Kamala Harris economic plan to focus on groceries, housing and healthcare

MicroWave@lemmy.world to politics @lemmy.world – 395 points – Kamala Harris economic plan to focus on groceries, housing and healthcare
theguardian.com

Democratic nominee to draw contrast with Trump on tax and tariffs when she lays out details on Friday, aides say

Kamala Harris will announce plans to tackle high grocery costs by targeting corporations in the food and grocery industry, as she previews her economic agenda ahead of the November election.

She will also tackle prescription drug and housing costs, drawing a contrast with Trump on tariffs and taxes, according to a Harris campaign statement.

Harris is expected to lay out some details of her economic plan in a speech in North Carolina on Friday.

“Same values, different vision,” said one aide, describing how Harris’s economic agenda will compare with that of Joe Biden, who stepped aside as the Democratic presidential candidate last month.

51

Break up Kroger and Albertsons if you wanna help with grocery prices. They have no competition so they just keep jacking up prices.

Also digital coupons can go fuck themselves.

I don't know anything about those two chains. Do they have some niche that makes other groceries/super-markets non-competative?

No competition? Walmart is their competitors. So is Target.

So far, I’m pleased with the advice her campaign seems to be taking. Maybe being “just outside the bubble” has helped her.

We live in capitalism. How do you mandate lower grocery prices in that?

(I guess we find out Friday?)

Having a strong and active FTC working to break apart (almost) monopolistic grocery store chains would be a good start.

Even threatening them with that would be a tiny step in the right direction.

I live in a large enough city to have choices and everyone is price gouging.

So, I don't see how this would really help much tbh.

and having a strong and active FTC working to enforce price gouging laws would really help too.

That's true. My point wasn't a strong ftc is bad but that near monopolies aren't the issue. There's collusion happening and breaking up monopolies isn't going to fix that.

3 more...
3 more...

You probably don’t remember the big fight over seat belts, but it was a thing. As a virtual hologram of a 1970’s Emergency Room doctor, I can tell you. The government mandating seat belts saved much more than lives. It saved trauma, years lost, careers, money - so much more.

But at the time people were all like, “What are they gonna do - force me to wear a seat belt? In my own car? How is that gonna help?”

It’s like that sometimes.

Same for air bags. They were going to make cars unaffordable. Same for drunk driving, "What? I can't have a beer or two on the way home?!" (Actually, you can have a beer or two, you can't be impaired.)

I'm for preventing monopolies and breaking them up.

My point wasn't that that's a bad thing. But that this is more of an oligopoly situation rather than a monopoly.

My town has Walmart, Kroger, Target, and a Co-OP within five minutes of my house. They're all gouging prices and have been since the pandemic.

This isn't a situation where breaking up monopolies is the cure. Though preventing the Kroger/Albertsons merger will certainly keep things from getting worse.

Government can help a lot of the time, was my only aside there. But yes oligopoly busting would also be helpful.

3 more...
3 more...

Odd, but I have the opposite experience. Small hick town and I'm loaded with choices, most of which are cheap.

6 more...
6 more...

How do you mandate lower grocery prices in that?

You don't. Price controls don't work and usually backfire in the long run.
Instead, you modify the incentives which exist around prices via taxation. As a simplified example, if you want to prioritize lower prices on staples such as milk, vegetables or beef, then businesses which can show that their margins on those products are within a defined range pay 1% less on corporate taxes. The numbers and ranges would need to be discovered via both study and experimentation. But, by tying a savings for those business to their behavior, said behavior can be influenced. The prices can then be further manipulated lower in the logistical chain, either by direct subsidy or via similar manipulation of incentives to growers and distributors.

We live in capitalism.

Yes, but functional capitalism requires regulation to prevent monopolies, collusion and other activities which distort markets. And there are plenty of areas where capitalism fails and government (read:socialism) needs to step in to provide something which society needs, but for which the incentives do not exist to provide it in an efficient manner. Or for which the efficient providing of that thing creates moral hazards. There is a reason we don't privatize the military.

6 more...

Doesn't she currently know people in positions of power, that could get started, like, NOW.

Biden is currently focused on correcting issues with the Supreme Court

Yeah how could anyone possibly work on multiple tasks at the same time.

1 more...
1 more...

Harris no longer supports measures from her short-lived 2020 presidential bid such as a fracking ban or Medicare for All, advisers told Reuters. Not all of the elements of Harris’ economic agenda will make it to the Friday speech, a draft of which is still in the works. Her campaign said it wanted to avoid dividing voters and attracting attacks from business groups over granular details, and will be “strategically ambiguous” in areas such as energy.

looks like we are just getting another lame duck democrat with a watered-down plan that does nothing in the end for the US people

we still need the minimum wage raised for everybody too but democrats think raising it just for the federal workers somehow translates to all people and we need universal healthcare

another wasted four years we could be fixing shit here we go again

goodbye progress

and no one holds the Democrats liable for doing nothing because it is all the Republicans fault

you can already hear the next repeat election

Jesus Christ bro, all you fucking do is bitch and cry about every little thing a Democrat does but have no reaction when it's a fucking republican. Just stfu with your apathetic bs

Block him and be done with it.

If everyone reasonable blocks them, nobody is left to downvote and push back and their messaging reaches more susceptible voters.

Zero-blocklist fam rise up

Think of the Day 1 users on here! “Wow Lemmy is cool except for the five wild comments at the bottom of each thread, each with five upvotes* and no pushback” *from each other

I'm pretty liberal myself, but calm tfd dude. It's an open platform and in fighting only improves the democrats

Pressuring Democrats to deliver for the working class is a good thing. Organizing around these issues show them that they're important and not a liability, but an asset. My guess is they're taking big insurance money and that's why they aren't going to deliver on healthcare save for some very minor changes.

While I do hate the 2 party system, and believe that we ranked choice voting to see any improvements, I will absolutely vote for a lame duck over a wanna be dictator every time.

There is a culture war that needs to be won before a platform can successfully run on all Progressive policies. As it stands now the faintest wiff of socialism causes knee-jerk 'not mah BBQ!' reactions and would cause a Conservative run in congress. How'd that look for progress, hmm?

Expecting progress to be instantaneous and comprehensive to your exact particular specifications is foolish unrealistic and counterproductive to the extent this actually appears to be your intent.

my grandfather was that told that same story his whole childhood and he repeated it his son who repeated it to me and am not repeating it to my kids

instantaneous progress does not always happen but in hundred years something should be getting done not reversing

Democrats have averted progress in lieu of not being instantaneous and it is a complete load of horse shit kind of excuse

You can't actually believe we are worse off now than 100 years ago. Yes, some things are going backwards, like roe due to Republicans. That's from 1973, so Republicans have brought us back 50 years.

100 years ago we didn't have minimum wage, child labor laws, or weekends

Women had only just been allowed to vote, and it would be another 40 years until the Civil Rights Act and Voting Rights Act.

And none of this is meant to discount the current struggles people are experiencing. The millennia of struggle we've sought freedom from hierarchy continues. We deserve to be truly free in the way those labor unions, women, and formerly formally enslaved people demanded over the overseers of our society. I say all this to make it abundantly clear I'm aware of the systemic issues at play this election, and to also make it clear that my endorsement of Kamala Harris is mainly begrudgingly based on that of the candidates she's the most least worst. We need to keep this energy going in state and local elections. We need to keep this energy going when there isn't an election at all. We need to realize those labor unions, women, and formally enslaved people fought for those rights with tools of war. They won our weekends and minimum wage and child labor laws with blood. We don't repay them by saying things used to be better. We repay them by maintaining pressure

If that IS true it is only due to your kind of defeatism. You do not benefit your cause at all QQing with no realistic solution, which is why I think your obvious goal is actually a conservative win through voter apathy. Thank goodness it is failing (literally) miserably.

We’ve seen an interesting cycle that was much shorter with corporations announcing* progressive intents, then announcing they’d forget about all that.

* not saying they should be believed, just saying their public-facing stances shifted (within maybe 5 years)