Kamala Harris sat down yesterday for an interview with Brian Taff of Philadelphia’s Action News. He asked her this:
When you talk about bringing down prices and making life more affordable for people, what are one or two specific things you have in mind for that?
Harris is getting a lot of flak for not really answering the question. She filibustered for 3½ minutes and repeated her talking points about building more housing, providing a $50,000 tax deduction for starting a small business, and giving young families $25,000 in down payment assistance.
This is actually a perfectly adequate answer about making things more affordable, but says nothing about bringing down prices. Why?
For better or worse, it's because Harris is tolerably honest. There is virtually nothing a president can do to lower prices, and it's deceitful to pretend otherwise even if it's politically expedient. So two cheers for Harris not serving up a big dollop of BS about how she's going to lower prices for everyone.
POSTSCRIPT: Go ahead and watch the whole interview. You know the common trope that local reporter ask better questions than the bigfoot national reporters? Nah. They both suck.
trump claims bacon has gone up by 4x since his term in office (bullshit of course, but let's run with it)
after harris gives her answer she should ask the interviewer what his understanding is of trump's plan to restore the price of bacon to 1/4 of its current price
then have them ask bacon producers if that plan makes any sense at all
or tell them we could reduce the price of bacon by putting 15% of the population out of work like it was during the trump administration
cheap bacon and unemployed; your call, america
"she should ask the interviewer what his understanding is of trump's plan"
Speaking as someone who does interviews, the correct answer is: I'm asking the questions here.
I like this point, although it would be fair for the interviewer to say "I'm asking how would YOU lower prices."
I think it was a mistake for Harris to even open this can of worms. Lowering prices across the board is called "deflation." Historically, the only time this happens is through general economic contraction, which is called a "recession." Or, in more extreme cases, a "depression."
Yes, I know! Too many big words! But it happens to be true.
And if you want to defeat Donald Trump, part of that task has to be being more truthful. If you don't want to lie, don't put yourself into a rhetorical dead end by making promises that can't be kept. I'm inclined to blame her political consultants, but she should also know better. There are ways to frame this discussion without repeating short, simple-minded talking points that don't hold up when faced with reality. The way to overcome inflation is to enact policies that increase income faster than prices. That's exactly what happened under the Biden administration. She shouldn't be afraid to say that, no matter how many poll-obsessed advisors tell her not to.
so put it in terms people understand; "We might bring prices down if we throw 20 million people out of work for two or three years; any takers?"
I just read the Republican platform, Chapter 1, "DEFEAT INFLATION AND QUICKLY BRING DOWN ALL PRICES". If you can find anything in there about how to "bring down all prices" that is more specific than what Harris said, you are doing better than I did.
File with GOP's great alternative to ObamaCare- "better and cheaper", right?. They NEVER say "how", except how awful it is now.
Again, if our" How" is increasing taxes on megarich , we should include "how" that bill will get by K-Street.
"You know the common trope that local reporter ask better questions than the bigfoot national reporters? Nah. They both suck."
That's because local reporters want to be bigfoot national reporters. Every interview is an audition.
She filibustered for 3½ minutes and repeated her talking points ...
Or you MIGHT say that she RESPONDED TO HIS PREVIOUS POINT about "introducing herself" to people who "don't know her" -- which she did -- and then segued to SPECIFIC POLICY PROPOSALS -- which btw the media have been complaining she hasn't offered -- that get as close as possible to his (as you observe) intrinsically absurd question.
Care to "revise and extend" your remarks? No? Huh.
Brian Taff: When you talk about bringing down prices and making life more affordable for people, what are one or two specific things you have in mind for that?
Kamala Harris: First, I plan to serve the nation in lieu of serving me, myself, and I at the nation's expense. Second, to whatever extent is humanly possible, I plan to stay as far away from placing people with narcissistic personality disorder in my administration.
There is only one way – the Roman way. Invite the oligarchs to visit, lay out your plans, accept their new wills of donating their entire fortunes to the nation, shake their hands, and deliver glowing eulogies when the time comes.
Prices should start coming down precipitously in a month, maybe two.
One thing that could be done to bring down prices is cut down on the military. All that money is spent on things that do not satisfy consumer demand. The men and women in the services don't do much in the way of useful services - the things that people actually pay for - and the equipment literally goes up in smoke or eventually rusts away. Military expense is one reason we can never have zero inflation.
But cuts large enough to affect inflation are taboo to politicians.
Not to mention the fact that we have an overabundance of military hardware and not enough people to man those ships plane and vehicles - never mind keeping them running.
Mortgages "seem" to be taking too much of our income. Rent is as well.
The old adage of coming in with 50% or 33% down on a mortgage - making it truly affordable is no more. Now we have 5%, 3% down programs. Those make the initial purchase easier but the monthly payments are much harder - and no one has 6 months of living expenses in the bank for back up anymore either.
Our rapacious greed - based upon keeping up with our perceived neighbors has gotten us into this predicament. We want the big house, nice lawn, the pool, 2 cars, a boat and we sure don't want to have to work at it either.
Prices are set at what the market will bear. This insures profits and keeps demand up. And this concept will keep government out of the pricing part of the economy
Well, this was an extremely predictable post.
Kevin I think you are being too snarky. I thought his last question was quite good, and I learned something really important that I had not heard before -- that her best friend in kindergarten is still her best friend. Keeping a best friend for 55 years is quite remarkable, and I think it says something very relevant about her character.
I wish I could say the same.
The only way to reduce prices in general is through deflation, traditionally brought about by the collapse of the banking system. An abrupt reduction in the money supply has devastating consequences: prices are lower, but almost nobody has any money.
You know the common trope that local reporter ask better questions than the bigfoot national reporters? Nah. They both suck.
Kevin next week: “Even if the interviewers are all going to suck, Kamala still needs to do more media interviews because Reasons.”
You actually think there are no reasons for Harris to do interviews? How about: she's effectively tied with Trump, and shying from media engagement probably won't get the job done. She can win this thing for sure, but being aggressive—taking calculated, prudent risks—is the way to do that. And she'll only get better in the next six weeks.
Talking to interviewers demonstrates her command of the issues; increases public confidence she would make an effective commander in chief, and helps close the name recognition gap between herself and Trump (it's not the interview itself that usually does that; it's the fact that the interview gets reported on and in many cases will go viral).
And she did fine! I'm struck by the tone of fear, pessimism and excessive caution on this forum when it comes to our nominee. There's no need for it: the whole point of swapping out an old, doomed candidate was to go with a nominee who is sharp and capable at political communication. That describes Kamal Harris to a T. Which is why, unlike three months ago, we've got a real shot at ending Donald Trump's political career.
Based on what Harris has done so far (and remember how short the timeline is) her strategy seems to be to focus on positive vibes, an overall vision, citing specific policies only when necessary and practical (i.e believable) and getting Trump to step in his own messes as often as possible. I think by avoiding specific policies that will alienate many voters she hopes to win. And the campaign is all about winning.
I'm not expecting Harris to cite policy specifics until her Nerd Brats have cooked up specifics that will withstand careful scrutiny. Look at Project 2025, the albatross she regularly hangs around Trump's neck. Why should she set herself up for attacks?
Why should she set herself up for attacks?
ANYTHING that comes out of her mouth is potentially "setting herself up for attacks."
She's good! Far better than Trump, for example. I'm glad she's apparently ignoring the advice of the doom and gloomers and getting out there.
(Yes, OF COURSE she has to be careful about who she interviews with. That's the nice thing about being the nominee of a major party. Everyone journalist wants such a "get" so she can pick and choose her spots.)
Not a particularly cogent answer in terms of economics, but a politically effective answer might be something like:
Something like that.
She can also contrast her responsible spending plans and Trump's plan to explode the deficit—a move that "would send prices soaring."
I think she answered the question (re "you talked about an opportunity economy...bringing down prices and making life more affordable") but you're (or anyone claiming she dodged the question) misinterpreting the question to relate to the prices of goods.
Because rents take up as much as 40-60% of one's income, rent inflation is the biggest problem to tackle to make "life more affordable".
If rents come down and housing prices cool, then, food inflation is tolerable insofar that there's money left on the table for food after paying for rent.
She didn't dodge at all.
If there's any criticism, it's that maybe she has to explain how rents take up such a large % of income that it is the problem to tackle when it comes to inflation, and therefore tackling rent inflation should always be top priority.
BTW, did you forget to check the YouGov polling?
Economy / high prices is an important issue and will likely be part of every interview and policy discussion. It came first in the debate and was perhaps KH's least persuasive part. Would be good to tighten up the talking points. (She may have been a little tired here too.)
She or staff should work on a crisp response to the say the following:
a) Remind people that inflation has come down considerably from pandemic highs, more than many economists predicted was possible, in part as a result of Biden-Harris policies (IRA, e.g.),
b) Acknowledge prices remain high and are putting a strain on many families & people still,
c) Present a few quick pieces of her Opportunity Economy proposals to help lower costs (food, housing, medicine),
d) Contrast with Trump's lack of proposals for lowering costs and the inflationary impacts of his other proposals (tariffs, skyrocketing food costs if 10-15 million workers deported, etc.).
Her answer is not bad but it could be better. Make it crisp and deliver the message with confidence. Don't get wonky. No one listening to local news needs a white paper. It will get smoother as she does more of these sit-downs.
Her answer should have been that she's going to confiscate every single asset belonging to the Trump Organization and distribute it to Americans struggling to afford basic amenities. "I'm going to tax and fine that asshole back to the stone age and use his ill-gotten gains to make gas and eggs affordable again. And, oh, yeah, bacon. You know he's been hoarding that in his penthouses like they were classified documents? It's enough to keep everyone in bacon for like two years."
Since the campaign has apparently entered its complete post-reality phase now, why not?
This is a perfectly good answer. Building more housing and sizeable tax credits to buy a house. This leads to lower housing costs for people. Not only is it an actual answer, its one that will resonate very easily with lots of people.
Complaints about this response are ridiculous.
Maybe more importantly, this is more proof that the media (and local blogger) calls for more media interviews were purely self-interest and nothing more.
OT: Trump bamboozles more than half of voters to support tariffs:
https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-voters-narrowly-support-trumps-tariff-pitch-reutersipsos-poll-finds-2024-09-15/
First, it's a campaign, and she's not trying to educate any reporter in depth.
Second, we have an economy which lets people make the products they want to make, offer them at the prices they want. People, as customers, are free to buy or not buy, and in a few cases maybe haggle a bit. People naturally don't want the government to interfere with that, except to keep out fraud. But, people are complicated, they also want stability in the prices, and that's hard to enforce. The government tools are to block price-fixing and other activities that corrupt the market. The Fed is supposed to also control interest rates, and a few other things, to help with that. That's it. It's limited government. To argue you want more government interference in the economy is to give free power to people like Trump and his cronies.
I know the readers here all know these things. But, it needs to be repeated for the public.
So, what can an administration like Biden's do? They can help with government-related student loans. They can enforce anti-trust laws (however slowly that takes effect). Furthermore, they can ensure more fair financial markets. Likewise, they can nibble around the edges, but the largest power they have requires greater consensus than has existed in recent years -- Congress can pass laws.
So, if people want something done, don't look to the criminal Trump cronies. Give the Democrats more control of government, so they can tackle the different issues (housing, rents, financial market fraud, etc.) with greater authority.
To date, the voters have said they trust Trump more than Harris or Biden on the economy. Their trust is misplaced and it comes back to smack them in the face with laissez-faire economic policies, lower taxes on the rich, and lack of concern for employment or recessions. History shows Democrats have done better on the economy for decades now, but they still trust the conman Trump and Republicans. That's their mistake.
Prices can't be brought down because the Fed won't allow it; that's called "deflation" and economists are effectively unanimous in holding that deflation is a VERY bad thing.
Many folks are correct in complaining “the” economy was better 4 years ago.
“Their” economy.
Yes, if you still had a job while 15% of Americans did not,
then absolutely things WERE better off 4 years ago . . . for you. So if you’re complaining now, then proudly display your lapel pin signifying full membership to the “I’ve got mine, pull up the ladder” club.