Then why should I give a fuck about your comments? I didn't deny his claim. I challenged him to back it up with some evidence. He failed to do so and so have you. Trying to shift the burden of proof is a standard liars tactic. Another one is the logical fallacy called ad hominem, attacking the arguer instead of the argument. It's very simple you made the statement ,"price controls do not work and never have." I doubt this and asked for some evidence that price controls have never worked. You did not and apparently can not back it up. You are entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts. You need evidence or we realize that your argument is purely philosophical and not based on any facts at all.
Because you can't. I don't own property in a rent-controlled city. The vast majority of the country is entirely unaffected by rent controls Pay attention to what I said, I'm not in favor of rent controls generally. But I already posted the reasons that some cities with low availability of housing enact rent controls to preserve their workforce and tax base lest their commerce decline. Where there is low availability, landlords can gouge tenants and make windfall profits to the detriment of the city.
Then don't... Yea, and where is your evidence to challenge? Not really, you bitch for evidence when really your doubts aren't from your own PROOF, but rather you obsessive need to fix people. You have no evidence to doubt. Or do you? So where is your evidence to state ours is not based on facts? If we know what we know, you can figure out the rest and PROVE we are full of shit.... Until then, you are just filled with hot air like the rest of us BRO.
Prove this and prove that is a child's game. When I speak with adults in various conversations and they SAY something that I think is wrong, I present MY facts to state other wise. IF I am UNSURE about what they SAID because I DO NOT have PROOF myself, I usually ASK them how do they know this. Based on this, which is common I would think amongst us all, I am inclined to think that RED really doesn't know much and INSTEAD of ASKING how we know this, he just says we have NOTHING without PROOF and that he is the winner.. Its fine to challenge and I don't think any of use have much concern with the challenge itself, but to state a claim is false based on lack of evidence with NO evidence presented is well....
1. profits are not to the detriment of the city. hi rent areas are nice areas. the cities with expensive rents are the paces you want to visit. 2. when prices are controlled, the motivation to create new supply i.e. new houses is ruined, causing shortages. again, this is econ 101. rent controls kill the motivation to create and maintain housing. price controls cause shortages, this is like the first day of econ 101. red, have you ever read or learned anything about economics? have you ever read a single book about it? i think the problem maybe that you are simply not understanding the basics.
Nobody needs evidence to challenge a statement made by somebody else. The very idea is laughable. Ad Hominem. You can provide no such evidence, so you shift the subject to attacking the questioner. No one needs evidence to doubt. I'm prepared to back up any statement that I make. Why isn't martin? And why do you care anyway? martin really doesn't need help from you to lose a debate. For the third time, either put up or shut up. I can challenge you to back up anything you say. You are full of shit if you cannot back up what you say when challenged. You challenge me all of the time and I come back with figures to support my contentions. I challenge you all of the time and you often come back with figures. martin never does. He offers rhetoric with no examples, no evidence, and no citations.
I did not state that it was false. I simply asked him for evidence to back up his claim because I am curious. If he produced evidence, I would drop it or counter it with evidence suggesting otherwise. I simply wanted to know if he based it on facts or is just advocating his peculiar philosophy. I can either accept or contest facts. I really don't care about his philosophy. You made a statement on the other thread and I asked where the health law said that. And you put up. You offered an article, but I was able to back source it to the actual clause in the Health Bill that you were citing so that I could read it in context. I did so and dropped the challenge. That is the way it is supposed to work. martin does not do this. He is just expousing his opinions and offers no real evidence to back it up.
eh? my evidence is basic economic theory. when prices go up, the market will act to increase supply. if prices are artificially limited the supply is not increased and shortages happen. rent controls cause housing shortages. i dunno what to tell you if you need more evidence. it happens in every city with rent control. supply dwindles and the non regulated properties cost more than they should because of the supply-reducing effects of rent control. kyle posted a very long article explaining it. rents are high because demand is high. it costs alot to live in downtown paris overlooking the eiffel tower. the reason is that lots of people want that aprtment so the market can bear that cost. rent isnt expensive because of greedy landlords. rent is high because some places are better than others. just like some cars are more expensive that others. if you were to limit the price of really nice cars, nobody would make really nice cars. this is exceedingly easy to understand. so again, high rent is not a problem to be solved. high rent means that a place is desirable. that is good for a city, not bad. i dont want to live in the low rent district. its not a peculair philosophy. remember, politicians are not economists. they are not in the business of improving he world, they are in the business of getting elected. you dont get elected with sound economic policy. you get elected by pandering. my philosophy on price controls is well understood by all economists. but again, politicians are not economists.
In this case of economics, something we have all learned in school and throughout the basic history lessons, there is not a single case that I recall controlling the price of a service or good being of any use, but rather damaging.
