The theory is simple: instead of buying a household item or a piece of clothing or some equipment you might use once or twice, you take it out and return it.

  • @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    08 months ago

    Yes there are pros and cons to both, but that does not mean they are the same or equal.

    Renting inherently adds an extra middleman to the process, (someone still has to buy it), who is incentivized to rent-seek and drain everyone from as much of their money as possible.

    Renting really only works in scenarios where you have a bunch of different rental companies to drive down costs, but now you’re starting to get back to the original problem of duplicating everything.

    • @slumberlust
      link
      English
      18 months ago

      This is an interesting thought angle, thanks for sharing! Given the conditions you’ve stated, why haven’t books inflated in price given the abundance of libraries in developed worlds?

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        4
        edit-2
        8 months ago

        Libraries are non profits, everyone who works there just gets paid a wage, no one makes more money if libraries make more money.

        Or from a systemic standpoint, the library system is effectively separate from the capitalist system we use for distributing everything else. In capitalism if you have no competition you raise prices so you get richer, so functioning capitalism requires multiple copies of everything and a lot of redundancy all actively competing. The library being non-profit sidesteps that effect.

    • bluGill
      link
      fedilink
      08 months ago

      Only if there is a monoboly in place. If there is a market then when they raise rents you just go elsewhere. Since these are items rented by the day it isn’t hard to go elslwhere in the city.