Rumor is that one of Kamala's policy plans is to institute price controls on foods.
.
Some people never learn from history. This never works out in the end.

Lester, a little advice. If you want to be taken seriously, you don't start a post with "rumor is..."
.
We have enough Willy's here. We don't need another.

Robert you know better than to suggest anyone still takes Fester seriously. He lost credibility a long time ago.

Since Kamala is a communist, she doesn’t believe in the free market. Price controls will ultimately lead to chaos as it prevents the market from pricing things accordingly so that suppliers can make adjustments to demand. Of course, one of the biggest problems driving up grocery prices are Harris voters stealing from grocery stores. If you have a lax crime policy that encourages and even legalized theft and then you block these businesses from making up their losses by raises prices and you inflate the currency you will get the inevitable: grocery stores will go out of business.  

Last I heard, Tricky Dick was a Republican.

And they didn't work and Kamala hasn't learned from failure after failure.

Progressives believe:
Charging more than others is gouging.
Charging less than others is undercutting.
Charging the same as others is collusion.
And that all three practices should be illegal.

And Trickle-Down Economics has been a failed policy since the 1800s (and probably earlier).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Trickle-down_economics
.
"... Political scientists Brainard Guy Peters and Maximilian Lennart Nagel in 2020 described the 'trickle down' description of tax cuts for the wealthy and corporations stimulating economic growth that helps the less affluent as a "zombie idea", and stated that it has been the most enduring failed policy idea in American politics. ..."
.
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/t/trickledowntheory.asp
"... In December 2020, a London School of Economics report by David Hope and Julian Limberg was released which examined five decades of tax cuts in 18 wealthy nations and found they consistently benefited the wealthy but had no meaningful effect on unemployment or economic growth. ..."
.
http://www.finance-monthly.com/2023/06/economy-101-trickle-down-economics/
"... In reality, however, one thing that becomes very apparent when this process is applied is that economic inequality increases. Suppose we use President Reagan’s and President Bush’s cuts as examples. According to trickle-down economics, Reagan’s and Bush’s tax cuts should have helped those at all income levels. But the opposite result took place: income inequality worsened. Between the years 1979 and 2005, the bottom fifth saw a 6% rise in after-tax household income. While this on its own seems great, it’s important to note that the top fifth experienced an 80% increase in after-tax household income. The income of the top 1% tripled, showing that prosperity was trickling up rather than down. ..."
.
Is there any wonder why Trump is an advocate of tax cuts for the wealthy?

Making it cheaper for businesses to function with lower taxes and regulations to stimulate supply is not the same thing as lowering income taxes on the wealthy.  

And neither do you. Stop making up shit. You sound like Trump.

Correct, their cognitive dissonance will never recognize their internal contradictions.  There are legions of examples of progressives advocating against all three of the above. Just never at the same time.