Phransisku, once more on the topic of creating value. Let's examine your statement a bit more closely, firstly, that the house would still exist even if the landlord was not there or he died. From a physical perspective your statement is obviously correct. If our landlord dies, barring any mishap or unusual behaviour from relatives or whatever, the house won't crumble into dust or disappear in a puff of smoke. The house will either be sold to another capitalist, who having gone through the same process as outlined previously will purchase it or it will be inherited by the estate of the dead landlord. The economic perspective though is far more interesting. In order to continue attracting tenants to the house, the landlord must continue to invest a portion of his earnings back into the property. He must continue to forgo consuming a portion of his current income and save in order to meet future bills/maintenance/improvements to his property. If he fails to reinvest, he runs the risk of losing his market share and would have to lower his rent in order to attract a tenant. If he doesn't, at some point in time his rental property would only be of value to a demolition team. This is exactly the same thing that occurs with other products. Capitalists must continue to enhance their productivity by reinvesting a portion of their earnings back into product development, or they run the risk of losing market share. Apple must continue innovating and producing new phones in order to remain competitive, McDonalds must continue to innovate and produce new meals in order to remain competitive and the producer of ovens must continue to innovate, design new ovens that use less materials, less fuel and function better or else lose his market share. Once a product has been produced and released onto the market, the capitalist must continue working, he must continue to provide value to both current and future consumers.