Rent contols are an imperfect solution to the insurmountable problem of out-of-control rents in highly desirable regions, where teachers, police, firefighters, hamburger flippers, stuffed armadillo salesmen, etc. can no longer afford to live.

I don’t believe this is at all true; it’s a myth along the same order as justifying farm subsidies on the grounds that small family farms need them to survive. The primary beneficiaries turn out to be neither small family farms nor lower middle class service providers.

But no matter. That’s not the objection I wish to raise here. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that your claim is true. Let’s suppose that rents in highly desirable regions are indeed “out-of-control” (out of whose control?), which is sort of tautological; the price of highly desirable scarce resources tends to be more than the price of less desirable goods. So what? There is no God-given right to live exactly where you want to live, regardless of the costs. There are tradeoffs.

But along with an increased cost of living generally comes higher incomes,a problem that markets and property rights simply do solve, each and every day. As the cost of living in an area rises, teachers, police, firefighters, hamburger flippers, and stuffed armadillo salesmen find the area less and less attractive, and either move elsewhere or don’t choose to move there at all. If other people living in that community still wish to maintain the same level of teachers, police, firefighters, hamburger flippers, and stuffed armadillo salesmen, and are willing to pay for it (willingness to pay being a much stronger indication than cheap talk), then they will have to agree to a higher cost of education, police and fire protection, fast food, and armadillo salesmen in order to attract back the desired service providers, or else they must live without. There is no need for government to step in and distort prices and incentives.

Rent contols are an imperfect solution to the insurmountable problem of out-of-control rents in highly desirable regions, where teachers, police, firefighters, hamburger flippers, stuffed armadillo salesmen, etc. can no longer afford to live.

I don’t believe this is at all true; it’s a myth along the same order as justifying farm subsidies on the grounds that small family farms need them to survive. The primary beneficiaries turn out to be neither small family farms nor lower middle class service providers.

But no matter. That’s not the objection I wish to raise here. Let’s assume, for the sake of argument, that your claim is true. Let’s suppose that rents in highly desirable regions are indeed “out-of-control” (out of whose control?), which is sort of tautological; the price of highly desirable scarce resources tends to be more than the price of less desirable goods. So what? There is no God-given right to live exactly where you want to live, regardless of the costs. There are tradeoffs.

But along with an increased cost of living generally comes higher incomes,a problem that markets and property rights simply do solve, each and every day. As the cost of living in an area rises, teachers, police, firefighters, hamburger flippers, and stuffed armadillo salesmen find the area less and less attractive, and either move elsewhere or don’t choose to move there at all. If other people living in that community still wish to maintain the same level of teachers, police, firefighters, hamburger flippers, and stuffed armadillo salesmen, and are willing to pay for it (willingness to pay being a much stronger indication than cheap talk), then they will have to agree to a higher cost of education, police and fire protection, fast food, and armadillo salesmen in order to attract back the desired service providers, or else they must live without. There is no need for government to step in and distort prices and incentives.

In Chicago, where there is no rent control, average rent a few years ago was 1200/1BR and market rent was 1200. In NYC, average rent was roughly the same while market rent was over 2400. These types of discrepancies occur where rent control occurs as it drastically restricts housing supply. We can’t afford to face market rates to find the space we need for a coming baby and will either end up crammed in our 1Br or have to leave the city. Without controls we could probably have found a good pad in the outer boroughs. If you dig in the NY Times you will find some vintage Krugman in which he points out that economists of all stripes are universally opposed to rent control as it decreases supply and quality of housing.

I can’t get health insurance that costs less than $300 a month because any insurance company that tried to give me a plan that had the specifics I want would violate state regulations. It will cost us something like $1200 a month for the family plan we want and that’s going to kill us. If I could purchase health insurance on the national market, I would probably pay half that or less.

Are you out there in the real world like me?

In Chicago, where there is no rent control, average rent a few years ago was 1200/1BR and market rent was 1200. In NYC, average rent was roughly the same while market rent was over 2400. These types of discrepancies occur where rent control occurs as it drastically restricts housing supply. We can’t afford to face market rates to find the space we need for a coming baby and will either end up crammed in our 1Br or have to leave the city. Without controls we could probably have found a good pad in the outer boroughs. If you dig in the NY Times you will find some vintage Krugman in which he points out that economists of all stripes are universally opposed to rent control as it decreases supply and quality of housing.

I can’t get health insurance that costs less than $300 a month because any insurance company that tried to give me a plan that had the specifics I want would violate state regulations. It will cost us something like $1200 a month for the family plan we want and that’s going to kill us. If I could purchase health insurance on the national market, I would probably pay half that or less.

Are you out there in the real world like me?

Ideology aside, in the real world: Rent contols are an imperfect solution to the insurmountable problem of out-of-control rents in highly desirable regions, where teachers, police, firefighters, hamburger flippers, stuffed armadillo salesmen, etc. can no longer afford to live. Zoning regulations have always been, for the most part, a means for the advantaged to exclude hoi polloi and other noxious things, and do not affect the production of affordable housing, just its location (i.e. not in my back yard). But while these and other aspects of urban planning can surely be criticized, the field arose out of the desire to address the conflict and deprivation inherent to human settlements that markets and property rights simply cannot solve.

And yes, the U.S. healthcare system is a patched together accident of history. But the biggest problem today is its rapidly rising cost due largely to our “infinite model”, where we just keep piling on ever more treatments, drugs and gadgets(some that work, some that do not). So while it needs to be rationed somehow, we are the only developed nation that does it through exclusion. And as they say, there are only two kinds of free-market economists, those that are standing up and those that are lying down.

Ideology aside, in the real world: Rent contols are an imperfect solution to the insurmountable problem of out-of-control rents in highly desirable regions, where teachers, police, firefighters, hamburger flippers, stuffed armadillo salesmen, etc. can no longer afford to live. Zoning regulations have always been, for the most part, a means for the advantaged to exclude hoi polloi and other noxious things, and do not affect the production of affordable housing, just its location (i.e. not in my back yard). But while these and other aspects of urban planning can surely be criticized, the field arose out of the desire to address the conflict and deprivation inherent to human settlements that markets and property rights simply cannot solve.

And yes, the U.S. healthcare system is a patched together accident of history. But the biggest problem today is its rapidly rising cost due largely to our “infinite model”, where we just keep piling on ever more treatments, drugs and gadgets(some that work, some that do not). So while it needs to be rationed somehow, we are the only developed nation that does it through exclusion. And as they say, there are only two kinds of free-market economists, those that are standing up and those that are lying down.

But I am not an “anti-consumerist.” I am an anti-over-consumerist. We make judgments about other excesses; why should consumption be given a pass?

One reason “excessive” consumption should be given a pass is the enormous positive externalities consumption has on wealth creation for the world’s poor. The real victim here is the overconsumer herself, who may not be leading as good a life as she could be if her priorities were different. Forgive me if I have more concern for the welfare of the impoverished factory worker in a developing country who makes their livelihood, and thus improves their life prospects and that of their families, by putting together nose hair trimmers and stuffed armadillos, than I do for the welfare of far-wealthier overconsumer who purchases what you and I might (rightly or wrongly) consider frivolous and unneeded. As far as social maladies go, the day when we should start worrying about “Affluenza” is a great day indeed.

If it’s a question, along Aristotelian lines, of what sorts of habits and behaviors lead to the most fulfilling and flourishing lives, I have little objections to the critiques of excessive overconsumptions, though such critiques tend to beg the question of how much is too much. Different strokes satisfy different folks. I certainly agree with many of the classical Greek philosophers; there is more to a good life than mere satisfaction of material wants: there is beauty, friendship, love. Some people fail to realize this, and think that material goods alone will fully satisfy. They aim for the wrong goals.

But, again, people vastly differ with regard to their upbringing, natural talents, and thus their aspirations and life goals. What would be considered excessive consumption for the starving artist who enjoys living the spartan lifestyle would be excessive underconsumption for others. And there is nothing wrong with that. We don’t all have to live the same sorts of lives, nor would we want to if we could.

Who is the best judge of how much is too much? More often than not, individual people themselves are the best judges of how best to live their own lives. Sure, many people will make mistakes, and that is unfortunate. But surely, people will tend make fewer mistakes analyzing their own life goals and practices than the technocratic, moralistic, paternalistic busybodies like Naomi Klein and the “Buy Nothing” movement, all of whom assume they know how to run other people’s lives better than the people themselves. They tend to either ignore or discount the enormous positive externalities of first-world consumption on third-world incomes – in fact, they quite often get this relationship exactly backwards, as many in this very thread have already done.

And it’s no surprise that the loudest and most vociferous critics of consumption wish to replace free-market capitalism with some flavor of welfare statism of the social democratic variety, if not downright state socialism. So forgive me if I am skeptical of their claims of excessive consumption; they have ulterior motives, as do I.

But I am not an “anti-consumerist.” I am an anti-over-consumerist. We make judgments about other excesses; why should consumption be given a pass?

One reason “excessive” consumption should be given a pass is the enormous positive externalities consumption has on wealth creation for the world’s poor. The real victim here is the overconsumer herself, who may not be leading as good a life as she could be if her priorities were different. Forgive me if I have more concern for the welfare of the impoverished factory worker in a developing country who makes their livelihood, and thus improves their life prospects and that of their families, by putting together nose hair trimmers and stuffed armadillos, than I do for the welfare of far-wealthier overconsumer who purchases what you and I might (rightly or wrongly) consider frivolous and unneeded. As far as social maladies go, the day when we should start worrying about “Affluenza” is a great day indeed.

If it’s a question, along Aristotelian lines, of what sorts of habits and behaviors lead to the most fulfilling and flourishing lives, I have little objections to the critiques of excessive overconsumptions, though such critiques tend to beg the question of how much is too much. Different strokes satisfy different folks. I certainly agree with many of the classical Greek philosophers; there is more to a good life than mere satisfaction of material wants: there is beauty, friendship, love. Some people fail to realize this, and think that material goods alone will fully satisfy. They aim for the wrong goals.

But, again, people vastly differ with regard to their upbringing, natural talents, and thus their aspirations and life goals. What would be considered excessive consumption for the starving artist who enjoys living the spartan lifestyle would be excessive underconsumption for others. And there is nothing wrong with that. We don’t all have to live the same sorts of lives, nor would we want to if we could.

Who is the best judge of how much is too much? More often than not, individual people themselves are the best judges of how best to live their own lives. Sure, many people will make mistakes, and that is unfortunate. But surely, people will tend make fewer mistakes analyzing their own life goals and practices than the technocratic, moralistic, paternalistic busybodies like Naomi Klein and the “Buy Nothing” movement, all of whom assume they know how to run other people’s lives better than the people themselves. They tend to either ignore or discount the enormous positive externalities of first-world consumption on third-world incomes – in fact, they quite often get this relationship exactly backwards, as many in this very thread have already done.

And it’s no surprise that the loudest and most vociferous critics of consumption wish to replace free-market capitalism with some flavor of welfare statism of the social democratic variety, if not downright state socialism. So forgive me if I am skeptical of their claims of excessive consumption; they have ulterior motives, as do I.

Great response! Well reasoned and articulate. And mostly correct in your analysis too.

But I am not an “anti-consumerist.” I am an anti-over-consumerist. We make judgments about other excesses; why should consumption be given a pass?