Jesus. The “absolutely shitty landlords” was in a quote block because it came from the comment I was responding to. That was their tone, not mine. In case you want it spelled out, landlords aren’t evil.
Did you look up what rent extraction was? I’ll let you look into it, I’m not a dictionary. Car rentals aren’t considered rent extraction because they aren’t a scarce resource. By definition they are mobile: someone can’t own ALL the cars in an area, because someone could buy one and bring it into town.
Land (and by extension HOMES) are scarce, especially by location. If someone owns all the land in an area, someone can’t just… Drive more into the area? A landowner could build more homes on their land (development), but the rent being EXTRACTED is by definition that component of its price beyond it’s costs of construction and maintenance.
Adam Smith took issue with rent [his term is rent, but it’s more specifically rent EXTRACTION] because rent is unproductive: it is defined and quantified by HOW MUCH MORE it is than what it costs to produce and maintain the things being rented. Whereas other commodity prices are determined by what it costs to bring it to market (wages+profit), rent is determined by HOW MUCH MORE. They extract their price simply by wielding their ownership over it, and the profit they derive from it is defined by that unproductive component of its price.
That’s capitalism, and that sucks, but it’s where we are right now.
Well fuck me, I guess, right? Guess we’re stuck with it?
Fuck off with your demeaning tone. If landlords disappeared tonight the world would be quantifiably better (those were my words that time, have fun)
The “absolutely shitty landlords” was in a quote block because it came from the comment I was responding to. That was their tone, not mine. In case you want it spelled out, landlords aren’t evil.
I noticed that after my initial post and went back and changed it, but I guess you were already replying to my original text in the comment.
Lol, it probably sounds like chatgpt to you because it is textbook economic theory.
It doesn’t matter how deep you stick your fingers in your ears and try not to hear it, rent and economic rent are very different for very good reasons. That you’re limited to just the one word “rent” isn’t really my problem. Economic rent is (justifiably) considered the most pernicious form of profit by economists of all types.
You can gracefully exit this argument by admitting you don’t know what you’re talking about, I don’t shame you for it.
My apologies. I was confusing you with assassin_aragorn (who you quoted), who made this comment…
I was paraphrasing by using the word evil as a catch-all, from that comment.
AKA being available for rental? Yes, they are. They’re a business, they charge as much as they can get away with.
Housing is not scarce, just too expensive for some/many to afford, in the areas they want to live in.
I literally drove by a new housing development today, they do exist. But it was far away from a central urban area that has lots of activity.
That’s capitalism, and that sucks, but it’s where we are right now.
Jesus. The “absolutely shitty landlords” was in a quote block because it came from the comment I was responding to. That was their tone, not mine. In case you want it spelled out, landlords aren’t evil.
Did you look up what rent extraction was? I’ll let you look into it, I’m not a dictionary. Car rentals aren’t considered rent extraction because they aren’t a scarce resource. By definition they are mobile: someone can’t own ALL the cars in an area, because someone could buy one and bring it into town.
Land (and by extension HOMES) are scarce, especially by location. If someone owns all the land in an area, someone can’t just… Drive more into the area? A landowner could build more homes on their land (development), but the rent being EXTRACTED is by definition that component of its price beyond it’s costs of construction and maintenance.
Adam Smith took issue with rent [his term is rent, but it’s more specifically rent EXTRACTION] because rent is unproductive: it is defined and quantified by HOW MUCH MORE it is than what it costs to produce and maintain the things being rented. Whereas other commodity prices are determined by what it costs to bring it to market (wages+profit), rent is determined by HOW MUCH MORE. They extract their price simply by wielding their ownership over it, and the profit they derive from it is defined by that unproductive component of its price.
Well fuck me, I guess, right? Guess we’re stuck with it?
Fuck off with your demeaning tone. If landlords disappeared tonight the world would be quantifiably better (those were my words that time, have fun)
I noticed that after my initial post and went back and changed it, but I guess you were already replying to my original text in the comment.
I appreciate the clarification
Sure thing. I strive for the truth, always.
Apparently I pissed off ChatGTP.
Sorry, a rental is a rental is a rental.
You’re letting somebody else use your thing for a while and in return they pay you some money for the usage.
Doesn’t matter how scarce or not the thing is, the fact that it’s being borrowed for money makes it a rental.
Doesn’t matter how much you try to obfuscate that fact with the extra verbiage you are spouting.
Lol, it probably sounds like chatgpt to you because it is textbook economic theory.
It doesn’t matter how deep you stick your fingers in your ears and try not to hear it, rent and economic rent are very different for very good reasons. That you’re limited to just the one word “rent” isn’t really my problem. Economic rent is (justifiably) considered the most pernicious form of profit by economists of all types.
You can gracefully exit this argument by admitting you don’t know what you’re talking about, I don’t shame you for it.
Since you’re dodging the point I made, I’m just going to agree to disagree, and move on.
That rent is rent with no distinctions? I think I addressed that actually, did you miss the point about rent != economic rent?