Prices (Fares, Fees and Rates)

More stories

  • 113 Shares149 Views

    in Economy

    Harris’s Price-Gouging Ban: Price Controls or No Quick Effect?

    by

    The plan does not appear to amount to government price controls. It also might not bring down grocery bills anytime soon.Vice President Kamala Harris threw her support behind a federal ban on price-gouging in the food and grocery industries last week. It was the first official economic policy proposal of her presidential campaign, and it was pitched as a direct response to the high price of putting food on the table in America today.“To combat high grocery costs, VP Harris to call for first-ever federal ban on corporate price-gouging,” the Harris campaign proclaimed in the subject line of a news release last week, ahead of a speech laying out the first planks of her economic agenda.It is still impossible to say, from publicly available details, what exactly the ban would do. Republicans have denounced the proposal as “communist,” warning that it would lead to the federal government setting prices in the marketplace. Former President Donald J. Trump has mocked the plan on social media as “SOVIET Style Price Controls.”Progressives have cheered the announcement as a crucial check on corporate greed, saying it could immediately benefit shoppers who have been stunned by a 20 percent rise in food costs since President Biden took office.But people familiar with Ms. Harris’s thinking on the ban now say it might not resemble either of those characterizations. The ban, they also suggest, might actually not do anything to bring down grocery prices right now. Those who spoke about the strategy behind the emerging policy did so on the condition of anonymity.Ms. Harris’s campaign has created the space for multiple interpretations, by declining to specify how that ban would work, when it would apply or what behaviors it would prohibit.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Harris and Trump Offer a Clear Contrast on the Economy

    by

    Both candidates embrace expansions of government power to steer economic outcomes — but in vastly different areas.Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald J. Trump flew to North Carolina this week to deliver what were billed as major speeches on the economy. Neither laid out a comprehensive policy plan — not Ms. Harris in her half-hour focus on housing, groceries and prescription drugs, nor Mr. Trump in 80 minutes of sprinkling various proposals among musings about dangerous immigrants.But in their own ways, both candidates sent voters clear and important messages about their economic visions. Each embraced a vision of a powerful federal government, using its muscle to intervene in markets in pursuit of a stronger and more prosperous economy.They just disagreed, almost entirely, on when and how that power should be used.In Raleigh on Friday, Ms. Harris began to put her own stamp on the brand of progressive economics that has come to dominate Democratic politics over the last decade. That economic thinking embraces the idea that the federal government must act aggressively to foster competition and correct distortions in private markets.The approach seeks large tax increases on corporations and high earners, to fund assistance for low-income and middle-class workers who are struggling to build wealth for themselves and their children. At the same time, it provides big tax breaks to companies engaged in what Ms. Harris and other progressives see as delivering great economic benefit — like manufacturing technologies needed to fight global warming, or building affordable housing.That philosophy animated the policy agenda that Ms. Harris unveiled on Friday. She pledged to send up to $25,000 in down-payment assistance to every first-time home buyer over four years, while directing $40 billion to construction companies that build starter homes. She said she would permanently reinstate an expanded child tax credit that President Biden temporarily established with his 2021 stimulus law, while offering even more assistance to parents of newborns.She called for a federal ban on corporate price gouging on groceries and for new federal enforcement tools to punish companies that unfairly push up food prices. “My plan will include new penalties for opportunistic companies that exploit crises and break the rules,” she said, adding: “We will help the food industry become more competitive, because I believe competition is the lifeblood of our economy.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 150 Shares139 Views

    in Economy

    Kamala Harris Blames ‘Price Gouging’ for Grocery Inflation. Here’s What Economists Say.

    by

    Price increases when demand exceeds supply are textbook economics. The question is whether, and how much, the pandemic yielded an excess take.In detailing her presidential campaign’s economic agenda, Vice President Kamala Harris will highlight an argument that blames corporate price gouging for high grocery prices.That message polls well with swing voters. It has been embraced by progressive groups, which regularly point to price gouging as a driver of rapid inflation, or at least something that contributes to rapid price increases. Those groups cheered the announcement late Wednesday that Ms. Harris will call for a federal ban on corporate price gouging on groceries in an economic policy speech on Friday.But the economic argument over the issue is complicated.Economists have cited a range of forces for pushing up prices in the recovery from the pandemic recession, including snarled supply chains, a sudden shift in consumer buying patterns, and the increased customer demand fueled by stimulus from the government and low rates from the Federal Reserve. Most economists say those forces are far more responsible than corporate behavior for the rise in prices in that period.Biden administration economists have found that corporate behavior has played a role in pushing up grocery costs in recent years — but that other factors have played a much larger one.The Harris campaign announcement cited meat industry consolidation as a driver of excessive grocery prices, but officials did not immediately respond on Thursday to questions about the evidence Ms. Harris would cite or how her proposal would work.There are examples of companies telling investors in recent years that they have been able to raise prices to increase profits. But even the term “price gouging” means different things to different people.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 125 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    Harris Will Back Federal Ban on Price Gouging, Campaign Says

    by

    Vice President Kamala Harris will call for a federal ban on corporate price gouging on groceries in a speech laying out her economic agenda on Friday, campaign officials said late Wednesday, in an effort to blame big companies for persistently high costs of American consumer staples.The plan includes large overlaps with efforts that the Biden administration has pursued for several years to target corporate consolidation and price gouging, including attempts to stoke more competition in the meat industry and the Federal Trade Commission’s lawsuit this year that seeks to block the merger of two large grocery retailers, Kroger and Albertsons.It also follows through on what people familiar with Ms. Harris’s forthcoming economic agenda said this week would be a centerpiece of her plans: an aggressive rhetorical attempt to shift the blame for high inflation onto corporate America. Polls show that argument resonates strongly with voters, including independent voters who could decide the November election.Progressive groups have urged President Biden, and now Ms. Harris, to fully embrace that argument.In a release announcing the policy, Harris campaign officials did not detail how a price-gouging ban would be enforced or what current corporate behaviors would be outlawed if it were enacted. They said Ms. Harris would work in her first 100 days to put in place a federal ban “setting clear rules of the road to make clear that big corporations can’t unfairly exploit consumers to run up excessive corporate profits on food and groceries.”The officials also said Ms. Harris would authorize the Federal Trade Commission to impose “harsh penalties” on corporations that fix prices. They said that she would direct more resources toward investigating price-gouging in the supply chain for meat and that she would push federal officials to closely scrutinize proposed grocery mergers.They also said that Ms. Harris would unveil plans on Friday related to housing costs and prescription drug prices. Many states ban price gouging, but the federal government does not.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares179 Views

    in Economy

    How Food Prices Have Changed During the Biden Administration

    by

    Grocery prices are no longer rising as rapidly, but food inflation remains a top issue for voters, polls show.A central issue has plagued the Biden administration for most of its term: the steep rise in grocery prices.Polls have consistently found that inflation remains a top concern for voters, who have seen their budgets squeezed. A YouGov poll published last month found that 64 percent of Americans said inflation was a “very serious problem.” And when it comes to inflation, several surveys suggested that Americans were most concerned about grocery prices.Despite the gloom about grocery costs, food price increases have generally been cooling for months. On Wednesday, new data on inflation for July will show if the trend has continued.Economists in a Bloomberg survey think that inflation overall probably climbed by 3 percent from a year earlier, in line with a 3 percent rise in June. That sort of reading would probably keep officials at the Federal Reserve on track to cut interest rates in September. Investors, who were recently rattled by signs of an economic slowdown, have looked to rate cuts as a support for markets.Some voters have blamed President Biden for rising prices, pointing out that food costs have soared over the past four years. Former President Donald J. Trump, when accepting the Republican nomination last month, highlighted grocery costs and said that he would “make America affordable again.”In the year through June, grocery prices rose 1.1 percent, a significant slowdown from a recent peak of 13.5 percent in August 2022. Many consumers might not be feeling relief, though, because food prices overall have not fallen but have continued to increase, albeit at a slower rate. Compared with four years ago, grocery prices are up about 20 percent.

    .dw-chart-subhed {
    line-height: 1;
    margin-bottom: 6px;
    font-family: nyt-franklin;
    color: #121212;
    font-size: 15px;
    font-weight: 700;
    }

    Annual change in grocery prices for U.S. consumers
    Year-over-year change in average for “food at home” index, not seasonally adjusted.Source: Bureau of Labor StatisticsBy The New York TimesWe are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares99 Views

    in Economy

    Los Angeles 2028 Olympic Games Planners See Economic Upside

    by

    The 2028 Games will be the third for Los Angeles as host, but it will be a challenge to repeat the success of 1984.What Paris Olympics? Los Angeles is already looking ahead.As the city prepares to host the 2028 Games, construction crews have fanned out, racing to bolster the area’s infrastructure to accommodate hundreds of thousands of visitors.Three main projects — expanding the rail system, revamping the airport and renovating the downtown convention center, which will be the competition venue for five sports — will have lasting effects on the region. The projects are funded through a mix of federal and city dollars as well as airport fees. And there will also be the tourist dollars spent while the Games take place.The city sees the Olympics as a revenue producer, not an expense. Now it must disprove the skeptics who say it could be a boondoggle.In 2019, two years after Los Angeles was awarded the Games, Eric Garcetti, then the mayor, said he expected the city to turn a $1 billion profit.For the current mayor, Karen Bass, hosting the Olympics is more than an opportunity to showcase familiar attractions like Hollywood or Venice Beach. It’s also about connecting visitors with small businesses citywide.“What determines success is for everybody to benefit,” Ms. Bass said in an interview. “They need to know about Little Bangladesh and Little Ethiopia and Little Armenia.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares119 Views

    in Economy

    To Avoid an Economic Recession, Consumer Spending Is Key

    by

    It has powered the economic recovery from the pandemic shock. Now wallets are thinner, and some businesses are feeling the difference.The economy’s resurgence from the pandemic shock has had a singular driving force: the consumer. Flush with savings and buoyed by a sizzling labor market, Americans have spent exuberantly, on goods such as furniture and electronics and then on services including air travel and restaurant meals.How long this spending will hold up has become a crucial question.Despite contortions in world markets, many economists are cautioning that there is no reason to panic — at least not yet. In July, there was a notable slowdown in hiring and a jump in the unemployment rate to its highest level since October 2021, but consumer spending has remained relatively robust. Wages are rising, though at a slower rate, and job cuts are still low.“Overall, there isn’t evidence of a retrenchment in consumer spending,” said Gregory Daco, chief economist at the consulting firm EY-Parthenon. The strength of spending helped power greater-than-expected economic growth in the spring.That could change if the labor market’s slowdown accelerates.Already, some consumers, especially those with lower incomes, are feeling the dual pinch of higher prices and elevated interest rates that are weighing on their finances. Credit card delinquencies are rising, and household debt has swelled. Pandemic-era savings have dwindled. In June, Americans saved just 3.4 percent of their after-tax income, compared with 4.8 percent a year earlier.On calls with investors and in boardrooms around the country, corporate executives are acknowledging that customers are no longer spending as freely as they used to. And they are bracing themselves for the slide to continue.“We are seeing cautious consumers,” Brian Olsavsky, Amazon’s chief financial officer, said on a call with reporters last week. “They’re looking for deals.”We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More

  • 113 Shares129 Views

    in Economy

    S&P and Nasdaq Drop as Jobs Report Shakes Market

    by

    Wall Street was jolted by rising economic uncertainty on Friday, and stocks skidded, capping off a turbulent week with a sharp decline.Friday’s drop followed a report on U.S. hiring in July that was far weaker than expected, startling investors into worrying that the Federal Reserve has been too slow to cut interest rates. Traders were already growing uneasy about the state of the economy, as well as the prospects for the big technology stocks that had underpinned a market rally for much of the year, but the jobs report intensified the focus on the risks.The S&P 500 fell 1.8 percent, while the tech-heavy Nasdaq dropped 2.4 percent. Small stocks, yields on government bonds, and oil prices, all of which are sensitive to expectations for the economy, dropped too.Employers in the U.S. added 114,000 jobs in July, on a seasonally adjusted basis, much fewer than economists had expected and a significant drop from the average of 215,000 jobs added over the previous 12 months, the Labor Department said. The unemployment rate rose to 4.3 percent, the highest level since October 2021.“That all-important macro data we have been hammering for months is finally starting to turn in an ominous direction,” said Alex McGrath, chief investment officer at NorthEnd Private Wealth.Investors are reassessing how aggressive the Fed may have to be as it starts to cut interest rates — if weakening economic conditions justify a bigger rate cut than the central bank has indicated so far. The central bank raised rates to a two-decade high as it tried to wrestle inflation under control, but policymakers now have to decide when to cut, and by how much, in order to forestall a recession.We are having trouble retrieving the article content.Please enable JavaScript in your browser settings.Thank you for your patience while we verify access. If you are in Reader mode please exit and log into your Times account, or subscribe for all of The Times.Thank you for your patience while we verify access.Already a subscriber? Log in.Want all of The Times? Subscribe. More