Critics from all sides are practically rolling their eyes out of their sockets at Vice President Kamala Harris’ latest stroke of genius: controlling food and pharmaceutical prices with good old-fashioned government price controls. Because if there’s one thing history has taught us, it’s that price controls are the key to economic bliss, right? Not. Many critics feel that the plan could lead to supply shortages, increased inflation, and economic turmoil reminiscent of failed policies from the past.

But back to Harris, who proudly rolled out her plan to tackle “price gouging” at grocery stores and cap prescription costs. Harris explained why she feels the need to implement this lovely plan, “Most businesses are creating jobs, contributing to our economy, and playing by the rules, but some are not. And that’s just not right.” Oh, thanks, Kamala, for that a-ha moment. Harris then went on to add, “As president, I will go after the bad actors, and I will work to pass the first-ever federal ban on price gouging on food.”

But hold on—critics couldn’t help but point out that this bright idea isn’t exactly new. Remember when Nixon tried something similar in the ’70s? Yeah, that little project ended up in flames. Of course, Nixon was a Republican; imagine what a left-wing, liberal Democrat could do with such a project.

Robert Bork Jr., president of the Antitrust Education Project, basically summed up what we’re all thinking: “Vice President Harris’ gambit may prove politically popular, just as Nixon’s wage and price controls were for him. But the economic effects will cause us all to suffer, just as Nixon’s plan paved the way for stagflation.” Translation: Get ready for economic whiplash, folks.

Even the free-market Cato Institute and Nobel Prize-winning economist Milton Friedman had called Nixon’s price control plan an “utter failure,” predicting it would unleash suppressed inflation. And, surprise, surprise, they were right. Nixon’s little experiment tanked the stock market and sent inflation skyrocketing, leaving the economy in shambles. But sure, Kamala, go ahead and dust off that old playbook!

Liberal economic columnist Catherine Rampell also weighed in, criticizing Harris’ proposal as “totally unworkable” and comparing it to failed efforts by communist governments. Think Venezuela, where you will be lucky to find a gallon of milk and some eggs. Under Maduro’s reign, people line up waiting for food, while companies in Venezuela shrug their shoulders—why bother working if there’s no profit to be made?

“It’s not going to be markets, it’s not going to be supply and demand that’s determining how much your grocery store charges you for milk or eggs, it’s going to be some bureaucrat in D.C., which seems like totally unworkable,” Rampell said on CNN. She argued that the plan was “bad” for various reasons, from practicality to effectiveness, and pointed out the difficulty in defining what constitutes “price gouging” or “excessive” prices.

Rampell also blasted Democratic legislation as “especially bad.” She criticized the vague language that would allow the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) to arbitrarily decide what constitutes “grossly excessive” prices or profit margins, questioning the wisdom of allowing the FTC to determine, for example, “how much Kroger charges for eggs in Michigan.”

Adding to the skepticism, Harris’ plan targets grocery companies’ “excessive corporate profits” despite the industry’s shrinking margins. According to Grocery Dive, profit margins in the grocery sector fell to 1.6% in 2023, the lowest since 2019. Under Harris’ proposal, the FTC would impose “harsh penalties” on companies that violate the new price gouging limits, although Harris has not specified what these limits or penalties would be.

Former President Donald Trump also criticized Harris’ plan, comparing it to Soviet-era price controls. “If you think things are expensive now, they will get 100 times WORSE if Kamala gets four years as President,” Trump wrote on Truth Social. He warned that Harris’ plan could lead to “SOVIET Style Price Controls,” historically known for causing shortages and empty store shelves in the communist nation.

Ryan McMaken, senior editor at the Mises Institute, explained that Harris’ proposed price controls could replicate the failures seen in the Soviet Union, where similar measures led to severe shortages. As wages increased but prices remained fixed, demand quickly outpaced supply, resulting in long lines and empty store shelves—a bleak outcome they fear could happen under Harris’ policies.

So, in the grand tradition of “those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it,” Harris seems set on taking us down a path well-trodden by the likes of Venezuela and the Soviet Union. But hey, who needs stocked shelves, economic stability, or even basic supply and demand when you can have government-mandated prices and the thrill of waiting in endless lines for a loaf of bread? Buckle up, America—your grocery run is about to get a whole lot more interesting.