1
2
3
Wealth and Want | |||||||
... because democracy alone is not enough to produce widely shared prosperity. | |||||||
Home | Essential Documents | Themes | All Documents | Authors | Glossary | Links | Contact Us |
Rentiers
Definitions of Rentier on the
Web (via google):
The much and justifiably
criticized corporation is in essence its corporate
charter, given value by limiting the
liability of managers, directors, and
investors. It’s worth at least the
cost of the insurance payments not made by the
corporation, which would equal the costs imposed upon
worker, customer, and nature. As the “need”
arises, legislatures extend limited liability even
further: Congress legally lowered the greater risk of
nuclear power to benefit Westinghouse, of the Valdez oil
transport spill for Exxon, and the Y2K software design
bug for Microsoft. Politicians define
legally “safe” amounts of polluted air and
water for GM and Monsanto, keeping safe the wealth of
those responsible.
Not to be outdone by any legislature, the Supreme Court has ruled in favour of compensating landowners for environmental “takings”, but has remained silent about landowners compensating the public for any “givings”, as when site values skyrocket near a new light rail stop. Molly Ivins wrote,
"Henry George must be in his grave spinning' like
a cyclotron. We, the people at large, make the land more
desirable; and then the landowners want us to pay them
because we won't allow them to poison the air or to
pollute the rivers." (1995 March)
That’s how great fortunes are made: by
sloughing off private costs (which become “negative
externalities”) while soaking up public benefits
(some “positive externalities”). Land titles,
corporate charters, and other privileges – mere
pieces of paper – are worth trillions each year.
The corporations – from the Federal Reserve to
Exxon (both founded by the “oiligarchy”)
– that receive these privileges make their owners
rich or richer. Their wealth is not compensation for the
exertions of either labor or capital, not profit in the
market from output, but rent from present lobbying of
legislatures or past conquest of others’ lands.
Thus laws (“privilege” means “private
law”) funnel multi-trillions of dollars each year
from the many to the few.
Rentiers become the elite or rise higher up among the upper echelon, the puppeteers of our puppet state. Their ranks grow with every techno-advance that spurs a new monopoly and pushes up locational values. Read the whole article Is There a Conspiracy in the Teaching of Economics and History within the American Education System? an interview with Mason Gaffney
Michael Hudson and Kris Feder: Real Estate and the Capital Gains Debate
Economic policy should
distinguish between activities which add to productive
capacity and those which merely add to overhead
This distinction elevates the policy debate above the
level of merely carping about inequitable wealth
distribution, an attack by have-nots on the haves, to the
fundamental issues. What ways of getting income deserve
fiscal encouragement, and how may economic surpluses best
be tapped to support government needs?
Policies that subsidize
rentier incomes while penalizing
productive effort have grave implications, not only for
distributive justice and social harmony, but also for
economic efficiency and growth. Read
the whole article
|
|
to email this page to a friend: right click, choose
"send"
|
||||||
Wealth and Want
|
www.wealthandwant.com
|
|||||
... because democracy alone hasn't yet led to a society
in which all can prosper
|