If someone buys housing primarily because they have access to capital and credit that renters do not, then charges more than the carrying cost while minimizing maintenance and labor, they are extracting value from ownership of a scarce necessity. The value they capture comes less from producing something new and more from controlling access to housing. This is rent-seeking.

It doesn't mean all landlords are rent seeking, but it's not accurate to say the two have nothing to do two each other, and that it isn't the net effect or intention in almost all cases.

"And we all "profit off of others' labor" when we buy things."

How exactly do I generate a profit when I buy a hairbrush? That's not how profit works. That hairbrush would presumably cost the same to me whether the profits of the company that made it to the owner or the laborer. Between me and the retailer there is a fair exchange of value. Between the laborer and factory owner who made the hairbrush there isn't when he sells the hairbrush at a profit and that profit doesn't return to the laborer. He is extracting the full value of that labor for himself while having done no work in making that hairbrush.

Also let's say buying a hairbrush was unethical - that's why the adage goes that there's no ethical consumption under capitalism. But we don't deserve to die or suffer because we're forced into it.

"According to them only retired people are allowed to live off investment income."

That's not what they're saying. They said "no one should have anything other than labor as their main income until they retire" - which could have probably been better worded as "the income you make in your life should come from your labor, not the labor of others".

Investing as people think about it only exists because people who invest expect value from the thing they invest in. That value only exists because of a mixture of current and future expected income from the business. If the business itself doesn't generate income for people who aren't doing the actual labor, there's no reason to invest unless you have a personal interest in the continuation of the business, i.e. you're an employee whose income depends on that job. In this scenario you'd have employee-owned businesses.

Obviously this raises the question of where funding comes for new innovation and growth (public investment banks, worker cooperative financing, government grants), but then it goes down a rabbit hole about alternatives to capitalism.

Dishes, laundry, house cleaning, cooking, food prep, organization, lawn work, car repair, home repair, etc etc etc. Expecting purpose built robots for every single task seems ridiculous.

You literally don't, that's what the fifth amendment is for

there's a large lack of creativity in these comments. pay for a deer lease, go hunting, don't bring phone, bury gold somewhere random in thousands of acres of land deep enough metal detectors won't find it, kill deer, go home. repeat 3x a year and it's both not suspicious at all but also basically impossible for others to find the gold at that point even if they suspect.

I disagree - my take when I first read this was that this was likely a pervasive thing that senior people all did, and they all knew about it. This guy pissed off the wrong person and so they took him down. Same for the lying about credentials - I am sure everyone is like "hey Jim, did you want to apply for that promotion?" with the response of "I can't because I didn't serve long enough", and the final reply of "oh just make up the numbers, everyone does and they don't check".

I'd also argue we'd need the same amount of roads, but those roads (mostly highways) could be smaller/fewer lanes.

I do agree wealth does cause brain rot and even the people trying to be most self-aware about it still fall victim to their bubbles and egos. I think Elon shows this plenty is many aspects of his life, but business is not one of them.