> Simply pointing to "supply and demand" and operating by maximalist principle is a vague argument. You have to actually engage with the fact that housing can n

> Simply pointing to "supply and demand" and operating by maximalist principle is a vague argument. You have to actually engage with the fact that housing can never be an ideal markets and that inelasticities are indeed great. I never made a maximalist argument of any kind. I never said there can be an ideal market. I merely think that we should move towards an ideal market (which we will never reach) rather than on rent control (which is at best a band-aid). > I'm not being a pure empiricist. A basic theory made an empirical prediction - that rent control would decrease supply - and the theory is wrong. You can't then use the same theory that made an already incorrect prediction to make a second prediction that is this time almost impossible to evaluate empirically. Find another theory and make an original prediction, without ex-post-facto retconning, and we can judge that theory on the merits. The idea that some studies have falsified supply and demand is bizarre. You're assuming "inelasticities" and regulations are fixed for some reason. Ease zoning restrictons and watch supply increase. Then enact rent control and watch supply decrease.