>I don't think there's a single advocate for rent control that believe it will solve all housing problems.

I mean, OP literally did that, erroneously implying that rent control increases supply by using a historically incorrect example from 50s NYC.

This is why people get so annoyed with many proponents of rent control, they don't stop mid way as you do but keep going and implying it solves all housing problems.

>I mean, OP literally did that, erroneously implying that rent control increases supply

False. OP (me) was implying that it didnt meaningfully restrict supply.

I suspect a longitudnal study would find the two variables to be tenuously related at best.

>This is why people get so annoyed with many proponents of rent control

Because they make wrong inferences?

>False. OP (me) was implying that it didnt meaningfully restrict supply.

The OP said "fastest period of homebuilding" with fastest being in italics. I don't see how that can be read as anything except saying rent control increases supply.

No. Absolutely not. It simply throws a huge amount of doubt on the prevailing narrative that it severely restricts supply.

One could make the argument that it helped increase supply but that wasnt my intention.

it does that for current tenants, but in a growing city the incentive to build is severely reduced. Also the incentive to buy is severely reduced, meaning all incoming tenants have a hard time getting places to live.

To the extent that the incentive to build is reduced, the problem is with the idea that incentives should determine the rate of building, and not with rent control.

Providing housing security to existing residents through rent stabilization is a moral imperative. Homeowners such as myself have access to it through mortgages. Renters should have the same.

Beyond that, of course we need to build a ton of new housing. That can either be done by the state directly, or by loosening zoning regulations, or by some other means.

> of course we need to build a ton of new housing

To build a ton of new housing, you need investors willing to do so. If you have a million dollars, would you invest to build in a rent control city, or in a city where you can raise the rent as you wish? Most people would choose option 2, thus creating shortages in rent control cities, which in turn make the housing more expensive than it would be if the rents would be free-market.

As I said, then the solution is to lessen the importance of the incentive system and for the state to do so, for example.

There are things in life we treat as core moral values even if they cause issues with incentives. For example, people should not go to prison for not paying their debts, even though it runs against incentives. Rent stabilization should be one of them as well. The rest of society should adjust.

> people should not go to prison for not paying their debts

Try to not pay your taxes and you end up in prison in all the countries I know about.

Anyway, I feel like your argument works against you, actually. I think a core moral value is to allow anyone to move into the city if they wish so. With rent control, you limit the privilege to live in a city mostly to those born there. This is worse than the unfair advantage you have when raised in a wealthy family. At least anyone can study and make a good life later on, but rent control doesn't allow for much movement altogether. If you're born outside the city - bad luck.

You could always pay those people to move out, the same as you would for an owned house.

The same rent control alternative applies too. You can move to the outskirts of the city that are less desirable locations.

It is really the lack of investors that is causing the lack of supply? I was under the impression that it's mostly that building more is not allowed/very difficult (for various reasons), not that there is a lack of capital.

Correct, in Stockholm for example, it is absolutely not as simple as “investors turn away”, far from it.

In fact, they did build housing. Luxury housing that doesn’t solve the problem at all. Student apartments that are so expensive to live in, you have to work a job while studying.

If you build luxury housing, then people moving there should free up some space. Of course that does not happen, and they hoard properties because of lack of real property taxes in most places. Some are using them to fuck over new buyers, like California.

The investor can be the government imposing the rent control. It doesn't have to be a private investor