalry between the two, and we all know that invariably there is no love from Jeff Bezos for Donald Trump.

Or is this just another example of the real greed so many supposed "right wing rich" get accused of—but on the left, not the right, which by the way is usually how it actually goes. The greediest rich are often on the left, folks. And the rich on the left also tend to be far less philanthropic than the rich on the right.

SO BEZOS FITS PERFECTLY WITHIN THAT COMMON FRAMEWORK.

At the end of the day I do not think it is a big deal, nor do I think that current or new monthly prime members will think it is either. I own shares in Amazon and I have no intention of letting go of them any time soon. As a shareholder price increases are typically welcome since they help to boost bottom lines, and that of course helps to boost share value.

I only point out that I think the decision is a bit strange in its timing, and am very curious to know what the real basis for the decision was in the boardroom . We will never truly know of course. All we can do is speculate, and watch what happens next. Probably nothing. But it is interesting nonetheless.