Price Controls on every day goods. are they a good option for ordinary people.

papa tiger

papa tiger

Well-known Member
Over the years I have experienced a lot of Negative replies to having price Controls to control inflation.

I wonder if Warehouse controls would be a better starting point. Looking at the huge expansion
of warehousing over the last 10 years. Controlling delivery would seem a much better way to
keep on raising prices. Artificial shortages due to screwed up deliveries seems a no brainer
way to keep on raising prices to me. It would seem counting up all the Millions of Sq.Ft. Of warehousing would be a great showcase of each states ability to deliver the products.
 

Last edited:
OneEyedDiva said:
And what are your thoughts about Nixon shock D?
Click to expand...
Having lived through those years, my memories are of economic hardship. Living in basement apartments, subsisting on things like macaroni & cheese from a box and a "meat" of ground beef mixed with soy protein, etc. Wages were very tight, we soon had long lines for high-priced gasoline, and personally being able to afford a car seemed quite out of reach.

The '70s was a decade of austerity, leaving a mess for Carter when he came in. Too many turned to Reagan, which led to Bush and then Clinton as jobs were exported from the US and neoliberal globalism became the religion of D.C. We had a long period of very high consumer borrowing interest rates.

I feel that Nixon Shock hurt for a number of reasons, wage and price controls being one leg of the stool. But we also had the conversion of the dollar to a pure fiat currency along with the ill-conceived pivot to China.
 
OneEyedDiva said:
And what are your thoughts about Nixon shock D?
Click to expand...
Nixon wasn't the cause of it, but presidents are responsible. It was the first and only time in my life time when we saw abrupt inflation of such magnitude, making the last two years seem like a picnic. Nixon tried things that didn't seem to work. It's almost like no one knew what to do. The wage freeze seemed to create more hardship as inflation kept getting out of control.

Carter appointed Paul Volker as chairman of the Fed, and he finally raised interest rates 4 times as much as what people complain about today. It was a good time to invest in the money market to collect high interest every day... if you had anything left over to invest. It seems to me that the cure for inflation had to be recession, although I'm just remembering the pain everyone had to endure to end inflation. But high interest rates did slow inflation down. The cure was hard, but not as bad as the inflation, which apparently, was brought under control by raising interest rates. Reagan got the credit, of course, because Volker was able to ease interest rates as inflation slowed while Regan was President.

We blamed inflation on the Mideast oil embargo, but the Arabs were raising oil prices because the American dollar was becoming worthless, the same reason that groceries, building matierials and everything else were increasing in price. I read (mind you, I only read) that "Nixon inflation" if that what "Nixon shock" refers to, could be traced back to President Johnson creating a huge debt by feverishly borrowing to finance the Vietnam war.

But I got that off the internet, and I take the internet with a grain of salt, but what I read seemed like it made a lot of sense, considering what little I know about economics.
 
papa tiger said:
Over the years I have experienced a lot of Negative replies to having price Controls to control inflation.

I wonder if Warehouse controls would be a better starting point. Looking at the huge expansion
of warehousing over the last 10 years. Controlling delivery would seem a much better way to
keep on raising prices. Artificial shortages due to screwed up deliveries seems a no brainer
way to keep on raising prices to me. It would seem counting up all the Millions of Sq.Ft. Of warehousing would be a great showcase of each states ability to deliver the products.
Click to expand...

Capitalism without restraints, is not your friend. It's an evil system that feed avarice, greed, and prizes monetary riches over all else.

However, with adequate regulation, it can be a great system that fosters progress and advancement.
 
At the heart of the matter is capitalism v corporate capitalism, as pure capitalism began leaving the U.S. near the end of the 19th century and rapidly decreased in the early 20th.

The issue with saying price controls... is misleading, as most people think of the price of goods. Price controls should also be understood to mean the price of labor, as well. That's when the idea begins to fall apart, as the price of labor is stagnated, leaving no incentives.

The idea that a government then could regulate all of those issues, is to invite another layer of bureaucracy, that must be financed with additional taxes.
 
dilettante said:
Having lived through those years, my memories are of economic hardship. Living in basement apartments, subsisting on things like macaroni & cheese from a box
Boy, does that bring back memories.
In the late1970s, I got laid off. I had moved from N.Y. to PA, and the two states fought over who was going to pay my unemployment comp, so I didn't get a dime for close to 2 months. Mac & cheese cost 21 cents a box. That's all I could afford. I ate Mac & cheese 3 times a day for well over a month. It took tens years time before I could again eat it.
Click to expand...
 
Harry Le Hermit said:
At the heart of the matter is capitalism v corporate capitalism, as pure capitalism began leaving the U.S. near the end of the 19th century and rapidly decreased in the early 20th.

The issue with saying price controls... is misleading, as most people think of the price of goods. Price controls should also be understood to mean the price of labor, as well. That's when the idea begins to fall apart, as the price of labor is stagnated, leaving no incentives.

The idea that a government then could regulate all of those issues, is to invite another layer of bureaucracy, that must be financed with additional taxes.
Click to expand...
“I wish to create many High Paying Gubber-Mint Jobs.” …. Are appointment’s owned? …
—————-
The National Bureau of Prices vs Daily Personal / Controls. (Only the employer can quit stuff.)
——-

Who the Heck bought up the toilet paper? There are no 2x4’s here. No Plywood?
Right, no cars in the parking lots, everything non essential is closed. What, Why?
———
“We’re all a gonna die!” “Here, take $1400!” = $280,000,000,000.00
 
Last edited:
Price controls? No.

Government should make sure that collusion and other tactics are not used to artificially raise prices. Also, from what I have read at least three competitors are needed in a market to provide some competition. Preferably four or more Are far better.

Price controls ultimately result in low supply, black markets and shoddy merchandise. One has to only look at countries that have price controls.
 
JustDave said:
Nixon wasn't the cause of it, but presidents are responsible. It was the first and only time in my life time when we saw abrupt inflation of such magnitude, making the last two years seem like a picnic. Nixon tried things that didn't seem to work. It's almost like no one knew what to do.
Click to expand...
They didn't realize they shouldn't have done anything. ("They" being the federal gov't)

Peaks and valleys are normal and expected in a capitalist economy, and it corrects itself just fine as long as gov't doesn't interfere with it/manipulate it.
 
Harry Le Hermit said:
At the heart of the matter is capitalism v corporate capitalism, as pure capitalism began leaving the U.S. near the end of the 19th century and rapidly decreased in the early 20th.

The issue with saying price controls... is misleading, as most people think of the price of goods. Price controls should also be understood to mean the price of labor, as well. That's when the idea begins to fall apart, as the price of labor is stagnated, leaving no incentives.

The idea that a government then could regulate all of those issues, is to invite another layer of bureaucracy, that must be financed with additional taxes.
Click to expand...
I think it was back in the 70s when the US feds tried temporary price control (of goods), and it went very badly. People over-filled their pantries, store shelves emptied too quick, and common goods were in great demand. When markets were able to fully restock, prices rose due to demand.

Politicians were the only people who benefited, enticing voters. Trucking companies might have done pretty well for a while, too, I don't know.
 
Murrmurr said:
Peaks and valleys are normal and expected in a capitalist economy, and it corrects itself just fine as long as gov't doesn't interfere with it/manipulate it.
Click to expand...

Yeah, we disagree here. For example, prices have risen far faster than wages in many countries in the west. Minimum wage is vital in an effort to dictate a minimum existence. Governments are not always a problem. Governments in the west are mostly elected by the people based on a manifesto. It's fashionable today to hate all government, but without it we'd be (as workers) in a far worse position, imo. I don't trust business leaders more than I trust governments.
 
The government can influence proces thru policies, taxation and interest rates. Like it or not our economy is influenced by global factors. Here in the US our leaders are often elected on the mistaken belief that they can make rapid and meaningful change in a rabidly capitalistic country. Good luck with that. Change is slow.
 
VaughanJB said:
Yeah, we disagree here. For example, prices have risen far faster than wages in many countries in the west. Minimum wage is vital in an effort to dictate a minimum existence. Governments are not always a problem. Governments in the west are mostly elected by the people based on a manifesto. It's fashionable today to hate all government, but without it we'd be (as workers) in a far worse position, imo. I don't trust business leaders more than I trust governments.
Click to expand...
I would argue that gov't meddling causes inflation.

Take their response to the pandemic, for example. I think we're paying for those 2 years of covid hardship checks (or whatever they were called) and rent moratoriums.
 
Murrmurr said:
I would argue that gov't meddling causes inflation.

Take their response to the pandemic, for example. I think we're paying for those 2 years of covid hardship checks (or whatever they were called) and rent moratoriums.
Click to expand...

Some things they do have long term benefit, some things long term failures. It's not one thing. I know I've worked for people who don't give a damn about workers, and are only interested in offering the least, for the most income. Money, and profit, above all else. I wouldn't trust them to be a caring parent to the economy.

I mean, look at manufacturing and how it's been decimated in the US and UK. This is largely because of cost cutting. It's good for business, bad for anyone who might work in manufacturing. It's a balance. Now, I have no say in who runs a business, but I do have a say on who is in government.

We should probably avoid Covid, because it's a right wormhole. My take away from that is that if another black plague happened, and a fatal disease spread across the globe, we - as humanity - would die out proclaiming a God given right to personal freedom as we choked our last.
 
The market is the best control over price. Supply and demand will drive the market along with marketing efforts that promote features and benefits of a product. If the government attempts to control prices the focus is only on one facet, the end price without consideration of underlying costs, and the supply chain issues. There are already laws on the books to deal with price gouging and current dialogue on the subject is nothing more than political hype aimed at influencing votes.
 
VaughanJB said:
I mean, look at manufacturing and how it's been decimated in the US and UK. This is largely because of cost cutting.
Click to expand...
I disagree. I believe it's largely because they were taxed and license fee'd out of business.

When me and my cousin bought a small-town liquor/convenience store, neither of us knew an agent from the Franchise Tax Board would walk in 3 days after we opened demanding $10,000. And that was just a down-payment.

Separately taxed items included per sq ft of floor space, per sq ft of shelving, every item of merchandise, number of doors and windows, warehouse space, and the roof (because it had steel joists, if I remember right).

Like I said, that was just a start.
 
Does anyone have to point to who is in Government? Absolutely not. Most of the employees are hired or appointed and they all are owned. Because, It may just be a simply, because!
 

Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top