All this was viewed (
by classical economists) as something that government regulators should get rid of, either by not permitting it in price, or by holding the monopolies in the public domain, or by the land itself being either nationalized or taxed.
Not exact matches
HEDGES: And then the
classical economists like Adam Smith were quite clear that unless that rentier income, you know, the money made
by things like hedge funds, was heavily taxed and put back into the economy, the economy would ultimately go into a kind of tailspin.
If one breaks down employment
by sector, the statistics show that employment in manufacturing and other sectors that
classical economists called «productive» — primary production in agriculture and mining, secondary production in industry, power production and transportation — has not risen since 1929.
Classical economists were careful to define the term «profit» to mean a gain made
by investing in plant and equipment (capital) and hiring labor to produce goods to sell at a markup.
This is not the view of real wealth and economic growth that 19th - century
classical economists had in mind when they set out to reform the economy
by freeing markets from the claims of earned income and special interests.
Sociologists, historians and feminist
economists,
by contrast, have long - known that the neo
classical assumption that families approximate individuals in their economic behaviour is bunk.