4 ms·

> manufacturing was productive and wealth-creative, while rents levied by the landed gentry were unproductive and extractive This seems like a commonly made di

> manufacturing was productive and wealth-creative, while rents levied by the landed gentry were unproductive and extractive This seems like a commonly made distinction, and maybe it's an honest and correct one, but the phrasing does seem a little slanted to me. Couldn't we also say that the gentry providing workable land to farmers is productive use of capital, and the prices charged for manufactured goods are unproductive rents? I suppose it doesn't hold together quite as well, but focusing on different sides of the ledger (and bringing class into the discussion) makes me question if the argument holds together as well when considered soberly.

pjc50 6y ago
> Couldn't we also say that the gentry providing workable land to farmers is productive use of capital, and the prices charged for manufactured goods are unproductive rents? You could say that, but it would be wrong or meaningless? You've not defined terms or made an argument, you've just swapped the labels like a guy trying to swap product barcodes so he can cheat the store. Also fails to cover how the land was "provided" in the first place, and who was taking it at sword point..
- Nasrudith 6y ago
  It is over a vast period of time as well and was both raw exploitation and a legitimate service essentially. When the lords were able to provide meaningful protection against vikings raiding that was a legitimate service - militias alone didn't cut it compared to a professional warrior elite. Now when they were the source of instability with feudal squabbles they can't be said to even be helping except maybe in a power vacuum potentially leading to even worse outcomes.
- repsilat 6y ago
  I think that's my point. If the structure of the soundbite doesn't argue for its case then it's a useful short-hand for people who know the economic definitions, but it otherwise isn't enlightening. If the purpose of making the distinction between productive and unproductive activity is to inform, then a reason needs to be given for activities being called one or the other. Without that reason, the framing looks more like politics than economics. As for "provided": leaving aside the moral question of how the status quo obtained (which, I'll grant, was likely not moral at all), the landlord has land that can be used for farming, but also for polo or fox hunting or whatever. The farmers have time and energy that can be used for farming, but also for football and arm-wrestling competitions etc. I'm not saying they're the same, I'm just saying that if they're different we need to do more than just assert it.

pjc50 6y ago

> Couldn't we also say that the gentry providing workable land to farmers is productive use of capital, and the prices charged for manufactured goods are unproductive rents? You could say that, but it would be wrong or meaningless? You've not defined terms or made an argument, you've just swapped the labels like a guy trying to swap product barcodes so he can cheat the store. Also fails to cover how the land was "provided" in the first place, and who was taking it at sword point..

Nasrudith 6y ago
It is over a vast period of time as well and was both raw exploitation and a legitimate service essentially. When the lords were able to provide meaningful protection against vikings raiding that was a legitimate service - militias alone didn't cut it compared to a professional warrior elite. Now when they were the source of instability with feudal squabbles they can't be said to even be helping except maybe in a power vacuum potentially leading to even worse outcomes.
repsilat 6y ago
I think that's my point. If the structure of the soundbite doesn't argue for its case then it's a useful short-hand for people who know the economic definitions, but it otherwise isn't enlightening. If the purpose of making the distinction between productive and unproductive activity is to inform, then a reason needs to be given for activities being called one or the other. Without that reason, the framing looks more like politics than economics. As for "provided": leaving aside the moral question of how the status quo obtained (which, I'll grant, was likely not moral at all), the landlord has land that can be used for farming, but also for polo or fox hunting or whatever. The farmers have time and energy that can be used for farming, but also for football and arm-wrestling competitions etc. I'm not saying they're the same, I'm just saying that if they're different we need to do more than just assert it.