Obviously the landlord offers something of value or the tenant would just do what the landlord did.
Your analogy is also somewhat unfortunate since people did, in the past, rent TVs! Now that supply is far greater than demand, a quality TV can be purchased for very little money.
The tenant can not do what the landlord did only because they are not already wealthy enough for the bank to give them a huge loan. Even if a bunch of tenants band together to collectively develop a property, a bank will not choose them when a wealthy developer is available instead.
Banks have essentially infinite money. The band of tenants is not competing with the landlord for the loan. If the tenants are likely to pay the loan off, they will get a loan, as well as the landlord.
I feel like you are skipping over the part where people bid for houses, a process which advantages people with more access to capital in a fairly obvious way.
In risk terms the landlord is a better bet because they have collateral.
Landlords have assets they can leverage to acquire more property, while renters have to save deposits from income that's steadily eaten away by... rent...
> Obviously the landlord offers something of value or the tenant would just do what the landlord did.
I mean, yeah, they had access to capital.
As I understand it the traditional answer to this is "the landlord took the risk", but in practice I find that explanation questionable when propping up and supporting housing markets is basically political job #1.
I think the landlord was just richer, and was able to use that to exploit the renter.
Sometimes landlords fails. You just do not hear too much about it because in retrospect it was obvious. Buying units in dying areas with low demand or over paying at times.
Generally only winners get looked at. Not the loses in places no one cares about anymore.
Sure, but I don't believe "some landlords fail" changes the fact that as a class, they are structurally advantaged over renters.
Landlords can leverage existing assets (having 1 property helps you get more), benefit from asset appreciation and get tax advantages. When infrastructure or amenities get built, they capture a share of the value. When jobs are created or wages go up in an area, again the landlord captures value. Their asset class is politically protected in many ways. Then there's the whole inter-generational thing...
To a large extent, if your parents were owners, you will be an owner and if your parents were renters, you will be a renter. It's not guaranteed of course, but the effect is very strong.
I'm no socialist but I know a rigged game when I see one.
Your analogy is also somewhat unfortunate since people did, in the past, rent TVs! Now that supply is far greater than demand, a quality TV can be purchased for very little money.