Yes. Price fixing can happen in any market where participants on one side of the market collude to set prices. It is mostly illegal in the US: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing#United_States

But again, these quotes aren't specific admissions of price collusion as they are just "getting the best price".

I'm not sure I understand what politics have to do with this. Housing is essential. It's "politically charged" because of the lack of affordability. Part of that is due to lack of building and now, evidently, part of that is due to price-fixing.

But as evidence of price fixing, people claiming to get sellers the best possible price isn't a smoking gun in any other market - essential or not.

Most markets have many people making that claim, though. Those people have to compete against each other. Their pricing is also optional, where RealPage was basically forcing landlords to use their prices.

RealPage’s big issue is market penetration, though. They control pricing for enough of the housing stock to artificially manipulate the cost of housing.

It’s one thing to promise to get clients a sale price on the far end of the bell curve. It’s another thing entirely to move the entire bell curve.

This isn't relevant. I'm don't want smoking guns, I want an economy where harming people isn't profitable.

If I invest in a stock and the stock goes down, nobody looks at my intentions and decides whether I should make money off it. It's my responsibility to understand what I'm investing in.

If I invest in harming consumers, nobody should look at my intentions and decide whether I should make money off it. It's my responsibility to understand what I'm investing in.

Even if RealPage didn't know what they were doing was harming renters, they should have known that. Knowing how your actions affect people is a prerequisite to running a business in any market, but especially in a market where people's basic needs are at stake.

> If this was a market for a less politically charged product than housing, would the quotes be as malicious? Like if this software was used to help people get the best price for their car or their stocks or collectibles?

The answer to this question does not matter.

I don't think Funko Pops and housing are comparable.

Yes they would be, or at least should be taken that way. Capitalism is supposedly best for everyone because competition between suppliers of a good or service drives prices down allowing the most people to afford those goods or services. The jerk talking about "avoiding a race to the bottom" is really saying "lets circumvent market forces to screw people out of money since we're too incompetent to provide actual value in the face of competition".

Well yeah? for most people housing isn't abstract.