• Valthorn
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    8
    arrow-down
    4
    ·
    8 months ago

    Letting the market decide the rent will not magically create more housing, only make the existing housing in a high-demand place like Paris very expensive. The effect might be that it is easier to find an apartment, but only because you have forced the poor out of the city and moved the housing crisis further away from the city. Of course the landlords would be happy if they could charge some 3000€ per month for a small studio apartment in a dodgy neighbourhood, so of course the economists say this is a good idea, since line go up is good.

    • Fried_out_Kombi@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      5
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      Letting the market decide the rent will not magically create more housing

      Rent control does not create new housing either. The reason economists basically all say rent control is bad policy is because it drastically reduces the amount of housing that gets built.

      If you want more housing, make it legal and easy to build new housing like Japan did. Tokyo is the most populous city in the world, and yet it’s remarkably affordable because it’s very easy and streamlined to build new housing.

      In Tokyo, by contrast, there is little public or subsidized housing. Instead, the government has focused on making it easy for developers to build. A national zoning law, for example, sharply limits the ability of local governments to impede development. Instead of allowing the people who live in a neighborhood to prevent others from living there, Japan has shifted decision-making to the representatives of the entire population, allowing a better balance between the interests of current residents and of everyone who might live in that place. Small apartment buildings can be built almost anywhere, and larger structures are allowed on a vast majority of urban land. Even in areas designated for offices, homes are permitted. After Tokyo’s office market crashed in the 1990s, developers started building apartments on land they had purchased for office buildings.

      https://www.nytimes.com/2023/09/11/opinion/editorials/tokyo-housing.html

      Also, you appear to have a very uninformed view of who economists are and what they value. Economists, like all other social scientists, are academics and scientists. Believe it or not, economists are not a cabal of landlords wanting prices to go up; just about every economist will tell you the dangers of inflation and rent-seeking. You might be surprised to learn the surveyed beliefs of economists:

      • The majority of surveyed American economists vote for Democrats instead of Republicans
      • The majority are in favor of environmental protection regulations (EPA)
      • The majority are in favor of food and drug safety regulations (FDA)
      • The majority are in favor of occupational health and safety regulations (OSHA)

      Further, the largest-ever survey on economists’ views on the climate show an overwhelming economic consensus on climate change:

      We conducted a large-sample global survey on climate economics, which we sent to all economists who have published climate-related research in the field’s highest-ranked academic journals; 738 responded. To our knowledge, this is the largest-ever expert survey on the economics of climate change. The results show an overwhelming consensus that the costs of inaction on climate change are higher than the costs of action, and that immediate, aggressive emissions reductions are economically desirable.

      Believing economists at large to be just a cabal of greedy capitalists is just as anti-intellectual as MAGA people believing climate scientists to be a cabal of Soros- and Gore-funded fraudsters.