• archomrade [he/him]@midwest.social
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    2 months ago

    You still didn’t answer the question.

    Actually, I think I did, you just didn’t understand it. What we mean by ‘landlord’ can be essentially boiled down to ‘private ownership’. The problem with landlords as a class is that they exert complete control over a ‘property’ while having the least use of it. When Adam Smith wrote about ‘rent extraction’, he was specifically identifying a portion of an economy that was unproductive.

    Landlords are defined by their ownership; they could also maintain the property, but what makes them ‘landlords’ and not ‘maintinence workers’ is their ownership over a property someone else is using and charging rent for that use. The other arrangements I listed in my previous comment address that inefficiency by democratizing the use of that asset, instead of allowing the monopoly of the landlord.

    It’s odd to observe otherwise intelligent people stop so outrageously short of the complete picture.

    I would really have to agree.

    • teejay@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      2 months ago

      Actually, I think I did, you just didn’t understand it.

      No, you didn’t. And the drivel you just wrote still didn’t answer the question. At this point it’s clear that it’s intentional.

      The problem with landlords as a class is that they exert complete control over a ‘property’ while having the least use of it.

      Tell me you have no idea how property ownership works without telling me you have no idea how property ownership works.

      I would really have to agree.

      “No you”. Nice one. Good luck friend, this back and forth is pointless.