Trump’s ‘Comrade Kamala’ Insult is Excessive, but Price Controls are Bad

Former President Donald Trump is known for assigning nicknames to his political opponents, often with a sharp edge. His latest moniker for Vice President Kamala Harris is “Comrade Kamala Harris,” which he uses to suggest she is aligned with far-left ideologies.

Trump’s criticism coincides with Harris’s recent proposals for the economy that seem to reinforce the perception of her as a proponent of big government and costly initiatives. One of her most contentious ideas includes implementing government price controls on businesses in the private sector. This move aims to target what Democrats describe as “greedy corporations,” but the truth is more nuanced. Overreaching government intervention in the marketplace could lead to detrimental effects for American consumers.

Historically, price controls have been attempted globally for centuries, and the outcomes have consistently been unfavorable. A notable case includes Republican President Richard Nixon, who applied price controls in the 1970s. Instead of solving the issue of rising prices, his actions only exacerbated inflation. The question remains: why do we keep repeating these mistakes?

Harris seems to be desperately trying to shift focus away from the burdens of high inflation that have arisen under the current administration. She also appears intent on distancing herself from accountability for this inflation, even as public discontent grows over economic conditions.

Despite efforts to steer the presidential election narrative towards Trump’s character or issues like abortion rights, Democrats cannot escape the economic anxieties of voters. Harris and President Biden have celebrated their economic approach, often referred to as “Bidenomics,” but recent inflation spikes make their messaging increasingly challenging.

Since taking office, inflation rates have surged, influenced partly by pandemic-related disruptions. However, policies and excessive government spending by the Biden-Harris administration have significantly contributed to the inflation crisis many are currently experiencing.

Among the most visible impacts of inflation are rising grocery prices, an issue Harris chose to address by proposing a federal ban on “price gouging” in food sectors. However, the inflationary rate, particularly in food, is beginning to slow due to the Federal Reserve’s measures raising interest rates. Nonetheless, the effects of prior price increases will linger for some time.

Harris’s agenda surrounding price controls lacks depth, which is troubling. To better understand the implications of her plans, one could look at legislative proposals from Democratic Senators Bob Casey and Elizabeth Warren, which Harris has voiced support for. While food prices have indeed risen by 25% from 2019 to 2023, attributing this increase solely to corporate greed bypasses the complexity of the issue.

The Biden-Harris Department of Agriculture has pointed out external factors such as market disruptions from the COVID-19 pandemic and geopolitical tensions as contributors to increased food prices, which complicates the narrative of corporate malfeasance.

Implementing price controls positions the government as an impediment to market operations, leading to a cascade of potential shortages and disinvestment. Scott Lincicome, a senior fellow at the Cato Institute, has explained that such controls tend to decrease investment as businesses find it challenging to operate under bureaucratic restrictions. This ultimately results in reduced supply and competition, which can harm consumers in the long run.

In addition to Harris’s proposals, President Biden has his own plan for price controls that includes capping rent increases. Such measures have been criticized by a broad spectrum of economists, who argue that similar policies, like rent controls, lead to housing shortages and other unintended consequences. Even former economic advisers from the Obama administration have labeled rent control as a discredited economic strategy.

Harris’s price control initiative, while not outright communistic, is still flawed and concerning. Economic experts have noted that policymakers and government bureaucrats simply cannot accurately determine fair market pricing. The efficiency and adaptability of a free-market system are better suited to manage pricing than government oversight.

Historical examples abound, with nations like Venezuela suffering under heavy government control, resulting in food shortages and economic turmoil. Experts have described Harris’s plan as reminiscent of the central planning that plagued the Soviet economy for decades.

In her pursuit of catchy slogans and political sound bites, Harris may overlook the potential dangers of advocating for price controls. Such measures are better left in the realm of outdated policy ideas.

Source: USA TODAY