I read through until chapter 1 in that section you linked and he is pretty scathing of landlords and if I understand it correctly his argument is that landlords exist solely to soak up all extra profits above what would leave the tenant just enough to survive.
I’d strongly recommend you consider reading the entire thing, because that is not his take at all.
Consider at his time, “landlord” literally meant a lord who owned land, and much of the rent he discussed (often negatively) is shit like, charging people to harvest kelp near your house.
Probably because he’s not actually presenting an argument, and is instead expecting people to read a 57 310 word essay. Oh, and if you read all of that and still disagree? “You must have misunderstood, read it again.”
Also, some topics take a lot of nuance time to explain properly. Unless you think the concept of “books” is stupid for some reason, which I’m starting to suspect that you do.
Even the father of caputalusm thought landlords were parasites that only leeched off the economy
Adam Smith justifies the existence of rent as improvement in the value of land.
https://www.adamsmithworks.org/documents/chapter-xi-of-the-rent-of-land
Perhaps you’re misunderstanding the term ‘rent-seeking’ which is a different concept entitely
I read through until chapter 1 in that section you linked and he is pretty scathing of landlords and if I understand it correctly his argument is that landlords exist solely to soak up all extra profits above what would leave the tenant just enough to survive.
I’d strongly recommend you consider reading the entire thing, because that is not his take at all.
Consider at his time, “landlord” literally meant a lord who owned land, and much of the rent he discussed (often negatively) is shit like, charging people to harvest kelp near your house.
I don’t understand why you’re getting downvoted. You’re right.
Being right is its own reward.
I guess, but the mass incorrectness still annoys me lol
Probably because he’s not actually presenting an argument, and is instead expecting people to read a 57 310 word essay. Oh, and if you read all of that and still disagree? “You must have misunderstood, read it again.”
Lol heaven forbid that someone should want you to have an understanding of what you’re talking about.
If you can’t simplify it enough to summarize in less than 57 000 words, then you don’t understand it.
Also, some topics take a lot of nuance time to explain properly. Unless you think the concept of “books” is stupid for some reason, which I’m starting to suspect that you do.
He did summarize it though.
Fair. I was thinking today he seemed more to be referring to crops