WAGE INFLATION is now the problem Biden is being blamed for!

[QP!]

You cannot make this shit up. Magat economists are now complaining about and saying the problem Biden is triggering is "Wage Inflation" and a "Tight Labor Market". Meaning we need to STOP people getting raises as the solution to the prior inflationary cycle and we need there to be less jobs AKA, more unemployment.

And while it true that both those things would additionally cool the inflation, which is already coming down nicely, it would put the burden on the average worker to cool inflation by simply accepting less pay to pay for the higher price goods.

You CAN get an inflationary cycle, when people are making more money, buying more, thus increasing demand, and then manufacturers raise prices, and so on and so on. But hitting the working class is not the ONLY or even BEST solution to this. It is just the one the rich advocates like the most. When the working class has higher unemployment and lower wages the Bosses have far more power over them.

What we WILL NOT see, is a call to bring down the prices (less corporate profit gauging) nor to reverse the tax cuts on the uber wealthy, both of which could also impact the rising pricing and demand side of the curve.

BAD, BAD JOE BIDEN... you have fostered a climate that is creating too much high paying jobs and that is something the magat media thinks is BAD, that is until Trump gets in and trumpets 'low unemployment' and 'higher wages' to your non stop applause.


Bidenomics is so successful, the magats can no longer deny the positive impacts such as records jobs and wages, and instead they are finding themselves having to switch to saying those things are bad, when they are not.

 

[QP!]

And make no mistake as the Cost of Goods, over time only ever goes up. YOu can have some short term blips in between but like the stock market it will always go UP, UP, UP.

So no POTUS is going to have any real impact, that is not cosmetic in trying to bring prices down. Sure there are some individual items that can bring short term relief, but then it will just return to going up.

The way this is dealt with and handled by society, AND ALWAYS HAS BEEN, is getting wage inflation to match or exceed, the CPI inflation. Ensure people earn more to match of exceed the increase in the cost of goods.

And we, citizens, WANT THIS. We do not want to buy a House and 30 years later, sell if for the same price. We want to sell if for more and need people to earn more to be able to buy it.

So in closing...

Wage Inflation = Fantastic...

Low Unemployment = Fantastic...

Bidenomics = is teeing up to be a Grand Slam Home Run!

 

[QP!]

Here is what Tim SCott and other Republi'cans' are fighting to stop!

Banking industry erupts over Biden admin's new rule on credit card late fees: 'Should not be allowed'


...Banking and credit card companies have started reacting to a new Biden administration rule that puts an $8 ceiling on credit card late fees....

...On Tuesday, The Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) finalized a new rule to cap all credit card late fees at $8, which will apply to the country's largest credit card issuers, covering those with more than 1 million open accounts....

...the new regulation will save American families more than $10 billion in late fees annually by reducing the typical late fee of about $32. That amounts to an average saving of roughly $220 per year for the 45 million people who are charged late fees....

Magat Republi'can's... fighting for the people, once again.

Trump Ally Tim Scott Seeks to Block Biden Credit Card Late Fee Cap
Republican targets key piece of Biden crackdown on ‘junk fees’
Biden administration rule limits most late fees to $8

 

[cawacko]

The reaction ITT is the exact reason Biden is doing this proposal for credit card fees. It makes it look like he’s “fighting for the people” and Republicans aren’t.

That price controls don’t work and will lead to limiting access to credit, and fees and costs being higher elsewhere doesn’t matter. (A great example is Nixon and his price controls. Very popular with the public at the time but were shown to be a failure.)

All that matters is that it looks like he’s doing something - results be damned.

 

[QP!]

The reaction ITT is the exact reason Biden is doing this proposal for credit card fees. It makes it look like he’s “fighting for the people” and Republicans aren’t.

That price controls don’t work and will lead to limiting access to credit, and fees and costs being higher elsewhere doesn’t matter. (A great example is Nixon and his price controls. Very popular with the public at the time but were shown to be a failure.)

All that matters is that it looks like he’s doing something - results be damned.

Sorry but you have swallowed the propaganda that unless business is left unfettered they won't do business. That $2.5B in late fees is just not enough and credit cards will dry up.

While there is some truth that punitive restrictions and regulations hurt supply and delivery of product to those who need it most, that DOES NOT mean, that ANY and ALL limits on excess profiteering hurts the industry or will reduce service levels. But that is exactly the message corporations and the right have been pushing for decades.

 

[cawacko]

Sorry but you have swallowed the propaganda that unless business is left unfettered they won't do business. That $2.5B in late fees is just not enough and credit cards will dry up.

While there is some truth that punitive restrictions and regulations hurt supply and delivery of product to those who need it most, that DOES NOT mean, that ANY and ALL limits on excess profiteering hurts the industry or will reduce service levels. But that is exactly the message corporations and the right have been pushing for decades.

It's not propaganda, it's understanding economics and the history of price controls. I don't look at the credit card companies and celebrate late fees but the CFPB has already outlined the (unintended) consequences such as more borrowers paying late (and the negative consequences associated with that) and credit card companies raising rates (and there's far more here, I'm not pretending to be an expert).

We are never going to have perfect free markets of course so there will always be some level of gov't involvement but history is replete with 'well intended' price controls that have over and over been shown not to do what they promise or desire (and have negative results). What's being proposed here is not an exception.

 

[jbander]

It's not propaganda, it's understanding economics and the history of price controls. I don't look at the credit card companies and celebrate late fees but the CFPB has already outlined the (unintended) consequences such as more borrowers paying late (and the negative consequences associated with that) and credit card companies raising rates (and there's far more here, I'm not pretending to be an expert).

We are never going to have perfect free markets of course so there will always be some level of gov't involvement but history is replete with 'well intended' price controls that have over and over been shown not to do what they promise or desire (and have negative results). What's being proposed here is not an exception.

What a joke without price controls and regulation big business would eat our children for the bottom line. You people are blind stupid. Tell me how a free market can work if all, when they have to do like with petrol industry, just lower production to increase prices. Or simply raise your prices when a uncontrolled Economy like all other oil producer country's raise their price.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

If inflation went up about 20%, and the cost of goods and services went up anywhere from 20 to 50%, then wages would have to go up to match. Since the first of those IS Biden's fault, and the second is a result of the first, then, the third is Biden's fault as well.

 

[QP!]

It's not propaganda, it's understanding economics and the history of price controls. I don't look at the credit card companies and celebrate late fees but the CFPB has already outlined the (unintended) consequences such as more borrowers paying late (and the negative consequences associated with that) and credit card companies raising rates (and there's far more here, I'm not pretending to be an expert).

We are never going to have perfect free markets of course so there will always be some level of gov't involvement but history is replete with 'well intended' price controls that have over and over been shown not to do what they promise or desire (and have negative results). What's being proposed here is not an exception.

History is also replete with things like the gov't reducing fees and penalties not harming the market place. Again that you believe there is a magic threshold that the banks MUST make $10B as $2.5B is not enough, would be the same belief if the banks tripled the fees tomorrow to make $30B.

INSTANTLY every word of your argument above would apply as to why the gov't should not get involved in ensuring price gouging and excessive profiteering are not taking place which ALSO harm the market.

 

[QP!]

If inflation went up about 20%, and the cost of goods and services went up anywhere from 20 to 50%, then wages would have to go up to match. Since the first of those IS Biden's fault, and the second is a result of the first, then, the third is Biden's fault as well.

Since you have reduced yourself to little more than a troll in most threads now, I won't even ask you to explain how 'inflation was Biden's fault', as the entire world has dealt with Global Inflation since Biden took office and the US, under Biden has handled it better than any other country. You know that, so you are not even trying. If Biden acknowledged a day was nice and sunny you would say it was rainy, just to troll. Even though you know what you are saying is wrong.

 

[cawacko]

What a joke without price controls and regulation big business would eat our children for the bottom line. You people are blind stupid. Tell me how a free market can work if all, when they have to do like with petrol industry, just lower production to increase prices. Or simply raise your prices when a uncontrolled Economy like all other oil producer country's raise their price.

"You people are blind stupid" Are you referring to economists? I've not seen anyone argue here that there should be zero regulation. We'll never have, nor should we, a totally unfettered market. But that's basically a strawman. Price controls distort markets and don't allow supply and demand to function as they should causing shortages. If it did work, places like the Soviet Union wouldn't be in the dustbin of history.

It prices caps like this really worked we'd see them used on everything. There's a reason we don't.

 

[cawacko]

History is also replete with things like the gov't reducing fees and penalties not harming the market place. Again that you believe there is a magic threshold that the banks MUST make $10B as $2.5B is not enough, would be the same belief if the banks tripled the fees tomorrow to make $30B.

INSTANTLY every word of your argument above would apply as to why the gov't should not get involved in ensuring price gouging and excessive profiteering are not taking place which ALSO harm the market.

It's not about the amount of profit a bank makes. Economists and others would take this same position whether a bank makes $2.5b or $25K. It's about the consequences of the actions and with price controls the negatives of the unintended consequences usually far outweigh any positive attempt of the legislation itself and what's being proposed here isn't different than other attempts at similar regulation.

 

[T. A. Gardner]

Since you have reduced yourself to little more than a troll in most threads now, I won't even ask you to explain how 'inflation was Biden's fault', as the entire world has dealt with Global Inflation since Biden took office and the US, under Biden has handled it better than any other country. You know that, so you are not even trying. If Biden acknowledged a day was nice and sunny you would say it was rainy, just to troll. Even though you know what you are saying is wrong.

Actually, it's quite simple. Biden dumped roughly $4 trillion into the economy in fiat money to pay for his two "infrastructure" bills that have little or no ROI. His government spending in 2022 was $6 trillion and this year he wants $7.3 trillion. That's what drove US inflation. Global inflation, to a degree, is driven by US inflation since many nations tie their money to the US dollar.

As for Biden and sunny days, no I wouldn't say it's raining. I'd check with three other, reliable, sources to see if Biden was lying or blowing smoke out his ass. After all, if Biden's lips are moving and sound is coming out, he's lying... or speaking authentic frontier gibberish...

 

[Nordberg]

The Trumpys cannot understand that the wealthy think about you like you rightys do about minorities. Thinking Trump cares about you is so silly. He cares about nobody, but Daffy Donald. Rightys vote against their own interests election after election.
Inflation was caused by the Russian invasion of Ukraine. It took oil and food off the market. More money chasing fewer goods is inflationary. The idea that an infrastructure bill created inflation is inane. The inflation was in every industrial country and others that relied on Russia and Ukraine goods.
Trump was talking about the infrastructure bill repeatedly, but could not get it passed.

 

[jbander]

"You people are blind stupid" Are you referring to economists? I've not seen anyone argue here that there should be zero regulation. We'll never have, nor should we, a totally unfettered market. But that's basically a strawman. Price controls distort markets and don't allow supply and demand to function as they should causing shortages. If it did work, places like the Soviet Union wouldn't be in the dustbin of history.

It prices caps like this really worked we'd see them used on everything. There's a reason we don't.

Supply and demand doesn't do shit unless it is watched 100% of the time. , Try reading what I wrote instead of blowing this shit back at the world. La de da strawman. what a idiot.

 

[QP!]

"You people are blind stupid" Are you referring to economists? I've not seen anyone argue here that there should be zero regulation. We'll never have, nor should we, a totally unfettered market. But that's basically a strawman. Price controls distort markets and don't allow supply and demand to function as they should causing shortages. If it did work, places like the Soviet Union wouldn't be in the dustbin of history.

It prices caps like this really worked we'd see them used on everything. There's a reason we don't.

you are saying a lot of meaningless things as the counter is also always true.

A lack of any price controls also distorts markets, not allowing for supply and demand to function properly. See the aforementioned gasoline price example.

It is not that you are wrong but as you present a sole focus, you end up being wrong thru incompleteness.

There simply is NO REASON to jump in with the usual right talking point, on this issue of Bank penalty fees being reduced from $10B to 2.5B with the usual 'price controls/gov't intervention does not work'...when time and again, especially in Banking, THEY HAVE WORKED.

 

[QP!]

It's not about the amount of profit a bank makes. Economists and others would take this same position whether a bank makes $2.5b or $25K. It's about the consequences of the actions and with price controls the negatives of the unintended consequences usually far outweigh any positive attempt of the legislation itself and what's being proposed here isn't different than other attempts at similar regulation.

WRONG.

And i am going to start addressing you now as someone who has a a very basic reading and comprehension of the topics you read but little ability to apply any levels of deeper thinking to it as everything you repeat are shallow, empty talking points, i think you believe.

No economist would make the argument for unfettered, unlimited profiteering being 'for the greater good' as your post ascribes with its constant 'the amount does not matter... any gov't intervention in profit taking will harm the market'.

again you lack nuance and balance. I am not saying the bank should work for free. OF course healthy profits are needed. But your view that the simple act of the gov't getting involved by default harms the market is provable false.

 

[QP!]

Actually, it's quite simple. Biden dumped roughly $4 trillion into the economy in fiat money to pay for his two "infrastructure" bills that have little or no ROI. His government spending in 2022 was $6 trillion and this year he wants $7.3 trillion. That's what drove US inflation. Global inflation, to a degree, is driven by US inflation since many nations tie their money to the US dollar.

As for Biden and sunny days, no I wouldn't say it's raining. I'd check with three other, reliable, sources to see if Biden was lying or blowing smoke out his ass. After all, if Biden's lips are moving and sound is coming out, he's lying... or speaking authentic frontier gibberish...

And you prove yourself to be stupid in your attempt to blame all things on Biden.

Global Inflation was a very predictable consequence of the world wide shut down of industry during covid. It created massive pent up demand for goods and services that could not be supplied and then once supplied the cost skyrockets in the supply chain on almost everything due to shortages.

In your sole focus partisan need you convince yourself that if Biden was not POTUS this dynamic would not have existed and the entire world would have avoided inflation and that is just stupid.

Terry you are so riddled with TDS that you are stupid. You cannot even help yourself.

the only comparable would be someone on the left saying Covid would not have entered the US without Trump being in power and even the most extreme on the left, i have not seen say that. So congrats you are more extreme than the most extreme leftist.

 

[cawacko]

Supply and demand doesn't do shit unless it is watched 100% of the time. , Try reading what I wrote instead of blowing this shit back at the world. La de da strawman. what a idiot.

What examples of price controls do you have in mind that you are referring to?

 

[cawacko]

WRONG.

And i am going to start addressing you now as someone who has a a very basic reading and comprehension of the topics you read but little ability to apply any levels of deeper thinking to it as everything you repeat are shallow, empty talking points, i think you believe.

No economist would make the argument for unfettered, unlimited profiteering being 'for the greater good' as your post ascribes with its constant 'the amount does not matter... any gov't intervention in profit taking will harm the market'.

again you lack nuance and balance. I am not saying the bank should work for free. OF course healthy profits are needed. But your view that the simple act of the gov't getting involved by default harms the market is provable false.

You are 100% free to disagree with this but this is the one of the better rebuttals I've seen to the proposed legislation (and better than I can state it). If you disagree with this I'm open to hearing why if you desire to share.



How The Biden Administration’s ‘Junk Fee’ Policies Will Hurt Consumers

In his State of the Union address last week, President Joe Biden touted his policies against “junk fees,” vowing to save Americans billions by eliminating hidden charges across a variety of industries. Two days earlier, his administration launched a new Strike Force on Unfair and Illegal Pricing, co-chaired by the Department of Justice and the Federal Trade Commission, to crack down on illegal corporate behavior that keeps prices high.

By interfering with companies’ pricing structures, the administration risks creating a host of unintended consequences that could lead to higher prices and reduced access to services for many Americans.

First, it’s important to understand that what the White House deems “junk fees” are often far from arbitrary charges. Many of these fees serve important economic functions, such as deterring risky behavior and enabling firms to offer lower upfront prices. Overdraft fees, for example, help banks manage the costs and risks associated with customers who overdraw their accounts. Banning or capping these fees could lead to higher minimum balance requirements or monthly fees, effectively locking out lower-income consumers from the banking system.

This is not mere speculation. As part of the Dodd-Frank Act of 2010, the Durbin Amendment capped interchange fees. Merchants saw reduced fees on credit card transactions, but banks responded by cutting back on free services, including free checking accounts. The result was an increase in the unbanked population, by as many as one million consumers, with millions more becoming underbanked. Many of these were low-income consumers priced out of traditional banking services.

Similarly, early termination fees for services like cable and internet allow companies to offer lower installation and hardware prices, making these services more accessible to budget-conscious customers. Eliminating these fees could result in higher upfront costs, reducing broadband access at a time when policymakers in Washington are trying to expand it.

One recent example of the Biden Administration’s junk fees policies is the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau’s rule to cap credit card late fees at $8, down from the current average of $32. The CFPB claims this will save consumers $10 billion annually, but the reality is more complex. Credit card companies rely on late fees to offset the risks and costs associated with extending credit to borrowers who may not pay their bills on time. By capping these fees, the CFPB is effectively forcing credit card issuers to find other ways to mitigate their risk, such as tightening lending standards, reducing credit limits, or increasing interest rates. This could lead to reduced access to credit for many Americans, particularly those with lower incomes or less-than-perfect credit histories.

The lower fees also won’t help those who always pay their bills on time, which is about 82 % of card holders. The CFPB even admits in the final rule notice, “cardholders who never pay late will not benefit from the reduction in late fees and could pay more for their account if maintenance fees in their market segment rise in response.”

This brings us to a crucial point: what the administration sees as market failures are often examples of the exact opposite: businesses taking action to address market imperfections and to price risk accordingly. Many aspects of human well-being, such as convenience, flexibility, and peace of mind, are not easily quantified or traded. Likewise, many aspects of business activity pose risks that are not easily insured against.

By segmenting markets and pricing various attributes of a product or service individually, companies can price attributes according to the specific value consumers place on them, as well as the specific risk the attributes expose a business to. By forcing businesses to price in terms of bundles of attributes, instead of individual components, consumers end up cross-subsidizing one another more and the end result is a less efficient marketplace.

Consider the airline industry, where the White House recently took aim at baggage fees and charges for family seating. By unbundling those services from the base ticket price, airlines can offer lower fares to price-sensitive travelers while still catering to those willing to pay for additional amenities. Airlines have been raising baggage fees in recent months to cover costs. Forcing airlines to include these services in the base ticket price will likely result in higher prices for everyone, reducing accessibility and ultimately, consumer welfare.

The administration’s efforts to dictate pricing models to companies threaten to undermine the very market mechanisms that drive efficiency and create value for customers. Instead of targeting companies pricing practices, policymakers should educate consumers about the benefits of segmented markets and differentiated pricing strategies.


https://www.forbes.com/sites/jamesb...unk-fees-will-hurt-consumers/?sh=19c6712e7711