The loans are relevant because they mean theres really a large pool of potential landlords competing with each other to get the loan to buy the land/house with. They’re competing on how much interest they can offer the bank, which depends on the profit they’ll make.
In any sector, the entrepreneurial part is under molochian pressure, because many people could borrow-to-enter and compete with you. It’s only the ultimate owner of the capital who could choose a lower rate of return, and only lose proportionally rather than be outcompeted and ruined. Consider: You think landlords are special because land is limited. But capital as a whole is limited at any given time. If you buy land with someone elses money, you dont “really” control it—you provide the competitive service of being a vehicle for them to invest in land. And by market pricing, converting capital from stocks to land is neutral in expectation.
The loans add an extra complication it’s an extra variable that affects the economical equilibrium. But this effect is the same for both landlordism and capitalism, so it’s irrelevant for the question of difference between the two.
Meanwhile there is a factor that distinguishes landlordism and capitalism: the sufficiently intense competition to provide good/services at lower cost that doesn’t exist for landlordism, but does exist for capitalists even before we account for loans.
Essentially we have:
Capitalist Competiton Pressure = NL + L
Landlord Competiton Pressure = L
Where NL is the aspect of pressure without the loans and L is aspect of pressure specifically due to loans.
You think landlords are special because land is limited. But capital as a whole is limited at any given time.
So? Don’t you think that being limited at some point in time and being limited in principle is a meaningful distinction?
The loans are relevant because they mean theres really a large pool of potential landlords competing with each other to get the loan to buy the land/house with. They’re competing on how much interest they can offer the bank, which depends on the profit they’ll make.
In any sector, the entrepreneurial part is under molochian pressure, because many people could borrow-to-enter and compete with you. It’s only the ultimate owner of the capital who could choose a lower rate of return, and only lose proportionally rather than be outcompeted and ruined. Consider: You think landlords are special because land is limited. But capital as a whole is limited at any given time. If you buy land with someone elses money, you dont “really” control it—you provide the competitive service of being a vehicle for them to invest in land. And by market pricing, converting capital from stocks to land is neutral in expectation.
The loans add an extra complication it’s an extra variable that affects the economical equilibrium. But this effect is the same for both landlordism and capitalism, so it’s irrelevant for the question of difference between the two.
Meanwhile there is a factor that distinguishes landlordism and capitalism: the sufficiently intense competition to provide good/services at lower cost that doesn’t exist for landlordism, but does exist for capitalists even before we account for loans.
Essentially we have:
Capitalist Competiton Pressure = NL + L
Landlord Competiton Pressure = L
Where NL is the aspect of pressure without the loans and L is aspect of pressure specifically due to loans.
So? Don’t you think that being limited at some point in time and being limited in principle is a meaningful distinction?