rent-seeker

Business as income-generating asset is a classic rent-seeker fallacy (although some may get away with it).

Wakalixes extract the tax dollars and deliver it to the rent-seeker.

I'm not sure this author even gets to the point of showing, by his own definition, that Musk is a rent-seeker.

Just like the river, no additional wealth is generated as a result of this action: existing wealth is merely being redistributed (toward the rent-seeker) by government policy.

Why couldn't you be both visionary AND rent-seeker?

It has also taken on the duty of handing money to any rent-seeker whose actual facilitation function has become obsolete in the face of technology and other productivity gains.

This He may well be a rent-seeker but the other ones are not doing electrical cars or space devices, they're funding their summer house, or investing in traditional (let's not compete with ourselves) companies.

Drop your AP affiliation (a rent-seeker that makes government look amateur in comparison) and actually sell to aggregation or re-print customers instead of paying AP for the privilege of sniping your content for resharing and offering you nothing of significance to your readership.

The key concept in rent-seeking being that wealth (the so-called "rent") is being captured by a party (the rent-seeker) without them generating it.

"Some innovators are not rent-seekers" does not imply "No innovator is a rent-seeker" or even "Most innovators are not rent-seekers".