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 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?