It’s hard to believe, but both presidential campaigns keep getting worse. Have we learned anything? As I’ve pointed out in my series, “The Long Journey to More,” settled societies were run by the ruling elites for their benefit, while the masses were left to subsistence. Kings and emperors picked winners and losers. It was better to align with the ruling powers than rock the boat with innovation.

From the Pharaohs in ancient Egypt to Louis the Fourteenth in France, rulers dictated who got what. However, the fifteenth century ushered in changes undermining elite arbitrary authority, resulting in markets, not masters dictating actions. More people participated in making, trading, and benefitting from new goods used in innovative ways. A new system replaced the old great for the few but bare sustenance for most with “More” for those allowed to partake.

Moral philosophers began to take notice. The author of “The Theory of Moral Sentiments” proposed that markets, rather than potentates, making decisions on prices and what to produce and sell would bring widespread benefits. The “invisible Hand” of markets was the moral way to “The Wealth of Nations.” At the time, no one thought of this Scotsman as an “economist” because, in retrospect, he was the father of this “science.” He and his contemporaries thought of Adam Smith only as a philosopher.

The system Smith advanced became known as Capitalism. We rely on markets rather than elites. A system rewarding those coming closest to market-driven with far “more” than those remaining or returning to the top-down direction of the past do with far less.

So why do both candidates base their economic policies on picking winners and losers while setting prices? Kamala Harris seems hell-bent on continuing the Biden-Harris administration’s market interventions, going full bore on windmills, solar panels, and electric vehicles (EVs) while adding a massive intersession in the housing market. Harris wants to pick winners and losers in “cutting-edge fields.”

Harris claims high grocery store prices are due to price gouging, and she’ll pursue these miscreants. Of course, this means arriving at baseline “fair” prices the gougers are exceeding. That’s price-setting. While we’re on the subject, I see thousands of items from hundreds of suppliers when I go to the grocery store. Can Kamala name which ones are the gougers? Just name one. Is it the store itself?

Trump will continue to expand tariffs to determine his winners and losers. He’ll add capping credit card interest rates on credit cards. As the interest rate is the price of money, this is a price-setting.  

Both will use tax breaks to favor some over others. With Harris, making the successful “pay their fair share” begs the question, what exactly is their fair share? With the top one percent already paying nearly half of all income taxes, what figure does she have in mind?

Trump and Harris both oppose a Japanese company’s acquisition of U.S. Steel.

Trump will tax corporations differently depending on where they produce. This policy needs some explanation, as it does not square with our treaty obligations with our friendly neighbors, Canada and Mexico.

All these policies have easily foreseeable adverse outcomes. We’re already seeing the Biden-Harris “Green New Deal” massive subsidies resulting in resistance to Evs, causing production cutbacks, while wind and solar face financial and completion difficulties. I’ll never comprehend why we’re pouring money into solutions where China and others have comparative advantages.

While Harris says she’ll build millions of new homes, these are subject to a host of local obstacles over which she’ll have little or no control. At best, this will take a lot of time, and there is no guarantee of achieving the needed numbers. Without a massive increase in the supply, her $25,000 down payment gift to first-time buyers can only raise home prices by a similar amount.

The Trump administration’s tariffs failed, so why double down on fiascos? While helping some domestic steel and aluminum producers, they hurt far more users and consumers. These actions forced even friendly countries to retaliate with tariffs against our products. Tariffs done on an expanded basis will have even worse results.

It’s worth noting the Briden-Harris administration retained almost all of the Trump tariffs.

Price controls send the wrong message to markets about when to increase supply, leading to shortages. If you desire to see empty shelves at the grocery store or your access to credit is restricted, this is the way to go.

The opposition to the U.S. Steel acquisition by both illustrates the results of bad economic policy. Since the Reagan era, we’ve protected U.S. Steel with tariffs and quotas. Not forced to compete, the company fell behind more innovative competitors here and abroad. Nippon Steel promised to modernize facilities and employ its successful processes.

Because of their opposition, we’ll alienate a vital ally in Japan while dooming U.S. Steel to marriage with another U.S. producer, Cleveland Cliffs, needing protection to stay in business. How does this make good policy?

Both candidates espouse extensive government interventions in markets more akin to Russia, Venezuela, or Cuba than a “Capitalist” nation; it’s hard to discern which will achieve a faster decline.

The one area where Trump gets closer to Capitalism is curbing our massive regulations, which stunt our ability to do much of anything. When in power, Trump did an admirable job curbing the growth of our regulatory state and made some progress in reducing the number.

On the other hand, the Biden-Harris administration has added reams of regulations, and the Harris administration promises more of the same.

Imagine the world’s leading capitalist country looking at only some reining in of regulations. At the same time, the government increases its market interventions as the best outcome it can expect from the coming election. Can’t we do better?