American Cartelism

[Rasputin_Vol]

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.

Your argument is the ends justify the means. Meaning, if these companies collude to drive prices down, then that is a good thing. Well, if you open the door for them to do it in one direction, then you open the door for them to collude in the opposite direction. You are adding artificial distortions to the supply/demand/price relationship.

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

The same reason why insider trading is illegal.

 

[Vol8188]

Yes, I did.
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.

I edited out a lot of the fluff to get to the heart of our disagreement. You seem to think this answers my question which implies you misunderstand my question.

I’m stating both (collusion and arriving at the same price independently) result in the same 2 outcomes (your two points above) that you keep mentioning. Yet you only want to punish one of those (collusion) and not the other (independently arriving at the same number).

Why?

 

[Vol8188]

Your argument is the ends justify the means. Meaning, if these companies collude to drive prices down, then that is a good thing. Well, if you open the door for them to do it in one direction, then you open the door for them to collude in the opposite direction. You are adding artificial distortions to the supply/demand/price relationship.


The same reason why insider trading is illegal.

That’s not my argument. See the post above for a more precise example of what I’m saying

 

[norrislakevol]

It's an issue when multiple companies use the same service and agree to use the recommended pricing. It's called price fixing.

It's called collusion. Pretty sure that's illegal under federal law.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

I edited out a lot of the fluff to get to the heart of our disagreement. You seem to think this answers my question which implies you misunderstand my question.

I’m stating both (collusion and arriving at the same price independently) result in the same 2 outcomes (your two points above) that you keep mentioning. Yet you only want to punish one of those (collusion) and not the other (independently arriving at the same number).

Why?

Let me say it one more time. If you allow them to collude in one direction, then you open the door for them to collude in the opposite direction. You are introducing artificial distortions to the supply/demand/price relationship.

 

[Vol8188]

Let me say it one more time. If you allow them to collude in one direction, then you open the door for them to collude in the opposite direction. You are introducing artificial distortions to the supply/demand/price relationship.

In no way did that address my question. I’m not saying allow them to collude in one direction (deflation) but not the other (inflation).

The “two” things I’m talking about (and have laid out very clearly) are:

1. Collusion. Arriving at the same price through mutual agreement (higher or lower).

2. Independently arriving at the same price.

My question is: since both result in the same thing, why do you only wish to punish 1 but not 2?

 

[Vol8188]

@McDad curious about your take on this topic in general

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

That’s not my argument. See the post above for a more precise example of what I’m saying

We are just going to have to agree to disagree then. I've gone over this multiple times in the past half hour and you still want to equate both situations based on the two situations having the same results. And that is all you want to focus on is the results.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

In no way did that address my question. I’m not saying allow them to collude in one direction (deflation) but not the other (inflation).

The “two” things I’m talking about (and have laid out very clearly) are:

1. Collusion. Arriving at the same price through mutual agreement (higher or lower).

2. Independently arriving at the same price.

My question is: since both result in the same thing, why do you only wish to punish 1 but not 2?

I've answered this 2-3 times now.

 

[Vol8188]

We are just going to have to agree to disagree then. I've gone over this multiple times in the past half hour and you still want to equate both situations based on the two situations having the same results. And that is all you want to focus on is the results.

We have went over it a few times but everytime you’ve responded with something only tangentially related that never addressed the underlying question.

 

[Vol8188]

I've answered this 2-3 times now.

You’ve not. That’s why I am asking. You were talking about the direction of price movement in one answer and the first reply was you just saying why the thing that both have in common is bad, without ever addressing why you only wish to punish one of the two

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

You’ve not. That’s why I am asking. You were talking about the direction of price movement in one answer and the first reply was you just saying why the thing that both have in common is bad, without ever addressing why you only wish to punish one of the two

It simply amounts to a basic understanding of the relationship of supply/demand/price. Businesses coming together to set prices distorts the constraints of supply and demand.

Edit: And not just supply and demand, but also productivity/efficiency. A more efficient business may still have the same constraints of supply and demand as their competitors, but may be able to offer a lower price due to productivity gains. But, if they collude with their less efficient competitors and raise prices, then again, another market distortion.

 

[Vol8188]

It simply amounts to a basic understanding of the relationship of supply/demand/price. Businesses coming together to set prices distorts the constraints of supply and demand.

Edit: And not just supply and demand, but also productivity/efficiency. A more efficient business may still have the same constraints of supply and demand as their competitors, but may be able to offer a lower price due to productivity gains. But, if they collude with their less efficient competitors and raise prices, then again, another market distortion.

That can occur independently. Why not punish that too?

I keep asking because you’ve yet to even try to address that

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

That can occur independently. Why not punish that too?

I keep asking because you’ve yet to even try to address that

I don't have an issue with independent decisions being made. I have a problem with collusion.

Again, you continue to focus on the results. Its not about the two having the same results. Its about one situation introducing distortions in the supply/demand/price relationship.

 

[Vol8188]

I don't have an issue with independent decisions being made. I have a problem with collusion.

Again, you continue to focus on the results. Its not about the two having the same results. Its about one situation introducing distortions in the supply/demand/price relationship.

Youre dancing like Luther here. I know you don’t have an issue with independent decisions. But independent decisions can also distort supply/demand/price relationships.

So once again, given they end with the same results, why do you only want to regulate one?

Idk why you refuse to answer this.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

Youre dancing like Luther here. I know you don’t have an issue with independent decisions. But independent decisions can also distort supply/demand/price relationships.

Possibly. I can't think of a situation off the top of my head. Maybe if there was bad information about supply/demand/price that decisions were based on? Either way, there is no deliberate attempt to distort the market.

So once again, given they end with the same results, why do you only want to regulate one?

Its not about them having the same results. It is about how you arrive at those results. Was it by independent decisions or collusion?

Idk why you refuse to answer this.

I've answered this several times.

 

[Vol8188]

Possibly. I can't think of a situation off the top of my head. Maybe if there was bad information about supply/demand/price that decisions were based on? Either way, there is no deliberate attempt to distort the market.


Its not about them having the same results. It is about how you arrive at those results. Was it by independent decisions or collusion?


I've answered this several times.

You don’t have to think of one. I literally gave you one. New business opens. Multiple businesses in the same town decide to drastically lower prices as a response.

You’ve not really answered it at all. Why is a group arriving at a decision inherently worse than multiple individuals if the results are the same?

I’m seriously open to the argument. But I don’t think you’ve presented one.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

You don’t have to think of one. I literally gave you one. New business opens. Multiple businesses in the same town decide to drastically lower prices as a response.

Those businesses, if they are acting independently, are reacting to an increase in supply (meaning a new business coming into town) with demand remaining constant (meaning the number of customers hasn't changed in that town). So ask yourself, what should happen to price when supply increases (more businesses) but demand remains constant (same number of customers)?

You’ve not really answered it at all. Why is a group arriving at a decision inherently worse than multiple individuals if the results are the same?

One last time, stop talking to me about the results being the same. That isn't what it is about. It is about them coming together to manipulate price

I’m seriously open to the argument. But I don’t think you’ve presented one.

Sure you are.

 

[Vol8188]

Those businesses, if they are acting independently, are reacting to an increase in supply (meaning a new business coming into town) with demand remaining constant (meaning the number of customers hasn't changed in that town). So ask yourself, what should happen to price when supply increases (more businesses) but demand remains constant (same number of customers)?


One last time, stop talking to me about the results being the same. That isn't what it is about. It is about them coming together to manipulate price


Sure you are.

1. I’m not saying they would just react to increased supply and adjust accordingly but rather they could all decide to intentionally sell at a loss, individually.

2. This is the part that really matters because you’ve yet to explain this. If the results are the same (we see to agree on that part) why would you only want to use government to punish one?

At no point have you addressed the fundamental reason that collusion should be punished but independently arriving at the same number should not. Why the distinction?

 

[midnight orange]

Cartels are illegal but shouldn’t be. They’re also not immoral. Sort of like price fixing in a disaster area. Anti - price fixing laws sound reasonable emotionally but the effects carry very negative consequences for the area in question.

Cartel - Mises Wiki, the global repository of classical-liberal thought

 

[McDad]

@McDad curious about your take on this topic in general

I'm looking at these two excerpts as problematic for the lawsuit:

...that collected real-time pricing and supply levels, and then used that data to make unit-specific pricing and supply recommendations.

While companies could opt to take their own actions, the suit claims 90% of their clients stay on the same page and adhere to recommendations. The suit also claims RealPage gives companies information which helps them to "stagger" lease renewals to avoid oversupply in the market, keeping prices higher.

The consultants brought to the lessors macro economic data which could not be obtained by small to medium sized rental businesses. Much like other nationwide businesses can target price points and allocation of goods to manage supply/demand effectively.

Companies could opt out. But if I am paying a consultant for price, renovation, marketing, lease terms, etc. why would I go against their recommendations? Furthermore, would I know every other business followed their recommendations? The lawsuit doesn't say the businesses communicated with each other. It says they communicated with the consultants. Can I collude if I do not communicate with my competition? Can I collude if I don't know who else is using the consultants I am? If the duplex next door is charging less rent and my occupancy percent is acceptable, I don't lower rent to match. If next door is charging more, I will raise my rent. Is that collusion? The owner next door doesn't know I'm engaging his tenants in conversation.

FTR, I have hired consultants for my rentals and I followed their advice to the letter.

 

[Vol since 77]

Wife has been in property management for over 25 years. Currently works for a large nation wide company (not involved in this). She said there's some large players in the industry named here, like Lincoln and MAAC. She wouldn't be surprised if they have been doing this to drive the market up. She thinks if there's any proof of this going on, they will settle out of court. She also wouldn't be surprised if this is just a money grab by attorneys.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

At no point have you addressed the fundamental reason that collusion should be punished but independently arriving at the same number should not. Why the distinction?

I told you why there is a distinction. Several times. This is my last time.

You want to encourage natural market forces related to supply/demand/price to be in play (independent decisions) instead of a group of players coming together and creating a false distortion in that relationship. If you allow parties to come together to fix prices, it empowers the larger players to manipulate the system in 2 ways:
1. They can come together to lower prices to run out competition and new entrants
2. They can raise prices to gouge consumers

That is the reason for the distinction. It doesn't matter about being able to reach the same number/result. Again, I'm not focused on the results. The mechanism used to arrive at that result is the issue.