|
|
|
|
|
by pmoriarty
2966 days ago
|
|
From [1]: "One major problem with this argument is the lack of a definition with rent control. Yes, the statistic of 93 percent of economists rejecting rent control is all fine, but what specific rent control are we speaking about? Here is the question he either refuses to answer or does not know much about. "In the Economics Anti-Textbook by Rod Hills and Tonny Myatt, they do talk about the neoclassical idea of rent control, but give an alternative view as well. They write: But knowing the extent to which the ceiling rent is binding over
time is very tricky. It’s complicated by the fact that we cannot
observe the equilibrium rent. A second complication is that the type
of rent control prevalent nowadays is very different from the type
assumed in textbooks -- a rigid rent freeze.
"What Berezow is saying is that "first-generation rent control" is rejected by many economists. For those unaware, it is, as stated above, "a rigid rent freeze." However,
"second-generation" rent control is more flexible as it can allow "automatic rent increases geared to increasing costs, excludes luxury high-rent buildings and new
buildings, restricts conversions, decontrols between tenants, and provides incentives for landlords to maintain or improve quality.""[1] - https://shadowproof.com/2013/11/11/why-is-alex-berezow-allow... |
|