Email or username:

Password:

Forgot your password?
Top-level
iwein

@HeavenlyPossum @storyworker @violetmadder @Daojoan if they don't profit, that would be incorrect and undermine all the rest you would argue from here. Why would you put a gaping hole like that in an otherwise perfectly interesting line of reasoning?

5 comments
HeavenlyPossum

@storyworker @violetmadder @iwein @Daojoan

Even if landlords are operating “at cost,” they are probably acquiring equity.

If they’re not even acquiring equity, they’re probably just really bad at landlording.

HeavenlyPossum

@Daojoan @storyworker @iwein @violetmadder

But even if we take the very narrow view of profit as income over operating expenditures, all rent is profit. The operating expenditure of ownership is effectively zero.

iwein

@HeavenlyPossum at low scale the costs of ownership are not negligible, and if we remove the speculative value, as we should imo, then owning something for someone else is a service with an associated fair price.

I think the root causes are not the ownership itself, but:

1. Human rights to shelter are not guaranteed properly,
2. Artificial scarcity and unfair prices are allowed.

If the private ownership would be limited, the service of owning shelters should be provided still.

@HeavenlyPossum at low scale the costs of ownership are not negligible, and if we remove the speculative value, as we should imo, then owning something for someone else is a service with an associated fair price.

I think the root causes are not the ownership itself, but:

1. Human rights to shelter are not guaranteed properly,
2. Artificial scarcity and unfair prices are allowed.

HeavenlyPossum

@iwein

Private ownership is artificial scarcity.

Aside from any property taxes or cadastral registry, the cost of ownership is effectively zero.

Owning something for someone else is not a service.

Cy
(and property taxes are also artificial scarcity)

@iwein@mas.to
Go Up