After five weeks of running a “vibes” campaign, Kamala Harris finally laid out her economic vision for the country, and it wasn’t pretty.
New Conservative Post noted, “Now we’re seeing why. When she talks about anything specific, she comes in between incomprehensible and insane.
On Friday Kamala Harris laid out an economic plan so radical that it is closer to something Hugo Chavez would promote than Bill Clinton. Pushing price controls on groceries—a Chavismo favorite—and offering $25,000 for housing, Democrats appear to want to do one of the big mistakes in economics: subsidize demand rather than promote growth.
Her plan for the economy is so bad that even The Washington Post, which supports Harris and loathes Donald Trump, attacked it as a ‘gimmick’ during a time in where serious ideas are needed.”
On Friday, NewsNation host Chris Cuomo, another supporter of Harris, critiqued the vice president’s abilities following a verbal slip during her economic speech in North Carolina. While discussing her proposal for a federal ban on “price gouging,” Harris mistakenly said “gauging” instead of “gouging.” Cuomo downplayed the error but used the incident to comment on what he sees as a broader issue in American politics: a lack of talent.
“Price gauging versus gouging, she made a mistake. We noted it … I don’t really care about gouging, gauging. I don’t care, alright? You got to take the level of talent where you find it,” Cuomo remarked during his show. “We don’t have great talent in our politics right now. We got to wait for better people to want to get involved in what is such a poison process. But this is who we got.”
Harris, during her speech, vowed to tackle unethical price increases by “going after the bad actors” and emphasized the government’s role in intervening when businesses fail to “play by the rules.” However, her plan to curb price gouging has faced criticism, particularly for its lack of detail and feasibility.
CNN anchor Julia Chatterley expressed skepticism about the effectiveness of Harris’ proposal, noting that implementing a federal ban on price gouging would likely require Congressional action and could be challenging to enforce. She pointed out that grocery store profit margins are already razor-thin, making it difficult to prove price gouging in many cases.
‘Voter Friendly’: CNN Anchor Says Harris’ Speech Was ‘Masterclass’ In ‘Keeping The Details Incredibly Light’ pic.twitter.com/BrFJtDYP2A
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) August 16, 2024
Economists told The New York Post that there is little to no upside to the Harris economic plan.
“The policy proposals are not only ‘extraordinarily vague’ and addressing an “economic non-problem” — but also appear to be ‘straight out of a five-year plan’ of a Chairman Mao or Joseph Stalin-like figure, economists told The Post.
‘Who exactly is going to decide what a fair price is for eggs or bread or cereal?’ asked Brian Riedl, a senior economic fellow at the conservative Manhattan Institute. ‘Is the federal government going to come up with a Soviet-style menu of what grocery stores can charge without being punished by the state?’
“Everyone who lived through or studied the 1970s knows price controls are disastrous because they lead to shortages,” Riedl told The Post. “Demand far outstrips supply. … This is why you had gas lines.”
While the price controls could in the short term be ‘moderately disinflationary,’ Riedl added, Harris’ other policies, such as shelling out $25,000 in down payments for any first-time home buyers, would be ‘absolutely inflationary.’”
Jason Furman, a Harvard University economist who chaired President Barack Obama’s Council of Economic Advisers, told the New York Times that prices had stabilized and any further controls were “not a sensible policy.”
“I think the biggest hope is that it ends up being a lot of rhetoric and no reality,” Furman said. “There’s no upside here, and there is some downside.”
