Housing policy megathread

[Barrister]

Yes. That's what I said.
In the models 2+2=4. That adds up. It's valid.

Reality however rarely presents you with basic equations a 3 year old can solve.
Particularly in a large and complex country, housing is an especially wicked problem.

It's amazing to me that you think economics are "basic equations a 3 year old can solve".

Even some of the most basic, Intro Economics 101 type insights are things that escape the large majority of people.

Out of curiosity - have you ever taken a university-level economics course?

[Admiral Yi]

I've said from the start I have no trouble believing that's what the models show.

Many people have pointed out in this thread there is a causal relation between rent control and new home construction.

So say the liberal economists assuming their perfect green field scenario.
In reality it's a nonsense.

Yes. That's what I said.
In the models 2+2=4. That adds up. It's valid.

Reality however rarely presents you with basic equations a 3 year old can solve.
Particularly in a large and complex country, housing is an especially wicked problem.

I didn't say 2 plus 2 equal 4.  I didn't say in large and complex countries housing is NOT an especially wicked problem.

I said there is a causal relationship between rent control and housing construction.

THAT is what you called a nonsense.

Now you want to defend calling it a nonsense, but modify that it is something valid which you disgree with.  That sort of statement makes perfect sense when it comes to questions of taste which are inherently subjective.  You like red Bordeaux?  That's valid, but I prefer white Burgundies.  The relationship between rent control and housing construction is not a question of taste.  It's an empirical question.  It's either true or it's not true.

[Admiral Yi]

Is strawman another word that means something totally different in your world?
But so goes this pointless discussion. I point out why going on about how the economists say rent control reduces the incentive for private builders to build is missing the point and you just keep repeating yourself to avoid even engaging with the topic

I think straw man means the same thing where ever you are.

The way a normal person makes the point you are trying to make above is something like: That is a good point, however there are other factors one should consider when deciding to impose rent control or not.

[Grey Fox]

I know what a strawman is, over the years, I've looked up the definition multiple times.

But why that term? Any origin story?

[Admiral Yi]

One of the earliest references to the straw man argument dates to Martin Luther. In his 1520 book On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, he claimed that one of the church's criticisms of him was that he argued against serving the Eucharist according to one serving practice despite his never actually making that argument. He described this criticism as "they assert the very things they assail, or they set up a man of straw whom they may attack."

Later recognition of the straw man fallacy as a distinct logical fallacy dates to the twentieth century. Generally, scholars agree that the term originated with the idea of setting up a simplistic imagined opponent that's easy to knock down, like a scarecrow or a military training dummy.

from Grammarly

[Josquius]

I didn't say 2 plus 2 equal 4.  I didn't say in large and complex countries housing is NOT an especially wicked problem.

I said there is a causal relationship between rent control and housing construction.

THAT is what you called a nonsense.

Because in reality it usually is.
There's so many more factors at work than whether or not there's rules on what you can charge in rent.

In theory oh sure, it makes perfect sense. If it costs 10 to build a house but the rules say your profit from it can only be 8 then of course you're not going to build it, if the rules say it can only be 12 then why of course you've a wide range of alternative theoretical places to put your money which means no housing gets built.
But in a reality where the potential profits are 50 and they get limited to 30?
Where the demand for housing is so insanely high that any potential plot up for development has a mad scramble of developers eager for it?
Where social housing is a thing that exists?
Where in practice the overwhelming majority of landlords aren't actually building anything and will realistically never be in a position to do so (under an uncontrolled system)?
Where rules don't have to be completely universal binaries and instead can be targeted at particular situations?

Now you want to defend calling it a nonsense, but modify that it is something valid which you disgree with.  That sort of statement makes perfect sense when it comes to questions of taste which are inherently subjective.  You like red Bordeaux?  That's valid, but I prefer white Burgundies.  The relationship between rent control and housing construction is not a question of taste.  It's an empirical question.  It's either true or it's not true.

This isn't true. Thats literally what a wicked problem means. Its not black and white.

Yes. That's what I said.
In the models 2+2=4. That adds up. It's valid.

Reality however rarely presents you with basic equations a 3 year old can solve.
Particularly in a large and complex country, housing is an especially wicked problem.

It's amazing to me that you think economics are "basic equations a 3 year old can solve".

Even some of the most basic, Intro Economics 101 type insights are things that escape the large majority of people.

Out of curiosity - have you ever taken a university-level economics course?

Seriously? 
Are you familiar at all with the concept of analogy?

Rocket science is...well. Rocket science. Its well known for being bloody hard. But if you're planning a Mars mission and all you look at is the rocket science then its not going to go very well, there's a lot more to it than just designing the rocket.

[Grey Fox]

One of the earliest references to the straw man argument dates to Martin Luther. In his 1520 book On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, he claimed that one of the church's criticisms of him was that he argued against serving the Eucharist according to one serving practice despite his never actually making that argument. He described this criticism as "they assert the very things they assail, or they set up a man of straw whom they may attack."

Later recognition of the straw man fallacy as a distinct logical fallacy dates to the twentieth century. Generally, scholars agree that the term originated with the idea of setting up a simplistic imagined opponent that's easy to knock down, like a scarecrow or a military training dummy.

from Grammarly

Thank you.

[Barrister]

One of the earliest references to the straw man argument dates to Martin Luther. In his 1520 book On the Babylonian Captivity of the Church, he claimed that one of the church's criticisms of him was that he argued against serving the Eucharist according to one serving practice despite his never actually making that argument. He described this criticism as "they assert the very things they assail, or they set up a man of straw whom they may attack."

Later recognition of the straw man fallacy as a distinct logical fallacy dates to the twentieth century. Generally, scholars agree that the term originated with the idea of setting up a simplistic imagined opponent that's easy to knock down, like a scarecrow or a military training dummy.

from Grammarly

Thank you.

I like the more recent counter-example - the steel-man argument.

You take the other side of the argument, but then try to build up the most honest version of it, fixing the holes you see in the most charitable way possible, and then engage with that argument.

I'd love it if someone could provide the steel-man version of the case for rent control.

[Admiral Yi]

I think I've solved the puzzle Squeeze.  You think causal relationship means that nothing else matters.  That's not what it means.

In fact I think that is the glory of economics as an academic discipline: using the power of multiple regression to isolate the effect of one independent variable (in this case rent control) on a dependent variable (construction by for profit builders) in situations where there are a number of other factors influencing that outcome.

[Admiral Yi]

I'd love it if someone could provide the steel-man version of the case for rent control.

The people who benefit from it are happier.

[Barrister]

I'd love it if someone could provide the steel-man version of the case for rent control.

The people who benefit from it are happier.

I mean yeah, of course.

But I think even the most intelligent, pro-rent-control proponent could come up with something stronger than that.

[Admiral Yi]

Why do you think that?

[Valmy]

Well it addresses a serious social ill. That's good.

It does it in a short sided and counter-productive way. That's bad.

Of course in a place like Manhattan there probably are no good ways to solve the rent being too damn high.

[Barrister]

Why do you think that?

Because that's what "steel-manning" an argument is all about.

Let's just say I find Jos to be quite incoherent and nonsensical on the topic.  But out of a sense of charity and good-will I'd like to think a somewhat more sensible more argument could be made in favour of rent-control, even if at the end of the day I find it unconvincing.

[Admiral Yi]

Because that's what "steel-manning" an argument is all about.

Let's just say I find Jos to be quite incoherent and nonsensical on the topic.  But out of a sense of charity and good-will I'd like to think a somewhat more sensible more argument could be made in favour of rent-control, even if at the end of the day I find it unconvincing.

The way you described steel manning (a term I've never heard before FYI) it sounded like a mechanism for improving one's own thinking by addressing the best counter arguments, not for saving the feelings of people who disagree with you.  And there is a difference between wishing there was a better counter argument and believing it actually exists.