4 ms·

> [the Economist] can't outright say that the rich are hurting the economy by hurting the poor,... I don't think that's what the Economist wanted to say in the

> [the Economist] can't outright say that the rich are hurting the economy by hurting the poor,... I don't think that's what the Economist wanted to say in the first place. Rather, it's more a conflict between the capitalist/industrialist rich vs the landowner/aristocratic rich. The poor just find themselves ducking in the middle of cross fire. According to this world view the landowning rich do not produce any Value Added, they just arbitrage the [arguably artificial] scarcity of real state to bleed the capitalist rich both directly (office space) and indirectly (since employees must demand higher salaries for the same work done just to be able to put a roof over their heads).

roymurdock 11y ago
These two classes of rich that you are describing probably intersect a lot. Once you make money in business, you need to invest it somewhere that will make you a return. Land is a popular choice.
- crpatino 11y ago
  That's right, this is not about making a witch hunt (you would not expect economists to do that, I think). But if you think about, let's say, competing aspects or strategies for money management... I think a point can be made that one is more beneficial to society at large than the other. So, it is the same rich people at the end, but maybe you want to incentivize them to put investments in ventures that actually do something, and to tax the arbitraging away.