Even if what you said was true, and it isn't, then you are just telling me why rent control is bad because it causes scarcity and higher prices. Read Kyles article. Rent control causes housing shortages, hurting the people it is supposed to help. One more time: price controls do not work and never have. Things cost what they cost and trying to manipulate that hurts people whether you are manipulating the price of labor or rent or falafel.
when people are not allowed to pay each other what they want, it ruins the natural flow of supply and demand. rent control necessarily lessens the profit motive for landlords and reduces incentives to build new housing or maintain current housing. this necessarily creates shortages, reducing supply and raising prices. (i cant help but think that i am wasting my time explaining basic economic theory to you. supply and demand and incentives. yu dont care about that. you dont care about nuance and complexity. you care about believing you are helping. if you tell yourself that something helps, then you are happy, even as it hurts everyone. this is the nature of political discourse among people like you. it isnt about problem solving. problems are not about the challenge of a solution for you, they are about a chance to think of yourself the way you want to. i dont oppose rent control because i hate poor people and i am a short-sighted selfish clod. and similarly, you dont favor it because you are genuinely a good person that is concerned for everyone welfare. the opposite is true) every situation is managed by the market. this is why gouging is a false concept. if, for example you ban price gouging of water bottles or plywood for store windows during a hurricane, you get shortages because the item is undervalued. if a hurricane is coming, and water is sold for exorbitant prices, then water vendors from miles around will be willing to risk it and bring in more supply. and water bottles from other areas will be brought in by fellas who could not afford the risk otherwise. and a guy who needs 3 water bottles will only buy 3 because that is all he can afford. without price gouging he would buy a hundred bottles and the next guy would show up to empty shelves because artificial prices necessarily create shortages. and the second guy would have pad 10x the price because he really needed it. so things would be distributed according to actual need, and the supply would react to market forces. and if you understand this, you should be understand why market forces work and why price ceilings and floors ruin the whole operation. voluntary transactions for mutual benefit, this is the whole basis of freedom, this is the most important concept in economics and probably in all of the social sciences. you need to understand that people have to be allowed to exchange things the way they want, and that "solutions" imposed on them are always the result of a poor understanding of the situation and result in unintended consequences. the time for intervention into priate contracts is when one party defrauds the other, never when two parties enter into a voluntary contract, like a lease or a salary. stop letting you tendency to want to favor the cause that you believe is righteous influence your decisionmaking. trust that free people will act in their own interest without your manipulation. if a man takes a job for a low salary, or rents a place for more than he can afford, let him. he is responding to his incentives, its his life. you dont understand his motivations.
also this same argument applies to our past discussions about oil prices. people respond to incentives. if il prices are high, they make changes. the argument for price controls always relies on the false pretense that people do not have a choice. the liberal always says that the person has no choice, they cant move. they cant work anywhere but the place with the low salary. they cant not drive their SUV. they have no choice. but that is a lie. the only thing that ever really protects people is choice. you dont have to live near gossip girl on the upper east side. you dont have to drive an SUV buring gas for 50 miles on your commute. you dont have to take the job paying less than you are worth. these are false premises. the government does not protect you, the market does, your freeom to leave or stay or buy or not buy or whatever, it is choice that protects us from oppression. choice is what protects the consumer, the worker, the employer. take away choice and you punish almost everyone except the small group of idiots, the asshole that has the UWS apartment for 1000, or the worker that isnt worth minimum wage. and in the long run, even they will probably lose because of the damage you do to the market and the general wealth of the world. minimum wage, and rent controls, the only real benfit of these things is to politicians who exploit unsophisticated folks like yourself to stay in power.
Who is really getting used here? Why do all the poor people and minorities seem to always complain about being held back and down? I thought the Dems had there back? Those checks not doing much of anything....
My, what power I seem to have over you. So do my bidding, peasant. I didn't ask for more of your rhetoric, I asked for some proof that it is true. You are always tediously long on Randian philosophy and notably short on simple evidence.
FAIL. A logical fallacy called shifting the burden of proof. I'm not the one who made the claim. He must put up or shut up. I try to make statements that I can back up with evidence when challenged.
I don't give a fuck what he asked. He made a claim and you said he had no proof to back it up. Where is your proof to deny his?
You are the one trying to justify intervention in everyone's life. I am advocating allowing free exchange between people. I am advocating leaving people alone. So the burden of proof is on me when you are the one who wants to force your will on people making voluntary exchanges? But if the burden of proof is on me, and you need evidence, open an Econ 101 textbook.
