According to The Washington Post, Vice President Kamala Harris on Friday will unveil a proposed ban on “price gouging” in the grocery and food industries, ... In a statement released late Wednesday night, the Harris campaign said that if elected, she would push for the “first-ever federal ban” on food price hikes, with sweeping new powers for federal authorities. Harris on Friday will also announce plans to lower prescription drug and housing costs, the campaign said. What that means is VP Harris is projecting the blame on the market for what the Biden/Harris administration created, which naturally forced the market to raise prices for good and services. Biden tried to keep gas prices from going up a few years ago when he told gas stations to hold prices where they were. How can a business do that when every other price is going up for them? That reveals two things. One, Democrats do not understand basic economics. Two, they refuse to take responsibility for their own actions. It was bad enough then, but if she wins and institutes such a plan it will have catastrophic impacts on the economy. Maybe even a 'bloodbath' as Trump predicted. The last American President to impose wage and price controls was Richard Nixon in the early 1970s. He had to stage a humiliating retreat amid shortages and market dislocations, and prices immediately soared when controls were lifted. When that happens this time they will, I'm sure, again blame the market. Government control of business and markets is a Marxist (Communist, Socialist) principle. Another reason why Marxist style governments always fail. In the USA, government does not control markets. Hopefully Congress, and certainly the Supreme Court, would stop such stupid policy and government overreach if God-forbid, the second Marxist President (Obama was the first) is elected. I borrowed this title from a Washington Post article; When your opponent calls you ‘communist,’ maybe don’t propose price controls?, which surprisingly & accurately states "it's hard to exaggerate how bad Kamala Harris’s price-gouging proposal is." The author, Catherine Rampell, is a hard core WaPo leftist, who expectantly takes a couple of shots at Donald Trump in this article. But, it is striking the clarity with which she eviscerates the Democrat nominee for this plan. Not what a card carrying WaPo columnist would ever be expected to do. But, she does. Here are a few highlights from her article: She’ll [Harris] crack down on “excessive prices” and “excessive corporate profits,” particularly for groceries. So what level counts as “excessive,” you might ask? TBD, but Harris will ban it. It’s not hard to figure out where this proposal came from. Voters want to blame someone for high grocery bills, and the presidential candidates have apparently decided the choices are either the Biden administration or corporate greed. Harris has chosen the latter. What are these “clear rules of the road” or the thresholds that determine when a price or profit level becomes “excessive”? The memo doesn’t say, and the campaign did not answer questions I sent seeking clarification. It is, in all but name, a sweeping set of government-enforced price controls across every industry, not only food.  Supply and demand would no longer determine prices or profit levels. Far-off Washington bureaucrats would. The FTC would be able to tell, say, a Kroger in Ohio the acceptable price it can charge for milk. At best, this would lead to shortages, black markets and hoarding, among other distortions seen previous times countries tried to limit price growth by fiat. (There’s a reason narrower “price gouging” laws that exist in some U.S. states are rarely invoked.) At worst, it might accidentally raise prices. But more to the point:If your opponent claims you’re a “communist,” maybe don’t start with an economic agenda that can (accurately) be labeled as federal price controls Ditto. Trump, on the other hand, in takeaways from his economic speech is saying: 1. ‘Are you better off now’ 2. A Pre-rebuttal to Harris’s Friday speech 3. Bring home the bacon 4. Deviated to personal attacks 5. Put a spotlight on North Carolina 6. Both parties see Social Security as a winning issue 7. Trump focused on energy costs (not prices) More From The Washington Post (subscription required): More From The Wall Street Journal (subscription required): More From The Washington Post (subscription required):