Moderator: Community Team
Dukasaur wrote:It's funny how you're the first one to complain when people substitute name-calling for argument, but you're not afraid to do it yourself.
Votanic wrote:Dukasaur wrote:It's funny how you're the first one to complain when people substitute name-calling for argument, but you're not afraid to do it yourself.
Uh-uh, not so fast, Dukasaur.
I've been around long enough to remember the most whinging complaints were sent by PM from creatures like "pukeratloltrans" etc.,
Votanic wrote:...and I also recall your own extreme and highly biased over-reactionss to those complaints.
Move forward at lightening speed. - God
HitRed wrote:This was for me. Discern for yourself.
Sell stocks?Move forward at lightening speed. - God
ConfederateSS wrote: Vote for Kamala
Move forward at lightening speed. - God
HitRed wrote:Sell stocks?Move forward at lightening speed. - God
Done
ConfederateSS wrote: Vote for Kamala
Aug 16 (Reuters) - As Vice President Kamala Harris focuses on price gouging in her presidential campaign, state laws and laws proposed by her colleagues in the Senate show potential paths for a crackdown on high prices.
The Democratic candidate planned to lay out her anti-price gouging and other economic proposals in a speech in Raleigh, North Carolina, on Friday.
Harris’ plan to stop price gouging could create more problems than it solves
Food prices have surged by more than 20% under the Biden-Harris administration, leaving many voters eager to stretch their dollars further at the grocery store.
On Friday, Vice President Kamala Harris said she has a solution: a federal ban on price gouging across the food industry.
“My plan will include new penalties for opportunistic companies that exploit crises and break the rules,” Harris said at a campaign event.
There’s just one issue: Harris’ proposal could create more problems than the one it’s trying to solve, some economists say.
Jason Furman, a top economist in the Obama administration, shared Roberts’ view that anti-price gouging laws could inadvertently harm consumers. “This is not sensible policy, and I think the biggest hope is that it ends up being a lot of rhetoric and no reality,” he told the New York Times. “There’s no upside here, and there is some downside.”
jusplay4fun wrote:The inflation caused by Bidenomics, that Kamala credits as part of the Biden-Harris Administration, will be SUPPOSEDLY CURED as Kamala suggests that PRICE GOUGING is the CAUSE of this inflation. I have shown arguments that much of the inflation is due to overspending by the Federal Government, mostly under Biden-Harris and Bidenomics. The grocery industry has a VERY SLIM profit margin of 1%, perhaps at THE MOST of 2%. This clearly shows that Kamala does not understand Economics and the CAUSES of INFLATION. The inflation in food is NOT caused by GREED nor Price Gouging. Silly Cackling Kamala. Why is she waiting NOW to propose such ideas?
(And while we are discussing delayed actions, why did Biden wait until NOW for executives orders and actions to curtail ILLEGAL immigration the US-Mexico border?)Aug 16 (Reuters) - As Vice President Kamala Harris focuses on price gouging in her presidential campaign, state laws and laws proposed by her colleagues in the Senate show potential paths for a crackdown on high prices.
The Democratic candidate planned to lay out her anti-price gouging and other economic proposals in a speech in Raleigh, North Carolina, on Friday.
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/harris-anti-price-gouging-plan-could-build-us-state-law-2024-08-16/Harris’ plan to stop price gouging could create more problems than it solves
[url]https://www.cnn.com/2024/08/16/business/harris-price-gouging-ban-inflation/index.html
[/url]
Even Liberal bastion CNN admits the fallacy of such an idea as Price controls. More from CNN follows:Food prices have surged by more than 20% under the Biden-Harris administration, leaving many voters eager to stretch their dollars further at the grocery store.
On Friday, Vice President Kamala Harris said she has a solution: a federal ban on price gouging across the food industry.
“My plan will include new penalties for opportunistic companies that exploit crises and break the rules,” Harris said at a campaign event.
There’s just one issue: Harris’ proposal could create more problems than the one it’s trying to solve, some economists say.
You can read the CNN article for more specifics of the FALLACY and silliness of Kamala's proposal. Here is one such quote, also from CNN:Jason Furman, a top economist in the Obama administration, shared Roberts’ view that anti-price gouging laws could inadvertently harm consumers. “This is not sensible policy, and I think the biggest hope is that it ends up being a lot of rhetoric and no reality,” he told the New York Times. “There’s no upside here, and there is some downside.”
Got to hand it to jusplay4MAGA, he tells us he is right and has proved himself right previously...in fact many times, lol.
Pack Rat wrote:How old are you? Just wondering why you resort to juvenile remarks?
Did I get under your skin?
Bruceswar » Tue Aug 28, 2012 8:59 pm wrote:We all had tons of men..
kentington wrote:Pack Rat wrote:How old are you? Just wondering why you resort to juvenile remarks?
Did I get under your skin?
That song is pretty bad. The flow is not great.
HitRed wrote:Gold always is strong before a recession.
HitRed wrote:Recession by end of February.
We'll see.
I’m an Economist: 2 Reasons I Believe Harris’ Opportunity Economy Would Hurt Retirees
(...)
While the details of this plan are still a bit vague, it does seem to mostly be targeting working Americans. That said, certain aspects of it could end up hurting retirees, especially those on fixed or limited incomes.
GOBankingRates spoke with Milton Ezrati, chief economist at Vested and the author of “Thirty Tomorrows: The Next Three Decades of Globalization, Demographics, and How We Will Live,” to find out how Harris’ “opportunity economy” could hurt retirees.
(...)
Although most of these proposed changes are geared toward working individuals, they still likely would impact retirees — even if they don’t benefit from them.
“All these programs would add up to quite a government expense,” Ezrati said. “To the extent that they add to budget deficits and feed inflation, retirees would suffer — and disproportionately so, because many are on fixed incomes."
jusplay4fun wrote:Retirees be warned:I’m an Economist: 2 Reasons I Believe Harris’ Opportunity Economy Would Hurt Retirees
(...)
While the details of this plan are still a bit vague, it does seem to mostly be targeting working Americans. That said, certain aspects of it could end up hurting retirees, especially those on fixed or limited incomes.
GOBankingRates spoke with Milton Ezrati, chief economist at Vested and the author of “Thirty Tomorrows: The Next Three Decades of Globalization, Demographics, and How We Will Live,” to find out how Harris’ “opportunity economy” could hurt retirees.
(...)
Although most of these proposed changes are geared toward working individuals, they still likely would impact retirees — even if they don’t benefit from them.
“All these programs would add up to quite a government expense,” Ezrati said. “To the extent that they add to budget deficits and feed inflation, retirees would suffer — and disproportionately so, because many are on fixed incomes."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personalfinance/i-m-an-economist-2-reasons-i-believe-harris-opportunity-economy-would-hurt-retirees/ar-AA1r6Rfs?ocid=winp2fptaskbar&cvid=396b8be4a04441ed9edf9323cde6bae1&ei=25
ConfederateSS wrote: Vote for Kamala
mookiemcgee wrote:jusplay4fun wrote:Retirees be warned:I’m an Economist: 2 Reasons I Believe Harris’ Opportunity Economy Would Hurt Retirees
(...)
While the details of this plan are still a bit vague, it does seem to mostly be targeting working Americans. That said, certain aspects of it could end up hurting retirees, especially those on fixed or limited incomes.
GOBankingRates spoke with Milton Ezrati, chief economist at Vested and the author of “Thirty Tomorrows: The Next Three Decades of Globalization, Demographics, and How We Will Live,” to find out how Harris’ “opportunity economy” could hurt retirees.
(...)
Although most of these proposed changes are geared toward working individuals, they still likely would impact retirees — even if they don’t benefit from them.
“All these programs would add up to quite a government expense,” Ezrati said. “To the extent that they add to budget deficits and feed inflation, retirees would suffer — and disproportionately so, because many are on fixed incomes."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personalfinance/i-m-an-economist-2-reasons-i-believe-harris-opportunity-economy-would-hurt-retirees/ar-AA1r6Rfs?ocid=winp2fptaskbar&cvid=396b8be4a04441ed9edf9323cde6bae1&ei=25
lol, except for the part of the article where she says “I know economists have labeled [Donald] Trump as more inflationary.”
Maybe if republicans ran an actual fiscal conservative who didn't plan to pay for all his massive planned spending through tarrifs (a regressive tax system we abandoned in the 1800s), they wouldn't sound so disingenuous in claiming the democrat plan would lead to inflation.
This articles author, and virtually every legitimate economist who has looked at the two plans believes the Trump plan is an order of magnitude worse for inflation. Donald Trump literally wants to undo free trade with America and it's an economic CERTAINTY that if he gets his way the burden will be paid by US consumers...even retirees.
jusplay4fun wrote:mookiemcgee wrote:jusplay4fun wrote:Retirees be warned:I’m an Economist: 2 Reasons I Believe Harris’ Opportunity Economy Would Hurt Retirees
(...)
While the details of this plan are still a bit vague, it does seem to mostly be targeting working Americans. That said, certain aspects of it could end up hurting retirees, especially those on fixed or limited incomes.
GOBankingRates spoke with Milton Ezrati, chief economist at Vested and the author of “Thirty Tomorrows: The Next Three Decades of Globalization, Demographics, and How We Will Live,” to find out how Harris’ “opportunity economy” could hurt retirees.
(...)
Although most of these proposed changes are geared toward working individuals, they still likely would impact retirees — even if they don’t benefit from them.
“All these programs would add up to quite a government expense,” Ezrati said. “To the extent that they add to budget deficits and feed inflation, retirees would suffer — and disproportionately so, because many are on fixed incomes."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personalfinance/i-m-an-economist-2-reasons-i-believe-harris-opportunity-economy-would-hurt-retirees/ar-AA1r6Rfs?ocid=winp2fptaskbar&cvid=396b8be4a04441ed9edf9323cde6bae1&ei=25
lol, except for the part of the article where she says “I know economists have labeled [Donald] Trump as more inflationary.”
Maybe if republicans ran an actual fiscal conservative who didn't plan to pay for all his massive planned spending through tarrifs (a regressive tax system we abandoned in the 1800s), they wouldn't sound so disingenuous in claiming the democrat plan would lead to inflation.
This articles author, and virtually every legitimate economist who has looked at the two plans believes the Trump plan is an order of magnitude worse for inflation. Donald Trump literally wants to undo free trade with America and it's an economic CERTAINTY that if he gets his way the burden will be paid by US consumers...even retirees.
I am glad Mookie that you did read the article I cited. Thanks for being willing to learn.
Pack Rat wrote:jusplay4fun wrote:mookiemcgee wrote:jusplay4fun wrote:Retirees be warned:I’m an Economist: 2 Reasons I Believe Harris’ Opportunity Economy Would Hurt Retirees
(...)
While the details of this plan are still a bit vague, it does seem to mostly be targeting working Americans. That said, certain aspects of it could end up hurting retirees, especially those on fixed or limited incomes.
GOBankingRates spoke with Milton Ezrati, chief economist at Vested and the author of “Thirty Tomorrows: The Next Three Decades of Globalization, Demographics, and How We Will Live,” to find out how Harris’ “opportunity economy” could hurt retirees.
(...)
Although most of these proposed changes are geared toward working individuals, they still likely would impact retirees — even if they don’t benefit from them.
“All these programs would add up to quite a government expense,” Ezrati said. “To the extent that they add to budget deficits and feed inflation, retirees would suffer — and disproportionately so, because many are on fixed incomes."
https://www.msn.com/en-us/money/personalfinance/i-m-an-economist-2-reasons-i-believe-harris-opportunity-economy-would-hurt-retirees/ar-AA1r6Rfs?ocid=winp2fptaskbar&cvid=396b8be4a04441ed9edf9323cde6bae1&ei=25
lol, except for the part of the article where she says “I know economists have labeled [Donald] Trump as more inflationary.”
Maybe if republicans ran an actual fiscal conservative who didn't plan to pay for all his massive planned spending through tarrifs (a regressive tax system we abandoned in the 1800s), they wouldn't sound so disingenuous in claiming the democrat plan would lead to inflation.
This articles author, and virtually every legitimate economist who has looked at the two plans believes the Trump plan is an order of magnitude worse for inflation. Donald Trump literally wants to undo free trade with America and it's an economic CERTAINTY that if he gets his way the burden will be paid by US consumers...even retirees.
I am glad Mookie that you did read the article I cited. Thanks for being willing to learn.
Not sure if you actually read and comprehend Mookie's reply? Maybe your narcissist attitude is not allowing you to learn.[/b]
Return to Out, out, brief candle!
Users browsing this forum: DirtyDishSoap