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

From the Daily Caller News Foundation
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 groceries, warning 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.
Automotive
Electric cars just another poor climate policy

From the Fraser Institute
The electric car is widely seen as a symbol of a simple, clean solution to climate change. In reality, it’s inefficient, reliant on massive subsidies, and leaves behind a trail of pollution and death that is seldom acknowledged.
We are constantly reminded by climate activists and politicians that electric cars are cleaner, cheaper, and better. Canada and many other countries have promised to prohibit the sale of new gas and diesel cars within a decade. But if electric cars are really so good, why would we need to ban the alternatives?
And why has Canada needed to subsidize each electric car with a minimum $5,000 from the federal government and more from provincial governments to get them bought? Many people are not sold on the idea of an electric car because they worry about having to plan out where and when to recharge. They don’t want to wait for an uncomfortable amount of time while recharging; they don’t want to pay significantly more for the electric car and then see its used-car value decline much faster. For people not privileged to own their own house, recharging is a real challenge. Surveys show that only 15 per cent of Canadians and 11 per cent of Americans want to buy an electric car.
The main environmental selling point of an electric car is that it doesn’t pollute. It is true that its engine doesn’t produce any CO₂ while driving, but it still emits carbon in other ways. Manufacturing the car generates emissions—especially producing the battery which requires a large amount of energy, mostly achieved with coal in China. So even when an electric car is being recharged with clean power in BC, over its lifetime it will emit about one-third of an equivalent gasoline car. When recharged in Alberta, it will emit almost three-quarters.
In some parts of the world, like India, so much of the power comes from coal that electric cars end up emitting more CO₂ than gasoline cars. Across the world, on average, the International Energy Agency estimates that an electric car using the global average mix of power sources over its lifetime will emit nearly half as much CO₂ as a gasoline-driven car, saving about 22 tonnes of CO₂.
But using an electric car to cut emissions is incredibly ineffective. On America’s longest-established carbon trading system, you could buy 22 tonnes of carbon emission cuts for about $660 (US$460). Yet, Ottawa is subsidizing every electric car to the tune of $5,000 or nearly ten times as much, which increases even more if provincial subsidies are included. And since about half of those electrical vehicles would have been bought anyway, it is likely that Canada has spent nearly twenty-times too much cutting CO₂ with electric cars than it could have. To put it differently, Canada could have cut twenty-times more CO₂ for the same amount of money.
Moreover, all these estimates assume that electric cars are driven as far as gasoline cars. They are not. In the US, nine-in-ten households with an electric car actually have one, two or more non-electric cars, with most including an SUV, truck or minivan. Moreover, the electric car is usually driven less than half as much as the other vehicles, which means the CO₂ emission reduction is much smaller. Subsidized electric cars are typically a ‘second’ car for rich people to show off their environmental credentials.
Electric cars are also 320–440 kilograms heavier than equivalent gasoline cars because of their enormous batteries. This means they will wear down roads faster, and cost societies more. They will also cause more air pollution by shredding more particulates from tire and road wear along with their brakes. Now, gasoline cars also pollute through combustion, but electric cars in total pollute more, both from tire and road wear and from forcing more power stations online, often the most polluting ones. The latest meta-study shows that overall electric cars are worse on particulate air pollution. Another study found that in two-thirds of US states, electric cars cause more of the most dangerous particulate air pollution than gasoline-powered cars.
These heavy electric cars are also more dangerous when involved in accidents, because heavy cars more often kill the other party. A study in Nature shows that in total, heavier electric cars will cause so many more deaths that the toll could outweigh the total climate benefits from reduced CO₂ emissions.
Many pundits suggest electric car sales will dominate gasoline cars within a few decades, but the reality is starkly different. A 2023-estimate from the Biden Administration shows that even in 2050, more than two-thirds of all cars globally will still be powered by gas or diesel.
Source: US Energy Information Administration, reference scenario, October 2023
Fossil fuel cars, vast majority is gasoline, also some diesel, all light duty vehicles, the remaining % is mostly LPG.
Electric vehicles will only take over when innovation has made them better and cheaper for real. For now, electric cars run not mostly on electricity but on bad policy and subsidies, costing hundreds of billions of dollars, blocking consumers from choosing the cars they want, and achieving virtually nothing for climate change.
2025 Federal Election
Fight against carbon taxes not over yet

As the federal government removes the consumer carbon tax, the Canadian Taxpayers Federation is calling on all party leaders to oppose all carbon taxes, including the hidden tax on business.
“Canadians fought hard to force Ottawa to back down on its consumer carbon tax and now the fight moves to stopping the hidden carbon tax on business,” said Franco Terrazzano, CTF Federal Director. “Canadians can’t afford a carbon tax on business that pushes up prices at the gas station and makes it harder for our businesses to compete while they’re already struggling with a trade war.”
Today, the federal government cut the consumer carbon tax rate to $0. This will reduce taxes by about 17 cents per litre of gasoline, 21 cents per litre of diesel and 15 cents per cubic metre of natural gas.
The federal government still imposes an industrial carbon tax on oil and gas, steel and fertilizer businesses, among others.
During the Liberal Party leadership race, Prime Minister Mark Carney said he would “improve and tighten” the industrial carbon tax and “extend the framework to 2035.”
Just 12 per cent of Canadians believe businesses pay most of the cost of the industrial carbon tax, according to a Leger poll commissioned by the CTF. Meanwhile, 70 per cent said businesses would pass most or some carbon tax costs on to consumers.
Conservative Party Leader Pierre Poilievre said he will “repeal the entire carbon tax law, including the tax on Canadian businesses and industries.”
“Carbon taxes on refineries make gas more expensive, carbon taxes on utilities make home heating more expensive and carbon taxes on fertilizer plants increase costs for farmers and that makes groceries more expensive,” Terrazzano said. “Canadians know Poilievre will end all carbon taxes and Canadians know Carney’s carbon tax costs won’t be zero.
“Carney owes Canadians a clear answer: How much will your carbon tax cost?”
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Joe Tay Says He Contacted RCMP for Protection, Demands Carney Fire MP Over “Bounty” Remark
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Hong Kong-Canadian Groups Demand PM Carney Drop Liberal Candidate Over “Bounty” Remark Supporting CCP Repression
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Alcohol tax and MP pay hike tomorrow (April 1)
-
Censorship Industrial Complex2 days ago
Welcome to Britain, Where Critical WhatsApp Messages Are a Police Matter
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Poilievre To Create ‘Canada First’ National Energy Corridor
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
China Election Interference – Parties Received Security Briefing Days Ago as SITE Monitors Threats to Conservative Candidate Joe Tay
-
2025 Federal Election2 days ago
Chinese Election Interference – NDP reaction to bounty on Conservative candidate
-
2025 Federal Election1 day ago
Fixing Canada’s immigration system should be next government’s top priority