Correct... let me know what is if this isn't because companies colluding to set prices? not sure what I'm missing if this isn't it...
It is saying that, but that's not a reply to the question.
The question wasn't "What is it?", as in, "What is this, if it's not collusion?"
The question was "What is?", as in, "What would it take to count as collusion, if this doesn't?"
"This isn't collusion, it's just the market" addresses the former question. It doesn't address the later question, the one that was asked.
With the implication that a super narrow definition of collusion is not very useful.
"If this isn't stealing, than what is?"
That's not an open invitation for elucidation on property laws. It's an assertion in the form of a question.
In that situation, the question being asked is "what would they have to do for you to accuse them of stealing?", and there's an implication/assertion that your definition of "stealing" is too narrow.
Replying with "this isn't stealing, it's borrowing" doesn't answer the question, and it's ignoring the implication/assertion.
And that's basically what martimarkov did. They didn't say a single word that addresses the implication that such a narrow anti-collusion rule is too weak.