this post was submitted on 07 Oct 2024
169 points (94.2% liked)

No Stupid Questions

35807 readers
1526 users here now

No such thing. Ask away!

!nostupidquestions is a community dedicated to being helpful and answering each others' questions on various topics.

The rules for posting and commenting, besides the rules defined here for lemmy.world, are as follows:

Rules (interactive)


Rule 1- All posts must be legitimate questions. All post titles must include a question.

All posts must be legitimate questions, and all post titles must include a question. Questions that are joke or trolling questions, memes, song lyrics as title, etc. are not allowed here. See Rule 6 for all exceptions.



Rule 2- Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material.

Your question subject cannot be illegal or NSFW material. You will be warned first, banned second.



Rule 3- Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here.

Do not seek mental, medical and professional help here. Breaking this rule will not get you or your post removed, but it will put you at risk, and possibly in danger.



Rule 4- No self promotion or upvote-farming of any kind.

That's it.



Rule 5- No baiting or sealioning or promoting an agenda.

Questions which, instead of being of an innocuous nature, are specifically intended (based on reports and in the opinion of our crack moderation team) to bait users into ideological wars on charged political topics will be removed and the authors warned - or banned - depending on severity.



Rule 6- Regarding META posts and joke questions.

Provided it is about the community itself, you may post non-question posts using the [META] tag on your post title.

On fridays, you are allowed to post meme and troll questions, on the condition that it's in text format only, and conforms with our other rules. These posts MUST include the [NSQ Friday] tag in their title.

If you post a serious question on friday and are looking only for legitimate answers, then please include the [Serious] tag on your post. Irrelevant replies will then be removed by moderators.



Rule 7- You can't intentionally annoy, mock, or harass other members.

If you intentionally annoy, mock, harass, or discriminate against any individual member, you will be removed.

Likewise, if you are a member, sympathiser or a resemblant of a movement that is known to largely hate, mock, discriminate against, and/or want to take lives of a group of people, and you were provably vocal about your hate, then you will be banned on sight.



Rule 8- All comments should try to stay relevant to their parent content.



Rule 9- Reposts from other platforms are not allowed.

Let everyone have their own content.



Rule 10- Majority of bots aren't allowed to participate here.



Credits

Our breathtaking icon was bestowed upon us by @Cevilia!

The greatest banner of all time: by @TheOneWithTheHair!

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
 

The Harris-Walz campaign has said they want to create a federal ban on corporate price gouging (usually mentioned when folks talk about price hikes in grocery stores). I see economists complaining about variations of this policy being bad, e.g. leading to food desserts. But as far as I can tell there hasn't been anything specific proposed. Could someone explain our best guess at what they are proposing, and if it's been serious analyzed/tested elsewhere?

They cite existing legislation in the states; maybe explaining what that legislation does/how it works would be helpful?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] xmunk@sh.itjust.works 44 points 1 month ago (3 children)

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.

[–] MegaUltraChicken@lemmy.world 33 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] modifier@lemmy.ca 6 points 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.

[–] ulkesh@lemmy.world 16 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (2 children)

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~~ While I do not know of any 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.

Edit> Word change to more accurately represent my intent.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 6 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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

[–] spizzat2@lemm.ee 3 points 1 month ago* (last edited 1 month ago) (1 children)

How do you define "compete"?

Here they are on opposite corners of the same intersection.

Sure, that's only one example, but I'm not sure how well I can Google "Kroger near an [Albertsons|Randalls|Safeway]" to find a list.

[–] ryathal@sh.itjust.works 5 points 1 month ago

There are about 600 stores they want to divest where there was actual competition between them. The two control about 5000 stores between them.

[–] Artisian@lemmy.world -1 points 1 month ago (1 children)

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.

[–] LastWish@lemmy.world 8 points 1 month ago (1 children)

"Hey, our wholesale costs went up 300%, so we raised it 400% because fuck you, we're all doing it and you don't have any other options " is still price gouging and collusion.

[–] Artisian@lemmy.world 0 points 1 month ago

Agreed, that would be.

But the most they could have done is 308% instead of that 300%, and I think they managed to get lots and lots of small stores to do it at the same time.

[–] glimse@lemmy.world 9 points 1 month ago

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