[TTPrograms]

The economic concept of "rent-seeking" as it's used now has relatively little to do with rental contracts as they pertain to housing.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking

E.g.: "The classic example of rent-seeking, according to Robert Shiller, is that of a property owner who installs a chain across a river that flows through his land and then hires a collector to charge passing boats a fee to lower the chain. There is nothing productive about the chain or the collector. The owner has made no improvements to the river and is not adding value in any way, directly or indirectly, except for himself. All he is doing is finding a way to make money from something that used to be free."

[ufo]

Sure, I'm just saying that staking is rent-seeking. If we try to argue that it is not, that argument would also literally apply to the rent.

[TTPrograms]

Renting housing is generally not rent-seeking - that's exactly my point. If a property goes up for sale one can (1) choose to invest capital to purchase it, and (2) offer a contract for housing at a managed property to people who can't necessarily afford the capital investment of property purchase. Providing a service (housing access and property upkeep) in exchange for money is literally not economic rent-seeking (gaining wealth without any reciprocal contribution of productivity).

It's only for the particular school of Georgism (which holds that all undeveloped land value should be rightfully owned by citizens equally) from which the phrase originates that the transaction of "housing rent" is viewed as unjust enrichment (in that the majority of the cost is assumed to merely cover rights to the undeveloped land). Even through this economic lens it's difficult to make the "rent" definitions align, as the notion that a property might "go up for sale" is already a violation of the principle - the landlord is still providing a service with investment capital, they're just forced to work within the confines of the system for private land ownership.