- Joined
- Jun 23, 2005
- Messages
- 35,787
- Reaction score
- 26,268
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Moderate
Quote Harris' plan where she will "cap prices". I think that is entirely in your head. I think her idea to give first time home buyers 25k towards their home, when the problem is supply, will only drive prices up, but I haven't seen anything suggesting she would price cap. Investigating price gouging is not price caps.I don't see how those 23 Nobel Prize-winning economists think that Harris's plan to cap prices is a good idea. Maybe some of you were not around when Nixon tried this back in 1971, that created a real sh** storm, cattle ranchers refused to sell their beef, dairies were dumping their milk and chicken farmers were getting rid of chickens, all of this created shortages. Now Harris is suggesting the same thing, nothing hurts a free market economy more than when the government tried to regulate it. A free market will adjust it self over time, it's called supply and demand. Putting price controls on goods only works if you cap everything within the supply chain of all goods, which would be impossible to enforce. Once your price controls expire then you will see a huge jump in the price of all goods, this is what happened to Nixon's price caps.
So, maybe the Prize winning economist were not around in 71.
Weird.Be afraid.
Harris has never, to the best of my knowledge, said anything about capping prices or price controls. She has said she would go after price gougers. Many states have those kinds of laws. Enacting a federal law would be a good thing.I don't see how those 23 Nobel Prize-winning economists think that Harris's plan to cap prices is a good idea. Maybe some of you were not around when Nixon tried this back in 1971, that created a real sh** storm, cattle ranchers refused to sell their beef, dairies were dumping their milk and chicken farmers were getting rid of chickens, all of this created shortages. Now Harris is suggesting the same thing, nothing hurts a free market economy more than when the government tried to regulate it. A free market will adjust it self over time, it's called supply and demand. Putting price controls on goods only works if you cap everything within the supply chain of all goods, which would be impossible to enforce. Once your price controls expire then you will see a huge jump in the price of all goods, this is what happened to Nixon's price caps.
So, maybe the Prize winning economist were not around in 71.
You really think that works? What about those 51 lying intelligence officials that said the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation?
KEY POINTS
- Twenty-three Nobel Prize-winning economists endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris over Donald Trump in a joint letter.
- The economists said Trump’s economic agenda, which includes hardline tariff proposals and a slate of aggressive tax cuts, would “lead to higher prices, larger deficits, and greater inequality.”
- Joseph Stiglitz, who spearheaded the endorsement letter, led a similar effort in June to back President Joe Biden’s agenda.
Twenty-three Nobel Prize-winning economists endorsed Vice President Kamala Harris over former President Donald Trumpin a joint letter released Wednesday.
The nearly two dozen economists said Trump’s economic agenda, which includes hardline tariff proposals and a slate of aggressive tax cuts, would “lead to higher prices, larger deficits, and greater inequality.”
“Simply put, Harris’s policies will result in a stronger economic performance, with economic growth that is more robust, more sustainable, and more equitable,” the letter read. CNN was first to report on the new letter.
Joseph Stiglitz, who won the Nobel Prize for his market economics research in 2001, spearheaded the joint endorsement among his fellow laureates.
Stiglitz led a similar effort to endorse President Joe Biden in June, publishing a letter signed by 16 Nobel laureates. That came just two days before the fateful presidential debate that ultimately derailed the president’s reelection
Weird.
Yeah, discredit the source. Right out of the Republiclown playbook.Economists are losing credibility left and right. They're nothing more than political hacks.
What 51 intelligence officials are you talking about?You really think that works? What about those 51 lying intelligence officials that said the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation?
Everyone is a political hack. Everyone is a Trump hater don't you know.Yeah, discredit the source. Right out of the Republiclown playbook.
BTW, where did you get your Economics degree?
What about?What about those 51 lying intelligence officials that said the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation?
Well, the orange guy has quite the resume. How many presidents are convicted criminals? Not to mention all the other trials he faces on the docket. Plus, he's really the dumbest president we've ever seen.Keep in mind that literally ALL presidential historians rank trump last...................
If Trump is re-elected, the world is going to think Americans are the biggest suckers on the planet.Well, the orange guy has quite the resume. How many presidents are convicted criminals? Not to mention all the other trials he faces on the docket. Plus, he's really the dumbest president we've ever seen.
I know several people that live in Australia, the UK and Germany. None of them can understand why Trump is even allowed to run here. And they all are worried to death that America will become just like Russia or China, only radical right instead of left.If Trump is re-elected, the world is going to think Americans are the biggest suckers on the planet.
View attachment 67539213
Don't worry, after Halloween they all have to go back to imaginaryland, where you found them.You really think that works? What about those 51 lying intelligence officials that said the Hunter Biden laptop story was Russian disinformation?
It is mainly because Trump's tariffs will very likely reignite inflation.The market is concerned about a Trump win.
What 51 intelligence officials are you talking about?
That doesn't disqualify ALL intelligence officers. Sorry. Try again.
Some of us are old enough to remember when many of these same economists were incredibly wrong with their predictions in 2016. Most notably, Krugman.Wow!! Twenty-three economists? That must be at least 99.96% of all economists.
The history of the presidency is littered with poor behavior, horrible decisions even by some of our most revered presidents.Well, the orange guy has quite the resume. How many presidents are convicted criminals? Not to mention all the other trials he faces on the docket. Plus, he's really the dumbest president we've ever seen.
Swing and a miss and you fell down too. I said 51 intelligence officials. You moved the goalposts and said All intelligence officers. I never said All. That was you.That doesn't disqualify ALL intelligence officers. Sorry. Try again.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?