Capitalism optimizes for exchange value not use value, also landlordism is a fuedal holdover that hurts capitalism, I would suggest reading the chapters in capital volume 3 on land rent
I agree I think they should probably be taxed accordingly. My comment was more just a face value judgement that they do exist and they are of value because people do rent houses.
I’m also not really sure what a viable alternative is in a free market.
How is a 30 minute video about the Soviet economy a valid answer to alternatives to landlordism in a capitalist market? At least give me a timestamp where they speak to this point.
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.
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.
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’m not using value in this way, I literally googled “ value in a market economy” because this is what I meant by value and I cut and pasted the common definition of this usage. There is no hallucination or subjectivity, I’m using value to objectively mean what people are actively paying for. If something exists in the market, and it is being exchanged for something in return, it has “value” by this definition.
“Subjective value theory” as opposed to marx’s “theory of value” which is sometimes mistakenly referred to as “labor theory of value” actually an earlier development that Marx refined into his own theory
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 add “fairness” to pure capitalism.
This will not change unless the government adds regulations that add “fairness” to pure capitalism.
This is an impossible dream. Capitalism demands that the majority of people are perpetually in an underclass (with some shuffling of who specifically is in it). You can’t have an entire population of small business owners, most people need to be wage-laborers or some equivalent.
I didn’t say anywhere that regulation will make it work or make it better, I just meant that it will certainly not change without some form of regulation.
I’m also not claiming that capitalism is perfect or even good, all economic theories are idealized, I actually don’t think there is a magical system with a simple set of rules that will actually work. The real world is complicated and messy and has exceptions all over the place.
I think there probably is some mixture of free market and socialist ideas that do work, and most countries work like this today.
It really frustrates me when people talk about “mixing capitalism and socialism.” Whatever thing you’re talking about is not what socialism is. Socialism is not when the government does stuff. Socialism is not when the government uses taxpayer money to fund social services or welfare. Socialism is the workers controlling the means of production.
Eclecticism doesn’t work, it imagines that it can pick out the best of everything, but in reality it ends up either being fundamentally dysfunctional because you can’t just decontextualize things from their theoretical framework and have it all work out, or they just end up being one thing with a partial veneer of other things. Almost every country you thought of when you wrote that comment unambiguously has nothing to do with socialism, they’re just versions of liberalism that believe in some level of welfare, etc.
It really frustrates me when people talk in absolutes, is there no room for nuance and grey area? I didn’t claim what socialism or what capitalism is, but it’s definitely true that today’s economies do borrow ideas from various economic theories. How is that a controversial statement at all?
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.
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.
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.
Isn’t this an argument that could be applied against communism though? Communism is government regulation to enforce fairness, if it can’t fix capitalism, why would it work in a communist economy?
That’s not what Communism is. Communism is the process of working through contradictions (ie the proletariat vs the bourgeoisie) through Historical Development. Socialism is established via Proletarian control of Capital, rather than Bourgeois, not just regulation or “fairness.”
Your comment reminded me of a quote about the Bolsheviks and the idea of communist “equality”
long quote
The kind of socialism under which everybody would get the same pay, an equal quantity of meat and an equal quantity of bread, would wear the same clothes and receive the same goods in the same quantities — such a socialism is unknown to Marxism.
All that Marxism says is that until classes have been finally abolished and until labor has been transformed from a means of subsistence into the prime want of man, into voluntary labor for society, people will be paid for their labor according to the work performed. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his work.” Such is the Marxist formula of socialism, i.e., the formula of the first stage of communism, the first stage of communist society.
Only at the higher stage of communism, only in its higher phase, will each one, working according to his ability, be recompensed for his work according to his needs. “From each according to his ability, to each according to his needs.”
It is quite clear that people’s needs vary and will continue to vary under socialism. Socialism has never denied that people differ in their tastes, and in the quantity and quality of their needs. Read how Marx criticized Stirner for his leaning towards equalitarianism; read Marx’s criticism of the Gotha Programme of 1875; read the subsequent works of Marx, Engels and Lenin, and you will see how sharply they attack equalitarianism. Equalitarianism owes its origin to the individual peasant type of mentality, the psychology of share and share alike, the psychology of primitive peasant “communism.” Equalitarianism has nothing in common with Marxist socialism. Only people who are unacquainted with Marxism can have the primitive notion that the Russian Bolsheviks want to pool all wealth and then share it out equally. That is the notion of people who have nothing in common with Marxism. That is how such people as the primitive “communists” of the time of Cromwell and the French Revolution pictured communism to themselves. But Marxism and the Russian Bolsheviks have nothing in common with such equalitarian “communists.”
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.
Capitalism optimizes for exchange value not use value, also landlordism is a fuedal holdover that hurts capitalism, I would suggest reading the chapters in capital volume 3 on land rent
I agree I think they should probably be taxed accordingly. My comment was more just a face value judgement that they do exist and they are of value because people do rent houses.
I’m also not really sure what a viable alternative is in a free market.
https://youtu.be/Hcl3R-yARX8?si=H44MrRjaNH0ob8Bx
How is a 30 minute video about the Soviet economy a valid answer to alternatives to landlordism in a capitalist market? At least give me a timestamp where they speak to this point.
The viable alternative is to get rid of the "free"market
lol
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.
That’s close to the truth, but not quite. Supply and Demand distort the price around a central Value.
Not really, the fact that something is purchased doesn’t mean the “risk” or “liability” created the Value behind it.
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’m not using value in this way, I literally googled “ value in a market economy” because this is what I meant by value and I cut and pasted the common definition of this usage. There is no hallucination or subjectivity, I’m using value to objectively mean what people are actively paying for. If something exists in the market, and it is being exchanged for something in return, it has “value” by this definition.
You are indeed using SVT, where Value simply means a good is useful. We aren’t talking about the same thing.
“Subjective value theory” as opposed to marx’s “theory of value” which is sometimes mistakenly referred to as “labor theory of value” actually an earlier development that Marx refined into his own theory
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 add “fairness” to pure capitalism.
This is an impossible dream. Capitalism demands that the majority of people are perpetually in an underclass (with some shuffling of who specifically is in it). You can’t have an entire population of small business owners, most people need to be wage-laborers or some equivalent.
I didn’t say anywhere that regulation will make it work or make it better, I just meant that it will certainly not change without some form of regulation.
I’m also not claiming that capitalism is perfect or even good, all economic theories are idealized, I actually don’t think there is a magical system with a simple set of rules that will actually work. The real world is complicated and messy and has exceptions all over the place.
I think there probably is some mixture of free market and socialist ideas that do work, and most countries work like this today.
It really frustrates me when people talk about “mixing capitalism and socialism.” Whatever thing you’re talking about is not what socialism is. Socialism is not when the government does stuff. Socialism is not when the government uses taxpayer money to fund social services or welfare. Socialism is the workers controlling the means of production.
Eclecticism doesn’t work, it imagines that it can pick out the best of everything, but in reality it ends up either being fundamentally dysfunctional because you can’t just decontextualize things from their theoretical framework and have it all work out, or they just end up being one thing with a partial veneer of other things. Almost every country you thought of when you wrote that comment unambiguously has nothing to do with socialism, they’re just versions of liberalism that believe in some level of welfare, etc.
It really frustrates me when people talk in absolutes, is there no room for nuance and grey area? I didn’t claim what socialism or what capitalism is, but it’s definitely true that today’s economies do borrow ideas from various economic theories. How is that a controversial statement at all?
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 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.
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.
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.
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.
Isn’t this an argument that could be applied against communism though? Communism is government regulation to enforce fairness, if it can’t fix capitalism, why would it work in a communist economy?
That’s not what Communism is. Communism is the process of working through contradictions (ie the proletariat vs the bourgeoisie) through Historical Development. Socialism is established via Proletarian control of Capital, rather than Bourgeois, not just regulation or “fairness.”
Your comment reminded me of a quote about the Bolsheviks and the idea of communist “equality”
long quote
Fantastic quote, great reference.