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
|