Timeline for Why did Berlin freeze the rent prices as opposed to letting the market set the price?
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
31 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jul 3, 2020 at 11:50 | comment | added | user76284 | @user253751 I think that would be a good question for Economics.SE (what are the magnitudes of the second- and higher-order effects of such a policy). | |
| Jul 3, 2020 at 11:47 | comment | added | Criticizing Israel not allowed | @user76284 doesn't it also make the rich worse off? | |
| Jul 3, 2020 at 11:43 | comment | added | user76284 | @user253751 The point is that reducing the supply of housing exacerbates income inequality, and in a definitively bad way: by making the poor as a whole worse off. | |
| Jul 3, 2020 at 11:41 | comment | added | user76284 | @user253751 "also nobody in this comment section is called com.prehensible" Please at least make an effort to look first. politics.stackexchange.com/questions/50465/… | |
| Jul 3, 2020 at 11:40 | comment | added | Criticizing Israel not allowed | @user76284 the comment I replied to was about income inequality. You can't solve income inequality by forcing poor people to move somewhere else. Everything you have said in reply to this comment was irrelevant to the comment. | |
| Jul 3, 2020 at 11:40 | comment | added | user76284 | @com.prehensible Your comment is incomprehensible. | |
| Jul 3, 2020 at 11:36 | comment | added | user76284 | @user253751 The bad economist sees only what immediately strikes the eye; the good economist also looks beyond. The bad economist sees only the direct consequences; the good economist looks also at the longer and indirect consequences. The bad economist sees only what the effect of a given policy has been or will be on one particular group; the good economist inquires also what the effect of the policy will be on all groups. | |
| Jul 3, 2020 at 11:36 | comment | added | user76284 | @user253751 Reducing the supply of housing through bad policies sure as hell doesn't help. We must remember the most important lesson of economics: Economics consists in looking not merely at the immediate but at the longer effects of any act or policy; it consists in tracing the consequences of that policy not merely for one group but for all groups. | |
| Jul 3, 2020 at 11:29 | comment | added | Criticizing Israel not allowed | @user76284 the comment I replied to was about income inequality. You can't solve income inequality by forcing poor people to move somewhere else. | |
| Jul 3, 2020 at 11:24 | comment | added | user76284 | @user253751 "You don't get to kick the poorest people out and then say you solved income inequality because there aren't any more poor people." No, the problem is that you deprived more people from having housing in the first place. Rent control inhibits construction of new housing. It reduces the overall supply of housing. | |
| Jul 3, 2020 at 11:17 | comment | added | user76284 | @user253751 Source 2 does not "jump from concrete effects to abstract concepts". It says landlords who are susceptible to rent control reduce rental housing supplies by 15 percent either by converting to condos, selling to owner-occupants, or redeveloping buildings. Why? Because renting out their apartments is now less profitable than selling to owner-occupants. This is a straightforward example of substitution on the supply side, and it's the same effect documented by Source 5 ("substituting to other types of real estate"). What exactly isn't clear? | |
| Jul 3, 2020 at 11:06 | comment | added | Criticizing Israel not allowed | @user76284 I think you wrote those comments already | |
| Jul 3, 2020 at 11:05 | comment | added | user76284 | @user253751 Source 5 doesn't "only complain about the law having loopholes". Its conclusion says: "Rent control appears to have increased income inequality in the city by simultaneously limiting displacement of minorities and attracting higher income residents. These results highlight that forcing landlords to provided insurance against rent increases can ultimately be counterproductive. If society desires to provide social insurance against rent increases, it may be less distortionary to offer this subsidy in the form of a government subsidy or tax credit." | |
| Jul 3, 2020 at 11:02 | comment | added | user76284 | @user253751 Source 2 doesn't say "it'll still even out over the long run". In fact, it explicitly says "Rent regulations, meanwhile, appeal to the public and politicians, but they also create perverse incentives that in the long run work against affordable housing." | |
| Jul 3, 2020 at 10:49 | comment | added | Criticizing Israel not allowed | @user76284 You don't get to kick the poorest people out and then say you solved income inequality because there aren't any more poor people. That's not how that works. That doesn't solve income inequality, it makes it worse and hides it from the statistic you're measuring. | |
| Mar 6, 2020 at 14:50 | comment | added | Criticizing Israel not allowed | @user76284 I must've missed that part. Basically "It creates inequality by not forcing poorer people to move out"? I don't see why anyone would complain about that. | |
| Mar 6, 2020 at 0:35 | comment | added | user76284 | @user253751 That's not true. Source 5 says: "Rent control’s combined effects of increased gentrification and limiting displacement of minority tenants have arguably led to a higher level of income inequality in the city overall... society desires to provide social insurance against rent increases, it may be less distortionary to offer this subsidy in the form of a government subsidy or tax credit." | |
| Mar 6, 2020 at 0:34 | comment | added | user76284 | @user253751 That's false. Source 3 doesn't say "it's good". It says: "While rent control appears to help current tenants in the short run, in the long run it decreases affordability, fuels gentrification, and creates negative externalities on the surrounding neighborhood." | |
| Mar 1, 2020 at 0:04 | comment | added | gerrit | Can you propose an alternative that works? | |
| Feb 28, 2020 at 17:42 | history | edited | JonathanReez | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 153 characters in body
|
| Feb 27, 2020 at 23:30 | comment | added | bandybabboon | I only read the first and last citation, they both study otherforms of rent conntrol like social housing and....black hispanic, non white white asian heterogeneity being misallocated to heterogenous housing... i thought what thefck at least make sense in the english text via rhetoric and clarity... the last study had a pathetic race maths analysis without any substance-ial theory.maths no theory?... no idea how they misallocate mixed race tenants to mixed race housing... no logic at all in last study of localized heterogenous rent control. | |
| Feb 27, 2020 at 22:10 | review | Low quality posts | |||
| Feb 28, 2020 at 0:34 | |||||
| Feb 27, 2020 at 19:29 | history | edited | JonathanReez | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 35 characters in body
|
| Feb 27, 2020 at 17:06 | comment | added | JonathanReez | @LangLangC we've got hundreds of posts on Politics.SE which question the intelligence of various governments and voter groups. If you open a question on Meta.SE, I'll list plenty of them. As for Berlin's arguments - I fail to find anything unique in their reasoning, at least not in English language media. Their arguments are the same as in every other city that played with the idea. | |
| Feb 27, 2020 at 10:23 | comment | added | LаngLаngС | @Philipp Does this really answer the question? It insults Berlin government and Berlin voters by saying 'they're just stupid'. And why because in opinion of poster 'it doesn't work' (as intended)? Proof is then opinion in pundit papers from elsewhere about elsewhere, not Berlin. So now that we know you oppose the Berlin decision on ideological grounds, can you add some background about Berlin? 'What did they argue in favour for it' seems to be the question. | |
| Feb 27, 2020 at 9:36 | comment | added | Philipp♦ | Lots of comments deleted. Please remember that the goal of comments should be to improve the answer, not to discuss its subject matter. Please read the help article about the commenting privilege before you engage in comment debates. | |
| Feb 26, 2020 at 21:31 | comment | added | d-b | Look up the rent control system in Sweden, especially Stockholm. | |
| Feb 26, 2020 at 20:10 | comment | added | puppetsock | I gave you thumbs up. You could improve your answer by bringing some of the discussion in your citations onto the page here. For example, the motivation of owners to keep property values high includes voting for city laws that tend to reduce housing supply. Berlin is not the most egregious example of this, but it is clearly there. | |
| Feb 26, 2020 at 19:31 | comment | added | Criticizing Israel not allowed | Source 2 also jumps straight from concrete effects ("more owner-occupiers") to abstract concepts ("less supply of housing") without explaining the link. Owner-occupiers are consuming housing, are they not? | |
| Feb 26, 2020 at 19:27 | comment | added | Criticizing Israel not allowed | Source 1 makes a point (that people don't move out) which I don't actually understand how it's bad. The point is so people don't have to move out. It uses an example of someone renting a 6-room apartment he doesn't use, but he could strike a deal with his landlord to swap it for a smaller one with even less rent, and the landlord would benefit. Source 2 kinda has a point, but it'll still even out over the long run. Source 3 actually says that it's good (makes it easier to owner-occupy). Source 4 is blocked in Europe. Source 5 only complains about the law having loopholes. | |
| Feb 26, 2020 at 19:21 | history | answered | JonathanReez | CC BY-SA 4.0 |