Well, it’s a way to incentivize people to use their resources to provide services for others. It would be nice if people just did that on their own, but humans are generally too lazy.
This is not capitalism, this is a market based system, which can happen to exist outside of capitalism.
Capitalism is is the ownership of value by capital ( property of shares, housing etc… gives you benefits because you own them, not because you provided value).
In terms of housing, if one uses their resources to build a house for others to use, they need to retain ownership of that house in order to realize any return on their investment and maintain their ongoing providing of the housing service.
The owner organizes and pays the contractors do do the work. The owner buys materials. The owner makes it all happen, puts their money down. Without the owner being able to have the incentive to do all that, it doesn’t happen.
Almost there. So the “value” provided by the owner is money. It is capital.
Which is needed purely because of the system in place, that was the whole point all along.
Yes, they provide money (or some form of resource). And somebody/something has to provide that if the person who’s going to live there can’t. The capitalist system encourages people to do that. Otherwise the government has to. And governments generally are too big to do a good job (the people making the decisions don’t care about the details, it becomes very inefficient). When people use their own money to try to make money, they tend to work out the most efficient way to do so. Of course, we need regulations so that the efficiency that the capitalist system brings benifits the goal of affordable, quality housing.
Well, it’s a way to incentivize people to use their resources to provide services for others. It would be nice if people just did that on their own, but humans are generally too lazy.
This is not capitalism, this is a market based system, which can happen to exist outside of capitalism.
Capitalism is is the ownership of value by capital ( property of shares, housing etc… gives you benefits because you own them, not because you provided value).
In terms of housing, if one uses their resources to build a house for others to use, they need to retain ownership of that house in order to realize any return on their investment and maintain their ongoing providing of the housing service.
In almost all cases, the owner does not build the house. Thats done by the masons, electricians, plumbers etc … So the owner did not create value
The owner organizes and pays the contractors do do the work. The owner buys materials. The owner makes it all happen, puts their money down. Without the owner being able to have the incentive to do all that, it doesn’t happen.
Almost there. So the “value” provided by the owner is money. It is capital. Which is needed purely because of the system in place, that was the whole point all along.
Yes, they provide money (or some form of resource). And somebody/something has to provide that if the person who’s going to live there can’t. The capitalist system encourages people to do that. Otherwise the government has to. And governments generally are too big to do a good job (the people making the decisions don’t care about the details, it becomes very inefficient). When people use their own money to try to make money, they tend to work out the most efficient way to do so. Of course, we need regulations so that the efficiency that the capitalist system brings benifits the goal of affordable, quality housing.
Citation needed.