I hesitate to use such a negative word like “con” to describe what also seems like a potentially smart investment. At the individual level, many people buy asse

I hesitate to use such a negative word like “con” to describe what also seems like a potentially smart investment. At the individual level, many people buy assets with the intent to get something back from it - either use of that asset or appreciation in its value or whatever else. Whether it is Zillow buying up houses or a large number of individuals, isn’t the impact roughly the same because it creates equivalent scarcity? I get that Zillow can make unilateral decisions on pricing but I’m asking if there is some theoretical support for the notion that even a decentralized buying spree will lead to the same outcomes, but on a different time scale. Another question that comes to mind is whether there should be some threshold (percentage) of ownership in a given area subjects a given organization to anti-trust regulation. This isn’t a present reality of anti-trust laws but I wonder if such a framework will limit larger, more powerful organizations while still giving individuals the freedom to transact. A final thought that crosses my mind is whether this is an actual problem. If the price goes up too high, then buyers shouldn’t buy them. There are numerous cities and towns across the country with cheap housing and cheap land. No one is entitled to buy housing at a given price point at whatever location they want. People need to respond to the pricing signal and look elsewhere if some place like Phoenix is too expensive. Otherwise, their continued purchasing simply suggests that the price is not too high.