Free market works only as long as both parties have the freedom to bail out. In case of essential commodities like housing or healthcare, this isn't the case. Even if a deal is beyond your budget, you can't turn it down and live in the streets. The other option to live further away has upper bounds in terms of practicality. And this power imbalance, creates a reinforcement loop which would spiral out of control without any external corrective measures like Government interference or workforce/business exodus.
If this is true, then what about clothing? You can't go around unclothed, you always have to pick some sort of clothing to wear. Does this mean clothing manufacturers have some sort of special power over you, and must be regulated by the government?
Just like picking what clothes to wear, you can pick your apartment, pick how much and what quality of medical care to receive, and this is enough to ensure a reasonably well functioning and competitive market without special rules. These markets aren't that special or different.
People can import clothes from just about anywhere, and there is plenty of clothing for everyone (maybe not distributed evenly but enough exists)
Space and time are the constraints that drive housing prices. Building denser housing is expensive and hard, much more difficult than sourcing and importing clothing in today's world.
Localized markets can require localized policies, because applying the same rules evenly to all markets wouldn't make sense, abstaining from creating local rules can make things worse, but creating them can also create new problems.
I think rent control can be healthy as a small buffer. I think fundamentally these are 'microscopic' policy bandaids to larger macrosopic problems. Unfortunately, it takes a very powerful organization with the right incentives to solve the macroscopic problems.
While it is true that land is a finite resource which makes it a unique sort of asset, this is a separate issue than what GP raised. In fact, the point you raise goes in the opposite direction - it makes rent control far worse and more damaging!
Locking in pre-existing claims to land - through renters being allowed to stay in units as long as they wish at cheap prices, and enacting restrictive/NIMBY zoning laws - serves to constrict the housing supply. Because land is already a finite resource, any restriction on how many housing units per parcel of land end up being built is an even more harmful policy.
While that is true, it is a separate issue than what GP raised. In fact, the point you raises goes in the opposite direction - it makes rent control far worse and more damaging! Locking in pre-existing claims to land (renters being allowed to stay as long as they want at cheap prices) and restrictive zoning laws BOTH serve to constrict the housing supply. Because land is already a finite resource, any restriction on how many housing units per parcel of land can be built is an even more harmful policy.
"Pick how much and what quality of medical care to receive"
Last time I was in an ambulance I was a bit too unconscious to really do my due diligence in checking that the hospital it was taking me to was in-network and didn't balance bill.
