What does a federal ban on price gouging look like?

kamalaharris.com Issues - Kamala Harris for President: Official Campaign Website

BUILD AN OPPORTUNITY ECONOMY AND LOWER COSTS FOR FAMILIES Vice President Harris grew up in a middle class home as the daughter of a working mom. She believes that when the middle class is strong, America is strong. That’s why as President, Kamala Harris will create an Opportunity Economy where every...

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're viewing a single thread.

31 comments

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.
- 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.
  
  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.
- 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.
  
  Kroger and Albertsons don't actually compete in any markets in the US, that takes collusion.
  
  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.
  
  There are about 600 stores they want to divest where there was actual competition between them. The two control about 5000 stores between them.
  
  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.
  
  "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.
  
  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.
- Lina Khan is so fuckin badass and I will be PISSED if she's let go.

31 comments