by Michael Snyder, The Economic Collapse Blog:
She should have just kept her mouth shut about the economy. I know that sounds harsh, but it is true. The best chance that Kamala Harris had of winning was to stand for nothing. I am being completely serious. For the first few weeks of her campaign, she was being showered with positive coverage by the mainstream media even though she had not come forward with any serious policy proposals. She could have probably continued doing that all the way to election day in November, but now she has ruined her campaign by telling us what she actually plans to do if she becomes president. As you will see below, even the mainstream media hates her economic plan.
TRUTH LIVES on at https://sgtreport.tv/
Right now, 59 percent of Americans believe that we are already in a recession. Most of us detest what has happened to the economy, and so Harris should not be talking about this if she plans to win. Unfortunately for her, that is precisely what she has been doing. For example, she uttered a soundbite during one recent speech that will be played millions of times between now and election day…
“A loaf of bread costs 50% more today than before the pandemic. Ground beef is up almost 50%.”
Why would she say something like this?
Does she actually want people not to vote for her?
Now that the government has created the cost of living crisis, Harris plans to fix it by imposing price controls.
Needless to say, that idea went over like a dud…
Harris announced Wednesday that she would institute a “federal ban on price gouging on food and groceries” as president in an attempt to stop “big corporations” from taking advantage of consumers, and outlets like the Washington Post, CNN, and Newsweek published reports shredding the idea.
“Whether the Harris proposal wins over voters remains to be seen, but if sound economic analysis still matters, it won’t,” the liberal-leaning Washington Post editorial board wrote on Friday.
The Washington Post editorial board actually compared her plan to the failed price controls that President Nixon imposed in the 1970s…
The Post’s editorial board took Harris to task on the idea, stating it’s not even clear what her plan is. “Ms. Harris says she’ll target companies that make ‘excessive’ profits, whatever that means.” It also expressed relief that the plan was getting pummeled out of the gate.
“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.”
In a different piece, a Washington Post columnist named Catherine Rampell stated that it is “hard to exaggerate how bad this policy is”…
It’s hard to exaggerate how bad this policy is. It is, in all but name, a sweeping set of government-enforced price controls across every industry, not only food. Supply and demand would no longer determine prices or profit levels. Some far-off Washington bureaucrats would. The FTC would be able to tell, say, a Kroger in Ohio the acceptable price it can charge for milk.
At best this would lead to shortages, black markets and hoarding, among other distortions seen previous times countries tried to limit price growth by fiat. (There’s a reason narrower “price gouging” laws that exist in some U.S. states are rarely invoked.) At worst, it might accidentally raise prices.
And to close out her article, Rampell actually suggested that Harris is acting like a “communist”…
If your opponent claims you’re a “communist,” maybe don’t start with an economic agenda that can (accurately) be labeled as federal price controls.
This is the Washington Post!
I can’t remember the last time the Washington Post criticized a Democratic candidate for president this harshly
Harris is not a serious candidate, and so she should stop trying to be one.
Just smile and wave at the cameras.
A lot of voters will like that.
There is no way that Harris is going to win over voters with her ideas, because her ideas are terrible.
Read More @ TheEconomicCollapseBlog.com
