… there will always be a segment of the population that will only act when incentivized

I’d argue that this is true of all the population but with the stipulation that “incentives” do not need to be monetary. I completely agree that capitalism is not human nature and feel that we’ve essentially brain-washed people to believe that money and material possessions are the reward when in fact it’s all the other things in life that actually matter. I believe that this thinking, which had lots of good reasons for existing during times of scarcity and paucity of resources, can be undone eventually. I think in a post-scarcity world (I’d argue we’re there) where it is normal for people to live fulfilled lives in significant comfort free from financial and work stress those few people who can’t shake the need to competitively accumulate will be rare indeed.

Until then we have a huge problem: we have too much highly efficient prosperity for capitalist models to make any sense at all.

Yes, I’m thinking of fully automated luxury communism.

And thank you for your thoughtful comment. I enjoyed reading and thinking about your perspective.

Well yeah, taxes. But…

The US government’s priorities simply lie elsewhere.

No, the American people’s priorities. And until that changes, we’re dead in the water

Ah, I see. You really just want to hear yourself talk and are too intellectually lazy to engage with anyone else’s ideas.

So capitalism is “ok”… sometimes?

If investments in stocks is “just as much capitalist behavior” then what makes investments in real estate somehow worse? Because you could literally be investing in companies that, as an example, seek to privatize access to water or healthcare or other things I would consider basic human rights just as much as housing. At a minimum all companies exploit the labor of their workers in parasitic ways.

“feels a little less negative on the working class” is highly subjective. I can personally see no difference between owning real estate and renting it out vs investing in companies that exploit people in other ways. Many capitalist activities that you could invest in have extremely far-reaching and long-term adverse effects, some very direct, such as use of fossil fuels.

So quite literally it feels like many complain about landlords as a kind of bogey man while the chemical plant down the road is giving their kids brain damage and another is denying them basic health care.

In a circular or planned economy, those aren’t really significant measures,

Ok, sure - you just said “different” and did not specify.

As mentioned in the last reply, the Palace of Knossos, as well as the Petra were marvels of craftsmanship and engineering, staggering investments,

That involved massive exploitation and slave labor. And let’s not forget significant taxation, looting, etc.

You comparing them with modern construction methods necessitated by capitalism

I’m comparing them because I’m making the point that profit, price pressures and inflation obviously arise when private entities make huge capital investments.

So now that you’ve actually specified “different” as meaning non-capitalist systems, it leads me to wonder if you thought King Minos sought out volunteers… or did he pay everyone fairly? Are you really using “public” works built under autocratic rule as positive examples we can replicate?

First up, so it’s clear, I actually agree with you. But I also don’t think this is an easy thing.

If you’re aware of public and social housing then why are you asking how community ownership and management works?

Because there is a hiccup in your logic as far as I can discern it.

On the one hand you say: “of course all rental housing should be publicly owned.”

And on the other, “I’m not certain that all housing should be public”

So how does that work?

1. How does the housing become public? That’s trillions of dollars worth of property. I actually got the figure of US$7 quadrillion but I don’t believe it. What’s more, 70% of the 19.3 million rental properties in the US are owned by individual investors, meaning you’d have to either confiscate or buy from millions of individuals. I mean, it wouldn’t make sense to just build all this housing if it’s already there. Maybe a combination? But where on earth does that money come from? And how do you convince people invested in a $1.4 trillion market to give up that income?
2. So let’s say somehow #1 happens over some period of time. How then do you meet ongoing demand? I get what your saying - there are examples of this working (for some values of “work”) on a small scale but over the entire rental market?
3. If the public via governments has paid for all this housing at current prices, how do we then ensure rents are low? Over time yes, we can forgo all but the bare minimum rent increases to match inflation, but initially we have to foot the bill somehow. Because presumably that money has to be borrowed and we have to pay interest on it on top of ongoing maintenance, etc - there are real costs involved.

Indeed. And it’s been fascinating to see the logical inconsistency of “landlords bad but capitalism good”.

So tl;dr investment can be for good or can be for ill. I’d argue any investment ends up prioritizing profit over any ethical concerns no matter what they say. As you say, in essence: Profit motive does that. Venture capital demands it.

The abhorrent behavior is buying multiple houses and charging rent that is high enough to not just cover mortgage and maintenance but also turn a large profit, enough to where you can live entirely off of it at the expense of your tenants.

I would certainly agree with that. But those actions also perfectly describe any capitalist behavior. And it’s that inconsistency in views that I’ve been poking at here. Some want to excuse other capital-focused actions as acceptable but then condemn real estate as though somehow that’s different. To me both are essentially exploitative.

Profit, price pressures, inflation are not necessarily meaningful terms in a different system.

What exactly do you mean by that?

Homes have been built for many thousands of years longer than we’ve had those as concepts.

If you include cedar bark as a major construction material then sure. Not knocking cedar bark here - it’s great. But not quite the same investment in time or durability.

I am in a position to be a landlord and choose not to be.

IOW, you are in a position to not need the income. I.e. you could afford the usurious prices for real estate.

It’s almost like… it’s… a… job. How strange.

Buying a house as an “investment” is what we call “scalping” in other businesses.

Actually, it’s called capitalism. Buying anything and selling it at a profit increases prices. Strange… but true.

What constitutes an “investment”?

If you buy a home and have a roommate so you can afford the mortgage is that an investment?

If you buy a home and then sell it down the road for a profit, is that an investment?

Yes, apparently you are a parasite but not to worry you can afford your mortgage by offering a product or service on a temporary basis, for a fee.

No sheet.

Ok, so you want all housing to be publicly owned? That would be interesting…

Oh yes it does.

We’ve increased the available supply of drinking water overall.

And then you charge up the wazoo for a basic human right.

On the other hand when you live in a city where there is a limited supply of housing and you buy that up and rent it back to people at a profit so that you don’t have to work, you are simply draining the system of resources.

Ah. It would appear you believe that somehow buying a property and renting it out does not require financial risk and effort like any other product or service. Renting out housing, despite frequent appearances, requires maintenance and expenses in order to reap a profit. What you are describing would more accurately describe investments in stocks or bonds which do not require anything but capital on your part.

" economists literally use the term ‘rent-seeking’ to describe behaviour"

Except those same economists argue that renting out housing is productive. And that’s not in fact the origin of the term. The classic example, according to the wikipedia is charging money for boats to pass a section of river. The term does not refer to housing, which requires a reciprocal exchange - you build or buy the house and maintain it and in exchange you are paid for it’s use.

To repeat because I have to: I’m not arguing this is good. I’m arguing that a distinction between types of capital investment cannot be made. You can say landlords are universally bad but other types of capitalists are good, universally or otherwise. It’s the same damned thing.

Edit: I sometimes wonder if people think houses are like rivers because they haven’t owned one. They are a huge pain in the ass and require a lot of expense and effort.

What is dark matter?

Note that I am playing devil’s advocate here in order to tease out some of the nuances in people’s thinking because I believe it’s important for us all to understand the details and I’m not convinced many have thought it through. Hence the knee-jerk reaction to downvote

They are buying up a limited supply of properties that exist in desirable areas and then charging people for the right to use them plus a nice profit for themselves. This reduces the supply for a necessary good and drives up prices…

This describes any financial transaction in a capitalist system.

but you can also just be putting money into a business so that it has more money to grow its operations

And how is this different from buying a product like a house and renting it out? Would any such distinction apply to, say, renting out a car or renting out your services? And “renting” a product isn’t really different from services or a cycle of buying low and selling high for anything other than the terms of the contract.

or you can invest it in a business that lets them use those resources now and lets you get your retirement money back 30 years from now when you need it

So like investing in real estate. For years that was considered kind of the gold standard of “safe” investments and generally providing a net annual return of about 5%.

That’s how investment can be a net benefit to society

I’m not convinced any investment can be a “net benefit” to society in a capitalist system. But proponents of renting out property argue it provides a “net benefit” by providing a needed service (housing) to those that aren’t themselves in a position to buy. It is inherently usurious, just like everything capitalist.

So for me, bottom-line, the only valid argument to support making a distinction between real estate “investment” and other kinds of “investment” is to say that housing is a basic human right. And if you are going to go there, why not make other things human rights like happiness, a life free from financial stress, a life of fulfillment. From my perspective that leads to the inescapable conclusion that capitalism is inherently inhumane and thus any kind of investing is immoral.

Ok, so do you have a 401k? Any kind of retirement savings? A bank account that earns interest?

If so, how is that different, or at least acceptable for you than any investment?

You might think I’m trying to be sneaky here or trap you in some way. I’m genuinely not - just trying to understand your perspective and thinking about how folks such as yourself might choose to function given our inability to effect wholesale change in our capitalist system.

Edit: For you downvoting sheep out there, see my comment above for context on why I ask these questions.