I mean, this is how businesses work in general. If you don’t buy their products/services, then they wouldn’t be able to continue providing them.

I understand that we’re trying to draw attention to exploitative landlords, but if anyone can afford to keep their property regardless of whether or not you pay rent, it’s the exploitative ones.

The problem is that landlords don’t create value, they seek to endlessly profit off of one time labor. Rent-seeking creates no real Value of any substance.

If they don’t create value then they wouldn’t exist in a capitalist market. Their value is that they take the liability of homeownership.

That’s not Value. “Risk” and “liability” aren’t Value. Nothing is being produced here. There is risk, and there is liability, but that in and of itself is not Value. Additionally, the “risk” in being a landlord is miniscule, even if we take the false pretense of risk creating value, the difference between the minor risk and massive, endless profits from the same property forever is nonsense, the landlord continues to profit over and above their initial investment.

What do you think Value is?

I’m not sure how you define value, but I’m using it to mean “the price or amount that someone is willing to pay in the market” this could be for a tangle thing, like the house itself, or a service, like renting it.

My point is that landlords successfully find willing persons to rent their house for some amount of money. Therefore there is by definition value because it’s happening, whether this is ethically OK or being rented for a fair amount is a separate argument.

When I was a university student I didn’t have enough capital to buy an apartment, but I found value in being able to rent one.

I’m not sure how you define value, but I’m using it to mean “the price or amount that someone is willing to pay in the market” this could be for a tangle thing, like the house itself, or a service, like renting it.

That’s close to the truth, but not quite. Supply and Demand distort the price around a central Value.

My point is that landlords successfully find willing persons to rent their house for some amount of money. Therefore there is by definition value because it’s happening, whether this is ethically OK or being rented for a fair amount is a separate argument.

Not really, the fact that something is purchased doesn’t mean the “risk” or “liability” created the Value behind it.

When I was a university student I didn’t have enough capital to buy an apartment, but I found value in being able to rent one.

You found it useful, ie renting allowed you to fulfill the Use-Value you needed, shelter. You appear to be using Subjective Value “Theory,” ie the idea that Value is a hallucination different from person to person, which is of course wrong.

I think we have different definitions of value and I will not pretend to be an economic theorist, this is out of my depth. My argument comes from a very practical perspective of supply and demand. There is obviously demand for renting property otherwise it wouldn’t exist.

I do think that capitalism at large creates an economic barrier and if one is below the barrier it is difficult to build capital and if you’re above the barrier it is easy. Picking on just land-lording is only picking at one instance of some larger systemic issues that capitalism brings with it. This will not change unless the government adds regulations that prohibit pure capitalism.

I think we have different definitions of value and I will not pretend to be an economic theorist, this is out of my depth. My argument comes from a very practical perspective of supply and demand. There is obviously demand for renting property otherwise it wouldn’t exist.

Supply and Demand are only part of the factor, they orbit around Value. What determines the price of a commodity when Supply and Demand cover each other? The answer is Value.

I do think that capitalism at large creates an economic barrier and if one is below the barrier it is difficult to build capital and if you’re above the barrier it is easy. Picking on just land-lording is only picking at one instance of some larger systemic issues that capitalism brings with it. This will not change unless the government adds regulations that add “fairness” to pure capitalism.

I pick on all of Capitalism, I’m a Communist. Landlording just happens to be the topic at hand. At that matter, regulations and “fairness” will never fix Capitalism, just make its worst aspects more bearable until it collapses under itself.

Supply and Demand are only part of the factor, they orbit around Value. What determines the price of a commodity when Supply and Demand cover each other? The answer is Value.

Yes and renting of houses pretty uniformly exists under all market conditions I.e. even when supply and demand “cover each other”. So by your definition there must still be some value since it has a place in the market.

The value offered is a service, just like a hotel room. What is an alternative to renting that could enable someone to have a place to live without having the capital to buy property?

The Demand never covers the Supply in the housing market because houses are in limited supply. Renters are held hostage.

The alternative is government-owned and provided housing.

The Demand never covers the Supply in the housing market because houses are in limited supply. Renters are held hostage.

This isn’t true, there are certainly cases where supply outweighs demand and landlords are unable to rent their house. It doesn’t mean that renters could suddenly afford to buy it though.

The alternative is government-owned and provided housing.

I’ve yet to see where a government subsidized housing project ever turns into a desirable place to live. Unless you go full communism across the board where the government literally controls all housing, but this is extreme and pre-supposes that you are in alignment with the ideals and goals of your government. Historically this doesn’t seem to end up serving the common person better than a free market would.

All the top countries ranked by standard of living have some form of capitalist economy with some gov regulation safeguards in place.

There are a few errors, here.

This isn’t true, there are certainly cases where supply outweighs demand and landlords are unable to rent their house. It doesn’t mean that renters could suddenly afford to buy it though.

This isn’t true. If Landlords lowered their rent to 0, there would be people renting from them, unless you mean literal ghost towns. Around areas where people live, lowering your price will get you renters.

I’ve yet to see where a government subsidized housing project ever turns into a desirable place to live. Unless you go full communism across the board where the government literally controls all housing, but this is extreme and pre-supposes that you are in alignment with the ideals and goals of your government. Historically this doesn’t seem to end up serving the common person better than a free market would.

There are a number of errors here.

Red Vienna is an example of government housing with great results even in a Capitalist country.

“Full Communism” has no such requorement for everyone to be “aligned in ideals and goals with government,” whatever that means.

Historically, housing rates were far better in Socialist and post-Socialist countries than Capitalist countries, you pulled that “fact” right out of your ass.

All the top countries ranked by standard of living have some form of capitalist economy with some gov regulation safeguards in place.

Judging systems by their internal static snapshots and not by how they fit within the broader system and their trajectories is the peak of Idealism. The Nordic Countries, which you are referencing, enjoy high safety nets bevause they are Imperialist and drastically exploit the Global South, they are not affording these off their own backs. Additionally, they are seeing sliding worker protections and decreased unionization rates due to being Capitalist, and Capitalists slowly clawing back more profits via eroding the safety nets.

This isn’t true. If Landlords lowered their rent to 0, there would be people renting from them, unless you mean literal ghost towns. Around areas where people live, lowering your price will get you renters.

Sure, but this supports my original point, this is because they dropped the price below market value implying that there is a value to begin with. We already established we’re using different definitions of value so it probably not worth arguing past each other.

Red Vienna is an example of government housing with great results even in a Capitalist country.

But your example here isn’t lasting, it collapsed. The vast majority of economic systems have converged to some degree of capitalism and it’s “working” by the definition that it prevails.

“Full Communism” has no such requirement for everyone to be “aligned in ideals and goals with government,” whatever that means.

I didn’t say that there’s a requirement, I said that if I don’t agree with the value that my labor provides against what the proletariat has prescribed to it, then I’m just SOL. Why should I go through all of the additional work and schooling and effort of becoming a doctor if it’s valued equivalently or close to something that requires much less effort?

Historically, housing rates were far better in Socialist and post-Socialist countries than Capitalist countries, you pulled that “fact” right out of your ass.

There was no fact, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to, I was stating that it doesn’t seem to have worked out purely because capitalist economies are most prevalent today and it seems like most common folk choose to live in countries with free markets.

This 3rd point of yours isn’t a good argument because you can also say that housing rates are great in Syria, but it doesn’t mean that many people would choose to live there.

But your example here isn’t lasting, it collapsed. The vast majority of economic systems have converged to some degree of capitalism and it’s “working” by the definition that it prevails.

Red Vienna’s housing policies remain.

I didn’t say that there’s a requirement, I said that if I don’t agree with the value that my labor provides against what the proletariat has prescribed to it, then I’m just SOL. Why should I go through all of the additional work and schooling and effort of becoming a doctor if it’s valued equivalently or close to something that requires much less effort?

What on Earth do you mean here? Communism isn’t when everyone gets paid the same thing.

There was no fact, so I’m not sure what you’re referring to, I was stating that it doesn’t seem to have worked out purely because capitalist economies are most prevalent today and it seems like most common folk choose to live in countries with free markets.

Again, you have no analysis of trajectories, nor how they fit in the grand scheme of things. You ignored my entire section on that, actually.

This 3rd point of yours isn’t a good argument because you can also say that housing rates are great in Syria, but it doesn’t mean that many people would choose to live there.

Again, analyze trajectories and context. Socialist countries have done the most to uplift their population, far moreso than Capitalist countries. Capitalist countries in the Global North rely on brutal exploitation of the Global South to even exist in the first place. If someone is rich, and they gain their wealth by stealing from everyone else, why are you saying that seems to be the best model?

If someone is rich, and they gain their wealth by stealing from everyone else, why are you saying that seems to be the best model?

I’m not claiming that capitalism is perfect or objectively good, all economic theories are idealized and I don’t think there is a magical system with a simple set of rules that actually works.

The real world is complicated and messy and has exceptions and bad actors. Capitalism clearly needs some form of regulation without runaway effects, but I think I would prefer to live in a free market at least to some degree. I personally cannot afford to be a landlord, but I also don’t think that it’s unfair for them to exist.

All of that is vibes-based, I’m asking you to do any analysis. If you don’t want to, that’s fine, but then just say that outright.

You asked me what my opinion was and I gave it. If it’s not up to the rigor that you expect from a meme thread on Lemmy then my bad.

And fwiw idealized economic theory is mostly vibes based anyway. The only way to truly scrutinize the theory is to test it in the real world, and most countries have converged on something that borrows from both capitalism and communism. Probably some mixture of these two extremes is where we net out.

And fwiw idealized economic theory is mostly vibes based anyway. The only way to truly scrutinize the theory is to test it in the real world, and most countries have converged on something that borrows from both capitalism and communism. Probably some mixture of these two extremes is where we net out.

Again, looking at snapshots without analyzing their trajectories or contexts is the peak of idealism. This is vibes-based, and is why you need to read theory if you are going to make claims.

Capitalist countries are not a “mixture of the two extremes.”

Yes they are, the US and most European countries have free markets, but they also have social welfare programs.

Social welfare programs are not Socialism. This is why I am trying to convince you to familiarize yourself with the concepts people are discussing before asserting your opinion on said subject, unless you are just trying to learn.