Except for bombing

I am new to the study of economics, but over the past year or so have tried to pay more attention to economic woes of the country. With all the the troubles that their citizens are in, a few cities and states have decided to give price controls another try after many miserable failures. Since God King Obama is our Demander-in-Chief, maybe the fundamental principles of economics will have changed. From this article

"In a free market system," Glaeser said, goods go to the people who value them most; in a price-controlled system, goods go to whoever is lucky enough to get them. As a result, people hold on to rent-controlled apartments even if they barely use them."

But sponsors of pending U.S. price and rent control legislation dismissed such theories.

"The housing affordability crisis trumps any theoretical recommendations of economists," New York State Assemblyman Jonathan L. Bing, a sponsor of many of the rent-control provisions pending in New York, told FOXNews.com.

Theoretical? Well, I found the following example from later in the same article to be quite...not theoretical:

"In many cases rent control appears to be the most efficient technique presently known to destroy a city -- except for bombing," said Swedish economist Assar Lindbeck, a former socialist who has been researching rent control since the 1960s.

"In New York City, the Bronx basically fell to pieces because of rent control. You even had the extreme of landlords burning down their houses."

The South Bronx lost 40 percent of its housing stock in the 1960s and '70s, largely due to arson. Many buildings were suspected to have been torched by the landlords themselves, who found that their buildings were literally worthless: There was no way to make a profit due to rent controls, and nobody would buy a building that could not make a profit. Burning the building allowed them to collect insurance money and pay off debts.

The "except for bombing" part sounds pretty real to me.