The credit card companies “advancing more money” would be letting me buy a second tv. The land lords “advancing more money” would be letting me rent a vacation home too.
Car loans are like store credit cards. They can repossess. Apples and Oranges to general credit cards.
So your hypothetical is based off the technical difference between store credit cards and normal credit cards, and you want to use the one that less resembles renting a house?
First, I’m not making a hypothetical. I’ve already mentioned that to you, perhaps several times.
Two, I’m not “based off” anything. I’m simply trying to explain to you how reality works. Here in reality, there is a significant legal difference. Under our laws today, collateralize debt is treated differently than noncollateralized debt. Now you might think that is a “bad” thing, or a “good” thing, or a “strawberry” thing… knock yourself out. You might want to call that very real legal difference a “technicality”… whatever floats your boat.
Agreeing to avoid overloaded words is a SOP to have a productive and coherent conversation. I’ll give an example.
Oftentimes fools will have a stupid so-called argument that “hinges” on the word ‘murder’. One fool might mean it in the legalistic manner, as in an unlawful killing. Some other fool might mean it in a moralistic way, as in they feel the death penalty is “bad” killing. And these fools, if left to their own devices, will circle endlessly in their own foolishness…
Fool1: The death penalty is murder !
Fool2: No it’s not, the death penalty for murder is perfectly legal here !.
Fool1: No you idiot, the death penalty is murder !
Fool2: Are you stupid, it says right here that, that the death penalty for murder is perfectly legal here !
Fool1: {etc/etc}
Fool2: {etc/etc}
Now look what happens if these fools could be persuaded to just stop it with using the overloaded word ‘murder’…
Fool1: The death penalty is “bad” killing !
Fool2: Sure, if you say so. However, the death penalty for illegal killing is the law here.
Fool1: Can’t argue with that fact.
Post landlordism America would take a developer that is 100% altruistic.
The developer assembles the land parcels. Organizes the construction work. Puts up his own money to pay the materials and labour. Goes through the entire construction experience using him time and resources.
Then he rents the entire project at breakeven subsidized rents. All the tenants get a government loan to buy the project from the developer at his break even cost price. No more landlord.
Rinse / Repeat.
Until humans evolve towards creating philanthropists like that on a global scale we are stuck throwing more building blocks on this current system.