Well use whatever words you like, you said he was basically full of shit and spewing his opinion. I think American history clearly lays out how a free enterprise is far more good than a government control one.. It's not philosophy anymore when we are living off the fruits of a free society..
correct. when a price ceiling is below market rates, it necessarily reduces supply. this is not something to debate, this is a fundamental truth about economics. the argument red should make is not about economics. i win that, there is no debate. red should argue that there is social value to having poor people around, and this is worth the negatives that rent control cause. unfortunately for red, the economic reality is that the housing shortages caused by rent control hurt poor people the most. there is no rational argument for price controls on the market. again, the only argument is purely political, for exploiting the people, abusig their ignorance to get votes. the average idiot voter doesnt understand even simple economic theory. and politicians exploit that.
Consequences of binding price ceilings A price ceiling set below the free-market price has several effects. Suppliers find they can't charge what they had been. As a result, some suppliers drop out of the market. This reduces supply. Meanwhile, consumers find they can now buy the product for less, so quantity demanded increases. These two actions cause quantity demanded to exceed quantity supplied, which causes a shortage http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_ceiling again, this is basic stuff. arguing with this is like arguing with simple arithmetic.
"Although price controls are often used by governments, economists usually agree that price controls don't accomplish what they are intended to do and are generally to be avoided.[1" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_controls this is basically exctly what i just said about politicians vs economists. the question is whether you are pandering or actually trying to solve a problem. red panders. martin solves. politicians pander, economists solve.
That is just it. I've heard your opinions ad infinitum, ad nauseum. I want to know if you can offer any actual examples that suggest that price controls have never worked.
Don't ever try to put words in my mouth because you suck at it. I made a two words request . . . "prove it". martin declined. Case closed. It ain't even your argument. Are you his mother? In time martin will either put up or shut up.
I didn't put words in your mouth, that is my perception of your constant attempt to disprove martin for proof that you deem unworthy..
This is rich coming from the world champion question begger and bar raiser. In fact, in this case you are the one committing the ad hominem fallacy. You made the claim that rent controlss are needed in NYC. Where is your evidence? Remember when I said that the top 1% paid the highest effective tax rates, and linked to the CBO table which supported my fact, and you asked me to proove it. No one is going to present you with evidence because you never consider evidence that disagrees with opinions. Martin has explained exactly why price controls always fail, and you are simply being a contrarian.
History is full of examples. So not sure if you are losing your mind or you are truly incapable of reading.
