[sinistersnare]

I believe that the matter of their defense is irrelevant. The truth is that real people were harmed by this, and they deserve reparations today. As to who pays, it must be the landlords. This is the supposed 'risk' they take on by being landlords, which everyone tells me is so great to bear.

Also to get on a soap-box, this is the truth of reparations, it is not in relation to a single event, it is an attempt to solve injustices that exist institutionally in our world today.

[racketcon2089]

This approach is at odds with rule of law and historically has not redressed injustices but rather created societies where power is even more concentrated and even less accountable.

The primary purpose of any and all reparations rhetoric in the US today is to divide the electorate by anything other than economic position in order to maintain a status quo whose legitimacy is beginning to erode. And it's working quite well, since you're delivering grandiose proclamations while advocating for nihilism and ignorance towards the existing legal processes that will actually impact the lives of millions of people in the coming years.

[anigbrowl]

divide the electorate by anything other than economic position

Punishing landlords for colluding against tenants by forcing them to give back the money is pretty much the opposite of the status quo and about as focused on pure economics as you can get.

[racketcon2089]

I would disagree in very strong terms. The entire economic, legal, and taxation system of the US are organized in a certain way that's only a couple of hundred years old.

Returning some money to some tenants as a one-off and restricting some forms of landlord collusion is about as far as you can get from pure economics or structural reform. Both capital R reparations and reparations as a social justice hobby horse are ultimately intended to preserve and legitimize the existing system, even in their maximalist demands which tend to deflect and discredit more concrete advocacy.

Economics is a vast field with a long history and many possible futures so it's quite sad that the horizon for many people is "american neoliberalism with more regulation and redistribution" or "american neoliberalism with less regulation and redistribution."

I can think of at least three actual opposites of the status quo: one would be a georgist tax that makes holding land speculatively unprofitable, one would be a singapore style nationalization where the government purchases all of the apartment buildings at their tax-assessed rate but allows for a market in 99 year leases, and still a third would be ex post facto arbitrary expropriation without compensation in the style of many communist revolutions.

"Some landlords return .01% to 15% of their last 2-3 years of passive revenue increases and promise to raise rents more arbitrarily" is not a bad thing for those renters, but in terms of economic trends and policy it's quite literally using existing law to _return_ to the status quo.

[sinistersnare]

I agree that contemporary rhetoric on reparations is quite poor. But, scholars today agree that reparations are a way of understanding our government's position on change and not on giving money to people (Reconsidering Reparations by Olufemi Taiwo is about this). You give some good stuff to think about with the historical point, but I still believe it must be tried again, and better this time.

So I don't discount the legal processes, I am saying they must be changed. That is how we can actually solve issues like this, instead of simply putting a band-aid on each time we have systemic issues like this.

I find myself to be an anti-nihilist as a matter of fact. Reparations is not an _ideal_ for which I have grounded in nothingness (nihilism). Reparations must be a state of being for our government, whose material being should be solving injustice and not propagating it.

[racketcon2089]

Anyone who wants to change the legal system to deliver a specific outcome instead of follow a specific process is always going to be my enemy.

I would be happy to die for habeas corpus, the right to face your accuser, the right to a trial by jury, freedom from ex post facto expropriation, public trials, the right of appeal, and countless other things which literal wars were fought over for a good 700 years of hammering out common law.

To be ignorant of the protections this brings and the costs its absence imposes is legal nihilism, the focus on a single outcome in the present with no provision for the future.

I hope the prosecutor makes their case well and the jury follows the judge’s instructions and returns a verdict favorable to tenants. But if the prosecutor drops the ball or the jury makes a decision that baffles me, upholding that process is more important to justice than any single outcome.

Many Americans are not only willing to die to uphold this, but part of their job is also to kill in its defense. The pseudo-heidigerian stuff about government having a state of being just reads like you’re gearing yourself up to rationalize imposing your beliefs through nominative positioning.

[mattmaroon]

This is a good example of why most people don’t belong in politics or management.

You’re basically saying that because this violates your code of ethics, it should be punished by the legal system wherever or not they’ve actually broken a law. So the system of laws is meaningless, what’s important is how you feel, and your moral code.

And I get it, we probably all feel this way on some level. But I’m glad society doesn’t operate that way.

[ok_dad]

This software is collusion, and anyone using it today should be penalized. I don’t care what excuse they have, it’s clear to someone with half a brain (most landlords have at least half) should realize software that fixes prices for you based on local demand is going to be collusion. It’s pretty clear how that stuff works, the only unclear thing is if there is a loophole or judge which will let the landlords off in favor of the zombie economy over actual humans.

[arcticbull]

The collusion here is what, that they all agreed to use the same software?

What if I create software that recommends rates to charge, and I market it. Proven to get you up to 20% or more extra rental income! Then everyone just happens to use my software, and the rates are then 'recommended' to everyone based on an analysis of what the market will bear. No collusion. Is a law broken in this case? Or is the market just lacking in competition.

The software isn't making landlords do anything, it's recommending an optimal market price. Is it any different than a quote from a commodities futures exchange being used to price corn at the local grocery store?

[anigbrowl]

Then everyone just happens to use my software

knowing what it does, yes that is collusion. Look at the etymology of the word: it literally means 'playing together'. It doesn't require people to meet up in a smoke filled room in supervillain outfits and say 'let's collude, heh heh heh'. Everyone is sharing their rental data to help the software calculate the optimal price, and everyone wants to get extra rental income, per your scenario. The diffrence from the commodity exchange is that exchange operators are not promising specific price outcomes for commodities.

[arrosenberg]

The whole point of pro-competition laws is to stop large corporations or a cartel from using market power to control pricing, which is the scheme you just laid out. So, yes, that would be illegal. You can say "no collusion", but you (the operator) have effectively organized a cartel. Each individual landlord may escape liability, but you will not.

Commodities exchanges (I believe) work on a competitive bidding system, which is basically the opposite - you have willing buyers and sellers with roughly equal power/information.

[arcticbull]

> The whole point of pro-competition laws is to stop large corporations or a cartel from using market power to control pricing, which is the scheme you just laid out. So, yes, that would be illegal.

How is a Zestimate or Redfin home value estimate legal then? Or a Redfin rental estimate? [1] Would it become illegal - or a cartel - if too many people started using it to set rents?

Should we forbid tools to help landlords figure out how much their places should rent for?

[1] https://www.redfin.com/rental-estimate

[arrosenberg]

It might be. RealPage's definitely is because they've clearly accrued market power in order to control pricing. In Redfin's case it seems like more of a marketing gimmick, but if you could prove it had a meaningful effect on driving prices up, then yes, the FTC should order its' removal.

> Should we forbid tools to help landlords figure out how much their places should rent for?

It depends? Playing moneyball (i.e. charging the maximum the market will bear without a serious, violent response) with a necessity like rent should be illegal, and many of these tools seem designed to do that using market power, which is explicitly illegal. If the tool just gave some local averages based on things like amenities, that might be ok.

[sinistersnare]

Yes, if it causes harm to people. Being a landlord is a job (so I'm told), do some math, figure out how much is fair (cost:labor calculation) then ask on the open market if people want to pay that. The problem is that the underlying system here did NOT do this calculation, hence price-gouging. It is the lack of free market that is the problem, thanks to this price centralization.

[cscurmudgeon]

Collusion requires intent to collude. If they knew using the software was collusion and willingly used it, then only it is collusion.

[mattmaroon]

It’s not collusion if the landlords don’t know it is price fixing and they really may not. Collusion definitely requires mens rea.

[sinistersnare]

Today, we punish people by taking away their money. Taking away someones money should not doom people to poverty over this kind of stuff! I am not saying kill all landlords here. I am saying that the landlords profited too much and it must be made fair.

There should be no 'punishment' of the landlords truly, I am saying we make a system where landlords can not unjustly profit from us (and I do speak generally here).

Stuff like this is what causes the housing crisis, it must be dealt with systemically, not by giving a few people none-the-wiser a lesser life.

[arcticbull]

> I am saying that the landlords profited too much and it must be made fair.

There's for better or worse no law against 'too much profit' in the general case. How would one define 'too much'? A certain margin? That has historically led to merchants increasing their costs so they can profit more in absolute terms once the relative profit cap is met.

Seems like the answer is just to allow more construction and densification, which in turn creates a more competitive market for housing. If they then tried to aggregate, roll-up and collude they would fall under the Sherman act no?

[mistermann]

> Seems like the answer is just to allow more construction and densification

The system very often doesn't actually support that in fact, so I don't find it a particularly compelling argument.

Sometimes systems suck from the get go, sometimes they degrade over time. Some of us are getting tired of the heads I win tails you lose "democracy" magic show, and the runtime we are in supports recourse outside of the "agreed upon" (wink wink) legal conventions, and I suspect it is more of a coordination problem than a consensus or will problem.

[sinistersnare]

Well the problem is that with these software systems, we have already answered your question. If we do not change something (after seeing this!) then we have allowed 'dumb' collusion. Where these landlords can profit exceedingly and then claim complete innocence.

The landlords see their rent prices increase in their checks each month, it is not as if they have not noticed increased profit over the last years due to this.

So if this is allowed, we will start to see increased centralization and then passive acquiescence to gross profit.

[arcticbull]

> Where these landlords can profit exceedingly and then claim complete innocence.

Define 'exceedingly.'

> So if this is allowed, we will start to see increased centralization and then passive acquiescence to gross profit.

The market is already fairly efficient, except where laws like rent control forbid market efficiency.

The issue is that while demand exceeds supply of housing in metro areas, the cost to acquire/rent will tend towards the maximum amount a renter/buyer can bear. On the other hand, when supply exceeds demand, it tends towards the cost of construction.

This software just makes the market more efficient in the same direction it was already heading.

More houses solves this. Suing the pricing tool for existing does not.

[sinistersnare]

To define exceedingly. Well I guess I just see this as a natural partner in the housing crisis. To combat things like this is to help solve the housing problem today. The prices are not going up like this because there are too many people, the prices are going up because of economic centralization.

[mistermann]

> The market is already fairly efficient

Please translate "fairly efficient" into percentage terms. Also, what instrument are you using to perform your measurements?

[anigbrowl]

Oh please, you're ignoring contrary evidence, like the fact that landlords were using the existence of new housing as a justification for raising their own prices in order to stay 'competitive' (in terms of profit, rather than in terms of price). There's a simple and easily understood argument about why the behavior is illegal and anticompetitive.

Coming in and harassing people for definitions and quoting economics 101 while ignoring the empirical evidence isn't a good way to discuss an issue.

[enterprise_cog]

It does operate that way, whether you want to believe it or not. Every political decision is influenced or directly related to the ideology of those in power.

Funny how feelings are brought up and mocked when it’s about the disenfranchised. Meanwhile, the ruling elite gets their fee fees hurt by socialists and it’s how it should be.

Strange, isn’t it?

[GenerWork]

People like you are why frivolous lawsuits like this exist, because they simply feel that "harm" occurred because something you they didn't like happened.

[sinistersnare]

My argument is that if harm can be proved, those harmed must be made whole. I don't understand how that is frivolous. I am not the one saying that a collusion suit should move forward here.

[cscurmudgeon]

Reparations is an ugly box nationally and globally.

Remember, every major group had injustices committed against them at one point and by them at one point.

[mattmaroon]

It’s also just impossible. To pay an amount that even meaningfully improved the lives of 10% of the people it was aimed at, we’d bankrupt ourselves. If your government printed enough money to give let’s say 12% of the population an amount to make up for lost income over several generations, it probably wouldn’t help much, and even if it did, that money would be worthless due to hyperinflation and government bankruptcy.

It’s a well-meaning idea that’s proven stupid by even elementary school math. Anyone who suggests it is clearly incapable of rational though.

[sinistersnare]

I am not saying the solution here is by giving people dollars. But creating a system where landlords (by disallowing this kind of price centralization) can't screw over their tenants.

And saying that people who argue for reparations are incapable of rational thought is quite rude.

[mattmaroon]

You may be right that it’s rude, I apologize. But it’s not incorrect if we’re talking about reparations the way, it is typically used in American discourse, but perhaps you meant it some other way also

[cscurmudgeon]

What does landlord collusion have to do with reparations?

[sinistersnare]

I'm using reparations as a general term of making people whole. The landlords, whether or not they did anything morally wrong, have taken what they should not have (collusion). Therefore, reparations are called for. This is the argument I am making, predicated on the Justice Department's agreement of the complaint given leading to this case.

[anigbrowl]

Have you tried reading the subthread you're posting in?

https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=38297746

[cscurmudgeon]

Have you tried looking up who I posed the question to?

[bitcurious]

Reparations in the context of this antitrust lawsuit == a settlement of the class action lawsuits that will inevitably happen. Same word, but nothing to do with other the other kind.