It is in the interests of bankers and landlords to masquerade as capitalists
An comment worth noting on an interesting post Where Are You in the Economic Strata? by Barry Ritholtz is the following (hat tip Mike K.):
In my opinion, aspirational voting is the consequence of a rational
dedication to ethics based upon false assumptions of what is ethical.
As I see it, there are two forms of income. The first type of income
is generated through productive achievement that benefits others and
grows the economic pie – this is the symbiotic relationship between
labor and capital. The second type of income is generated through
rent-seeking behavior that simply alters the flow of money, but does
not grow the economic pie – examples of this include
fractional-reserve banking and the land increment of rent. It is in
the interests of bankers and landlords to masquerade as capitalists,
but they are not capitalists (since they don’t grow the capital stock)
– they are rent-seekers.
Republicans are people who correctly see the benefits of capitalism
(the expansion of the capital stock that adds value to labor), but
they are fooled into thinking bankers and landlords are capitalists.
Democrats are people who correctly see the evils of wealthy
rent-seeking individuals, but they incorrectly attribute rent-seeking
to capitalism. In my opinion, Democrats would be wise to change their
target from “the 1%”, which may include capitalists that help others
(Apple is not the problem), and focus their attention specifically on
the rent-seekers (banking is the problem). By using this strategy,
Democrats can align themselves with Republican voters who support
productive capitalist activities, while at the same time exposing the
rent-seekers who masquerade as capitalists. In my experience,
Republicans are increasingly skeptical of banking. They are starting
to get that banking is different from other capitalist activities.
There is a real opportunity for Democrats, but they’ve got to be sure
they select the correct bogeyman.
“Republicans . . . are fooled into thinking bankers and landlords are capitalists.”
According to modern day Georgists, grouping landlords in with capitalists happened in economics in reaction to George, who thought that workers and capitalists had common cause against rentiers. His land tax proposals were meant to extract the rent from the rentiers.
“Democrats would be wise to change their
target from “the 1%”, which may include capitalists that help others (Apple is not the problem), and focus their attention specifically on the rent-seekers (banking is the problem).”
Fortunately, the non-rentiers among the 1% are likely to be Democrats. 🙂
BTW, I have observed Apple for many years. While Microsoft went the way of the monopoly, Apple has always extracted rents.
“In my experience, Republicans are increasingly skeptical of banking. They are starting to get that banking is different from other capitalist activities.
There is a real opportunity for Democrats”
There is an even better opportunity for Republicans. 🙂
When the Reps oppose the rentiers, they have my vote. 🙂
LOL….fair enough Min.
I guess Dan gets the joke.
Maybe MIn was saying, “When pigs fly…”
But the Rep party is so deeply sunk in insanity today they won’t get my vote by seeming to agree with me on one issue.
Meanwhile he Dems are rapidly joining the Reps in deep insanity… after all, it’s where the votes are.
Some of the biggest risks and hardest work I ever did was as a landlord.
All of this hating on landlords is a little puzzling, but apparently is by those who have never tried it.
Hatred of landlords? Pas moi, mon vieux. 🙂
I actually believe in balance, and today many of our economic woes are caused, IMO, by an imbalance in favor of creditors and rentiers. I actually agree pretty much with the commenter, but I was amused by his preaching to the Democrats. 😉
Small confession: I have been a landlord myself. But to a bank and a multinational corporation, so that’s some consolation. 😉
i hope the article is not referring to small landlords such as you and i. Rentier is a term of art and does not refer, i think, to small individuals who may rent a house they are not using or land they can’t use to someone who can.
trouble is, lots of people just assume that both classes are the same, and, it seems, just “hate landlords”.
there is of course great room for differences between landlords and tenants. i decided not to rent my house because i couldn’t put up with all the grief involved. renting the farmable acres i own makes sense to both me and the farmer… but it’s still not as much fun for the landlord as some people think.
Men On A Wall…
(btw: A rentier state is a term in political science and international relations theory used to classify those states which derive all or a substantial portion of their national revenues from the rent of indigenous resources to external clients.)