OK, we’ll try one more time. I’m about to repeatedly disagree with you on some things. Can you play nice?
[quote=urbanrealtor]Vetting your own membership does not a monopoly make.[/quote]
You left out the crucial “by the state” part of what I wrote. The ABA disagrees with you when it comes to lawyers, by the way, though you will have to dig around to find the word “monopoly”. It’s kind of a dirty word, and they like to promote the idea that they are a voluntary association.
[quote]Every skilled profession requires peer-review admission to be legitimate.[/quote]
Many, yes, but not all. My wife is a teacher, and her union loves anything that creates barriers to entry because it gives them more leverage. Certificates out the wazoo but no peer review in the same sense as professional engineers, doctors, and lawyers require. CPAs are also licensed directly by the state in California AFAIK, though there is a new peer review requirement being phased in.
[quote]I don’t see anything that suggests monopolies in any of the examples you have given.[/quote]
Really? I thought this was common knowledge, but I have lawyer friends.
Not all states require membership in their state bar to practice law, but in other states the bar association has a monopoly: membership is required. California has been that way since the 1920s.
The bar sets their own standards, etc., and there’s nowhere else to go but to their members if you need legal services. That’s a monopoly any way you slice it. There have been complaints about this within the legal community because not all their members like what the bar does to them or on their behalf.
[quote]I am not sure I can think of a who would be better for reviewing…say doctors.[/quote]
Of course, but the utility of the system depends on whether they are being honest gatekeepers or just erecting barriers to entry for their members’ enrichment. I trust the medical profession more than some others on that score.
[quote]However, I am not aware of it ever being established (or even imputed outside blogs) that the NAR was a functioning Monopoly. The fact that competition exists means that if the NAR were a single business (Its not. Its a trade organization.) it would have an arguable hegemony but not a monopoly.[/quote]
The NAR settled in 2008 rather than go to trial and have the MLS adjudicated a monopoly due to limitations imposed on IDX MLS services by the NAR. A court loss would have been catastrophic. See the complaint for more–it’s a little more complex than that.
Specifically, the feds brought an action under 15 U.S.C. Section 1, which is the red meat part of the Sherman Antitrust Act. A violation is a felony offense and carries a $1 million fine.
So no, the NAR was never held up and called a monopoly in court. But the NAR would never have caved if they thought they had a decent chance of proving the MLS wasn’t a monopoly. It quacks too much, and it waddles …
The USDOJ site has a lot of info on what they’re up to:
For a good laugh, here’s how the NAR portrays the 2008 settlement to its members on realtor.org:
[quote]NAR and the U.S. Department of Justice reached a favorable settlement, concluding a two-year DOJ investigation (followed by two and a half years of litigation) regarding NAR’s multiple listing policy as it pertained to the display of listings from the MLS on brokers’ virtual office Web sites, or VOWs.[/quote]
I love the “favorable settlement” spin. There’s no way opening access to the MLS is favorable to the NAR except by comparison to a felony conviction and divestiture of the system. They were made an offer they couldn’t refuse.
