Your update to the intro for economic rent is certainly more correct than what you replaced. I rewrote the first half of the article over several months in my own user space and committed it June 17th of this year with full blazing citations for just about every line off it. I am now going to resurrect that intro and supplant what you have done in the intro. No offense and the stuff you did is a vast improvement over the vandalism of what I did in June. But there are, in fact, at least two very well documented and academically debated "forms" of "economic rent". I much prefer the one you have asserted, but the neoclassical version attempts to expand the definition. I don't like it but that doesn't mean we should shortchange it. There are at least 2 authoritative cites for at least two competing definitions. These two forms must be included. The body of the article then goes on to explain the two most commonly accepted "forms" of "economic rent".
I like the idea of mentioning the similarity with producer surplus and then differentiating the two. But the current differentiation lacks what I call classical reality. The reality is that focused human effort is expended in creating a producer surplus while no focused effort whatsoever is employed in the creation of economic rent. True economic rent is the result of realities outside the control of the entity in a position to collect the rent. The rent exists whether or not it is privatized. --The Trucker (talk) 01:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Looks like I don't need to do it.... Already done--The Trucker (talk) 01:29, 6 July 2009 (UTC)
Thanks! ItsDrewMiller (talk) 05:30, 11 February 2015 (UTC)