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 :-).
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
That's one form of trading with your neighbor.
This is actually also how global diplomacy works. Either have big guns or big friends.
For markets to exist, property rights also need to be respected.
For markets to exist they indeed need to be regulated and when they aren't you get something other than a market, you get thuggery.
I'm not convinced that the system they want to build would actually protect people, though.
Edit: upvoted because it's true
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.
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.
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 :-).
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.
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.
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.
Or to convert them into apartment buildings
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.
You are confusing market outcome with market structure.
Nobody is making an artificial scarcity. They’re producing as much as they can.
You can buy the exact same DRAM that the data centers are bidding on.
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.
"When Wall Street Is Your Landlord" - https://www.theatlantic.com/technology/archive/2019/02/singl...
"In one Atlanta zip code, they bought almost 90 percent of the 7,500 homes sold between January 2011 and June 2012"