American Cartelism

[hog88]

Between the additional 37% and then all the other housing options that I mentioned earlier, I think less government interference is best.

I don't disagree with that but I think with the current laws on the books they are breaking them.

 

[scooty_vol]

That reminds of my brother and I talking about the increasing cooperation between industry (capital) and leftist governance (anti-market); he asked why would capitalist entities go along with that?

Because corporatism - fascism that is itself a model of socialism - will do what is necessary to maintain their place at the table and eliminate competition. I maintain that none of the regimes we refer to as communist have ever been communist; Marx/Engel's communism is a stateless, anarchic society, and socialism expressed as the transition stage between capitalism and communism. These regimes were and are socialist. The fascist variant - an infinitely more practical model - eschews silly universalist notions and the idea of re-inventing the industrial wheel, by allowing industry to remain in the hands of those who know how to run it and bending them to the will and purposes of the regime as necessary. They view themselves as the future technocratic elite who'll be secure with whatever shite form of government emerges.

And they're right, at least for a time. I think 'equity' is just a PR term for the bolsheviks to rally under that means nothing to those who mean to rule.

Yeah, it does make sense.

 

[LouderVol]

Between the additional 37% and then all the other housing options that I mentioned earlier, I think less government interference is best.

Edit: but I’m open to hearing arguments. Interested in seeing what our local Mick has to say about the issue too

I am willing to bet, because I couldn't find a break down, but I believe a good number of those individual land lords are short term rentals (AirBnB).

Back before Covid it was crazy down here in Atlanta. Something like 60% of all residential units being built were intended for short term rentals only. and that included all types of housing and owners. conversely hotel rooms, the original short term rentals, were tanking hard.

and I don't get your argument that price fixing is ok as long as X percent of the market is not price fixing. Its either wrong or its not.

if you are wanting to make the pure capitalism argument you shouldn't be talking with your competition before changing your prices. That's just as much interference in the market as other sources. Trial and error is the heart of capitalism.

 

[Vol8188]

I am willing to bet, because I couldn't find a break down, but I believe a good number of those individual land lords are short term rentals (AirBnB).

Back before Covid it was crazy down here in Atlanta. Something like 60% of all residential units being built were intended for short term rentals only. and that included all types of housing and owners. conversely hotel rooms, the original short term rentals, were tanking hard.

and I don't get your argument that price fixing is ok as long as X percent of the market is not price fixing. Its either wrong or its not.

if you are wanting to make the pure capitalism argument you shouldn't be talking with your competition before changing your prices. That's just as much interference in the market as other sources. Trial and error is the heart of capitalism.

How do you think prices are set to begin with? Not in a vacuum. If you were opening a gourmet hotdog stand tomorrow, would you not view the prices of competitors?

Edit: as far as the moral argument you’re making, I don’t think it’s the role of government to regulate morality

 

[Godfatha]

How do you think prices are set to begin with? Not in a vacuum. If you were opening a gourmet hotdog stand tomorrow, would you not view the prices of competitors?

Edit: as far as the moral argument you’re making, I don’t think it’s the role of government to regulate morality

Monopolies and collusion are bad, and are illegal. You can get in a lot of trouble if your company, company B, and company C all decide to price fix your market.

 

[hog88]

How do you think prices are set to begin with? Not in a vacuum. If you were opening a gourmet hotdog stand tomorrow, would you not view the prices of competitors?

Edit: as far as the moral argument you’re making, I don’t think it’s the role of government to regulate morality

My issue with price fixing in any industry is that it stifles competition in most cases. Take the top 10-15 providers of x and they all agree on pricing then they can all agree to buy business too. In other words they can lower prices long enough to kill off anyone making a serious run at them. Seen it done.

 

[Vol8188]

Monopolies and collusion are bad, and are illegal. You can get in a lot of trouble if your company, company B, and company C all decide to price fix your market.

Lol was this blue font?

“Drugs are bad and are illegals! You can get in a lot of trouble if you do drugs”

 

[Vol8188]

My issue with price fixing in any industry is that it stifles competition in most cases. Take the top 10-15 providers of x and they all agree on pricing then they can all agree to buy business too. In other words they can lower prices long enough to kill off anyone making a serious run at them. Seen it done.

True. But that occurs without price fixing. If you open a bar and the bar next door does $1 drafts for your first year in business, you’re likely done

 

[LouderVol]

How do you think prices are set to begin with? Not in a vacuum. If you were opening a gourmet hotdog stand tomorrow, would you not view the prices of competitors?

Edit: as far as the moral argument you’re making, I don’t think it’s the role of government to regulate morality

maybe I took your post wrong, its one thing to go to a website or see posted prices; thats commonly available information and is fine. Calling them up before you make changes is a different can of worms imo. similar to what gas stations do, one goes up, so they all go up, even though those other stations may not have been hit by whatever caused the increased price just yet.

at some point the individual end user has no viable alternative because all of the market works together on their prices, and I 100% know that's the case because I hear it from clients all the time. or you get the bs "capital improvements" and suddenly rent goes up $400 bucks a month after they painted, and cleaned up the dead bushes. There are also a ton of incestuous "partnerships" between the different owners that are designed to artificially keep their own costs down, while allowing them to raise rates on the end user with no changes.

I don't see it as much of a morality issue as it is one about freedom of opportunity. the/all market absolutely works in ways to squeeze the end user unfairly. and I think we have plenty of clear cut cases where this morality issue has lead to the direct harm of the people, which is a government issue.

 

[hog88]

True. But that occurs without price fixing. If you open a bar and the bar next door does $1 drafts for your first year in business, you’re likely done

I have no problem with direct competition, now if the 4 biggest bars in town all agreed to offer $1 beers for the purpose of running mine out of business that would be collusion.

Honestly, I'm torn on the subject because I guess technically I'm guilty of it myself trying to fence out some of the big players in my industry.

 

[Godfatha]

Lol was this blue font?

“Drugs are bad and are illegals! You can get in a lot of trouble if you do drugs”

You seem to be defending it and calling it a morality issue when it isn't.

 

[Vol8188]

I have no problem with direct competition, now if the 4 biggest bars in town all agreed to offer $1 beers for the purpose of running mine out of business that would be collusion.

Honestly, I'm torn on the subject because I guess technically I'm guilty of it myself trying to fence out some of the big players in my industry.

I see no difference in 4 bars agreeing on price vs 4 bars coming to the same price independently.

 

[Vol8188]

You seem to be defending it and calling it a morality issue when it isn't.

You should read everything I’ve said again. I mentioned morality because the person I was responding to seemed to be making a moral argument that it was “bad”. I’m not making a moral argument because that’s not the role of government. I don’t want Biden or Trump dictating morality.

And if that wasn’t blue font and was your real opinion “it’s illegal! It’s bad!” You should really reevaluate that overly simplistic view that “illegal=bad”

 

[hog88]

I see no difference in 4 bars agreeing on price vs 4 bars coming to the same price independently.

I get it and like I said I'm torn on it. I just know it is currently illegal.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I’d like to see their evidence of that

Dude, they openly admitted it.

The suit adds "RealPage openly boasts that its services “balance supply and demand to maximize [Lessors’] revenue growth.” And that is precisely what RealPage has done, facilitating an agreement among participating Lessors not to compete on price, and allowing Lessors to coordinate both pricing and supply through two mutually reinforcing mechanisms in furtherance of their agreed aim of suppressing price competition for multifamily residential real estate leases."

In a nutshell, the suit claims companies had "mutual assurances" they wouldn't undercut each other by using RealPage's algorithm, agreed to give RealPage their lease data, and follow RealPage's recommendations to create a monopoly. "In plain terms, RealPage concedes that its coordinated algorithmic pricing allows Lessors to obtain the same results as a single seller or monopolist-an outcome Lessors “would not otherwise be able to achieve” without RealPage’s pricing and assurances of Lessors’ discipline to that pricing," the suit states.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

How do you think prices are set to begin with? Not in a vacuum. If you were opening a gourmet hotdog stand tomorrow, would you not view the prices of competitors?

Edit: as far as the moral argument you’re making, I don’t think it’s the role of government to regulate morality

Yeah, you are asking for evidence, yet you didn't bother to read the article.

At the center of the allegations made in the suit is RealPage. The lawsuit states that until 2016, the companies (described as 'Lessors') were trying to gain a renters business by offering attractive prices. This created competition because when " one Lessor lowers its rents while the others don’t, then that Lessor would outperform its competitors. As a result, Lessors tended to charge competitive rents."

However, in 2016 and perhaps earlier, the suit claims "Lessors replaced their independent pricing and supply decisions with collusion. Lessors agreed to use a common third party that collected real-time pricing and supply levels, and then used that data to make unit-specific pricing and supply recommendations. Lessors also agreed to follow these recommendations, with the understanding that competing Lessors would do the same."

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I see no difference in 4 bars agreeing on price vs 4 bars coming to the same price independently.

You can't be serious.

 

[Vol8188]

You can't be serious.

I’m 100% serious. If you open a bar and your four competitors all decided to sell dollar beers for the next year, does it matter if they made that decision individually or mutually?

And is the promotion of your business interest worth the financial advantage gained by the customers of those businesses? It’s no different than claiming we should ban cars to save the few workers in the buggy industry

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I’m 100% serious. If you open a bar and your four competitors all decided to sell dollar beers for the next year, does it matter if they made that decision individually or mutually?

There are two reasons why you need laws for collusion/cartelism:
1. To prevent businesses from knocking out competitors and new entrants in the market (this addresses your bars with $1 beer analogy)
2. To protect consumers from rapacious and predatory price gouging

And is the promotion of your business interest worth the financial advantage gained by the customers of those businesses? It’s no different than claiming we should ban cars to save the few workers in the buggy industry

The only way you can do what you are talking about in a realistic since is if the cartels collude with govt to protect their industry. But that would be fascism, which is a different topic all together.

Either way, cartelism or fascism are still levels of collusion that we should not be accepting in a free market.

Also, I really do think that you are trolling right now because you are still going to come back and argue about independent decisions made by business that just so happen to have the same results/outcomes. You know good and damn well that reasonable people are not going to be in an uproar about a situation like that. We are strictly talking about incidents such as was detailed in this case with property management companies.

 

[Vol8188]

There are two reason why you need laws for collusion/cartelism:
1. To prevent businesses from knocking out competitors and new entrants in the market (this addresses your bars with $1 beer analogy)
2. To protect consumers from rapacious and predatory price gouging


The only way you can do what you are talking about in a realistic since is if the cartels collude with govt to protect their industry. But that would be fascism, which is a different topic all together.

Either way, cartelism or fascism are still levels of collusion that we should not be accepting in a free market.

Also, I really do think that you are trolling right now because you are still going to come back and argue about independent decisions made by business that just so happen to have the same results/outcomes. You know good and damn well that reasonable people are not going to be in an uproar about a situation like that. We are strictly talking about incidents such as was detailed in this case with property management companies.

The businesses can do 1 without violating any laws. That’s why I said they can arrive at that independently.

As far as point two, let them gouge. They don’t own 100% of the industry, Americans can buy homes, live at home, live in mobile home or rv parks.

If you’re “not going to be in an uproar about a situation like that” (businesses arriving at the same price independently) then why legislate their ability to do so together?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

The businesses can do 1 without violating any laws. That’s why I said they can arrive at that independently.

As far as point two, let them gouge. They don’t own 100% of the industry, Americans can buy homes, live at home, live in mobile home or rv parks.

If you’re “not going to be in an uproar about a situation like that” (businesses arriving at the same price independently) then why legislate their ability to do so together?

No one is talking about businesses arriving at the same results independently. Why do you keep bringing that up?

 

[Vol8188]

No one is talking about businesses arriving at the same results independently. Why do you keep bringing that up?

Because you’ve yet to explain why only one of those should be punished. You seem to be proclaiming both are bad for their competitors and/or for the consumers.

Why then do you only wish to punish one? It’s a simple question and fundamental to the question of “should these laws even exist”.

Your entire argument seems to be “it’s bad for competition/consumers”. Okay…so is this. Why only punish one? Why continue dodging the question?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I see no difference in 4 bars agreeing on price vs 4 bars coming to the same price independently.

This is the quote that is problematic.

 

[Vol8188]

This is the quote that is problematic.

lol “problematic”? You’re acting like it’s racist. It’s problematic to your argument. That’s why I said it. Because I don’t see the difference in the two.

Can you explain why only one of those should be legally punished? How can one be so bad for the consumer/competition and the other be acceptable

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Because you’ve yet to explain why only one of those should be punished. You seem to be proclaiming both are bad for their competitors and/or for the consumers.

Yes, I did.

There are two reasons why you need laws for collusion/cartelism:
1. To prevent businesses from knocking out competitors and new entrants in the market (this addresses your bars with $1 beer analogy)
2. To protect consumers from rapacious and predatory price gouging

Why then do you only wish to punish one? It’s a simple question and fundamental to the question of “should these laws even exist”.

Explain who you mean is the "one"? I just want to make sure I understand who that "one" is.

Your entire argument seems to be “it’s bad for competition/consumers”. Okay…so is this. Why only punish one? Why continue dodging the question?

Dodging the question? I never saw you ask about this "one" party until this post right here. I clearly told you the two reason why these laws exist. If by the "one" you mean the "consumer", then yes, the laws need to be made favorable to the consumers. Asking businesses not to collude in a free market economy does two things:
1. Allows there to be open compettion for consumers by allowing them to have more options. If existing industries come together and drown out any new entrants, the consumers lose.
2. Makes an attempt to protect the consumers from price gouging.