the spirit is weak. woe be the spirit. the body is weaker still. Siërra R
.
ask me about horses
.


somewhere on website league
username will be botflymother
really if you wanna find me just look for botfly mother
gonna keep that name around for a good while

MxSelfDestruct
@MxSelfDestruct

even from a liberal capitalist lens, it makes no sense to allow rents to get so out of control as they have in so many north american cities.


most businesses, as it turns out, have to pay rent too - and when their rent goes up, they have to either eat shit, cut costs, or pass the additional costs onto their customers. the first option is bad for the business, the second option is bad for the workers, and the third is bad for the consumers. as rents continue to rise, these problems amplify.

soon, this increase in the cost of goods, combined with the increasing cost of housing, makes most people in the city unable to afford goods and services. if rents remain inflated, businesses can only lower prices so much before the production of those goods and services become unprofitable. when this happens, two "solutions" present themselves...

Solution A: move a bunch of rich people into the city. this is what basically every major NA city is doing right now. as rents increase to the point where most of the city's original residents can no longer afford to live there, wealthier households move to this now highly desirable city. since the new residents bring way more money with them, business can return to usual. for now.

as economic activity returns to a booming state, landlords see this as an opportunity to increase their own profits. so, they continue to raise rents. and so, the cycle repeats - rents raise, costs of living and doing business increase disproportionately to average income, current residents are displaced, more monied people move in, blah blah.

to paraphrase margaret thatcher, the problem with capitalism is that you eventually run out of other people's money. once costs of living and production become so high that not enough people can occupy the city, "solution" B forces itself into reality.

Solution B: die. my prediction is that, if things continue on the path they're on, the economies of every major city in north america will utterly collapse. capitalism depends on people actually being able to produce goods and services. if nobody can be a capitalist, the system can't function at all. you've just sold your car engine. so why isn't anything being done about this?

the other problem with capitalism is that if you try and do something responsible, but less profitable, you risk someone else taking the opportunity to be irresponsible and more profitable - and now the irresponsible thing has been done, and you're behind in the competition. because of this, the only way to reliably force positive change is to have people in power who are as personally disconnected from the market as possible.

we don't have that here. an astonishing portion of north american politicians have huge personal stakes in real estate, whether that be through investments in companies like blackrock or through owning a bunch of properties for sale/rent themselves. because of this, any countermeasures against skyrocketing real estate prices directly hurt their personal wealth. and besides, they're mostly old farts who'll be long dead by the time this whole sham goes up in flames, so what do they care?

the solution, as always, is communism. thanks for coming to my ted talk.


You must log in to comment.

in reply to @MxSelfDestruct's post:

I think about this a lot: the optimal rent for a business landlord to charge is the amount which extracts the maximum possible profit from the most profitable business they can get in their unit before the business owner just throws in the towel. It barely matters what you're doing: the landlord is gonna see most of the money. There's certainly not leeway for growth.

In a lot of British cities we're very much in this endgame. The only businesses which are sustainable are the ones that are old enough to have ridiculous peppercorn rents, or big enough to own their land outright, or big enough to negotiate better business rates. New businesses and small businesses just cannot survive, and so the high streets become hollowed out dead zones consisting of betting shops and occasional chain stores. Such hollowing-out, especially of social spaces such as small cafes, can only feed into fewer people going to town centres and so further high street decline. Units seem to stay empty, nobody having apparently adjusted to the economic reality that a fourth betting shop is not gonna materialise and pay the high rent they want.

Landlords are parasites upon us all. Businesses cannot thrive, their customers cannot thrive. The government casts about for something, anything, they can possibly do to revitalise the economy as long as it's not removing the parasite that's almost done draining us all completely.

Fully agree with the entire thrust of this post, but I do think there is a weird sorta-kinda twist on Solution A, which is that also in the eyes of capitalism, landlords are a business, and often does intersect with Large Consumer Businesses. In a practical sense you're still correct, but I think what keeps Solution A from being seen as a economic "problem" is that most cities still view giant property conglomerates as businesses, thus if rents are high their "business" is doing well.

the other, much more doomer takeaway from this is that the final outcome could be a C of sorts -- corporate feudalism, where you dispose of the entire idea of capitalism and just work for Lord Amazon. Which is like, not really a thing we've actually seen much of (especially in the capitalist first world), but it feels like the natural endpoint of this sort of all-or-nothing capitalism.

Pinned Tags