>The primary value the real estate agent adds versus say an ad in the paper is selling now versus selling later. The value of that time-saving is directly proportional to the value of the property.
The relevant comparison would be to cheaper agents, not to "the paper". Your comment is like saying that a $70k car adds $70k of value because it transports me to where I close a $70k deal. It's not the right comparison to be making.
>"Inertia" is not something that "keep[s] the market out of equilibrium." At least I've never seen it in any economics textbook as an example of market failure.
That's almost literally what the term means, and the analogy from physics carries over; higher-inertia objects (all else equal) go more slowly to their equilibrium. And "market failure" has a specific meaning that doesn't cleanly map too "it may take a long time to reach equilibrium", which is why I never used the term nor tried to model the dynamics that way. (Although, had that been my argument, that would be a clever reply.)
But if you want something that appears in an econ textbook, see any discussion around the Keynesian point about "in the long run we're all dead". Same thing applies here: yes, excess returns are decreasing, but not quickly.
>Your argument stretches the word "monopoly" to absurdity. It takes a high school degree, a 60-hour online course, and passing an incredibly basic exam to become an REA.
I said "monopoly returns", not "this is literally a textbook monopoly". The REA course doesn't get you the extensive reference book of (ignorantly) satisfied, risk-averse sellers.
It's the same concept as the "monopoly returns" to a brand name, even though there's free entry to creating brands.
If the term is distracting, find/replace it with "quasi-rents".
>What stakeholders with veto power are stopping you from negotiating a lower fee with the most desperate REA you can find? If all you need is an REA so you can put up an MLS listing they're a dime a dozen.
You don't see why the Board would be reluctant to use a green agent, even after seeing evidence of REA value under-contribution (relative to percentage typically requested)?