Connect with us
[bsa_pro_ad_space id=12]

Business

‘Bad Case Scenario’: Former Obama Economist Slams Kamala Harris’ Plan For Nationwide ‘Price Controls’

Published

5 minute read

From the Daily Caller News Foundation

By Wallace White

 

Former President Barack Obama’s top economist joined the chorus of experts critiquing Vice President Kamala Harris’ proposed plan to lower costs for housing and groceries, according to The Washington Post Friday.

Jason Furman, former deputy director of the National Economic Council under Obama, expressed his concerns on Harris’ proposal to fine companies that practice “price gouging” on food and grocerieswarning of the negative economic effects of the policy due to the apparent need to control prices to a degree, according to The Washington Post. Harris blamed corporate greed for the rise in prices in her speech on Friday, instead of massive government spending under the Biden administration which some economists argue has fueled inflation.

“The good case scenario is price gouging is a message, not a reality, and the bad case scenario is that this is a real proposal,” Furman told The Washington Post. “You’ll end up with bigger shortages, less supply and ultimately risk higher prices and worse outcomes for consumers if you try to enforce this in a real way, which I don’t know if they would or wouldn’t do.”

The Federal Reserve of San Francisco released research in May showing that corporate greed is not the main driver of inflation, saying that the price hikes seen following the COVID-19 pandemic were comparable to those seen following other economic recoveries that did not have not similar levels of inflation.

“This is economic lunacy. Price controls are a SERIOUSLY bad idea,” Samuel Gregg, Friedrich Hayek chair in economics and economic history at the American Institute for Economic Research, said on X. “They lead to shortages, severe misallocations of capital, and distort the ability to prices to signal the information we all need to make choices.”

The proposal from Harris would task the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) with handing out fines for companies that make “excessive” price hikes on groceries, the Harris campaign told The Washington Post. Price controls can initially lower prices for customers, but many economists argue that it would also “cause shortages which lead to arbitrary rationing and, over time, reduce product innovation and quality,” according to the Joint Economic Committee Republicans in 2022.

Prices have risen 19.4% since the Biden administration first took office, and grocery prices have risen 21%, according to the Federal Reserve of St. Louis (FRED).

“Harris has made a set of policy choices over the last several weeks that make it clear that the Democratic Party is committed to a pro-working-family agenda. The days of ‘What’s good for free enterprise is good for America’ are over,” Felicia Wong, president of the left-leaning think tank Roosevelt Forward, told The Washington Post.

Inflation peaked under the Biden administration at 9% in June 2022, with the rate only falling below 3% for the first time since in July. Under former President Donald Trump, prices increased just 7.8% from January 2017 to 2021, according to FRED.

Harris has also proposed the use of federal funds to forgive medical debt from healthcare providers, price caps on prescription drugs, a $25,000 subsidy for first-time home buyers and a $6,000 child tax credit for families for the first year of their child’s life, according to The Washington Post.

“The days of pivoting to the center to win on economics are over, even though there are good economic reasons to do so, especially on fiscal policy,” Bill Galston, a former Clinton aide, told The Washington Post.

Furman, the Harris campaign and Democrat economists Jay Shambaugh and Lawrence Summers did not immediately respond to the Daily Caller News Foundation’s request for comment. Democrat economist Sandra Black declined to comment.

Todayville is a digital media and technology company. We profile unique stories and events in our community. Register and promote your community event for free.

Follow Author

Business

Top Canadian bank ditches UN-backed ‘net zero’ climate goals it helped create

Published on

From LifeSiteNews

By Anthony Murdoch

RBC’s dropping of its ‘net zero’ finance targets came just one day after the Liberal Party under Mark Carney was re-elected in Canada.

Just one day after the re-election of the Liberal Party under Mark Carney, the Royal Bank of Canada joined the growing list of top banks withdrawing from a United Nations-backed “net zero” alliance that supports the eventual elimination of the nation’s oil and gas industry in the name of “climate change.”

The Royal Bank of Canada (RBC) on Tuesday quietly dumped its UN-backed Net-Zero Banking Alliance (NZBA) sustainable finance targets, which called for banks to come in line with the push for net-zero carbon emissions by 2050. The NZBA is a subgroup of the Glasgow Financial Alliance for Net Zero (GFANZ), which Carney was co-chair of until recently.

RBC’s departure comes despite the fact that it was one of the NZBA’s founding members.

RBC joins Toronto-Dominion Bank (TD), Bank of Montreal (BMO), National Bank of Canada, and the Canadian Imperial Bank of Commerce (CIBC) who earlier in the year said they were withdrawing from the NZBA.

The bank announced the move away from a green agenda in its 2024 sustainability report, noting it would no longer look to pursue a $500 billion sustainable finance goal. It cited changes to Canada’s federal Competition Act as the reason.

The changes to the act, known as the “greenwashing law,” now mandate that companies provide proof of their environmental claims.

“We have reviewed our methodology and have concluded that it may not have appropriately measured certain of our sustainable finance activities,” noted RBC in its report.

RBC also noted it would not make public any of its metrics regarding its energy supply ratio.

Monday’s election saw Liberal leader Carney beat out Conservative rival Poilievre, who also lost his seat. The Conservatives managed to pick up over 20 new seats, however, and Poilievre has vowed to stay on as party leader, for now.

The GFANZ was formed in 2021 while Carney was its co-chair. He resigned from his role in the alliance right before he announced he would run for Liberal leadership to replace former Prime Minister Justin Trudeau.

Large U.S. banks such as Morgan Stanley,  JPMorgan Chase & Co, Wells Fargo and Bank of America have all withdrawn from the group as well.

Since taking office in 2015, the Liberal government, first under Trudeau and now under Carney, has continued to push a radical environmental agenda in line with those promoted by the World Economic Forum’s “Great Reset” and the United Nations’ “Sustainable Development Goals.” Part of this push includes the promotion of so called net-zero energy by as early as 2035.

Continue Reading

Business

Overregulation is choking Canadian businesses, says the MEI

Published on

  From the Montreal Economic Institute

The federal government’s growing regulatory burden on businesses is holding Canada back and must be urgently reviewed, argues a new publication from the MEI released this morning.

“Regulation creep is a real thing, and Ottawa has been fuelling it for decades,” says Krystle Wittevrongel, director of research at the MEI and coauthor of the Viewpoint. “Regulations are passed but rarely reviewed, making it burdensome to run a business, or even too costly to get started.”

Between 2006 and 2021, the number of federal regulatory requirements in Canada rose by 37 per cent, from 234,200 to 320,900. This is estimated to have reduced real GDP growth by 1.7 percentage points, employment growth by 1.3 percentage points, and labour productivity by 0.4 percentage points, according to recent Statistics Canada data.

Small businesses are disproportionately impacted by the proliferation of new regulations.

In 2024, firms with fewer than five employees pay over $10,200 per employee in regulatory and red tape compliance costs, compared to roughly $1,400 per employee for businesses with 100 or more employees, according to data from the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.

Overall, Canadian businesses spend 768 million hours a year on compliance, which is equivalent to almost 394,000 full-time jobs. The costs to the economy in 2024 alone were over $51.5 billion.

It is hardly surprising in this context that entrepreneurship in Canada is on the decline. In the year 2000, 3 out of every 1,000 Canadians started a business. By 2022, that rate had fallen to just 1.3, representing a nearly 57 per cent drop since 2000.

The impact of regulation in particular is real: had Ottawa maintained the number of regulations at 2006 levels, Canada would have seen about 10 per cent more business start-ups in 2021, according to Statistics Canada.

The MEI researcher proposes a practical way to reevaluate the necessity of these regulations, applying a model based on the Chrétien government’s 1995 Program Review.

In the 1990s, the federal government launched a review process aimed at reducing federal spending. Over the course of two years, it successfully eliminated $12 billion in federal spending, a reduction of 9.7 per cent, and restored fiscal balance.

A similar approach applied to regulations could help identify rules that are outdated, duplicative, or unjustified.

The publication outlines six key questions to evaluate existing or proposed regulations:

  1. What is the purpose of the regulation?
  2. Does it serve the public interest?
  3. What is the role of the federal government and is its intervention necessary?
  4. What is the expected economic cost of the regulation?
  5. Is there a less costly or intrusive way to solve the problem the regulation seeks to address?
  6. Is there a net benefit?

According to OECD projections, Canada is expected to experience the lowest GDP per capita growth among advanced economies through 2060.

“Canada has just lived through a decade marked by weak growth, stagnant wages, and declining prosperity,” says Ms. Wittevrongel. “If policymakers are serious about reversing this trend, they must start by asking whether existing regulations are doing more harm than good.”

The MEI Viewpoint is available here.

* * *

The MEI is an independent public policy think tank with offices in Montreal, Ottawa, and Calgary. Through its publications, media appearances, and advisory services to policymakers, the MEI stimulates public policy debate and reforms based on sound economics and entrepreneurship.

Continue Reading

Trending

X