Owen Jones is on Question Time tonight
Why at Last! wrote:
It's not a use I would normally make, either - I was just saying one *could* use that phrase of teachers (or any other occupation where competition or entry is limited...actually, the Economist has been very good lately on how the American private sector has been increasingly taken over by rent-seeking behaviour, and hot just among big corporations: there are a number of states now where you need to be licensed to be an interior designer, for instance).
The definition I usually see used is "excess earnings over and above that which would be required to keep a factor in its current use". Which neatly gets around the "profit" issue, which to a certain is a matter of a) accounting and b) labelling of social architecture.
Why at Last! wrote:
According to at least one very influential strand of economic theory, "rent" refers not to the sale of services above putative market rates, but to "pure" profit based on non-productive ownership.
Either usage is rhetorical, but one casts teachers as rentiers, which is the kind of rhetoric I dislike.
Either usage is rhetorical, but one casts teachers as rentiers, which is the kind of rhetoric I dislike.
The definition I usually see used is "excess earnings over and above that which would be required to keep a factor in its current use". Which neatly gets around the "profit" issue, which to a certain is a matter of a) accounting and b) labelling of social architecture.
Comment