Americans are tired of paying more for housing, groceries, electricity, insurance and health care. Politicians understand that frustration and promise to make life more affordable.

Former North Carolina Governor Roy Cooper has made "Make Stuff Cost Less" a centerpiece of his U.S. Senate campaign. In a recent Wall Street Journal video, congressional candidates discussed their economic solutions, including Medicare for All, higher taxes on wealthy Americans, tariffs and stronger competition enforcement.

These proposals are not economically equivalent. Some seek to expand production and competition. Others provide financial assistance, redistribute costs or protect particular industries.

But every proposal should answer a fundamental question:

Will it make essential goods and services less expensive to produce and more readily available, or will it simply help selected consumers pay today's prices?

The difference matters.

Housing: What Happens When Government Subsidizes Scarcity?

Imagine a town with 100 apartments available and 150 families searching for housing.

Suppose the government gives every prospective renter $500 a month to help pay the rent.

Some families will benefit. But there are still only 100 apartments. With more money competing for the same limited housing, landlords may be able to charge higher rents, capturing part of the subsidy.

Now suppose the town instead removes unnecessary zoning restrictions, accelerates permitting and allows developers to build 75 additional apartments.

More families can find housing. Landlords face greater competition. Rents may fall relative to what they otherwise would have been.

The second approach addresses the shortage itself.

Does this mean housing subsidies always raise rents? No. A 2015 study in the American Economic Journal: Economic Policy by Michael Eriksen and Amanda Ross found that expanding housing vouchers did not increase rents overall. However, larger price increases occurred among certain rental units in cities where housing supply was relatively unresponsive.

The lesson is practical: when supply cannot expand readily, increasing purchasing power may do less to improve affordability than policymakers expect.

Rent Control: Who Benefits, and Who Loses?

Price controls offer another illustration.

In 2019, economists Rebecca Diamond, Tim McQuade and Franklin Qian published a study in the American Economic Review examining San Francisco's expansion of rent control.

They found that rent control protected existing tenants from displacement. But affected landlords reduced their rental housing supply by roughly 15%, in part by selling or redeveloping properties. The authors estimated that citywide rents rose by about 5.1%, and they concluded that government social insurance may be a better way to help tenants than mandates imposed on landlords.

The distinction is crucial. Existing tenants may benefit from regulated rents while future renters face fewer available homes and potentially higher prices.

Policies intended to make housing affordable can undermine that objective if they discourage the creation or continued availability of rental homes.

The Political Promise to Make Things Cost Less

Politicians frequently propose subsidies, tax credits and expanded government benefits to relieve household financial pressures.

Such assistance may be justified, especially for families facing genuine hardship. But its economic effects depend on how markets respond.

Consider child care.

Suppose a community has 1,000 available daycare places but 1,300 families seeking them. A new $3,000 child care tax credit gives eligible parents more purchasing power.

If providers cannot readily hire workers, expand facilities or open new centers, some may increase tuition. The subsidy could then benefit child care providers as well as parents.

Alternatively, making it easier to open child care facilities, expand safe capacity and recruit qualified staff could increase available places and strengthen price competition.

The same questions arise with housing assistance, education subsidies and health care benefits.

A policy that reduces a family's immediate bill may be valuable. But it does not necessarily reduce the total cost of providing the service.

Medicare for All: Who Pays, Who Provides, and Who Waits?

Candidates advocating Medicare for All present expanded government-financed health care as a solution to unaffordable medical care.

Consider a family paying $6,000 a year ($500 a month) in health insurance premiums.

Under a single-payer system, those private premiums might disappear. Yet physicians, nurses, hospitals, medications and medical equipment still require payment.

The family might instead pay higher taxes. Whether it comes out ahead depends on its income, current health care expenses and the specific tax and benefit arrangements.

Now consider access to care.

If millions more Americans become insured and face little or no charge for appointments, more people may seek treatment. That is a potential benefit, particularly for people who previously postponed necessary care.

But what if the available supply of doctors, nurses, operating rooms and hospital beds cannot expand quickly enough?

Waiting times may increase.

The Congressional Budget Office examined five illustrative single-payer health care systems in a December 2020 analysis. Depending on the system's design, CBO projected that total national health care spending in 2030 could range from $700 billion less to $300 billion more than under projected current law.

CBO also projected that federal health care subsidies would increase by $1.5 trillion to $3 trillion in 2030.

Why such different outcomes?

Lower payments to hospitals and physicians, along with reduced insurance administration, could save money. Greater use of medical services could increase spending.

CBO also projected that increased demand would exceed increases in supply under its illustrative designs, producing more unmet demand, including delays and forgone care, even as more people received treatment.

These are not predictions for every universal health care arrangement. They illustrate how much the results depend on financing, provider payments, patient costs and available medical capacity.

Universal coverage can improve financial protection and access to necessary services. But its advocates must demonstrate how a proposed system would finance care, control costs, preserve quality and provide adequate capacity.

Eliminating a $500 monthly insurance premium is not necessarily a $500 monthly economic saving if the household's taxes rise by as much, or if it cannot obtain a timely medical appointment.

Competition Can Reduce Costs Without Another Subsidy

Many consumers have noticed that some routine repairs now involve expensive assemblies rather than inexpensive parts.

Some modern repairs genuinely require more advanced technology. But restrictions on access to diagnostic information, replacement parts and repair tools can also limit consumer choice.

Right-to-repair policies seek to expand opportunities for consumers and independent repair businesses to maintain products.

Consider two repair shops competing for customers instead of one authorized dealer controlling access to a necessary repair.

Competition can encourage lower prices, faster service and innovation, provided legitimate safety, security and intellectual-property concerns are addressed.

Similarly, removing unnecessary barriers to opening businesses or expanding housing can increase supply without requiring taxpayers to finance each purchase.

Tariffs: When Protectionism Raises Prices

Tariff proposals deserve equally careful examination.

Tariffs may protect selected domestic manufacturers or serve national-security objectives. But import duties can also increase costs for American consumers and businesses.

Consider an American manufacturer that imports steel components. A tariff raises its input costs unless suppliers absorb the increase. The manufacturer may raise its own prices, accept lower profits or reduce investment.

Tariffs also affect the federal budget. In a March 5, 2026 update, the Congressional Budget Office estimated that terminating the tariffs imposed under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act would increase primary deficits by about $1.6 trillion over 2026 to 2036, before accounting for economic effects. Tariff revenue and tariff prices are two sides of the same policy question.

Domestic supply-chain resilience may provide national-security benefits. But those benefits should be weighed against the higher costs that protection can impose on households and businesses.

Protecting an industry from competitors is not automatically the same as making Americans more prosperous.

What Actually Creates Lasting Prosperity?

Imagine a farmer who harvests 100 bushels of wheat a day.

With better equipment, improved irrigation and new farming techniques, the same farmer can harvest 200 bushels.

Output has doubled without doubling the labor required.

That is productivity growth.

Similar improvements occur when businesses invest in technology, train workers, develop more efficient production methods and compete to serve customers.

Productivity growth can support higher real wages, increased production and lower costs. But these gains are not distributed automatically or equally; competition, labor-market conditions and institutions matter.

Government can also contribute through infrastructure, education, basic research and the protection of property rights and competition.

The question is whether a particular policy improves productive capacity and public welfare sufficiently to justify its costs.

Six Questions Every Affordability Policy Should Answer

Before accepting any promise to make life more affordable, citizens should ask:

1. Supply: Will the policy increase the amount of goods and services available?

2. Productivity: Will it enable businesses and workers to produce more efficiently?

3. Competition: Will it encourage new entrants and consumer choice, or protect existing producers?

4. Costs: Who ultimately pays, including through taxes, higher prices or government borrowing?

5. Consequences: Could it create shortages, discourage investment or produce other unintended effects?

6. Results: Does it address the underlying affordability problem, provide temporary financial relief, or accomplish some combination of both?

These questions should apply to every political party and every economic proposal.

Prosperity Requires More Than Political Promises

Americans need more than promises that someone will make their bills smaller.

They deserve explanations of how specific policies will affect prices, supply, investment, competition, government finances and long-term economic growth.

Financial assistance can help households facing hardship. Public investment can sometimes expand productive capacity. But neither subsidies nor price controls can repeal the basic economic reality that goods and services require labor, capital, materials and time to produce.

The enduring challenge is to make the economy more capable of meeting people's needs.

Greater prosperity comes from producing more value, not merely finding someone else to pay today's bill.

Sources

Eriksen, Michael D., and Amanda Ross. "Housing Vouchers and the Price of Rental Housing." American Economic Journal: Economic Policy, 2015.
doi.org/10.1257/pol.20130064 →

Diamond, Rebecca, Tim McQuade, and Franklin Qian. "The Effects of Rent Control Expansion on Tenants, Landlords, and Inequality: Evidence from San Francisco." American Economic Review, 2019.
doi.org/10.1257/aer.20181289 →

Congressional Budget Office. "How CBO Analyzes Proposals for a Single-Payer Health Care System," December 2020.
cbo.gov →

Congressional Budget Office. "The Budget and Economic Outlook: 2026 to 2036," February 2026.
cbo.gov →

Congressional Budget Office. "Update on Tariffs," March 5, 2026.
cbo.gov →

Wall Street Journal. "Seven Midterm Candidates Tell Us Their Fixes for the Economy."
wsj.com →

Roy Cooper for North Carolina. "Make Stuff Cost Less."
roycooper.com →