(Or in other words - my actual position that the nobility should be abolished. I'm just surprised to see someone say not only that it should stay, but that the world would be better if they didn't provide any of the benefits people usually claim in defense of feudal society, so I'm trying to understand what their position is.)
If we assume that the rich are, as other advertisers, rational and self-interested, the we should expect their messaging (i.e., the “standard defenses”) to be that which is most effective.
Something akin to if it works, it ships.
Consider that from the perspective of the accountants, every job created is a huge and ongoing liability and cost, and that from the perspective of the shareholders, every job created is stolen profit, money that is not returned in the form of equity appreciation + dividends.
Then you will begin to see the reality of the situation.
(There are a couple of standard answers, including government consumption / public works projects, that can address this.)
Food comes from capital investment in farms, factories, etc. That is real wealth.
>There are a couple of standard answers, including government consumption / public works projects, that can address this.
These answers don't work, and are great at destroying wealth.
This goes against just about every standard defense of the ability to be rich: that rich people are job creators, that they power the economy by buying things, etc. Why should we discourage them from employing people and buying things? I don't want a loan (that needs to be repaid) from a bank from a rich person, I want the rich person to either employ me or buy goods and services from me.
Actually, that's another point - does employment incur your "sales" tax? If not, it's more advantageous to hire a private chef or driver than to pay for a restaurant meal or a taxi trip, which makes the tax regressive - there's a discontinuity when you're able to hire someone instead of getting a service from a business.