> If you nationalize housing and hold prices low, then there will be supply shortages where some folks will not be able to get housing who would happily pay your price.
If you nationalize housing, wouldn't you also subsidize supply?
While that'd be able to guarantee housing on an "a home exists for every person in the country" level, it pretty often means sending people away from economically-healthy areas (which should have plenty of housing competition / are or will be built to capacity, because they're healthy). Subsidized housing in those areas is more expensive by far for someone, regardless of how it's done.
Hence the wait-lists even where it exists; people want to live where they can be near what they need (be that work, medical, family, etc), not literally anywhere. The "literally anywhere" tradeoff may be worse than homelessness, or at least perceived to be.
Groxx|4 years ago
Hence the wait-lists even where it exists; people want to live where they can be near what they need (be that work, medical, family, etc), not literally anywhere. The "literally anywhere" tradeoff may be worse than homelessness, or at least perceived to be.
GauntletWizard|4 years ago
The short answer is: No, in a command economy, what happens is whatever the politicos demand.
lotsofpulp|4 years ago
2fast4you|4 years ago