: See, name calling is not a constructive method of discussion.
No, but it is amusing, buttercup.
: The all your arguing is that rent can be high because its expensive to move. That doesnt really constitute any more than an observation. It still holds that charging too much means people move on.
Not if rents are that high across teh market, the only limit to rent being the ability of people to pay (and even if some can't, there's always a plantiful supply of cardboard boxes).
: So good stable contracts are of market value to consumers.
However short-termism bolsters rent prices by affecting demand.
: If you mean that statism grows arounf abundance like a weed then I agree there is need for a weed killer, but not to throw out the baby with the bathwater.
Statism grows around impoverishment as well.
: you mean like the 'capitalist' state wanted, ie state dependant state feeding.
Erm, no, In England it meant using teh state to make teh workers do what the newly rising Middle-Class wanted, those bastions of laissez Faire hypocrisy.
: Yes thats a good point, I fear the same - the second rate wealthy would try to shore up against superior up and coming ability and state makes the job oh so easy. But socialising property does not resolve the problem of state creation, in fact I believe it makes it, sadly, inevitable.
How so, if we all work directly, and democratically, and use our means of production to our common will, then where is teh need for a state- equality of wealth would eliminate property crime, no state is needed to regulate currency, or police borders...
: Yes, the unholy marriage of liberty and state has resulted in a status quo. I would prefer to remove the protectors of the power brokers, not to distill each persons interest into a collective for the sake of a few.
What few, surely for the very very many?