Rent control doesn't automatically result in a shortage, sure it means less houses get built than if there was no control, but I don't think cutting down on property building in, say, 2004 would have caused a shortage, do you?

Rent control doesn't automatically result in a shortage, sure it means less houses get built than if there was no control, but I don't think cutting down on property building in, say, 2004 would have caused a shortage, do you?

What causes you to conclude they artificially high to begin with?

If prices are artificially high, then artificially lowering them doesn't result in a shortage.

If prices are artificially high, then artificially lowering them doesn't result in a shortage.

I don't know, Ladas. This is just anecdotal, but in my experience, conservatives frequently respond to market failure and ToC scenarios with a simplistic, hand-wavy assumption that the market will always work itself out. And the "tax cuts pay for themselves by boosting the economy" mantra is pretty standard rhetoric on the right. Conversely, I rarely if ever hear liberals making those errors.

It's not that liberals have some greater understanding in those cases, but rather that their policy biases lead to an instinctive assumption that markets are prone to failures, regulations are good, and lower taxes are bad. And similarly, conservatives aren't actually more knowledgeable about economics in general, it's just that their biases lead them to instinctively conclude that price controls, minimum wages, and other regulations are bad, so they got the particular questions in this survey right.

and that lower taxes do, indeed, spur economic growth.

Exactly Kaffis. What does "artifically high" mean Xeq? For instance, you realize apartments in Manhattan are so expensive because a lot of people want to live in Manhattan. When you created rent control, even more people wanted to live there, thus creating greater demand. It actually exacerbated the problem. If rents are high, either someone is paying that price or the owner will have to soon lower their price because no one's taking it.

edit: Sorry Rynar. I didn't read your post first. But it is the perfect example.

I was referring to the massive housing bubble we just went through. It's pretty much the definition of artificially high prices for real estate.

I still have not seen any compelling evidence of this assertion. Don't misunderstand me, I am all for lower-taxes but only with corresponding budgetary cuts which translate to less services for the public (which again I am for).

I was referring to the massive housing bubble we just went through. It's pretty much the definition of artificially high prices for real estate.