Szymon Pifczyk

One of the most-common beliefs many leftists in America hold is that the staggering increase in apartment rents is not a result of not building enough supply but rather a combination of greedy landlords, corporations buying out rental properties, and landlords intentionally keeping units vacant to drive up prices. Take for example this recent post by my former San Francisco supervisor, the socialist Dean Preston. He claims that San Francisco could become affordable within a year, and proposes a set of regulations to be imposed on the rental market.  How to you allocate housing? But these regulations have one fatal flaw. San Francisco is a very attractive city. Even if the economy is worse than it used to be, the culture, geographical location and climate make it a place where thousands of people would love to live, and are currently blocked only by the high rental prices. If you artificially lower these prices (through legislation), you end up with way more demand that the supply can handle. Even if you think this is morally the right thing to do, you have to address the mismatch between the demand and supply you’re creating.  In other words: how will you allocate housing in the absence of the market mechanism?  When confronted with this question, American leftists usually do not have an answer, or provide some muddy explanation that still focuses on existing residents, as if their living situation was never changing: they never got married, divorced, their kids never grow up, they never leave for a reason other than being priced out etc., and as if there were no new potential residents who would like to move to San Francisco for whatever reason.  History provides a warning In the absence of their answer, we can look at history. In the Eastern Bloc […]