14 ms·

Land ownership is not free money. It usually involves taking on debt for purchase, then trying to recoup that money through rental. They take risk from the poss

Land ownership is not free money. It usually involves taking on debt for purchase, then trying to recoup that money through rental. They take risk from the possibility that the land value will go down, they won't be able to service the debt, and they may have to sell at a loss. The service it provides is that it allows businesses to do business in a particular area without having to take out loans to buy land or buildings and incur those risks themselves. Businesses find that valuable.

danaris 3y ago
I'm not saying there's no benefit whatsoever, but the benefit is not commensurate to the drawbacks these days. If being a landlord were outlawed or made unprofitable by significant new taxes or whatever tomorrow, most businesses that rent today would relatively quickly be able to put together loans to buy the properties. Yes, starting a new business would require getting more capital together—but since this would be a change across the board for real estate, it's hard to imagine that banks would be unwilling to provide mortgages on such properties. It might mean that slightly fewer small businesses get started that already have very little chance of success, but honestly, we need to be solving those issues by different, more systemic, means anyway. At some point we have to stop accepting this narrative that monopolists and other rentiers are doing us all a favor by "taking on the risk" of actually owning things, freeing us of that "burden" and graciously allowing us to pay them for the privilege of that freedom...forever.
- seti0Cha 3y ago
  > At some point we have to stop accepting this narrative that monopolists and other rentiers are doing us all a favor by "taking on the risk" of actually owning things, freeing us of that "burden" and graciously allowing us to pay them for the privilege of that freedom...forever. Why? The setup you described seems strictly worse than the one we have now. Currently a business can, but does not have to, buy property. You propose a world where they must buy property, claim it will be OK because banks won't mind lending them more money, then put scare quotes around things instead of refute them. Why do you think there is no risk or complexities in buying and owning real estate?
  - danaris 3y ago
    You're looking at the situation very narrowly. Zoom out a little, and you see that in the current situation, we have companies buying up large amounts of property, then using that monopoly on physical space to extract rent (both literally and figuratively) from others in perpetuity, sometimes without having to do any additional work to justify that rent. While obviously not the sole contributor, it is a significant factor in the housing crisis in many parts of America right now. Making this kind of landlord position either illegal or much less feasible (for instance, allow individuals to own one extra rental property, or something, if that kind of flexibility is determined to be beneficial, while barring companies from doing the same or anyone from owning larger numbers of non-owner-occupied properties) would have significant effects outside the direct relationship you are describing.
    - seti0Cha 3y ago
      Housing for people and office space for corporations are very different issues. I agree that companies buying all the personal homes is problematic, mostly because people are not business entities, they live in communities and they have needs and desires beyond "this makes the most financial sense". I agree that some legislation might be enacted to curb the problem, although I suspect it would go away on its own if communities facilitated the process of building houses. Greatly increasing the housing supply would make buying large numbers of houses a bad investment.

danaris 3y ago

I'm not saying there's no benefit whatsoever, but the benefit is not commensurate to the drawbacks these days. If being a landlord were outlawed or made unprofitable by significant new taxes or whatever tomorrow, most businesses that rent today would relatively quickly be able to put together loans to buy the properties. Yes, starting a new business would require getting more capital together—but since this would be a change across the board for real estate, it's hard to imagine that banks would be unwilling to provide mortgages on such properties. It might mean that slightly fewer small businesses get started that already have very little chance of success, but honestly, we need to be solving those issues by different, more systemic, means anyway. At some point we have to stop accepting this narrative that monopolists and other rentiers are doing us all a favor by "taking on the risk" of actually owning things, freeing us of that "burden" and graciously allowing us to pay them for the privilege of that freedom...forever.

seti0Cha 3y ago
> At some point we have to stop accepting this narrative that monopolists and other rentiers are doing us all a favor by "taking on the risk" of actually owning things, freeing us of that "burden" and graciously allowing us to pay them for the privilege of that freedom...forever. Why? The setup you described seems strictly worse than the one we have now. Currently a business can, but does not have to, buy property. You propose a world where they must buy property, claim it will be OK because banks won't mind lending them more money, then put scare quotes around things instead of refute them. Why do you think there is no risk or complexities in buying and owning real estate?
- danaris 3y ago
  You're looking at the situation very narrowly. Zoom out a little, and you see that in the current situation, we have companies buying up large amounts of property, then using that monopoly on physical space to extract rent (both literally and figuratively) from others in perpetuity, sometimes without having to do any additional work to justify that rent. While obviously not the sole contributor, it is a significant factor in the housing crisis in many parts of America right now. Making this kind of landlord position either illegal or much less feasible (for instance, allow individuals to own one extra rental property, or something, if that kind of flexibility is determined to be beneficial, while barring companies from doing the same or anyone from owning larger numbers of non-owner-occupied properties) would have significant effects outside the direct relationship you are describing.
  - seti0Cha 3y ago
    Housing for people and office space for corporations are very different issues. I agree that companies buying all the personal homes is problematic, mostly because people are not business entities, they live in communities and they have needs and desires beyond "this makes the most financial sense". I agree that some legislation might be enacted to curb the problem, although I suspect it would go away on its own if communities facilitated the process of building houses. Greatly increasing the housing supply would make buying large numbers of houses a bad investment.