Even Adam Smith thought landlords were bad: in the context of being unproductive capital that siphons value off rather than re-investing it into the economy in other ways.
The real estate market produces nothing. The real industries that produce housing are construction, architecture, landscaping etc etc.
For most people shelter is their biggest expenditure. If you are on minimum wage in the UK working 40hrs it will be in the range 25-60% of your paycheck depending on where you live. Glasgow has cheap rent for example, London has high rent.
All of that money is money not spent on other things by consumers and unlike money spent in many other places, the accumulation of wealth through land ownership produces nothing inherently. Were it not for extremely meagre housing standards laws, which require (infrequent and often avoided) repairs of the property, which can mean by default upgrading them, it would literally produce absolutely nothing. This is the sum total of a landlords productive capacity.
If that money were spent on virtually anything else, besides paying off interest, the value created would at the very least be speedily reinvested, so as to keep the capitalist economy growing. Therefore the productivity associated with almost any other type of spending is larger than the productivity of the landlord.
They are complete leeches. We don't need them.
There enough homes in most western countries to house everyone without even building more homes. We literally have the technology, in our possession, ready to go. Its just a case of ownership.
Land ownership in the UK is also one of the things that keeps us so reactionary. Even compared to other European countries a huge amount of our land is still owned by a concentrated landed gentry. Particularly in Scotland.
Vast swathes of UK land are unproductive because they are fucking reserved for game hunting or fox hunting or some other bullshit thing.
Message too long. Click
to view full text.