Yes, no one should make money on anything at any point ever. I think that’s the whole point of this thread.
1 Like
Yea I would still like people who are anti landlord to say what other businesses they are or are not ok with. I have no gotcha or point. I just want to understand the position more. Some examples of businesses I am curious about for starters…
Farms
Grocery stores
Soap and hygiene products
Vitamins
OTC medications
Hotels
Casinos
Poker rooms
Should those exist, and if they should, should they exist on a for profit model as they do now?
And if the point is you should only make money on labor and never on money, then back to where I started itt and owning stocks is worse - far less involvement, responsibility, labor.
First, people aren’t anti-landlord in a personal kinda manner, which I think you are missing here. People are anti-Landlordism. Meaning, they are against the Rent System: where those who can’t buy are forced to pay orders of magnitude more for the same exact shelter, and that extra $$$ is extracted out as unearned absentee profits.
Once again, being anti-Landlordism doesn’t mean being anti-shelter. Despite the lifelong drumbeat of propaganda claiming Landlordism “creates” shelter, the fact remains that construction workers built housing, Landlordism has nothing to do with building shelter, nothing at all.
Likewise farming. Being anti-sharecropping doesn’t mean you are anti-food. Despite what we have been trained to believe, the absentee owning class doesn’t “do” anything at all. They certainly don’t “create” food. Farmers grow food.
Ditto for all the other Qs on your stupid list. Maybe stop drinking their kool-aid is in order ???/?
These kinda questions never cease to amaze me.
I think the Red Sox should win the next World Series, if such happens. Shamefully other folks back the Yankees. Who’s right? Who cares? Bottom line: shoulds are like ice cream flavors, everyone gets to pick their favorites.
The relevant question is this: "Why should the renting class continue to tolerate Landlordism?"
We don’t have to tolerate it anymore. In fact, we have never had to. We have the power to overthrow Landlordism. We always have had this power. It’s as simple as 1,2,3… Education, Organization, Emancipation.
That’s clearly not true.
Most food is grown by the employees of “farmers”.
It’s far from clear that eliminating landlordism wouldn’t result in a lower supply of housing.
What do you mean by ‘existing’? You obviously don’t think anyone’s calling for the abolition of soap. Is it really puzzling to you that someone who favours the abolition of capitalism as a whole favours eliminating profit-maximisation from [insert economic activity]?
The line of questioning is a little spurious in any case. Factors behind the things on your list are involved in the irreplaceable provision of a good or service. If we want produce, we must have farmers. If we want groceries, we must have a system of distribution and a point of acquisition. Ditto soap, vitamins(?), medicines etc. No-one could say with a straight face “If we want housing, we must have landlords”. Landlords are not, not even arguably, necessary for the existence of housing in the way that farmers are for the existence of agriculture.
1 Like
You’re definitely right, you don’t have to tolerate landlordism. You can start a housing cooperative. Have at it. But I like renting from my landlord, what in the world do you have to abolish him for? Just start your housing cooperative. My landlord is certainly not going to do anything to stop you from doing so.
1 Like
I don’t know, but I think there are people itt who want to abolish landlords but not abolish capitalism. If you want to abolish capitalism, 'nuff said.
Yea that’s who I am getting at. If those people don’t exist in here then yea my questions don’t matter.
Not to be snippy but hence “in any case” in the second para.
Yes. I meant should a for profit model exist in those things. If everyone who is anti “landlordism” is just anti capitalism then none of it matters anyway. I dont need to ask the questions I have been.
Landlords aren’t even necessary for housing to operate on a profit model. Other way around, in fact.
I am not a smart man, can you explain a for profit model without landlords. We might have a different definition of landlord here or something.
Already exists in the form of banks issuing mortgages. The mortgage provider isn’t strictly a landlord in the sense that the mortgagee eventually acquires ownership.
Keeed has a point though. Landlords don’t prevent people from buying homes from construction workers. And I think someone suggested that rentals compete with sales and drive up prices, but in the real world, rentals lower the prices of homes for sale.
Now eliminating mortgages, banks, cheap money, tax advantages and everything to supposedly help people buy would really lower the price of homes.
The mortgage provider has a lien on the property until the loan is paid. They can take back ownership at anytime the borrower becomes delinquent. Can you be ant landlordism and pro mortgage?
I am probably asking for too many clarifications. If anyone has good reading material that would be great.
You’re still conveniently forgetting about the costs of having a property manager. Many landlords who self-manage do so because property managers earn 10% of gross rents and rarely care as much as the owner about the property itself.
If the State owns the property, then the State will need to pay these costs. So rather than a landlord making money you’ll just have property managers (who hopefully aren’t lazy and corrupt) making the money.
And I’ll LOL in advance if you’re going to suggest that any rental property with more than a handful of unrelated families could still just “cooperatively manage it themselves.”
I’m not discussing escaping from Landlordism. Everyone can’t escape. Why would I want to leave my FWs behind like that? No, I’m discussing overthrowing Landlordism.
Landlordism fails without effective evictions. Evictions only were effective before the pandemic because they are almost never contested. That, and let’s remember the fact that evictions are a heavily subsidized government “service”.
An organized effort to fully contest and use non-violent direct action to resist evictions would stop Landlordism cold. This strategy is, in general, called “jam the jails”.
In the US, counties generally provide this “service”, and it is typically funded by a combination of sales and property taxes. How many months can a typical county level US court remain solvent when almost every eviction case is being fully contested? How many months can a typical US sheriff’s office remain solvent having to send the riot squad out to almost all evictions? If the sheriff tries mass arrests, and the activists react with a jail solidarity campaign, how long can most county jails handle a ever expanding population?
If they try to pass those costs onto other taxpayers, how popular would be say doubling the sales tax, or tripling the property taxes, to fund a violent and brutal campaign of throwing families and their belongings out into the streets and reducing them to homelessness really be?
They do if they can outbid people looking to buy the homes as homes, so that they can acquire them as a going concern. Whole lot of vulture funds buying up entire blocks of apartments here, don’t think even PMC dinkies can compete.
This comes down to regulation and will vary by jurisdiction, but once you’re a few years into the mortgage it becomes much more complex and in all cases is very different from a simple non-compliance eviction.
I’m more “not addressing it as it’s completely irrelevant” than “forgetting”. Still gonna need plumbers when the pipes burst, hate to shake you up but landlords aren’t necessary for that, either.