But surely they're not subsidized for the entire world by the US government?

To refresh the point that I am making: OP said "Ruthless capitalism and fundamental human needs do not mix well." The implication being, housing should not be subject to ruthless capitalism. And I use the ready and cheap availability of food and oil as a counterargument.

Your point seems to be that food and oil are beneficiaries of subsidies in the US, therefore are not "ruthless capitalism".

The US government pays $20B/yr in farm subsidies. HUD has a budget of $40B, and the mortgage interest deduction is a $110B/yr subsidy to homeowners.

If food in the US is subsidized such that it is not "ruthless capitalism", then on this basis it would seem to me that housing has been subsidized well beyond the point of "ruthless capitalism" as well. Yet OP (and you) seem to think that food is subsidized to a far greater degree than housing. I challenge you to make a concrete case that this is true, either in the US or globally in general.

I wrote

Yet food is governed by ruthless capitalism, no? Surely we wouldn't argue that farm subsidies are all that's standing in the way between people getting a decent meal and chaos?

Are you in fact arguing that US farm subsidies are all that's standing in the way between people getting a decent meal and chaos?

Oh really? I didnt realize it was the petroleum companies who forced people to buy petroleum and not the fact that fossil fuel based transit and energy is technologically superior and easier than any alternative.

You're saying that the system we have for oil would work but for the fact that governments don't attach a price to oil's negative externalities?

This does not seem like much of an argument against a capitalist system! I would call this a win for capitalism then, and a loss for governments sidestepping their obligations to, you know, govern.

I am the first person to agree that oil companies have used their money and influence to buy favorable regulations, putting the whole world in danger. On the other hand, this again seems like a failure of government rather than a failure of capitalism. Indeed, the powerful using their influence to protect their interests is something that has happened under every economic system ever tried, no?

>> Or a "guaranteed public option"? Or is the idea to have more of a "centrally planned" housing market [...] > Basically yes.

Are you familiar with the notion of "the projects"? I wouldn't say this turned out well for anyone...

The good news is that the major driver of cost in places like SF isn't actually the cost of building per se but instead is the cost of absurd regulations, causing it to take many years of fighting with NIMBYs just to get a permit to build anything. Solving this morass would be a huge effective subsidy to developers and would cost the public literally nothing. If you're in favor of subsidizing housing development, I hope you're in favor of starting with this?