When we talk about opposition at prices, we usually talk about it price checks. This is not unreasonable. There are still calls for them in response to short -term higher prices After a disasteror long -term costs of living, increases in terms of rent or food. It is important to explain the negative unintended consequences of such interventions.
But sometimes people who claim that there are negative unintended consequences do not seem to understand why. In particular, when those who are at price controls also support the policy that intervene less directly in price signals. In other words, opposition for price checks do not necessarily translate into an argument to make markets work. What is needed is an argument against interfering market signals Shipped by prices.
In response to the home crisis, for example, Canadian governments have arrived at an near-consensus on the need to limit immigration. Neither the liberal nor the conservative party campaigned on price checks. But both promised demand controls.
The home crisis itself is a result of market distortions. Overlapping laws and regulations prevent (and slow down to a crawl) building enough houses where people want to live. There is a consensus that we need to allow new homes. But we are confronted with the usual problems: too many people with houses in the places where the demand is highest do not want their neighborhoods to become closer or turn into character.
In response to the resulting high prices for homes, governments promise to further distort the market by stimulating and suppressing demand.[1]
The Canadian governments have encouraged the demand for new houses by offering a range of policy (both incentives and tax credits) that subsidize demand. They also suppress the question with more restrictive caps on immigration. One party suggested binding immigration caps to housing growth, job growth and accessibility of health care. (Put a pin in it.)
More houses the prices fall due to competition between home sellers and landlords. More people who need houses increase prices through competition between buyers from home and tenants. At a certain level it is logical that if the government policy ensures that the price goes up, it simply implements a different policy that will help upward pressure on the prices.
And maybe it would be if we lived in an economy where people bought and sold one. But we don’t do that! The people who need houses are the same people who work in the rest of the economy – including housing. This is the whole reason why we need prices: they are the only tool we have that the market can make Knowledge useful.
Consider the policy that suggests that binding immigration to residential growth, job growth and accessibility of health care. All these factors also need immigrants! Immigrants to build houses, immigrants to fill and create new jobs, immigrant doctors to tackle a national shortage. Every employee, and all his resources, has requirements and offering resources that nobody can even know, let alone manipulating, without market prices.
There is no proposal to fully terminate immigration, so the government could choose to interfere further to tackle the problems that cause immigration controls. They can give priority to immigrants with the relevant expertise in trained transactions. But that means choosing a sector to support over others, with a step -by -step effect in the economy. The termination of paths to immigration can illuminate the pressure on housing costs, but influence the food supply. Stacking intervention in intervention, both in housing and in immigration, gives us a government that looks like it is playing nail-a-mole.
This is the knowledge problem at work. As soon as the government has caused a problem with a market intervention, subsequent interventions to reduce the first problem risk, in new sectors of the economy. With every intervention, the use of resources will probably become less efficient, and we have to expect to see higher prices if, if it gets bad enough, shortages.
A better understanding of the prices, how consumer’s demand can reach through supply chains to give raw materials their value, and how prices balance the competing requirements of the consumer with the availability of means to encourage service providers and producers to place those resources where they are most appreciated is necessary. There is more than one front in the War on Prices. Only everyone convincing that price checks are bad, it will not cut.
——
[1] Cue joke about the government involved On both sides of a problem.