> If you do not understand that the laws of supply and demand are... Clear from this opener you've not read either of my comments. At no point do I contradict

> If you do not understand that the laws of supply and demand are... Clear from this opener you've not read either of my comments. At no point do I contradict or argue against the laws of supply and demand I'm merely pointing out that (a) building houses has limited impact on supply without accompanying measures and (b) building houses increases demand in particular circumstances. The combination of these two (less impact on supply and an increase in demand) make this measure only a small component of what's needed. > Do you think that landlords could keep getting away with $3000/mo [...] When cheap substitutes become available, the price of a good falls. Your last line is confusing as you say "cheap" and "price of good falls": how can one lead to the other, they're both the same thing? This is the cart before the horse? The market sets the prices of the "cheap subsitute" so it will only become cheap according to the laws of supply and demand. i.e. only if supply approaches/matches/exceeds demand. I'm not arguing supply and demand doesn't apply (that's ridiculous), I'm just arguing your idea won't increase supply as much as you believe, and won't leave demand static.