Might regulations be the result of these "rational markets"? After all, if I invest a lot of money to build apartments, I might want to protect that investment by lobbying for regulations to make it harder for competitors, increasing the value of my investment. Or if I buy an apartment, I might want to prevent others from ruining my view, prevent noise, etc. All completely rational.
For what it's worth, imho Thompson presents a strawman argument about oligopolies to avoid the real critiques. He even kinda contradicts himself at the end because it's convenient for his argument.
It's never really about oligopolies writ large, it's about the players in the local decision in the moment (which is all that matters) and who profits at whose expense with what consequences.
> It's never really about oligopolies writ large…
Then why is the anti abundance crowd crowing about how it’s about oligopolies and monopolies?
If it's the case that market participants have an imperative to convince the government to screw everyone else over: a solution preventing the government from being convinced by small petty nonsense seems remarkably simple, relative to the other kinds of policy challenges that exist.