There is no one on this board that doesn't understand that more people with more money wanting a thing that there are few of drives up the price.
Some of us would rather move on to the complex interlocking and ever changing conditions - political, sometimes, and sometimes just strange human weaknesses or predilections -- instead of rehashing old arguments that conveniently skirt the hard stuff just to score points.
Look in this very thread and you will find people who insist that allowing development would somehow cause prices to rise and for people to be forced out of their homes.
Again, complex interlocking factors. Not denial of economics.
Based on your previous comment, you seemed to be doing exactly what you say nobody on this board does.
>Some of us would rather move on to the complex interlocking and ever changing conditions - political, sometimes, and sometimes just strange human weaknesses or predilections -- instead of rehashing old arguments that conveniently skirt the hard stuff just to score points.
And narrator went into those political/human conditions, yet you reduced his comment to a "supply demand checkbox." Though you found his comment disingenuous, it seems that you are not bothering to read his comment; and the only thing you've provided to the conversation is: it's supply/demand plus other interlocking conditions.
'narrator provides a solid explanation of why there's not political interest in balancing supply and demand at a lower price. Even if the politics is complicated, it's still a textbook case of government regulation limiting supply.