Why are Kamala’s Price Controls Immoral?

What’s Happening:

Last week, Kamala Harris called for an end to “price gouging” on groceries, and however “relatable” the VP is trying to be, she seems to forget how her administration was handed a growing economy yet chose to plunge it into the sad state it is today.

Afterall, Harris has been in office for the last four years, whilst out of the last 16 years, Democrats have been in the White House for 12 of those. It’s a little rich to still hear Harris and other Democrats blaming former President Trump for the county’s economic ills Democrats have crafted and implemented.

Besides these facts, from an economic standpoint, there are so many things wrong with Kamala’s proposal to usher in price controls and if anyone were wise on the Harris team, they’d know their history enough to advise against them.

What are Price Controls?

Price controls, including price ceilings and price floors, are regulations set by governments to control the maximum or minimum prices that can be charged for goods and services.

Those who advocate for policy controls state that their purpose is to protect consumers or stabilize markets, however, they are always accompanied by moral and economic consequences that challenge their ethical justification.

Here’s are just a few reasons why price controls can be labeled as ‘immoral’:

1. Infringement on Individual Freedom

Price controls violate the fundamental principle of individual freedom and voluntary exchange.

In a free market, prices are determined by the voluntary interactions between buyers and sellers. Price controls, however, impose artificial limits, undermining the ability of individuals to freely negotiate and agree on prices.

This intervention disrupts the autonomy of individuals and businesses, forcing them to act under constraints not of their choosing and this ultimately hurts both parties.

2. Distortion of Market Signals

Prices in a market serve as signals that convey information about supply and demand.

High prices signal scarcity and encourage production, while low prices indicate abundance and may reduce production.

Price controls distort these signals, leading to misallocation of resources. For example, a price ceiling on goods (like groceries) can result in shortages because producers are less willing to supply goods at the artificially low price.

Conversely, a price floor, such as a minimum wage set above equilibrium, can lead to surpluses, like unemployment in the labor market.

These distortions create inefficiencies and prevent resources from being allocated to their most valued uses.

3. Encouragement of Unethical Behavior

When price controls are implemented, they often lead to unethical behaviors. (See the historical reference section below)

For example, price ceilings can create black markets where goods are sold at prices higher than the regulated ceiling. This illegal activity undermines the rule of law and can lead to exploitation and corruption.

Similarly, price floors can encourage businesses to cut corners or reduce quality to maintain profitability. These outcomes not only compromise ethical standards but also harm consumers and the broader economy.

4. Harm to Vulnerable Populations

Justification of price controls often come in the form of “protecting the poor and vulnerable,” yet they frequently end up harming those they purport to help.

For instance, a price ceiling on rent may reduce the availability of affordable housing, leading to a scarcity of rental properties, this leaves low-income individuals without housing options.

Meanwhile, a price floor on agricultural products might lead to higher food prices or reduced availability, disproportionately affecting low-income families who spend a larger portion of their income on food.

These are just some examples of consequences exacerbating the difficulties faced by vulnerable populations rather than alleviating them.

5. Violation of Property Rights

Price controls interfere with property rights by imposing restrictions on how individuals can use their property.

Owners of goods and services have the right to set prices based on their costs and the value they provide. By enforcing price controls, the government essentially overrides these rights, dictating how much individuals can earn from their own property.

This infringement on property rights undermines the moral principle of respecting individuals’ ownership and control over their resources.

6. Long-Term Economic Damage

While price controls might offer short-term relief or “benefits,” they often cause long-term economic damage.

Distorted prices lead to inefficient production and consumption, which can stifle innovation and growth. Over time, this inefficiency results in a weakened economy, reduced opportunities, and diminished prosperity.

The moral argument against price controls includes the responsibility to foster an economic environment that encourages long-term well-being and prosperity rather than short-sighted interventions.

Perspective

Challenging the moral legitimacy of price controls is essential seeing as they directly impact the lives of both consumers and sellers.

As if the infringement of individual freedoms, violating property rights, and inflicting long-term economic damage wasn’t bad enough, those in government should be knowledgeable enough to understand some portion of world history where price controls have caused all of the hardships laid out before you.

For all our benefit, here are just three historical examples to illustrate how such measures have harmed populations in times past:

1- The Roman Empire (3rd Century AD): During the Roman Empire, Emperor Diocletian implemented the Edict on Maximum Prices in 301 AD to combat rampant inflation and stabilize the economy.

The edict set maximum prices for a wide range of goods and services. However, the price ceilings were set too low, leading to widespread shortages as producers and merchants were unable to cover their costs at the mandated prices.

Consequently, black markets flourished, and many essential goods became scarce.

The failure of the price controls contributed to economic instability and decreased the quality of goods available to the population, worsening the plight of ordinary Romans.

2- Nazi Germany (1930s-1940s): In Nazi Germany, the regime imposed strict price controls on various consumer goods and food items during the 1930s and 1940s.

While the intention was to keep costs low for ordinary citizens, the controls led to significant distortions in the market. Farmers and producers, faced with fixed low prices, had little incentive to produce goods, leading to shortages and rationing.

The government responded by instituting a system of rationing, but this only partially mitigated the problems.

The resulting scarcity and inefficiencies contributed to a lower standard of living and widespread hardship, particularly as the war intensified and resources became even more strained.

3- Venezuela (2000s-2010s): In contemporary history, Venezuela provides a stark example of the impact of price controls.

The Venezuelan government, under Presidents Hugo Chávez and Nicolás Maduro, imposed strict controls on the prices of food and other essential goods as part of their socialist policies.

While the intent was to make these items affordable, the controls led to severe shortages and rampant inflation. Producers and importers could not sustain their operations at the controlled prices, leading to a collapse in domestic production and a decline in imports.

The result? A humanitarian crisis, with citizens facing long lines, scarcity of basic necessities, and a dramatic decrease in the quality of life which includes en masse starvation for men, women and children.

For these reasons and many more, we should not support the idea of price controls as they are anti-Bible.

These price controls have significantly contributed to the broader economic collapse and the resulting social unrest that has plagued the country.

The Bible endorses voluntary exchange and economic freedom and as a result, we as followers of Jesus Christ should as well.

Proverbs 11:26 highlights how voluntary trade and the idea that fairness in market transactions is valued: “The people curse the one who hoards grain, but they pray God’s blessing on the one who is willing to sell.”

This verse speaks to how the sale of goods at a fair price is seen as a positive and blessed act.

Similarly, Proverbs 20:14 reflects the natural consequences of market transactions: “‘It’s no good, it’s no good!’ says the buyer— then goes off and boasts about the purchase.”

This verse implies that market negotiations and transactions are a normal part of economic activity, with buyers and sellers engaging in exchanges that reflect their own assessments and values, resonating with the principles of a free market where individuals make choices based on their preferences and needs.

Conclusion

The history books called and they want their economic policy back and leaving this policy in the past isn’t just good for us as individuals but for the whole of our nation.

It’s time for our political leadership to address the root issue of our financial woes as a nation and for believers to dig deeper and refuse to be satisfied with temporary, band-aid-like “solutions” like price controls.

Thank you for your support.

If you appreciate the work we do to spread the good news of Jesus Christ, please consider giving a gift to help us continue this work. Maranatha!