"Everybody works but the vacant lot"

Ok. Compare that house with all those utilities in the middle of NYC and the same exact house with same exact utilities in butt-fuck nowhere.

Are they the same price? What accounts for the difference?

Attached: dLz5qt6.jpg (960x1432, 302.37K)

Working is a sin

he cute and he based

Demand and intense city zoning. Take it up with your local shithead politicians.

A Georgist economic understanding can be used to make money. It basically boils down to the game being rigged for rent-seekers, so on a personal level until the system is fixed the recommendation would be to be a rent-seeker to rig it to your advantage.

The political goal would ultimately be to prevent rent-seeking, but until then it's don't hate the player, hate the game.

Attached: 9780911312799.jpg (400x430, 25.32K)

no u
I will cherish this forever

>hates landlords because they don't work
>wants to get rich by holding internet meme money
how do you reconcile these two things in your head?

Why is there increased demand for the same good in a city?

If I buy a lot and then sell it later for a higher price when the community around it starts thriving, or charge rent for it, where did the value I earned come from?

>/leftypol/
Ignorant of Marxism.
Losers who only get ahead through personal connections.
Have no will to survive.
Do not appreciate the sacrifices of their ancestors to build wealth.

Fuck linkies and commies that hijack memes in a desperate attempt to be based
And fuck jannies

Proximity. To exciting city things and work. And being near higher-income earning centers means higher earners get into price battles with each other and drive the rent up.

Of course, you could just as easily be on the losing end of this as an RE investor or landlord. Take Detroit or Cleveland for example, lots of people holding huge property bags there.

Maybe you should go to r/realestateinvesting and actually get an idea of how this works. Hate to recommend reddit but this board is purely full of shitcoiners and larping communists at this point.

land lords do usury with out contributing to life,
speculators obviously too all your mentioned.
Dancing around the fire for better harvest it is not same as actually contributing to the harvest.

Who are jainnies? Sounds gay are you sure you want to do...them?

No you man, mirroring political incorrect memes turning them into political correctness is gay and pathetic, also it means you people have no creativity at all.
This is nothing but NPC-tier.

Who are jannies? seams to me everyone want to do ...them

long live the revolution my comrades

Politics is for big children they suggest you to imagine, while business men cleans your pockets.

Investors actually contribute to companies that produce things or provide services. Landlords do neither.

I guess in this house you can get vaccine?

>shitcoin and meme stock speculators
>"""""investors"""""""

The landlord tends to a property and keeps it in shape with his own time and resources. He tends to be involved in the general safety of his community (for the sake of property values) and pays property taxes as well, which go towards schools and local government. What does your average obese Chainlink hoarder do?

>Ignorant of Marxism.
Georgism is much closer to capitalism than communism. He was a vocal and early opponent of Marx.

>Proximity. To exciting city things and work. And being near higher-income earning centers means higher earners get into price battles with each other and drive the rent up.

So the value in this case does not come from the landlord, but the community? He is charging people in order to allow them to be productive.

>Of course, you could just as easily be on the losing end of this as an RE investor or landlord. Take Detroit or Cleveland for example, lots of people holding huge property bags there.

Sure. That argument still doesn't mean it's "fair". Robberies can go wrong but you don't see people saying "Well a lot of robbers get busted, so it's not that wrong to be a robber. They take risks."

I have nothing against most capitalists or people how build and produce things. Rent-seekers are those who collect on a non-productive speculation.

Attached: kbik4bidamt21.jpg (868x1194, 124.08K)

WORKERS AND RENTERS UNITE!

Attached: 1483768317261.png (259x350, 56.81K)

based

Attached: marx.jpg (111x109, 2.65K)

>So the value in this case does not come from the landlord, but the community? He is charging people in order to allow them to be productive.

No. Value is derived from demand. If people didn't want a computer it would be worthless. If people didn't want gold it would be worthless. If people don't want to live in a certain area it will be worthless, if they want to live in another area (that humans have mutually agreed upon valuing), it will be valuable. This isn't hard, you're just trying to make it so because you have a specific bone to pick with one particular group of stakeholders.

> Sure. That argument still doesn't mean it's "fair". Robberies can go wrong but you don't see people saying "Well a lot of robbers get busted, so it's not that wrong to be a robber. They take risks."

False equivalence. What I'm saying is that landlording isn't free money and sometimes the renter comes out ahead. In areas like Denver and SF renters are making a literal profit over their landlord as the price to rent ratio is absurd. At that point the only thing the landlord has going for him is the hope that their home values won't plummet.

I'll just reply to you with some Adam Smith.

"The rent of the land, therefore, considered as the price paid for the use of the land, is naturally a monopoly price. It is not at all proportioned to what the landlord may have laid out upon the improvement of the land, or to what he can afford to take; but to what the farmer can afford to give. "

-- ch 11, wealth of nations

"As soon as the land of any country has all become private property, the landlords, like all other men, love to reap where they never sowed, and demand a rent even for its natural produce."

-- Adam Smith

"[the landlord leaves the worker] with the smallest share with which the tenant can content himself without being a loser, and the landlord seldom means to leave him any more."

-- ch 11, wealth of nations.

"The landlord demands a rent even for unimproved land, and the supposed interest or profit upon the expense of improvement is generally an addition to this original rent. Those improvements, besides, are not always made by the stock of the landlord, but sometimes by that of the tenant. When the lease comes to be renewed, however, the landlord commonly demands the same augmentation of rent as if they had been all made by his own. "

-- ch 11, wealth of nations.

"RENT, considered as the price paid for the use of land, is naturally the highest which the tenant can afford to pay in the actual circumstances. In adjusting the lease, the landlord endeavours to leave him no greater share of the produce than what is sufficient to keep up the stock"

-- ch 11, wealth of nations.

"[Landlords] are the only one of the three orders whose revenue costs them neither labour nor care, but comes to them, as it were, of its own accord, and independent of any plan or project of their own. That indolence, which is the natural effect of the ease and security of their situation, renders them too often, not only ignorant, but incapable of that application of mind"

-- ch 11, wealth of nations.

Why don't you reply with some of your own critical thinking and not spam another man's 250 year old dogma? What would Adam Smith think about crypto?

I have suggestion you repeat what you just say in a Popular Peoples Congress according rule of the people (Greek word democracy) and we just cancel land lords. We can always make "Jesus" from one land lord, by hanging in a public place for usury so any one who committed usury could have example dying for their sins. ...oh so you saying marxist commy ... No just hang one for usury . No usury no problem. what is "difficult" to understand by talk easy to realize, that your own ass can be hanged next . Stupid people have respect by fear so be it.

I mean I can refute point 1 easily.

>
"The rent of the land, therefore, considered as the price paid for the use of the land, is naturally a monopoly price. It is not at all proportioned to what the landlord may have laid out upon the improvement of the land, or to what he can afford to take; but to what the farmer can afford to give. "

Renters don't live on a bare fucking field, they live in the improvements, the dwelling and all of its systems, this is an archaic idea of the concept of "landlord" that doesn't have any bearing on this discussion.

>what is supply and demand

The landlord sure as fuck didn't build it.

They bought it from the man who did, and then pay to maintain it, which is much more costly than your average dumbass renter understands. Which is why they're a renter and not owning and maintaining a place of their own.

Yes in deed!

Pure giving

Please do as I request (((Only))) if you can do so with a joy of the little child feeding hungry duck.
Please please please do not do as I request, if there is any of the following mixed in even in the tiniest degree: any fear of punishment if you don't do, any doing it for reword that I like you better if you do, out of any shame or guilt or duty or obligation. Life is too short for us to do anything for each other, if any think like that are mixed up in to the giving.

The value came from speculation and trading present goods (money for the house) in hope for future goods (increased price of the house). There is nothing wrong with this

>No. Value is derived from demand. If people didn't want a computer it would be worthless. If people didn't want gold it would be worthless. If people don't want to live in a certain area it will be worthless, if they want to live in another area (that humans have mutually agreed upon valuing), it will be valuable. This isn't hard, you're just trying to make it so because you have a specific bone to pick with one particular group of stakeholders.

You get more dollars for renting out the same place in the city than the country. You say it's from increased demand for being around higher paying jobs. Therefore the value (coming from demand WHICH) comes from the community of higher paying jobs in the area. Where is that wrong? I'm not using any BS Marx labor theory of value.

>False equivalence. What I'm saying is that landlording isn't free money and sometimes the renter comes out ahead. In areas like Denver and SF renters are making a literal profit over their landlord as the price to rent ratio is absurd. At that point the only thing the landlord has going for him is the hope that their home values won't plummet.

It isn't a false equivalence. Robbery isn't free money.

Buy property, flip or rent it yourselves. This is the way

>Why is demand different.

>You get more dollars for renting out the same place in the city than the country. You say it's from increased demand for being around higher paying jobs. Therefore the value (coming from demand WHICH) comes from the community of higher paying jobs in the area. Where is that wrong? I'm not using any BS Marx labor theory of value.

The same is true for every product in the vicinity. Everything. More income leads to higher prices. And not only that, cities usually tax more too, driving prices higher. As I said, this is more an issue with your own myopia and inability to see the entire picture. You've picked one boogeyman and try to pretend they're the only beneficiary of speculation and/or supply and demand... which is absurd. Get the stick out of your ass.

> It isn't a false equivalence. Robbery isn't free money.
…
> A situation where two consenting parties engage in a contractual arrangement for one party to stay in a property owned and maintained by the other is "robbery"

Be careful. Don't get robbed at the Holiday Inn or Hilton.

it's as true 250 years ago as it is today, scum

Unlike parroting the NPC meme amirite

All you anarchists hate taxes, but those taxes give you tendies after the Big Brrr day. You can buy OGN and ZANO with it too.

Attached: ZanoOGN.png (800x870, 250.97K)

>can't refute me with his own justification and sticks to spamming some other fag's ancient dogma revolving landlords renting land to fucking farmers

Attached: 1345452323423.png (614x615, 742.66K)

no

Attached: nourtrigrdlol.jpg (1790x490, 125.07K)

>The same is true for every product in the vicinity. Everything. More income leads to higher prices. And not only that, cities usually tax more too, driving prices higher. As I said, this is more an issue with your own myopia and inability to see the entire picture. You've picked one boogeyman and try to pretend they're the only beneficiary of speculation and/or supply and demand... which is absurd. Get the stick out of your ass.

No, there are several very important differences between land and other goods. All those other goods can be transported to and from the city, and they are elastic. The supply isn't fixed which constrains the price if demand gets too high.

The price of food is might be higher in the city but it's nothing in proportion to the differences in real estate.

>> A situation where two consenting parties engage in a contractual arrangement for one party to stay in a property owned and maintained by the other is "robbery"

Land ownership is consensual? Tell that to Native Americans or other indigenous people. Most land owned today was ultimately claimed by force.

Then I don't need any of the ideological background, and on a pragmatic point of view renting isn't even the most profitable thing to do, nor is it free of risk or free of work, at least not where I live.

If I had a million euros I'll buy stocks and crypto before I even think about buying a flat to rent it to some poorfag.

You're a meme. Your whole argument is a meme and I'm not going to dance around with it anymore lol.

Attached: 1488389090301.gif (300x200, 2.69M)

From the guy buying it to you.

>Land ownership is consensual? Tell that to Native Americans or other indigenous people. Most land owned today was ultimately claimed by force
Fucking renters stealing properties.

I can understand if you're upset with landlords living off of doing nothing, but that's a very hypocritical viewpoint if you yourself want to get rich from holding memecoins (aka doing nothing) yourself

>Fucking renters stealing properties.
>Buying a stolen good makes it not stolen.

People don't need memecoins to live on though.

"People" can live in a tent if they have to. What ever did we do before the establishment of modern structures and property. So you want to pretend we're communal on one hand but enjoy all of the other benefits of modern, regulated society. Lmfao

Stop replying to communists. They don't want a conversation they want a soapbox. Remind them that all communists belong in death camps, along with their family members. Then move on.

Being a landlord is like storing work in a battery. I worked my whole life as a wager, earned my money, saved my money, and then became a landlord so I don’t have to work no more

Attached: 935D7B73-A660-42A9-89F6-FBF01BE8C946.jpg (248x250, 10.2K)

The value of land IS communal. Other things like capital, labor, and investments aren't.

Read a little bit of George. It isn't the hug-box communist idealism I believe you think it is.

Attached: kmbHnQhJfHc14bx5syxQ_ViTZ7Dw4-oKVGuWoIkOtIo.jpg (1200x800, 172.55K)

>Stolen
Conquered

>Conquered
Aight imma just "conquere" your house then.

Then i shoot you.

Nope I'll shoot you first and "conquere" all your stuff fair and square.

Attached: hk8pathmc3641.png (1918x1504, 299.07K)

What if i shoot you first?
Also, if our military power is equal, why don't we just start negotiating?

your guns will mean shit if you ever have to leave the house