(DCNF)—Vice President Kamala Harris’ proposed “price gouging” ban has been panned as a radical policy, and some Democrats and members of the press are working to clean up the fallout.
During an Aug. 16 speech in North Carolina laying out some of her economic ideas, Harris proposed to impose a federal ban on “price gouging” to bring down prices of food and groceries, an idea that critics from across the political spectrum derided as collectivist price controls, extreme and unlikely to work. In the week since Harris announced her idea, numerous Democrats and some prominent media personalities and outlets have mobilized to redefine or explain away Harris’ proposal as more nuanced and less radical than the GOP is making it out to be.
After Harris’ proposal received sharp criticisms from economists and pundits, unnamed sources familiar with the vice president’s thinking told The New York Times that the “price gouging” ban would likely only take effect in emergencies, such as a pandemic or in the wake of a natural disaster. However, since America is currently not facing such circumstances, those unnamed sources implied that it “might actually not do anything to bring down grocery prices right now” if enacted.
‘Most Terrifying Proposal I’ve Ever Seen’: Former Trump Economic Advisor Reacts To Kamala Harris ‘Price Gouging’ Planhttps://t.co/hhJgw3BhV7
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) August 17, 2024
Nevertheless, Democrats and some in the media have attempted essentially to defend the proposal by suggesting it isn’t so simple.
Axios ran a Tuesday story under the headline “How price gouging bans really work.” The article states that policies like the one Harris proposed are “oft-hated by economists, but they’ve been around for a long time” and that “most Americans intuitively understand the rationale behind them, and Harris is trying to appeal to voters — not academics or newspaper columnists.”
The Axios story cites Zephyr Teachout, a professor at Fordham Law School, for color; Teachout wrote her own Thursday piece for The Atlantic with the headline “Sometimes You Just Have to Ignore the Economists.” In her column, Teachout writes that “Kamala Harris’s proposed price-gouging ban might irritate academics, but it makes sense to everyone else,” simultaneously defending the policy as neither radical nor novel while conceding that its exact parameters are unclear.
Paul Krugman, an economist and columnist for The New York Times, described Harris’ economic ideas, including the price gouging ban, as “a solid center-left agenda” in a Monday column.
“I’ve been amazed at how many credulous commentators, and not just on the right, have asserted that Harris is calling for price controls, making her out to be the second coming of Richard Nixon if not the next Nicolas Maduro,” Krugman wrote in his column. “What she has actually called for is legislation banning price gouging on groceries. Obviously, this is a populist political gesture — a way to offer something to voters upset about high food prices. But just because something is popular doesn’t mean that it’s a bad idea.”
The Trump campaign’s assertion that Harris has embraced communist-style price controls is simply “a new line of false attack” against the vice president, CBS anchor Margaret Brennan said on “Face the Nation” on Sunday. CBS also brought Democratic Kentucky Gov. Andy Beshear onto the program to discuss why Harris’ proposal is more nuanced than outright socialist price controls.
Gretchen Whitmer Says Critics Of Harris’ Price Gouging Plan Are ‘Reading Too Much’ Into Ithttps://t.co/h8GWuL2xvB
— Daily Caller (@DailyCaller) August 20, 2024
“It’s definitely clear that at least a few corporate journalists are trying to defend Kamala’s proposal. But it’s a very unenviable task,” Bill Da’Agostino, a senior research analyst for the Media Research Center, a conservative media watchdog organization, told the DCNF. “She proposed price controls, so now they’re going to bat for price controls. Moments like these are when the real hacks expose themselves.”
Commerce Secretary Gina Raimondo, who recently said that she does not believe a new government report showing that 818,000 jobs purportedly created under the Biden administration never actually existed, also stepped in to deflect criticism of Harris’ plan. She described the notion that Harris’ proposal amounts to price controls as “a Republican talking point,” during a Wednesday appearance on CNBC.
Democratic Govs. J.B. Pritzker of Illinois and Gretchen Whitmer of Michigan have also attempted to downplay or contextualize Harris’ proposal as more nuanced than outright price controls, according to The Washington Post. Some of the criticisms of Harris’ “price gouging” ban have been made in good faith by some observers, but there are other criticisms of the policy that are “just malicious attacks from the other side trying to characterize her as a socialist,” Ben Harris, a former senior official at the Biden Treasury Department, told the outlet.
“Her idea flopped badly. They can’t just withdraw it, so they have to ‘contextualize’ it, hence the references to a pandemic or national emergency,” J.D. Foster, the former chief economist at the Office of Management and Budget and a former vice president of the Chamber of Commerce, told the Daily Caller News Foundation. “It was a dumb idea and they are stuck with it as an example of Harris’ extreme ignorance about how the economy works.”
Ryan Young, senior economist at the Competitive Enterprise Institute, agreed that Harris’ proposed federal “price gouging” ban is effectively an endorsement of price controls.
“Most voters are too young to remember Richard Nixon’s price and wage controls, but they still have the right intuition—you don’t want politicians setting prices,” Young told the DCNF. “That is why Harris’s price gouging proposals have gotten a cold reception. That is also why her partisans are trying to claim that price gouging bans aren’t really price controls. Which they are, just under a different name.”
The Harris campaign did not respond immediately to a request for comment.
All content created by the Daily Caller News Foundation, an independent and nonpartisan newswire service, is available without charge to any legitimate news publisher that can provide a large audience. All republished articles must include our logo, our reporter’s byline and their DCNF affiliation. For any questions about our guidelines or partnering with us, please contact [email protected].
Two Storms, One Harvest
Every food crisis in living memory has been a one-shock event. The 2008 price spike was a commodity bubble. The 2020 shortages were a logistics failure. The 2022 grain scare was a war on one exporter’s ports. Each time, the system bent, adjusted, and recovered, and each time the experts assured us afterward that global markets are simply too big and too diversified to fail.
What nobody in Washington seems eager to discuss is that 2026 is shaping up to be something the modern food system has never actually faced. Two independent shocks, one climatic and one geopolitical, are converging on the same harvest cycle at the same time. Not sequentially. Simultaneously.
Start with the weather. The Pacific Ocean is currently building toward what forecasters now openly call a record event. NOAA’s Climate Prediction Center puts the odds of at least a strong El Niño near 88 percent, with roughly two in three odds it reaches “very strong” status, the tier reserved for perhaps three or four events in the entire satellite era. Every major global model now projects a median peak in Super El Niño territory, and most of them project it exceeding the 2015-16 event, which until now held the modern record. Sea surface anomalies were already brushing the super threshold in mid-July, months before these events normally peak. The atmosphere has already shifted into El Niño mode, and the event is forecast to crest in late fall and early winter.
This is not about “climate change.” It’s about the standard cycles of weather, and the cycle we’re currently in is one that has likely devastated societies in the past. We’re better prepared as a society today, but not all Americans are equally prepared.
Serious households have started doing the quiet math on their own. Grocery bills tell part of the story, and the forecast maps tell the rest, which is why long-term food storage has moved from fringe hobby to mainstream line item in the family budget, with established suppliers like Heaven’s Harvest seeing demand from people who five years ago would have rolled their eyes at the idea. That instinct is not paranoia. It is pattern recognition, and the pattern is worth walking through carefully.
Editor’s Note: Heaven’s Harvest IS a sponsor, but the warnings of this article are real and would be written even if we didn’t have a survival food sponsor. With that said, those who take advantage of what they offer can use promo code “Patriot” for 15% off.
The Fertilizer Clock Is Already Running
While the Pacific warms, the second shock has been unfolding in the Strait of Hormuz. The conflict with Iran turned the world’s most important energy chokepoint into a contested waterway, and the consequences reach far beyond the gas pump. Roughly a third of global fertilizer trade moves through Hormuz, and the disruption sent urea prices up 86 percent year over year by March, with a 53 percent jump in a single month.
The World Bank projects energy prices rising about 24 percent in 2026 and fertilizer about 31 percent. By its own accounting, fertilizer prices ran 35 percent higher in the first five months of this year than the same period last year.
Here is the mechanism the nightly news will not explain. Fertilizer is not a grocery item. It is a time-delayed input. The nitrogen a farmer in Iowa or Punjab could not afford to apply this spring does not show up as a problem this spring. It shows up as a thinner harvest six to twelve months later.
The World Bank’s own food security brief concedes that the effects of reduced applications earlier this season “are likely to become visible only later in harvest outcomes.” Translate that from institutional language into plain English and it means this. The damage is already done, it is already in the ground, and we are simply waiting for it to arrive on the shelf.
Now check the calendar. Six to twelve months from the spring planting season lands us squarely in late 2026 and early 2027. Which is precisely when the strongest El Niño in the instrumental record is forecast to peak, bringing its signature droughts to Southeast Asia, Australia, southern Africa, northern Brazil, and South Asia, the very regions that grow the world’s rice, sugar, and oilseeds.
The World Bank warns openly that a strong El Niño “could disrupt multiple crop belts simultaneously” on top of the conflict-driven input costs. Their baseline projection assumes the Middle East disruptions ease by autumn. What in the last two years of Middle East history suggests that assumption is safe?
The System Has No Slack Left
The comfortable answer is that global markets always adjust. But adjustment requires slack, and the slack is gone. Global cereal production is expected to decline from last year’s records even before El Niño does its work. The UN World Food Programme, hardly a den of right-wing preppers, is calling this the most significant disruption to its supply chains since Covid and the invasion of Ukraine, and its supply chain director put the stakes bluntly.
Today’s supply chain challenges are tomorrow’s hunger crisis.
There is also a political dimension that markets cannot price. When food gets scarce, governments do not behave like economists. They behave like politicians. Export bans, hoarding mandates, and panic buying at the national level turned the modest rice shortfall of 2008 into a global crisis, and analysts are already warning that import-dependent nations are the first dominoes.
The 2015-16 Super El Niño, a far weaker event than what is now forecast, threw tens of millions into food stress across Africa and Asia. This one is projected to be stronger, and it arrives with fertilizer already rationed by price and shipping lanes already contested by missiles.
What Joseph Knew
Scripture does not treat preparation for lean years as faithlessness. It treats it as wisdom delivered in advance to those willing to act on it.
Behold, there come seven years of great plenty throughout all the land of Egypt: And there shall arise after them seven years of famine; and all the plenty shall be forgotten in the land of Egypt.
Joseph did not respond to that warning with a hashtag or a committee. He stored grain during the years of abundance, and when the famine came, Egypt stood while its neighbors begged. The lesson is not that famine is certain. It is that the time to prepare is precisely when preparation still looks optional.
Nobody who filled a pantry in a year of plenty has ever regretted it, and nobody standing in an empty aisle has ever been glad he waited for certainty.
None of this calls for panic, and panic is the enemy of sound judgment anyway. It calls for the same unglamorous prudence our grandparents considered ordinary. Keep some cash margin, know your local growers, and put real food in deep storage while it is cheap and available, because the entire arc of this story is that cheap and available is a closing window.
Families looking for a straightforward place to start can visit Heaven’s Harvest and use promo code Patriot for 15 percent off long-term storable food. The forecasts may yet soften, the strait may yet reopen, and we should pray they do. But hope is a fine thing to hold and a foolish thing to eat.
