But... They're not wrong. That IS the market. Unrestricted, gloriously free market with its historically predictable outcomes - yay!
That's not where the interesting discussion is. The interesting discussion is with the notion that free unregulated markets are universally good and will naturally lead to positive outcomes because... I don't know, I'm personally not religious, but somebody here will help me :-).
Commodities used to be proper free markets. Many suppliers and many buyers of a product that was the same regardless of the supplier.
This lead to low prices and/or differentiation with new products.
Most of these markets were too good, so in general we now have a few big companies buying up the lion share of the supply so they can set the price regardless. For example soy, just to name one
Sorry, when you say "gloriously free market", do you mean whatever it takes EU, helicopter money (or, rewinding a decade, Greenspan put) US, or factory of the world China? :)
My point is that it's not a real market economy if the risk premium -- and in China's case, the exchange rate -- is rigged. And it has been, since the 90s.
EDIT: For clarity, I'm agreeing with you, since you were being facetious.
Absolutely! -- and we could play this game for a long time ;)
The right way of looking at it is, there was tiny little interlude of something vaguely approaching the free market -- back when Volcker was in charge.
> That's not where the interesting discussion is. The interesting discussion is with the notion that free unregulated markets are universally good and will naturally lead to positive outcomes because...
The textbook desirable outcome is that competitive markets minimize suppliers'surplus which is good for consumers.
Not that this doesn't mean unregulated markets. Monopolies and oligopolies acting like a monopoly are textbook examples of pathological markets where suppliers can maximize their surplus.
I think pretty much everyone would agree that the current situation is a failure of regulation not over regulation. Regulator and legislation have been constantly weakened in the name of international competitiveness since Reagan.
An example of unregulated market is where I come to your house and put a gun to your head and in exchange for not pulling the trigger you give me your various items of value.
While you are technically correct, you are neglecting that it would a be a bad idea, because in such a market I would likely answer the door with a shotgun or I would have an agreement with my other neighbor to shoot you if you come to my door brandishing.
This is actually also how global diplomacy works. Either have big guns or big friends.
I think you have gone in the end of the spectrum, in a sense that even a state law's are being broken, we are talking about rules in the market itself.
An unrelated market is an oxymoron. You could come to my house and put a gun to my head, but that's not a consensual trade. That's just thuggery; the point of a market is that both sides benefit from trade.
For markets to exist, property rights also need to be respected.
But this is my point. People say "unregulated market" and assume that means reverting to feudalism, but what it actually means is just... less regulation.
Don't forget the Republican policy of starve the beast that includes Republicans happily putting the US into un-sustainable debt as a matter of policy, hoping to break the government so badly that Republicans can then enforce unpopular policy they can't get any other way.
What they probably mean is that it is not a fair market, that there is no balance in purchasing power, pushing small scale buyers away while supply slowly catches up (or doesn't)
I'm not disagreeing with you, but I have not frequently heard the phrase "fair market" (as opposed to a far more limited and specific term "fair market value", where "fair" I believe applies to "value" and not "market") and would be interested in hearing more of its definition and criteria.
Trivially, I would assume proponents of "free market" and "fair market" are a tiny if not zero Venn diagram, and that terms are at least somewhat opposing, but will withhold my judgement :-).
People love to say that but they own a very small percentage of housing in reality. What’s driving housing costs is also supply and demand. Especially supply, since we’re not allowed to build any houses in most places people want to live.
You’re still missing the key point: Hedge funds and REITs aren’t arbitrarily buying housing at any cost.
They are responding to the market. If they overbuy then they will lose money and have to sell at a loss, at which point you could snap up some good deals.
This is ridiculously oversimplified, because there is no real market in housing. It is illegal to build in all of the places people want to buy. The purchase of housing by hedge funds isn't a problem on its own, it's simply a symptom of the bigger problem of supply restrictions.
The funds themselves say in their financials that they view housing as profitable because of the various restrictions on supply in every desirable city. They explicitly say that if those restrictions were lifted they would not be able to make money in that business and they would exit.
Any attempt to apply supply and demand and market theoreticals in housing is fundamentally misplaced, as the other commenter noted, because there are far too many forces that distort both supply and demand.
Which doesn't sound like a free market to me. Capping production to keep asset price high is one of the most straightforward default examples of market-distorting interventions there is.
Hedge funds don’t have as high of institutional ownership as you assume. It’s actually pretty small.
That said, nothing about the situation you described is at odds with “free market”. You’re describing the operation of a free market.
I think a lot of people want “free market” to mean the opposite: A highly restricted market where they are protected from any supply and demand inputs from anyone else. They just want cheap things and don’t want to compete with anyone.
There are two sides to a free market, though. In your example where a hedge fund comes in and buys your entire neighborhood, they would have to do so by outbidding everyone. This drives up the price. If it’s an economically irrational move you’d be smart to sell your house to them at an inflated rate, too! Then move back in when the prices crash down.
I should point out the relevance of my argument, is completely independent from the fact the reply to this questions of yours, is higher than zero.
So dont see this reply as a justification. Just as a note that you failed to do basic diligence on distortions that are well known. And as I said, that are not relevant to the analogy.
That article doesn't support your point. Only a small fraction of the homes in that area are actually owned by hedge funds. You should check the facts before commenting.
