I think price-fixing works in, for example healthcare, because then you also have a single payer system. So there is one entity that buys almost all service capacity and thus gets a lot of say in the price.

Also nobody else would want to outbid them because the single payer then turns around and gives all potential users the service for a fraction of the real price.

So this is a great system for providing healthcare at reasonable prices.

For housing. Rent control only works for the first that can get in the system, but what does work I think are widespread and well positioned non-profit housing entities that can provide a large enough share of potential renters reasonable apartment prices so that the for-profit companies can’t raise their prices too much.

Source: I’m an extensively trained armchair economist.

> I think price-fixing works in, for example healthcare, because then you also have a single payer system. So there is one entity that buys almost all service capacity and thus gets a lot of say in the price.

That'd be the monopsony option I mentioned. When you have (actually, or effectively) one buyer, they tell you how much profit you can make, and can pressure you even further to pressure your own suppliers to bring prices down further.

> Source: I’m an extensively trained armchair economist.

Same, to put my cards on the table, but I've spent an unhealthy (haha) amount of time reading about healthcare systems and when I started to draw a line between all the non-US systems among OECD and other rich countries, that was the single thing that stood out as being common to all of them, despite there actually being a huge variety of approaches. They all seem at least medium-term stable (which is more than I can say for our US system, which seems like a train racing straight for a canyon wall, while also coming apart at every seam and bolt) and none appear to exhibit, to a significant degree, the usual problems Econ 101 (and, indeed, plenty of real-world examples) tells you price fixing ought to raise very quickly, which means it's "never a good idea" or "never works". In fact, in this case... I mean, it sure looks like it works, doesn't it? And it's not like we only have one example.

From what I've seen, a lot of people on the economic left actually agree with those criticisms of rent control, and would much prefer to see true public housing take that place. Non profit NGOs don't typically have the capital to own the relevant land and buildings. And when they do, they typically see it as better use of that capital to sell it or rent it out at market rates and use that liquid capital more directly in whatever their mission is. It's typically only .gov that has the right means, motive, and opportunity to pull off public housing in the face of the rest of the market. At that point, when there's no .gov impetus behind such a thing, rent control is viewed as the least shitty of a group of shitty options.