Last Friday, presidential candidate Kamala Harris did something new: she revealed some of her policies. This was her briefing on her economic policies, and she promised to stop price gouging and implement Soviet-style price controls. Even the Washington Post editorial board and CNN said Harris' price control policy would harm the economy.
The Atlantic has a piece out defending Harris' economic policy, saying that though it might irritate some academics, sometimes you just have to ignore the economists.
Kamala Harris’s proposed federal ban on price gouging might irritate academics—but it makes sense to everyone else. @ZephyrTeachout makes the case for ignoring the economists: https://t.co/Z9T9HWPJa6
— The Atlantic (@TheAtlantic) August 22, 2024
Zephyr Teachout writes:
Last week, the economics commentariat and much of the mainstream media erupted with contempt toward Kamala Harris’s proposed federal price-gouging law. Op-eds, social-media posts, and straight news reports mocked Harris for economically illiterate pandering and warned of Soviet-style “price controls” that would lead to shortages and runaway inflation.
The strange thing about these complaints is that what Harris actually proposed was neither radical nor new—and it certainly wasn’t price controls. In fact, almost every state already has a law restricting at least some forms of price gouging. Although Harris has not specified the exact design of her proposal, one hopes that it would follow the basic outline of state-level bans: forbidding unwarranted price hikes for necessary goods during emergencies.
Why is price controls in quotation marks? She certainly did call for price controls. The gist of the piece is about price gouging in the sense of hiking prices during an emergency situation, like a pandemic or a blizzard.
During a rare blizzard, sellers might jack up the prices of snowblowers. But investors aren’t going to set up a new snowblower-manufacturing hub based on a blizzard, because by the time they had any inventory to sell, the snow would long be melted. So after the disruption, all goes back to normal—except with a big wealth transfer from the public to the company that raised prices.
As Teachout reports, "almost every state already has a law restricting at least some forms of price gouging." So why is Harris focused on that along with price controls?
"Sometimes, you just have to ignore the "Danger: Bridge Washed Out Ahead" signs."
— Megan McArdle (@asymmetricinfo) August 22, 2024
Ignoring warnings might irritate safety nerds, but it makes sense to everyone in this car, and will continue to do so right up to the point where we plunge into the river and drown. pic.twitter.com/kwptuB16QU
Really scraping the bottom of the barrel to make the case for socialism here
— 🚫4Sale (@AmericanBork) August 22, 2024
You know, the Nixon administration tried price controls in response to high inflation and it led to shortages.
— hmna (@hmna_hmna) August 22, 2024
Should I also ignore empirical evidence?
No, it really doesn’t make sense to anyone else. Maybe the folks at the Atlantic, but I guarantee the rest of the American public sees this for what it is. Curious though, I just did a quick tally, and over 95% of your articles are all positive about Kamala and her campaign.
— Chuck Flaherty (@ChuckFlaherty2) August 22, 2024
How'd those policies work out for Venezuela and Zimbabwe?
— 🇺🇸MAGA🇺🇸Road Warrior 🇺🇸 (@RandomDeplorab1) August 22, 2024
You leftists are willfully ignorant of historical examples of what Kamala is wanting to do.
Price gouging isn't new to this administration — President Joe Biden accused gas stations of price gouging during "Putin's price hike." That's why you were paying $6 a gallon for gas — price gouging.
Inflation is solved by increasing supply.
— Thomas Holloway 🇺🇸 (@tahcpa) August 22, 2024
Price controls DECREASE supply.
Her moronic proposals only make the problems worse, not better. Her proposals obviously make prices go higher. Kamala has absolutely no clue.
Oh, wait, this is no longer "trust the science" week? Gosh, will you people put out a memo or something?
— Jeff Greason (@JeffGreason) August 22, 2024
Face it. Democrats would rather go broke under Harris than prosper under Trump, as long as they're holding the reins.
— Tyrone Slothrop🇮🇱 (@JLimebrook) August 22, 2024
Truth.
"Sometimes you just have to ignore all known history and reason..."
— Kevin Helmick (@mickhelmick4) August 22, 2024
Zephyr Teachout? I wouldn't trust sending her to the store with a $20 and to bring back the change.
— SamlAdams1722 (@Adams1722Saml) August 22, 2024
People are hurting from inflation, so price controls will bring them joy.
***
Join the conversation as a VIP Member