3 ms·

The concept that you can "own" property and charge "rent" for it has been an economic drain on the world. When a cash exchange or transfer is made, it is usual

The concept that you can "own" property and charge "rent" for it has been an economic drain on the world. When a cash exchange or transfer is made, it is usually for a product, aka GDP. There is no GDP involved with paying rent. A landlord is someone who can sit on his ass and live off of the GDP the tenant generates in the form of "rent" while offering no GDP back to the economy. The landlord is essentially a parasite, offering nothing beneficial to the economy, he simply can suck the life blood out of you through this strange concept of "owning" the habitat in which you live. Life is a bitch, but it is what it is.

hiou 11y ago
I would love it if the person who downvoted this anonymously would chime in as to why. Because this is exactly what a landlord is.
- crimsonalucard 11y ago
  I can see why. This argument goes beyond simply just landlords and rent into a critique about the dark sides of capitalism itself. In capitalism you can not only own land as an landlord but you can also own labor. Someone who owns the corporation, can sit on the profits, dividends, and growth without producing actual GDP himself. It's very similar to the landlord situation. The owner of the corporation essentially sucks the lifeblood of the work output generated by employees while doing no work himself. Y-Combinator at its very core is a product of this system, hence the possible downvotes. Capitalism is great, but landlords and freeloaders who get richer and richer without producing any GDP themselves is a huge negative attribute that is intrinsic to capitalism. Ironically, it is the hopeful opportunity of becoming a freeloader that drives the risk-taking entrepreneurial qualities which in turn make capitalism so effective.
  - hiou 11y ago
    I would say that investing looking for growth and creation(Y-Combinator), is much different than buying an unchanging asset, doing nothing to it and simply collecting a non-trivial portion of the renter's value created. It's the difference between creating new value and simply gaining control of a static asset to extract rent. EDIT: I should add I appreciate that you took the time to shed some light on what the downvote may have been about.

hiou 11y ago

I would love it if the person who downvoted this anonymously would chime in as to why. Because this is exactly what a landlord is.

crimsonalucard 11y ago
I can see why. This argument goes beyond simply just landlords and rent into a critique about the dark sides of capitalism itself. In capitalism you can not only own land as an landlord but you can also own labor. Someone who owns the corporation, can sit on the profits, dividends, and growth without producing actual GDP himself. It's very similar to the landlord situation. The owner of the corporation essentially sucks the lifeblood of the work output generated by employees while doing no work himself. Y-Combinator at its very core is a product of this system, hence the possible downvotes. Capitalism is great, but landlords and freeloaders who get richer and richer without producing any GDP themselves is a huge negative attribute that is intrinsic to capitalism. Ironically, it is the hopeful opportunity of becoming a freeloader that drives the risk-taking entrepreneurial qualities which in turn make capitalism so effective.
- hiou 11y ago
  I would say that investing looking for growth and creation(Y-Combinator), is much different than buying an unchanging asset, doing nothing to it and simply collecting a non-trivial portion of the renter's value created. It's the difference between creating new value and simply gaining control of a static asset to extract rent. EDIT: I should add I appreciate that you took the time to shed some light on what the downvote may have been about.