Re: Three Body Problem

On 22 Aug 2024 13:50:01 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:

On 2024-08-21, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

On 20 Aug 2024 15:05:59 GMT, Chris Buckley <alan@sabir.com> wrote:
>

On 2024-08-19, Paul S Person <psperson@old.netcom.invalid> wrote:

>
<snip-a-bit>
>

The claim was that she proposed "freezing food prices and making
grocery stores report any changes in their prices".
>
Your quote simply doesn't back that up in any way.
>
But keep on trying. Who can say what Kamala may have said, say, 15
years ago in a private conversation now being outed by someone from
memory with no backup at all. Or some source of similar likely
validity.

>
Yes, freezing prices is a slight exageration of putting price controls
on, but only slight.  The mechanisms for enforcing them are the same: how
do you envision them as different? 

>
It is a PTTP, pure and simple.
>
I don't "envision" either as likely any time soon.
>
Price /controls/ imply rationing. As during WWII. You control the
prices because otherwise scarcity will cause them to rise.

>
You are using your own private definitions again. Price control is
a general economic term that includes things like price gouging laws,
price freezing, rent control, minimum wages. None of these imply
rationing, which is a logistics term. Both rationing and price controls
can be used to solve the same problem, but if anything, it is rationing
that implies price controls.

And yet it is you yourself who asked me to /distinguish/ them.

This says a lot about your character, you know.

Price /gouging/ is handled by putting people in prison. It is a crime.
Or should be. The problem, of course, is telling when it is happening
-- and who is doing it.
>

This is actually an /excellent/ first policy -- going directly at the
malefactors.

>
What malefactors???

>
That's my point: the people actually doing the price gouging should be
identified before solutions are proposed.

However, I would suggest she have someone actually
/study/ the situation to see if the problem she is trying to solve
actually exists -- that is, that the higher grocery prices actually
/are/ price-gouging and not legitimate economic behavior.
>
There is no point in solving a problem that does not exist.

>
I agree with all of this. I would have no objection (other than a
mild waste of time and money) if she had proposed an urgent study of grocery
prices and whether "price gouging" is happening. But she didn't.
>
She said that the problem exists and that it is very urgent for the
federal government to have rules and regulations right now to stop them.
That it is so clear cut that she will have rules in place within 100 days.

>
Only if the laws exist already. Some have indicated that new laws
might be needed. That could take a while to sort out. Particularly if
the Republicans control either or both Houses of Congress.

>
That wasn't part of her claim.  She will have new clear rules  within
100 days if elected.
>

Why do *you* believe that it is an excellent policy to have the
federal government involved in regulating grocery prices?

>
I said it was an excellent /first/ policy. I did not say it was
excellent as such. It is a good place to start. She can make some fine
declarations from the Oval Office on the topic. Whether it actually
goes anywhere who can say? This is politics, after all. Did the Wall
get build with Mexico paying? Don't think so.

>
What a patronising view of Harris. It's a first policy so of course
it isn't expected to be of a high quality. She will learn to play with
the adults later on. 

It is a political campaign speech. Just like Trump's Wall, paid by
Mexico. What happens after she gets in will become clear over time.
Quite possibly little or nothing -- as with Trump's Wall.

OK, the chance of someone scamming people by claiming to be doing it
on his own (as happened with the Wall) is probably a bit less.

Note: I buy a lot of store brands, and some of those, at least, have
dropped back down, at least a bit. Those concerned about grocery store
reporting should keep two things in mind:
1) If the stores always mark up the items they sell by the same
amount, then /they/ aren't gouging.
2) If restricted to larger stores, or chains, then the report would
probably be done by a computer anyway. We need not picture 100 new
employees just to keep track of prices.

>
It's done by a computer, it's simple? Tell that the federal government -
how many multi-billion dollar computer programs have they abandoned over
the years?

>
Do you really believe that a major corporation is somehow unable to
tell exactly where every penny received from something it sold goes
to? Cost of item, cost of overhead, cost of wages, profit, and any
others? Not the CEO, perhaps, but some weenie three or four levels
down in Accounting surely can.
If they can't, then /they can't tell which lines/products make the
most money for them/ and how can they make intelligent business
decisions if they literally don't know what they are doing?

>
No, they can't. When they sell an item, they do not know what they
paid for it and what the overhead was. They know all the various
prices that they paid for that item category (eg $1 last month, $1.10
the month before) but they don't know which of those costs apply to
this particular item. They know what the expected wastage is of a
produce item, but they don't know whether the shipment for this
particular apple happened to be mostly spoiled because they don't know what
shipment it came from.

Then they aren't in business. They are just pretending.

When your wholesale cost of eggs suddenly triples, what retail price
do you start charging and when?  Some eggs will probably be sold at an
enormous markup, but that is not price gouging.

/That/ would be an economic justification for an increased markup:
having to make enough from the current items to purchase more.

But, of course, they would have to know what they paid for the current
items. According to you, they know no such thing, and so cannot tell
if the price of eggs is going up or not.

How about when everybody else's wholesale cost of eggs triples and they
double their retail prices, but you have a longer-term contract with your
supplier and are still paying the original rate? If you double your
retail price, you are not price gouging according to any legal definition
that I know of. Price gouging is defined as excess profits when selling
above the market rate.

Perhaps not, but if they are charging just as much when they can
charge less, they are either in an illegal price-fixing cartel or are
not in business.

That's a major reason why Harris's proposal is nonsense. Price gouging
is defined in terms of selling above market prices, and grocery
markets are local, not national. The state governments are reasonable
places for price gouging laws; the federal government has no expertise
in local markets. (The federal government absolutely has a place in
price collusion laws, forbidding industries from agreeing to
artificially high prices. But unfortunately for Harris, those laws
already exist.)

The laws exist but are they being enforced? The last memorable
antitrust action I recall was Microsoft, which was very interesting in
explaining just why OS/2 failed, but didn't result in splitting up
Microsoft into competing units with no common direction.

Suppose what she is /really/ saying is that the antirust laws will be
applied to the food industry?

My supermarket has very low prices on basics ($2.49/gallon for milk),
but has a large selection of luxury and prepared items with a much
higher markup (I'm sure some of the sushi items are 200% or more).  Are you
saying the federal government should have a say in this strategy?
>
Their fruit prices normally vary by as much as a factor of 3 or more
throughout the year - it matters if they are getting them from local
orchards or Brazil. Are you saying the markup has to be the same
throughout the year?

>
No. But it has to not triple when a pandemic hits unless there is a
good economic reason for it. And "raking it in while I have the chance
and devil take the hindmost" is not a good economic reason.

>
But where do you draw the line? Be precise.
>
Again, the issue is not the need for price collusion laws, those already
exist.  The emphasis has to be on keeping fair competition in the
marketplace. Most of the conspiracy theories I've seen about grocery
prices imply collusion. But that's a complaint about enforcement of
existing laws.

And it may be Kamala's complaint as well. Which she should be able to
remedy as President with a few judicious appointments and
speechifying.

Which is why the effort, confined to the major corporations, should
also start with historical research so an idea can be formed of what
is normal and what is not.

>

Just what is this magical computer keeping track of at the federal level?

>
What magical computer? I don't think they exist ... in this reality.
>
Maybe in PTTP-land. In fact, I would think Russia would be a good
place to look for such a machine. Or China.

>
You're the one that said all this is simple because it can be done on
a computer! Ridiculous.

I said that a /major corporation/ can provide the historical and
current data that they based the decisions being investigated on
without hiring 100 clerks to write the data on parchment with quill
pens by using their computers to produce it.
--
"Here lies the Tuscan poet Aretino,
Who evil spoke of everyone but God,
Giving as his excuse, 'I never knew him.'"