Vice President Kamala Harris stirred controversy on Wednesday evening after her campaign announced plans to implement federal price controls on groceries as part of her effort to address inflation. The policy, which includes a ban on “corporate price-gouging,” aims to rein in what Harris describes as excessive pricing by large corporations. Her campaign claims this is an attempt to alleviate the financial burden that inflation has placed on American families. However, the proposal has already drawn heavy criticism from economic experts and conservative commentators, many of whom see it as an echo of failed policies from socialist regimes.
The roots of the current inflation crisis date back to 2021 when Harris cast the tie-breaking vote in the Senate that allowed President Joe Biden’s American Rescue Plan to move forward. The bill, designed to inject massive government spending into the economy, has been cited as a major driver of the inflationary surge that soon followed. Despite this, Harris has continued to advocate for government intervention as a solution to inflation, placing the blame on “corporate greed” rather than on the administration’s own policies.
As part of her latest campaign, Harris has announced that her administration would introduce “the first-ever federal ban on corporate price-gouging” in the grocery industry, according to NBC News reporter Yamiche Alcindor. The plan would include harsh penalties for companies deemed to be unfairly raising prices on food. This proposal has quickly become a lightning rod for criticism, with many conservatives and free-market advocates warning that it could lead to disastrous consequences.
Critics argue that Harris’s approach mirrors failed policies from the Soviet Union, where price controls were used to temporarily slow inflation but ultimately resulted in severe shortages of essential goods. “Kamala Harris is literally proposing price controls on food,” commented RealClearPolitics senior writer Mark Hemingway. “This is literally what the Soviets did, and the results will be scarcity and higher costs.”
Helen Raleigh, an immigrant from communist China, also weighed in on the proposal. “Government-imposed price control is a terrible idea because it makes the economy worse by causing shortages,” she wrote on X, formerly known as Twitter. “Everyone who survived socialism/communism knows this: if the store shelves are empty, it doesn’t matter how low the government claims the price of bread is.”
Republican strategist Matt Whitlock joined the chorus of criticism, accusing Harris of attempting to fix the very problem her policies helped create. “So Kamala Harris is going to (pretend to) counter the high prices (she caused) by instituting some kind of communist government price controls on grocery stores. Absurd,” Whitlock posted. This sentiment was echoed by author David Bernstein, who sarcastically questioned the efficacy of government-imposed pricing. “A federal ban on price gouging! Why didn’t anyone think of that before?” he quipped. “We can just order prices to come down by government fiat! What could go wrong?”
The backlash has been swift and widespread, with many warning that Harris’s proposal will fail to address the root causes of inflation. Popular conservative accounts on X have called the plan an attempt to distract voters with a simplistic solution that avoids confronting the real economic challenges. “So instead of dealing with the actual sources of inflation, the Harris plan is going to be to continue to pretend price increases are a result of price gouging in an industry with razor-thin margins,” one account posted.
Government-imposed price control is a terrible idea because it makes the economy worse by causing shortages. Everyone who survived socialism/communism knows this: if the store shelves are empty, it doesn't matter how low the government claims the price of bread is. https://t.co/fa65WzeMTK
— Helen Raleigh (@HRaleighspeaks) August 15, 2024
Some analysts suggest that Harris’s policy proposal is more about political posturing than economic reform. National Review writer Noah Rothman criticized Harris for failing to deliver substantive solutions, arguing that her first original policy announcement is a shallow attempt to pander to voters. “Her first policy proposal was straight theft of a lower common denominator pander to one electorally significant demo,” Rothman wrote. “Her second is an attack on market signals that incentivize firms to meet specific demands. This isn’t a high-minded campaign.”
The announcement comes at a critical moment for Harris as she attempts to define her own candidacy in the 2024 presidential race, separate from President Biden’s legacy. However, critics are already warning that the plan could backfire, leading to empty shelves and further price hikes as grocery store margins are squeezed by government mandates. Harris’s approach has sparked a renewed debate about the proper role of government in regulating the economy, with many questioning whether her policy will help or harm the very people it’s designed to protect.
The effectiveness of Harris’s proposal remains to be seen, but history suggests that government-imposed price controls rarely achieve their intended goals. Instead of alleviating financial burdens, such measures often distort the market, creating inefficiencies that lead to higher costs and shortages. As the 2024 election approaches, voters will be watching closely to see whether Harris’s policies can deliver real results—or whether they will become yet another chapter in the ongoing inflation crisis.
