3 ms·
Supply vs demand. Rent control is great at that moment. But this means there's and enormous part of the demand that's unmet. If supply would increase there woul
by pas 6y ago
Supply vs demand. Rent control is great at that moment. But this means there's and enormous part of the demand that's unmet. If supply would increase there would be no need for rent control.
(That said ther are many possible problems that need/would-benefit-from regulatory intervention. Eg. high vacancy rate because speculation and long-term investors. The residents of a city probably don't want to live in a playground for perpetual construction due to "irrational demand" and arbitrageurs supplying it. For example when folks in oppressive regimes try to put their money in foreign real estate, they don't real care about doing that efficiently, hence the high vacancy, nor do they care about ROI or anything, just to have better odds than putting it locally, ie. in China/SaudiArabia/etc.)
- sudosysgen 6y agoThe idea that just increasing supply enough would make rent cheap forever does not bear out. Not only do you need massive supply increases for modest decreases in rent, as the article points out, but if you look at the real world, even extremely dense cities like Hong Kong have extremely high rent as rent eventually catches up. You cannot increase supply forever. Rent still continues going up. The solution is to increase supply and have rent control.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- pas 6y agoI've already replied in a different thread, but ... "increase supply forever" ... that is a straw-man. Supply has to increase as long as urbanization and population increase is going on in a given country/state/region. "Rent control" is useful to smooth out the bumps, but it should be called "eviction moratorium" and "negative income tax".