Mainstream publications urged Democrat presidential nominee Kamala Harris to reverse course after her economic policy agenda contained extreme measures that were akin to policies found in the failed Soviet Union or modern day Venezuela.
The Washington Post Editorial Board published an op-ed on Friday titled: “The times demand serious economic ideas. Harris supplies gimmicks.”
In it, the Post complained that Harris “squandered the moment” on promoting “gimmicks” that do not work, like price controls.
In blaming big business for the inflation crisis that the Biden-Harris administration has caused, Harris vowed to “target companies that make ‘excessive’ profits, whatever that means,” the Post wrote. “(It’s hard to see how groceries, a notoriously low-margin business, would qualify.) Thankfully, this gambit by Ms. Harris has been met with almost instant skepticism, with many critics citing President Richard M. Nixon’s failed price controls from the 1970s. Whether the Harris proposal wins over voters remains to be seen, but if sound economic analysis still matters, it won’t.”
The Post warned that Harris’ plan of giving $25,000 in down payment assistance to first-time home buyers “stimulates the demand side, which risks putting upward pressure on prices.”
Her plan would add trillions of dollars to the national deficit over a decade, the Post added, according to a nonpartisan budget watchdog.
The op-ed concluded by saying that even by “the pandering standards of campaign economics,” Harris’ policy ideas were “a disappointment.”
CNN published a news article written by an economic reporter titled: “Harris’ plan to stop price gouging could create more problems than it solves”.
Gavin Roberts, the chair of Weber State University’s economics department, told the left-wing news network the price controls that Harris is pursuing lead consumers to “buy goods more than they would if prices had risen” and that the best course of action for the government would be to do nothing at all.
Her policies are “more likely to maintain that status quo,” he said, because it would eliminate the competition needed to keep prices lower.
Obama economist Jason Furman agreed, saying that Harris’ policies were “not sensible” and that he hopes “that it ends up being a lot of rhetoric and no reality.”
He said that there was “no upside” to the policies that Harris was proposing.
Post a Comment