Harris's Economic Plan Repeats Mistakes of the Past

Last week, the chosen, not elected, Democratic nominee for president unveiled what seems to be the cornerstone of her economic platform should she win the White House this November.

In sharp contrast to the "America First" policy both promoted and implemented during the first Trump administration, Harris' "Government First" agenda seems to be merely a retread of outdated and unsuccessful policies that have been tested and failed both domestically and internationally in recent decades.

Subsidies and price fixing are simplistic solutions put forward by uninformed politicians attempting to address complex economic issues while appealing to voters. The notion of making essential goods and services more affordable by enforcing lower prices or using government funds to offset costs is fundamentally flawed.

Whether it's housing, groceries, healthcare, or automobiles, these interventions rarely achieve their intended outcomes. Instead, they distort markets, foster inefficiency and lead to wide-ranging negative consequences.

Such measures are mere Band-Aids for deeper systemic challenges that require more thoughtful, market-based solutions.

Light on details, but big on promises, Harris has announced her solution to the rising cost of housing in the U.S., which is to pump more government money, funded by debt, into an undersupplied market. Similar programs like Australia’s First Home Owner Grant (or scheme as they call it in the land down under), actually drove up home prices by artificially inflating demand without addressing the real issue: a limited housing supply.

When more people have extra money to bid on the same number of homes, prices inevitably rise, making homes even less affordable for those who don’t qualify for the subsidy. Over time, subsidies worsen the very problem they were designed to solve.

The same pattern can be seen in other sectors, such as higher education. In the U.S., government-subsidized student loans and financial aid have led to skyrocketing tuition fees. Colleges and universities, knowing that students have access to loans and grants, have raised prices accordingly.

The result? Students graduate with crushing debt loads while the actual cost of education continues to climb.

Another prime example of government subsidies gone awry is the Affordable Care Act (ACA). While more Americans may now have access to health insurance, that doesn't necessarily translate into greater access to actual healthcare.

Since the ACA's implementation, the true cost of care has surged, along with rising deductibles and insurance premiums for those ineligible for subsidies. Meanwhile, fewer insurers have entered the market, reducing competition and allowing the remaining providers to enjoy skyrocketing stock prices

Price fixing is a glaring example of government overreach and serves as the second pillar of the "Kamalanomics" plan recently introduced.

To tackle the inflated cost of groceries — a consequence of Bidenomics — the vice president has proposed setting price caps on food items, a strategy that even the most committed Marxists would celebrate. Yes, let's target the so-called "greedy" grocery industry, which already operates on razor-thin margins.

Price fixing blatantly disregards the fundamental law of economics: supply and demand. When governments artificially lower prices, shortages are inevitable, while setting them too high leads to surpluses and inefficiencies. In practical terms, price caps would likely reduce the number of grocery stores, particularly affecting lower-income communities where margins are already even slimmer for retailers.

A similar pattern emerges with other price-fixing policies, such as fuel price caps. When prices are held below the market rate, demand soars while supply remains limited, leading to shortages. Black markets often emerge in response, with goods sold at much higher prices than the government-mandated level.

Consumers end up paying more, and the economy suffers from distorted market signals. Is this the future we have to look forward to under President Harris?

Price fixing also diminishes competition. When the government sets prices, it eliminates the natural incentives for businesses to compete on price or quality.

In a market where prices are dictated by the forces of supply and demand, companies are motivated to improve their products and cut costs. But in a price-controlled environment, innovation stagnates, and consumers lose out.

The core problem with both subsidies and price fixing is that they disrupt the natural balance of the free market.

Prices exist for a reason — they signal to producers what to produce and to consumers what to buy, based on scarcity and demand. When governments artificially alter prices or subsidize certain goods, they interfere with this critical feedback loop, leading to inefficiency, waste, and often higher costs in the long run.

A better approach is to allow market forces to work as they should. Instead of subsidizing housing or education, governments should focus on reducing barriers to supply.

Market-based solutions are often more efficient and sustainable because they align with the natural incentives of producers and consumers. Governments should encourage innovation and competition, not stifle them with subsidies and price controls.

Subsidies and price fixing may seem like politically attractive solutions, offering immediate relief for consumers struggling with high costs. But in reality, these policies are short-term fixes that create long-term problems. They inflate prices, distort the market, and encourage inefficiency.

The path to a healthier economy lies not in government intervention, but in allowing the market to operate freely, with prices reflecting the true value of goods and services.

In the end, it’s the free market — not government controls — that can best provide affordable, high-quality products and services for everyone. We should learn from the mistakes of the past and focus on market-driven policies that foster innovation, efficiency, and sustainable growth.