The article is so ludicrously oversimplified that I didn't feel it merited the dignity of a rebuttal, but if you can find an argument that doesn't rely on the frictionless-spherical-humanoids assumptions of efficient markets, feel free to bring it up.
I'm not sure I see the connection between this article's arguments about rent control and efficient markets theory. Efficient markets are those that incorporate all available knowledge about goods into their prices. Rent control isn't a problem of price uncertainty and asymmetric information.
Maybe I'm missing something, but if I'm not, I think you're hurting your point by waving terminology like that around. By trying to discredit an unrelated concept from econ, it's like you're saying "if you can find an argument that doesn't rely on economics of any sort, feel free to bring itup".
* the actual number of people who wish to move to SF at any given time
* the number of people who pay rent control, but could pay more, and what that number is
* the actual rents that people pay under rent control
As obvious as parts of a toy model might be to people who are familiar with economics terminology, the toy model's conclusions are really quite 'new' to some people. For example: the rents in SF dont need to be 'supported' in the sense most of us think (by everyone). They merely need to be supported by a small amount of wealthy people bidding on a tiny amount of available apartments.
I think that's an important fact regarding how 'frothy' the market is. It can definitely go higher.
"Economists are virtually unanimous in concluding that rent controls are destructive. In a 1990 poll of 464 economists published in the May 1992 issue of the American Economic Review, 93 percent of U.S. respondents agreed, either completely or with provisos, that “a ceiling on rents reduces the quantity and quality of housing available.” Similarly, another study reported that more than 95 percent of the Canadian economists polled agreed with the statement."
> 93 percent of U.S. respondents agreed
> another study reported that more than 95 percent of the Canadian economists polled agreed with the statement.
Well yeah, that's about as reliable as asking the members of the Supreme Soviet if socialism is a perfect society model.
Maybe we could do this study again and include the numbers for people which are not part of the "free market will save you"-propaganda group? Or add a few reasons why the answers should be correct besides "I want it!"? Come on ... american and canadian economists .. you can do better.
Meanwhile your argument is super hand-wavy. There is not an infinite quantity of rich people wanting to live in San Francisco. I don't think it's reasonable to assume a priori that demand can not decrease absent rent control.
