Which homeowner isn’t? There is good reason why nobody is moving to high unemployment Newfoundland to buy up the houses they can’t give away even amid the “housing crisis”. A home, even your primary residence, is a capital asset. Basically everyone is living where they do because that house provides them profit – most likely by it being a tool to provide access to a highly profitable labour market.
It may be a conflict of interest, but when there is no interest not in conflict, what are you going to do?
That’s an obfuscation of the point. The conflict of interest is that they directly make money from their property - landlords rigging prices and buying all the property are the problem, and they’re also the ones making laws to regulate themselves.
The conflict of interest is that they directly make money from their property
Just like everyone else.
If people weren’t concerned about the money they directly make from their property, why aren’t they moving to said places in Newfoundland where profit cannot be made? Housing crisis averted!
Trouble is, the profit a house generates is a strong motivator – maybe even a necessity. That’s why they are not moving to Newfoundland.
The Newfoundland market has exploded since 2020. Sale and rental prices have increased. Rental demand is outpacing supply.
So yes, profit can be made in Newfoundland where, according to a CBC anecdote, a landlord in Paradise, NL recieved and impassioned please from a family of 8 to rent a 2 bedroom appartement and was offered over rent in cash sight unseen to secure a rental. (22 June 2022).
Well, profit is just one side of a trade made by two parties that that hasn’t been fulfilled yet. An IOU, if you will.
It does seem pretty clear that all social behaviour is motivated by equitable exchange. We don’t do things for rocks – they offer nothing in return. We do things for other people because they do give something back in return. What comes back in return need not be complex. Perhaps it’s just a hug, smile, or the press of an arrow button. But there is always something.
I’m not sure profit itself is a motivator. If we agree that you will give me a smile when I crack a silly joke for you, it doesn’t matter much when the smile occurs. If you give it to me right away there will be no profit, but I still got what I wanted. If you wait, I profit, but that just means I get the smile later. What’s the difference?
Sometimes waiting is significant. If our deal is for you to feed me, I don’t want the food when I’m not hungry. It is sensible to want to hold that profit until I am hungry, at which time then our transaction can be settled. Maybe you can say profit is a motivator in that circumstance, I guess. It’s really just a tool, though. The actual motivation comes from the trade – being able to get what someone else has.
Perhaps even more significant, it turns out that we get old and start to lose capacity to offer a lot of things to other people in our elderly state. As such, it is sensible to collect those promises of fulfillment (i.e. profit) in our younger days in order to get back things we need later in life when we need them. I think it is fair to say that this is a necessity. Trading something for food in your 20s to eat in your 90s doesn’t work so well. It will have turned to dirt long before you get there. Trading something in your 20s for a promise to deliver food in your 90s works much, much better.
But, again, being able to delay fulfillment of a trade until later is a tool. I am not sure it is the motivation itself.
We do things for other people because they do give something back in return
This is not how I make decisions. That is why I asked the question. The rest of your comment is predicated on that statement and as such, is not worth much to me.
Thanks for the reply, though. I appreciate the effort. I simply disagree and can’t imagine a middle-ground that could be reached by continuing the conversation.
Sure, but in that case their interests would be a human right. It’s a conflict of interests because they are for profit owners; not just owners.
Which homeowner isn’t? There is good reason why nobody is moving to high unemployment Newfoundland to buy up the houses they can’t give away even amid the “housing crisis”. A home, even your primary residence, is a capital asset. Basically everyone is living where they do because that house provides them profit – most likely by it being a tool to provide access to a highly profitable labour market.
It may be a conflict of interest, but when there is no interest not in conflict, what are you going to do?
That’s an obfuscation of the point. The conflict of interest is that they directly make money from their property - landlords rigging prices and buying all the property are the problem, and they’re also the ones making laws to regulate themselves.
Just like everyone else.
If people weren’t concerned about the money they directly make from their property, why aren’t they moving to said places in Newfoundland where profit cannot be made? Housing crisis averted!
Trouble is, the profit a house generates is a strong motivator – maybe even a necessity. That’s why they are not moving to Newfoundland.
The Newfoundland market has exploded since 2020. Sale and rental prices have increased. Rental demand is outpacing supply.
So yes, profit can be made in Newfoundland where, according to a CBC anecdote, a landlord in Paradise, NL recieved and impassioned please from a family of 8 to rent a 2 bedroom appartement and was offered over rent in cash sight unseen to secure a rental. (22 June 2022).
Glad to hear that Newfoundland has become profitable. That means we can all move there now. Housing crisis averted!
All snark aside. Do you really believe that every human is motivated by capital profit?
Well, profit is just one side of a trade made by two parties that that hasn’t been fulfilled yet. An IOU, if you will.
It does seem pretty clear that all social behaviour is motivated by equitable exchange. We don’t do things for rocks – they offer nothing in return. We do things for other people because they do give something back in return. What comes back in return need not be complex. Perhaps it’s just a hug, smile, or the press of an arrow button. But there is always something.
I’m not sure profit itself is a motivator. If we agree that you will give me a smile when I crack a silly joke for you, it doesn’t matter much when the smile occurs. If you give it to me right away there will be no profit, but I still got what I wanted. If you wait, I profit, but that just means I get the smile later. What’s the difference?
Sometimes waiting is significant. If our deal is for you to feed me, I don’t want the food when I’m not hungry. It is sensible to want to hold that profit until I am hungry, at which time then our transaction can be settled. Maybe you can say profit is a motivator in that circumstance, I guess. It’s really just a tool, though. The actual motivation comes from the trade – being able to get what someone else has.
Perhaps even more significant, it turns out that we get old and start to lose capacity to offer a lot of things to other people in our elderly state. As such, it is sensible to collect those promises of fulfillment (i.e. profit) in our younger days in order to get back things we need later in life when we need them. I think it is fair to say that this is a necessity. Trading something for food in your 20s to eat in your 90s doesn’t work so well. It will have turned to dirt long before you get there. Trading something in your 20s for a promise to deliver food in your 90s works much, much better.
But, again, being able to delay fulfillment of a trade until later is a tool. I am not sure it is the motivation itself.
This is not how I make decisions. That is why I asked the question. The rest of your comment is predicated on that statement and as such, is not worth much to me.
Thanks for the reply, though. I appreciate the effort. I simply disagree and can’t imagine a middle-ground that could be reached by continuing the conversation.