zlacker

It doesn't, actually. In the US, there are just a few apartment consortiums which own the lion's share of the fleet of newer construction units. Anarchist capitalism encourage supply-side monopolist hegemony, not competition. Competition is undesirable for capitalists when supplying goods and services and optimally minimized, it is desirable by buyers but this is mostly irrelevant in an artificially-controlled supply market where demand is inelastic. If Hyperloop were rolled out across most continents, empty land could be "closer" to economic centers and housing supply would be effectively increased by widening the commute radius, making it more affordable.

>>dispos+(OP)
How do you think these capitalistic monopolies enforce their monopolies?

They do it through the government by creating arbitrary regulations and barriers to entry.

We are already living in a world where the housing monopolies are enforcing their will on the population.

Getting rid of these regulations, and allowing people to build so many houses that the market price gets driven into the ground, is how we take the market back for the people.

>>stale2+51
> allowing people to build so many houses that the market price gets driven into the ground

I live in Honolulu, Hawaii. Prices here are RIDICULOUS, but this is the last thing I want. At some point growth has to stop or we will lose what makes this place what it is.

>>sosbor+N6
Then the prices will keep going up and drive out the regular renters anyway. Either you expand, (up or out) or the place gets turned into a playground for the rich.

>>stale2+51
They do it through the fact that being a monopoly or oligopoly is inherently more profitable than not being one, so if you don't play along you're basically leaving money on the floor.

>>makomk+69
When monopolies exist, that means that there is currently money being left on the table.

Someone ELSE can come it, charge less, and get all the customers to go to them instead.

This is what allowing more houses to be built would do.

>>stale2+ma
For infrastructure companies, Once you have a national monopoly if any small company undercuts your prices you can cut your prices in their area only, subsidised by profit from the rest of the country, so the upstart loses money on their investment.

Thus preventing them from bootstrapping, or demonstrating profits to investors.

>>stale2+ma
>Someone ELSE can come it, charge less, and get all the customers to go to them instead.

Except there are huge entry costs, and all that theoretical ROI disappears as soon as you enter the market, because the existing monopoly starts competing.

To make a profit, you need some advantage over the them, like efficiency, innovation or goodwill. If all you can do is exactly what they do but at market price, well... they can do that too.

>>aninhu+im
How would that apply to the Bay Area Housing market?

If someone started building a whole bunch of housing in SOMA, do you believe that this ROI would disappear quickly, due to housing prices hitting rock bottom?

Do you really believe that would happen?

>>stale2+8f2
No, I was mostly arguing generally, that a monopoly can exist without it being the government's fault. But I think it's fairly clear that the housing market is indeed strongly influenced by regulation.