That's interesting, because the very first economics study material I read specifically used rent control of an example where government interference leads to a less efficient market.
I'd love to hear the argument for rent control, though.
I'd love to hear the argument for rent control, though.
Mission is another neighborhood which is pretty much a shit-hole, but IS a cool place. There are lots of great places to eat and drink and there are festivals, parties and parades most every night.
Usually when you hear about someone being shot, it's either in Oakland or the Mission.
It sounds like you're justifying rent control on the basis of aesthetics.
Same idea: You will lose the character without some sort of effort to not.
I didn't say it made the market efficient, I said an argument could be made that it was a net positive. That's not the same thing.
Example: efficient markets sometimes produce monopolies, who then abuse their monopoly power. That's a net negative - but it isn't an example of an inefficient market.
Net positive? Sounds like some kind of value theory. Which "net positive" are you talking about? Can't argue something you don't understand..
In this instance it would mean that the sum total of the economic benefits to NYC that come from rent-controlled apartments outweigh the sum total of the negatives.
On your point, it could be argued that Google's overall platform dominance might not be attributed to barriers to entry, but rather barriers to exit. While Google offers some of your data back to you in a portable format it's still quite difficult to leave their services, and even when you do they will still be tracking you for advertising. To form their potential natural monopoly in your mind, you can imagine how difficult and inefficient it would be to have multiple different firms tracking you to the same extent that Google does (search, Google+, Gmail, calendar, Google Docs).
I am not an amateur economist.
I would go so far as to say: governments themselves are "free-market monopolies" in this sense. That is, there is no binding unilateral authority which solves intergovernmental disputes, and each government instead has to negotiate with other governments in an open and unregulated forum where even backstabbing and flagrant contract violations are permitted. If governments are monopolies on power, then the market of power is surely not a well-regulated one.
Pepsi and Coke are not a monopoly - as you explicitly acknowledge, there are at least two suppliers in this market.
Microsoft was never a monopoly, there were always other suppliers (Sun, Be, IBM, Apple, Linux, at different points in time).