I think this is part of the article's point. Raising incomes to combat affordability problems is far better for everyone involved than lowering prices artificially.

But like you said politicians get less credit for the the former than they do the latter, and thus we have the current situation of continued bad policy decisions.

The article isn't denying that lowering prices is politically effective--I think that's undeniable at this point--just that doing so is probably the wrong call.

Fair, it does touch on that issue towards the end. But I think it deserves more than a couple sentences acknowledging (but proposing no solutions to) the issue in the last paragraph, given IMO it's basically the entire issue with their proposal.

> Raising incomes to combat affordability problems is far better for everyone involved than lowering prices artificially.

This has been tried in many latam countries in the past 15-20years with Inflation expectations getting out of control as result

That also ends in everyone being paid sleventy billion dollars a minute and a banana costing more dollars than the number of atoms in the universe.

This strikes me as a symptom of an unsustainable system.

[dead]