The term Rentier comes from Marxist analysis. It is the person who derives his income from property or interests in enterprises. The first rentiers were the landed gentry. And they had a few problems.

Firstly, they tended to amuse themselves overmuch, and not breed. Most of them did not pay much attention to producing more than an heir and another: to do more was to dilute the inheritance.  Secondly, they did not work the land to maximum production. They were wealthy enough to have gardens in prime arable land. And thirdly, for a long time, they owned benefices such as ecclesiastical and political placements. If you wanted to remain a vicar or a member of parliament in a rotten borough, you needed to not offend the Lord of the manor. Finally, because they were rich, they tolerated, stupidity, dissipation, and radicalism. In the end, this led to their offspring working to abolish the very social class they belonged to.

Now, this was to be contrasted with people who worked for a living. Either with their hands or as managers and business people — the latter hated by the revolutionaries and Bourgeois and held in contempt by the gentry as they were in trade. In general, these people tended to raise their children with some care, as most jobs came with some skill required. (Including Labouring. Grandfather started as a farm labourer, who was known for his ability to make a hayrick that was wind and waterproof), and tended to have more kids. They tended to be religious, charitable, and far more conservative.

Working is generally good for you. Living on the backs of others is generally bad for you. And the latter is the curse of the modern rentier — the person who gains his income from the state and/or from monopolies defined by the state.

Being a rentier is still bad for you.

Firstly, it breeds resentment. Consider this (the context is that Maori are claiming ownership of water and wind power — or a share of this).

I suspect there will be an upsurge of support for the abolition of the much prized Maori seats in Parliament and the winding up of the Waitangi Tribunal gravy train – a direct result of public anger at the brazenness of these people.  Did the gentlemen at the Tribunal and the dopey Maori king’s hooey on water forget that MMP is up for grabs?  Do they realise how easy it would be to deliver those seats to oblivion with a single vote in parliament?  All it takes is the perception by politicians that such a move will be supported by the public.  Whatever the support level was three months ago, it is far greater now – thanks to these events.
There will be many who have changed their minds on this issue. I certainly have. This has been the tipping point..  And take out the non elected council seats as well.
In all of this, one has to wonder where is the real leadership within Maoridom?  Where are the people like Ngata, Pomare, Henare, Tapsell?  These people would have seen the looming distaster fueled by greed and avarice.  They would have brought to bear respected influence to ameliorate the excesses.

Secondly, chronic dependency stops social mobility. The doors to self improvement are shut by the need to remain on a benefit: or the message from the leaders of your ethic group is (as it is for Maori) that you deserve a living because of some ancient relationship to the land, and thus there is no need to advance.

Consider this table

see http://jech.bmj.com/content/52/6/399.short

This is taken from the Renfrew and Paisley study[1]. It shows fairly clearly that being in a deprived social status is bad for you — roughly doubling your chance of death. If you are able to lift your socioeconomic status (and that of your children you are helping their health.

This shows as you get older. You find, suddenly, that people with the same birth date as you are looking decades older. The hardness of their live is graven on their face.

Thirdly, it leads to anomie. There is no need to strive. You have it all. There are on goals. This leads to a sense of despair, of futility: there is no reason to get up. Both addiction and melancholia are seen as attractive, despite being roads that lead not to Lethe, but the grave. Now this, particularly if it leads to poor education, affects your children. Again, from a large UK sample [2]

The question now, is not if being in the rentier class is bad for you. It is. Working, generally is good for you. (Work can be paid or unpaid: home making and keeping a social agency is unpaid. Some executives are unpaid).

The currently acceptable rentier classes include:

• Women, particularly mothers. Who are given (by the courts) the right to be supported by their husband, regardless of if they remain married to him. (This is changing in some countries, including NZ)
• First nations / Aborigines. Their ancient connection to the land  has led to them having either quasi independent roles or a role in approving or certifying projects (with the requisite fees)
• The disabled and infirm. Now, this is a class where charity and living on the income of others is inevitable. But this is now controlled by the state, and the bureaucracy around this requires considerable cunning to negotiate. (There is a second bureaucracy for that in many places).
• The retired. Many jobs have had early retirement or generous benefits built in them on the assumption that a man at 40 or 50 is no longer useful in his job. Many of these are the “young man’s game” of sports, the military and quasi-military. Again, most men in those jobs know that they will need another career when they can no longer play or fight.
• The poorly educated, poorly raised. These people make up a permanent dependent class, an sub-proletariat, that are unemployable in modern, complex societies and now gain their living from income transfer. In some countries, this is reinforced by the (unspoken) threat of social unrest if they have no bread. (Circuses no longer require people for entertainment, but good CGI. The Xbox has replaced the Arena, and Marihuana has replaced alcohol).

The trick is not to let yourself move into the rentier class.

• Do not rely on living on your investments. Delay retirement as long as possible.
• Try not to be dependent on others income. Avoid being on the social welfare rolls. or relying completely on child support.
• If you are a minority that has rights from ancient times, or ancient rentals… neither rely on that. Emulate instead the modern aristocracy who ensure that their sons are either in the City or the Army. Living in the Upper Middle Class is better for you and your children.
• And ignore those who judge you entirely by your race, your title, and your gender.

Your circumstances should not define you, for your will should be greater than your circumstances. The fundamental flaw of rentier cultures is a denial of this: instead people are shuffled into neo-feudal categories by the new progressive ideology of Gramscian identity politics.

Which is, again, why we should reject the left. They not only remove our freedoms, but they encourage the culture of the rentier.

____

1. G D Smith, C Hart, G Watt, D Hole,V Hawthorne. Individual social class, area-based deprivation, cardiovascular disease risk factors, and mortality: the Renfrew and Paisley Study. J Epidemiol Community Health 1998;52:6 399-405 doi:10.1136/jech.52.6.399
2. JENNIFER E. B. RITSHER, VIRGINIA WARNER,JEFFREY G. JOHNSON, BRUCE P. DOHRENWENDInter-generational longitudinal study of social class and depression: a test of social causation and social selection models BJP April 2001 178:s84-s90; doi:10.1192/bjp.178.40.s84