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.
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.
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.”
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
I don’t understand why you’re getting downvoted. You’re right.
Being right is its own reward.
I guess, but the mass incorrectness still annoys me lol
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.”
Lol heaven forbid that someone should want you to have an understanding of what you’re talking about.
If you can’t simplify it enough to summarize in less than 57 000 words, then you don’t understand it.
He did summarize it though.
There was no summary. Best was
“Some guy said rent is good” does not summarize why rent is good. At best it’s an appeal to authority.
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.
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.
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.
The argument was that Adam Smith hated landlords, which is incorrect, and he was citing his source you fucking sausage hahaha
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.
Fair. I was thinking today he seemed more to be referring to crops
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.