Carl Szabo’s article “Democrats want you to keep paying more. This is how they are making it happen” from the RealClear Policy website discusses how the current government makes Americans pay more. The author gives specific examples of the Democrats’ attempts to raise taxes and prices as well as to sue Amazon for featuring the cheapest products for its customers (Szabo, 2022). Indeed, as inflation continues to make food, shelter, transportation, and other goods and services more expensive, many citizens can barely afford them (Szabo, 2022). At the same time, Biden’s administration keeps ignoring these vital for the general population problems. Instead, the government is “shutting down American energy independence, having James Taylor play a party as the stock market crashes or banning the sale of gas-powered cars” (Szabo, 2022, para. 2).
On the other hand, people leaving in the most powerful country in the world cannot pay for the life’s essentials. Democrats claim that low prices harm local businesses and demand the elevation of climate fees (Szabo, 2022). The author highlights that those representatives who state these changes are beneficial for the country lack a background in economics. It seems that the latter fact plays an important role in their actions. Specifically, the chair of the Federal Trade Commission, Lina Khan, became famous for the lawsuit against Amazon for allowing citizens to afford cheaper goods (Szabo, 2022). Fortunately, the D.C. court made the decision in favor of Amazon, realizing the ridiculousness of Khan’s complaint.
Although the United States was not initially built as a multi-party system, the two major parties, Republican and Democratic, emerged later. As the nature of the article discussed above shows, the competition and mutual criticism between the two continue to exist in American politics. However, the press reflects the reality of the U.S. government, which largely remains polarized and often makes critical decisions primarily based on the conflict with the competing party rather than bipartisan support. It is not a concealed fact that interest groups and lobbying are integral elements of American politics and the legislative process.
As the article discussed above demonstrates, a small group of people within the Democratic party try to alter the laws for a particular benefit, which is not necessarily applicable to the general population. Indeed, it is unclear how higher taxes and prices can be advantageous for people trying to survive amid the economic downturn and the ongoing pandemic. These changes may be beneficial for some representatives of the currently ruling party if certain businesses receive profit from making products more expensive. Interest groups and lobbying are neither evil nor illegal phenomena in the United States because many strive to protect citizens and the country’s interests.
However, in some situations, like in the case of Khan’s lawsuit against Amazon, lobbyists seem more concerned with personal gain than the public good. Overall, Szabo’s article accurately represents an ongoing polarization between the two major parties in the United States since the reporters supporting each of them seeks ways to show what the opposing party does incorrectly.
The exploration of this issue revealed that the actions of the Democrats are presented differently in the media. Specifically, Szabo’s (2022) article claims that Khan’s lawsuit was unfair because Amazon’s initial policy was that it penalized companies selling on its platform for selling goods for a higher price than they did on other websites. On the other hand, The New York Times article by Weise and McCabe (2022) claims that Amazon’s strategy forces sellers to raise product costs on other platforms as well. The company initially wanted to incentivize price reduction, but the outcome was the opposite since sellers chose to make their goods expensive everywhere, removing the opportunity for the customers to pay less. Amazon’s opponents assert that it is impossible and unprofitable for these firms to reduce the costs on Bezos’s platform since it is more expensive to sell here than on other websites (Weise & McCabe, 2022).
I believe that Amazon’s strategy was reasonable since the primary idea of penalizing sellers for listing higher prices was to protect its users’ interests. However, it did not foresee the chance that the companies may prefer to raise costs everywhere to avoid losing profit. The main problem is that eventually, the only party that remains at a disadvantage are purchasers since they lose an opportunity to find cheaper goods. A possible solution to this issue is for Amazon to improve its costs for sellers to motivate them to list lower prices on this platform.
References
Szabo, C. (2022). Democrats want you to keep paying more. This is how they are making it happen. RealClear Policy. Web.
Weise, K., & McCabe, D. (2022). California files antitrust lawsuit against Amazon. The New York Times. Web.