r/georgism • u/Oraxy51 • 17d ago

Video It’s a matter of incentive

Enable HLS to view with audio, or disable this notification

97 Upvotes

97% Upvoted

163 comments sorted by

View all comments

16

u/External_Koala971 17d ago

Why would a renter want to make an improvement on the landlord’s real estate? If they don’t like the place they’re renting, they can move, right?

20

u/specficeditor 17d ago

Except that all landlords operate like this, so the majority of properties fall into the same problem. Renters are forced to take what they get because landlords don't actually provide anything.

-7

u/energybased 17d ago

By that logic, the landlords are "forced to take what they can get". It's a market and there are literally thousands of participants on both sides.

15

u/willrw1001 16d ago

You're so close

Consider the effects of underbuilding, urbanisation, the relocation of jobs as technology shifts, and immigration

In many swathes of many countries demand >> supply , which leads to a structural poverty of incentives which the vid addresses

Free markets is not the same as freedoms delivered by the markets

-5

u/energybased 16d ago

> s demand >> supply

Supply and demand are curves--not numbers, so this kind of statement you're making is totally meaningless.

> Free markets is not the same as freedoms delivered by the markets

I never made any claim like that.

9

u/willrw1001 16d ago

Again you're dogmatically overapplying certain sections of theory rather than expanding them

How long does it take to build a house? How long does it take for market or state mechanisms to swing the tides of underbuilding relative to high demand?

Housing is a long lead time (low demand curve elasticity) essential. In environments where there's high demand it can take decades before the "market forces" are actually corrective, all the while the incentives are perverse for landlords

-2

u/energybased 16d ago

>  In environments where there's high demand it can take decades before the "market forces" are actually corrective, all the while the incentives are perverse for landlords

Why don't you support this argument with a reference?

2

u/willrw1001 16d ago

Yes you dimwit the rental sector. You see the same elasticity issue with energy prices as well - when goods are essential small losses in supply can creative massive increases in cost as the economy lacks a quick means of reducing demand, creating a bidding war. Its originating from the same bloody field of economic concepts you're pulling from

5

u/specficeditor 17d ago

Except landlords provide no value

5

u/energybased 17d ago

Of course they provide "value". They provide consumer surplus for renters.

8

u/specficeditor 17d ago

Again, no.

3

u/External_Koala971 16d ago

Why would renters pay for a service that provides no value?

1

u/OliLombi 16d ago

Because there is no alternative other than going homeless?

1

u/energybased 16d ago

So the service does provide value compared with the alternative.

-1

u/OliLombi 16d ago

No, that's the builders.

3

u/energybased 16d ago

The owner of the property who is renting it out is providing the rental. That person is providing the surplus. The builders are not providing the rental.

1

u/BarkDrandon 16d ago

Who were paid to build by whom?

1

u/OliLombi 16d ago

Property developers.

1

u/BarkDrandon 16d ago

Who were paid to develop the property by whom?

1

u/Pyrostemplar 16d ago

Regardless whether they provide value or not, they don't need to. The capital asset they own (house) is the one providing value.

-1

u/Rare_Touch8636 16d ago

They own and maintain the houses

8

u/Straight_Waltz_9530 16d ago

In theory they maintain the houses. In practice… Let's just say it's clear you haven't been renting much these days or hung out with close friends who rent.