And then when it expires, all the places they would have turned to rent instead are now owned by rich Americans and priced out of their range, the bulk of the country (the poor, the renters) are forced to move. Their landlords are happy with the whole deal of course, that's why they sold, but the majority of the populace are fucked. That they may be a slight delay in their fuckedness is immaterial.

The people who were forced to move were not the same people who chose to sell. A small portion of the natives owned the land and rented it out to the rest, as is what usually happens everywhere. That small portion decided to cash out and sell their land to the rich Americans, and walked away laughing, while all their tenants suddenly can't afford to live in their homeland anymore.

The reason this problem exists is rent. Without it, there would be no problem, nobody could be forced out of anywhere, and if they left it would be their choice and they would profit from it.

Yes, it is exactly like feudal Europe. I'm glad you came to that conclusion by the end of your post because I was just about to make it clear for you.

And yes, feudal Europe came into existence because of runaway "capitalism" (not under that name), and worse, outright theft. Not because of free markets though, because the forces that allow a market to collapse like that make the market not free.

In a the worst kind of unfree market, people will just force other people to serve them at gun- or swordpoint, and that's slavery. The powerful, the slave-owners, will of course collude to assist each other in keeping their slaves, and since they, being the powerful, will constitute the government of their society, that collusion to keep the slaves enslaved will amount to the force of law.

In a slightly freer market, where somehow enough people with enough collective power have agreed to disallow such violent coercion, slavery like that isn't quite allowed, but some people are still allowed to own all of the resources and "defend" them against unauthorized use at gun- or sword-point, and everyone who's not a part of that owning-everything club must pay their feudal lords or else be forced off the land... onto someone else's land where they face the same deal.

In a slightly freer market still, the kind we have today, people have a bunch of different work options besides just farming someone's land, and the distribution of capital is slightly more widespread and more diverse than just land, but most people still have to work upon the capital owned by a small percentage of the population, and live on the land owned by a similarly small percentage of the population, and the fact that they get to work one lord's "land" and then live on another lord's land doesn't change the fact that they're still paying a big chunk of the product of their labor to both those lords for the privilege, and they have no other option because everything is owned by someone and you can't even just go live in a tent in a field somewhere and garden for food without paying someone else for the privilege of doing so.

In a truly free market, everyone would own their own homes and businesses (or own each others' businesses, because stock investing is a good idea; and work each others' businesses, because division of labor is a good idea too), and just owning something wouldn't be a mechanism by which to generate income from those who own less. The rich would enjoy leisure only at the cost of losing their riches, and the poor who worked to provide for that leisure would accumulate riches in the process, creating a natural and voluntary redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor, in the absence of a mechanism like rent that then takes the riches paid to the poor and gives them right back to the rich to pay the poor with over and over again, allowing the rich to live at leisure indefinitely, on the backs of the poor.

So yes, runaway capitalism leads right back to feudalism, just like runaway feudalism leads right back to slavery. Rent (including interest) is the defining feature of capitalism, and the last modern vestige of feudalism, and if we want a truly free market that's not going to slide constantly back toward feudalism and slavery, we need to be rid of it.

The rich are the goddamn parasites, and rent is the exact fucking mechanism by which they parasitize. A gigantic portion of the income of the poor goes to paying the rich for the privilege of living on their borrowed capital, which the rich then use to acquire more capital and bilk the poor even more.

And what the fuck do you mean the poor have the same opportunities... are you a blind fucking idiot? How the fuck is the child of a crack whore and a dead gangbanger going to get the same opportunities as a trustafarian growing up in Martha's Vineyard?

The original homeowner doesn't get to force the buyer to sell it back a month later; and the buyer can choose to sell it to someone else instead, if he can find a better deal elsewhere. But if a bunch of different people all want the original homeowner's place for a month at a time and don't want to bother looking for someone else to buy, and is willing to accept that $1500 loss for the convenience of a temporary place to stay, then sure, they can do that, and you've got something that looks just like rent.

On the other hand someone who just wants to stay there permanently can keep paying those $1500/mo payments and 16-ish years later they will own a house, which is what you should fucking expect if you spent $300,000 on housing, but what doesn't happen today because people get stuck renting instead, and then decades later have paid way more than a house would cost and yet have no house to their name.

Yeah, that was all supposed to be an analogy for things like that happening on a smaller scale domestically; it just seemed like the injustice of it would seem more poignant if we were talking about rich Americans pushing poor foreigners out of their homes, rather than just Americans and other Americans.

Well in my case, I had been trying to save for a down payment on a real house, and meanwhil dealing with the hell of living in a rented bedroom in a house full of ever-cycling shitheads, and then I found a tiny MH that I could buy outright with what I had saved so far, that had space rent the same as I was paying for the bedroom. So I don't have a mortgage on it, I'm still paying the same rent, but now I have a tiny space all to myself not full of shitheads. (Although I have some other shitheads uncomfortably close to my place just across the alley).

But I'm aware that I got a spectacularly good deal on this place. Still, even looking at more normal (and bigger) mobile homes, they look like a reasonable stepping-stone on the way to a real house. Buying one outright would cost less than the down payment on a real house, and the space rent would be less than the interest on a mortgage, so I'd get something closer to a real house than my tiny trailer while continuing to save at the same pace toward buying a real place eventually. And maybe even more quickly, if the value of the MH appreciates faster than the money I would have stashed somewhere else instead would have.

Yeah, and that's all fucked up too. But it's still a step above the poor schmucks renting from the people who're renting from the banks who're renting from the government; every step down the feudal hierarchy just adds more shit and more burden to pay for the privilege of being a poor fuck in someone else's world.

Ok then how's this deal sound: I'll set up a college fund for my kids. You can pay into it, and then when they're old enough, I'll spend it all on my kids. Hurray! I got "income" and "I" paid for my kids college! You totally didn't fucking pay for it at all.

Ok, right, you want something in return if you're going to pay for my kids' college. Ok, so I'll let you borrow something of mine while you're paying for it, but once it's paid off, I get the thing back. I get to keep your money too. It's win-win! I win, and also, I win! And you lose, you stupid fucking loser. Try not being poor and maybe you can win-win like I do, and get someone else to pay for your kids' education! It's super easy if you just have way more capital than you need and can let people borrow it for a while. You don't even have to give it to them, just let them borrow it, you get it back, and you get to keep their money too! Hahah! Poor people are fucking suckers! Why the fuck did they ever choose to be poor? The idiots.

Copying is irrelevant. Both copyright income and rental income are making money by being the gatekeeper of something, without actually having to give up something, and in any case not getting expectd income is not the same as losing money, only even more so in the case where there's not even the possibility of you doing something and not getting paid for it (which would be a real loss), because the income you were expecting wasn't for doing anything in the first place.

And the landlord is most definitely not paying his own goddamn mortgage if someone else is paying him the money that he pays to the bank, and then the landlord gets to keep what that money buys and the person who actually paid it gets nothing to their name. How does this sound to you: I'll take out a loan, buy something with it, and then you can pay the loan back for me. Sound fair? I'll even let you borrow the thing I buy with it until you're done paying it off, but afterwards it's mine, I get the thing, and you don't get a fucking cent back. That would be so nice if you would buy me that thing, and I'd be so grateful I'd let you borrow it for a bit if you did. So you'll totally buy me the thing right?

I think you're replying to the wrong person; I was quoting someone else and rebutting them, not making that assertion myself.

Alice gives Bob some stuff. In exchange Bob gives Alice a thing. Then Alice has to give back the thing, and Bob gets to keep the stuff. Bob has profited at Alice's expense; Alice lost some stuff, and didn't get any thing for it. Why the hell would Alice put up with this? Because she has no choice; Bob has the thing that Alice needs to survive, so she either gives up her stuff and accepts the loss in order to buy herself a little more time, or she dies. (Or gives up the stuff to Charles instead, or Doug, etc, but same difference there).

It's not quite literal theft, but it's close enough.

People can have notable assets and low income. A lot of older people fall into this category, who managed to pay off a house and are now old and feeble and only make enough to barely cover their consumption. Thankfully they don't have to pay rent anymore. You start taxing their homes though, and now they are paying rent... to the government... on a house they supposedly own, and worked their whole life to pay for. (So now they either lose the house, or have to rent out a bedroom, and pass the buck to some younger schmuck, exacerbating the problem for someone else).

We should most definitely tax income from assets (rent and interest) heavily, and use it to fund a credit to the people paying that rent and interest in the first place. Other than that, if we have to tax at all, it's most just to tax people based on their ability to bear the burden, i.e. their income.

Because it is exploitative and unjust.

While you're at it, why not get someone else to pay for your food in exchange for the service of not putting a bullet through their head?

The landlords (a minority) amongst the natives are no longer poor. Their tenants (the majority) are still poor and now live in a place too expensive for them to afford.

Please try again why rich people are God's Chosen Few and deserve to exploit me for money my entire life without actually exchanging a single fucking asset for all that I pay them, so that they can lend it out again and again indefinitely and live a life of leisure off the product of my labor.