4 ms·

Same deal in the UK. Consider that zoning laws in the UK make agricultural land incredibly cheap. This means people with means can basically wander around buyi

Same deal in the UK. Consider that zoning laws in the UK make agricultural land incredibly cheap. This means people with means can basically wander around buying the countryside. So even if the laws are ever repealed or changed, it doesn't matter - you've just given a windfall to those with wealth. I have kind of always had this thought that the real world has to eventually turn into a late stage game of Monopoly in which some people just own everything. If you have the resources to buy a large portion of e.g. all property in London, you can basically set the market rental rate because it's inelastic. The only option people have is to move away and try to jump start another city. I actually think that a reasonable way to think of inequality is that it is bad because it produces negative feedback loops. Firstly, it's a lower competition environment; those with less money are generally not able to become landlords or business owners etc, so the original owners win more and more. Secondly, the fact that this happens results in more inequality and results in... even less competition. Hence there is no need to invoke moral arguments; inequality, at least beyond some reasonable level, is simply inefficient. It prevents markets from operating well and allows economic rent.

icebraining 11y ago
I don't get why would there by less business owners. Sure, monopolistic landlords can raise prices, but if there are (say) 200k places to set up small businesses in -shops, factories, offices, etc- presumably those still get rented, only at an higher price, so there should be the same amount of new small business being created, no? Or are you saying that there are many such places left not rented?
- lucaspiller 11y ago
  It's improved now, but after the financial crisis most high streets had a lot of empty shops. A lot of businesses went bust and the landlords raised the prices of the remaining tenants which forced more out. In poorer parts of the country it's still the case. Even the Starbucks in my hometown shut down!
  - learnstats2 11y ago
    I don't really get why landlords are raising the prices if it's leaving their shopfronts empty. One possible motivation for this is indeed monopoly or collusion - if I own a significant percentage of the shopfronts, I can charge an unfairly high premium (and then I won't care if some remain empty). If I own just a few shopfronts, and compete with other landlords, I should care a lot if my shop remains empty.
    - owen5819 11y ago
      It may be different in the UK, but here in the US the landlords of shopping centers make mortgage payments only on the space actually rented. Lose a tenant, and their monthly bill shrinks. Yeah, it amazed me, too. However, the guy who explained it to me makes part of his living as a commercial landlord. I assume he knows the game.
    - prawn 11y ago
      In Australia, commercial property owners frequently leave properties empty for long periods to ensure they maintain the high asking price and avoid drops in the expected pricing.
marincounty 11y ago
I have feared this would happen, and it's pretty much here. The "this" is the wealthy buying up all rentable property, and raising rents until disposable income is close to 0% for many people. In the past, I had a jobs that entailed collecting rent from tenants--and I hated the job. This is what bother me the most; I hated going to the door, or unit(mini-storages), and asking for that huge chunk of money each month. In every case, the family, or person was at the complete mercy of the Landord. I never met a Landord who didn't look for a reason to raise rents. These Landlords knew the pain their rate increases would cause, and would hire guys like me(poor and needed a job) to do their dirty work. I think what bother me the most is when market rates went down--so many Landlords let their property sit idle until the market picked up. I don't know the answer other than Landlords should get morality implants? I didn't mean to high jack stegosaurus' comment--I just don't like to see this imprisionment taking place so nonshalonant, like it's just business? It's not just business. Your business is affecting people lives on a very personal level. It comes down to I don't want to live in a society that's so bifurcated. I see it happening and I don't like it. The disparity of income is here; I just can't keep acting like making money off the struggling, and dependent is copacetic! (I used the word copacetic because when I was in school, I worked at a mini-storage. My manager who lived on the premises, with his wife, was the nicest guy. I saw how he struggled financially. Copacetic was my manager's favorite word. Whenever, I use it I hope he is doing well. I remember the look on his face when he had to tell people being close homeless, the owner is raising rents again. I'm even in denial. There were many people living out of their cars, and putting their few possessions in the units--they were homeless. Anyway, stay out of mini-storages if you can. I saw so many people put their stuff in and never get it out. They couldn't part with their stuff, and became perpetual tenants. Those were the lucky ones. The unlucky ones were already homeless.) Good night people!
- WalterBright 11y ago
  Most of what people put in mini-storage isn't worth even one month's rent on the unit. You're better off taking the stuff to the dump, and then re-buying it in the unlikely event you'll ever need it again.
- ownagefool 11y ago
WalterBright 11y ago
> the resources to buy a large portion of e.g. all property in London Won't work in a free market. People will figure out what you're doing, and the remaining property owners will raise their prices until the buyer can no longer pay. This is why Eminent Domain exists, otherwise one homeowner can block a freeway project. It's also why the Hunt Bros failed to corner the silver market.
- stegosaurus 11y ago
  Yes, but there doesn't need to be a single buyer. The group of people that can afford to do this can do it. Prices are fairly inelastic so there's not that much competition. You can't just double the rent one year, but rents across the board can move in lockstep (and are sort of forced to as people decide x% yield is normal).
- learnstats2 11y ago
  Treat London as a series of interconnected towns, and you can monopolise any one of those (normally via inheritance). If there's a free market, the people don't have a chance to figure that out: it's already over. http://www.standard.co.uk/home/who-owns-london-6308427.html http://www.standard.co.uk/home/who-owns-london-6308427.html Large landowners have sufficient economic and political power to fight back against eminent domain - and likely even with the support of their local people - so that's not a done deal either.
cmdkeen 11y ago
The Duke of Westminster owns a large chunk of Mayfair and Belgravia, and is the third richest man in the UK because of it. I do wonder whether he plays Monopoly, and if he starts with Mayfair... The thing is that there is actually an awful lot of land, and in the UK it is very expensive - the capital cost to buy it all up would be enormous, and thanks to the market only get higher as supply reduces. You're then vulnerable to other market forces and competing with other cities or areas. Canary Wharf is a good example of the established rules being upended and a brand new corporate part of London being created. The value of all London property is currently estimated in the £1.35tn range.

icebraining 11y ago

I don't get why would there by less business owners. Sure, monopolistic landlords can raise prices, but if there are (say) 200k places to set up small businesses in -shops, factories, offices, etc- presumably those still get rented, only at an higher price, so there should be the same amount of new small business being created, no? Or are you saying that there are many such places left not rented?

lucaspiller 11y ago
It's improved now, but after the financial crisis most high streets had a lot of empty shops. A lot of businesses went bust and the landlords raised the prices of the remaining tenants which forced more out. In poorer parts of the country it's still the case. Even the Starbucks in my hometown shut down!
- learnstats2 11y ago
  I don't really get why landlords are raising the prices if it's leaving their shopfronts empty. One possible motivation for this is indeed monopoly or collusion - if I own a significant percentage of the shopfronts, I can charge an unfairly high premium (and then I won't care if some remain empty). If I own just a few shopfronts, and compete with other landlords, I should care a lot if my shop remains empty.
  - owen5819 11y ago
    It may be different in the UK, but here in the US the landlords of shopping centers make mortgage payments only on the space actually rented. Lose a tenant, and their monthly bill shrinks. Yeah, it amazed me, too. However, the guy who explained it to me makes part of his living as a commercial landlord. I assume he knows the game.
  - prawn 11y ago
    In Australia, commercial property owners frequently leave properties empty for long periods to ensure they maintain the high asking price and avoid drops in the expected pricing.

marincounty 11y ago

I have feared this would happen, and it's pretty much here. The "this" is the wealthy buying up all rentable property, and raising rents until disposable income is close to 0% for many people. In the past, I had a jobs that entailed collecting rent from tenants--and I hated the job. This is what bother me the most; I hated going to the door, or unit(mini-storages), and asking for that huge chunk of money each month. In every case, the family, or person was at the complete mercy of the Landord. I never met a Landord who didn't look for a reason to raise rents. These Landlords knew the pain their rate increases would cause, and would hire guys like me(poor and needed a job) to do their dirty work. I think what bother me the most is when market rates went down--so many Landlords let their property sit idle until the market picked up. I don't know the answer other than Landlords should get morality implants? I didn't mean to high jack stegosaurus' comment--I just don't like to see this imprisionment taking place so nonshalonant, like it's just business? It's not just business. Your business is affecting people lives on a very personal level. It comes down to I don't want to live in a society that's so bifurcated. I see it happening and I don't like it. The disparity of income is here; I just can't keep acting like making money off the struggling, and dependent is copacetic! (I used the word copacetic because when I was in school, I worked at a mini-storage. My manager who lived on the premises, with his wife, was the nicest guy. I saw how he struggled financially. Copacetic was my manager's favorite word. Whenever, I use it I hope he is doing well. I remember the look on his face when he had to tell people being close homeless, the owner is raising rents again. I'm even in denial. There were many people living out of their cars, and putting their few possessions in the units--they were homeless. Anyway, stay out of mini-storages if you can. I saw so many people put their stuff in and never get it out. They couldn't part with their stuff, and became perpetual tenants. Those were the lucky ones. The unlucky ones were already homeless.) Good night people!

WalterBright 11y ago
Most of what people put in mini-storage isn't worth even one month's rent on the unit. You're better off taking the stuff to the dump, and then re-buying it in the unlikely event you'll ever need it again.
ownagefool 11y ago

WalterBright 11y ago

> the resources to buy a large portion of e.g. all property in London Won't work in a free market. People will figure out what you're doing, and the remaining property owners will raise their prices until the buyer can no longer pay. This is why Eminent Domain exists, otherwise one homeowner can block a freeway project. It's also why the Hunt Bros failed to corner the silver market.

stegosaurus 11y ago
Yes, but there doesn't need to be a single buyer. The group of people that can afford to do this can do it. Prices are fairly inelastic so there's not that much competition. You can't just double the rent one year, but rents across the board can move in lockstep (and are sort of forced to as people decide x% yield is normal).
learnstats2 11y ago
Treat London as a series of interconnected towns, and you can monopolise any one of those (normally via inheritance). If there's a free market, the people don't have a chance to figure that out: it's already over. http://www.standard.co.uk/home/who-owns-london-6308427.html http://www.standard.co.uk/home/who-owns-london-6308427.html Large landowners have sufficient economic and political power to fight back against eminent domain - and likely even with the support of their local people - so that's not a done deal either.

cmdkeen 11y ago

The Duke of Westminster owns a large chunk of Mayfair and Belgravia, and is the third richest man in the UK because of it. I do wonder whether he plays Monopoly, and if he starts with Mayfair... The thing is that there is actually an awful lot of land, and in the UK it is very expensive - the capital cost to buy it all up would be enormous, and thanks to the market only get higher as supply reduces. You're then vulnerable to other market forces and competing with other cities or areas. Canary Wharf is a good example of the established rules being upended and a brand new corporate part of London being created. The value of all London property is currently estimated in the £1.35tn range.