Summary: “Beyoncé is selling “listening only” tickets > for her Renaissance tour. The seats are behind the > > stage, so you can’t see any of the set or dancing, but > they only cost $157 compared to the ~$900 fans have been paying for regular US tickets.”
haha!
fuuuuuuuck that.
Similar, not same.
Both are supply/demand equilibrium, and will always reach the price the market is willing to pay.
With Beyonce, the richest 10k (or so) fans are the ones who will buy the tickets, either through direct payment or scalpers. You could do things like name tickets with photo ID required to present, but the wealthiest who were willing to pay the scalper would still buy anyway. Taylor swift tried lowering her prices for actual fans with a point system, and got hauled over the coals for it.
The housing market is different. If you set a price control on rent you remove any incentive to improve your rental property or invest in new builds as you no longer receive the payoff from the risk - resulting in slum lords and large stocks of the cheapest, shittiest technically houses that you can get. Supply never moves, demand naturally increases over time and property never gets invested in.
What evidence are you basing your analysis of the effect of price controls on housing based on?
Germany and Austria have price controls on rents, and rental housing is generally much higher quality (and, unsure if cause/effect, much more socially desirable) than say, England. In England, which has no price controls, almost a quarter of rented accommodation is “non-decent” (by the English government’s low standards) – and where 18% of members of Parliament are private landlords (not to mention those whose spouses / parents / business partners are).