Breaking news hit the wire on Wednesday night: Vice President Kamala Harris, after nearly a month in the presidential race, has finally unveiled an official policy proposal. But instead of introducing a fresh, innovative approach to address the issues Americans care about most, Harris has opted to propose price controls—a move critics are likening to “microwaving some communism.”
Predictably, the press has embraced the announcement with enthusiasm, with several journalists on social media hailing it as if Harris had presented the Ten Commandments. For them, any policy proposal from the Harris campaign is spun as “joy” and “optimism” wrapped in abject brilliance.
However, for many Americans, the implications of such policies are far from positive. Price controls, which have a long and troubled history, are often cited as economic disasters in the making. A glance at the history of the Soviet Union or the current situation in Venezuela reveals the dangers of government-imposed price caps. When prices on goods and services—from groceries to rent—are artificially held down by the government, the result is often market stagnation or regression, told VOA News.
In the short term, price controls might lead to lower prices, but in the long run, they can create scarcity. After all, what good is cheaper bread if there’s none available due to stifled production? Similarly, what benefit is there to lower rent if a lack of investment in new housing leads to a massive shortage?
This brings us to a critical question: Is Harris genuinely committed to implementing price controls, or is this merely a political maneuver? It’s possible that Harris is more interested in using this proposal as a talking point to accuse Republicans of refusing to take action on high prices, knowing full well the press will amplify her message.
The inconsistency here is striking. On one hand, the Biden-Harris administration claims that inflation has been solved. On the other hand, they suggest that Republicans are unwilling to address inflation. In a more objective media environment, such contradictory messaging would be criticized as unserious. Unfortunately, that’s not the media landscape we’re in today.
In summary, the best-case scenario is that Harris is using this “communist drivel” to secure election support without any real intention of enforcing such policies. The worst-case scenario is that she is serious, potentially risking the U.S. economy with disastrous consequences. Neither option is reassuring.