The shopkeeper does all that and is rewarded for creating that value. The shopkeepers landlord takes some of that value for no reason other than he happens to own the land the shopkeeper uses to collect all that stuff on. Shopkeeper good, landlord bad.
3 Likes
Before the share cropping form of capitalism was outlawed in the US, there were generally two types of sharecropping: in the first, there was a hovel on the land, and the landlord provided a plow & mule. In the second, there was only dirt. The sharecropper provided the mule & plow, and the hovel building supplies.
In the second case, the landlord provided absolutely nothing, and commonly the landlord personally wasnât even aware of where this farm dirt was located. The landlordâs agents typically took ~25% of the crop. Every single year forever.
Is that cool with the @ danbyâs of the world?
In the first case, if all the landlord provided was a bit for the mule⌠Iâm guessing providing that one little bit surely justifies taking ~33% of the crop⌠every single year forever.
Did I guess right?
so - there are two obstacles to a bunch of people building their own apartment building. One is land. In some places land is made expensive primarily because of network effects of other people living there and publicly owned infrastructure. And all land is stolen. There never was an original owner. That can make it hard to get land. The other obstacle is organization.
Money isnât an obstacle?
Not really. In the case of indigent housing or something, yeah, but money is practically free. In some places they pay you to take it, if youâre the right sort of person. At any rate, you, yes you personally, could buy an apartment building with zero dollars using the expected rents as qualification and the property as security. I did this myself when I was about 25 years old.
Off with your head!
Shop keeper looks at a patch of land and wants to operate a store there.
Labourer and material supplier want $100 000 to build the store.
How does this store get built?
Store keeper is a capitalist, takes a profit off every item shopkeeper sells from individual product makers. Why is shop keeper allowed to earn a profit in your eyes? Shopkeeper is a middleman milking money from suppliers and consumers.
You guys donât think this through enough before you present an argument.
How does housing / commercial space get built? You guys spent all this time adopting a theory and we havenât yet gone passed the first step on working this theory out.
Not really.
Renting folks are so generous that those absentee RIET owners have an expectation of their stock paying for itself in ~7 years. In other words, over a ~100 year useful lifespan, renting folk are giving away ~6 new houses to those absentee RIET owners out of the goodness of their hearts.
All renting folk gotta do is stop being so into this kind of charity, and they could afford all sorts of shit.
ETA:
Renting folk can teach the landlords how to code, renting folk can made the landlords better coffee than Starbucks, renting folks can withhold their rent, save it, and offer the landlords mutual aid.
Landlords arenât necessarily bad people, theyâre people doing a bad thing.
In one post you literally wrote land is expensive and in another you wrote money isnât a problem.
Sabo wants free housing.
What else is new.
I want free phone. Free car. Free computer. Free TV. Those shareholders and owners of those corps are all absentee owners. I should be able to walk into apple store and walk out with computer. We can talk about giving those shareholders mutual aid.
Dude, you must be reading a whole different interwebs than Iâm writing onto. SMH.
Iâll withold rent the same way I withhold payment to any thing I want of value. Why hasnât anyone thought of this?
Well, the answer is âit dependsâ. In a lot of places the building cost is much much higher than the land value. In some places the land value is much much higher than the building cost.
Ownership of land is, well, wrong imo. It doesnât belong to anyone. And when it is valuable, thatâs generally because of the value that society adds to it. The right to monopolize land, especially land that a person is not personally using, should be granted by society when it benefits society and canceled if if stops benefiting society. So, itâs different.
But still, you can buy or build multifamily housing with little or no cash as long as itâs not in an extremely expensive place.
Iâm pretty sure folks have thought along these lines before. SMH.
When you do valuable work (like inventory management, collection and distribution of goods, accurate pricing etc) you should receive a reward for that work. When you do nothing of value you shouldnât. âmiddlemenâ often do valuable work. Sometimes they donât. Youâre arguing against a position no one (at least no one I can tell) has taken.
Again things get built by people building them.
What difference does it make if building cost are > or < than land cost? Money is a huge obstacle and absolutely needed in order to purchase land.
So you got passed the land issue. Now how do we build the multifamily housing? Labourer and supplier need to get paid before the project is completed.
So we use bank money like you proposed. We take bank money to pay labourer and supplier. Now who is responsible for this debt?
The renter? The only actual bottom line alternative is âthe governmentâ.
Not one person ITT is advocating for that.
I think you and I would agree that the goal IRL is to have housing that serves itâs purpose, AKA it provides shelter to occupants.
There are 3 categories of people that weâve discussed:
- The renter/occupant who is paying for shelter
- The workers(construction, procurement, planners, engineers, maintenance, etc)
- The Landlord
We can eliminate one of those 3 categories of people and still achieve our goal of shelter for occupants.
Things get built by people building them. Fine.
Now I ask again. Labourer / renter / supplier are looking at a piece of dirt starring at each other. How do we go from there to the house being built?
Labourer wants $50K for 1 year of work and supplier wants money for materials. Someone has to pay them. Who pays them?
You donât seem to be participating in good faith. Iâm not sure I can continue with you. I have actually owned rental properties, apartment buildings. I also worked in Housing Development for years as a consultant. For the development of large multi-family housing projects with various kinds of financing. Iâm not a child and Iâm not making things up and Iâm not living in a fantasy world. Iâm on my way to work now maybe I will look back at this when I get back.
The widening gap between rich and poor is making Down And Out In Paris And London even more of a must read, though sadly I wouldnât expect wealthy asset owners to read it.
2 Likes