[testfoobar]

Of course Krugman got that wrong. It is funny.

But economists don't disagree about the effects of price controls. These are easy to observe and model. These concepts are also taught to Economics undergraduates all over the world - often in their first Microeconomics class. They are not controversial.

Here is a Khan Academy video: https://www.khanacademy.org/economics-finance-domain/microec...

[kelnos]

I feel like economists (as the Krugman quote above seems to illustrate) don't consider the real world. Price controls aren't necessary when there's abundance. When housing supply meets (or slightly exceeds) demand, landlords don't jack up rents every year and displace tenants. When it doesn't, and can't, what do we do to keep people from losing their homes?

(And don't give me the usual drivel about how people who are renting should be expected to assume they'll be kicked out all the time. Compassion, please. These are humans we're talking about.)

[samdoesnothing]

Isn't the obvious solution to build more houses (apartments, flats, whatever)? Like, isn't it incredibly obvious that there is actually a simple solution to this problem - build more so that there is an abundance of choice? How people come to the conclusion that in a densely populated and highly desirable area, the solution isn't building more capacity but rather to artificially cap prices?

It's like a database server running out of memory and the proposed solution isn't to increase memory, but rather just reject new entries into the DB because it's full.

[oezi]

Housing is an inelastic supply which takes long to catch up to demand. Using price controls to combat market excess shouldn't be controversial. But price controls cannot work if underlying policy issues which prevent supply to increase (zoning, permitting, excessive standards) aren't resolved.

[johnnyanmac]

> Compassion, please. These are humans we're talking about.

I think that's the core issue with detractors. Rent control is relief, and those who are not in danger only see the forest and miss the trees burned in the process.

If you only think about humans as a spreadsheet, rent control makes no sense. "You gotta crack a few eggs to make an omelette" kind of deal. Even some otherwise economically progressive people I know seem to miss this, but I suppose being able to comment on the internet carries a bit of security to begin with.

The gold faith interpretation lies in the idea that rent control is political poison. It's unpopular to undo rent control, so it's never undone. And I get that. But

1. I see that as sign of a weak politician. Yeah, sometimes we need higher taxes. No one "likes" taxes but we need them.

2. In some ways, trying to undo rent control means the problem isn't solved yet. There's less resistance against rent control once you see housing prices start to fall naturally.

[crowbahr]

Price controls on inelastic demand are absolutely a subject of debate among economists