> Please do look at ypur own argument and think it through in practical terms. One has to be a blind free market believer to think that higher foreclosures decrease suffering. Yes market forces may drive more houses to be built, but that means years on the street for some poor soul.

This seems like the same kind of thinking as "Just printing money and handing it out will make everyone better off. How could it not? One has to be a blind economist to think that anyone would be worse off for getting extra money; yes market forces may drive the value of money down, but that would take years to have an effect."

Certain policies provide a cushioning effect and softening the blow. Decreasing suffering in this way prevents a lot of societal pressures down the line. It’s not just about printing money.

Policies like eviction / foreclosure moratoriums are not sustainable long term. Eventually people will need to come off those crutches and start paying their rents and mortgages again. Those things aren't free right now, it's just other people paying for them. Including our future selves via taxes and inflation. The longer this goes on, the more painful it will be for everyone. Long term there is no free lunch. We've been in this crisis long enough that emergency stopgap policies don't make sense any more.

Why would rents rise if there’s nobody to pay the higher rent? Rent has been increasing because there is a bidding war among potential renters. Lack of housing in general is what causes a lack of affordable housing.

Why don’t landlords just raise the rent to $10k/mo everywhere then? If everyone just pays it seems like a surefire win.

Some municipalities mandate growth rates on residential leases be capped (say, 12%).

If as a landlord you took the chance and overpriced your property, it might sit empty, and the kind of tenant who eventually takes it is the kind of tenant who will find a better deal once they have the time to look around.

And leases are contracts, so they have lag times before the rules change for any individual renter.

Or your background level of life stress increases and you are 2% more likely to escape from it with vodka and then fall into a spiral of alcoholism.

Not if you are poor enough.

Moving costs money too. Suddenly, not only are you on the hood for the increased rent where you are, but now you gotta pay another months rent in addition to deposits (not everywhere charges last month's rent upfront). And it isn't just housing: You might have to pay a deposit for utilities (for example) especially if they weren't in your name previously. And then there are logistics of actually getting your stuff to the new place. You might have to leave some things behind. And over the next couple of months, you'll probably have things like connection fees for water and electricity. If you are really lucky, you'll get deposits back to help with this.

All this assumes you weren't already living in a crappy, low-rent apartment too. Sometimes, there isn't much to choose from. Enough affordable housing is only part of the issue.

There is a level at which you are too poor to move. You cant afford first and last months deposit. You cant afford a moving truck. You cant afford whatever required deposits may exist for heating, electricity, gas, etc. There are a lot of families that exist in this zone. Not too mention a lot of people are tied to a location due to the availability of free childcare via a relative.

Practically, it’s simply that this is a situation where higher foreclosures in the short team lead to fewer overall, as we get closer to enough affordable housing options for everyone (and providing public aid becomes cheaper for those who cannot afford anything.) It sounds like we have the same heart for renters and homeowners. Both of your insults are misplaced.