• MyNameIsIgglePiggle@sh.itjust.works
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    11
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    1 year ago

    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
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      9
      ·
      1 year 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
          arrow-up
          4
          arrow-down
          2
          ·
          1 year 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
            arrow-up
            1
            arrow-down
            2
            ·
            1 year ago

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

            • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              arrow-down
              1
              ·
              1 year ago

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

              • Cruxifux@lemmy.world
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                arrow-down
                1
                ·
                1 year 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
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year 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.

                  • Cruxifux@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    The argument was that Adam Smith hated landlords, which is incorrect, and he was citing his source you fucking sausage hahaha

                  • Cruxifux@lemmy.world
                    link
                    fedilink
                    English
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    Nobody is asking you to study the topic, but when the topic is “did Adam Smith like landlords” and you say “no” and then refuse to read what he actually said about it or listen to people who actually have read it then you look like an idiot. Like sorry bud, that’s how it is.

                • CileTheSane@lemmy.ca
                  link
                  fedilink
                  arrow-up
                  1
                  ·
                  1 year 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
                    arrow-up
                    1
                    arrow-down
                    1
                    ·
                    1 year ago

                    He’s not “some guy”, he’s Adam Smith, one of the main political philosophers responsible for what we know now as capitalism. And it’s a common misconception by people that don’t actually read books that he thinks that landlords, as we have them currently, were bad. Which isn’t true. He summarized it for you and then also added the whole “harvesting kelp” part as well, and then suggested if you want to understand more the nuances of how he feels about landlords you can read more about it. And for some reason you’re like “fuck you” hahaha

                    Like dude, I don’t get what your issue here is. It sounds like you’re just being bitchy for bitches sake.

        • SCB@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          1
          arrow-down
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          1 year 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.