“A dwelling-house, as such, contributes nothing to the revenue of its inhabitant,” Smith said in The Wealth of Nations. “If it is lett [sic] to a tenant for rent, as the house itself can produce nothing, the tenant must always pay the rent out of some other revenue.” Therefore Smith concluded that, although a house can make money for its owner if it is rented, “the revenue of the whole body of the people can never be in the smallest degree increased by it”. [281]*
Hello? Can’t you say the same about any final good or service - it must be paid for out of some other income?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 02/14 at 09:54 PM
The prejudice against housing as a productive investment has deep historical roots, even in the classical liberal tradition!
Comments
“A dwelling-house, as such, contributes nothing to the revenue of its inhabitant,” Smith said in The Wealth of Nations. “If it is lett [sic] to a tenant for rent, as the house itself can produce nothing, the tenant must always pay the rent out of some other revenue.” Therefore Smith concluded that, although a house can make money for its owner if it is rented, “the revenue of the whole body of the people can never be in the smallest degree increased by it”. [281]*
Hello? Can’t you say the same about any final good or service - it must be paid for out of some other income?
Posted by .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address) on 02/14 at 09:54 PM
The prejudice against housing as a productive investment has deep historical roots, even in the classical liberal tradition!
Posted by skirchner on 02/16 at 04:31 PM