Vice President Kamala Harris’s recent focus on “price gouging” in the grocery sector seems more like a deflection than a solution. Instead of addressing the economic challenges created by the Biden-Harris administration’s policies, Harris is placing the blame squarely on big corporations. This tactic dangerously flirts with communist principles.
As grocery prices continue to pinch consumers’ wallets, Harris frames the issue as corporate greed. Her campaign’s rhetoric suggests that large grocery chains and food producers are taking advantage of consumers by inflating prices to pad their profits. But this narrative oversimplifies a much more complex situation. The reality is that the current economic pressures—rising inflation, supply chain disruptions, and increased production costs—are largely influenced by government policies.
By shifting the blame to corporations, Harris isn’t just deflecting responsibility; she’s embracing a form of government intervention that echoes communist ideals. In a free market, prices are determined by supply and demand. However, Harris’s proposal to impose price controls on groceries represents a significant overreach of government power into the private sector—a hallmark of communist economic systems. This level of state control over business practices could set a dangerous precedent, undermining the very foundations of the market economy.
Harris’s proposal to crack down on “excessive” prices lacks clear definitions and fails to address the root causes of the problem. By shifting the blame to corporate greed, Harris is avoiding the more difficult conversation about how her administration’s policies have contributed to the economic environment we’re in today. This approach may resonate with voters frustrated by high prices, but it doesn’t offer a real solution to the underlying issues.
What’s more, this type of heavy-handed government intervention is likely to alienate large businesses, which are vital to the U.S. economy. Corporations that are suddenly subjected to government-imposed price controls may see it as a hostile move, one that could drive them to reduce investments, cut jobs, or even move operations overseas to escape such stringent regulations. This kind of economic uncertainty stifles innovation and growth—something the U.S. economy can ill afford.
This is a critical point that many Democrats, including Harris, seem to overlook. While it’s true that prices are higher now than they were before the Biden-Harris administration took office, curtailing investment and job growth through aggressive price controls will only worsen the economic difficulties we face. Large businesses cutting back on investments and jobs due to regulatory overreach will exacerbate economic instability and reduce overall economic growth. This approach can lead to a vicious cycle where high prices persist not because of corporate greed but because the very businesses that could drive economic recovery are hampered by restrictive policies.
The dangers of Harris’s proposal become even more apparent when we consider the historical lessons from other countries that have pursued similar policies. The former Soviet Union is a prime example of what happens when the government exerts too much control over the economy. By imposing strict price controls and centrally planning economic activity, the Soviet government stifled competition, innovation, and economic freedom. The result was widespread shortages, black markets, and an eventual collapse of the entire system. Which in turn led to the oligarch structure when free markets were once again available in the Soviet Union.
These kinds of economic sentiments—where the government dictates prices and profits—did not assist the Soviet Union in creating a prosperous society. Instead, it led to economic ruin, social unrest, and the eventual dissolution of the country. The Soviet experience is a stark reminder that when the government attempts to control the economy to this extent, it rarely ends well. Harris’s proposal, while not as extreme, echoes these same flawed principles and could steer the U.S. down a similarly dangerous path.
It’s no secret that blaming corporations is a popular move in political campaigns. It allows candidates to position themselves as champions of the “little guy” against the perceived excesses of big business. However, this tactic often ignores the broader economic context and the role that government policies play in shaping market conditions. Harris’s focus on price gouging is a classic example of this maneuvering, which distracts from the administration’s own economic record.
But beyond mere political posturing, the push for price controls is an alarming step toward a more centralized and controlled economy. In the past, similar policies in other countries have led to the erosion of economic freedom, stifling entrepreneurship and driving away investment. By leaning into this type of governance, Harris risks alienating not just large corporations, but also the many small businesses that depend on a free and competitive market to thrive.
In the end, Harris’s proposal to control grocery prices by targeting corporations may be more about political optics than economic reality. By blaming corporations instead of examining the consequences of their own policies, the Biden-Harris administration is trying to deflect the root cause of these issues. Instead, they’re doubling down on a strategy that flirts with communist-style economic control, which could have far-reaching negative consequences for the American economy.
Large businesses are likely to view this move as a direct threat to the principles of free enterprise, potentially leading to decreased investment and job creation. This kind of state intervention doesn’t just stifle economic growth—it fundamentally alters the relationship between government and the private sector in a way that could have lasting, and damaging, effects. And as history has shown us, with failed experiments in economic centralization, this path could ultimately lead to more harm than good.
RibotskyInstitute.com 
Leave a comment