fbpx
01 / 05
What Richard Nixon’s Real Scandal Should Have Been

Blog Post | Economic Freedom

What Richard Nixon’s Real Scandal Should Have Been

A decade of price-control misery

Summary: When President Nixon imposed wage and price controls in 1971, it created chaos. Gas shortages, rationing, and angry customers became daily realities, teaching one young gas station attendant how disastrous top-down economic planning can be. A decade later, when markets were finally freed, supply returned and abundance followed. The lesson endures: politicians create scarcity, but entrepreneurs and free markets create plenty.


Shortly after I turned 15, President Richard M. Nixon managed to make my life miserable. On Sunday August 15, 1971, against the advice of his economic counselors, and in total repudiation of his party’s campaign platform, he announced on national TV that he was suspending the gold standard, imposing a 10 percent tariff surcharge, and imposing wage and price controls.

At the time, I didn’t know a thing about macroeconomics. What I did know was how to make customers happy at my dad’s gas station: Fill their tanks fast, wash their windows, and send them off with a smile.

Nixon’s decision not only shook the foundations of global finance—it trickled all the way down to a teenager pumping gas on Main Street, teaching me firsthand how government policy can reach into everyday life. Nixon’s policies caused a decade of artificial shortages and almost destroyed my father’s business. As Robert Bleiberg, editor of Barron’s, noted at the time, “Price controls, as their advocates have claimed all along, do work like magic. They can make things disappear in the twinkling of an eye.” For me, Nixon’s policies meant no more happy customers, which translated to no more tips.

Like many gas station owners at the time, my dad decided to attempt rationing his limited allotment of fuel by restricting sales to only five gallons per customer. After waiting in line for sometimes more than an hour, most customers were furious to be told that they could only buy five gallons of gas. They took their anger out on their lowly attendant, not on the perpetrator of the calamity living in the White House.

The president, along with the politicians and corporate leaders who cheered for price controls, never had to face the fury of my customers. They could make sweeping decisions from behind their podiums and boardroom tables without ever paying the price for being wrong. As Thomas Sowell once put it, “It is hard to imagine a more stupid or more dangerous way of making decisions than by putting those decisions in the hands of people who pay no price for being wrong.”

Price controls tied the hands of domestic producers while leaving foreign suppliers, such as OPEC, untouched. The result was the opposite of what policymakers had intended. Instead of fueling independence, the policies throttled domestic supply and handed foreign oil giants the keys to America’s energy future.

In 1981, just eight days after taking office, President Ronald Reagan swept away the federal price and allocation controls on domestic oil and refined products. Overnight, my decade of gas-line misery came to an end. Prices did rise—but for the first time in years, people could fill their tanks without rationing, limits, or fear of empty pumps. I learned a key lesson: Politicians create scarcities, entrepreneurs create abundances.

When oil prices surged in the early 2000s, entrepreneurs and markets responded with a wave of innovation. Breakthroughs such as horizontal drilling and hydraulic fracturing unlocked vast new oil reserves, unleashing a surge of supply. America’s unique system of private ownership of subsurface mineral rights—rather than government control—supercharged this revolution by giving landowners a direct stake in production. The results were astonishing: The United States, whose oil industry was once thought to be in irreversible decline, has become a net exporter of petroleum products.

Since 1950 the average time price for a gallon of gasoline has been around six minutes for blue-collar workers. We’re actually around five minutes today. The United States has some of the lowest gasoline time prices on the planet.

Yes, we’ve had periods where the price has spiked, typically due to political turmoil, but time and again, innovation and markets have responded by creating greater abundance. Julian Simon predicted such would be the case, as long as politicians and bureaucrats don’t impose “solutions” that have counter-productive consequences.

Nixon resigned on August 8, 1974, to avoid impeachment for his crime of covering up the Watergate break-in. But to me, his darker crime wasn’t in a hotel—it was in every gas station in America. His Soviet-style controls left behind a nation of frustrated, unhappy customers and pump attendants who bore the real cost of his misguided policies.

Find more of Gale’s work at his Substack, Gale Winds.

Reuters | Cost of Material Goods

Kia CEO Signals Price Cuts in Europe to Compete with China

“Starting this year, Kia has narrowed its vehicle price gap with Chinese models in Europe to 15-20% from 20-25% previously depending on markets, Song said, according to ​a recording of the event obtained by Reuters.

The move highlights how Europe has become a key battleground between legacy ​automakers and Chinese electric vehicle firms such as BYD, as they pursue rapid overseas expansion amid ⁠flagging sales in China and effective exclusion from the U.S. market.”

From Reuters.

Blog Post | Cost of Material Goods

Two Centuries of Increasing Paper Abundance

If we're running out, why is it so cheap?

Summary: Paper has become dramatically more affordable over the last two centuries. Abundance comes not primarily from conservation or recycling but from improved knowledge and technology. The increasing efficiency of turning plentiful trees into paper is a good example of that.


In 1826, a ream of 500 sheets of paper cost about $5.00. With average wages near five cents an hour, the time price was 100 hours. Paper was precious because modern papermaking techniques had yet to be invented—we had yet to discover the knowledge needed to innovate the product.

Today, a ream of 500 much higher-quality sheets sells for $7.99 at Staples. With average wages around $36.86 an hour, the time price is just 13 minutes.

The time price of paper has fallen by 99.78 percent over the last 200 years. For the time required to earn the money for a single sheet in 1826, a worker today can obtain 461 sheets. Scarcity didn’t disappear because we conserved paper, but because we learned how to transform abundant trees into even more abundant paper.

What About Recycled Paper?

Many people assume that recycling paper saves resources. If that were true, why is recycled paper about 85 percent more expensive than virgin paper? The answer is that the United States has roughly 300 billion trees, while recycling itself consumes substantial energy, labor, and capital.

A useful question whenever someone warns that we’re “running out” of something is simple: If it’s so scarce, why is it so cheap?

Remember, abundance doesn’t come from good intentions; it comes from innovation. Over two thousand years, paper has migrated from papyrus to cotton and linen rags to wood pulp—each transition a triumph of human ingenuity over scarcity. What we consume is not trees or fibers, but knowledge encoded in matter. And the more we consume, the more we discover. That is why paper is plentiful, pencils are cheap, and light is abundant. Wealth is learning made visible, and abundance is the dividend of ideas.

Find more of Gale’s work at his Substack, Gale Winds.

Blog Post | Cost of Living

A New Way to Understand American Abundance

Our index measures how long you have to work to buy what you used to buy.

Summary: Our new American Abundance Index measures living standards by asking one question: How long do you have to work to buy what you used to buy? Time prices offer a clearer view of American abundance than wages or dollar prices alone. Using standard government data, the index shows that despite recent inflation concerns, time prices have generally fallen and abundance has risen over the long term for the average worker.


Americans are told, daily, that they are getting poorer. The left points to “record” prices and concludes that capitalism has failed. The right points to the same prices and concludes that America is in irreversible decline. Both sides lean on a familiar statistical trick: they talk about prices or pay in isolation, then invite readers to fill in the rest with anxiety.

There is a simpler and truer way to judge living standards. Ask one question: How long do you have to work to buy what you used to buy?

That is the idea behind the new American Abundance Index, a tool that translates economic health into units normal people understand: hours of work. It uses standard government statistics, comparing inflation (the Consumer Price Index) with hourly earnings from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. The output is not a partisan narrative. It is a measure of purchasing power that speaks plain English.

The index tracks two measures. Time Price represents how many work-hours are needed to purchase the standard CPI basket of goods and services. Abundance is the inverse. It represents how much of that basket one hour of work can buy.

When time prices fall, abundance rises. When time prices rise, abundance falls.

The American Abundance Index starts in March 2006, when the relevant earnings series become available, and updates monthly following BLS releases. It reports month-over-month, year-over-year, five-year, ten-year, and since-start changes so readers can separate short-term noise from long-term reality.

That distinction matters because the loudest arguments about living standards are usually built on selective time windows.

Recent numbers illustrate the point. For the average private-sector worker, December 2025 saw a tiny monthly decline in CPI and a larger rise in average hourly earnings. The result was a decline in time prices and a rise in abundance for that month. Over the year from December 2024 to December 2025, CPI rose 2.68 percent while hourly earnings rose 3.76 percent. Time prices fell 1.04 percent, and abundance rose 1.05 percent.

Zoom out further. Since March 2006, time prices for the BLS basket have fallen 12.16 percent and abundance has risen 13.84 percent. The index translates those findings into an intuitive claim: over that period, the average private-sector worker gained the equivalent of roughly 1.1 extra hours of purchasing power for every eight hours worked.

The product is not just one headline series. It includes separate views for all private-sector workers and for blue-collar workers. It also includes “upskilling” scenarios that reflect a basic fact of labor markets that both ideological camps often ignore: people do not stay in the same job, at the same wage, for decades. Many workers move from entry-level roles into higher-paying roles as they gain skills. A living-standards tool should help readers see what that typical path implies for purchasing power over time, rather than freezing workers in place for rhetorical effect.

So how does this fit into today’s abundance argument, and the misuse of statistics by left and right?

The left’s favorite move is to spotlight prices, preferably the most salient and emotionally charged ones, then treat the price level as the full story. But prices are only half the equation. Wages and work-hours are the other half. If pay rises faster than prices, the public is not “getting poorer” in any meaningful aggregate sense, even if the public is angry, and even if some groups are falling behind.

The right’s favorite move is different but no less misleading. It treats every inflation episode, every housing squeeze, and every bout of consumer pessimism as proof of national decline. It cherry-picks peaks, ignores recoveries, and sometimes talks as if today’s worker has no mobility and no capacity to adapt. That is how you turn real problems into a permanent story of collapse.

The American Abundance Index does not settle policy debates. It disciplines them. It forces advocates to answer the question that matters to households: How many minutes of my life does this cost, and how has that changed? If your preferred policy raises time prices, you are making people poorer, whatever your rhetoric. If it lowers time prices, you are making people richer, even if it offends someone’s ideology.

The index is also candid about limits. It focuses on averages, may not capture individual experiences, and is most meaningful over longer periods than a single month. That is not a weakness. It is a reminder that serious measurement should separate broad trends from personal hardship, and that anecdotes are not statistics.

If journalists and politicians want fewer mirages and more reality, they should start here: stop counting dollars. Start counting hours.

Blog Post | Cost of Material Goods

Ice Blocks to Electrons: The Rise of Refrigeration Abundance

Workers today get 214 refrigerators for the time price of one in 1925.

Summary: A century ago, people used large ice blocks and wooden cabinets to keep food cold. Today, electric refrigeration is more affordable, easy, and reliable thanks to technological innovation. The shift from ice blocks to electrons shows how human ingenuity can transform necessities from costly burdens into everyday conveniences.


In 1925, households kept food cool with iceboxes—wooden insulated cabinets chilled by a block of ice. Depending on size and quality, they typically cost between $15 and $50. With entry-level workers earning about $0.25 an hour, a $35 icebox carried a time price of 140 hours.

Today, a 4.4-cubic-foot mini fridge at Walmart sells for about $184. Entry-level workers in limited-service restaurants earn roughly $18.75 an hour, bringing the time price down to just 9.8 hours.

For the time it took a worker in 1925 to earn the money for one icebox, a worker today can buy 14.3 mini fridges.

The 1925 icebox didn’t actually come with any ice. The price of a 100-pound block of ice in 1925 was typically $0.25, and that could double during “ice famines” caused by mild winters. At $0.25 an hour, a 100-pound block of ice would cost one hour and would generally last for three to seven days. If the ice block lasted five days that would be a time price of 12 minutes a day.

The Walmart mini fridge requires 269 kilowatt-hours (kWh) per year, or 0.74 kWh per day. Residential electricity runs around $0.12 per kWh, so a year’s supply of electricity for cooling will cost $32.28, or 1.72 hours for entry-level workers. Spread out over the year, it would require 17 seconds a day.

For the time it took a worker in 1925 to earn the money to buy ice cooling for a day, workers today get 43 days of electric cooling.

Electric refrigerators entered American homes in 1927 when General Electric introduced the iconic “Monitor Top,” named for its resemblance to the USS Monitor, a Civil War ironclad warship. The unit sold for $525. With entry-level workers earning $0.25 an hour, the time price came to an extraordinary 2,100 hours. Today, the Walmart mini fridge costs 9.8 hours of work. The time price has fallen 99.53 percent. For the time it took a worker in 1927 to earn enough money for one electric refrigerator, a worker today can buy 214 mini fridges—a stunning increase of 21,300 percent in refrigeration abundance, compounding at 5.62 percent a year.

The US population has tripled from 116 million in 1925 to 348 million today. For every 1 percent increase in population, personal refrigerator abundance has increased 106 percent (21,300% ÷ 200% = 106%).

Find more of Gale’s work at his Substack, Gale Winds.