People can and do change their minds about where they want to live and how much they will pay, but they don't do it just because there are laws saying they should. You can legislate prices, but if they don't match what people want then someone will end up rationing desirable things in some other way.

You can't legislate what people value, but you can change things so they value them more or less. I think the most promising thing would be to convince companies to create jobs in places where the cost of housing is lower.

> it's possible to regulate prices with laws,

You know they did just that in Venezuela, with noble intentions, do you?

Sure, you can, but pricing laws won't change the fact that there is more demand than supply. If anything, it will make things worse.

There has to be some selection. With free market, the selection is about how much you can or are willing to pay. Cap the rents and other criteria will be used. In many cases, more or less legal froms of bribery will make up for the gap in value.

Another common thing that happens when rents are capped is that landlords are going to make sure that they are only renting to the rich, because the rich are less likely to default. How are they going to know that you are rich? Obvious ones are to look at your bank account (privacy?), but unfair criteria like race can also be used.

You can also become communist, have the state take all housing and redistribute them "fairly". I think it is an area where communism actually works, but it probably won't be well received in the US...

That's how you get a black market/under-the table cash payments.

That's why you get rid of the landlords

Supply and demand is as close as a 'law of nature' as can be. It is natural human behaviour.

Price controls do not work and are actually damaging because instead of trying to balance supply and demand they make the imbalance even worse. They do not remove the pressure of supply and demand, which continues to be at play.

There are other ways of deciding who gets a valuable resource, like housing in an area that a lot of people want to be in, than giving it to the person with the most money. This defeatism always can drive me nuts.

What are the other ways?

Waiting lists and lotteries are simple solutions which have their own problems sure, but are significantly more fair than by wealth.

How does a waiting list or lottery work in practice for housing though? Would people not be able to sell housing? Would they have to sell to the next person on the waiting list? Are children able to inherit it?

I'm not trying to be coy, I simply haven't seen a viable alternative with details. And since most of the world converged on using money to decide allocation of resources, I'm wondering if the alternatives have significant drawbacks.

I understand that wealth begetting wealth, especially for generations seems unfair. But the solution to that doesn't have to be lottery or waiting list of housing. If the goal is to spread the wealth around more evenly, then that can be accomplished with higher taxes.

What they are suggesting is state ownership of all housing, with 'democratic' allocation based on needs. It's been tried...