“Kamala Harris is not a communist, a socialist or a Nixon,” Jill Lawrence of The Bulwark assures us. OK. But are we sure?
Not that anyone has asked me, but as someone who regularly accuses progressives of being “communists,” I think I can shed some light on why many voters get the wrong impression.
For one thing, allocating prime-time airtime at the Democratic Party Convention to avowed socialists Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez could send mixed signals to some independent voters.
Nominating a vice presidential candidate who not only honeymooned in Red China on the anniversary of the Tiananmen Square massacre, but who once taught high school kids that the Maoist system is a place where “everyone shares” and food and shelter are free? That didn’t help either.
However, you should definitely not make price control one of the pillars of your economic plan.
Kamala Harris is certainly not the first politician to propose controlling politically unfavorable prices. However, history has conclusively shown that price caps lead to shortages, panic buying, black markets, and a host of other unpleasant consequences.
If one tries to justify this policy by blaming the kulaks for “price gouging” and propagates the age-old idea that in competitive markets cabals of villains can band together and dictate prices, then alarm bells will ring.
There is no evidence whatsoever that “price gouging” – a loose term anyway – exists. Grocery retail is one of the least profitable large businesses in America, with profit margins consistently below 2% – this year they were as high as 1.18%, at the low end of the historical profit margin.
While there is nothing wrong with making a good profit, consistent margins tell us that price spikes are caused by inflation and not some insidious conspiracy.
Until the government shut down the economy during the COVID pandemic, food prices were low and continued to fall. Probably because grocery is also one of the most competitive industries in the country, with numerous national and regional chains, upscale markets, discount big-box chains and online competitors, including Amazon.
And we’re supposed to believe that one day, when inflation happened to be at a 40-year high, everyone in the grocery business decided to get together and raise prices in a way that matched the rate of inflation? They think we’re idiots.
In an embarrassing defense of Harris’ plan in Axios magazine, headlined “Don’t Call It Price Controls: How Price-Gouging Bans Really Work,” Emily Peck claims, “Harris’ economic proposals are broadly aimed at helping middle-class Americans cope with the higher cost of living.”
Oh, is that really their purpose? Axios assures us that states already have harmless anti-price gouging laws for emergencies. (Yes, these are also completely counterproductive. “Price gouging” during emergency shortages helps prevent panic buying.)
In any case, to emphasize the harmlessness and ubiquity of anti-price gouging laws, Peck is forced to rely on the expertise of left-leaning law professor Zephyr Teachout of Fordham University, because it is assumed that no self-respecting economist would publicly defend price caps.
Since the presidential candidate has not presented any concrete plans, we must assume that she still supports the passage of Elizabeth Warren’s Price Gouging Prevention Act, which would give the Federal Trade Commission broad, unilateral powers at the federal level to dictate food prices.
And if you believe government regulators will use that power wisely, I have news for you.
So it’s certainly a bad sign that Harris wants to fight inflation with failed socialist policy proposals. But let’s not forget that the last time Harris promised to get inflation under control, she was the deciding vote in an attempt to pump hundreds of billions of dollars into an overheated economy.
It’s fair to say that inflation is a complex, multifaceted problem, and not the responsibility of any single institution. You don’t have to be a socialist lawyer from Fordham to understand that the Biden administration has done everything it can to exacerbate inflation – ignoring warning signs, using parliamentary trickery to rush through a massive partisan spending bill, and undermining energy production at the same time.
The last I heard, Harris was a member of that administration.
Did Harris propose price caps on food because she is a staunch Marxist? Unlikely. The power-hungry politician’s penchant for collectivist and zero-sum thinking is merely a sign of an authoritarian demagogue.
Kamala is not Stalin. She is more of a mediocre Latin American dictator. That is bad enough.
David Harsanyi is a senior editor at The Federalist. Harsanyi is a nationally syndicated columnist and the author of five books—the most recent of which is Eurotrash: Why America Must Reject the Failed Ideas of a Dying Continent. His work has appeared in the National Review, the Wall Street Journal, the Washington Post, Reason, the New York Post, and numerous other publications.
