Donna wrote:That isn't what happened though.
Yes it is.
Historically production was heavily dependent on wealthy aristocratic landowners who possessed the wealth to both invest in the productive improvement of the land
GARBAGE. They only possessed the wealth because they had stolen it from tenants. And they didn't invest it in improvements. They spent it on private military forces, luxury consumption, and monument building. That is why economies were stagnant for centuries.
as well as finance government debt through large bond purchases.
Ahistorical nonsense. Why did governments go into debt? That's easy: they were providing such extravagant subsidies to landowners!
This is also implicit in Ricardo's and Smith's ideas as well.
More garbage lacking any basis in fact.
The Law of Rent basically describes a dynamic created by landowning monopolies,
That is baldly false. As Smith pointed out, land is always a monopoly; and the Law of Rent describes a relationship that is the same whether land is all held by one owner or is minutely subdivided.
which have been disappearing or declining for quite some time now, gradually forcing landlords into the parasitic and non-productive situation they find themselves in today
GARBAGE. The landowner qua landowner is, has always been, and by definition always will be, a parasite.
(ie because their profits became marginal with the rise of industrial capitalism,
Land rents increased exponentially with industrial capitalism. Landowners who understood that, like the Duke of Westminster's family, became rich beyond the dreams of avarice by pocketing land rent. See, "Progress and Poverty."
so did their propagation as a social class). It just seems you are ignoring this when you compare Ricardo's theory to the Pythagorean Theorem.
I'm ignoring it because it is ahistorical nonsense.