On the other hand a landlord who raises the price of the rent due to a new business opening nearby doesn’t do it because otherwise they would be out-competed by the landlords who do.
I think you’re wrong. A lot of landlords operate on loan, and other more profitable landlords will bid up the interest rate. Conversely, a self-funded landlord could sell his land, invest the proceeds, and get the same return-in-expectation. And any self-funded capitalist thats still making profit could pay more wages—often not a lot more, but more still. And anyone who owns stock could donate the returns. Why are these morally different from the landlord?
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.