SMH. I’m not trying to ‘argue’ some X is more ‘better’ than some other Y. I’m trying to do something much more simple. That is, I’m trying to explain particular features of a particular X. In this case X=Landlordism.
This whole obsession regarding ‘arguing’ was also a standard part of chatting with the ACers. Here is what I always reminded them…
If we want to ‘argue’ that X is ‘better’ than Y, first we need to… (a) be able to chat about X in a stand-alone manner, (b) be able to chat about Y in a stand-alone manner, (c ) already have an agreement of what particular metric is going to be used to determine this ‘better’-ness.
The thing pretty much everyone is jumping to is “what is the alternative?”, which I think is fair. I guess if you want to go back to some point solely related to landlordism and not whether or not it should be abolished that’s fine. But whether or not it should be abolished depends on what will happen, and not just immediately, if it is. So, anyway, discussions of alternatives is unavoidable given the thread subject.
At any rate, I’m not sure I disagree with you about the nature of landlordism, but I can certainly accept if I have to wait a while for part ( c ).
Dude, I was taking your lead here. Although, I think chatting about this alleged urban planning that Landlordism ‘creates’ would be more fun.
I can make a damn good case for some fool banning the “system” of sticking needles in their eyes, without imaginineering up some grand totalizing alternate “No Needles in Eyes” ‘system’. That’s the same exact situation we have here ITT.
Anyways, I already threw these fools that bone. I made up the Lotto system.
It’s like this…
Sabo: Let’s discuss why trains suck in this particular way!
Fools: We can’t even discuss anything about that without being given an example of a non-train mode of transportation.
Sabo: WTF, that don’t make a lick-o-sense. But since you insist, cars are an example of a non-train mode of transportation.
Sabo: So… can we discuss how trains suck this particular way?
Fools: We can’t even discuss anything about trains without being given an example of a non-train mode of transportation. (repeat forever).
Sure, there would be a lot a waiting. The reason being, of course, is that the liberals don’t really understand anything about Landlordism at all. So, pretty much all of the time that would be spent would be spent teaching the liberals to understand what they are ‘arguing’ for actually is.
Ok, take that one small point, does landlording create housing?
The question is not whether landlords physically build houses. Bringing that up is a distraction. The question is whether or the system of landlording causes housing to be built.
Is your assertion that the system of landlording causes no housing to be built?
We both are well aware that in regions plagued by Landlordism, new housing is constructed from time to time.
Is that all the meaning that the liberals are trying so, so hard to convey, when they bleat in unison about Landlordism ‘creating’ urban planning?
Of course, in any possible system except the “Never Build any more Housing and Transition to Universal Homelessness” system, new housing is also going to be constructed from time to time.
In addition, we got Correlation != Causation issues here.
I was going to ask where I can get a phone that’s 9 inches long. But maybe I’m just old and don’t know how to use my phone correctly to take extended screengrabs.
Source is a guy who made an app to sue people. I don’t know enough about Twitter to find the part where he points people to his website to get them to download his app. I did see a lot of complaints about him stealing $3/month from all the people who DO download his app and making it impossible to remove their banking info or cancel their unwilling subscription.
Yes, I think people have taken your points that landlordism does not create housing to mean that you think it leads to the development of exactly no housing.
And then, I’m wondering whether it leads to more housing than the alternatives. Certainly it does sometimes and you recognized that, that speculation can create an overabundance (not that that ends homelessness - absent some other factor like a social welfare state).
I am a bit lost of what you would have discussed. I think you’ve said it’s not a moral discussion. And it’s not a discussion comparing which systems result on more and better housing - especially not comparing a capitalist social welfare state vs. the abolition of private property. So, if it’s just “does a system of landlordism require homelessness to maximize profit” or “does a system of landlordism require violence” then I think it’s settled for everyone except maybe Inso0. Maybe not, but for my part I agree with both of those.
I also don’t think the ownership of land, at least as far as what ownership means in our society, is not morally right. I think it is theft. But I still think it’s an open question what is in the best interest for most people.
All forms of capitalism are have the same underlying dynamic. Identify something people need or want badly. Figure out some way to deprive some people of it. Since we are talking about what people need or want badly, this way will necessarily be violent. Then ransom it back to those people for something you can sell.
Example: The Waterlord system. People need water. In certain regions, it’s feasible to fence a group of people’s water supply. Those fences would need to be violently maintained. That water could then be ransomed back to those people for a levy of young men and women. Who would then be sold off as slaves.
The Waterlord system doesn’t ‘create’ water, and it doesn’t ‘create’ hydraulic planning. It doesn’t, and can’t ‘create’ anything, because it’s not a system of production. Instead, it’s a system of allocation.
Likewise, the Landlord system doesn’t, and can’t, ‘create’ anything. Instead, it’s a system for allocating housing, and a system of depriving some people of housing altogether.
I dunno. You’re going to have to keep trying to explain the difference between creation and “leads to the development of” more or maybe I’ll never get it. Water is not a great example. No one creates water.
But, a developer does pay zikzak to build a house and zikzak would otherwise sit on his ass unless someone pays him. Maybe he’ll help a friend out because he’s a good guy, but he may not have that many friends. You can argue about who created the house, but the developer played an important part in getting it built. This is not the only way a house can get built, but it is a way.
Houses and apartment buildings are not land or water. They require work and something has to motivate that work.
You are confusing construction workers -vs- absentee owners here.
If the “problem” is that everyone who would like to live indoors can’t pay ziczac cash, that’s a wealth allocation problem y/o a credit allocation problem. Either way, it’s most certainly not a housing production problem.
Besides, the buildings themselves are as incidental as the meal on a plain ride.
The Landlord system can function without improvements. In jurisdictions where you can’t sleep on the street, and the practice is legal, landlords will stake out spaces in a field. That’s landlording.
Now, if folks will pay $200 to sleep on bare ground, and hope their belongings don’t walk away while they are at work… there’s gonna be folks who’ll pay that extra $100 for a lockable building too. Just like the airlines can afford to buy sandwiches for resale to for their more well to do clients, landlords can afford to have buildings erected for their more well to do clients. There sandwiches and buildings are, of course, funded by the customers via their sales and rents.
But let’s not loose sight that the airlines aren’t really in the sandwich business, and the landlords aren’t really in the being indoors business The airlines are in logistics, and the landlords… have identified what some people really need, have figured out how to violently deprive them of it, and is ransoming them for something to be sold.
I’m embarrassed that I haven’t read it because I love David Graeber. I’ve heard him lecture on it though. I understand and am quite sympathetic with his points/perspectives and descriptions of how much of society functioned before and even in the midst of capitalism while not part of it. I know it’s quite possible for work to be organized in different ways. In previous posts I’ve mentioned some interesting stories from my 96 yo step-father-in-law who grew up on a farm in the depression. He said they virtually never saw or used money during that period. They basically operated on informal debt.
