The housing case is non-traditional because the entity the cartel organizes through is the local government rather than a corporation.

You have to live somewhere to get a vote there, so the people (sellers) who already own property in a location get a vote while the people (buyers) who are about to move there don't until after they have and have switched from customer to owner. The result is that the existing property owners have a lock on the local government and pass anti-competitive rules that constrain the housing supply and raise prices.

You might think renters would help there, but there are areas where the majority are not renters, and the areas with majority renters often end up with abominations like rent control which cause market rents to go even higher while neutralizing the threat to the anti-competitive rules by paying off just enough of the tenants to retain local majority support.

I don't think that's really an anti-trust problem, and I don't think you can call a majority of voters in an area a "cartel". It's a matter of giving the majority of residents/voters what they want, even if it's bad for them in the long run.

> I don't think that's really an anti-trust problem

What kind of problem is it then? High prices being maintained by a purposeful conspiracy of existing owners to constrain supply sure sounds a lot like an antitrust problem.

> It's a matter of giving the majority of residents/voters what they want, even if it's bad for them in the long run.

But it's not necessarily bad for them. They make more money by monopolizing the local real estate market in the same way as any other cartel monopolizes anything.

Even if their choices are bad for the city itself, they may be planning to sell and move to another area before the long-term negative consequences to the city are felt.

> What kind of problem is it then?

Regulatory capture?

That's hardly mutually exclusive with cartel behavior

It’s still a cartel from a market perspective. They are colluding to control supply.

You're painting a picture of greedy homeowners restricting housing to make their investments go up. But there are other, more legitimate reasons for homeowners to resist turning every town into high-density mega-apartments. Some people highly value a quiet neighborhood. Some people (like myself) are extremely sensitive to the sounds of neighbors playing music with subwoofers. Good luck avoiding that in a high-density apartment (you'd need about 5 feet of solid concrete to damp out a loud subwoofer next door).

then dont live in a city.

Sure, I'll go move out into the country. And others like me will do the same. And then soon people will start whining about how expensive it is to join us, because of the low population density, and how we ought to replace our houses with apartments...

There are two prominent examples of antitrust/monopoly problems in the U.S. real estate market: MLS and dual agency. The MLS seems to be complicit in forcing home sellers into paying higher buyer agent commissions: https://therealdeal.com/national/2019/05/22/doj-demands-core...

With consolidation of real estate brokerage firms, many home buyers may have overpaid due to a single firm representing both home seller and buyer, known as dual agency: https://therealdeal.com/2019/05/01/houlihan-lawrence-fails-t...

There is a third issue of large private equity firms buying large volumes of houses that may, in the future, warrant an antitrust investigation.

I agree that being forced into 6% commission regardless of the effort it took to buy/sell your house is a problem, I don't think that extra few percent is what's pricing people out of buying a home.

The effective cost implications are more likely 10-12% at each sale. A seller will try to increase the price of the house to cover these commissions.

Your comment is focused on buying a home, but there can be dramatic consequences for home owners, the stakeholders forced into paying both agents.

When a seller has little equity and a poor housing market, exiting a primary mortgage can be financially impossible. A recent survey found a large fraction of the US can't handle a surprise $400 expense. So the follow-on effects of these commissions are not trivial for a large swath of the country.

I also agree that depending on location (looking at you SF metro) there are much bigger factors, e.g. constrained supply, inflating home prices.

Just so you know, that "$400 expense" survey has been widely misreported: https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2019/apr/19...

>>> I'm curious what you see as the antitrust violations that lead to high housing prices?

https://www.nar.realtor/about-nar

I don't understand why you're being down voted... It's a valid question. Nothing pops into my head when I imagine a corporation that owns a majority of real estate. It's a conversation worth having.

The closest I can think of is mobile home manufacturing. Berkshire Hathaway has 52% of the market (up from 17% in 2007).

https://concentrationcrisis.openmarketsinstitute.org/industr...

I agree with the sentiment of the comment you're responding to, but I also think this is a valid question and don't understand why your comment appears to be downvoted.

I agree with his overall sentiment too, there are lots of cases of monopolistic practices harming consumers, but I just don't see the same thing with housing prices. Low interest rate loans and restrictive zoning seems to be more of a problem than a few companies colluding together to drive up housing prices.