patrick.net

I have yet to see a “well designed” rent control system that did not create severe market distortions that were UN-beneficial to the majority of the general public, as well as lots of bad incentives (to game the system).

Because any price control system will create severe market distortions.

What is fairness anyway?

astrid Says:
Fairness is irrelevant. When you rent, you’re paying for a temporary right of occupation to the true owner of the property. There’s no reason you should have any rights beyond the terms of the lease.

that's a narrow view of decently providing shelter in a society, though...

Peter P Says:
>I have yet to see a “well designed” rent control system
> that did not create severe market distortions that were
> UN-beneficial to the majority of the general public, as
> well as lots of bad incentives (to game the system).

Because any price control system will create severe market distortions.

This is just more of the same neo-liberal market dogma and fundamentalism. It's like a neural network which always oscillates to the same answer no matter what the inputs.

This is completely unsubstantiated by argument. You've looked at *one* system and said therefore that all systems can't work. (And maybe the system *does* work for many, just not in your view.) This is just a nonsense. Talking about scientific reasoning, because one rocket misfires means in your logic that no rocket will ever get off the ground and there will never be a space shuttle. People invoke 'scientific reasoning' when it's convenient and then proceed to prove they don't have any, and they have a 'one size fits all' answer. Where does this neo-classical market brainwashing come from, by the way?

In other words, it usually creates big, counter-productive moral hazards.

The only 'moral hazards' I see are exploitation of workers by landlords, unhelathy economic bubbles which are harmful to both the micro- and macro-economies, and incredible unfairness and disenfranchisement of a sector of the population for the enrichment of others. That's my definition of a 'moral hazard'. The original defn of moral hazard was from insurance companies talking about the question of whether it becomes too tempting for a businessman to torch their business and claim the insurance. It now means anything which jeopardises so-called 'free markets' apparently, as redefined on this blog.

The whole cycle of creating 'haves and have-nots' also increases crime and anomie, which I see as 'counter-productive' also.

just a test post