Un inspector
13 September 2013, 07:11 PM
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Mar 2010
Posts: 10,329
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
What I think TDW is talking about it the nature of wealth, and most importantly wealth creation (and also by extension poverty )
And far from referencing Engels he references Adam Smith
Off course we have a historical precedence for this, it was called the industrial revolution – one of its biggest successes was breaking the stranglehold on wealth and wealth creation by the feudal landlords – whose main source of wealth was, yes you guessed it – rent
And they had a pretty disastrous record of wealth creation for the country as a wholet great for them btw -- and we see the living results of this in land ownership statistics)
So address the argument that renting is not wealth creation in a way to convince not Engels, but Adam Smith
And far from referencing Engels he references Adam Smith
Off course we have a historical precedence for this, it was called the industrial revolution – one of its biggest successes was breaking the stranglehold on wealth and wealth creation by the feudal landlords – whose main source of wealth was, yes you guessed it – rent
And they had a pretty disastrous record of wealth creation for the country as a wholet great for them btw -- and we see the living results of this in land ownership statistics)
So address the argument that renting is not wealth creation in a way to convince not Engels, but Adam Smith
But as you allude to he was clear headed enough to discriminate between productive and non-productive assets. A license to charge people to breath the air in London say would be an unproductive asset, a factory would be a productive one, regardless of whether both are exchangeable for cash or whatever. Property belongs to the first class, it is a rent seeking asset, it earns money for the owners by the owner not doing something i.e., not denying someone the use of their land for shelter, or not stopping someone from breathing the air in London. The more rent that is charged the bigger the burden on the economy. It's all about taking money out of other peoples pockets.
Like the feudal Lord the modern landlord is a wealth extractor. However the feudal estate and the modern category of land ownership are not exactly commensurable though. The feudal estate was never exchangeable for cash, it was not 'just' land per se but included the people who lived on it, these people enjoyed customary rights (right to life on the land) and duties (providing x amount of crops or labour) from and to their Lord; hence the concept of noblesse oblige (remember the aristocracy was originally a military caste with a monopoly on heavy weapons and time to train, they would from time to time have to defend their estates including the people on them, contrast that with the modern landlord who only has to pay tax to the state to fund the police and army and even that is taken out of his tenants pockets ultimately!)), in a sense the feudal serf had more rights that the modern tenant, certainly in the last few years as tenants rights have been eroded. This all changed with the enclosure acts (beginning in the late 18th century) as the peasants were evicted from common land which was commodified, turned into a cash yielding asset, able to be bought and sold (modern private property). It was a stupendous smash and grab by the aristocracy and caused immense hardship and trauma to working people, but in turn it led to urbanisation and industrialisation by ending an agrarian way of life.
In a sense all private property is a license to extract wealth if we go with a Marxian line of argument but I think Smith is a good guide here for starters. Rent yielding assets are nakedly exploitative.
Last edited by tony de wonderful; 13 September 2013 at 07:18 PM.
13 September 2013, 07:36 PM
#32
Scooby Regular
An example of people (councils) charging rent (parking charges) and destroying economic activity/wealth creation is writ large in the destruction the town centre high streets and shopping centres
14 September 2013, 07:02 AM
#34
Scooby Regular
Yeah that is basically it although unlike Adam Smith I see the concept of private property as contingent and not 'natural' per se.
But as you allude to he was clear headed enough to discriminate between productive and non-productive assets. A license to charge people to breath the air in London say would be an unproductive asset, a factory would be a productive one, regardless of whether both are exchangeable for cash or whatever. Property belongs to the first class, it is a rent seeking asset, it earns money for the owners by the owner not doing something i.e., not denying someone the use of their land for shelter, or not stopping someone from breathing the air in London. The more rent that is charged the bigger the burden on the economy. It's all about taking money out of other peoples pockets.
Like the feudal Lord the modern landlord is a wealth extractor. However the feudal estate and the modern category of land ownership are not exactly commensurable though. The feudal estate was never exchangeable for cash, it was not 'just' land per se but included the people who lived on it, these people enjoyed customary rights (right to life on the land) and duties (providing x amount of crops or labour) from and to their Lord; hence the concept of noblesse oblige (remember the aristocracy was originally a military caste with a monopoly on heavy weapons and time to train, they would from time to time have to defend their estates including the people on them, contrast that with the modern landlord who only has to pay tax to the state to fund the police and army and even that is taken out of his tenants pockets ultimately!)), in a sense the feudal serf had more rights that the modern tenant, certainly in the last few years as tenants rights have been eroded. This all changed with the enclosure acts (beginning in the late 18th century) as the peasants were evicted from common land which was commodified, turned into a cash yielding asset, able to be bought and sold (modern private property). It was a stupendous smash and grab by the aristocracy and caused immense hardship and trauma to working people, but in turn it led to urbanisation and industrialisation by ending an agrarian way of life.
In a sense all private property is a license to extract wealth if we go with a Marxian line of argument but I think Smith is a good guide here for starters. Rent yielding assets are nakedly exploitative.
But as you allude to he was clear headed enough to discriminate between productive and non-productive assets. A license to charge people to breath the air in London say would be an unproductive asset, a factory would be a productive one, regardless of whether both are exchangeable for cash or whatever. Property belongs to the first class, it is a rent seeking asset, it earns money for the owners by the owner not doing something i.e., not denying someone the use of their land for shelter, or not stopping someone from breathing the air in London. The more rent that is charged the bigger the burden on the economy. It's all about taking money out of other peoples pockets.
Like the feudal Lord the modern landlord is a wealth extractor. However the feudal estate and the modern category of land ownership are not exactly commensurable though. The feudal estate was never exchangeable for cash, it was not 'just' land per se but included the people who lived on it, these people enjoyed customary rights (right to life on the land) and duties (providing x amount of crops or labour) from and to their Lord; hence the concept of noblesse oblige (remember the aristocracy was originally a military caste with a monopoly on heavy weapons and time to train, they would from time to time have to defend their estates including the people on them, contrast that with the modern landlord who only has to pay tax to the state to fund the police and army and even that is taken out of his tenants pockets ultimately!)), in a sense the feudal serf had more rights that the modern tenant, certainly in the last few years as tenants rights have been eroded. This all changed with the enclosure acts (beginning in the late 18th century) as the peasants were evicted from common land which was commodified, turned into a cash yielding asset, able to be bought and sold (modern private property). It was a stupendous smash and grab by the aristocracy and caused immense hardship and trauma to working people, but in turn it led to urbanisation and industrialisation by ending an agrarian way of life.
In a sense all private property is a license to extract wealth if we go with a Marxian line of argument but I think Smith is a good guide here for starters. Rent yielding assets are nakedly exploitative.
Oh I see, good luck then. Do let us know how that works out for you.
14 September 2013, 07:17 AM
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Cardiff. Wales
Posts: 11,758
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yeah that is basically it although unlike Adam Smith I see the concept of private property as contingent and not 'natural' per se.
But as you allude to he was clear headed enough to discriminate between productive and non-productive assets. A license to charge people to breath the air in London say would be an unproductive asset, a factory would be a productive one, regardless of whether both are exchangeable for cash or whatever. Property belongs to the first class, it is a rent seeking asset, it earns money for the owners by the owner not doing something i.e., not denying someone the use of their land for shelter, or not stopping someone from breathing the air in London. The more rent that is charged the bigger the burden on the economy. It's all about taking money out of other peoples pockets.
Like the feudal Lord the modern landlord is a wealth extractor. However the feudal estate and the modern category of land ownership are not exactly commensurable though. The feudal estate was never exchangeable for cash, it was not 'just' land per se but included the people who lived on it, these people enjoyed customary rights (right to life on the land) and duties (providing x amount of crops or labour) from and to their Lord; hence the concept of noblesse oblige (remember the aristocracy was originally a military caste with a monopoly on heavy weapons and time to train, they would from time to time have to defend their estates including the people on them, contrast that with the modern landlord who only has to pay tax to the state to fund the police and army and even that is taken out of his tenants pockets ultimately!)), in a sense the feudal serf had more rights that the modern tenant, certainly in the last few years as tenants rights have been eroded. This all changed with the enclosure acts (beginning in the late 18th century) as the peasants were evicted from common land which was commodified, turned into a cash yielding asset, able to be bought and sold (modern private property). It was a stupendous smash and grab by the aristocracy and caused immense hardship and trauma to working people, but in turn it led to urbanisation and industrialisation by ending an agrarian way of life.
In a sense all private property is a license to extract wealth if we go with a Marxian line of argument but I think Smith is a good guide here for starters. Rent yielding assets are nakedly exploitative.
But as you allude to he was clear headed enough to discriminate between productive and non-productive assets. A license to charge people to breath the air in London say would be an unproductive asset, a factory would be a productive one, regardless of whether both are exchangeable for cash or whatever. Property belongs to the first class, it is a rent seeking asset, it earns money for the owners by the owner not doing something i.e., not denying someone the use of their land for shelter, or not stopping someone from breathing the air in London. The more rent that is charged the bigger the burden on the economy. It's all about taking money out of other peoples pockets.
Like the feudal Lord the modern landlord is a wealth extractor. However the feudal estate and the modern category of land ownership are not exactly commensurable though. The feudal estate was never exchangeable for cash, it was not 'just' land per se but included the people who lived on it, these people enjoyed customary rights (right to life on the land) and duties (providing x amount of crops or labour) from and to their Lord; hence the concept of noblesse oblige (remember the aristocracy was originally a military caste with a monopoly on heavy weapons and time to train, they would from time to time have to defend their estates including the people on them, contrast that with the modern landlord who only has to pay tax to the state to fund the police and army and even that is taken out of his tenants pockets ultimately!)), in a sense the feudal serf had more rights that the modern tenant, certainly in the last few years as tenants rights have been eroded. This all changed with the enclosure acts (beginning in the late 18th century) as the peasants were evicted from common land which was commodified, turned into a cash yielding asset, able to be bought and sold (modern private property). It was a stupendous smash and grab by the aristocracy and caused immense hardship and trauma to working people, but in turn it led to urbanisation and industrialisation by ending an agrarian way of life.
In a sense all private property is a license to extract wealth if we go with a Marxian line of argument but I think Smith is a good guide here for starters. Rent yielding assets are nakedly exploitative.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
car_dreamer
Non Scooby Related
1
23 January 2004 09:35 PM