The response to the rollout of Kamala Harris’s economic plan, especially the price gouging regulation, has not been good. When you lose the ever-reasonable Catherine Rampell, you should doubt whether you are positioning yourself to attract swing voters. Rampell writes, “It’s hard to exaggerate how bad this policy is. 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. Some far-off Washington bureaucrats would….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.” The centrist editorial page of the Washington Post titles their piece “The times demand serious economic ideas. Harris supplies gimmicks.” What is happening here? I have two hypotheses.One is that the Harris campaign believes that the remaining persuadable swing voters are economically ignorant, so the campaign is offering them economically ignorant economic policies. Bryan Caplan’s wonderful book The Myth of the Rational Voter documents a lot of mistaken beliefs among the general public, including an anti-market bias. Ms. Harris’s political advisers may be steering her to pander to these mistaken beliefs,A second hypothesis involves campaign personnel. The people I see mentioned as Harris economic advisers are Brian Deese, Gene Sperling, Mike Pyle, Deanne Millison, and Brian Nelson. All smart people, no doubt. But as far as I know, none of these people is trained as a PhD economist. They all seem to be lawyers. Maybe lawyers are more inclined to see a problem and think, “I know what new law will fix that.” True economists are more respectful of the invisible hand and more worried about the unintended consequences of heavy-handed regulation.Where is Jason Furman when you need him?  

 Greg Mankiw’s Blog