Oligarchs hate the idea of selling capital because a sale is a transfer of ownership, and ownership is power Oligarchs love renting capital, because that means they get to eat their cake (get money out of it by allowing others to use it) and have it too (they still own it)
-
Show this thread
-
Spotify is rented music. Netflix is rented film. Microsoft Office is a rented toolkit. Cities are rented housing. Rent, rent, rent. The destruction of the paradigm of ownership transfer between producer and consumer is strangling us.
5 replies 89 retweets 288 likesShow this thread -
A cyclic economy, where both money and matériel flow from producer to consumer and back, enables unequal but peered participation by the socioeconomic underclass. Buying allows the purchaser to have autonomy with their purchased goods. This is antithetical to oligarchic capital.
1 reply 5 retweets 64 likesShow this thread -
The oligarchs don't want to surrender money, through taxes or wages, and they don't want to surrender goods, through sales. One outcome of this cycle is the monopsony, where we use government or other collectives to purchase with ownership rather than rent.
1 reply 6 retweets 52 likesShow this thread -
This is not an endpoint, because now ownership is transferred from the producer to the collective, but still not to the individual. Replicable goods MUST have ownership moved to the individual, and irreplacable MUST be distributed without rent-seeking.
1 reply 4 retweets 46 likesShow this thread -
I sincerely believe that a democratic, liberated society is fundamentally incompatible with accumulated power. I fully believe every individual must have the ability to acquire ownership and autonomy, but the snowball effect creates oligarchs, and that must be destroyed.
1 reply 8 retweets 78 likesShow this thread -
Economic liberty means not renting from tyrants who dictate how we may choose to use what we rent and may seize it back from us if we displease them.
1 reply 7 retweets 56 likesShow this thread -
-
alexander payne Retweeted alexander payne
accidental sequelhttps://twitter.com/myrrlyn/status/1241273467418202114 …
alexander payne added,
alexander payne @myrrlynthere is no actual reason for a landlord who doesn't outright own a building, to exist. they are just someone the bank uses to manage tenancy, and doesn't even have the decency to pay them. a landlord with a mortgage is someöne who sold their own debt to buy someöne else's.Show this thread2 replies 0 retweets 3 likesShow this thread -
Replying to @myrrlyn
My payment on my house if I had no equity in it would be more than I could rent it out for. When you own you're also taking on the risk of the property value decreasing (you're still on the hook for the same mortgage), and the illiquidity of property. Otherwise nobody would rent
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
This doesn't even include the cost/burden of maintenance. The balance of power between renters and landlords is absolutely wrong, but the idea that rent is just a 30 year mortgage with no equity gained is wrong
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.