One of the central problems with the U.S. economy is that it is not nearly as much of a free market as it should be. That should be a starting point for any serious discussion of the country’s affordability crisis. Instead, the Left has decided that the answer to a shortage of market freedom is more government control. Among its favorite proposals are price controls: laws dictating how much businesses may charge for certain goods.
American left-wing politicians would do well to take a lesson from Singaporean Prime Minister Lawrence Wong, who explained last week why his country, which ranks above the United States in economic freedom, avoids precisely that approach.
Singapore PM why his government doesn't cap prices to reduce cost of living pressures. What western leader today could explain the value of price signals in such a way? https://t.co/a2vRZ9X33W
— space cadet 🇪🇺🌐🇩🇪 (@actsmaniac) October 9, 2026
"Our general approach when it comes to cost and affordability is to say, look, if prices are high, we recognize that these are legitimate price signals. We should not artificially have the government intervene to cap prices, because that may lead to a lot of unintended consequences," Wong said. "Yes, always. Always."
"One of the reasons why during the energy crisis we have been able to get supplies of crude oil into Singapore is that we are buying oil at market prices, whatever the market price. If we were to say, no, I should not buy at $120, I will only buy at $80, who is going to sell to us? Then you will have a supply crunch. So if prices are high, we accept that these are market prices. But what we do instead of intervening to cap the price is to provide targeted support for the households and the groups that need that support. So we do that for utility rebates. We do that for targeted cash support for lower-income and middle-income families."
Recommended
The central lesson is that price controls always have consequences beyond their stated intent. Price controls lead to shortages, whether applied to rental apartments in New York City, minimum wage laws reducing the number of jobs available to young people in California, crude oil, or credit card interest rates. That lesson extends to nearly every government intervention. Beyond the intended benefit, there is always some consequence that makes the situation worse.
What is more concerning is how few Americans seem to believe this anymore. Several weeks ago, The Wall Street Journal published a poll showing broad support for price controls as a response to the affordability crisis, with approval well above 60 percent in many cases. Americans backed caps on child care costs, prescription drug prices, credit card interest rates, and rent increases.
Why is the instinct always to restrict? Markets are already constrained by government intervention, yet every affordability problem becomes an argument for another layer of control. Well, of course, the government has better public relations than the intangible body of a free market. So it can offer a solution, and then escape the blame when it goes horribly wrong.
The affordability crisis will begin to end when voters stop falling for the lie that more government control will solve problems it helped create. Open the markets, reduce regulations, and encourage competition. Americans need more homes, more goods, and more services, not more laws discouraging their production. Bringing prices down requires putting the free-market principles conservatives profess to believe into practice. Proclaiming support for capitalism while embracing government control at every opportunity only deepens the crisis. And it's not something we can afford as socialists continue to gain ground within the Democrat Party.
Editor's Note: Do you enjoy Townhall's conservative reporting that takes on the radical Left and woke media? Support our work so that we can continue to bring you the truth.
Join Townhall VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership.