• 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.

      • @SCB@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        210 months ago

        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.

          • @CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
            link
            fedilink
            210 months ago

            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.”

            • @Cruxifux@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              -110 months ago

              Lol heaven forbid that someone should want you to have an understanding of what you’re talking about.

              • @CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                link
                fedilink
                110 months ago

                If you can’t simplify it enough to summarize in less than 57 000 words, then you don’t understand it.

                  • @CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    110 months ago

                    There was no summary. Best was

                    Adam Smith justifies the existence of rent as improvement in the value of land.

                    “Some guy said rent is good” does not summarize why rent is good. At best it’s an appeal to authority.

                • @Cruxifux@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  010 months ago

                  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.

                  • @CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                    link
                    fedilink
                    110 months ago

                    If someone is trying to convince you that vaccines are bad and their only argument is “read this book and you’ll see what I’m talking about” are you going to read the book? No.

                    Other anti-vaxxers replying with “I don’t know why you’re getting downvoted, that’s what the book says!” Does not contribute to the argument.

                    You want to convince people something is true you need to present them with an argument, not a book report. If they already think you’re an idiot they’re not going to read your idiot book. When they present counter arguments that is your opportunity to present any nuance you have.

                    To put another way: it’s not my job to make your argument for you by studying a topic I don’t agree with.

          • @SCB@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            0
            edit-2
            10 months ago

            Fun fact: all unions are inherently rent-seeking.

            I say this as a supporter of unions - true is true. Rent seeking is inherently bad but the sum of the union equation is that they do more good than bad.

            The police union, of course, is also uniquely bad in other ways.