Trump won't lower prices—no matter how many fake grocery bills go viral
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Trump won't lower prices—no matter how many fake grocery bills go viral
by kosDaily Kos Staff 4-4 minutes
There is a weird genre of conservative trolling where someone posts a photo of a handful of groceries and captions it with stuff like “This cost me $190. THANKS, BIDEN.”
It’s all bullshit, of course. But aside from the lies, what do these people expect Donald Trump to do about it?
The genre may have gotten its start with none other than The New York Times’ David Brooks, a conservative columnist who complained on X last September about spending $78 at an airport for a burger and fries.
“This meal just cost me $78 at Newark Airport,” Brooks tweeted . “This is why Americans think the economy is terrible.”
The included photos showed what appeared to be a burger, crinkle-cut fries, lettuce, tomato, ketchup packets, and an amber beverage over ice. Turns out, he heavily exaggerated and had seemingly bought two double-shots of whiskey.
The genre has since been popular among right-wingers as a way to claim that the economy is crushing people’s lives, hence the need to vote for Trump.
An X user quickly debunked the claim, pricing out the same items at two different outlets:
Claim: $175
Actual: Walmart: $80
Whole Foods: $119
Even New York Times reporter Mike Isaac priced it out according to the Whole Foods near him in the high-cost San Francisco Bay Area. The price? $120.
That said, no one claims the price of groceries hasn’t gone up. It has . But what would Trump do about it?
Asked that specific question at a Michigan event, Trump said he would lower prices by restricting food imports. Economists rightfully pointed out that restricting competition would actually increase prices as well as lead to retaliatory tariffs that would hurt American farmers, forcing them to, yet again, raise prices to compensate for those losses.
We know price gouging was a meaningful driver of those higher grocery bills, but Trump has attacked a proposal by Vice President Kamala Harris to punish price-gougers as “Soviet-style” controls. Yet, as this Politico story points out , Republicans at the state level have gone after price gouging in the food industry. But Trump is not interested, because he will never do anything to stand in the way of anyone’s profit, especially if it’s at the cost of the plebes.
And then there’s the effect Trump’s policies would likely have on the overall economy.
Sixteen Nobel Prize-winning economists have argued that Trump’s policies would “reignite this inflation, with his fiscally irresponsible budgets.” Another letter , this time by 23 Nobel-winning economists, stated, “[Trump’s] policies, including high tariffs even on goods from our friends and allies and regressive tax cuts for corporations and individuals, will lead to higher prices, larger deficits, and greater inequality. Among the most important determinants of economic success are the rule of law and economic and political certainty, and Trump threatens all of these.”
None of that would bode well for grocery prices.
Those conservatives posting pictures of their groceries aren’t going to buy arguments from academics, or look at charts of falling inflation that is the envy of the world . They have an agenda to sell: They need Trump to get elected.
Tags
Who is online
476 visitors
Reporter to Trump next September - "Mr President, inflation is back to 8% in your new administration -
Trump (interrupting) - No it hasnt, and if it has its Biden and Harris' fault. I have the lowest inflation in world history".
Reporter : "But what about the high grocery prices?"
Trump : Thats not my problem, talk to the Secretary Of Agriculture Lauen Boebert."
And you really really think Harris and Waltz will do anything to lower prices any when they get into office after Harris has already been VP for four years and did nothing? Personally I do not see that happening.
People want to vote for trump because their groceries cost too much. How will he lower grocery prices?
I cannot say because I do not plan on voting for him. But things are a lot worse now financially for a lot of people than they were four years ago. Can you agree with that?
Prices went up during the pandemic and once prices go up they hardly ever go back down.
Trump evidently was asked how he would lower grocery prices and he didnt really have an answer.
It's not necessarily what people don't do, it's what they DO, such as 100% tariffs and banning foreign imports to make life miserable for people who have to work two jobs just to pay the rent.
To be honest Harris was asked the same question and all she gave was a semi comprehensible word salad of a answer.
Her approach, which she has consistently repeated, is to go after price gouging. That is a fair answer and it is something a PotUS could indeed do: go after companies that are still taking advantage of consumers because they have not yet been called out.
What a PotUS cannot do (and should not do even if they has the power) is mandate lower prices. That cannot work and would have all sorts of ugly side-effects starting with shortages.
What, specifically, would you expect a PotUS to offer as a solution to prices that were inflated due to the pandemic? The only solution is to let the market continue to sort this out. That is how a market economy operates.
That should not even be an expectation of a PotUS. But the electorate has this absurd notion that a PotUS has some kind of magical power to materially affect the economy in a positive way ... to, in this case, lower prices across the board. That is (economically speaking) utter ignorance.
So the question is wrong (and I am talking about it being applied to both candidates). But unfortunately the electorate (as a whole) often has absurd expectations.
About the only honest plan that Trump had for this issue was as he put it, 'Drill baby drill!'. If he can lower the cost of energy, then the delivery and manufacturing costs to produce the groceries will lessen which in turn can lower prices. But that's a big if. In reality there's little the President can do for this issue.
His 'drill baby drill' mantra makes no sense. Domestic oil companies hold thousands of drilling permits but choose to not drill for economic reasons. New drilling facilities are expensive and with the international movement away from fossil fuels, oil companies do not see long term advantage that will justify the short-term expenses. Further, drilling for oil domestically is many times more expensive than the costs of Saudi, et. al. On top of that, most of our refineries are geared to process sour crude (that we import). This is because sour crude has been historically cheaper than using the sweet crude that we can obtain domestically. So we can drill all we want but for the most part we will need to just export it.
Trump can push through a relaxation of environmental regulation which could reduce the cost of creating a new drilling facility. This would be at the expense of the environment. But that might not make much of a difference since energy companies know that Trump, if elected, will be gone by 2029 and his protections cannot possibly hold off the global trend toward renewable energy. Thus, no matter what Trump says, he is not going to make much of a difference in domestic oil production.
Finally, there is no need. Trump is trying to solve a non-problem. Energy companies are doing fine and there is all sorts of work being done with renewable energy. The smart, strategic move for the USA is to lead the world in renewable energy technology and production. As we advance in this area we will naturally lower energy prices.
Trump's claim that 'drill baby drill' will lower domestic prices is ridiculous. Even if more drilling would have a material effect (not), it would take many years for that effect to be realized by consumers. It will not happen during Trump's term (for certain) but he will lie and his supporters will believe him.
Currently we are the largest producer of oil in the world and the prices are what they are, it is a world market so even if we produced more oil the chances of prices coming down are not positive. In addition the oil companies have enough leases both used and unused to keep them busy for the next couple of decades.
It is just more nonsensical BS by Trump trying to ‘’buy votes’’ just like his tax proposals of NO TAXES.
And that's why I said it was a big 'if'. If he can lower the cost of energy, that can translate into lowering the cost of several other things that people rely on. But as we're already the largest producer of oil, just pumping more oil won't directly translate into lower costs overall.
Of course it's another attempt to buy votes. Hate to break it to you but that's what candidates do. Both Trump and Harris are out there making promises in an attempt to win the extra votes. While Trump's attempts are BS as you put it, at least they are not unconstitutional like some of the promises that Harris has made.
... has become a word salad admonishment. How about some new material ... ?
No
AND untrue - just the latest talking point(s)
He's obsessed with creating more and more tariffs. Tariffs are inflationary-- they will increase prices, not lower them.
If Trump promise of no taxes is not legal, he, as president cannot do it, period. There is another branch of government called congress that handles that business.
There's a common misconception that the President (regardless of party) can control oil prices. But the truth is-- they can't!
(if they could, the current presidents would always make oil prices stay low-- to increase their popularity with the voters)
Looks like you didn't understand the post you replied to. Making a promise of eliminating income taxes is not illegal, but you are correct that the President alone cannot make that happen. That requires Congress to first pass the bill.
But what I had stated is that Harris is making promises that are unconstitutional.
Her agenda from her official campaign website talks about laying out an agenda for Black men. While making the promise is not illegal, it's definitely unconstitutional should she actually win the Oval Office and attempt to get Congress to pass such a bill. Even if she were to win the Presidency AND Democrats win both the House and 61 seats in the Senate where this could be passed, it most definitely would be blocked by the courts as it is unconstitutional to do this sort of action by race.
Trump promising to eliminate taxes is not illegal but it is incredibly stupid. But if Trump were to win the Presidency AND the Republicans were to hold on to the House and win 61 seats in the Senate, the Republicans could pass this as a bill and it would be legal AND it would be constitutional. IMO it would be stupid but it would be constitutional.
I hope that this spells it out with enough detail for you to understand the difference.
True they cannot control it but they can manipulate it. All it takes is a President who releases large volumes of oil on the market. Simple supply and demand.
Thank you for your input, snuffy. I do understand how the government works, and I just pointed out one of Trumps many promises. I did not state that Harris promises were legal, illegal, or anything about them. I just pointed out Trumps, and if that was a concern to you I can see that you had to establish that Harris promises would be overturned by the courts.
It always good to have a discussion but talking down to someone doesn’t encourage it.
You’re welcome and peace be upon you.
If the president releases oil from the SR it will have a short term benefit to consumers but as soon as that happens OPEC will change their production release, by lowering it to force the price back up.
Didn't mean to talk down to you, from your post it appeared that you misunderstood the issue. Your posting in 1.1.6 was
and as I said making the promise is not illegal. Yes the president cannot make it happen along it requires Congress to act. But you used that to counter the promise that Harris made that while it's legal for her to make the promise it is unconstitutional in it's nature and as such would be overturned by the courts even if it were passed by Congress. Your posting appeared that you didn't make the difference.
What drives me crazy is the seeming large scale economic ignorance in the electorate.
How is it possible that so many do not understand that Trump's approach will cause prices to rise? How can so many be so unaware of basic economics?
Is economics even taught in high school anymore? Even when I took it, it covered very little. Most of what I know, I learned outside of school. I don't think people are very curious anymore, and they aren't likely to bother learning anything they're not required to learn.
It really is surprising that any functioning adult could believe that gratuitous increases in tariffs does not have an adverse affect on prices ... and why this is so.
But, then again, that is one of countless areas where IMO Trump supporters seem out of touch with reality. After all, a Trump supporter necessarily believes that Trump cares about doing good for the nation rather than good for himself.
I totally agree.
IMO one of the things that should be taught in schools is basic economics (taylored to the age of each kid).
But it isn't.
(Due to a large part that most teachers don't understand the principles either!)
Apparently they are blind to the elephant in the room too. If this were realistic then why didn’t he do this immediately when he was POTUS?
Many people are just very stupid!
Ignorant at least. But I agree with you in principle.
How in hell is it possible for people today to not know how tariffs work? It takes no effort nowadays to get a clear explanation of tariffs.
By the same token, how does Trump get away claiming that the PRA gives him the right to take classified documents when he left office when it says the exact opposite?
Support for Trump is irrational, irresponsible, and unpatriotic. One should be concerned about the state of our nation with so many intending to vote for a traitor.
Trump still insists that the country exporting to the US pays for the tariff, which is wrong yesterday, today, tomorrow and always has been. How he or any of his followers believe that they are dumber than a rock.
The harmonized code is a manuscript of all merchandise coming into the US and the tariff charges that will be assigned to that product.
Just sickening that so many believe whatever this lying scoundrel states.
I’d like to meet the absolute moron who spent $175 on that pile of groceries. I’ve got a Darwin Award for that person.
It looks like a pint of yogurt, 2 quarts of broth, 2 pounds of ground beef, 2 dozen eggs, a pound of butter, and a pint of barbecue sauce. Thats 9 items. To reach 175 dollars those 9 items would have to average almost 20 dollars each.
I read at the link that that's honey rather than barbecue sauce.
Also, she really seems to have tried hard to pick the most expensive version of each food. Ok, sure, eat clean, but I'll bet there was an organic version of each of those foods that cost less than what she went out of her way to pay.
Yup. Just went grocery shopping yesterday. I got a small cart packed full for half as much, including a case of beer, and I'm not a very careful shopper.
I guess this lie was directed at people who for whatever reason have no idea how much food costs, like Trump, Vance, Elon Musk, and their other bazillionaire friends.
Most likely. I mean, Trump thought he needed ID to buy groceries, so you can be pretty sure he's never stopped in Kroger's for a gallon of milk or loaf of bread on the way home from work.
Well, can we really expect intelligence or even the ability to do basic math from Trump supporters? Is there a collective Darwin award that could be given?
Gas, eggs and tea went up and then they came down. Yes, retirement and investment income went up also and the value of our homes soared. Even adjusted for inflation American's net worth have grown over the last four years. It is just that uneducated MAGA want to live like Kardashians...
Working class Americans will be voting Harris in their own interests!
Who buys organic?
People buy that shit with food stamps in the first two weeks of the month, then show up on Facebook community pages and food banks for the next two.