Housing is a strictly zero sum game. When you have more people who want houses in an area than there are houses you will have winners and losers.

Rent control chooses certain people to be winners and other people to be losers. It does exactly nothing to increase the number of winners. Furthermore it creates disincentives to the creation of new housing, which means fewer winners in the future. Even worse, for the winners it does select it puts them at a long term disadvantage by trapping them into a non-optimal location.

The only solution to “not enough housing” is “more housing”. Rent control is actively harmful to this goal.

> if strict can give equal chances to tenants no matter your background.

The GP's point is that it gives equal chances to tenants to stay. New tenants do not benefit from rent control, they instead are hurt by the higher prices due to lower supply.

Anything you can cite?

The US economy is the driver of the world economy, and has been for quite some time and it's why we see so much innovation of entire new sectors in the US. (Yes, you can see sustained higher growth for a time in some other places, like China, because starting from a lower level allows for piggybacking in the same way the US economy grew with regard to Europe in the 19th century.)

The reason mature European economies do not come close to entrepreneurship and the rate of innovation in the US economy is because widespread govt regulation and taxes across the board stifles economic options for investors.

It is simply not true that housing and employment laws in other places "works great", it's a tradeoff, and if the US follows that path the world will become a less good place for everybody because Europe and Asia will no longer have an innovative capitalist petri dish to follow and leverage from.