> The good news is "society" isn't buying and selling houses, or negotiating rental agreements. Individuals are.

That's not really true. If you define "society" as "large groups of people", then they absolutely are buying and selling houses, and negotiating rental agreements.

In my hometown, over 50% of single-family houses are owned by major corporations. And some of those corporations are listed and traded, their stock exists in part inside wealthy and upper-middle-class people's 401Ks.

"Society" is absolutely buying up houses, and negotiating rental rates.

> In my hometown, over 50% of single-family houses are owned by major corporations.

I'm curious as to what town this is, and how many are bank-owned properties that haven't been unloaded yet. This sounds like an unusual situation, considering the places I have lived.

Phoenix, here. If I wanted to move from my grandfathered rental in 85377(VN part of town) to 85020(crack central), I would pay more for the same sqft. My landlord mentioned raising rent back in December, I told him to list it & give me 2 weeks notice. He never received a single call in 30 days. But, yeah, it's "demand" pushing rates up.

From 2013, 25% of acquisitions made by funds:

http://archive.azcentral.com/business/realestate/articles/20...

edit: no shortage of For Sale & empty homes up here, too. Multi-million dollar homes are stagnating on the market for years, and subsequently, plenty are for rent, too.

> This sounds like an unusual situation, considering the places I've lived.

That number is slightly higher than average, but the situation isn't uncommon. In fact, it's common enough that the Federal Government itself is doing it too, in a dozen or so major markets (Atlanta, Seattle, Chicago, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, etc)

http://www.cnbc.com/2017/01/25/governments-fannie-mae-will-b...

> I'm curious as to what town this is,

These are the stats from my small hometown specifically :

http://michiganradio.org/post/winners-and-losers-grand-rapid...

You didn't address any of the points I made. It's like libertarianism. Sounds right at the individual level but it doesn't scale. You also completely ignored price gouging and other factors that distort market forces. You appear to assume all parties have equal bargaining power and pricing power. You are looking at things superficially.

The only thing there is is individuals transacting with each other. "Society", as an independent entity, is a mirage.

And yes. It probably is like libertarianism. I am a libertarian, and I don't take that as an insult.

Would you agree that the Nash equilibrium is not identically equal to the global utility optimum? If so, then you almost certainly agree that what is best for an individual actor is not necessarily what is best for Society (all people in a political aggregate) at large.

In plain terms, everyone acting selfishly does not necessarily lead to everyone getting what they need.

I have sympathy for your argument, but there's a small note of confusion. Namely, libertarian economists know a ton of game theory. In fact, I only got into game theory due to reading econ texts by writers I later found to be libertarian-leaning. Wouldn't it be a bit strange if the prisoner's dilemma really was a knockdown argument against their views? Maybe there's more than meets the eye?

"Society" is the dynamics that emerge when groups of humans form settlements and organize themselves together for various purposes (food, safety, enjoyment, etc).

Unsurprisingly, these dynamics differ from those found in isolated, individual humans.

society is requiring you to participate in this market however. You can't just take a tarp and set up a lean to in large parts of the US or you'll be kicked out, arrested, or even killed