It's downvoted because it puts the cart before the horse.
Monetary policy intervention interferes with the market by forcing interbank interest rates to be higher than they would be in a free market. As any banker will tell you the price of interbank reserves in a free market is zero - as there are more than are required to clear the banking system. In a free market asset prices are naturally determined by the last creditworthy person prepared to pay the current price of money who visits a bank. Which will be higher than zero because ordinary people have no access to the interbank, and therefore the bank can put their risk and cost mark up on the price of money.
You can hardly argue against rent controls but for interest rate controls. Why favour bankers over property occupiers?
Oh, a simple misunderstanding! I was arguing against the central bank controls on interest rates that have so distorted to the property market. Glad we cleared that up!
In fact, my post said nothing about interest rates currently being set on a free-market basis, because the whole point was that central bank interventions are distorting and setting those rates in a way that generates huge inflation in the property markets that is then treated as insignificant for purposes of calculating inflation statistics. Property inflation --> Rent inflation. Concentration of wealth + Rent inflation --> Rent control | Homelessness.
You can hardly argue against rent controls but for interest rate controls. Why favour bankers over property occupiers?