I worry about “affordability politics”

It focuses the listener’s attention on price rather than quantity.  To many people it sounds better than “economic growth,” though often for the wrong reasons.  I cover related points in my latest Free Press article:

Rather than suggesting beneficial economic reforms, the affordability mantra too often leads to “free lunch” thinking and political giveaways. It is a new form of economic populism—a more general rubric of which, after the volatility and disruptions of the Trump tariffs, I have had enough.

I am not opposed to “affordability” as an abstract concept. For instance, I find food prices shockingly high, even in so-so restaurants, and I wish the prices were lower. And if I were in charge of the economy, I would try to lower costs. But there are only so many ways to do that. One option would be to deregulate the energy sector, easing permitting for solar, wind, and nuclear power. Over a five- to 10-year time horizon, that would lead to cheaper energy and, indirectly, to modestly lower food prices. I would also repeal the Trump tariffs, which artificially inflate the cost of foreign goods. I might also refrain from minimum wage increases, which only cause the price of food to rise further.

But even in the best-case scenario, all of those actions would make food just a bit cheaper than it would be otherwise. I would hardly expect voters to hail my reign as a major triumph, or ask for more of the same. Instead, they might flock to the candidate who promises government-run grocery stores or price controls. Sound familiar?

I do not expect this problem to go away anytime soon, and now it is the Trump people too.