4 ms·
Landlords are essentially mini monopolies. They make money by monopolizing a piece of land, with the backing of the state, and then letting others use that lan
by aaomidi 7y ago
Landlords are essentially mini monopolies.
They make money by monopolizing a piece of land, with the backing of the state, and then letting others use that land.
Even capitalists should be against them on the basis of a state backed monopoly alone.
- pmiller2 7y agoI agree. Even from a capitalist point of view, there is no real free market in real estate, because it's a necessity that's simply not fungible enough. After the last brick is laid, almost every player in the game is literally just siphoning off a portion of someone's income for no good reason. Realtors offer some value in knowing the market, but that's not worth a 3% commission on both sides of the sale, IMO. I already mentioned landlords. Property managers are essentially the same as landlords, except even more useless most of the time. The only ones that offer anything of real value post-construction, IMO, are those that facilitate sales: title companies, banks, and realtors. Realtors are the worst of them, because they've enshrined their position in law in many states, and, as I mentioned, their commissions are simply way out of proportion with the value they provide in an age when home listings exist on the internet.
- erik_seaberg 7y agoI don't want to buy a bunch of lumber, hire a bunch of guys, and wait for months every time I want to move. But somebody had to do all that relying on compensation in the future. I rent from them because it can be better for me than committing to buy permanently from them.
- pmiller2 7y agoThat’s why you pay builders. Are you trying to claim there would be a literal, physical shortage of buildings to live in if not for landlords? If so, [citation needed].
- hi_im_miles 7y agoI don't have a problem with someone transforming land and subsequently renting that land to recoup the cost of materials and labor. My issue is that the state enables profits far in excess of cost by granting the original proprietor a permanent title to that land without having to occupy or use it. Outside of the threat of state violence, I see little reason why we should recognize absentee property claims as legitimate.
- aaomidi 7y agoYou need to understand that when people have problems with landlords, they do NOT have a problem with the SERVICE part of what they offer. They have a problem of it being used as an investment, rather a job. No one is suggesting that someone putting all the time and effort to get a building built shouldn't get paid for the time they've spent doing that. But that's where that payment stops, when they've gotten paid for the hours they spent working on that. When housing becomes service AND monopoly, that is where the issue is. Land ownership is problematic, and profiting off of a state backed monopoly is even worse.
- pmiller2 7y agoIf by “service,” you mean the part where I pay someone else’s mortgage, then, yes, I have a problem. If you mean taking care of maintaining the property (which is what I think you’re getting at), then I don’t have a problem paying fair value for the labor involved.
- aaomidi 7y agoYes that's exactly what I am referring to.
- LarryDarrell 7y agoI recall Adam Smith not being a fan of landlords.
- pmiller2 7y agoI’m not even sure Smith was a capitalist in the modern sense. He held out similar derision for the merchant class, although the exact quote escapes me.
- RockIslandLine 7y agoThe quote most people would reference is probably this one: People of the same trade seldom meet together, even for merriment and diversion, but the conversation ends in a conspiracy against the public, or in some contrivance to raise prices. – The Wealth of Nations, Book I, Chapter X.
- pmiller2 7y agoThat’s the one I was thinking of.