> Like a lot of economic critique, rent control criticism is driven from cultural allegiance to landlords and the rentier class, rather than good faith.

What a bizarre claim. There's plenty of "good faith" criticism of rent control.

People think different things. You're allowed to advocate rent control. But assuming bad faith because "I am right" or "my opponents are in the thrall of the rentier class" is just astonishing.

Don't be naive. Think of key debates on economic issues: Deregulation, monetary policy, minimum wage, rent control, taxation, etc.

People's opinions on these is overwhelmingly driven by their political values.

Trump doesn't love the Laffer Curve for its abstract mathematical beauty or essential truth - it's merely a rhetorical device for justifying the policies that he and other wealthy interests prefer.

"Assume good faith" and "avoid ad hominem" are not "naive." They are necessary. You simply cannot have a fruitful discussion without both parties agreeing on those rules. Even if you are convinced that your opposing party is not arguing in good faith, it is still in your best interest and the interest of those observing that you argue your own side using proper technique.

If you have given up on this, there's no point in participating at all.

I am not saying these things as a means to insult. I am not up on a debate stage here debating Trump on a stage.

I'm simply describing what motivates people on the political right. There is no end of literature to support this view.

You may find it troubling to accept that many people in politics aren't acting in good faith or motivated by pure virtue. But it's true!

Find me a landlord who doesn't support rent control and I'll show you one who doesn't currently own property in the area where it's being discussed. Rent control is a boon to landlords who can easily justify an 8% rent increase each year, because it's codified in law!

Landlords in SF hate rent control. The allowable increases don’t even cover inflation as far as I can tell. Any place where landlords will pay tenants $$$$$ to move out (at best) or burn their place down and keep it empty until they can rebuild as condos (at worst) is not a place where they like rent control. I benefit from rent control but it also locks me into an apartment. I’d love to move but it would cost 2-3x to get something equivalent which is market rate, let alone actually get a better place. We really need to build more housing and decent infrastructure like other world class cities.

That's because SF has lost their minds and capped it at 2.9%. Generally speaking, most places allow anywhere from 6-10% for increases.

In the rest of CA it's inflation+5%.

There are two basic positions on the economy:

1. Those who focus on the beauty and simplicity of markets and the advantages of decentralized decision making.

2. Those who focus on all the ways markets create or abet undesirable conditions for human beings.

Everyone reasonable sits somewhere in the middle of those positions. The loons are gathered at both extremes. There are perfectly good arguments against minimum wage, rent control, and steep progressive taxes. There are also perfectly good arguments for those things.

And none of that has anything to do with Donald Trump.

It would seem your article supporting rent control does not suggest it encourages new development, it states a "super-profits" tax system would do so.

Recent work points to it not having any affect on development. And whatever affect it might have is largely irrelevant, as rent control does not apply to new builds in CA.

https://dornsife.usc.edu/pere/rent-matters