I was reading an article that mentioned that investing into housing is "morally wrong" and I agree.
In an ideal world, we wouldn't create a system where it is possible to make money from buying and renting houses, especially to the detriment of others. But, unfortunately, we don't live in an ideal world where resources are where they are needed, and everyone has enough. Instead, we live in a world where not only is our sense of success tied to what we own, but in order to live, we need to have money, and there is no "safe amount" to have, so the mechanism encourages making as much as possible.
People aren't immoral, the system is.
Investors are just doing what the algorithms of society tell them to do, which is to make as much money as possible. And, while many cite greed as the driving force, I don't think that is the case for the majority of people. Instead, they are just fulfilling other parts of their social programming, like being able to provide for their children and their future, have nice things, and leave behind some kind of legacy of themselves. They are looking to leave their mark on the world, and feel successful whilst making it.
Are you any different?
Unlikely. Even if you don't own one house at all and are living in a cardboard box on the streets, given the means and opportunity, you'd do the same, because that is what the system demands. You don't have to act that way and chase those things, but the environment is set up to want it as a need, even if it isn't needed at all.
We love games, and the economy is gamified.
There is little difference between the millionaire property investor, and the beggar in the street - they both want money to live. However, what they need to live is relative to their means. One can live off scraps, but given the means of the millionaire, would they keep eating out of bins?
It is easy to judge those with a lot, because they have a lot. However, they are as much a product of the system as those with very little. Are the poor morally superior because the role they played left them poor? Are the rich superior because the role they played left them wealthy? When both are in the same game, success at the game has nothing to do with morality. The moral choice would to not play an immoral game, right?
Give me all your wealth, and stop playing.
How moral are you?
The problem when it comes to the make as much money as possible equation, is that it is ultimately going to take resources that other people are going to want or need. There might be enough resources on earth for everyone to live comfortably, but the game is not about living comfortably like others, it is about Beating others at the game. And, the marker of the game is wealth. So to beat others, you have to be wealthier than others, and that means that any mechanism that increases wealth, is open to exploit.
"Exploit" is not a dirty word here,
Exploit
verb
3rd person present: exploits
/ɪkˈsplɔɪt,ɛkˈsplɔɪt/
- make full use of and derive benefit from (a resource).
Aren't we encouraged to make full use and derive benefit from our resources? When it comes to the resource of money, making full use of it means to make more of it - to grow the amount. Investing into housing, is one of those ways, as are stocks, as are casinos. It is just that types of usage have different risk-return models.
The thing is though, that no matter what we each believe to be morally right or wrong, people are people and will act on the incentive that offer a return that they feel is important to them. Again, this means that there is no difference between someone charging high rent, and someone giving to charity, because they are each acting on what incentivises them as an individual. They are still doing it for a type of return.
Some people give to charity to avoid the feeling of guilt.
Does that make them a good person?
Some people invest so they can give more to charity.
Does that make them a bad person?
As I see it, the entire economy is misaligned to building a healthy human society. If it was aligned, we wouldn't have businesses with products that harm us, and the most valuable businesses would be those that make the most positive impact on human wellbeing. But, that isn't the case, with the most valuable companies generally those who do the most damage to society, in one way or another. This is because while we are happy to talk about morality of investors and the wealthy, we aren't willing to shine a light on what we demand from the economy, which are goods and services that make us feel good, or help us avoid feeling bad. We don't consume what is best for society, we buy what we want, even if we have to go into debt to do so.
That is our level of morality.
We are all products of the economic environment. Addicts.
Taraz
[ Gen1: Hive ]
Be part of the Hive discussion.
And you may be rewarded.
