Now that Kamala Harris is the presumptive Democratic candidate, it is crucial to look at her economic policies, which are expected to be even more socialist than Joe Biden’s.
Keep in mind that she comes from the People’s Republic of California, the most socialist state in the Union, and the one that now leads the nation in exporting taxpayers, workers, conservatives and corporations to Texas.
Forced minimum wage hikes, high taxes, high inflation, strict regulation, reduced law enforcement, reduced prosecution, unbridled illegal immigration, widespread looting and drug addiction, combined with colonies of homeless people, have driven up costs, making it extremely difficult for companies to continue to operate in California. For now, they can flee to Texas, but if Harris has her way, these destructive policies will become federal.
Harris has been a strong advocate for raising the federal minimum wage to $15 per hour. This wage hike represents more than a doubling of current labor costs for employers. With labor accounting for between 20% and 40% of operating expenses, this would necessitate a dramatic increase in prices for companies to remain in business.
In a free market, a worker’s wage is a function of their contribution to the company’s bottom line and the supply and demand for workers. Kamala Harris is demanding that wages be doubled, but she has not demanded that workers double their productivity.
Since the contribution these workers make to the bottom line will not increase, the pay increase has to be covered by price increases. Since the minimum wage largely affects retail and fast-food sectors, the price increases will disproportionately hurt low-wage earners.
Harris is a major supporter of unionization. The function of a union is to negotiate wages that are higher than market levels, driving up costs and resulting in job losses, which negatively impact low-wage earners.
Kamala supports the federal Price Gouging Prevention Act, which would cause shortages during emergencies. Price gouging is nonsense. Supply and demand dictate that when supply drops and demand is high, the price goes up to eliminate shortages.
Consider this scenario: if there is only one sandwich and fifty hungry people, that sandwich will go for a million dollars, and only one person gets it.
Society is not damaged by this because if it had been sold for the usual price of $2, only one person would still have gotten it, but everyone would have clamored and fought for it, offering the same amount of money. There would be no fair means of determining who should get it.
In a socialist system, the government decides who gets that sandwich. In a market system, if there is only one sandwich, the price keeps going up until there is only one bidder. At a million dollars, only one person bids, and he gets it.
This market mechanism ensures resources are allocated efficiently, even if it seems harsh. Additionally, news that a sandwich sold for $1 million will motivate others to sell sandwiches for less. This brings more suppliers into the market and the price comes down again.
Look at California, particularly neighborhoods like those in Oakland, where big box stores and other retailers have closed because of crime, high employment costs, and high taxes. These areas are now left with very small shops that charge extremely high prices.
If the government had maintained law enforcement and protection of personal property rights and stayed out of commerce, the big box stores would have remained, and citizens would be paying lower prices. Additionally, more people would be working. Instead, the welfare rolls increased because the jobs left with the big box stores.
As a result of government intervention destroying these private companies, cities like Chicago have floated the idea of government stores selling goods at a discount. That will seal the fate of the city, as mom-and-pop stores would be unable to compete and would close.
This would leave all citizens dependent on government welfare benefits, which they would use to shop at government stores. Ironically, Kamala also wants to give taxpayer money to small businesses. This money would be wasted because small businesses would not be able to compete in a government-dominated environment.
Harris wants to increase taxes on the wealthiest Americans, although they already pay 76% of all income tax revenues. She aims to further hamstring companies by closing tax loopholes that benefit corporations. While advocating for policies that will kill jobs and drive up prices, she simultaneously proposes tax relief that she claims will help the middle class.
Harris backs the Green New Deal, the Climate Equity Bill, and other initiatives aimed at combating climate change and ensuring a “just transition” for workers in fossil fuel industries. The climate is already the same for everyone; we do not need government legislation on climate equity.
The term “just transition” is also unnecessary in a market economy. Cars went from 10 miles to the gallon to 40 miles to the gallon because it made economic sense to improve the technology. We used to print tons of paper documents in offices; now we use electronic files and save paper because it makes economic sense. We did not need legislation to guarantee a “just transition.”
She wants to make housing “more affordable,” which means eliminating zoning rules, placing multifamily houses in residential neighborhoods, and using taxpayer money to build houses that will be sold or rented below cost.
This also means less funding for schools through property taxes, necessitating direct federal funding for schools. Harris advocates for student loan forgiveness, more minority scholarships, and government money for minority-owned businesses.
Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) policies would be imposed on companies, including the Federal Reserve, which is supposed to be independent of the government. Under Harris, the Fed would have to interview candidates for Federal Reserve Bank president based on gender, race, and sexual orientation, rather than qualifications.
While it is good to encourage all people to attend university or start businesses, it is an egregious violation of the American concept of equality to provide government funding or job opportunities based on race, gender, or sexual orientation. This is counter to the equality that was fought for during the civil rights movement.
Harris has consistently emphasized economic justice and policies aimed at reducing racial and economic disparities. However, these policies will likely make everyone poorer and will not effectively help the people she is targeting.
