JD Vance was roundly mocked online over a trip to the supermarket where he bemoaned the steep price of eggs — and botched the photo opp.
The Republican vice presidential nominee stopped by a supermarket in Reading, Pennsylvania, with his sons over the weekend to illustrate how grocery prices have been impacted by “Kamala Harris’s policies” when he claimed a dozen eggs cost $4.
The problem? When footage of the visit emerged, Vance was quickly called out by viewers who spotted the price tag of a dozen eggs behind him was actually $2.99.
🗳️ Register to vote: https://vote.gov/
Inflation describes the decrease of the value of your money. When a currency is affected by inflation, all prices go up as you require more of that money to equal the same worth of goods.
If eggs shot up to a price of 8 or so bucks and then went down to 2.69, you weren’t being affected by inflation as it is unheard of for a currency to suffer such insane inflation and then immediately recover from it.
What happened in your case would have been a large shift in supply and demand, possibly brought on by the mentioned problems in the egg production, or price gouging by whoever was selling these. Possibly also just a mix of those.
snorts and pushes up thick rimmed glasses 🤓 “ummm aksshuuullllallyy”
You know exactly which events im referencing though right? You do? Good got it, so you get my basic point.
I know what events you’re referencing and misrepresenting, yes.
The correction was entirely on point because the framing of this being an example of rampant inflation and thus a major governmental failure is misinformation propagated by the Republican party.
While it is certainly imaginable that the erratic pricing of eggs in particular could have been handled better by the Democratic government, it’s entirely false to present it as just one example of a wide reaching problem as the price increase in this case is unique to this product. Inflation has been happening and is comparatively high, putting a lot of pressure on lower income households, but it is not effectively apocalyptic as it is presented here.
Your response is completely unwarranted as in no way was I even attacking or talking down to you.
I misremembered why the prices were high, and even if you change that one thing my point still stands it doesn’t change it. You’re just being a pedant right now.
Your point specifically doesn’t stand. Not the one you made in your comment. You’re getting incredibly upset over being corrected when the correction was genuinely well meant and important to the discussion at hand. I’m sorry that this is something that angers you, but your hurt feelings don’t change the fact that what I’m bringing up isn’t pedantry but a correction on a misconception which is being propagated for political gain.