Over the years, I’ve latched on to several images that do a very good job of capturing the essence of an issue.
Here are some of my favorites.
- The philoso-raptor explaining supply-side economics.
The apple tree and the downside of double taxation.- In the same vein, the double taxation flowchart.
- America’s sprawling and Byzantine welfare state.
- The U.S. population pyramid becoming a cylinder.
- Pizza slices and the inequality paradox.
Now I have a new addition to the list.
Here’s an image Steve Conover shared with me. It comes from his book, Neutering the National Debt, and it’s the perfect way to explain why the Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton, and the rest of the class warriors are wrong.
The problem isn’t rich people. It’s looters and moochers, regardless of their income.
What makes this image so helpful is that it’s true. If you look at the “right enemy” part of the image, the rich in the red zone are the cronyists who get Ex-Im subsidies, the Wall Street crowd that fed at the TARP trough, and other well-connected folks (like Warren Buffett) who use government coercion to line their pockets.
What we have is basically the visual that I would have liked to include in my 2011 column that discussed the “good rich” and the “bad rich.” When debating those who are motivated by class warfare, I’m defending the rich in the white zone, but it would be helpful to have a way of distinguishing between the worthy and unworthy people with money.
And the same is true for the non-rich. Most of them are good and decent folks earning an honest living and they belong in the white zone. But there are also some non-rich people who rely on government coercion. They could be overpaid government bureaucrats. They could be folks scamming the food stamp program or fraudsters bilking the EITC.
P.S. For what it’s worth, I suspect that more than 50 percent of the folks in Washington belong in the red zone.
International Liberty 
[…] I got a small taste of what that would be like when I shared an image in 2016 showing that the right kind of class warfare pits productive people (earners, entrepreneurs, and […]
[…] Showing looters are the enemy, not rich people. […]
[…] The difference between me and my friend is that I’d rather keep tax rates low and get rid of the programs that provide unjust riches. In other words, we should be guided by this very powerful image. […]
[…] (which also happens to be the most popular item I’ve ever shared on International Liberty) is the simple image properly defining the enemies of liberty and […]
[…] My most popular post in 2016 (which also set the all-time record) was the very clever image showing that the enemies of liberty are looters, regardless of their economic […]
Term limits are you telling me I can’t vote for who I want.
[…] (which also happens to be the most popular item I’ve ever shared on International Liberty) is the simple image properly defining the enemies of liberty and […]
Garbage. Another attempt to rationalize a push for modern feudalism.
[…] looters are the enemy, not rich […]
[…] looters are the enemy, not rich […]
Your graph tends to oversimplify things in a different direction. It is more likely a somewhat proportional curve on a logarithmic scale with the increase in wealth vs nefariousness of it’s earning swelling as the income rises. But also with a little swell at various points along the way in relationship to various income levels profiting illicitly in proportion to their peers who operate above board. You also have your own misconceptions about classifying earners vs villians that aren’t completely palatable…
[…] real fight is looters vs. producers, not rich vs […]
[…] The Right Kind of Class Warfare: Workers vs. Looters […]
Rent-seeking is a term of economics, which refers to any way of seeking income that does not create new wealth, but just seeks to redistribute what is already there. It’s a perfect descriptive term for those who understand it, but I would add a footnote to avoid having lay people read it as “owners of rental property = bad.”
[…] of the Day: Dan Mitchell published a blog post with this illustration, in which he writes: “The problem isn’t rich people. It’s looters […]
Even the right enemy column is wrong. Workers vs. Looters, the % part is not the same, and % of rest is different for both.
[…] The Right Kind of Class Warfare: Workers vs. Looters […]
I fall into your “good rich” category, having worked my you-know-what off for everything I’ve earned. That said, I’ll never be a libertarian because, deep down, I know it’s just a convenient way to feel morally righteous about being selfish with my money. If I can take the minority of government waste use cases — and truly talk myself into thinking it’s the majority with no credible data to support that claim — I’d sleep so much better knowing a good portion of our citizens are born today with no chance. But I know that’s a total cop out.
[…] Image source: Dan Mitchell […]
[…] The Right Kind of Class Warfare: Workers vs. Looters […]
[…] captured in the midst of the Roaring Twenties a concept which was just recently masterfully illustrated on Daniel J. Mitchell’s site, which produced the following image (and I am pleased to […]
[…] Rich people are not the problem. […]
Considering obama is spending $4.1 trillion/yr and there are 320 million people in the US, he’s spending almost $13K/yr/person, making that their “fair share.”
So anyone NOT paying $13K/yr in just federal taxes is a moocher, relying on someone ELSE to pay it for them. By that standard, probably 90+% are moochers.
The terms; predators, protectors, rent-seekers and possibly cronies should be clearly defined in your commentary. {good jrnl-ist vs bad jrnl-ist.}
Reblogged this on The Arts Mechanical and commented:
I would suspect that more like 80% of the people in DC are looters of one form or another. The city produces nothing but government.
@freelyn – I think you may have jumped to quickly to some conclusions about me. As for falling hook line and sinker to something, supporting this image that seems to have impressed Mr. Mitchell so much is essentially pointless. It has no information and its message is redundant. The complaints I’ve heard from the left of varying validity has to do with methods of gaining wealth and a economic system that favors predators, cronies, and rent-seekers. While Sanders carries his views to an arguably dangerous extreme, it is still different than saying he simply hates the rich. This image is an appeal to emotion that misconstrues the scope and messages of others, it serves to be divide, rather than tackle the real differences in how you identify and stop the predators, cronies, and rent-seekers.
To illustrate my point, picture this: Switch the words rich with minorities, and poor with white majority. Labeling minorities as the “wrong enemy” and then on the right image,switch cronies with criminals or terrorists or whatever being labeled it as the “Right Enemy.” Vola! you have just created the liberal version that is just as pointless and only panders to a crowd. This image should be no ones favorite.
@Dan – “What I take from the messages of Sanders, Hillary, and other class warriors is that they are focused on the rich predators and cronies.”
That.is because you buy in hook line and sinker into the rich vs. poor rhetoric of the Socialist and Communist “class wartiors”.
You may be too entrenched to see but take a look at who Hillary has for doners and how much her meet worth has gone up since the Clintons entered politics. You really still think she’s for the common man?
The same is true of Sanders in different ways but he truly seems to buy what he’s selling. The problem with useful idiots is that their shelf life is so short. A few generations and they get to join the rest of the begging proletariat begging for the table scraps of the ruling elite with no chance of advancement. We’re all equal then, right? Equally poor, in our shared suffering.
Keep kicking the engine that drives us capitalism and soon the only one driving her will be the Hillary Clintons of the world.
@Teik – “20% of Americans to own 85% of the nation’s wealth. The system and structure are easily exploited by wealthy capitalists”
You lost me with this false narrative used to demonize all rich. First let’s start with the fact that the top 25% of wage earners pay most of the taxes in this country. Then let’s understand that the 20% you claim own most of the wealth do not stay the same, yet. If we don’t tackle the problem clearly described by the graphic soon we will truly have a ruling class that does not change and the light of freedom provided by capitalism will fizzle out.
The problem that I see with the graphic is that the RED part is too small. With the percentage of people on public welfare in this country that are able bodied it should be 30% bigger.
You want to know how labor us truly devalued in this nation look not at the rich but immigration policy and regulation. Both of which are used as lynchpins to keep people from leveraging capitalism to become rich themselves.
See the problem with the idea that X% of people own a portion of the wealth is that it is founded on the premise that wealth is finite. It is not, wealth can be created. You can never guarantee that everyone can win but you can try and deliver a level playing field. Our forefathers tried but we have let the moochers and those who exploit them gain control of our government. The Communists and Socialists like the leeches that they are will bleed Lady Liberty dry if we don’t start using the salt of truth on them. Too many have heard the propagandists lies of worker vs. rich for too long.
The graphic overall is sound but unfortunately not enough citizens can see it.
Wow, Jason. Pot, meet kettle. Talk about glittering generalities.
… and where do you put the elderly, the actually disabled, and otherwise unable to work into your little card-stacking chart hmm? Oh wait, that’s right — it’s too painful to admit such people even exist so you probably label them as “rent seekers” (how polite a euphemism to hide an insult — so well crafted! Took a few propaganda classes in college?). They quite clearly don’t fit under earners, entrepreneurs, or protectors!
Card Stacking, Glittering Generalities, Name Calling (by euphemism and exclusion), transfer, with some hints of plain folks and testimonial too… Surprised you didn’t work in some bandwagon for good measure!
Just as certain groups assume that everyone on public assistance is a criminal and couldn’t possibly have anything wrong with them… like being too old to work, missing limbs, having severe mental or physical handicaps, or all those other things that we should be THANKFUL AND PROUD of having put a system in place to take care of. Compassion and caring in government, whoddathunkit?
It’s almost the type of thing Jesus would do. You know; compassion and charity? The opposite of what most of the racist bigots sitting around thumping their bibles seem to be in favor of?
Textbook rightwing “libertarian” populism. Borderline Fascist.
Are there people less idiotic than Trump voters capable of swallowing such bullshit?
Mr. Mitchell, Is it at all possible that you have misconstrued the focus of the left? Perhaps a better way of looking at this is to say the image on the left is a zoomed in view of the right most portion of the image on the right. What I take from the messages of Sanders, Hillary, and other class warriors is that they are focused on the rich predators and cronies. Given the cost of policing all wealthy predators versus all street grifters relative to the harm each individual is able to inflict on the economy, this only makes good fiscal sense. Perhaps an argument can be made for an error in who they label as being the bad rich, but the end goal of both sides would appear to be the same.
I fear you have misrepresented the arguments and are distracting people from being able to work together on the most cost effective solution. The true focus should be on “The Rich” predators, cronies, and rent-seekers. Not because their actions are any more or less moral, but because on an individual basis they are capable of inflicting greater economic harm than their less wealthy counter parts.
This article highlights the real problem, looters and moochers vs producers. It is also right to highlight that the real divide is not between rich and poor, but between those who use gov to enrich themselves, vs those who get rich by coming up with something new, that adds actual value for the money paid them, or somebody who just makes sound investments.
But while you cite Warren Buffet, who actually made a lot of his money honestly, by good investing over a long period, how come you let the chief crony capitalist looter, Donald Trump, off the hook. Trump bought at least as many politicians as Soros and Koch ever did. And unlike them he did not do it for ideological reasons (unless he liked the issue positions of all those dems he bought). Trump did in in typical crony capitalist style, to grease eminent domain takings, and get favorable treatment in regulations over his competitors.
You’re pissing off the “eat the rich” types as much as you’re pissing off the “Obama is a Muslim” types. You’ve obviously stumbled onto truth.
Good for you, and thanks for being an independent thinker in a world seriously short of them. Cant wait to read the rest of your stuff.
Some people are arguing about whether the red section among the rich should be larger. I think a more interesting argument might be looking at how it shifts over time. We start with slavery in the South and something much close to a free market in the North [needing a third color, what happens when your income is not just mooched a little but deeply stolen]. The Robber Baron years and the 1920’s saw the rich moocher class thrive, and much larger parts of our economy went to that group — lots of red up top, if you did this chart by income rather than people, it would be terribly lopsided with a huge red extraction at the top. The Progressive Era that broke up the monopolies restored a more competitive capitalism, and FDR and World War II (how many veterans became college educated and middle class) empowered the middle, which seems to take the steam out of the moochers at the top. The welfare state allowed people lower in the income stream to earn more than they produce (probably for the first time in history, it was very hard to mooch without being at least a little powerful, unless you were straight-out a criminal). Even this simple history shouldn’t make either libertarians or liberals happy, it seems more complex than more government or less. The Robber Baron years were all about collusion, which did not require government, ended via democracy and government we saved this country from becoming a banana republic. But today the government seems particularly good at allowing or even encouraging collusion instead of breaking it up, and large unconstrained bureaucracies don’t work well either. * It’s not whether the top or bottom are better or worse, but how much you let them get away with. And that changes. * We need to start working together — and it will be work, rather than philosophical ramblings — so that liberals are willing to help constrain bureaucracies and libertarians/conservatives willing to fight collusion or the overwhelming power of money in politics. It’s not the people writing on WordPress who are corrupt, it’s not our political philosophies that make us corrupt. It’s whether you can see both sides. When you come up with an example, do you always show the “other side” to be the corrupt people? What can we do to disempower the red section and shrink how much of the economy is red?
Very good analysis. It resumes some of my own beliefs. In Brazil also is very common see this kind of mistake. For those who wants to hear about Brazilian Economy I suggest: https://economiadebateaberto.wordpress.com/ Greetings!
I might point out that a significant number of companies and wealthy individuals participate in the democrat/republican designed crony system… not because they want to… but because they feel they must… in essence… government officials are running a protection racket… businesses are accosted by government agencies threating to impede their ability to function… as they explore the system… they find that they need lobbyists to present their concerns to politicians… it doesn’t take long for them to understand that the road to results is paved with cash donated to the political class… and hefty fees paid to lobbying firms… none of this is fun… and it is not a process that companies embrace… but once they learn to function within the system they begin to work it to provide their company with advantages in the marketplace… many of them shamelessly peruse government subsidies and regulations custom designed to reduce the competitiveness of their rivals… it turns into a corrupt and very cozy relationship between the political class and pragmatic business interests… over time {years in many cases} individual politicians become dependent specific companies and/or industries… for their re-election efforts… the more interdependency… the more intense the corruption… the more likely government will act outside of the best interests of the American people… TERM LIMITS will reduce the need for politicians to shake down corporate interests in order to fund re-election efforts…and protect their pampered and privileged lifestyles… we all know that the politician who represents us… is brilliant and talented… a snappy dresser… pretty… let’s bring them all home… each and every one of them… let them use their abilities to enhance our lives at the local level… let them be part of our local communities….. and let them eat cake………..
So you said “…but it would be helpful to have a way of distinguishing between the worthy and unworthy people with money….”
Therein lies the problem. Who made it your right to determine who’s worthy and unworthy. If it’s my money and I worked hard for it, what I do with is none of your business. As long as I didn’t obtain it illegally, screw you. So if you, or whoever “feels” a person is unworthy, then they should have their earnings redistributed? OMG. Selective Socialism is more dangerous than straight-out Socialism. It’s funny how that “unworthy list” ALWAYS includes mostly Conservative Republicans. I never see anyone going after the Jay-Z’s, The Beyonce’s, The Michael Moore’s, and pretty much most of the Liberal Hollywood elite. Of course, they’re probably “worthy” right? SMDH. What a bunch of….
Warren Buffett is a croney. He owns the only railroad that would be replaced by the Keystone Pipeline, hence is his financial support for the Democrats and BHO who Aaron blocking it
I think the label “workers-vs-moochers” turns off the people we are trying to reach. A more appropriate label would be “Honest vs Corrupt”
That said, the thoughts here are spot on.
It’s close but not perfect.
The ‘Cronies, Predators, and Rent-Seekers’ section should be on the left.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
socialism is a failed ideology… it conflicts with human nature… exactly how long a given socialist system lasts… depends on the quality of the people managing it… but as Margret Thatcher said… sooner or later… socialists run out of other people’s money… then it gets ugly….
“Venezuelans aren’t feeling the Bern because Socialism has taken them from prosperity to hopeless misery. Who knew history would repeat itself over and over and over again. First the stores ran out of toilet paper. Then no more milk. Now the stores don’t even have electricity.”
“Socialist Venezuela is Out of Food, Out of Power, Out of Hope”
http://www.frontpagemag.com/point/261839/socialist-venezuela-out-food-out-power-out-hope-daniel-greenfield
Phyllis,
“There is no way an hour of work by a man who sits at a desk and plays golf with rich clients is worth more than a month of labor by a construction worker.”
What if the man playing that golf game just used the opportunity to seal a business deal that just put 1000 of those construction laborers to work on a new high rise, or kept them employed on a project with his company thanks to a well strategized bid for that work, versus sending those workers home? Big decisions = big responsibility = big reward (or failure).
Works better as (2) right-angle triangles inversely-mated. Thus, the number of benevelant/productive wealthy decreases as their wealth expands.
[…] By Dan Mitchell […]
[…] Reposted from International Liberty […]
In my view, the enemy is the Rich. Period.
Expanding copyright and patent protections, making it harder to bring generic medications to market (see the Shkreli debacle), making it illegal to repair one’s own vehicles (John Deere and GM using the DMCA to lock out independent repair technicians), and other measures like that very much is the government supporting the moocher class.
[…] the problem we have is not one of “rich versus poor.” It’s one of “workers versus looters” that crosses the spectrum of income. It’s one of people at all levels of society who […]
[…] More… […]
Excellent graphic. The folks complaining that the rich red should be bigger than the non-rich red are overthinking things. There are a lot fewer rich people than non-rich no matter what category (its where the 1% name comes from, duh). Perhaps you are trying to say the dollar value is higher. Perhaps, but while we can calculate the number of participants, we wouldn’t know how to calculate the totals since most fraud and deceit is done in the shadows for both groups. My only argument would be that I think the total red area is closer to 50% than we want to admit. Its just a product of basic economics…people, rich or not, will respond to the incentives laid before them and the “freebies” of dependency and available rent seeking are strong incentives. The sad fact is that the red zone engine is a self fueled mechanism that will continue to grow and not stop until it implodes on itself, destroying everything in both boxes.
And to the one that said a CEO sits at a desk for an hour and then plays golf for his millions is so ignorant as to the work it takes to reach the level of CEO of a major corporation that I don’t even know how to have a discussion with a person like that. If it is so easy, why not have the monthly laborer become a CEO and kick the lazy CEO’s ass by competing for all his business? He knows how to work hard after all, right? Of course, I am referring to both the CEO and worker being members of the white area of the chart. Now if we are talking about the CEO of Solyndra who probably plays golf with Obama all the time and actually didn’t have to work to run a company, then ok, I agree. Red zone participants don’t count and are the whole point of this graphic.
What do you call a system that keeps 80% of the people making less than $1 per day. Capitalism is the poison of our planet.
Good capitalism? Where? Show me.
Adam Smith illustrated this best. Many people have read his The Wealth of Nations but not everyone understands that this book was meant to go hand in hand with The Theory of Moral Sentiments. Greed and corruption are the problem, not Capitalism. Capitalism is neither good nor bad – it’s merely a vehicle that an individual (good or bad) uses. When used by a good and just individual / society, everybody wins. But if it’s corrupted, it is very bad.
Interesting graphic that will need more analysis on my part 🙂
http://minimalistlifestyle.wordpress.com
[…] From a very insightful post with a very insightful diagram: The Right Kind of Class Warfare: Workers vs. Looters. […]
This guy is trying to pretend class warfare isn’t the rich privilaged class vs. The poor and working class.
Somehow I guess the poor moochers are in the same boat as the rich moochers? It’s laughable. Privilage mooching by the rich is not comparable to poor old people getting their social security checks. Lol
I’ve seen decent arguments by conservatives trying to pretend class warfare and income inequality isn’t a reality but this one is too much. But it’s amusing.
“The problem isn’t rich people. It’s looters and moochers, regardless of their income.”
government is the perfect vehicle to allow non productive individuals {both rich and poor} the opportunity to loot and fiscally abuse their neighbors… under the threat of force… taxes are extracted from the productive segments of our society… and that money is used by the political class to maintain their power and privilege… anyone who believes that morality… wisdom… or constitutional considerations are factors in the redistribution of assets is pathetically naïve or worse… over the years… career politicians have modified and tweaked the system in order to retain their positions and increase their influence over the system… the federal government is out of control… the critical question… is how do we reform the system so that it serves the American people once again… TERM LIMITS are a start… and a necessity… anyone opposed to systemic reform and strict constructional governance is not fit to serve our nation… this election cycle is one of the most important in our history… electoral participation is absolutely critical to the welfare of our society and the welfare and prosperity of future generations of Americans… it’s time for us as a people to come together and solve problems… discount absurd politically correct ideologies… resolve internal and racial conflicts… and discourage military adventurism… it’s time to focus on saving our industrial base.. and competing in the world marketplace… we must secure a future that will allow our middle class to grow and prosper… with jobs… and a living wage………….. it will not be easy………
in ways large and small… we can all participate… it’s time to make a plan….
Hello.
Drat and curses, the previous post was supposed to contain a name, of course:
Tino Sanandaji, swedish citizen of kurdish origin, is an economist. Look up the interviews he has done recently on the collapse of the welfare state.
Comradely greetings,
Rikard, teacher
people may NEVER be an enemy..some people may need another aproach or another opportunity to be provided or the entire system need rebuild to reflect people’s needs. But if you are trying to find enemies in society then you are certainly in wrong direction.
@Phyllis: The 1% didn’t take our money, we were persuaded to hand it over without question. See through the mire of opinion to the truth that we (the 99%) have been complicit in creating the inequality now plaguing our societies by buying what was sold to us and falling for the argument that consumption would make us happy and whole human beings. We believed the lie, knowing it was a lie, and are therefore just as much to blame as the 1%.
Are we not heading to a situation in the global economy where we will _all_ be ‘moochers’? As automation makes more and more people unemployed they will need to be fed, housed and clothed but will not be able to pay for it with the fruits of their labour. What do we do then?
It’s less about humans vs other humans than about humans vs a system that dehumanizes them.
Hello.
If anyone is interested in seeing the diagram in action, so to speak, just take a look at Sweden.
His wikipedia page contains links to articles, interviews and debates, several of which are in english.
Comradely greetings,
Rikard, teacher
That picture is just PERFECT!
The diagram may be true but it mischaracterises the debate. But the class warfare is NOT about fighting rich people for being rich. The class warfare is about the devaluation of labour and overvaluation of capital that leads to an imbalance and inequality in which the working class are exploited. It is about the political force that hardens these values into insurmountable social facts against which those who are not connected must accept. It is about the system and structure that enable 20% of Americans to own 85% of the nation’s wealth. The system and structure are easily exploited by wealthy capitalists and rentseekers and their cronies, who then support politicians who support their game. Together, they champion self-preservation by describing it with the discourse of competition, make it sound good by calling it choice and freedom, promote them as necessary qualities to live and be successful, finally sell that as the American Dream. The discourse around success is embedded with language that pits rich people’s value above the poor while romanticising the poor in a way that shows their value being commensurate with how well they serve the rich that provides for them. The war is not against the rich but about against the discourse that privileges the rich and against the system that enables the exploiters to continue exploiting. The socialist vs capitalist struggle, now reduced to a poor vs rich battle, is a typical strategy of colonising the language of revolution, created by those who want us to fight each other while they find a way to profit off of it.
I have a few issues with the ideas being presented here. But the most problematic was the image that somehow seemed to depict that there were more ‘non-rich’ enemies than the rich ones. So I fixed that image for you – http://i.imgur.com/UwOzYEp.png
Wouldn’t say that I still agree 100% with my own image either. But we all have to start somewhere 😛
Reblogged this on Fishbowler and commented:
just so perfect I had to share, even here on my own blog.
Reblogged this on http://www.RandWarriorRants.org.
There is no way an hour of work by a man who sits at a desk and plays golf with rich clients is worth more than a month of labor by a construction worker, fireman, or restaurant chef. Yet this is the actual ratio of the average CEO’s take home compared with an average workers pay. The system is slanted in favor of the rich. Those who need the least, get the most, while those who are most needy get the least. I think it’s wrong. Most of our taxpayer dollars go to corporate welfare, which apparently is fine with the writer of this article. Donald Trump could be taxed at 90% and still have $100,000,000.00 left. He’s not “bad rich,” he just knows how to game the system. So do the rest of the 1%. That’s our money, folks. They didn’t find it growing on trees. The system gave them our money.
From what I see here, you’re now on my very favourites list! Perfect infographic!!!
RonPaulDelegate2012; check out Joseph Stiglitz’s work, The Price of Inequality. It not what it sounds like…
Sean, show me specifics about the cronyism of the libertarian Kochs vs. say, GE, or the UAW re: GM. Or the owners of Solyndra. I think you will find that the Brothers Koch are small-time cronies by comparison.
And be sure to include in your spending analysis, whether our government should be funding bailouts … be they welfare checks or TARPs … at all, vs. funding for functions that are part of the primary mission of any human government: securing our unalienable rights, including the ability to pursue happiness in ways where we can help the less fortunate directly instead of working through government middlemen that eat up between two-thirds to four-fifths of the funding before it gets to those in need.
Deciding when a CEO makes too much is a moral judgment. I thought Progressives were against using government to jam one’s morality down others’ throats? They are looking more and more fundamentalist in this regard with each passing day.
[…] From: https://danieljmitchell.wordpress.com/2016/02/14/the-right-kind-of-class-warfare-workers-vs-looters/ […]
Meh – would have been worth something if the only “villains” mentioned here were not Warren Buffet, Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton. No mention of the Koch brothers, they bought out republican presidential candidates who go with their arms stretched out to Adelson, etc etc…
Also, this makes it look like there are more non-rich people who should be considered the enemy. Buys into the false narrative that a LOT of money is going to things like food stamps. Maybe a better way to be looking at it would be to see how much government money goes to who (for eg, the bail out, the military spending etc) to determine who lives off the tax payer’s dime…
Loved this column. Its time to recognize the role of crony capitalists who donate to political parties to line their pockets like Buffet or Trump and especially the Clinton crime family. We need to gut those overpaid Federal workers who contribute zero and are so overpaid that they will not retire till they die at their desks. The reason for this is clear-who else will pay you to watch porn.
Reblogged this on Dak's Bays.
adamrbradley – the poor “enemy” is able to elect people on the sole promise that said people will take more money from the white zone and give it to the poor and rich alike.
I like your analysis, but you’ve left out one crucial element: the power held by the rich vs the non-rich.
Given the influence of money over our political system, the rich “enemy” is able to rig the system to a much greater extent than the poor “enemy”.
So challenging the behavior of the lower-right quadrant, while justifiable, is unlikely to achieve any helpful change in our society; challenging the behavior of the upper-right quadrant might help make for a better country for everyone in the white zones.
I appreciate the distinction. But another way of saying it is: those who play by the rules of the system like good citizens are in the white section, those who don’t are in the red.
Wow, the right graphic really does put things into focus, doesn’t it?
Here’s a link to D’anconia’s money speech, another good way of cutting through the fog of propaganda
http://capitalismmagazine.com/2002/08/franciscos-money-speech/
Rent Seeking refers to Schumpterian rents which are sometimes referred to as excess profit. They are gained through limited competition to maintain a definitive, long-term advantage. It’s done through things such as patents, legislation and regulatory restrictions (think barriers to enter the market) and through branding (e.g. Coca-Cola has developed a trademark and billion dollar brand that has brought them rents above ordinary sugary flavored water).
The only way the rich can hold down a determined person is by killing them. 99.9999% wouldn’t even consider it. Only liberals would.
I’ve been thinking about rent-seekers a lot, from various articles I’ve read in Chronicles, and from my perch as a worker in one of the great swindling and rent-seeking institutions in the country — higher education. When my father was young, a high school education and two years of service in the army qualified him for a job selling life insurance, at which he became very good and successful. But various laws presumably well-intended — presumably — have compelled employers to protect themselves against anti-discrimination lawsuits by using colleges as credentialing agencies. The colleges then have become the owners of a turnpike: you have to pay to play. Edmund Spenser understood the principle 400 years ago and illustrates it very nicely in FQ 5.2, if anybody cares. The net effect is to hurt the lower class and the lower middle class, while liberals get to hug themselves for all their caring…
‘How you got your money’ instead of ‘how many you’ve got’ and ‘what are you going to do with them once you’ve got them’.
https://nicichiarasa.wordpress.com/2013/10/08/money-instrument-or-goal/
@RonPaulDelegate2012 Rent seeking doesn’t mean landlord, it has a specific meaning, given by Investopedia as this: “DEFINITION of ‘Rent-Seeking’ When a company, organization or individual uses their resources to obtain an economic gain from others without reciprocating any benefits back to society through wealth creation.” The classic example is someone who owns land through which a navigable river passes through, and who then decides to put a gate across the river, requiring payment of a toll to open the gate. Zero productive utility is created by this gate, it’s just a fee, a “rentier fee” (another term of art) that enriches the landowner at the expense of everyone else. Landlords, like yourself, aren’t “rent-seeking” in that they actually provide lodging to those who pay. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rent-seeking
@tim – While I agree term limits are necessary, the side effect is to further empower the unelected and unremovable bureaucrats who make the rules that power the laws. Arguably they have lifetime appointments and more actual power than Supreme Junta members.
Also, the reason there’s so much money flowing into buying laws and pols is because there is so much power in government. Churning in new seat-fillers doesn’t solve the problem when the problem is the government controls all, winners and losers, and how the game is played.
Think of it this way: When looking to get your rocks off, you don’t go to a convent, do you? You go to a bordello. Why? Because the convent isn’t selling anything you’re interested in and your money is no good there. Same with DC – if there wasn’t a benefit to pour money in, the Evil Rich wouldn’t give them the time of day.
that is a great chart but misses the fountain head of cronyism which is politicians. so long as they are willing or able (as long as they are able they will be willing) to take lobby funny money there will be a corporation willing to give it quid pro quo. Term limits. Kick their ass out after two or three years. Take the profit center out of DC
dog whistling for days. some of us understand that code ‘overpaid government workers’ is pointing right at people of color who make up a large proportion of the civil work force. why not come out and decry ‘welfare queens!’ and be honest about it. And you guys love crony capitalism. keeps workers desperate and poor and controlled.
Because “rent” historically referred to the return above opportunity cost earned by land, but it has now become generalized to refer to ANY return above opportunity cost to an individual asset, especially those with limited uses where their next best return is much lower. In this context, the rent refers to the monopoly profits earned via the “asset” of the government privilege that has been received.
I would rather call it “privilege seeking” myself, but rent does have this technical meaning and the gains to those who acquire government granted privileges are, in those terms, rents.
>”To classify Warren Buffet as somehow using the government to line his pockets is ” over the top” to say the least!”
Easy to explain, even to a liberal like you. Buffett and his fellow Leftists are against the Keystone XL pipeline. Some live in terror of a highly unlikely eco-disaster, but for Buffett the reason is simple: Without the pipeline, the Canuckian oil would have to be transported by genuinely unsafe railroad cars and I’ll give you one guess as to who owns the railroad up there.
Our energy policy has been steered by Obama’s need to enrich his rent-seeking cronies like Warren Buffett. QED. You’re welcome.
As an honest, objectivist, landlord I would like an explanation of why “rent-seekers” has become a derogatory term.
[…] to Daniel J. Mitchell for […]
Right on target Dan. And related: http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/2014/05/ayn-rand-thinks-rich-people-are-evil/
Ignore Walter. I think the graphic says it correctly: we’re not facing a rich-vs-poor issue, we’re facing a workers-vs-moochers issue — and many of the worst moochers are not technically poor. Some of them are actually very wealthy, and use the government to become even moreso, at taxpayer and consumer expense. While producing little or nothing of value. So I am glad to see this (correct) understanding of the American dilemma, represented in a simple form that anyone can grasp. They may not agree with it, but they can grasp it.
I don’t have any faith in your analysis! To classify Warren Buffet as somehow using the government to line his pockets is ” over the top” to say the least! I believe Colonel Sanders and Barrack Obama having anything in common is a stretch. Maybe you should work on your comedy pitch! Because it’s hard to take you seriously!