[landofredwater]

That argument may work with something like medical care, but housing and college tuition don't fall into that category as cleanly.

With medicine, the cost of failure is everything up to and including death.

With housing, the "cost of failure" is not having a house. Similarly for college, the cost of failure is not graduating college. Neither of these are good outcomes, obviously, but the solution to not having a house isn't to regulated away the possibility of building more houses.

[adgjlsfhk1]

Firstly, the cost of not having a house for a prolonged period in the north half of the US is death (in the winter). Secondly, there are a lot of other really bad failure cases. For example, houses burning down, poisoning people (via lead, asbestos or others), destroyed in earthquakes, etc. A lot of these can have immediate and severe negative costs for both the people living in them and for society as a whole.

[landofredwater]

While I was hyperbolic in diminishing the cost of not having a home, my point of regulating any new housing to the point it costs more to build than can ever be made back is a direct cause to the fact many areas no longer have sufficient housing for residents and the housing that does exist costing more than it's worth.