Talk:Georgism/Archive 1

Archive 1

Untitled

The Georgist principle predates George, and different sub-schools of thought have been thinking up new names since his time. Many advocacy groups which formed in the early 20th century described themselves as Single Taxers, and George endorsed this as being an accurate description of the movement's main political goal - the replacement of all taxes with a Land Value Tax.

It's rather unlikely that George, who died in 1897, endorsed the self-description of groups that "formed in the early 20th century." The wording should be changed, but I don't feel like doing it myself; I don't know the subject and I'm not entirely sure what the sentence was trying to say. Isomorphic 04:45, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Yeah, OK, fixed. Chronology never my strong point! Pm67nz 09:19, 19 Nov 2003 (UTC)

Good fix. Sorry if I came off obnoxious when pointing that out; I actually thought it was rather funny. Isomorphic 07:56, 6 Dec 2003 (UTC)

You didn't, thanks for pointing it out. Pm67nz 09:56, 12 Dec 2003 (UTC)

---

Does Georgism=free-market environmentalism? Is there a case for merge+redirect here? Cutler

No. Georgism is much older than environmentalism and has a very different history. While the two philosophies may come to similar conclusions, they do so from unrelated axioms. -- Derek Ross

---

What about "intellectual property"? The page about Henry George says he was also critical of patents and copyright.

In Progress and Poverty, George denounced patents and copyrights as essentially monopolies on ideas, but he later added a footnote retracting that statement, saying that while it did applied to patents, copyrights did not prevent people from borrowing facts or ideas, to which all people have a right, but merely the specific wording, which is the product of one's labor. Thus, he ultimately came out against patents, but for copyrights. --Paradigm 14:31, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

I have to say, it's outlandish to suggest that David Lloyd George was a Georgist in practice, given he's responsible for the graduated income tax in the UK.

---

We need to mention South Korea some how. Its founders where mostly Georgists. I'm not sure what relevant laws or other facts to cite though, I might look into it some time... --Jacob 05:03, 25 Jun 2005 (UTC)

clause deleted

I deleted this clause: "isms" named for a single person have developed an image problem CSMR 02:50, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Meaning Misconstrued?

"...the economic rent of land for the purposes and benefit of the public that creates it." Shouldn't that be "...of the public that OWNS it"? Or am I reading it wrong? Peter Delmonte 01:22, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

Yes; the public creates land value, no matter who owns the land.

Name

Surely Single Tax, while not universally accurate, is more widely recognized? Shouldn't the article be there? It redirects here. Septentrionalis PMAnderson 05:45, 13 December 2006 (UTC)

I think single taxers should be mentioned somewhereJUBALCAIN 01:00, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Straight off Usenet?

Article reads like it was taken off an advocacy page. No dissenting views on Georgism. Little citation.

although no change in land rental prices (other than those caused by reduction of other taxes and regulations) for reasons first explained by Adam Smith. -Expand on this?

In today's more economically complex world, a quick and total change to LVT is very difficult to sell politically, so the term "Georgist" has come into vogue, being a more general term which encompasses even incremental changes towards the ideal of replacing unjust and economically destructive taxes on economic activity by recovery of the economic rent of land for the purposes and benefit of the public that creates land value. -Unjust from the perspective of a Georgist. This is pure editorializing.

Those who expressed similar thoughts before Henry George include: Benjamin Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, John Locke, John Stuart Mill, William Ogilvie of Pittensear, Thomas Paine (notably in "Agrarian Justice", 1795), William Penn, Adam Smith, Patrick Edward Dove, Herbert Spencer and Jacques Turgot. -Sources? At least a quote or two?

George's ideas were also predated by traditional land taxes levied at various times in Japan, China, India, Egypt and other countries, such taxes often being accompanied by marked prosperity. -A common claim by Georgists. Details? Which periods? Details about the lax structures? Prosperity defined how? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by StanfordBC (talk • contribs) 06:16, 30 January 2007 (UTC).

Answers as follows:

1. Adam Smith expansion straight from The Wealth of Nations Book 1, Chapter XI, first paragraph:

Rent, considered as the price paid for the use of land, is naturally the highest which the tenant can afford to pay in the actual circumstances of the land. In adjusting the terms of the lease, the landlord endeavours to leave him no greater share of the produce than what is sufficient to keep up the stock from which he furnishes the seed, pays the labour, and purchases and maintains the cattle and other instruments of husbandry, together with the ordinary profits of farming stock in the neighbourhood. This is evidently the smallest share with which the tenant can content himself without being a loser, and the landlord seldom means to leave him any more. Whatever part of the produce, or, what is the same thing, whatever part of its price is over and above this share, he naturally endeavours to reserve to himself as the rent of his land, which is evidently the highest the tenant can afford to pay in the actual circumstances of the land. Sometimes, indeed, the liberality, more frequently the ignorance, of the landlord, makes him accept of somewhat less than this portion; and sometimes too, though more rarely, the ignorance of the tenant makes him undertake to pay somewhat more, or to content himself with somewhat less than the ordinary profits of farming stock in the neighbourhood. This portion, however, may still be considered as the natural rent of land, or the rent for which it is naturally meant that land should for the most part be let.

The emphasised portion gives the reason why a rational Landlord cannot pass LVT onto the tenant.

2. Since no Georgists have so far objected and plenty watch this page, I question whether it is pure editorialising. Read the Land value tax article for more.

3. Fair enough.

4. Not sure about this para myself. Theoretically LVT can only be expected to have a positive effect if it replaces other taxes, (where does that come from?) at least partially. When it is used in addition to other taxes, the most that can be said is that it doesn't have a negative effect. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:39, 30 January 2007 (UTC)The object of the collection of this "tax" is to primarily reduce the Price of land (not its value). That alone would be good and would boost the economy.[David Brooks]25/01/14

LVT's does not have a negative effect, which can be viewed as positive not neutral, because it doesn't do anything bad - like cause land price spirals and speculation, which were the base of the 1929 Crash and the 2008 CC Crash. 79.65.30.123 (talk) 00:26, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I was just trying not to overstate the case . -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:15, 22 January 2010 (UTC)

ummm lvt doesnt go to the tennant....is goes to the communityJUBALCAIN 01:03, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, yeah, obviously. But whether LVT is levied or not the tenant pays the same rent to the landlord as Adam Smith makes clear above. So what's your point ? Derek Ross | Talk 03:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

---

1) I think this should find its way in to the article.

The problem is just adding it without going on a long side discussion. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

2) By 'unjust,' I meant that the taxes mentioned in the quoted section are described as unjust and destructive as a matter of fact. This article should describe what Georgists believe, not express their beliefs as fact. Instead this section reads more like Georgist advocacy.

Okay that should be doable. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:20, 31 January 2007 (UTC)

Re. the LVT paragraph - Wikipedia should present the Georgist case as a theory (with criticisms). It should not make statements about untested economic theories as if they were facts. The assertion that LVT will not increase rental is a Georgist claim rather than an objective fact. I've modified the wording accordingly. [What is untested. Suggest more history - Singapore (Sir Stamford Raffle about 1800)Australia, New Zealand, Canada, Hong Kong prior to Chinese takeover] David Brooks 25/01/14--Divadyendis (talk) 15:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC) --winterstein (talk) 08:57, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Geoism have proven to work all around the world over 100 years. Have a look at highly successful Hong Kong. 79.65.30.123 (talk)

But it's not just a Georgist claim. Adam Smith first made the claim and no reputable economist has disagreed with him. In fact David Ricardo (no more a Georgist than Smith was) went a lot further and proved why it must be so. That makes it a generally agreed economic fact, not a Georgist claim. It is therefore inappropriate to label it as a theory which only Georgists believe. The fact is that Georgists use the three factor (Land/Labour/Capital) classical economics developed by Smith, Ricardo and their immediate successors, not some specifically "Georgist" theory. And given the success of Georgist economists in predicting the timing of the latest economic recession (Foldvary, Gaffney and Harrison & Kavanagh all got it right, predicting it accurately 20 years before it happened in Harrison's case), I would say that Georgist economists have passed the "real world" test a lot better than mainstream neoclassical economists who only use a two factor theory (Labour/Capital), so your "untested economic theories" jibe looks rather hollow too. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:42, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, it is a central tenet in Gergist theory and only a minor footnote in Smith's work. I would say that makes it a Georgist claim. Secondly, you misunderstand me. My comment was not a jibe or indeed a criticism of the claim. I commented on the language used, which was inappropriate for an encyclopedia. You argue that Ricardo and Smith supporting it makes it a "generally agreed economic fact". No: it is still a theory, with people in favour and against it. It should be described accordingly. The question at stake here is not "is this theory correct?", but "is the writing appropriate for Wikipedia?" --winterstein (talk) 15:14, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm still a little unsure what this "Georgist Theory" that you are talking about might be. It may well be a central tenet of the Georgist programme that LVT is the only tax that should be levied but that's not a theory just a statement of what should be done in the opinion of Georgists. The theory that LVT (aka a tax on ground rent) can't raise rent is agreed upon by every significant economist from Milton Friedmann to Karl Marx, whether they think that it should be levied or not. In addition I'm puzzled as to why you should say that Smith only devotes a minor footnote to it. Here's a small part of what he said on the subject in The Wealth of Nations, Book V, Chap. II, Part I, article I.:

Ground rents are a still more proper subject of taxation than the rent of houses. A tax upon ground rents would not raise the rents of houses. It would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground rent, who acts always as a monopolist, and exacts the greatest rent to which can be docked for the use of his ground. More or less can be docked for it accordingly as the competitors happened to be richer or poorer, or can afford to gratify their fancy for a particular spot of ground at a greater or smaller expense. In every country the greatest number of rich competitors is in the capital, and it is there accordingly that the highest ground rents are always to be found. As the wealth of those competitors would in no respect be increased by a tax upon ground rents, they would not probably be disposed to pay more for the use of the ground. Whether the tax was to be advanced by the inhabitant, or by the owner of the ground, would be a little importance. The more the inhabitant was obliged to pay for the tax, the less he would incline to pay for the ground; so that the final payment of the tax would fall altogether upon the owner of the ground rent. The ground rents of uninhabited houses ought to pay no tax.

Both ground rents and the ordinary rent of land are a species of revenue which the owner, in many cases enjoys without any care or attention of his own. Though a part of this revenue should be taken from him in order to defray the expenses of the state, no discouragement will thereby be given to any sort of industry. To the annual produce of the land and labor of the society, the real wealth and revenue of the great body of the people, might be the same after such a tax as before. Ground rents and the ordinary rent of land are, therefore, perhaps, the species of revenue which can best bear to have a particular tax imposed upon them.

Ground rents seem, in this respect a more proper subject of peculiar taxation than even the ordinary rent of land. The ordinary rent of land is, in many cases, owing partly at least to the attention and good management of the landlord. A very heavy tax might discourage too much this attention and good management. Ground rents, so far as they exceed the ordinary rent of land, are altogether owing to the good government of the sovereign, which, by protecting the industry either of the whole people, or of the inhabitants of some particular place, enables them to pay so much more than its real value for the ground which they build their houses upon; or to make to its owners so much more than compensation for the loss which he might sustain by this use of it. Nothing can be more reasonable than that a fund which owes its existence to the good government of the state should be taxed peculiarly, or should contribute something more than the greater part of other funds, toward the support of that government.

"Ground Rent" is a great description of what we would like. But it is not a TAX. It is payment to the community for the exclusive occupation of a specific site or location, the value of which has been made by the activities and expenditure of the community collecting the rent. David Brooks 25/01/14

As you will see if you read his discussion on taxes it's not a footnote. It just forms part of his discussion on different forms of land tax. The above three paragraphs are merely his summing up of the advantages of taxing ground rent rather than taxing buildings. He wrote a lot more but I think I've quoted enough to make my point.

As for your point that not everybody agrees with it, well that is no doubt true. But look at it this way: if the people who agreed with Smith's assertion were Georgist economists and the people who disagreed were other economists, then it might be reasonable to call it a Georgist economic theory. However since all academic economists (Marxists, Neoclassicists, Georgists and Austrians) agree with Smith's assertion (or rather with Ricardo's far more comprehensive analysis) and only "armchair economists" disagree, it makes sense to call it an economic theory. That is why the current wording is appropriate for Wikipedia. -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:43, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Critics

Many Wikipedia articles about political theories and policy ideas include entire sections that outline the views of critics. This article is missing any reference to critics, usual criticisms, etc. I'm very, very new to this topic - and so don't feel qualified (yet) to add content here. I'm trying to understand Georgism, but the lack of critical viewpoints makes this article quite a bit thin. Karichisholm 08:42, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

A few editors have made that point over the years. However I think that this reflects that the fact that there isn't much criticism of Georgism, just a reluctance to put it into practice. If you want to see the usual criticisms you will find them in the Land Value Tax article which covers much the same ground as this one. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:54, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

At least historically, Georgism was the subject of an enormous amount of criticism, in a wide range of sources. These three posts should give some sense of the traditional criticisms. It wouldn't be too hard to document some of the major debates for a Criticism section. Libertatia 17:12, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

<Grin>, please feel free to do so. There is no doubt that you will improve the article by providing another viewpoint. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:07, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I'll work on it as time allows. I don't want to load the article up with extraneous stuff. Perhaps it would be useful to add a bit about the internal debate over "enclaves" in the section on "communities" as well. Libertatia 19:49, 30 May 2007 (UTC)

I've some mildly critical comment at http://arachnid.apana.org.au/johna/george/intro.html ; this link was on an original version of the "Henry George" wiki page. It's my own work, but equally there's not much critical comment which engages with Georgism, either. The link is here if nowhere else. I'll add it to the main page if there's no dissent for a week or so. JohnAugust (talk) 03:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

John: Strictly speaking, that doesn't satisfy WP:RS. (That's not a reflection on the value of the content, just the way Wikipedia works, which helps avoid people pushing their own theories... which may have value but often don't, and sometimes are completely at odds with reality. The policy is a blunt tool with a big grey area, but it's there for a good reason.) In practice, such links often get added and remain in an article for a while, but can be deleted at any time.

Thanks for asking - it can be confusing. --Chriswaterguy talk 23:30, 14 November 2010 (UTC)

Chris : the webpage material was developed into a paper presented at the 8th Society of Heterodox Economists ( http://www.economics.unsw.edu.au/contribute2/Economics/research/Heterdox/_notes/Program2009.htm ) - I have a copy of the proceedings, but there's no copy on the web as far as I know - otherwise I'd have linked to that. Still, does its existence change the situation ? (JohnAugust (talk) 01:28, 15 November 2010 (UTC)

I've re-introduced the link on the above basis. Please keep in mind there are no assertions in the article which draw from its content, it is there as a link to external commentary for the interest of Wikipedia readers to help them gain a broader perspective if they are interested, part of a group of links presumably added for that purpose, a notion I expect previous editors were comfortable with. It is my own material, but I would have linked similar material by others if I had stumbled over it. A similar link was on the article for several years previously.JohnAugust (talk) 20:52, 27 January 2011 (UTC)

A paper presented at a conference might be preferable. You note that "there are no assertions in the article which draw from its content" - that's a good point - I'm pretty sure the criteria for external links (WP:External links) are looser than those for sources (WP:RS). --Chriswaterguy talk 20:57, 9 July 2011 (UTC)

So, I was looking over the three posts linked above, looking to improve the Criticisms section, but they seem to be only about the strongest form, which(from the rest of the article) seems to have never been big with georgists, and abandoned by modern georgists. In particular, Georgism can be construed as A) some taxes should be moved to LVT, B) all taxes should be moved to LVT, or C) the land should be nationalized and rented out since B is tantamount to this anyway. The criticisms posted - and most of the direct historical criticism I can find - just say that C will de facto devolve into B anyway.

However, I think this does illuminate the main substantive issues with Georgism. There is no credible doubt that Georgism advocates a very progressive and very economically-efficient form of taxation. However, you may note I emphasized "direct" up above; there is much "indirect" criticism, in the form of criticism of progressive taxation in general. In the current taxation clashes in the USA, for example, the left wing is advocating tax schemes less progressive than pure-LVT, and the right wing is even further in that direction. (It'd be difficult to find someone who was actually against economic efficiency, but the majority don't seem to care about it or know about it in any form.) The remainder of the "direct" criticism was about it being a fairly drastic change, which of course means disruption unless carefully transitioned.

So, unless there are objections etc, I plan to add a few sentences to the Criticisms section summarizing criticism of progressive taxation in general, with a main-article link, and restating the change-disruption issue mentioned earlier in the article.

― Darekun (talk) 09:54, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

It's is very unclear what you mean by "progressive" in your comment. "Progressive" has a very clear meaning when used in the phrase "progressive taxation" but you do not seems to be using that meaning. Most left wingers who oppose LVT do so because they mistakenly believe that it is "regressive taxation" and since regressive taxation targets the poor while progressive taxation targets the rich, they thus conclude that LVT is bad. It is possible to implement a progressive form of LVT which levies a greater percentage rate on higher value land parcels, and in fact the Liberal government of New Zealand did so at the beginning of the 20th century for many years. However most Georgists are in favour of a flat percentage rate (so neither progressive nor regressive) with either a personal exemption for the first few thousand dollars or a Citizen's Dividend to ensure that most people pay little or nothing in tax. Please clarify what you mean by "progressive", or better still avoid using the word, before making any changes to the article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:15, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

Well, I didn't mean progressive WRT land value, I meant progressive WRT disposable income. For example, from the article:

Additionally, a land value tax would be a tax of wealth, and so would be a form of progressive taxation and tend to reduce income inequality. As such, a defining argument for Georgism is that it taxes wealth in a progressive manner, reducing inequality, and yet it also reduces the strain on businesses and productivity.

However, I'm not attached to the term. "Targets the rich" is certainly efficient, but teleological, perhaps "the tax burden would mainly fall on the rich"?

In addition, while I was mainly looking for historical criticism, if there is a body of modern criticism mistaking it for the reverse, do you think that rates a mention?

― Darekun (talk) 02:07, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Okay, that's clarified things. I thought you might be using "progressive" as a synonym for left wing. Hence my puzzlement over what you meant. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:25, 2 December 2011 (UTC)

Georgism is not a political theory it is an economic model.188.222.173.233 (talk) 13:15, 11 January 2013 (UTC)

Obscure Georgists

The Famous Georgists section is slowly growing into a lengthy list of all georgists with wikipedia pages, which is stretching the definition of famous and the attention of the reader a bit thin, so rather than add 3 more economists to the list I have created Category:Georgist economists and Category:Georgist politicians. Those 2 categories catch most of the georgists with wikipedia pages, the remainder being mostly georgists-in-passing but otherwise famous ones such as Ford, Buckley, Twain and Tolstoy who are better just mentioned on this article where citations can be provided. Not sure what to do with Nock yet. As for trimming the current list we can argue about the moderately famous but there is one clear candidate for obscurity: Wolf Ladejinsky seems much less well known than the others. Pm67nz (talk) 11:50, 28 November 2007 (UTC)

Georgist tenets

I thought that the main Georgist tenets were

1. Free trade in a market economy;

2. Abolition of all taxes, subsidies and tariffs except the LVT;

3. Introduction of a Basic Income funded by the LVT.

However only the second of these appears to be covered in our Main Tenets section. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:33, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

You appear to have ommited his desire to get off of the gold standard....a currency need not be backed by anything. And the really obscure redistribution of wealth, based on the belief that the wealthy stock pile wealth, and a theft benefits the economy at least, until the theft is discovered, because it put that money back in circulation. And government is funded via magic beans, where more money is printed every year, which deflates the old money and causes a healthy inflation. (But wait...we do that now, lol).

---

It seems that the last paragraph in "Main tenets":

"The idea of the earth as the common property of humanity has also resonated with modern-day environmentalists ..."

Hardly seems like a main tenet, it would be more fitting in Synonyms and variants, . 75.105.6.60 (talk) 14:06, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, it is the philosophical justification for the Land Value Tax and the Basic Income, even though it's not the economic justification for either. It thus underlies both, so it seems reasonable to put it in the main tenets section. Georgism without that concept would be almost indistinguishable from Libertarianism in its philosophical basis. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:15, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

I've read and own most of Henry George's books, it's interesting that the LVT appears as a minor part of his books, yet, is the thing latched on by Georgism. Henry George's books are somewhat incomplete outlines and works in progress. His works were also pushed by his political son, Henry George, Jr. Land in the time of George was going thru a huge inflation, and this inflation was rising faster then wages, etc. Thus, the very premise of his works, might have been warped if applied to diffrent moments of time. The expanding needs of the railroads, redistributed wealth into a few hands, much like todays internet and computer companies have created Bill Gates, Steve Jobs, etc, etc with their own stock piles of wealth. These stock piles actually hurt the economy, as this is no longer "float", and moving thru the economy. He even goes on to explain how the theft of this wealth helps the economy.

Citations Needed

"Georgism, which today is associated with left-libertarian thought, has endured criticism from those right-libertarians who believe that common land ownership would result in an infringement of the rights of self-ownership and individual property." would someone please find citations for this assertion? As it stands it is very un-wiki —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.245.12.229 (talk) 18:05, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Labelling

To be called a "Georgist" ought reasonably to require a third party source stating such a claim. Many of the sources dfo not fit that category, and the Geroge web site is decidely not "third [prty by any stretch of the imagination - any more than the "Moonie Journal" could be used to call someone a "Moonie." And the thrid party must specifically call the person a "Georgist" otherwise WP:V is bent in two. Thanks. Collect (talk) 13:23, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

The reference that you deleted may well have been published in the Georgist Journal. However it was written by Jim Zwick who, before his recent death was one of the foremost Mark Twain scholars in the world, and very much a reliable third-party source on matters related to Mark Twain. The main reason that the article was published in the GJ was that its subject matter was likely to be of interest to the subscribers. However it was not written by the GJ. Therefore your deletion seems unwarranted. -- Derek Ross | Talk 15:54, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

And it, on its face, fails both as to third party publication and as to actual statement that Twain was a "Georgist" -- More to the point, many of the references do not actually claim that a person was a "Georgist." This may be a fatal flaw in this article. Collect (talk) 16:40, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. We need 3rd party sources, independent of the Georgist movement, to back up anyone included in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dougweller (talk • contribs) 16:59, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

That's ridiculous. Do we ask for 3rd party sources, independent of the Christian religion, to back up anyone named as a Christian, or 3rd party sources, independent of America, to back up anyone named as an American? No, of course not. So why are we applying a different standard for Georgists? -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:01, 1 December 2011 (UTC)

I agree it seems clear there is a double standard for Georgists, but I also agree that the case from Twain is less than solid. The most I can say with certainty is that it is likely Twain wrote "Archimedes" and was influenced by Georgism. I would be willing to remove him for that reason. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Whomyl (talk • contribs) 01:35, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

Original research

I'm removing stuff where it is clear that it is an editor that has decided that something is Georgist or a predecessor of Georgism or influenced by George's ideas. Please don't restore any of it without a reliable non-Georgist source making the explicit claim. Thanks. Dougweller (talk) 17:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Graph

That graph is great! It is such a powerful teaching tool. I wish, though, that there was a short explanation in the legend of why the supply curve is vertical, and how that suggests that a unimproved land/resources tax would not alter the volume traded in markets, and thus not alter 'market efficiency'. This is a major strength of the Single Tax. Again, thanks for the graph. Briancady413 (talk) 15:00, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

We're glad that you like it. The reason that we don't provide an explanation, is that even a short explanation would be too long to fit easily in the legend or the caption. But we do try to explain things clearly (our explanation is in the Land Value Tax article). If we haven't succeeded, please feel free to improve our explanation. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:35, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

Protection or Free Trade

Henry George also supported free trade and was opposed to protectionism. (See his book, Protection or Free Trade.) So is this position considered part of Georgism, as well? EPM (talk) 01:24, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Oh yes, definitely. Georgism is essentially the promotion of free markets and minimal taxation except or a high land and natural resource tax to fund government spending on public goods and some poverty alleviation. LK (talk) 02:07, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Agreed. I did mention that free trade is one of the three main tenets earlier on this discussion page but as yet we haven't incorporated that into the article. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:52, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Free trade and the free-market are an essential part of Geoism - it is then largely self-regulating,and auto regulating system not needing touch-control finance ministers to intervene every month. But only when land is unmonopolized and unrigged. Currently most markets are rigged in some way. Factors of production: LAND, CAPITAL, LABOR. LABOR is rigged in all sorts of ways. LAND clearly is rigged by planning laws, etc. In the UK 0.3% of the population own approx 70% of the land.

LAND is clearly monopolized in the UK. To go further, Geoists state that all LAND is monopolized by anyone occupying it - it prevent others walking on this commonwealth. So anyone occupying land has a privilege, a privilege they must pay for - via LVT. In Feudal times anyone occupying land had to make productive use of it. If you never the land went back to the manor. Owning land and not putting it to productive use requires paying for - via LVT.

Henry George first advocated state ownership of land and leasing it out - as it is done is Hong Kong to success - although it could be run far better. But George saw that it was in the psyche of the people to own land and this would never get off the ground. Then LVT was thought up as a way to overcome this land "ownership" problem. But monopolizing land was never in it, and land is monopolized.

This article still has a long way to go to get the prime points over simply, and to add the peripheral points that add real value.94.194.102.190 (talk) 12:13, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

OK. I just wanted to clear that up. What's the third main tenet? I'm guessing it was his support of greenbacks. EPM (talk) 11:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

In my opinion (and I may be wrong) the three tenets are:

1. Free trade in a market economy;

2. Abolition of all taxes, subsidies and tariffs except the LVT;

3. Introduction of a Citizen's Dividend funded by the LVT.

HG talked about the Citizen's Dividend/Universal Pension//Basic Income or whatever you want to call it in his 1885 speech, The Crime of Poverty. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:06, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject?

In addition to my question at the end of the previous section above, I have another question...

...has anyone here ever considered starting a Georgism WikiProject? It seems like there are plenty of Wikipedia topics, (and a few that could be added, like The Law of Human Progress), to justify such a project, if enough people are interested. EPM (talk) 15:45, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

No one has so far. Wikiprojects are only worth creating if there is a core group of people who actively want to edit the topics which the WikiProject covers. Otherwise you just end up with a lot of banners on talk pages which occasionally get updated by a bot -- if you're lucky -- and a moribund WikiProject page. Now it may be that a Georgism WikiProject is worth creating. However the level of activity on the Georgism-related pages that I have on my watchlist makes me think that it would be borderline. There are maybe four or five of us who would definitely be interested but I think it really needs 10-15 to give a Wikiproject the critical mass it needs to be successful. Still, who knows, the very creation of a WikiProject might raise the visibility of the subject enough to attract some more editors with an interest in it. So you can sign me up as a potential member. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:43, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

Cool. I took the liberty of starting a sandbox on a Georgism WikiProject at User:EPM/Wikipedia:WikiProject Georgism. Feel free to tinker around with it/develop it. If there's anyone else you know who would be interested, feel free to invite them to do the same. We can discuss ideas on how to develop it on the sandbox's discussion page. EPM (talk) 09:25, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

You can sign me on as well, but from the activity here I'm guessing it may not be worth the effort. Still, you never know, maybe we can publicize a bit on some of the Georgist sites out there, and get more people interested. LK (talk) 13:40, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

OK. I added both your names to the sandbox I started. And like I said, feel free to edit it. (I thought it might be a good idea to develop it this way first, and then when we're content with how it looks, we can just move it to an actual WikiProject page. Does that sound OK?) EPM (talk) 18:44, 4 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds fine, EPM, but let's just wait and see how many people are interested in taking part. Having said that what you've done looks good. Cheers -- Derek Ross | Talk 04:12, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable. So what would be a bare minimum number of people that you would like to see be interested in taking part? EPM (talk) 14:15, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Bare minimum? Five committed editors. But like I said earlier I think it needs ten to have a reasonable chance of achieving the goals. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:10, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Interesting. I note that Georgism is partly covered by the WikiProject Libertarianism. Have you seen that ? It makes some sense given the big overlap in the goals of the two movements. -- Derek Ross | Talk 16:20, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

Some libertarians like HG, (see geolibertarianism and some strands of left libertarianism). Other libertarians, however, can be quite hostile towards HG. EPM (talk) 17:03, 5 March 2010 (UTC)

I'm willing to help, but I admit I'm not sure of what sort of time commitment is required, so I'm unable at the moment to say how heavily involved I could get. David Harrell (talk) 22:30, 24 March 2010 (UTC)

It needn't involve a great deal of time. However it does involve a longterm commitment. We're looking for stamina rather than speed. -- Derek Ross | Talk 06:30, 25 March 2010 (UTC)

This user advocates Henry George's land value tax.

I made a georgist userbox. if anyone want to put it on their userpage, just add this code to your page {{User:Lawrencekhoo/Userboxes/User georgist}}. LK (talk) 03:58, 4 February 2013 (UTC)

Nature of "Land" in the Macro-economic Context

The article on Georgism deals well with the single tax but somehow avoids some details about the ethics of LVT and also in the nature of how human society relates to "land". Firstly "land" is written this way because it relates not only to the earth's surface but all natural resources associated with our biosphere (and even in space). Thus the electro-magnetic spectrum, which has great importance in tele-communications, is regarded here as being a part of the land. It is the opportunities to make available these features due to the bounty of nature, that deserve our careful consideration on both ethical and technical grounds (no pun intended!).

Georgism is concerned with the way in which the land is owned and used (or misused in specific cases). Since the land is regarded as a gift to Man of Nature (if not from a Heavenly Creator), access to it and its occupation and proper use should be shared, on ethical grounds. Since this is not done in many different places, the social systems that have been set up instead are regarded by George as being unjust. The best example of this is the "Acts of Enclosure" in England and Scotland during the 15th to 18th Centuries by acts of Parliament, by which large areas of Common Land were forcably taken from the local peasants (in some cases with the destruction of whole villages) and granted by law to the landed gentry for their private use. This effect together with the "Industrial Revolution" hastened the move to towns of the country-folk, to live in worse squallor than when they were living in the countryside.

George's examination of the nature of land was based on earlier work by David Ricardo, who along with Adam Smith had shown that the productive power of the land depends not only on its natural resources but on its position with regard to population densities. Land in the center of cities is no longer of use for agriculture, but the communications to it are so fast and easy (and the sites and buildings so easily reached compared to farm lands), that its value becomes very much greater.

This land value itself is a strange thing because it is expressed in two independent ways. Firstly and obviously by its trading value, what buyers and sellers can agree on regarding the sale and purchase of specific sites. But also this land value depends on the potential usefullness to which the land can be put. A tennant having access to a site returns to the owner, who is a land-lord, the economic rent for the site as well as possible hire fees for the use of any durable capital (such as buildings) that are regarded as "improvements" to the site. The potential use of the site generates this rent regardless as to whether it is paid or not. It is the nature of the land itself. When rent is paid the land-lord he receives the rent as the surplus that the land is capable of producing, after the production costs or returns to the other two factors of production; namely, wages for labor and the yield (interest or dividend, here there is a need for better definition of terms), for the use of the durable capital.

We thus have a situation where the land is owned and gives benefit to a land-lord whose productive effort is nil. Further, its value continuously grows as the surrounding community develops and the technical means of production and distribution are steadily improved, due to governmental investment of previous tax-payers' money. These two related socially unjustified gains by the land-lord were the effects that George wanted to correct. A third effect occurs when the land-lord does not use the land properly (if at all) and speculates in its value, with the resulting rise in the competition and relative high charges for use of the rest of the available land, that is in use. These adverse results of the speculation in land values were effects of which George was well aware and sought an answer. He was motivated by the poverty that was the result of high production costs, low demands and unemployment due to the unavailability of cheap and useful land sites. His theory included an explanation for the "business cycles" which are associated in the inflation of land prices with its speculation process. With the introduction of Land Value Taxation (LVT or the Single Tax) the speculation in land values would cease along with these effects.

Thus LVT was seen by George as a liberating force for all kinds of workers and for national stabilization of the macroeconomy, by which the opportunity to earn a living could cease to be controlled by monopolists in land and the production processes on it. The introduction of LVT could make the macroeconomy become more natural and unbiased, no longer favoring the wealthy monopolist land holders of its bounty and oppotunity.Macrocompassion (talk) 17:05, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

Explaining the Point Simply

Many people, some quite intelligent, appear not to be able to grasp LVT. A lifetime of conditioning that Land is similar to a car (capital) is difficult to remove from the collective psyche. LVT is so simple, yet it eludes them. Many immediately think it is some sort of Marxist view, thinking it takes from the rich. It comes down to how it is put across to them.

LVT taxes only the values of land not the property (buildings). The KEY to understanding LVT is knowing where land values come from. One this is understood, then the rest falls into place easier. Land values were not brought down on tablets of stone or miraculously appear out of the ether. The community, public and private, create them - the values belong to the community not the landowner. This is basic economics - not politics. This should be fully understood. Land and its resources are commonwealth. LVT is not actually a tax, as it reclaims community created wealth.

LVT reclaims the values the community created for community use. It does not take private wealth from people, as income tax is abolished, keeping private wealth in private hands.

This article does not draw in the uninitiated. It appears to be written for those already in the know. 94.194.102.190 (talk) 11:43, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

This may be true, but Wikipedia is not a textbook, and we cannot engage in WP:OR, original writing, in order to educate the public. LK (talk) 11:56, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

Luckily we don't have to engage in Original Research since Henry George has already written the "textbook". We just need to cite his books and essays. And whereas we must not engage in OR, we absolutely must engage in Original Writing: copyright laws forbid us from doing anything else. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:18, 6 March 2012 (UTC)

An article must explain simply what the point is about so the average man can easily understand the prime point(s), otherwise the article is meaningless. That is nothing related to a textbook approach. Using OR to point to referenced material is OK in wiki.78.105.236.11 (talk) 14:39, 14 November 2012 (UTC)

"Single tax" should not redirect here

If you do a search for "Single tax", it redirects here. The implication appears to be that the only way a society can tax one thing and one thing only (thereby having a "single tax") is if they taxed land. There are, of course, many other things that could do for a single tax (income, consumption, carbon emissions, etc.). I think this redirect should be eliminated (and an article on the concept of having a single tax be created as well, assuming it hasn't been created already). Byelf2007 (talk) 22 July 2012

Good catch. I'd be happy with deleting the redirect, pointing it to a better target, or creating a new article on "single tax" (several different proposals might be worth mentioning). Any of those three options would be better than the status quo. bobrayner (talk) 20:13, 22 July 2012 (UTC)

The reason that Single Tax redirects here is that, for over a hundred years the term has been used to describe the main Georgist policy. While it is perfectly possible for any tax to be "a single tax", only one tax has been known historically as "The Single Tax". And that is the Georgist Land Value Tax. That is why it redirects here. -- Derek Ross | Talk 01:58, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

What other Single Tax is there that is not LVT? I only know of LVT that was proposed as the Single Tax. 94.194.16.153 (talk) 22:16, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

How about a disambiguation page? It'll have links to Georgism and an article on a single tax policy. Sound good? Byelf2007 (talk) July 23 2012

Y bobrayner (talk) 09:39, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Sounds fine. There is nothing wrong with having a separate article on single tax as long as it adequately describes the history of the tax known as "The Single Tax" along with the general concept of single taxes. -- Derek Ross | Talk 14:50, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

Would anyone else like to help me out with this project(s)? Byelf2007 (talk) July 23 2012

It's not urgent, is it? I'm busy now but could do a quick-and-dirty job straight away, or a more leisurely and better-quality job in a few days... bobrayner (talk) 17:17, 23 July 2012 (UTC)

No, it's not urgent. Please let me know when you'd like to help out (I don't know how put in or get rid of a redirect). Byelf2007 (talk) July 23 2012

I've "unredirected" it for you. Please go ahead and make the changes that you want. If there's no activity on the new article in the next few weeks, I will redirect it again. -- Derek Ross | Talk 22:23, 24 July 2012 (UTC)

Geonomics - Georgism

Georgism is the teachings of Henry George, firmly based on a Single Tax, Land Valuation Tax - a personified economic theory. Geonomics is different and should not be confused with Georgism. The Geo in Geonomics or Geoism, relates to LAND. The Georg in Georgism relates to Henry George. Georgism and Geonomics are closely related but are different. Geonomics is a natural progression from Georgism which was based and influence by Adam Smith, David Ricardo, JJ Mill, etc. The heading into in the article should be changed to reflect this, or better still a new article specifically on Geonomics. Or change this article to only Geonomics.

Geonomics is that all revenue to service a community derives from:

• Natural commonwealth given by nature.
• Commonly created wealth.
• Pigovian taxes.

Geonomics does not:

• Penalise production and trade. by taxing wages, companies and sales transactions, etc, hence promoting enterprise.
• Tax the fruits of an individuals labors - an individual keep all their income.
• Tax an individuals capital possessions - such as a house.

Commonwealth can be natural resources from land, fish in the sea, using the electromagnetic spectrum, etc. These can be charged for or a levy on the value of the extraction. Land Value Taxation is also incorporated within Geonomics, as land values are created by economic community activity - commonly created and hence belong to the community and is commonwealth.

Geonomics has moved on from Henry George and his Single Tax, which was difficult for people to get their heads around, which was his downfall and why it was never accepted. 78.105.232.134 (talk) 16:27, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Agreed a separate article should be created for Geoism/Geonomics Jonpatterns (talk) 21:29, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Other Taxes

This section states.....

Georgists also argue that all economic rent (i.e., unearned income) collected from natural resources (land, mineral extraction, the broadcast spectrum, tradable emission permits, fishing quotas, airway corridor use, space orbits, etc.) and extraordinary returns from natural monopolies should accrue to the community rather than a private owner, and that no other taxes or burdensome economic regulations should be levied. Modern environmentalists find the idea of the earth as the common property of humanity appealing, and some have endorsed the idea of ecological tax reform as a replacement for command and control regulation. This would entail substantial taxes or fees for pollution, waste disposal and resource exploitation, or equivalently a "cap and trade" system where permits are auctioned to the highest bidder, and also include taxes for the use of land and other natural resources

Georgism, relating to Henry George's teachings, is firmly the Single Tax. The above relates to Geonomics not Georgism. Geonomics is not based on a Single Tax. A new article on Geonomics is in order, as it is being mixed with with an older economic theory. 78.105.232.134 (talk) 15:03, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Well, write a new article then. -- Derek Ross | Talk 21:26, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

Good idea. How is it accepted by Wiki?78.105.232.134 (talk) 22:28, 12 November 2012 (UTC)

The same way any other edit is. Here you go; edit this. Geonomics. If other people object to what you write they'll change it or request that the article be deleted. Then you can argue your case for keeping it. If no one objects, no problem. Personally I don't see a major difference between Georgism and Geonomics and I don't think that Fred Foldvary would either. But that's just my opinion. You think differently, so have at it! By the way if you intend to do this I would recommend that you pick a pseudonym (or just use your real name; up to you). Even if you decide not to I would recommend that you read up on how to contribute to Wikipedia. There's lots of tutorial stuff available starting with Wikipedia:Five_pillars. Knowing the ropes means your text is much more likely to survive unchanged. -- Derek Ross | Talk 02:00, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Thx Derek. I will, see what I can do. Time permitting. Georgism (Single Tax) and Geonomics are not the same, as I have outlined above. LVT is a throw away tax that gets removed after a while - most have except where it is in the constitution, which I believe Taiwan's is. Geonomics is an economic model. The first one ever was by the French Physiocrats, a precursor of Geonomics. Geonomics is easy identified by the public, unlike LVT. Geonomics is difficult to drop and easy to grasp: commonwealth in land and resources and economic growth commonly created is used to pay the taxes the gvmt needs (one maybe mute point is that should commonly created growth that is "productive" be taxed?), leaving private individuals and companies alone to keep what they earned. In contrast LVT is a stand alone tax, although wanted by Georgists to be the only tax. It is easy to see why LVT has got nowhere in 130 years. It is difficult to sell.94.194.18.182 (talk) 14:36, 13 November 2012 (UTC)

Difficult to sell alright, and difficult to retain too, but absolutely the right way to go. Having said that, I think that most modern Georgists would see the other taxes that you mention as being totally sensible for the same reasons that LVT is sensible. I personally would have no issues with implementing resource royalties and some sort of bank asset tax and I don't think that many other modern Georgists would either. There are very few pure Single Taxers around nowadays. That's probably why I don't see a big difference between Georgism and Geonomics. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:20, 20 November 2012 (UTC)

Georgist Movement

Would a section on the History of the Georgist Movement, (both during and after Henry George's lifetime), be appropriate for this article? Or should that be in a different article? EPM (talk) 14:45, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

I think it would be best to start here. If it got really large then it could split later. Sounds like a good idea. Got some good sources? bobrayner (talk) 16:04, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Influenced by Georgism

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Greater care needs to be exercised in the section regarding who has been "influenced" by Georgism. There are a great many economists, for example, who quite happily agree that taxes on land are less economically harmful than taxes on income or investment capital while rejecting the Georgist position, most notably Milton Friedman. This makes certain arguments for "influence" problematic. Fred Foldvary, for example, has not, to my knowledge, indicated any affinity with Georgism. He is a disciple of Homer Hoyt, whose land value work is, as I understand it, entirely separate from Georgism. Further, the inclusion of Paul Krugman on the list is a surprise. As the footnote supposedly supporting the claim of influence indicates, Krugman had difficulty recalling the title of George's seminal work and then argued that a land tax was insufficient to fund the Welfare state that he, unlike George, strongly advocates. Similarly, Ralph Nader was an advocate of several additional taxes, particularly on corporations and on the wealthy even going so far as to advocate a maximum income. That he also suggests that [t]he present adjustment of Henry George's celebrated land tax could also be considered" indicates not that he has been influenced by Georgism but that he doesn't understand it and is, instead, interested in adding as many new taxes "on the rich" as he can come up with. 2601:1:2400:138:651B:68DF:D559:51B (talk) 06:05, 10 August 2013 (UTC)

Looking more closely at the sources, a lot of them don't support those claims. bobrayner (talk) 01:57, 13 August 2013 (UTC)

Bobrayner. Fred Foldvary talks about Georgism in most of his papers. Here is one example clearly showing him influenced by the ideas. http://www.foldvary.net/works/policystudy.pdf 85.229.223.91 (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

I had no previously come across that piece by Folvary. I withdraw my objection.2601:A:1180:42F:C453:5020:934C:1EBE (talk) 19:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

@Bobrayner:, Yes, Foldvary and many other people you were removing from the page were Georgists. Several of them say "Georgist" in the personal wikis for those people. Some of them, I know personally; they are definitely Georgists. Nader and Friedman are more suspect, but both of them mention Henry George by name while advocating for LVT or public capture of resource rents. Whomyl (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

"Ralph Nader, already familiar with basic ideas of Henry George, requested and was given a brief update on the movement for land value taxation, [...] proposed that there be public debates about the merits of land value taxation and the economics of Henry George in his talk to several hundred students and Green Party members in the Steinberg-Dietrich Hall" Whomyl (talk) 07:08, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

"In my opinion the least bad tax is the property tax on the unimproved value of land, the Henry George argument of many, many years ago." --Milton Friedman I admit that does not sound very "Georgist", but that is just the anarchist in Milton coming out. It is impossible to read that and say Friedman was not influenced by geoism. @Bobrayner: Whomyl (talk) 07:12, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

"the Georgist position" is often misinterpreted. Henry George talked about taxing all resource rents, location rents and environmental bads. Even seigniorage was an income he liked (He liked greenbacks). He did not talk about a "single tax". The "single tax movement" got mixed up with the message from Henry George. This is the main reason georgists view everyone talking about land value tax as someone influenced by georgism. The single tax is simply not the georgist position according to most georgists today. Take Mason Gaffney as an example, he defines land to be "all natural resources". A land value tax is defined as any tax that taxes resource rents in any form. This is why the "the Georgist position" is problematic. It differs depending on who you ask. Individuals calling themselves Georgist often have a more relaxed interpretation and does not acknowledge "the georgist view" to be the only the "single tax". http://www.psmag.com/politics/this-land-is-your-land-3392/ 85.229.223.91 (talk) 06:53, 7 September 2013 (UTC)

It has been raised on the Wiki Economics Projects that list of people influenced by Georgism is incorrect. Looking at the first on the Molly Scott Cato the reference doesn't mention Georgism but Land Tax Value. Is this enough to be considered influenced by Georgism? Jonpatterns (talk) 17:12, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jonpatterns: You can ask Molly Scott Cato yourself if you want. There are 1/2 dozen other articles by her I could choose, all mentioning Henry George, Georgism, and land value tax. If there are specific questions you have; I will answer them, and there might be mistakes, and those should be corrected, but more than 90% of the names are definitely correct.Whomyl (talk) 06:29, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Jonpatterns, I've noticed a lot of people being added here and had similar concerns. Unfortunately, I'm not knowledgeable enough to state whether the land-value tax, though certainly emphasized, is the only necessary component of Georgism. Maybe someone else here can tell us if this qualifies as a necessary assumption? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:18, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

A fondness for land-value taxes does not necessarily mean "influenced by Georgism", and labelling people on that basis would be WP:SYNTHESIS. bobrayner (talk) 18:39, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Must admit that I wonder about the utility of some of the entries on this list in any case. HG was so widely read in the Anglosphere during the late 19th and early 20th centuries that just about anyone living at the time could be said to have been influenced by Georgist ideas to some extent. The question then becomes "How significant was that influence?". Not to mention whether they became pro or con as a result of the influence. The list shouldn't be removed but it should be limited to people who were significantly influenced rather than to significant people who were influenced slightly. There are other parts of the article which could do with some of the hard work that has been put into the list. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:25, 2 January 2014 (UTC)

Whomyl, why do you keep on reinserting a poorly-sourced list? bobrayner (talk) 17:59, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

I would be fine with the suggestion of @Derek Ross:, limiting the list to people who were significantly influenced by Georgism. Most Georgists since mid-1900s stopped publicly identifying with George. Let's not forget that "Georgism" existed long before Henry George was born. If the word "George" is required, then I will go into the Austrian economics page and remove every economist who is not Austrian. @Bobrayner:, I kept adding the list, because I took a lot of time going through most of the removals you made and most of them were famous Georgists. You were removing people that founded Georgist schools and towns. Whomyl (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

move discussion of Milton to new section

Why not just change the title of the sub-section?

moved talk to have conversation in one place - Talk:Georgism#Category clean-up/ rename section

Influenced by Georgism RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Ought this article include people who have stated any support of land taxes as being "influenced by Georgism" without any sourcing linking the term to those people? 15:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

• comment This reflects concerns stated in the above section. Collect (talk) 15:44, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• No. Land taxes ≠ Georgism. bobrayner (talk) 16:21, 4 January 2014 (UTC)
• comment The more I look at this article the more holes seem to appear. One reason I think we are struggling to determine if people are Georists or influenced by Georgism is because the article doesn't concisely say what Georgism is. The 'Main Tenents' section rambles about different beliefs Henry George. Derek Ross has stated Georgism includes Free trade in a market economy, Introduction of a Citizen's Dividend as well as LVT. (HG talked about the Citizen's Dividend/Universal Pension//Basic Income or whatever you want to call it in his 1885 speech, The Crime of Poverty).

Reply George's beliefs should not have any substantial place, if any, in this page; that should be discussed here: Henry George.Whomyl (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Also, Georgism and Geoism/Geonomics are being confused. Geoism/Geonomics should not redirect here but have its own article. Further if Geogism is just a form of geoism like LVT then the idea predates Henry George, as the article itself states - the economic philosophy of geoism dates back to early proponents such as John Locke and Baruch Spinoza. Therefore, it would need to be shown that Georgism was the main influence in the spread of this idea. Jonpatterns (talk) 21:55, 4 January 2014 (UTC)

Reply This page is about geoism, an absolute synonym to Georgism, which existed before George.Whomyl (talk) 11:23, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• No if there is no source directly saying so, then it's not verifiable and would seem to fall into WP:SYN / WP:OR. I think BLP might also apply in this situation, so extra care should be taken. If there is a reliable source for it, then I have no objection so long as inclusion complies with NPOV and WEIGHT. Morphh ^(talk) 04:27, 5 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion of comment under discussion. Just a check of the article itself Ihave to agree, the article is badly done, however as also noted, the suggested text is not well referenced, cited, or backed by any testable references so it should be excluded. The wider issue is that the article needs considerable work, definitive explanation of what "Georgism" actually is, what its precepts and classical hallmarks are appear to be missing. Remember: Wikipwedia attempts to be encyclopedic, so the editors working on this page might consider some serious rework. Damotclese (talk) 17:58, 13 January 2014 (UTC)
• Oppose inclusion Supporting an item that Georgism supports is not a basis for saying that they were influenced by Georgism. North8000 (talk) 11:06, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

• No It would be OR to include such a conclusion without reliable sources. Besides the OR issues, it's also common sense. There are many reasons other than George's for someone to support land taxes so without a source for it, it's illogical to conclude Georgism is ever in play when land taxes are supported. Jojalozzo 02:05, 17 January 2014 (UTC)

• comment@Jojalozzo: I have never heard of anyone supporting land value taxation without being being influenced by geoism. I agree we should exclude anyone who did not mention George or state that land rent should be public yet still says LVT is good (or least bad), because that violates the central argument of the justice/fairness of LVT. Whomyl (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Milton Friedman might be an example of this, but I believe he also said 'Henry George's LVT is the least unfair', which is really the same as saying it is pretty fair. If that bothers you, we can move him from the "influenced by" to the "criticisms" section. Whomyl (talk) 11:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• No for reasons that should be obvious, and have already been stated by other "no" voters. FreeKnowledgeCreator (talk) 04:58, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• comment So far it is a unanimous no to inclusion, although no word from @Whomyl: or @Derek Ross:. How long should we leave it the question open before making a decision? Jonpatterns (talk) 12:37, 22 January 2014 (UTC)
• comment Didn't realise you were waiting for me. I wasn't going to comment again because I don't have a strong opinion about it and I'd already commented earlier. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:42, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

Jonpatterns, RfCs usually stay open for 30 days, but I don't really see a reason for that in this case. I think consensus is well on the side of not labeling people as Georgists without explicit mention. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 20:50, 22 January 2014 (UTC)

• comment@MisterDub:That would mean excluding several people currently on the list, who I know personally and have devoted much of their lives to promoting geoism... If that is the resolution, it would be the same as me removing all the Austrian economists who did not live in Austria. I admit the list could maybe be trimmed, but this is the wrong standard.

Whomyl (I'm assuming), aside from the fact that I think your analogy is inaccurate, that very well may be the case. Wikipedia isn't the place to right great wrongs; it's managed by consensus and committed to verifiability. If the consensus decision is that these sources aren't adequate support for the claims made herein, which, unless I'm mistaken, is the case (at least it was when I made my previous comment), then they should be removed. If local consensus doesn't shake out like you want, you can visit the RS noticeboard for an assessment of the strength of these sources. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:39, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• So far, nobody has provided any examples that I have noticed. Obviously, anything that is unverified or inaccurate should be removed. That is why I object to this question at all. Who has shown any evidence of that? Many of these "unverified" people accomplished ambiguous things like founding entire Georgist town and schools.Whomyl (talk) 06:42, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes I think including people who support natural resource royalties and severance taxes might be an OR. However, I have never heard of or met anyone who supported land value taxation but was not influenced by the concept of capturing publicly created land rents for the public use. Geoism/Georgism is not defined only by what George wrote. Some Georgists, like Michael Hudson (worked for a Georgist school and appears in Georgist films) hate Henry George or want to distance themselves from George/Georgists. There are many proto-Georgists (like Thomas Paine and J S Mill) who fit the definition of being Georgists but preceded Henry George. Whomyl (talk) 06:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

No. You can have the same opinion as someone without being influenced by him. Howunusual (talk) 23:35, 19 March 2014 (UTC)

What constitutes Georgism

What, if any, is the difference between a Land Value Tax advocate and a Georgist? Jonpatterns (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Georgists generally want Free Trade and Small Government. Most of them are also against taxes on wages, on capital and on general consumption. In contrast, non-Georgist LVT advocates, particularly socialists, often see LVT as one of many taxes including consumption taxes, income taxes and even wealth taxes. Some of them may also favour Protectionism or Big Government. So while it is true to say that all Georgists are LVT advocates, it would be false to say that all LVT advocates are Georgists. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:45, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

You are just describing traits that Georgists frequently have. I know more than a few big government, socialist, Georgists, who are even against citizen's dividend. No, we have to ask when the common traits are. For now, renamed the list.Whomyl (talk) 06:35, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be good to add references to the differing beliefs held by Georgists if possible. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• comment I also object to the phrasing of this question. It implies that most of the people bobrayner tried to remove from the list did not explicitly mention "Henry George", "Georgism", "geoism", "Georgist", "geoist", or "single tax". That is demonstrably false. Most of the people removed from the list had some form of the word "George" in the headline of the wikis for those people or in the citations in this list.Whomyl (talk) 07:22, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• note I am mailing people on this list who I know are *not* Georgists/geoists but are listed as being influenced by the economic and philosophical belief (e.g., Carson). If people tell me the section is misleading, confusing, dishonest, or inaccurate, I will remove anyone who is not explicitly in favor of taxing land before other things. It might be best to create a sub-section of proto-Georgists, such as William Ogilvie of Pittensear. Thank you for bringing this to my attention; I did not know this debate was taking place. Sorry for seeming rude. Whomyl (talk) 09:41, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Reply from Kevin Carson

"What do you think regarding your own name being in that section? Is it misleading? Should we change the wording?"

"Thanks for asking. I think it's definitely fair to say I was "influenced" by geoism and H. George, even though I'm not a Georgist."---Kevin Carson Ⓐ Whomyl (talk) 22:59, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

• Yes Georgism or Geoism is about the idea of using natural resources for revenue. It is interesting to have a list of anyone who has shown support for this idea. NielsCharlier (talk) 11:21, 23 January 2014 (UTC)This editor has made absolutely no edits other than this one Collect (talk) 13:50, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Possible resolution?I like NielsCharlier's explanation of geoism better than the headline of this article. The definition should be "The philosophy and economic ideology that economic rents from natural resources and government created privileges should be captured by society for public purposes" That is a more accurate description. The current headline description would be better in a subsection on the moral justification for geoism. Would this help clear up some of these problems? Whomyl (talk) 12:00, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Actually, I think there should be two separate sections. One with Georgists and one with people who have been influenced or expressed some form of agreement with the basic idea, including ones that came before George.NielsCharlier (talk) 18:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

• I was invited here by the bot. If I'm reading this dispute correctly, is this dispute about whether to say people are "influenced by Georgism" based on their viewpoints on a certain tax even though we don't have sources saying as such? I want to make sure I'm understanding this properly before offering an outside opinion. Thargor Orlando (talk) 00:13, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The problem is two fold. What constitutes a Georgist. Some beliefs held by some Georgists aren't common to all Georgists for example Free Trade. The only thing I've been able to find common to Georgists is a belief in the Land Value Tax.Jonpatterns (talk) 07:32, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Can someone be a Georgist without realizing it? I think that's where I'm leaning on this: if we're going to label someone a Georgist, we should have a source that does so, not simply our belief in what a Georgist believes. Thargor Orlando (talk) 14:15, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

Thargor Orlando is wise. There has been excessive labelling of people; we should only apply the label when it's directly supported by a source. bobrayner (talk) 14:37, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

• Keep list with substantial trimming. There are a lot of problems with the term "Georgism" that create difficulties for this list. One, semantically "Georgism" mostly came into use in the mid-20th century when academics applied it to the ideas advocated by Henry George and his initial followers, who called themselves "single-taxers" (of land) and were part of the "single-tax movement." It's an ex post label. The article should relate the semantic history (good luck finding sources) along with that of the single-tax movement early on, and it does not. Thus, many people who would have identified as "Georgist" never used the term because it wasn't in use, which makes it possible, though difficult, to call them Georgists. Two, while there isn't a brightline test, a lot of people who consider themselves Georgists also call for additional taxes that behave similar to land rent taxes, esp. Pigouvian taxes on carbon, pollution, congestion, etc., even though H. George and the single-taxers never knew about them, so there's a little blurriness around the boundaries of "Georgism" as you get closer to modern times. I think the only people whose names should appear on the list are those who consistently advocated taxing principally land rents instead of other sources during their lives and meet one of a few other conditions: (a) identified themselves as "Georgists," (b) can be linked to the 19th-20th century single-tax movement, i.e. not T. Paine, or (c) claimed that H. George himself inspired their advocacy of taxing land rents independent of the movement and label. These standards mean no M. Friedman or P. Krugman (no consistent advocacy, despite quotes connecting them to H. George) and no M. Hudson and M. Yglesias (consistent advocacy but no relationship to H. George). I think a list of people who supported taxing land rents to some degree irrespective of H. George, Georgism, etc. can appear in the "land value tax" page.Mattercore (talk) 16:07, 25 January 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Article lead is confusing

The article lead is quite confusing.

Georgism (also called Geoism[1] or Geonomics[2]) is an economic philosophy and ideology which holds that people own what they create, but that things found in nature, most importantly land, belong equally to all.[3] The economic philosophy of geoism dates back to early proponents such as John Locke[4] and Baruch Spinoza,[5] but the concept was widely popularized by the economist and social reformer Henry George (1839–1897).[6] "Georgism", a term later coined by followers of George's philosophy, is sometimes associated with the idea of a single tax on the value of land and nature.

It seems to be mixing up three ideas that over lap but possible aren't equivalent: Georgism, Geoism/Geonomics and the philosophy of Henry George. We need to establish when Geoism and Geonomics have been in popular usage. The first reference http://www.anti-state.com/geo/foldvary1.html suggests that term Geoism has been a conscious replacement for the term Georgism from the early 1980s onwards. Has this been adopted by the majority of Georgists? Maybe a sub-heading on the evolution of the term would be useful. If Geoism doesn't predate 1980s this line needs modifying The economic philosophy of geoism dates back to early proponents such as John Locke[4] and Baruch Spinoza,[5] to make it clear of the ideas date back then and not the term. @Whomyl: Jonpatterns (talk) 11:31, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

Agreed. If a term was not used by Locke, the term ought not be applied to Locke etc. We ought distinguish between the concept of "land tax" and note its history without claiming individuals are in any way "influenced by Georgism" ("Geoism" is a clear neologism here, and should be noted as such -- Questia finds no usage of the term, but 34 of Georgism in books and 20 in journals, and the current "Internet sources" also use "Georgism"). Collect (talk) 13:22, 12 January 2014 (UTC)

@Jonpatterns:, you and @Collect: are correct. That could be confusing. Geoism, which gives rise the the prefix "geo-", is more often used by people with specific extra-geoist/Georgist political ideologies, such as anarchists, libertarians, and mutualists. Geoists have the same beliefs as Georgists with regard to land and natural resource rents, which are the substance of Geoism/Georgism, and everyone understands the terms to be synonymous in that respect, but "geoist" implies something more, even "Geo-Keynesian", for example. Whereas plain "Georgist" implies that the single issue is the overriding political/economic concern, or that the person is possibly dedicated to almost an orthodox version of Henry George's philosophy (very for of those people left alive). Many Geoists, even people who produce geoist papers/videos and attend geoist conferences, choose not to use either term "Georgist" because they do not approve of Henry George himself; they also see little point in using the term "geoist", because that term is mostly unknown outside Georgist groups. They remain dedicated geoists though, as most of them will tell you if you ask. My plan was to change the name of this page to "geoism" and to make "Georgism" a pseudonym, clarifying that the concept is in no way limited to Henry George and existed long before George became famous. Whomyl (talk)

The term "geonomics" is problematic. Few people use it; it is new, and it is also used by other branches of economics that are not Georgist. Geonomics should be removed for now, but you should add geoism back, especially since it is unique and widely used by Georgists. Could it also break links like this? https://twitter.com/aaronsw/status/240587650988400641 Whomyl (talk)

I doubt "widely used" is apt -- it is absolutely not used in common economic texts or journals at all. Collect (talk) 18:10, 13 January 2014 (UTC)

It would be less confusing if the lead should no longer mentioned geoism/Geoism, as its meaning now isn't explained until later in the article. @Whomyl: Thanks for the additional information. The link to Geoism won't be broken just forward to Georgism. To help clarify the definition of Georgism. As well as the Land (Natural Resources) belonging to everyone, @Derek Ross: has suggested, 1. Free trade in a market economy, 2. Abolition of all taxes, subsidies and tariffs except the LVT and 3. Introduction of a Citizen's Dividend funded by the LVT are also essential parts of Georgism? Jonpatterns (talk) 12:50, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

@Collect:@Jonpatterns:Based on my personal experience interacting with Georgists, I believe you are making an error on "geoism", but I am fine with you leaving it. If it is as large an error as I suspect, then someone else will correct you quickly. Whomyl (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Those were suggestions though, made before the rules on OR and citation became so strict and they do need some citation in order to conform to current standards. I will still defend Free Trade and the Single Tax as being fundamentally Georgist. However I recognise that, although Henry George himself supported the idea, not all Georgists subscribe to the Citizens Dividend/Basic Income proposal. Some prefer the idea of a tax exemption on the first X dollars of Land Rent (a similar idea to the income tax personal allowance). -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:00, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

@Derek Ross:Those are common ideas among Georgists, but I know lifelong Georgists who would not agree. For example, I am not a believer in the idea of a "single tax", and neither are most Georgists, especially younger people. I simply believe it is the most important tax. Even with LVT, I would support inheritance taxation, at least for a while. Things like basic income are fine to mention in the article, but be careful about defining those issues as "Georgist".Whomyl (talk) 23:11, 14 January 2014 (UTC)

Fully understood, Whomyl. It's a very broad church. This is part of what makes it difficult to define, unfortunately. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:04, 15 January 2014 (UTC)

Category clean-up/ rename section

Why not just change the title of the sub-section?

How about something like "Notable people influenced by (or sympathetic to) Georgism"? EPM (talk) 13:24, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

That sounds reasonable, or Notable people with similar beliefs to GeorgistsJonpatterns (talk) 14:31, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

I agree. How about Notable Georgists and people with similar beliefs? The list could be trimmed to remove some obscure names also. Whomyl (talk) 05:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The new title is better, as only similar beliefs need proving.Jonpatterns (talk) 11:17, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Um -- can someone tell me which reliable sources specify what the "similar beliefs" are? If the term is amorphous, then it can not be used without arousing a broad smile. Collect (talk) 14:33, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

People whose biographies have no connection to Georgism ought not be considered "Georgists". Just did clean-up thereof. Collect (talk) 13:52, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Unfortunately you have removed some definite Georgists including people who belong to the International Georgist Union presumably on the basis that their Wikipedia biographies did not mention it. -- Derek Ross | Talk 03:55, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Presumably the sources where checked. Take Molly Scott Cato for example, I don't know if she is influenced by Georgism. But the reference only mentions Land Value Tax provided ref. People adding names to the list should provide valid references. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:06, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Just noticed the heading has been changed to Notable Georgists and people with similar beliefs. Now we no longer have to prove influence only similar beliefs, so the Molly Cato ref becomes okay. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

"Similar beliefs" is BS at its worst -- most US cities have "land taxes" do we could list every such tax as "Georgist" -- but that would be nonsense. Collect (talk) 16:36, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Land Value Tax seems to be the common thread, and possibly the only philosophy all Georgists share. So maybe the list could be Notable people that advocate Georgism or Land Value Tax. Admittedly it would be a large list. I guess the choice is a broad definition and a massive list or go back to Influenced by Georgism and trim the list to only those fitting that definition. Jonpatterns (talk) 17:20, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Should be 'Influenced' with reliable sources confimring that influence. Dougweller (talk) 18:01, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

The RfC above seems to be pretty conclusive at this pint (weighing single-edit editors as zero). Unless sources link the term "Georgism" with the person, they are not usable here. Cheers. Collect (talk) 18:12, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict)I agree with Dougweller that we should only include those explicitly influenced by Georgism. It seems that people with similar beliefs, such as supporting a land value tax, would be better treated in their respective articles, keeping this one on topic and avoiding possible OR. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 18:25, 24 January 2014 (UTC)

Milton Friedman and Youtube

Do not remove Milton from the list. He is most certainly "influenced" by Georgism. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yS7Jb58hcsc — Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.229.218.128 (talk) 21:33, 26 January 2014 (UTC)

Although Youtube can be cited it is preferable to find the original video where appropriate Wikipedia:Videos_as_references#YouTube_videos_as_references. I think a better source has already been found for the going back to Henry George . . . least bad quote. Jonpatterns (talk) 13:13, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

Giving the last word to Georgist apologetics

It's frustrating that this is repeatedly reinserted. This is meant to be a neutral description of Georgism, not an opportunity for Georgists to explain how it's awesome and have the last word on every criticism. It doesn't have to be difficult. bobrayner (talk) 23:06, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

George has also been accused of exaggerating the importance of his "all-devouring rent thesis" in claiming that it is the primary cause of poverty and injustice in society. More recent critics, such as Paul Krugman, agree that land value taxation is the best way to raise public revenue but assert that increasing government spending has rendered land rent insufficient to fund government. Georgists have responded by citing sources showing that land values of nations like the US, UK, and Australia are more than sufficient to fund government.

The bit that is inserted (non bold) doesn't seem to relevant to the first part of the paragraph (bold). The first part talks about 'the primary cause of poverty and injustice in society'. The inserted part talks about whether or not the Land Value Tax could cover the cost of government. It should have a separate paragraph for example:

(new paragraph)

Recent critics, such as Paul Krugman, agree that land value taxation is the best way to raise public revenue but assert that increasing government spending has rendered the tax insufficient to fund government. Georgists have responded by citing sources showing that land values of nations like the US, UK, and Australia are more than sufficient to fund government.

Finally the reference http://www.psmag.com/navigation/politics-and-law/this-land-is-your-land-3392/ only seems to give Paul Krugman as a recent critic. And he says LVT is the 'right approach at least to finance city growth' not the right approach to raise public revenue. Jonpatterns (talk) 15:10, 28 January 2014 (UTC)

Pigeon-holing George

There's more to Georgism than LVT. HG supported free-trade, was opposed to patents, supported copyright, supported Greenbacks, was opposed to gold-based money, had a particular theory of value, certain epistemological and ontological commitments, etc. We should discuss ways to go about expanding this article to the full range of Georgism. EPM (talk) 04:02, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

There was more to Henry George's economic writings than just the LVT. However, the unifying philosophy and political goal of the Georgist 'single-tax' movement was essentially the LVT, coupled with a citizen's dividend and/or elimination of other taxes. LK (talk) 09:59, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

References stating what Georgists believe as Georgists would be helpful. Commentators have said Georgists hold a wide range of beliefs, see Talk:Georgism#What constitutes Georgism Jonpatterns (talk) 10:40, 29 January 2014 (UTC)

This section was moved from above by User:MisterDub.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 23:13, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

An Introduction

The year 1879 produced a book, a handset authors edition in San Francisco, by Henry George. The book, Progress and Poverty, was to set a tide of reform not previously seen either in the U.S. or the rest of the world. The theme of the book was not new. It was the age old call for freedom and justice. But the call was different. Freedom the object, taxation the means. The sub head was “An inquiry into the cause of industrial depressions and of increase of want with increase of wealth… The Remedy.” The subject could have been yesterdays headline.

The principles behind the book are as old as mankind. George endorsed the name “The Single Tax” and it ha stuck through the 20th Century and into the 21st Century. Many advocacy groups which formed in the early 20th century described themselves as Single Taxers and many of the Foundations formed to promote the ideology called themselves “Single Taxers.”

“The elder Mirabeau, we are told, ranked the proposition of Quesnay, to substitute one single tax on rent [the impôt unique] for all other taxes, as a discovery equal in utility to the invention of writing or the substitution of the use of money for barter.”

The physical application of Georges advocacy is that: The value of land which is created by community activity, presence, infrastructure, services etc., is the natural income for the state; that all other taxes are violations of individual rights and have no place in society.

This policy has been extensively adopted across the world. However, privilege remains and wishes to extend itself. The Single Tax has never been fully adopted. Indeed, during the past 50 years it has been under continual attack and power play for its removal and replacement. This activity is covered by lobbying and pressure applied by large landowning companies and landlords.

This is only the beginning; the books George wrote detailed a philosophy of not only freedom but a oneness with nature. A point missed by many Georgists and abhorred by those socialists who understand it. Divadyendis (talk) 23:04, 3 February 2014 (UTC)

The works of Henry George

George, a journalist, seaman, compositor, editor, newspaper owner, labourer, political candidate,international advocate, wrote newspaper articles and several books regarding the production and distribution of wealth.

Progress and Poverty [1879] “An inquiry into the cause of industrial depressions and of increase of want with increase of wealth… The Remedy.”

The Irish Land Question [1881] “Th e land question is nowhere a local question; it is a universal question.”

Social Problems. [1883] “I ask no one who may read this book to accept my views. I ask him to think for himself.”

Protection or Free Trade [1886] “An examination of the Tariff question with especial regard to the interests of Labor.”

A Perplexed Philosopher [1892] “Being an examination of Mr. Herbert Spencer’s various utterances on the land question, with some incidental reference to his synthetic philosophy”

The Science of Political Economy [1897] “A reconstruction of its principles in clear and systematic form.”

Misconstrued Meanings.

The preliminary task George tackled in Progress & Poverty was the Malthusian theory. In short, the Malthusian theory (circa 1796) said that there was not enough room in the world for all the people. It was the ruling Politco - Economic muscle of the day. To do that there was a task that demanded acute attention. George did, in Progress & Poverty, what no other Economist had done to that time and none appear to have done it since George - he defined the terms used in economics. Yes! There had been some attempts at this,Smith, Ricardo etc., and George discusses these (P&P book1 ch2) but there appeared to be no consistent approach to the subject.

What is produced:

Wealth: “The common character of these things is that they consist of natural substances or products which have been adapted by human labor to human use or gratifcation,...” (P&P book1 ch 2 page 41) "Thus wealth, as alone can be used in political economy, consists of natural products that have been secured, moved, combined, separated, or in other ways modified by human exertion, so as to fit them for the gratifi cation of human desires.” (P&P book1 ch 2 pages 41-42)

The Meaning of the Terms: (P&P book1 ch2)

Land: (Rent) “The term land embraces, in short, all natural materials, forces and opportunities,and, therefore, nothing that is freely supplied by nature can be properly classed as capital.”

Labour: (Wages) “Human exertion in the production of wealth”

Capital: (Interest) “...wealth in the course of exchange...”

The Paths of Distribution:

Rent: David Ricardo. “The rent of land is determined by the excess of its produce over that which the same application can secure from the least productive land in use.”

Wages: “Wages depend upon the margin of production, or upon the produce which labor can obtain at the highest point of natural productiveness open to it without payment of rent.” (P&P book III ch6 page213)

Interest: “The relationship between wages and interest is determined by the average power of increase which attaches to capital from its use in reproductive modes. As rent arises, interest will fall as wages fall, or will be determined by the margin of cultivation.” (P&P book III ch4 page 203)Divadyendis (talk) 23:30, 20 February 2014 (UTC)

---

Divadyendis (talk) 12:15, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

This article is about Georgism, are you suggesting a rename? Or maybe a new article or sub section specificity about Henry George and the Single Tax Jonpatterns (talk) 10:54, 13 February 2014 (UTC)

Assessment comment

The comment(s) below were originally left at Talk:Georgism/Comments, and are posted here for posterity. Following several discussions in past years, these subpages are now deprecated. The comments may be irrelevant or outdated; if so, please feel free to remove this section.

==WP Tax Class== Start class because needs a section on impact. Famous adherents somewhat approaches this issue, but not quite.EECavazos 20:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC) ==WP Tax Priority== Mid priority because it is a theory that may be applied worldwide.EECavazos 20:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

Last edited at 20:06, 3 November 2007 (UTC). Substituted at 14:50, 1 May 2016 (UTC)