Rent-seeking: Difference between revisions

From The Jolly Contrarian
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
No edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:


It comes in many guises:
It comes in many guises:
*[[Physical property]] you know, ''literal'' rent-seeking
*'''[[Physical property]]''': you know, ''literal'' rent-seeking
*[[Intellectual property]] Rather than using the fruits of your blood, toil, tears and sweat you use antediluvian<ref>{{author|Lawrence Lessig}}’s {{Br|Code: Version 2.0}} is a compulsory read.</ref> [[intellectual property]] rules to gouge everyone else. In this way Mick Jagger and Keith Richards can extract millions over 60 years from 15 minutes of work — in Richards’ case, while he was asleep — composing ''[[Satisfaction]]''.
*'''[[Intellectual property]]''': Rather than using the fruits of your blood, toil, tears and sweat you use antediluvian<ref>{{author|Lawrence Lessig}}’s {{Br|Code: Version 2.0}} is a compulsory read.</ref> [[intellectual property]] rules to gouge everyone else. In this way Mick Jagger and Keith Richards can extract millions over 60 years from 15 minutes of work — in Richards’ case, while he was asleep — composing ''[[Satisfaction]]''.
*[[Franchising]]: Taking an idea or a business model someone else has invented — McDonald’s is the best example — and paying them a franchise fee to operate it. Here is ''double'' rent-seeking: the franchisee pays the franchisor, and the customer pays the ''franchisee''.
*'''[[Franchising]]''': Taking an idea or a business model someone else has invented — McDonald’s is the best example — and paying them a franchise fee to operate it. Here is ''double'' rent-seeking: the franchisee pays the franchisor, and the customer pays the ''franchisee''.
*[[Software as a service]]: The simple answer to the question [[why is reg tech so disappointing?]] — is that tech businesses can’t make money if all they get paid for is writing software. This would be like Mick Jagger only getting paid for fifteen minutes’ work — where is the logic, or the justice in that?
*'''[[Software as a service]]:''' The simple answer to the question [[why is reg tech so disappointing?]] — is that tech businesses can’t make money if all they get paid for is writing software. This would be like Mick Jagger only getting paid for fifteen minutes’ work — where is the logic, or the justice in that?<ref>Irony alert.</ref>
{{sa}}
{{sa}}
*[[Reg tech]]
*[[Reg tech]]
*[[Intermediaries]]
*[[Intermediaries]]
{{ref}}
{{ref}}

Revision as of 09:35, 19 November 2020

The Jolly Contrarian’s Glossary
The snippy guide to financial services lingo.™


Index — Click the ᐅ to expand:

Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.

The JC pontificates about technology
An occasional series.


Comments? Questions? Suggestions? Requests? Insults? We’d love to 📧 hear from you.
Sign up for our newsletter.

Rent-seeking is the Marxist (ooh! saucy!) term when a fellow (a “rentier”) monopolises access to property (including, for modern readings, intellectual property) and gouging profits out of it.

It comes in many guises:

  • Physical property: you know, literal rent-seeking
  • Intellectual property: Rather than using the fruits of your blood, toil, tears and sweat you use antediluvian[1] intellectual property rules to gouge everyone else. In this way Mick Jagger and Keith Richards can extract millions over 60 years from 15 minutes of work — in Richards’ case, while he was asleep — composing Satisfaction.
  • Franchising: Taking an idea or a business model someone else has invented — McDonald’s is the best example — and paying them a franchise fee to operate it. Here is double rent-seeking: the franchisee pays the franchisor, and the customer pays the franchisee.
  • Software as a service: The simple answer to the question why is reg tech so disappointing? — is that tech businesses can’t make money if all they get paid for is writing software. This would be like Mick Jagger only getting paid for fifteen minutes’ work — where is the logic, or the justice in that?[2]

See also

References

  1. Lawrence Lessig’s Code: Version 2.0 is a compulsory read.
  2. Irony alert.