One nice, warm, sunny summer afternoon I fell asleep reading The Trial by Kafka…
Three times. On the same page.

For many jobs it doesn’t really matter what degree you have.
A degree can show that you are able to put in the work and have the skills its takes to earn a degree in the first place.

Don’t take this personal, I don’t know your specific situation but most people who claim they need a pickup don’t really need a pickup.

Tat used to be not so uncommon under capitalism as well.
The big, old fashioned manufacturing companies often had livelong employees.

I’d say inheritable professions are more pre industrial revolution than Soviet.

Why did the landlords charge $300 20 years ago when they could have charged $500? Or was the supply of homes appropriate for the number of people?

Yes supply and demand limit how much they can charge. I’ve already conceded as much 8 hours ago.

People have always been greedy. […] Is it a problem? Yes.

So that feels like an appropriate answer to your question from yesterday

Is it greedy landlords? Or is there a bigger issue at play, and landlords are the scapegoat?

I think you summarized it nicely, including your comment on the nature of capitalism. It is not a coincidence, that basically all early criticism of capitalism is centered around landlords. Even Adam Smith criticized the “rentier”.

Look, I agree with you. We need more housing supply. It reduces landlords ability to raise rents.
But it does not change the underlying issue that landlords are greedy and will charge as much as they can get away with.

Fact is, the supply of homes is just as much to blame for high rent prices as greedy landlords.

Again, supply and demand only determine how much a landlord can charge, they do not force them to raise prices.
If anything, supply not matching demand enables more greedy behavior.

If the landlords charged less than what the home is worth, you would never be able to find a place to live near where you want/need as everything would be sold out.

Only if you assume that only local landlords rent out cheaply while all others continue to raise rents. Besides that there are always factors why certain locations are more popular than others.

You’re generally right that insufficient housing is a supply problem but housing is not like other goods that can just be substituted.
If the price of steak goes up, I can just stop eating steak but if the price of housing rises, just becoming homeless is not a reasonable option.
And sure, if the rent in the place you want to move to is too high then maybe don’t move there.
But if the rent in the place you already live in rises then what? Just move out, away from your home, away from friends and family, away from your job?

So yes, more housing supply might be the solution* but it still is no argument that greed is not the problem.

*with all the previous caveats

To be clear, I am making one statement in this discussion and that is that the price is being set higher than it needs to be.
By stating that int he discussion about Landlord greed, it can be inferred that I equate this with greed.

It’s no different than any other product you could buy in a store.

Saying that other businesses operate similarly does not refute my point. As you yourself pointed out, at best your argument is that all “capitalism is greed”.

It’s interesting that when talking about the people building homes, you totally get the profit driven mentality.

I never pretended not to “get” it. I’m just claiming that it’s greedy.

The way I see it there are two ways to counter my argument:
Either show that landlords have no choice and must demand the prices they do.
Or argue that wanting more than you need (usually to the detriment of others) is not greed. In that case I would be very interested where greed actually starts.

The price is set by the landlord based on what people are willing to pay.

What people are willing to pay sets the upper limit of what he can charge. He is not forced to set the price at this upper limit. No amount of demand forces him to increase the price beyond cost + enough profit to live off.

Or the local/state governments need to create zones for lower/middle income homes or apartments. Or in some way they need to encourage developers to build these homes.

I’m not sure how zoning in the US works. How exactly does this reduce construction costs or increase return on investment without high rents? What incentive does this give profit oriented investors to invest in affordable housing instead of other investment options?

supply and demand is driving these costs

In an abstract economy 101 sense that is true.
In a more concrete real world sense, the price is set by the landlord. Neither the supply nor the demand curve force the landlord to increase rent.

We need to prioritize building low income/affordable homes. Flood the market with supply and the price will go down.

That too is somewhat true. In a profit oriented market however the lower bound of the price of rent is dictated by the building costs, the time it takes to recuperate these costs and the expected profit margin.
Assuming building costs are more or less fixed in the short term, flooding the market and reducing the price you can charge will reduce potential profits. Thus private investors are incentivized to build only so much that it does not significantly lower prices.

So, the “we” that could lower prices by building more would have to be the state or some public entity that is less profit focused, not private landlords.

Because after construction costs have already been paid off everything that exceeds maintenance costs is pure profit for landlords.

Wanting to increase profis beyond the inflation rate to cover their own costs of living is greed.

Socialism has other elements

I think your argument might be more convincing if you actually mentioned these elements.

Marx did not think it was socialism

Other people had other definitions even before Marx, so I’m not sure why his should be the only valid definition.

Just my two cents.

That’s not a superpower, that’s just witchcraft

class war […] only works as long as you can subdivide the lower classes and make them hate each other.

That’s not how class war works, that’s how they try to prevent class war, ie war between classes.

OP is including writing “wash me” in the dust on the rear window in “vandalism”.

Did they say so in a comment?
I don’t see it in the OP post.

Anyway, I don’t think of selective cleaning when I hear vandalism.
And I agree with the previous comment, that destroying property is not the moral thing to do.

They’re not sold as ‘hot dogs’ but I’m pretty sure there isn’t a place in Germany where plain old bratwurst in a plain old bun isn’t a thing.

The standard hotdog you can find in Germany consists of a bun and sausage with ketchup, mustard, crispy onions, pickles and sometimes cole slaw.

Where would that be the “standard”?
The most common sausage in a bun combination is just sausage, bun, ketchup/mustard.
Unless you’re specifically talking about restaurants that have an item called “Hot Dog” on their menu, which in turn is rather rare.

And this is when the topic was published by a newspaper.
If memory serves, the fist scientific publications were from the 1880s.