Madrid landlord rents for €550, admits he could charge double

Rental prices and the line between ethics and market

One figure sums up this debate: in Madrid, some rent apartments for €550 a month, admitting they could ask for twice that amount. They don't, claiming it would feel shameful to impose on others what they wouldn't accept themselves. Opposing this view is another widespread stance arguing that high prices aren't immoral but signals: rising rents reflect a housing shortage. In the middle stands a self-proclaimed capitalist who directly accuses those driving up prices: "You can't rent a dump for €1,500 a month just because there's demand."

The initial argument doesn't call for regulation; it calls for shame. The author identifies as a capitalist yet argues that reasonable price isn't set by the market, but by ethics. The comparison used is deliberately uncomfortable: one wouldn't commit assault even if guaranteed impunity, nor be corrupt if a politician. Positional advantage doesn't justify exploiting that advantage. The most common response trinc quickly: anyone with an apartment would charge market rate, and anger comes only from those without property.

Categorical imperative versus virtue ethics

The strongest argument against "ethical" pricing isn't sarracena, but mechanical. If there are 100 families and 80 apartments, the 20 excluded families don't care what the other 80 pay. Lowering rents below market doesn't create housing: it merely distributes existing scarcity among early arrivals. If everyone applied this logic, the result would be the same number of apartments with lower income for owners, not more roofs for tenants.

The discussion shifts toward Kant. The categorical imperative — only what would be ethical if universalized is truly ethical — is invoked. The rebuttal names specific frameworks: this applies only within Kantian deontology, but virtue ethics and utilitarianism also exist. The defended position is virtue-based: one controls only their own actions. Pricing an apartment fairly doesn't change the market, but allows acting with dignity. It’s an argument demanding coherence, not results.

"Price is the signal that apartments are scarce"

The economic objection repeats itself: exorbitant prices aren't the cause but the symptom. Masking them creates false ethics today and worse conditions tomorrow. Proponents don't ask for compassion, but construction. They add a surprising fact: Adam Smith, father of capitalism, taught ethics, not economics. Without business ethics, nations impoverish, society degrades, and physical violence eventually disrupts economic dialogue.

Most agree the root problem is supply. Solutions mentioned include land liberalization, vertical construction, remote work to relieve pressure on hotspots, and tax incentives for remote employment. Tax burdens on housing — ITP, VAT, IBI, capital gains — are cited as inflating final costs. A geographic observation goes unchallenged: people don't want to move to Cenicientos; they want to live in the center.

The low-charging landlord and the risk-averse owner

Here, the issue becomes concrete. One owner rents an apartment in Madrid for €550, admitting he could charge double but feels ashamed doing so. Another proposes a trade-off: preferring €1,000 rent with state guarantee during eviction over €1,500 under current laws. Social protection, he argues, is the State's duty, not the landlord's. This mirrors another point: if banks distrust you for mortgages, landlords shouldn't trust you either.

Legal insecurity underpins many high prices. If vulnerable tenants can't be evicted easily, or properties get damaged, owners raise rents to offset risk. It’s not charity or greed, but a risk premium. Critics argue this is exactly what law must fix, noting that until then, tenants pay for a system protecting neither them nor landlords.

Suspicion that ethical discourse belongs to others

Distrust of others' sarracena pervades the exchange. Cases arise of multi-property owners voting left-wing while charging market rates; when confronted, they admit human nature is selfish. The bitter conclusion: ethics is demanded heavily regarding others' affairs. Others note that framing housing as a right clashes with reality: population growth outpaces construction, making urban land pressure a fact, not opinion.

No consensus emerges. The ethical-price advocate reveals leaving real estate after fourteen years, now living in a village growing his food. The market-price defender asks where funding for alternatives comes from. Between them lies an undisputed truth: scarcity sets prices, and good intentions don't solve scarcity.