Your post seems like an example of what GP is talking about. A source being biased doesn't mean it can't make a valid point, nor does it mean that MSN can't do their own vetting.
> Your post seems like an example of what GP is talking about.
No it isn't. The GP accused the flaggers of flagging it for ideological reasons, because it goes "counter to their narrative." I'm saying that it's legitmate to flag because it's been posted using the wrong url, because awareness of the true source and knowledge of its biases is useful for evaluating the content.
>But to argue this is almost always futile because all most people seem able to absorb is that you're disagreeing with their intuitively compassionate position
At best Rent Control is a mixed bag. See history of NYC. For those lucky enough to "get in on the ground floor" its great. For others, not so much, as the landlords jack the rent to cover their "losses" on the controlled rent.
I would say Rent Control causes more harm than good overall.
If you consider soviet housing blocks as having operated under rent control, they illustrate the problem. There was little maintenance done by the state --often it was up to the occupants to improve the building. Also, the state didn't build enough units and people had to accommodate multiple families in one unit.
It's a failure but people wish it to be otherwise. They wish for things to spring out of the aether by wishing it so.
It always has. With rent control there is no incentive for landlords to rent, repair, or improve. Which actually reduces the amount of available properties, and dissuades building more housing (because what’s the point?) If you can’t make money doing it then you’re probably losing money.
The actual article is from the quite biased libertarian Reason Magazine: https://reason.com/2024/09/26/rents-fall-and-listings-increa..., but it's being laundered through msn.com, which obscures that.