In her first economic policy speech as the 2024 Democratic presidential nominee, Kamala Harris rightly criticized Donald Trump for favoring steep tariffs, saying her Republican opponent "wants to impose what is, in effect, a national sales tax on everyday products and basic necessities that we import from other countries." But in the same speech, Harris pitched a half-baked idea that is just as economically dubious, promising to crack down on "price gouging" by the grocery industry.

That proposal is so misguided that it provoked undisguised skepticism from mainstream news outlets such as CNN, the Associated Press, The New York Times, and The Washington Post, along with criticism by Democratic economists. It showed that Harris joins Trump in pushing populist prescriptions that would hurt consumers in the name of sticking it to supposed economic villains.

"If your opponent claims you're a 'communist,'" Post columnist Catherine Rampell suggested, "maybe don't start with an economic agenda that can (accurately) be labeled as federal price controls." Harvard economist Jason Furman, who chaired President Barack Obama's Council of Economic Advisers, was equally scathing.

"This is not sensible policy, and I think the biggest hope is that it ends up being a lot of rhetoric and no reality," Furman told the Times. "There's no upside here, and there is some downside."

That downside stems from any attempt to override market signals by dictating prices. High prices allocate goods to consumers who derive the greatest value from them, encourage producers to expand supply, and spur competition that helps bring prices down.

Without those signals, you get hoarding and shortages. This is not some airy-fairy theory; it reflects bitter experience since ancient times with interventions like the one Harris proposes.

Consider what happened when President Richard Nixon imposed wage and price controls in the 1970s. "Ranchers stopped shipping their cattle to the market, farmers drowned their chickens, and consumers emptied the shelves of supermarkets," Daniel Yergin and Joseph Stanislaw note in their 1998 book on the rise of free markets.

Or consider what happened more recently with eggs. Thanks to avian flu, Furman noted, "egg prices went up last year" because "there weren't as many eggs," but the high prices encouraged "more egg production." If federal regulators had tried to suppress egg prices, they would have short-circuited that market response.

Harris, of course, says she would target only unjustified price increases, the kind that amount to "illegal price gouging" by "opportunistic companies." But as she emphasizes, there currently is no such thing under federal law, and any attempt to define it would be plagued by subjectivity and a lack of relevant knowledge.

The fact that Harris pins the sharp grocery price inflation of recent years on corporate greed suggests that her judgment about such matters cannot be trusted. Economists generally rate other factors—including the war in Ukraine as well as pandemic-related supply disruptions, shifts in consumer demand, and stimulus spending—as much more important.

High profits, in any event, are another important signal that encourages investment and competition. By forbidding "excessive profits," Harris' proposed price policing would undermine the motivation they provide.

According to the most recent numbers, the annual inflation rate dropped below 3 percent as of July. With inflation cooling, this might seem like a strange time for Harris to resuscitate an idea that was already proving disastrous thousands of years ago. But as the Times notes, her message "polls well with swing voters."

The broad tariffs that Trump favors, which Harris condemns as "a national sales tax" that would "devastate Americans," also poll well in the abstract. But they are popular only until voters consider the consequences.

In a recent Cato Institute survey, for example, 62 percent of respondents favored a tariff on "imported blue jeans," but that number plummeted when they were asked to imagine the resulting price increases. Harris likewise is counting on voters who like what she says but do not contemplate what it would mean in practice.

© Copyright 2024 by Creators Syndicate Inc.

The post Kamala Harris' 'Price Gouging' Ban: A New Idea That Has Failed for Thousands of Years appeared first on Reason.com.

After all the talk of abortion rights, protecting democracy, and how "fun" Vice President Kamala Harris apparently is, the first night of the Democratic National Convention culminated with a celebration of President Joe Biden's four years in office.

Biden "recovered all those millions of jobs that [Donald] Trump watched slip away," Sen. Dick Durbin (D–Ill.) declared. Biden "rebuilt the economy" after the pandemic put it "flat on its back," intoned Sen. Chris Coons (D–Conn.), a longtime Biden stan. 

Biden himself put the cherry on top. "We've had one of the most extraordinary four years of progress ever," the president said. "We gone from economic crisis to the strongest economy in the entire world," he claimed, pointing to job creation figures, economic growth, higher wages, and "inflation down, way down, and continuing to go down."

If so, someone should probably tell Vice President Kamala Harris about all that.

Just four days ago, Harris outlined plans for gigantic government interventions in the economy, including price controls. In what was billed as the first major policy speech of her hastily assembled campaign, Harris promised to implement the "first-ever federal ban on price gouging on food and groceries" and to take other actions to empower the federal government to "bring down costs." (There's been some debate in the days since her speech about whether it is fair to say Harris has called for price controls, but economist Brian Albretch has laid out clearly why she in fact did, writing that "any policy that gives the government the power to decide what price increases are 'fair' or 'unfair' is effectively a price control system. It doesn't matter if you call it 'anti-gouging,' 'fair pricing,' or 'consumer protection'—the effect is the same. When bureaucrats, not markets, determine acceptable prices, we're dealing with price controls.")

There has been a lot written already about why price controls are a terrible idea, and more will be written in the days ahead. For now, let's take a moment to appreciate the head-spinning logic that Biden and Harris are asking voters to accept: that America's economy is stronger than ever—but is also in need of radical government action to substitute the wisdom of bureaucrats for the market's power to determine prices.

Price controls are not a policy people reach for when things are going great. Governors don't go around threatening businesses with prosecution for price gouging when there's not a hurricane or other natural disaster happening. The Soviet Union didn't implement price controls because everyone was wealthy and well-fed. Neither did Venezuela.

But that's what Harris doing. On Friday, she promised "harsh penalties" on businesses that engage in whatever she (or her administration) determines to be "price gouging" or the collection of "excessive" profits—even though her campaign has yet to explain how she would determine those things.

Harris' promise to combat high grocery prices was made just hours after the White House Chief Economic Advisor Jared Bernstein was standing in front of reporters and touting how low grocery price inflation has been: "This morning, it was about 1 percent year over year," he said at a press briefing on Wednesday. "And there are a number of items within there where we actually have deflation, falling prices of some groceries."

Did someone tell Harris?

In part, this confusion probably stems from the unusual situation that Harris' campaign finds itself. She is, for all intents and purposes, the incumbent candidate in the race, despite not being the sitting president. And she's running against another quasi-incumbent in former President Donald Trump. Typically, incumbents try to push the message that everything is going well, or at least getting better, while challengers say everything sucks and promise to make it better.

With voters discontented with the state of the economy, both Trump and Harris are trying to distance themselves from the mess they each had a hand in creating. But Democrats can't go all-in on "everything sucks" for the obvious reason that Biden, the actual incumbent, is a Democrat.

The actual economic signals are a mixed bag right now. Unemployment has ticked up, raising fears of a possible recession on the horizon. High interest rates have replaced high inflation, which means many Americans are still feeling a squeeze on their personal finances. Biden doesn't deserve the applause he's getting, but there's also not a crisis that would demand the sort of radical actions Harris is proposing, even if the actions she's proposing really worked.

And of course, those high prices are largely the fault of government overspending (backed by heavy borrowing) during and after the pandemic. If Harris wants to put controls on something that would actually provide relief to Americans, she should aim to restrict government borrowing rather than grocery store prices.

Instead, it looks like Democrats have settled on the idea that Biden saved the economy and now Harris is here to clean up the mess—and they're just hoping no one thinks too hard about it.

By the way, you don't have to break your brain trying to make sense of this. It's far easier simply to remember that presidents don't run the economy and shouldn't get credit and/or blame for every single economic indicator. (Though they can certainly influence events, as we'll see if Harris gets her way and implements some form of federal price controls.)

But if nothing else, this Democratic cognitive dissonance creates a fun game for the next three nights of the convention: Will the speakers keep telling us that America's economy is stronger than ever, or that the country is in a crisis and Harris needs to be our price-setter-in-chief?

The post If Joe Biden Saved the Economy, Why Do We Need Kamala Harris' Price Controls? appeared first on Reason.com.

In this week's The Reason Roundtable, editors Peter Suderman, Katherine Mangu-Ward, and Nick Gillespie welcome special guest Ben Dreyfuss onto the pod ahead of this week's Democratic National Convention in Chicago to talk about Kamala Harris' truly terrible economic policy proposals.

02:48—Dreyfuss' YIMBY conversion thanks to Reason

13:20—Harris drops some lousy economic policy ideas.

32:37—The DNC begins.

44:25—Weekly Listener Question

53:33—Tariffs are timeless.

1:03:32—This week's cultural recommendations

Mentioned in this podcast:

"Kamala Harris' Dishonest and Stupid Price Control Proposal," by J.D. Tuccille

"DNC Readies for Protesters," by Liz Wolfe

"Harris' Economic Illiteracy," by Liz Wolfe

"Harris Joins the FTC's Food Fight Against Kroger-Albertsons Merger," by C. Jarrett Dieterle

"The times demand serious economic ideas. Harris supplies gimmicks." by the Washington Post editorial board

The price tag of @KamalaHarris's big, bold economic plan? According to penny pinchers at @BudgetHawks, a mere $1.7 to $2 trillion over the next decade. Given that gross debt is $35 trillion, maybe it's time to tap the brakes a bit?https://t.co/qA5wFJleLw pic.twitter.com/q80MwxoRD9

— Nick Gillespie (@nickgillespie) August 16, 2024

"When your opponent calls you 'communist,' maybe don't propose price controls?" Catherine Rampell

"How did Doug Emhoff hear Biden was out? After taking a SoulCycle class in WeHo. Without his phone," by Kevin Rector

"Database Nation: The Upside of 'Zero Privacy,'" by Declan Mccullagh

"Alien: Romulus Is a Slick, Empty Franchise Pastiche," by Peter Suderman

The Calm Down Substack by Ben Dreyfuss

https://x.com/nickgillespie/status/1824430467191312525

"Sing for Change Obama"

Upcoming Events:

• "Is the American Dream Alive?" A Free Press debate with Katherine Mangu-Ward on Tuesday, September 10 in Washington, D.C.
• "Reason Speakeasy: Kat Timpf & Nick Gillespie" on Wednesday, September 11 in New York

Send your questions to [email protected]. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.

Today's sponsors:

• Lumen is the world's first handheld metabolic coach. It's a device that measures your metabolism through your breath. On the app, it lets you know if you're burning fat or carbs, and it gives you tailored guidance to improve your nutrition, workouts, sleep, and even stress management. All you have to do is breathe into your Lumen first thing in the morning, and you'll know what's going on with your metabolism, whether you're burning mostly fats or carbs. Then, Lumen gives you a personalized nutrition plan for that day based on your measurements. You can also breathe into it before and after workouts and meals, so you know exactly what's going on in your body in real time, and Lumen will give you tips to keep you on top of your health game. Your metabolism is your body's engine—it's how your body turns the food you eat into fuel that keeps you going. Because your metabolism is at the center of everything your body does, optimal metabolic health translates to a bunch of benefits, including easier weight management, improved energy levels, better fitness results, better sleep, etc. Lumen gives you recommendations to improve your metabolic health. It can also track your cycle as well as the onset of menopause, and adjust your recommendations to keep your metabolism healthy through hormonal shifts, so you can keep up your energy and stave off cravings. So, if you want to take the next step in improving your health, go to lumen.me/ROUNDTABLE to get 15 percent off your Lumen.
• Qualia Senolytic: Have you heard about senolytics yet? It's a class of ingredients discovered less than 10 years ago, and it's being called the biggest discovery of our time for promoting healthy aging and enhancing your physical prime. Your goals in your career and beyond require productivity. But let's be honest: The aging process is not our friend when it comes to endless energy and productivity. As we age, everyone accumulates "senescent" cells in their body. Senescent cells cause symptoms of aging, such as aches and discomfort, slow workout recoveries, and sluggish mental and physical energy associated with that "middle age" feeling. Also known as "Zombie Cells," they are old and worn out and not serving a useful function for our health anymore, but they are taking up space and nutrients from our healthy cells. Much like pruning the yellowing and dead leaves off a plant, Qualia Senolytic removes those worn-out senescent cells to allow for the rest of your cells to thrive in the body. Take it just two days a month. The formula is non-GMO, vegan, and gluten-free, and the ingredients are meant to complement one another, factoring in the combined effect of all ingredients together. Resist aging at the cellular level and try Qualia Senolytic. Go to Qualialife.com/ROUNDTABLE for up to 50 percent off and use code ROUNDTABLE at checkout for an additional 15 percent off. For your convenience Qualia Senolytic is also available at select GNC locations near you.

Audio production by Ian Keyser; assistant production by Hunt Beaty.

Music: "Angeline," by The Brothers Steve

• Video Editor: Ian Keyser
• Producer: Hunt Beaty

The post Why Libertarians Hate Kamala Harris' Economic Platform appeared first on Reason.com.

When you've caused a problem, deflect! At least, that seems to be the strategy of Vice President and Democratic presidential candidate Kamala Harris, who spent the last several years as part of an administration that presided over a growing mismatch between Americans' pay and the cost of living. Rather than take responsibility for the decline of the dollar's purchasing power, she blames businesses that were forced to raise prices as a result. And she wants to fix the problem she helped cause by restricting those prices, never mind the inevitable consequences for the availability of goods and services.

Wait, I Thought This Was an Economy To Be Proud Of?

First though, let's journey back to 2023 when Harris claimed to be proud of the state of the economy.

"That is called Bidenomics, and we are very proud of Bidenomics," she insisted last August in a speech where she also trumpeted, "the unemployment rate is near its lowest level in over half a century. Wages are up. Inflation has fallen 12 months in a row."

Now though, the vice president and would-be chief executive huffs, "When I am President, it will be a day one priority to bring down prices. I'll take on big corporations that engage in illegal price gouging and corporate landlords that unfairly raise rents on working families."

And that's exactly what she proposed in her speech last week which recognized concerns over the cost of living and included a host of schemes for greater government involvement in the economy, including "the first ever federal ban on price gouging on food" amidst worries over grocery bills.

It's nice that Harris recognized Americans' concerns over making ends meet. Less nice, though, was pretending that cost concerns are a result of mean corporations rather than bad policy. Also not so nice is her insistence on doubling down on bad policy with even worse cost controls.

Let's emphasize that there's little doubt government policy is at the root of inflation.

Government Officials Should Get the Blame for Those High Prices

"Inflation comes when aggregate demand exceeds aggregate supply," wrote economist John Cochrane of the Hoover Institution and the Cato Institute in a March piece for the International Monetary Fund. "The source of demand is not hard to find: in response to the pandemic's dislocations, the US government sent about $5 trillion in checks to people and businesses, $3 trillion of it newly printed money, with no plans for repayment."

"Fiscal stimulus boosted the consumption of goods without any noticeable impact on production, increasing excess demand pressures in good markets," admitted the Federal Reserve Board of Governors as early as July 2022. "As a result, fiscal support contributed to price tensions."

Even Jim Tankersley and Jeanna Smialek of The New York Times, a paper which almost reflexively supports Democrats, concede "most economists" say that factors including "snarled supply chains, a sudden shift in consumer buying patterns, and the increased customer demand fueled by stimulus from the government and low rates from the Federal Reserve…are far more responsible than corporate behavior for the rise in prices."

And the rise in prices is substantial. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistic's inflation calculator shows that in July 2024, it took $120.25 to buy what $100 purchased in January 2021 when Joe Biden and Kamala Harris took office. That's on average; some sectors have seen greater or lesser inflation.

What Price Gouging?

Especially when it comes to groceries, it's difficult to make a case for "price gouging." A New York University Stern School of Business annual survey shows a net profit margin of 1.18 percent for retail grocery stores last year. That's down a bit from when the Biden administration took office (you can check annual data here). Kroger, the industry giant that is frequently portrayed as a greedy bogeyman, recently enjoyed a slightly higher net profit margin of 1.43 percent; over the last 15 years, its profits briefly reached as high as 3.02 percent in 2018. (The Cato Institute's Scott Lincicome does a good dive into food-industry economics on X.)

So much for Harris's deflection. But then there's her scheme for price controls to address the higher prices brought by government policy. Such controls have such a well-documented track record that they heap stupidity onto Harris's dishonesty.

A History of Price Control Failures

In 2022, when inflation was surging and the dollar's declining purchasing power had many Americans looking for the sort of "solutions" that Harris now offers, Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis economist Christopher J. Neely pointed out that schemes for government-imposed price controls date back to the Code of Hammurabi and "have costs whose severity depends on the broadness of the control and the degree to which it changes the price from the free-market price."

Free market prices, he emphasized, "allocate scarce goods and services to buyers who are most willing and able to pay for them" and "signal that a good is valued and that producers can profit by increasing the quantity supplied." In the absence of such allocation and signals, you get shortages of goods and services. With grocery stores, that means empty shelves—little to buy at the controlled prices.

There's more to it than that. Neely pointed out that you also get cheapened goods to reduce production costs, gamesmanship to get around rules, and black markets that entirely defy the law. He recommended that "price controls should stay in the history books."

The Washington Post editorial board, usually as protective of Democrats as the Times, agrees. It pointed out that Harris didn't define what constituted the "excessive" profits she wanted to target and that "thankfully, this gambit by Ms. Harris has been met with almost instant skepticism, with many critics citing President Richard M. Nixon's failed price controls from the 1970s."

From the Code of Hammurabi to former President Nixon, with a detour for the Roman Emperor Diocletian—who, economist John Cochrane notes, torpedoed production and trade with price restrictions—such controls have been irresistible for government officials. That's because bad economics all too often makes for good—or, at least, effective—public relations. People who tell pollsters they think corporations are raking in 36 percent profits (the real average across industries is closer to 8 percent) can be convinced by clever politicians that they're being ripped off and need government intervention.

What politicians won't admit is that it's their own policies that put the public in distress to begin with, and that their latest schemes, if implemented, will make matters worse.

The post Kamala Harris' Dishonest and Stupid Price Control Proposal appeared first on Reason.com.

Amid all the competing headlines of the 2024 election, there may be no more bread-and-butter issue—literally—than how much Americans are paying to put food on their tables. The GOP is gearing up to attack the Biden-Harris administration for escalating grocery store bills, while presumptive Democratic nominee Kamala Harris has now responded with her own plan to fight higher food prices. 

One of the hottest items in this political food fight is unquestionably the ongoing litigation from the Federal Trade Commission (FTC) attempting to block the Kroger-Albertsons grocery store merger. A host of Democratic lawmakers recently joined the legal fight, arguing that any potential merger would raise prices, increase food deserts, and disproportionately hurt unionized labor. As part of her new food price plan, Harris included a call for aggressive antitrust crackdowns in the food and grocery industry, mentioning the Kroger-Albertsons merger by name in her speech this week.

None of the arguments against the merger make much sense on the merits, but the FTC—and the Democratic Party writ large—are stacking the legal deck to achieve a predetermined outcome that conveniently aligns with their policy priorities.

The saga started back in October 2022, when The Kroger Company and Albertsons Companies Inc. (the parent company for popular grocery chains like Safeway and Acme, among others) announced their plans for a $24.6 billion merger. The FTC promptly launched a 16-month investigation, culminating in a lawsuit in federal court to block the proposed merger.

Kroger is the fourth-largest grocery store chain in America—behind Walmart, Amazon, and Costco—and Albertsons is the fifth-largest. Once merged, the combined company would rise to third on the list. On the surface, this may seem to provide some support for the FTC's position, but American shoppers would be wise to read the fine print.  

In truth, if the deal were to proceed, a merged version of Kroger and Albertsons would still only make up 9 percent of overall grocery sales. To put this in further perspective, consider that Walmart—the nation's largest grocery provider—would continue to operate more stores (including its Sam's Club outlets) than a Kroger-Albertson combo and maintain grocery revenue that is more than twice that of the merged company. 

One could easily argue, in other words, that far from being a monopoly, a Kroger-Albertsons joint venture would be the best hedge against potential monopolies forming among the even-more-dominant firms above it on the grocery store food chain. But incredibly, the FTC pretends that two of those larger companies don't exist in the marketplace at all simply by working with their own definitions.

The FTC contends that only local brick-and-mortar supermarkets (what one might think of as a "traditional" grocery store) and hypermarkets (such as Walmart or Target, which sell groceries alongside other goods) count in the market for groceries. This narrow definition completely circumvents wholesale-club stores (such as Costco) and e-commerce companies that sell groceries (such as Amazon). 

Given that Amazon and Costco just happen to be the second- and third-largest grocery retailers in the United States, the agency is blatantly gerrymandering the definition of the marketplace. The agency's longstanding position is that the only relevant market is stores where consumers can buy all or nearly all of their weekly groceries, which begs the question: Has anyone at the FTC stepped foot inside a Costco recently? Many Americans use club stores like Costco and BJ's Wholesale Club as their primary grocery stores, with around 15 percent of Americans ages 18–34 reporting that they do most of their grocery shopping at Costco.  

Pretending that the internet doesn't exist makes even less sense. As the International Center for Law and Economics notes, 25 years ago a mere 10,000 households took part in online shopping, whereas today 12.5 percent of consumers (or over 16 million people) purchase their groceries "mostly or exclusively" online. Amazon is also preparing to make its own big push into brick-and-mortar grocery retailing as well, with CEO Andy Jassy saying last year that the company must "find a mass grocery format that we believe is worth expanding broadly."

Beyond the FTC's tortured marketplace definitions, its arguments for the alleged harms of a conjoined Kroger-Albertsons are equal parts unconvincing and outdated. In its complaint, the agency points to escalating grocery prices in recent years, and Harris echoed this by stating that she would enact a "ban on price gouging on food and groceries" by directing the FTC to impose "harsh penalties" on grocers. She also pledged to continue aggressive antitrust enforcement in the food sector, going so far as to highlight the Kroger-Albertsons merger as an example of the type of deal that could increase prices. However, as many commentators have pointed out, food price increases likely have more to do with inflation than any lack of competition in grocery markets.

In addition to the consumer price harms the FTC alleges, over half of the agency's legal complaint focuses on the alleged harm the proposed merger would cause to the unionized workers at Kroger and Albertsons. Both companies are heavily unionized—in contrast to Walmart and Amazon—and the agency claims that a combined company would have more leverage over unions given that the unions would no longer be able to play one company off against the other as a negotiating tactic. This glosses over the fact that the demand for labor is particularly competitive in the retail sector broadly, and workers could easily just jump ship to a different employer in the face of any exploitative terms pushed by the merged firm.

A final concern highlighted by some Democratic lawmakers is that a merged company could result in more store closures that lead to geographical areas within which there are few or no grocery options. Once again, this ignores the rise of club stores like Costco and online/home delivery grocery options. These alternatives reduce the plausible areas within which such food deserts can take hold, showing once again a poor understanding of the modern grocery marketplace.

Despite the many dubious underpinnings of the FTC's challenge, it fits with the Biden administration's aggressive antitrust emphasis over the past four years. While some observers were holding out hope that a Harris administration might curtail overzealous antitrust enforcement, her new food price agenda has poured cold water all over that (already wishful) thinking.

The post Harris Joins the FTC's Food Fight Against Kroger-Albertsons Merger appeared first on Reason.com.

Rent control is having something of a moment: In Los Angeles, tenants are invoking a law that imposes limits on apartments built on sites where rent-controlled units previously stood. A new rent control ordinance went into effect last month in the Bay Area city of Concord, California. Phillipsburg, New Jersey is considering similar restrictions. And, importantly, the Biden administration recently moved to cap rent hikes in some federally subsidized housing across the entire country.

But reviving bad policy doesn't make it less dumb than it was in past incarnations.

Affordable Housing Comes at a High Price

"The Biden administration moved this week to limit how much rent can rise in certain affordable housing units across the country," CNBC's Annie Nova noted April 3. "The cap applies to units that receive funding from the Low-Income Housing Tax Credit, the nation's largest federal affordable housing program, according to experts. The National Low-Income Housing Coalition estimates that around 2.6 million rental homes across the U.S. have current LIHTC rent and income restrictions."

Tenant advocates applauded the move, but it drew criticism, too.

"While well‐​intentioned, rent control fails to achieve its primary goal of improving housing affordability for the poor and disadvantaged," economists Jeffrey Miron and Pedro Aldighieri respond in a piece published by the Cato Institute. "In fact, it often generates unintended consequences that exacerbate the very problems it seeks to solve."

They point out that restricting the price of housing discourages owners from maintaining and improving their property. It can also make it attractive for landlords to pull apartments from the rental market and put them up for sale as owner-occupied dwellings. Those enjoying deals on housing costs might also find themselves in the equivalent of golden handcuffs.

"Tenants in rent‐​controlled units become less mobile to avoid losing access to below‐​market rents," add Miron and Aldighieri.

The authors point to studies finding that rent control has reduced the supply of rental housing in communities as far apart as Cambridge, Massachusetts, and San Francisco. In fact, the use of the City by the Bay to illustrate the failures of rent control has a long history. It was the example offered by Milton Friedman and George Stigler in Roofs or Ceilings?, a 1946 essay on rent restrictions published by the Foundation for Economic Education and recently resurfaced on X by the author Amity Shlaes.

A Tale of Two Housing Crunches

Discussing the effects of the infamous April 18, 1906 earthquake, Friedman and Stigler pointed out that "a city of about 400,000 people lost more than half its housing facilities in three days." In the weeks that followed, people left the city, temporary shelters went up, and construction crews swiftly got to work.

"When one turns to the San Francisco Chronicle of May 24, 1906—the first available issue after the earthquake—there is not a single mention of a housing shortage!" they write. "The classified advertisements listed 64 offers (some for more than one dwelling) of flats and houses for rent, and 19 houses for sale, against 5 advertisements of flats or houses wanted. Then and thereafter a considerable number of all types of accommodation except hotel rooms were offered for rent."

Friedman and Stigler contrasted this to the post-war situation in 1946, when "the city was being asked to shelter 10 percent more people in each dwelling unit than before the war"—a less acute situation than the one faced in 1906. But the result in 1946 was very different from that faced 40 years earlier.

"During the first five days of the year [in 1946] there were altogether only 4 advertisements offering houses or apartments for rent, as compared with 64 in one day in May 1906."

That's because, faced with a sudden mismatch between supply and demand, people decades apart chose very different ways of "rationing" housing stock.

"In 1906, the rationing was done by higher rents," wrote Friedman and Stigler. "In 1946 the use of higher rents to ration housing has been made illegal by the imposition of rent ceilings, and the rationing is by chance and favoritism." Higher rents in 1906 spurred people to build quickly and to efficiently use available space. Restricted prices in 1946 offered no such incentives, so housing remained hard to find.

That would have been a hard-learned lesson—had it been learned at all. But it wasn't.

Lessons Unlearned

Decades later, the 2019 study cited last month by Miron and Aldighieri looked at a 1994 law change in San Francisco that suddenly extended rent control to housing constructed before 1980. Sure enough, tenants benefiting from controlled rents became less likely to move, while landlords subject to restrictions converted their properties to condos and co-ops or redeveloped them to escape regulation.

Rent controls "reduced the supply of available rental housing by 15 percent," the study concluded. "This reduction in rental supply likely increased rents in the long run." Contrary to housing activists' intentions, "the conversion of existing rental properties to higher-end, owner-occupied condominium housing ultimately led to a housing stock increasingly directed toward higher income individuals."

So much for the magical benefits to the poor of price controls on housing. But, despite bitter experience of the ill-effects of rent controls, restricting the price that landlords can charge tenants for use of their property remains popular. Whether it's the Biden administration or local politicians in California, New Jersey, and elsewhere, a policy that pretends to make homes affordable is a very visible way of demonstrating concern for low-income families—even if it's completely counterproductive.

By contrast, the productive approach—getting out of the way—isn't so headline-ready.

"The most sustainable and effective way to promote affordable rents is to enable new construction by deregulating zoning, land use, and building requirements," write Miron and Aldighieri. "Such policies make development cheaper and supply more responsive to prices, keeping rents in check."

Unfortunately, leaving the market free to match supply and demand for housing—or anything else—may meet human needs, but it doesn't make for feel-good press releases. So, government officials continue to offer rent control as a solution to housing woes. And economists have endless opportunities to explore why restricting prices still fails to make housing affordable.

The post Rent Control Remains the Wrong Solution to Housing Woes appeared first on Reason.com.