Rent, it is to be observed, therefore, enters into the composition of the price of commodities in a different way from wages and profit. High or low wages and profit, are the causes of high or low price; high or low rent is the effect of it. It is because high or low wages and profit must be paid, in order to bring a particular commodity to market, that its price is high or low. But it is because its price is high or low; a great deal more, or very little more, or no more, than what is sufficient to pay those wages and profit, that it affords a high rent, or a low rent, or no rent at all.

I'm not sure what you're going on about, but my point is exactly Adam Smith's. In other commodities (according to smith), high or low wages+profit cause a high or low commodity price, because they are what is required to bring a commodity to market, but with rent it is exactly the opposite. The rent that is extracted is measured by how much higher it is than what it actually takes to produce and maintain it. In Adam Smith's view (and in mine), the rent extracted from a dwelling bears no relationship with the cost of producing and maintaining it. It is exactly defined by how much more they extract than what it takes to maintain it.

Landlords are leaches even to the godfather of western capitalism.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world -2 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Again you do not understand the term as it is meant here.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Seems more like you don't understand the core issue being discussed here.

[–] SCB@lemmy.world -1 points 1 year ago (1 children)

Except I've acknowledged both the false interpretation ("landlords bad") being your own belief I don't care about and am not arguing with, and the real interpretation ("economic rent" is not your rent) for clarification to all the wrong people.

[–] archomrade@midwest.social 1 points 1 year ago

You've not argued the case for your interpretation of Smith, you've just stated I was wrong without justification. I think maybe you are confused by smith's use of "rent" in this passage. He is not referring to the total charged to a tenant, he's referring to economic rent.

Economic rent is contained within what a landlord charges for total rent. That's why smith says it "affords a high rent, or a low rent, or no rent at all", it's because "rent" in this passage is exactly how much more than what is sufficient to pay those wages and profit for its production and maintenance. Sometimes a landlord with charge exactly what it costs to maintain and produce the property, and in that case he is charging NO rent.

Smith's critique is of the surplus charged by a lord, by nature of their ownership over the property, where otherwise that cost of economic rent would not be necessary.

Rent is economic rent, or maybe more precisely, what the landlord extracts for themselves from the renting of their property is economic rent.