> Theory and real-world case studies mean that this is so obvious, that I just assume anyone that's passed economics 101 and is advocating for rent control is either grossly incompetent, currently very drunk, or is disingenuous and actually wants to use the power of the government to make sure other people cannot obtain secure and stable housing.

Or they are one of the lucky few living in a rent controlled apartment.

Well, you can't have a working democracy, market economy, and affordable housing at same time. Something has to give.

I'm fascinated by this statement. Where does it come from?

Well, remove democracy and what people want on a local level (preserve and grow value of their owned homes by limiting development) will not matter - and developers will built out so many homes housing will become affordable. Like in Russia for example - housing is cheap there exactly because it is an industrialised nation without democracy.

Remove market economy and the Party will distribute housing as it sees fit, and you have affordable housing, like in the Soviet Union.

Otherwise, inevitably housing will cease to be accessible once a bit more than 50% of population is happy with their housing conditions - then they will vote for people who will help them build value of their house by locking out the underhoused minority.

I can't see a fix to this that won't undermine either democracy (by somehow making people's political choices matter less or not at all, openly or covertly, aka "Putin elections"), or market economy. Both of which sounds worse than just putting up with unaffordable housing.

Sweden had all three before rent control was "temporarily" instituted during WW2.