Posted on 11/09/2025 4:36:36 AM PST by MtnClimber
With the election of Zohran Mamdani as Mayor of New York, much conversation has been made of his appeal to “affordability.”
As I’ve written previously, this is a noble conversation, but one that has been dishonestly framed (by Democrats and media) to date. I will use Mamdani’s comment in his acceptance speech to re-frame the debate.
We will prove that there is no problem too large for government to solve, and no concern too small for it to care about.
Mamdani and the Democrat party have effectively defined a binary choice: Should government or “the market” control affordability? The Democrats are seemingly all in on expanding the size and scope of government, to the point of eventually seizing the means of production.
First let’s look at the role that government has already played and its effect on affordability. What areas in the economy have seen the greatest increase in costs for the consumer? Education, housing, healthcare, and food. Ironically, these are all areas of the economy that the government has interjected itself in the form of subsidies, regulations, government-backed loans, and transfer payments.
In the 1960s, tuition costs were a reasonable expense. The best and brightest pursued advanced degrees and had good-paying high-skilled jobs available upon graduation. Government-backed loans were buffeted by a competitive “private loan” market.
In 2010, Obama eliminated the federal guaranteed loan program, which had let private lenders offer student loans at low interest rates. Now the Department of Education is the only place to go for such loans.
Private lenders (prior to 2010) would lend money based on a risk model, where student loans could be obtained with the lender determining their degree of risk associated with repayment. It didn’t serve their interest to make loans to a large swath of students that might likely not repay
(Excerpt) Read more at americanthinker.com ...
The author thinks the facts matter.
That’s about as dumb as it gets.
“ De-regulation is the answer.”
You mean like the electric utility scam? Texas had regulated electricity forever. Then they de-regulated the industry. Electric service has gone up in price to be a major cost of homeownership, no longer a minor cost.
De-regulation gave us the scam choose your provider. The companies only bill you. The power still comes from the same utility lines.
The current economic price increase has high fuel prices and idiot democRATS as the cause.
Bkmk
Ignorant headline. Unlimited needs versus limited resources is the way of life. Price is the mechanism that balances the two. Housing? It is still possible in many cities to buy a 1200 sq ft house for less than $150k. Cars used sub $10k. Food? As cheap as you wish to eat.
This country is a cheap place to live.
We have, to some degree, put the insurance companies in charge of medicine.
Some people have insurance, and some do not. The haves and have nots come into stark contrast when it comes to medical pricing. Insurance companies disallow charges dramatically. Then they pay part of the remaining charge. Those without insurance pay much more. The term “cost shifting” comes to mind.
What would life be like without government involvement in medicine? In general, I think it would be better, but I can’t give specifics. I suspect the insurance companies would have less clout and there would be less cost shifting to the uninsured.
Recently, there is an explosion of TV ads for all sorts of products delivered in self injectable devices. There is a weight loss self injectable being offered for first time buyers at $100 off.
Apparently government allowed the self injectable products to come to market. We will now see a flood of stuff being marketed that will ba a panacea for every known ailment. It will be self injectable and terribly expensive but it will be legal and available.
Government will have to step in eventually to regulate the flood.
Things are unaffordable because we are ruled by thieves.
“The power still comes from the same utility lines.”
Who owns the utility lines? That sounds like a natural monopoly. If so, price regulation should be considered.
De-regulation, like regulation, must be handled with care. We want intelligent regulation. Usually as little as possible.
Off the top of my head, the rural-urban-suburban structure may be relevant. For example, if lines have to be strung for miles to reach one lonely farmhouse, perhaps there should be a higher charge.
What would the alternatives be for someone living in the country? Solar? A generator? Both?
There is a flood. I recommend a wait and see approach unless you really need something. Even then, go slowly.
My wife has taken a self-injectable shot for migraine headaches for more than a decade. It works great. Long-term effects unknown. One problem with government regulation is they don’t have the answers either. The best experts are in the private sector. Most experts have some conflict of interest.
From the Lord of the Rings (with modification): One expert to rule them all.
Let’s put Doctor Fauci in charge.
I remember a suggestion from John Stossel. If the government thinks you should take something, require a skull and cross bones label and suitable text of a suitable size. If you still want to take it, that’s on you.
CORRECTION”
If the government thinks you should NOT take something, ...
The reason things cost more is that your money has less value, not because the items are less valuable.
Since the nation created the Federal Reserve and fractional reserve banking, the value of your 1913 dollar has decreased by over 96%. That means the steak your dollar bought in 1913 will now cost $32; the steak did not grow in value; your money decreased in value.
That’s why gold and silver are “skyrocketing.”
Their value isn’t going up, but the dollar is going down.
Why? Well, don’t expect a commie to answer. Supply&Demand. Demand is corrupted by imported DNC “voters”, 20M illegals and 50M visa holders.
Get rid of them and all prices will crash. It really is all that simple, but commies will not go there.
They’re unaffordable because of currency debasement.
Medical costs: more, and more expensive treatments. A smoker with lung cancer in 1965 was often written off, especially if over 60. Ongoing diabetes treatment costs are up as more have diabetes, etc. New procedures covered by insurance raise costs for everyone (e.g. IVF, trans-whatever)
Housing costs: Zoning, environmental fees, minimum sizes, mandated enhancements due to newer building codes (e.g. GFC, mandated insulation, ADA compliance for small businesses.
Higher Education: Funding of research means teachers spend less time teaching and more in research. Flow of loan dollars were spent to compete based on amenities (dorms, food, recreation) rather than price. A variety of forces have led to more and more administrators. The administrator to teacher ratio was about 10:1 in 1965, but is closer to 3:1 today.
“Why are things unaffordable?”
Too much Taxes.
Too much Government.
Too much debt.
Too much regulation.
Too much greed.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.