I thought this thread fascinating and wondered if people here had any better suggestions to make since addressing what is technically described as rentierism is key to building our economic future. The problem is, very few understand the term.
In a week where a fogged brain has prevented very little real thinking, this has been one of the few issues that has really engaged me. Rentierism has disguised itself as if it is normal business activity. It is not even close to it, but because it has been able to sow confusion as to its nature and purpose it has become the de facto norm for those seeking to maximise their profits in our economy, leaving the rest of us dispossessed. That is true both politically and economically since the acceptance of rentierism is now normal amongst mainstream political parties. That is why we need to name it, but the aim is not to shame it: the aim should be to eradicate the abuse it creates.
And please accept my apologies if moderation is slow: I am feeling better than I was but it is taking time and rest to get over this bout.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Buy me a coffee!
Doesn’t quite fit the bill but I quite like “Lendlords”.
The first word which came to mind was parasite, but I agree that using derogatory terms could cause a lot of heat and smoke, and not shed much light on the rentiers. I’ve discounted cuckoo for the same reason.
I quite like the term Vulture capitalism. I first heard it used during the Major years but it is even more apt today.
Non economists would easily recognise the metaphor and it succinctly describes the behaviour of the rentiers.
One thing which is puzzling me is what is the difference between savers and “rentiers”?? If we have a pension or an ISA or a deposit account or we let a room in our house are we all then deemed rentiers?
No, but that is the problem with the term
But perhaps therein lies the whole problem with word , it is Also a question of degree ? Where do you draw the line between greed and need ? The difference between a decent low key market economy and runaway obscene ( and all the suggestions in this great thread) parasitic extreme neoliberal capitalism?
In this case the divide is glaringly obvious, I would suggest
Reading the posts it does seem pretty obvious there is a lack of clarity as to what is being discussed and this is understandable unless the distinction between being a “saver” and a “rentiers” is clear. I, for one, do not know the difference.
One exploits others to secure an unearned income and the other puts some money aside for a rainy day
Rent is according to Adam Smith the income derived from owning land which others pay to use. Adam Smith defined land as any resource that comes from nature. So things like coal, oil, water, air, trees, energy etc. The things that are contained on the land, but not necessarily the land itself. When someone takes more of these things than they need, they are doing so in order to receive rent; they are rent seeking. They are seeking to gain income from not producing any good.
Confusingly, Adam smith defined agricultural land as a stock which is used to produce a good which others need. It is the farmer who transforms the land into a productive capital asset by his own labour. It is not the landowner.
So rent seeking is gaining an income from someone else’s capital.
Skimmer/skimming. I must admit to liking economic exploitation though.
Richard I have been reading your site for a decade, but not posted before. Thank you for what you do.
This is a very interesting post, and it seem others agree, judging from the numbers of responses. I am reminded of the discussion of the phrase, and frame, and metaphor TAX RELIEF, which I read about in George Lakoff’s book ‘Don’t Think of an Elephant’.
Republicans wanted to criticise taxation and big up reducing taxes. That could have lead to very messy debates with progressives of various hues, but they gave all that a body swerve by simply starting to use the term ‘tax relief’.
In so doing they introduced a frame, or metaphor; ‘taxation is an affliction’. Therefore anyone who wants to relieve people of taxation (the president), is a hero, anyone who opposes tax relief (democrats) is a very bad person. They did not say that directly, they let everyone else argue about it. But the intended meaning hit home in spades, almost without the left noticing, or understanding, what was being done.
Therefore I applaud the hesitation to use an overtly critical phrase such as ‘parasite’, I would like to see something a bit more subtle, underhand even. ‘Rent relief’ follows from the Lakoff discussion but does not work as well, why not?
The implication of the above is not to find another word, overtly critical, for ‘rentierism’. Instead find a word for what we would like to see happening, which contains a devastating, but concealed, criticism of rentiers.
But on thinking about that, I discover the genius of ‘tax relief’, it pains me to say it, and this is one of Lakoff’s points; the right are very good at this, and the rest of us less so.
Responsible capitalism?
Responsible business practise?
Caring profits?
Mature wealth generation?
I know, they do not work!
Thanks
I will discuss this some more soon
That’s an interesting point about language. We speak of “tax relief” and “debt forgiveness”. I wonder how much it would change people’s attitudes if it were the other way round.
Hi,
I have been following this site for a few months and am very impressed by the level of discourse.
As for the alt term for Rentier, with all credit to Peter Cave, I like the idea of Vampire Landlords and I think it beats my first suggestion of Landlord Looters.
Keep up the good work….
What we would like to see implying what rentierism is:
Responsible wealth creation implying irresponsible wealth creation
Wise wealth creation implying unwise wealth creation
Constructive wealth creation implying destructive wealth creation
I admit I am nit sure I understand that
I was thinking instead of coming up with a term for rentierism that directly criticises that, we try to reframe the whole thing. Talk about what we would like to see; constructive wealth creation say, and leave the criticism of rentierism as implied – destructive wealth creation. I am thinking of reframing the issue, in a way akin to what the republicans did with ‘tax relief’.
The point is to stop reacting to the right, leaving them on the front foot and us on the back. Instead get us on the front foot by reframing the debate, through our choice of vocabulary, and create a discussion about what we want, not what they want.
But I acknowledge I am not doing a very good job! Thanks for reading.
Rentierism is too much in control for that to be sufficient now
Attaching the word ‘sharks’ is already current in ‘loan sharks’, but could also extend to rent sharks, PFI sharks, corporate sharks etc
We surely have to state the difference between how we think we accumulate wealth and how it is actually accumulated.
Even now, it’s about working and earning from that work that is instilled within us even though the value of work is being written down.
Rentierism is not that. It is literally the siphoning off someone else’s income from work or investment.
I’d call it ‘Armchair Capitalists/ism’ as once you are set up or have positioned yourself, you can sit back, put your slippers on and watch the money roll in. It’s unearned wealth in terms of how it contrasts with real industry or being ‘industrious’. All it requires is a big wad to get in on it under the guise of ‘investment’.
‘Output appropriators/hoovers/suckers’.
‘Output gouging/hoovering/sucking’.
‘Income appropriation/gouging/sucking/suckers’.
‘Investment/return diversion or appropriation’.
‘Negative investment/investor’ (in order to facilitate returns that destroy companies and assets).
‘Siphon capitalism/ists’.
‘Asset renderers’
‘Wealth monopolists’.
Sorry – I’ve got chores now.
A rentier is a person or business seeks to gain money without a reciprocal contribution of productivity. This is seen as an “good thing” in our highly financialised world where making money by whatever legal means is seen to be totally acceptable.
And yet in ancient times usury (charging any or unreasonable interest on a loan) was seen to be unethical and sometimes illegal in Christian, Jewish, and Islamic societies.
The fact that someone could make a loan meant that they had savings (excess money) over and above their requirements.
Now of course individuals and businesses can borrow and/or use their savings to speculate and do so with the minimum of effort for the maximum return.
So, today’s rentier may choose to buy house which they rent at the market rate making on average much more than the RPI. When I managed HMOs for landlords, I knew that in at least one case, the gross rental return on the investment was 14% pa excluding the capital appreciation which (by good fortune?) was 24.5% pa over 10 years.
Was this rent-seeking or just “a good investment”?
Part of society sees this as perfectly legal but grossly unfair when trying to exist on the minimum wage. Just look at the statistics to see what the world of the wealthiest 1% own. https://www.statista.com/chart/28788/share-of-wealth-held-by-the-wealthiest-1-percent-of-the-population-by-country/ ?
The new word or phrase should be understood by all, adequately defined to get into dictionaries and most importantly be known to be totally unacceptable.
Now there is a challenge
On second thoughts I’ve just had a thought.
You know what?
If you can’t get your head around what a ‘rentier’ is or what ‘Neo-liberalism’ is or what a ‘collateralised debt obligation’ is and anything else that hurts you and yours – but you voted for Matt Hancock on ‘I’m a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here’!! – then all I can say is that you deserve everything you’ve got coming to you. Stick a fork in either end – you are DONE! Enjoy.
For the rest of us – a citizen of today cannot afford to live in ignorance or allow themselves to be put off the scent by apps, cute cat videos, food takeaways and celebrity bling plus whatever shite is shoved at us in the name of ‘participation’ or ‘social’ (!!!!) media’.
I equate rentier to entities in a free market economy because free means the rentier makes up whatever rules benefit it (self regulation) and there is no or very little government oversight or control. Self regulation is very pervasive, and in most countries there are strong lobbies making sure governments don’t interfere with the activities of the entities (rentiers/parasites/vultures). The rentiers which make me snarl the most at the moment are banks. As I have been reading Naomi Klein, The Shock Doctrine I would consider the American government as the biggest rentier on the planet. I had never heard of the term until I started reading Richard’s writings, and although I may have misunderstood, the above is my understanding of the definition of the term. How would one go about controlling rentiers? The obvious is government regulation of the private sector but there are parts of the economy which should not be in the “market”, private sector. These are the parts which are essential services to everyone and which should belong to us, and the profits ploughed back into services to improve them. I live in Nova Scotia where at the moment we are in the middle of a storm and I know, because it is a regular occurrence, that the power will go off. The power company is privately owned, and according to its mandate it is allowed to make 9% profit. It has recently stated it wants to increase bills to customers by14+%, it also wants, among other things, a storm premium because it has to spend money fixing all the downed powerlines after storms! None of the lines are underground, the transmission pylons are wood (mostly rotten), and it takes days, in some cases weeks for power restoration. This is not a once in a generation event, it happens very regularly. This is the perfect example of a rentier – makes its disgusting profits, and provides a minimal service.
I am not sure I entirely agree with you
Making profit in a well regulated market place is not rentier activity. Society does, I th8nk, gain from that.
But we do not have those markets in the upper echelons of capitalism. Instead we gave captured regulation and Monet making at all costs, and money making is nit the same as profit making when it is the result of exploitation.
Rentierism describes the capture of the system and the exploitation. Banks do both