[slively]

This reasoning that regulation is the cause for the price is way too simplified and isn’t a serious argument. Also even if things are cheaper to purchase without regulation doesn’t mean it’s cheaper for society, hence the entire concept of externalities. Please stop.

[throwaway_4ever]

Regulation prevents supply from meeting demand. Developers can't use plots to develop huge apartment blocks, asymptotically decreasing land cost to a fraction. This causes the supply/demand imbalance to increase prices for decades, leading to people to treat it as a financial asset, accruing wealth. This leads to knock-on effects from interest rates because it's a comparable financial asset. I offer you SF and Houston as cities with regulations extremely correlated to housing prices. I welcome your contradictions to that correlation across the spectrum.

What isn't a serious argument is you offering no rebuttal except "Please stop." Your quip about externalities is tangential; externalities should be accounted for a properly functioning market. Nowhere did I make a contrary claim.

[slively]

I appreciate you clarifying a bit on which types of regulations which does offer some nuance. The state of CA is having to step in and stop NIMBY laws in places to allow more housing. Houston also has some terrible regulations around parking minimums and is an egregious example of car culture gone wrong. Having no regulation would eliminate zoning and cause an untold amount of problems. It seems we can both agree it’s more about having the right regulations, which is nuanced and difficult as opposed to just thinking regulations are the problems and we need a fully free market.