Hi, this may be a dumb question, but why doesn't the governors of states like NY, NJ, and CA stop the rent control? From the book it seems obvious that we should just let the market play out for that would bring the most benefits in the housing situation in those states. The book even gives both the direct impact and the secondary effects of rent control. I guess that is why 47 other states do not do rent control, but it just confuses me why those three states still do it even though it brings more harm than benefits.
Imagine being the politician that wants to remove rent control. They may be able to point to economists, but the emotional argument someone may be put forth of "you're going to make people pay more for housing, how dare you" will often win in the public opinion arena.