Also historically feudal lords had been constantly in debt spending more on representation then they have earned. Some moneylenders might have taken all this rent from river chain. Or the feudal lord have spent that income on luxury items stimulating demand for art or trade with far away corners of the globe.
This is an example of how economist have no idea how making money works..
> An example of rent-seeking in a modern economy is spending money on lobbying for government subsidies in order to be given wealth that has already been created, or to impose regulations on competitors, in order to increase market share.
> The concept of rent-seeking would also apply to corruption of bureaucrats who solicit and extract "bribe" or "rent" for applying their legal but discretionary authority for awarding legitimate or illegitimate benefits to clients.
What is it about a feudal lord or moneylender that the way they spend money is better than the way the merchants would have spent it? Further, just because the money has downstream effects doesn't mean that it was rightfully earned. All of your arguments could equally apply to pirates or bankrobbers.
There are certainly situations where organizations that seem like rent seekers are not entirely rent seekers, though. Government is the main example. Taxes can seem like a drag on wealth creation, and sometimes they are, but they also fund infrastructure, education, and stability, which are wealth multipliers.
The issue is also complicated by the fact that the world economy is very connected, but economic growth is often measured on a per country, corporation, or even individual basis. Also, aggregate wealth is not the be-all end-all metric. Wealth redistribution can sometimes lead to greater aggregate happiness, even if the amount of wealth stays the same or even decreases.
Overall, though, I think that the majority of rent seeking hurts the economy and the people in the economy more than it helps, but I would be very interested to see empirical data showing otherwise.