What does a federal ban on price gouging look like?

Comments

• xmunk@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  In an ideal world it looks like monopoly busting but so much of America is only served by Walmart after decades of terrible antitrust that I don’t have a clue how we’d make it happen. Price controls are a fucking terrible idea but I haven’t heard her talk about it outside extreme medication circumstances so I’m more worried that her plan will be ineffectual rather than openly destructive.

  The most valuable bureaucrat in terms of antitrust is currently Lina Khan and Harris has been extremely wishy washy about whether she’ll keep her on. By comparison Trump would clearly fire Khan on day one so Harris is still the obvious better choice - but I wish we could get her to commit to keeping Khan.

  source

  • MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    I wish we could get her to commit to keeping Khan.

    This will be one of the biggest tests for me with regards to Harris. If she keeps Khan after the election I think she’s at least somewhat serious about cracking down on corporations.

    source

    • modifier@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Agreed. I’m hoping she is staying mum to avoid fucking up fund raising for now, but we will see.

      Khan is such a fucking badass.

      source
  • ulkesh@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Price controls are the only viable solution if monopolies aren’t broken up and if collusion is rampant effectively removing competition. While I know of no direct evidence of collusion between grocers, the effects seem quite clear to me when nearly every grocer seems to be taking in record profits while many groceries are still 2-5 times higher than just five years ago.

    Also, if this issue is the litmus test for some people on whether they would vote for Trump over Harris, those people should have their head examined. While Harris lacks some specifics here, Trump has nothing — plus he’s a lying, misogynistic, sociopathic convicted felon — so yes, I agree, Harris is the obvious choice.

    source

    • ryathal@sh.itjust.works ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Kroger and Albertsons don’t actually compete in any markets in the US, that takes collusion.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
    • Artisian@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      I’ll note that grocers record profits are orders of magnitude less than the price increases. Maybe somebody is getting rich off of the price increases, but I’m pretty sure Walmart is not.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
  • glimse@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    Lina Khan is so fuckin badass and I will be PISSED if she’s let go.

    source
• ShepherdPie@midwest.social ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  My cynical view is that this is a campaign promise that even if passed, won’t lead to anything of benefit for the average citizen. My solidly blue state has price gouging laws and yet businesses were permitted to price gouge water, charging as much as $60 for a 12 pack of bottles, when we had a toxic algae bloom in our water supply and couldn’t drink it a few years ago. Hundreds of complaints were filed and the governor went on the news said they couldn’t substantiate any of it, even with photo evidence, and none of the companies were punished or at most were sent a letter to “knock it off” even though residents were still having to pay these insane prices if they weren’t able to drive hours away to find normally priced bottled water.

  I think if we had an actual left-wing party, I’d have a different view, but instead, we have right-wing and diet-right-wing

  source
• Sundial@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  As President, she will direct her Administration to crack down on anti-competitive practices that let big corporations jack up prices and undermine the competition that allows all businesses to thrive while keeping prices low for consumers. And she will go after bad actors who exploit an emergency to rip off consumers by calling for the first-ever federal ban on corporate price gouging on food and groceries, which will build on the anti-price gouging statutes already in place in 37 states.

  Based off this I would see a federal law that penalizes corporation for doing this kind of stuff. Whether or not she does and if the punishments would actually deter these corporations is another matter entirely. The other problem is that it always happens after the fact. To give an example, in Canada there was a big scandal where a huge Canadian retailer, Loblaws,) was caught in a bread price-fixing scheme with some other food retailers and it’s parent company George Weston. After 14 years of reaping the benefits these companies whose revenue streams are in the tens of billions were fined only 500 million. It’s more or less a slap on the wrist and just the cost of doing business to these people.

  source
• Badeendje@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  I’d say stuff like stock buybacks and other ways corporations funnel profits away, should be taxed at exorbitant rates. Then start taxing assets like stock portfolios and tax dodging vehicles followed by using assets as collateral as realizing their gains.

  source

  • Flocklesscrow@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    “Buybacks were illegal throughout most of the 20th century because they were considered a form of stock market manipulation. But in 1982, the Securities and Exchange Commission passed rule 10b-18, which created a legal process for buybacks and opened the floodgates for companies to start repurchasing their stock en masse.”

    source

    • Badeendje@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Same as banks regulated by glass steagall started fucking with the economy the moment is was repealed. The fairness doctrine for media might also be needed again.

      source
• Linkerbaan@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Campaign propaganda.

  source
• Isoprenoid@programming.dev ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  I see economists complaining about variations of this policy being bad, e.g. leading to food desserts.

  Sounds delicious.

  source
• Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Price cap increases perhaps. No more than 5% increase from the price the product was on January 01 that year.

  source

  • Artisian@lemmy.world ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

    That one seems kinda scary - if inflation was 6% and something wasn’t sold at any profit, all stores would stop selling it. (This is true for most food.)

    source

    • Pyr_Pressure@lemmy.ca ⁨5⁩ ⁨weeks⁩ ago

      If they stop selling it, they stop buying it from suppliers and then the suppliers need to find a way to decrease their costs to make it so stores buy their products again. Otherwise they go out of business, so they will find a way.

      source

      • -> View More Comments
• swordgeek@lemmy.ca ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  Wrong community.

  source
• itsgroundhogdayagain@lemmy.ml ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  It looks like the opposite of what Kroger has been doing for 4 years

  source

  • Artisian@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

    I’ll note that grocers seem to have made very little profit per American in the last few years; Walmart made ~$70 off each of us last year, which seems incompatible with the price increases I’ve been seeing…

    source

    • Rhynoplaz@lemmy.world ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

      Distribution maybe? I’m pretty sure the farmers aren’t getting any of that

      source
• PhlubbaDubba@lemm.ee ⁨1⁩ ⁨month⁩ ago

  It’d probably involve a healthy bit of statistical analysis, basically measuring price increases against measured inflation rates and prosecuting anyone statistically outside the standard without a justifying factor like a different formulation for the product or significantly better quality to justify being more expensive.

  As for what the punishment would be, I’d say either fining them twice the value of the excess profit, or forcing them to cut prices on all products to twice the margin they went over by.

  source