Who's paying rent in this scenario?

[tism]

Who's paying rent in this scenario?

Let's say I want a well dug in my yard. I learn of a company which digs wells. I call them and they send a guy out with a tool for digging wells. This guy doesn't own the tool, not even in part, the company owns all of it. He digs a well, and I send a check to the company.

Clearly the company received rent from someone. Was it from me, because I hired the work? Or was it from the worker because the company profited from him? Or both?

[Hierophant]

If the worker is not receiving his full product, then obviously the answer is the worker (and if this is a modern day scenario, then this is the answer with certainty). If this is a hypothetical realized free market, then no one.

[gened]

if we take a free market, it is insignificant who owns the drill. the laborer will receive a competitive wage for his time drilling the hole and the capitalist will recieve a competitive amount of interest for his machine.

if the laborer charges more than the value of the hole, then some other laborer will offer to drill the hole for its value.

if the capitalist charges too much interest, then some other capital supplier should offer a lower rate.

there is no profit [other than interest] until you are able to force control of some factor.

if you control and direct capital, then capital can charge more. if you limit labor, then labor can charge more. but unless you can also monopolize the price, you are limited to what you can take from the return. so, if labor takes more than its share, capital will look for other avenues of return, which will raise the cost. unless you can control the cost of the product throughout the industry, someone else will beat you out.

that is the marvel of the modern controlled economy, controlling both acess to capital, labor competition and the price. without price monopoly, wage suppression loses its force and deflation occurs.

[Hierophant]

This is a mutualist board, so no one asked your opinion.