Jill Lawrence is a veteran journalist who writes now for The Bulwark, a Never-Trumper site. She writes here about the ridiculous epithets hurled at Kamala Harris’s plan to punish price-gouging. After trying out various insulting names, he has settled on “Communist Kamala.” This is ridiculous, of course, but it stirs fear. Apparently anyone who believes that the federal government has a role to play in supporting the general welfare is a Commie. In Trump’ssworld, the purpose of the Feds is to cut taxes on the rich.
VICE PRESIDENT KAMALA HARRIS wants to punish companies for price gouging—but only food suppliers and grocery stores, and only if federal or state authorities investigate and determine that they have violated what her campaign calls “clear rules of the road.”
Reaction across the spectrum has run a mild to overheated gamut of negativity, with the proposal being called everything from counterproductive and “not sensible” to “Venezuelan-style” Nixonomics and “a heavy-handed socialist policy” that will fuel former President Donald Trump’s attacks on her as “Comrade Kamala” going “full Communist” by imposing “socialist price controls” that would cause rationing and hunger.
Give me a break, man, as President Joe Biden might say. Communist? Socialist? Nixonesque? Not even close.
“In our country both wholesale and retail prices are established by the government,” Soviet Finance Minister Vasily Garbuzov said in 1960. All of them. By fiat. And quite similar to what President Richard Nixon did eleven years later. “I am today ordering a freeze on all prices and wages throughout the United States,” he said on August 15, 1971.
None of this is remotely akin to the modest scope and due process of what Harris has in mind, per her campaign: writing national rules “to make clear that big corporations can’t unfairly exploit consumers to run up excessive profits on food and groceries,” and authorizing the Federal Trade Commission and state attorneys general to investigate and penalize companies that break those rules.
Many states—those vaunted laboratories of democracy—already have laws that ban price-gouging. At its core, it’s simply consumer protection. And while we don’t yet know the details of the Harris plan, let alone how it would evolve when enacted or what impact it would have, as a political calculation it’s never a mistake to empathize with consumers during inflationary times.
Nixon lifted his price and wage controls right after he was re-elected in 1972. Harris announced her plan last week—less than a month after her sudden rise to the top spot on the Democratic ticket in a contest against Trump, who is manifestly unfit to serve and a proven danger to democracy.
Speaker Emerita Nancy Pelosi helped engineer that candidate switchout, Harris slotted in for a flagging 81-year-old Biden, and it’s the Pelosi campaign mantra that comes to mind these days: Just win, baby. Plus, what’s wrong with politicians signaling in a visceral way that they feel people’s pain at the grocery store? Nothing.
Bill Clinton, the epitome of a feel-your-pain president, signaled both political moderation and emotional connection in two State of the Union speeches—1996 when he was running for re-election and 1997 after he had won a second term—by backing uniform requirements in public schools that wanted them. He argued they could help “break the hold of gangs and violence” and promote “discipline and order and learning” in classrooms.
By scale and historic import, Clinton’s school uniforms push didn’t rank among his administration’s most noteworthy achievements, yet it allowed him to relate to people on a personal, daily-life level, and that’s what Harris needs…
Joe Biden has not gotten the credit he deserves for his economic record. The U.S. economy on his watch has made a stellar recovery from the pandemic. Wages are up, unemployment is way down, the stock market is up, retail sales are up, inflation is down, and as of last week, small business applications were at a record high of 19 million since Biden and Harris took office.Join
Maybe the public hasn’t given Biden credit for all this because inflation has only just shown signs of subsiding. Or maybe it’s because of his age and general unhappiness about a Biden–Trump rematch. But part of it may be, as I have written, that Biden has been playing the long game—setting us up to fight climate change, compete with China, and bring manufacturing home to protect America against future global supply-chain disruptions.
And the investments have been targeted well: renewable energy, high-speed broadband, electric-vehicle battery plants and charging networks, a wave of future-forward manufacturing that studies show has gone largely to red and purple states and congressional districts. Biden will leave the whole country, not just the parts he likes or wins, more self-sufficient and better equipped to take care of the planet.
The concrete results in some cases won’t be apparent for years after Biden leaves office, but progress is happening now—high-speed internet proposals submitted and approved, new jobscoming online, semiconductor manufacturing projects advancing with federal and private-sector financing, and America on its way to producing 30 percent of the world’s semiconductor chips by 2032—up from zero.
Key parts of Biden’s Build Back Better plan largely fell by the wayside in 2022—most notably a care component that included free preschool, paid family and medical leave, child care subsidies, higher pay for home health care workers, an expanded child tax credit, and remedies for what even then was a crisis-level housing shortage. But Biden has not lost sight of any of this, and in fact he revived the family-relief provisions this past spring before exiting the 2024 race.
Harris, whose interest in such policies is longstanding, is now adapting and expanding on the care agenda in ways that mesh with today’s populist economics. She’s doing the same on housing and inflation, informed by her background as a prosecutor and attorney general who protected consumers and their interests, from privacy to home foreclosures.
This is the moment we’re in and Harris is seizing it. That’s the right thing to do in 2024, just as the right thing to do in 2020 was to defend democracy and fight for the soul of the nation. That’s how Biden defeated Trump four years ago and he’s been clear about his objective this year… “Win.”

The billionaire influenced media gave Elizabeth Warren the same treatment when she tried to run for President. She was vilified as a communist because she created the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau. Corporations do not want anyone to get between them and their profit. After this post-pandemic price gouging fest, the public appears to be ready to hear that corporations are colluding and price fixing. At this point the majority of people expect the government to do something about greedflation, and Harris is responding to what most voters want.
LikeLike
It’s a weird thing, but the way the mainscream media is these days the more time and energy we waste answering goppish absurdities the more air(head)time we give them.
LikeLike
As high as 53% of inflation is corporate profit. There are as many estimates as there are pundits, but the figures seem to be as low as 11%. Either is significant.
Anyone can cry “Communist.” Let’s see the plan. Harris has one. Trump thinks cutting top end taxes will cure inflation.
The real problem is that the Republican tax cuts over the years have grown the national debt, while the Republicans have succeeded in convincing the voters that this is the Democrats and their spending.
LikeLike
Do these measurements of the percentage of inflation attributable to “corporate profit” treat all profit as contributing to inflation?
LikeLike
I doubt there is any consistency, but I do not know.
LikeLike
I just looked at the report that’s the source of the 53% figure. Doesn’t even discuss or disclose its methodology. I would ignore it on that basis alone, but it seems likely that it is treating all profit as “excess” and contributing to inflation. Of course inflation is nothing more than price levels, and so increasing prices for profit does contribute to inflation (as does increasing prices to pass along increased input prices). But because price inflation generally regarded as “bad,” this kind of analysis relies on the notion that profit is also bad. Which is goofy.
LikeLike
Correction, I should have written “increased profit” rather than “profit” above.
LikeLike
Click to access 24.01.17-GWC-Corporate-Profits-Report.pdf
LikeLike
While I generally agree with your analysis, companies reporting high earnings during times of public stress remind me of a preacher I knew who would go to places where a hurricane had just hit and charge high prices for labor in the clean up.
LikeLike
FLERP– It;s not fair to be a spoiler, but I’ve been reading Diane’s posts in reverse order today [most to less recent], & I think the Hiltzik piece shows grocery price-gouging clearly, just comparing % profit of major grocery-owners over the pandemic/ post-pandemic yrs.
LikeLike
Sorry, but Harris really did advocate for price controls on groceries; the same laws and regulations she would apply to the food industry could be applied by the FTC to any and all other industries.
Jill Lawrence is a left-wing partisan with zero background in economics, business, or accounting. She has no expertise on this issue; like most pundits do these days, she is just moralizing, not analyzing. Almost all economists across the political spectrum disagree with price controls in other than the most extreme conditions. Harris is just pandering to the large majority of voters who don’t understand basic economics.
LikeLike
Harris may not be an economist, but she does consult with economic advisers. 16 Nobel Prize winning economists weighed in on Trump’s economic plan which they believe will fuel another round of inflation. Robert Reich also recently estimated that Trump’s tax cuts for billionaires would raise taxes on working families between $2600 and $3300 per year. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/16-nobel-prize-winning-economists-say-trump-policies-will-fuel-inflation-2024-06-25/
LikeLike
“Jill Lawrence is a left-wing partisan with zero background in economics, business, or accounting.”
Are you suggesting that is a bad thing?
LikeLike
FDR, Truman, and Nixon all implemented price controls. Meanwhile, the Ag Department implements minimum price supports. Communism has nothing to do with it!
LikeLike
Read the Hitzik piece posted more recently, re: big grocery chain profits posted over the last few yrs – & quoting exactly what Harris said about how to handle– & see if you still think she’s promoting price controls.
LikeLike
If only she were a communist.
LikeLike
Considering that Harris is further right politically than Nixon. . . .
LikeLike
I wonder where WordPress’s purgatory is. Many of my comments don’t appear when I post.
LikeLike
Good image. There seems to be a bit of a delay while cyberspace contemplates how your ideas affect its concept of existence.
LikeLiked by 1 person
A friend just emailed me this interesting piece.
https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/democrats-psst-were-never-going-to-pass-kamala-harris-grocery-price-controls/#insticator-commenting
LikeLike
Correct me if I am wrong about this, but the last time we had price controls mandated by presidential order, the president was Richard Nixon. Republican.
LikeLike
That is correct. That idea bombed out, as all other attempts at price controls have. That’s why economists across the political spectrum almost universally oppose such controls.
LikeLike
I don’t know if Harris is saying she would implement price controls. She said she would “institute a federal ban on price gouging on food and groceries.” Perhaps she is considering something like a windfall profits tax. She needs to clarify her comments.
LikeLike
Kari Becker– Harris says: “I will pass the first ever ban on price-gouging on food. My plan will include new penalties for opportunistic companies that exploit crises and break the rules.” That doesn’t sound like ‘I will enact price controls on food.’ Stats show major grocery chains doubled their % profit during pandemic while their costs went up only 40%. I think it’s reasonable to consider consumer protection when it comes to food. I also like her hint about halting a major grocery chain merger currently stalled by FTC. Antitrust enforcement is not “price controls.”
LikeLike
Clinton’s facile notion that school uniforms would create order and reduce gang violence is one of those absurd policies that only someone who never ran a classroom could believe. Give teachers yet another useless task – check uniforms for adherence to a dress code. The gang members just focused on the color of their shoelaces!
LikeLike
“. . . one of those absurd policies that only someone who never ran a classroom could believe.”
Although the majority of adminimals supposedly taught, I’d wager that they never really “ran a classroom” so that teachers are bombarded almost constantly with administrative dictates/mandates that are irrelevant, stupid, time consuming, and harmful to the teaching and learning process. So it’s not just the idiot politicians that promulgate such insanities.
LikeLike
After all the jacks are in their boxes, and the clowns have all gone to bed, Proactive people will still tend to take control over a situation, rather than watch events compromise others, without influencing them. Reactive people offer “Course Corrections” after they watched the compromising “Drift” occur. Closing the barn door after the horses have bolted, is reactive. The need for course corrections exposes a misguided course. Where were you when the “Ship” started to drift?
LikeLike
Which “Ship”?
LikeLike
NoBrick: . . . like we’ve done with climate change, pollution in general, and particularly plastics, plastics, everywhere. Apparently “we” will finally realize that the planet is heating up when one’s hair bursts into flame. CBK
LikeLike