[ryuhhnn]

Not to be pedantic, but this would make you not so "pro capitalism as it comes". The ability to develop and sell houses, but not hold them (in service of rent-seeking) runs contradictory to the very core tenant of capitalism, which is private property and free markets. Socialism and supply/demand-markets are not mutually exclusive; it sounds like you're more amenable to a socialist or mixed-market system than you give yourself credit for.

[christkv]

Im capitalist in the belief of truely free markets. Im against monopolies or monopoly like structures. I can make a case for private equity being a cartel as well knowing how they use algorithmic platforms to price rentals thus collaborating on pricing while pretending they don’t. After all its a third party setting prices.

[mylifeandtimes]

almost, but rent-seeking is an odd form of capitalism, because in its pure form it isn't providing value.

nothing in the real world is in its pure form, and some business are able to provide value which they cannot charge for because they can rent-seek on other areas, so there is always nuance.

but an economy where rent-seeking is the main path to wealth is an economy in really poor shape.

[mjamesaustin]

Rent seeking is the end result of capitalism as an economic system. The goal of a capitalist is to accumulate capital (wealth), and rent seeking allows you to do this without expending any effort. Any capitalist acting rationally within the system of capitalism will desire to seek rent.

[ReptileMan]

Except whenever you have inelastic demand or supply you are no longer in a free market.

[ryuhhnn]

One could argue that PE is both A. ) the ultimate form of capitalism and B. ) explicitly creates inelastic demand. A truly free market will always succumb to dominating forces that create the inelasticity (or at least that's what history has consistently proven).

[Loudergood]

Capitalism actually prefers to control the markets.

[phkahler]

>> Not to be pedantic, but this would make you not so "pro capitalism as it comes". The ability to develop and sell houses, but not hold them (in service of rent-seeking) runs contradictory to the very core tenant of capitalism, which is private property and free markets.

I think you're right. A lot of people confuse capitalism for working for a living - because that's what capitalists want the middle class to think it is. Capitalism is really about getting capital to work for you so you don't have to. Building and selling homes is a form of working. Holding homes for rent is capitalism.