[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.

[arcticbull]

> The prices are not going up like this because there are too many people, the prices are going up because of economic centralization.

Well no, they're going up because there's not enough houses near the jobs. Studies show the US is short 2-6,000,000 homes. Until that changes, prices will only keep going up. The centralization here is making it move faster than it otherwise would but the bounds and direction remain unchanged.

[sinistersnare]

Well if you believe that the problem is that there are not enough houses, these people did not collude, and nothing needs to change. That make sense.

[arcticbull]

I s'pose we'll find out as this makes its way through the courts :)

[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.