I’d suggest that oil price manipulation may have been rampant, but I don’t think it was the suppliers who manipulated it. Supply increased during the price spike and demand diminished, yet price increased. That doesn’t sound like suppliers manipulating the price to me. All that being said I don’t think adding more manipulators to the equation is going to improve things.

I was using copper as a random example, but I’m curious how suggesting nationalization solves anything. Replacements and recycling are activities that will happen naturally as prices get too high, but the suggestion that I can’t charge more than a certain price for the commodity means that all of those things become less appealing. I can’t get more than a certain amount for my recycled copper so creating a business in recycling is less appealing. I can’t go after copper that costs more than the given price ceiling because the price controls make it impossible to profit. Is your suggestion that by nationalizing the industry the taxpayer can subsidize the copper industry?

As far as subsidization — of course it makes rents go up. But it doesn’t necessarily make the cost of rent go up to the renter, if I subsidize $150 per month of rent and it goes up $100 the renter is getting it cheaper and the landlord is making more. It also makes it more appealing to increase supply. Which certainly sounds like a better way to make living in a certain area affordable than making increasing supply less attractive.

As far as the rest of the rent control issue. The whole point is once again: changing the price that can be charged for a rental property doesn’t change the amount available. There are a given number of apartments in NYC and a given number of people who want them. Price ceilings will just put fewer people in each apartment, making the shortage more intense. Hence more homeless people. I can say that living in a NYC apartment is free, it doesn’t mean everyone will get one and it probably means that people who didn’t even want to live in NYC that badly will come live there.

As for copper? The solution is to nationalize that, in the event of a shortage based on a mining slowdown. But if there’s no physical sources available for mining copper then you have a far bigger problem than price controls: if you’re truly running low on copper and it isn’t a mining production slowdown then it’s time to recycle. Or come up with a new replacement resource.

BTW subsidizing rents also causes rents to go up: now there’s more money chasing the same amount of apartments. This is also true with college tuition and, as we all saw, home mortgages.

As for landlords paying for diversity, that’s a moot issue – white people are becoming a minority, making diversity an impending, implied reality for America.

Apartment owners in NYC have been hit hard for their under the table payments and discrimination: which brought up the threat of turning apartments into office complexes… cutting the supply even worse. Not that I’m against rent controls or in favor of your argument, though – frankly I’d be in favor of you living next to all the homeless people that cannot afford those high rents in areas without rent controls. Rent controls cause homeless issues down the line – but without rent controls you get slammed face first into the problem right away.

BTW having roommates isn’t as cheap as it sounds. You’re actually safer without one.