Jump to content

Talk:Henry George/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

Untitled

I have trouble believeing that HG was the third most famous man in America. More famous than the President? More famous than the tycoons and industrialists? By what measure was he "the most famous"? I'll probably weaken that statement unless someone gives more details. adam

If the Presidents were Hayes, Garfield or Arthur, then maybe so. Tom Cod (talk) 05:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
It's a claim repeatedly found in Georgist literature, but I agree it's the least well supported assertion on the page. Maybe it started out as "popular" rather than "famous". Pm67nz

"Progress and Poverty and its successors made Henry George the third most famous man in the USA, behind only Mark Twain and Thomas Edison.". According to who ? Jay 05:48, 11 Mar 2004 (UTC)

A bit of googling suggests that the claim originated with Agnes de Mille. Pm67nz

This page also seems to have good info:

http://www.henrygeorge.org/

I will add it as a link, please tell me what you think of it.

As it happens that link was here before, but it got moved to Georgist. No harm in having it back.
The Milton Friedman quote should probably go to Land Value Tax though. On second thoughts I just followed the link and it's more than just the MF quote, it's an article written by someone who clearly hasn't read HG, and misrepresents his point of view, so that link is more misleading than helpful. Out it goes. Pm67nz

This is a minor issue, but the article states that George "predicted that if Marx's ideas were tried the likely result would be a dictatorship," but this really doesn't tell us anything because Marx explicitly advocated a "dictatorship of the proletariant." I think I understand the point of this sentence, but the wording is confusing in light of the terminology that Marx actually used. I have no idea of what George said about Marx, so I can't edit this. AdamRetchless 04:02, 12 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Don't quote me on this, but I've heard from some Marxists that Marx's use of the word "dictatorship" is a bit more ambiguous than that. He advocated a "dictatorship of the proletariat" in the same way that he saw capitalism as a "dictatorship of the bourgeoisei." In other words, the proletariat would become the new ruling(and only) class.--Paradigm 22:02, 5 Apr 2005 (UTC)

User:Poccil wondered at what time Henry George was the third most famous man in America. -- Derek Ross | Talk Late nineteenth century, wasn't it ?

One day I might get around to fixing this myself, but it won't be soon so for now a quick vent on the talk page will have to do: The "His Economic Theory" section may be literally true, but it mis-emphasises interest to a degree that makes it misleading. HG's fame is due to his ideas about land and free trade, not his ideas about the nature of interest. Some otherwise "Georgist" authors explicitly say that he got interest wrong. He is also remembered as a clear writer of books aimed at the general public, while the plane/carpenter story is rather hard for a non-economist to grasp - I imagine it comes from "The Science of Political Economy" rather than one of his earlier and more widely read books. If the goal is to sum up HG with just one or two of his own paragraphs then they have to be primarily and clearly about land and land tax, and should be probably be extracted from the abridged edition of "Progress and Poverty" Pm67nz 10:43, 25 Jan 2005 (UTC)

The section on "his economic theory" doesn't discuss his "claim to fame." Instead it discusses, as one might expect, his economic theory. And the point about the theory of interest, the borrowed plane, etc., is crucial to that theory. --Christofurio 14:30, Jan 25, 2005 (UTC)

Economics

I'm wondering what economic school of thought George would fall under. He seems like he leans towards the classical school, and not so much the neoclassical. In some ways, he seems like he'd fall under green economics or Natural Capitalism, since his writings seem to reflect ideas such as uneconomic growth and the idea of land as a public good. I've heard some Georgists use the term "Geonomics." Does it really warrant its own label like that, or does it fall reasonably within a particular economic theory? --Paradigm 07:33, 6 Apr 2005 (UTC)

Georgists use "Geonomics" as something of a pun. The "geo" can stand either for George or for "geology" -- resources, the earth, etc. I think the analogy to contemporary talk of Natural Capitalism is a good one. --Christofurio 13:22, Apr 6, 2005 (UTC)

land tax

"Modern day economists like Nobel Prize winner Milton Friedman admit that Henry George's Land tax is potentially beneficial because, unlike other taxes, land taxes tend not to affect the prices of consumer products." A curious statement! I am sure that this should be corrected to: land taxes tend not to affect the price of land (after tax). (I.e. no distortionary effects on supply and therefore demand). CSMR 02:38, 21 October 2005 (UTC)

Actually the imposition of Land tax in a region will lead to a drop in the price of land in that area but that's a good thing. Cheap land is one of the things required for new businesses and the resulting fast economic growth. The price drop happens because people who are holding land for speculative reasons or solely in order to rent it out will be discouraged from doing so and therefore the demand for land will drop.
One of the major benefits of Land tax is indeed that it does not affect the prices of consumer products (or the level of wages or employment) in the damaging way that other taxes such as income tax or sales tax do. This may well be "curious" but it's also demonstrable.
The reason is that the cost of taxes like sales tax or income tax are ultimately passed on to the consumer even when they are initially levied on the producer whereas the cost of Land tax cannot be passed on. This may seem hard to believe but the reason that it cannot be passed on, is that Land tax is basically a tax on rent. It is normally safe to assume that rent is already charged at the highest rate the rational landlord can manage to extract from the tenant (surprisingly this can even be said to be true when the landlord and tenant are the same person) so for that reason the landlord cannot increase the rent whatever the land tax rate may be. He can only choose between accepting a lower portion of the rent or selling the land. Thus the tenant pays the same rent whether Land tax is levied or not. Thus there is nothing for him to pass on. Hence the curious statement on our part. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:32, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
An increase in the cost of owning land from a land tax will likely have some effect on increasing rents. Although assuming the supply of land is not effected the increase should be less, likely much less, then the total cost of the tax. People often don't make every possible effort to extract every penny they can from an asset. When the profit is decreased (esp. if it turns in to a loss), there is more incentive to trade more time and effort to push the rent as higher. Twfowler 19:52, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
There is also more incentive to ensure that every rentable piece of land has a tenant. As a result the incentive that you mention is counterbalanced by a fear of having no tenant at all. Since the tax is paid whether or not land-for-rent has actually been rented, landowners will want to ensure that they don't set rents so high that tenants go elsewhere. Far better to charge just enough to cover the costs than to end up having to eat them all yourself. Look at it from this angle and you may suspect that a land tax will have some effect on decreasing rents. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:06, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
A land tax will tend to be imposed almost entirely on the current owners of land. A land owner might try to raise rents, but its unlikely he can recover his additional costs. If he keeps it, he pays the tax. If he sells it, he gets less because the expected future profit from the land is less. Future buyers make less profit from the land, but they pay less for that lower expected profit, in effect they are not hit by the tax, just the current owner. Twfowler 19:58, 13 December 2006 (UTC)
Who says that the expected future profit from the land is less? In the few cases where the single tax has been fully implemented (ie land tax implemented and sales/income/etc. taxes abolished), the effect on the local economy has been so good that demand for land has increased and, as a result, land values have more than risen to offset any reduction due to the effect you describe. Everybody has benefited including the current landowners. -- Derek Ross | Talk 00:28, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I'm not so sure that this has universally or even generally happened in the places where a Georgian land tax was implemented. If such economic growth did happen, you still have the post hoc/propter hoc issue. If economic growth is almost universally increased because this tax is less harmful then other forms of taxes, and that normally causes land prices to go up (more than they would have without such a tax) then the current owner obviously doesn't suffer a net loss, but in a sense the tax is still imposed on the current owner, even if the indirect benefits more than compensate for the tax. Also I don't think the idea that replacing other forms of taxation with this type of tax would increase economic growth, is solidly established, and if it does cause an increase that increase could easily still be less than the more direct negative effects on the property owner. Twfowler 21:50, 15 December 2006 (UTC)
Post hoc/propter hoc is what we base our daily decisions on. It's a useful rule when we are unsure of the underlying mechanism, even if it is sometimes wrong. It's easy to say "It wasn't the penicillin: he was going to recover from the blood poisoning anyway." and difficult to refute, because sometimes people do. But when people always recover from the blood poisoning after being given the penicillin we begin to think that there must be a connection even if we can't see what it is. Here are some historical examples (most of which are LVT-only implementations of the full Single Tax concept) which demonstrate just how effective land value taxation can be in causing economic growth. -- Derek Ross | Talk 20:19, 17 December 2006 (UTC)
What is "land tax", the property taxes on realty we are familiar with today? Tom Cod (talk) 05:35, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
No, modern property taxes are not land taxes, although they may include a land component. This is because realty is land plus the buildings and other improvements on it. Land Value Tax does not take the buildings and other improvements into account. It only covers the land, nothing else. Property taxes on realty discourage people from keeping their buildings in good order or investing in improvements, since doing so increases the amount of tax that will have to be paid. Land value taxes don't have this effect. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:04, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

Monopoly

"Monopoly" (the game) was invented in 1934 by Charles Darrow, not in 1904 as noted in the article. This should be changed, please. There were precursors to the game which influenced it. If so, state that as such. Magie's game was called "Landlord", not monopoly. This is an encyclopedia, and we should be exact. -- mwinog2777

Good point. I've edited that bit. -- Derek Ross | Talk 17:21, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Hi,

An encyclopedia is a work that contains information on all branches of knowledge or treats comprehensively a particular branch of knowledge usually in articles arranged alphabetically often by subject. Accurate and up to date is what you aim for. Exactitude is something for highly calibrated precision test equipment. I would like to help out but I don't want to get too deeply involved so I might just point one of you more experienced folks in the right direction. The Monopoly connection is true. See:http://www.pbs.org/opb/historydetectives/investigations/202_monopoly.html and download the transcript.

Mark Twain would agree that Henry George was as famous as he was at the time: http://www.henrygeorge.org/archimedes.htm

They had fifteen minutes a piece back then, too. It just seemed longer. Some people claim that Henry George was consigned to the late 19th and early 20th century equivalent of the memory hole, for reasons that should be obvious to anyone who is not blind. I'm inclined to agree with that assessment.

Jim Zwick is a Twain Scholar. A Connecticutt Yankee in King Arthur's Court was a Georgist tome: http://www.boondocksnet.com/twainwww/essays/twain_single_tax9706.html

William F. Buckley, Jr. is a Georgist. CSPAN call in show: http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/buckley_hgeorge.html

CALLER: "I've heard you describe yourself as a Georgist, a follower of Henry George, but I haven't heard much in having you promote land value taxation and his theories, and I'm wondering why that is the case."

W.F.B.: "It's mostly because I'm beaten down by my right-wing theorists and intellectual friends. They always find something wrong with the Single-Tax idea. What I'm talking about Mr. Lamb is Henry George who said there is infinite capacity to increase capital and to increase labor, but none to increase land, and since wealth is a function of how they play against each other, land should be thought of as common property. The effect of this would be that if you have a parking lot and the Empire State Building next to it, the tax on the parking lot should be the same as the tax on the Empire State Building, because you shouldn't encourage land speculation.

Anyway I've run into tons of situations were I think the Single-Tax theory would be applicable. We should remember also this about Henry George, he was sort of co-opted by the socialists in the 20s and the 30s, but he was not one at all. Alfred J. Nock's book on him makes that plain. Plus, also, he believes in only that tax. He believes in zero income tax." -- (added by 24.6.56.233)

Thanks for that, 24.6.56.233. Particularly since you've provided references. It's good stuff and I'll try to merge it into the article for you. As for the Monopoly link, I have spent some time over the years making the Georgist connection with Monopoly clear in the Monopoly article itself. However when one is being precise about the connection, one must make it clear that Monopoly evolved from the Landlord's Game over a period of twenty years, losing the Georgist phase along the way. -- the two games are not identical. But I completely agree that Charles Darrow was not the inventor. Please read our article History of the board game Monopoly for a detailed account of its development. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)

Reference by the infamous Senator Dawes

Over a hundred years ago the controllers of the USA plotted to breakup 'Indian Territory' so as to privatize it. Under the pretext of giving each person a fair share of land, an allotment, the real intent was to make the land more accessible to non-native landlords for adding to their estates. In 1883, Senator Dawes, of the infamous Dawes Act and the related Dawes Rolls, toured the lands and...

"After his visit to the 'Five Tribes', Dawes noted of the Cherokee "The head chief told us that there was not a family in that whole Nation that had not a home of its own. There is not a pauper in that Nation, and the Nation does not owe a dollar. It built its own capitol, in which we had this examination, and built its schools and hospitals. Yet the defect of the system was apparent. They have got as far as they can go, because they hold their land in common. It is Henry George's system, and under that there is no enterprise to make your home any better than that of your neighbors. There is no selfishness, which is at the bottom of civilization. Till these people will consent to give up their lands, and divide them among their citizens so that each can own the land he cultivates, they will not make much progress." - Redbird Smith and the Nighthawk Keetoowahs [1983 - p. 31] by Janey B. Hendrix

I wouldn't give Henry George credit for 'inventing' the communal culture of the Cherokee just because it was an acknowledged proof of concept for his theory. Qureus1 06:39, 13 January 2007 (UTC)

Problems

1. This article, as currently written, should include more sources that either analyze or summarize George's work (not just cite it to support their own ideas).

2. This statement-- "George was born in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania to a lower-middle class family"-- what the fuck does that mean? Was his family poor? What exactly did his parents do? Seeing as how "lower-middle class" is an American bourgoeois term that relates solely to one's income, not to their relationship with the political/economic superstructure, it seems clear to me that more information is needed so that people can themselves determine George's "class status", regardless of their definitions of what class is or is not. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.216.67.213 (talk) 00:57, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

1. Yes, it fucking should.
2. he was born in amiddle class familly. As you point out, since it doesn't have anything to do with his relationship to the political economic superstructure it simply means he was born to a low income family. Since it only means what it means, rather than what you additionally may think it means, that it somehow relates to the political/economic superstructure, there's no need to add any additional information to this sentence. However, if you feel his political/economic superstructure familial position should be addressed, feel free to reference and add this information. And, yes, just add the well-referenced facts, and people can determine the significance for themselves. KP Botany 01:09, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
Right, and it seems that the above critic also confuses class with caste as class is largely a vulgar term based on one's economic/financial position while caste refers to more subtle measures of "class". Thus a noveau riche illiterate redneck would have more basic class than a homeless Harvard grad, but not more "class" in some caste sense. Does that make sense?Tom Cod (talk) 05:41, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
The way that Adam Smith saw it, you were a member of the upper class if your income came mostly from rents, the middle class if it came mostly from profits, the lower class if it came mostly from wages. Caste had nothing to do with it. As it happens Henry George's father was a partner in a book publishing business, so the designation "middle class" is correct, according to Smith's classification scheme. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:12, 22 January 2009 (UTC)

"Not Verified" template

We need some discussion here about why that template was applied to this article. I am removing since the editor who added the template seems to have left no explanation. DickClarkMises 17:29, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Birthdate problem

I don't know how to fix this, but his birthdate is generally accepted as September 2, but under the picture it says september 21. So if you know how to fix this, be my guest :)

Jason —Preceding unsigned comment added by Decreebass (talk • contribs) 04:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

 Done--JayJasper (talk) 04:42, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Provide Sources

George's early emphasis on the "productive forces of nature" is now dismissed even by otherwise Georgist authors.

That may very well be, but if the article is going to say so, it should name at least one -- preferably two -- of those "otherwise georgist authors" IMHO. 

--Christofurio (talk) 01:18, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

"POV" template

We need some discussion here about why that template was applied to this article. I am removing since the editor who added the template seems to have left no explanation. -- Derek Ross | Talk 19:36, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Ethics and Henry George

The article has very little matter relating to George's ethical approach to economics and to the associated social relationships. However, behind much of George's writings there is a strong ethical theme which deserves to be given some greater emphasis and this is missing. Particularly in George's philosophy of supporting free-trade and also in the approach to sharing the opportunity for access to sites of land, do we see this attitude being implied if not more directly expressed.

It can be summed up by the claim by Hillel the Elder's (first century, current era) modification of the "Golden Rule" in the form: "do not do to your neighbour the things that you would not want him/her to do to you". When for example valuable and useful land is held unused, the opportunity to work it for productive purposes is lost, with the result that the macroeconomy becomes distorted and the situation of those who are working elsewhwhere and those unemployed who seek jobs is changed for the worse. Similarly when trade is constrained by the use of customs duty on imported items of goods or alternatively by the "dumping" of cheap exports, the relationships between neighbouring countries becomes strained. In this case it may even happen that war between them occurs. Thus George went further in his philosophy than in the idea of social justice by placing the responsibility for government income onto the land owners.

This subject was better explained in the article "Macrocompassion" (from which the present writer takes his nom-de-plume) which is included in the archives of the Georgist website http://www.progress.org Macrocompassion (talk) 13:54, 27 April 2012 (UTC)

Party affiliation in 1897

It is stated that Henry George ran as an Independent Democrat for the New York City mayoral elections in 1897, but in the later article it says he run for "The Democracy of Thomas Jefferson". Was he a proponent of Jeffersonian democracy and if that is so, why isn't this said in this biographical article? The Horn Blower (talk) 12:02, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

According to this source, it was simply called the "Jefferson Party". [1] EPM (talk) 15:18, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
I wrote that entry in the NY mayoral elections article. The Biographical Directory of the United States Congress is good for some things like dates but not always authoritative for others (often relying on the subject's own contribution to the biennial Congressional Directory). For some details of the anti-boss, pro-Bryan forces that formed "The Democracy of Thomas Jefferson", see the reference I gave in the mayoral elections article to Young's Single Tax Movement in the United States (pages 153-4). The 1929 World Almanac & Book of Facts (p. 893) lists George's 1897 candidacy under "Jeff. Dem." The New-York Times election report on Nov. 4, 1897 lists George under "Jeff. D." On the other hand, "independent Democrat" is not an inherently inaccurate title, either.
To answer your more general question, my guess is that the insurgent Democrats used "Democracy of Thomas Jefferson" to distinguish themselves as purer Democrats (closer to the Party's founder) than Tammany Hall and its successful candidate Robert A. Van Wyck, first mayor of the consolidated five-borough City. But it may be worth some casual investigation into election reports, George's (tragically-fatal) campaign speeches and his writings to see if he saw some closer connection to Jeffersonian democracy. —— Shakescene (talk) 21:41, 2 March 2013 (UTC)
On checking Arthur Young's account I ran across this reference, referring to the other reform candidate (who won in 1901), Seth Low of the fusionist Citizens Union, a former mayor of Brooklyn and a reform Republican, ‘ He [George] justified his presence in the campaign as a reformer in addition to Low, who was so well qualified for executive work, by his Jeffersonian political theories. “He is a Republican and is fighting the machine, which is all very good as far as it goes. But he is an aristocratic reformer; I am a democratic reformer. He would help the people; I would help the people to help themselves.” ’ —— Shakescene (talk) 22:07, 2 March 2013 (UTC)

Leo Tolstoy on H. George

I do have first to beg your pardon for English is not my mother tongue. As for the legacy as well as the support that George's ideas have received from famous thinkers, I feel important to mention the opinion of the man who has been said to be the "truest man of his time" by Gandhi. Moreover, if it is true that George coined the term "wage slavery", it is most likely to be the source of Tolstoy's title, The slavery of our time. Unfortunately I can not find the original work of Tolstoy in English, even on Wikisource; so I will translate you what I have before my eyes from "Où est l'issu?", - something like "What is the way out.." dated "October 1900", - the work immediately preceding The Salvery... (Léon Tolstoï. Les Rayons de l’aube. Dernières études philosophiques. (Translator J.-Wladimir Bienstock), Paris; P.-V. Stock Editor, 1901, pages 393-to the end); this book is also listed in the bibliography established by his biographer Romain Rolland.). You may particularly consider to change the following sentence: "Henry George's idea... had enormous influence in his time but slowly waned throughout the 1900s," and mention the account of Tolstoy at that place. So Tolstoy wrote, chapter III; quote: "It is already thirty years ago that Henry George proposed a project which is not only reasonable, but quite realistic, to suppress the private landed property. But even in America and England (In France it was not even a question or a topic), not only his project was not accepted, but every attempt or effort was made to criticize it, and since it could not be done, then silence fell around him." So consider to say that "Leo Tolstoy consider reasonable and realistic the idea to suppress landed property"; "Despite his success as a writer in his time, George's idea rapidly vanished. As early as 1900 Leo Tolstoy stated that silence fell around him." By the way, "In 1871 he published Our Land Policy, which, as further developed in 1879 under the title Progress and Poverty..." (The Britannica Encyplopaedia, New York, 11th Ed, vol. xi, page 747), - so I add this book in his bibliography. I thank you for your attention. Good luck in your own research. AB, Qc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.50.79.184 (talk) 20:50, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

I would accurately summarize Tolstoy's judgment in the essay I have quoted above, with a specific view to what may be said about the real meaning of the legacy of George's work in an encyclopedia, as following : "As early as 1900 Tolstoy regretted that a silence fell around Henry George in the Western world, while viewing the idea of the abolition of landed property as a reasonable and realistic way out of poverty for Russia in contrast to revolution, socialism and trades unions. How could any opinion about the work of an author be of more import or accuracy than the judgment of History ? I have thus very briefly said it all: Tolstoy's view in the work quoted, the place of Henry George's ideas in the history of Russia, and above all the import of his works as exemplified by the neglect of them in a whole empire. I did my best; it is yours to decide. AB, Qc. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.50.79.184 (talk) 23:27, 26 January 2015 (UTC)

Tolstoy talked about Henry George in his article The Slavery of our Time, chapter IX, What is slavery ? And he also wrote two "Letters on Henry George." http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Letter_on_Henry_George_(I) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.50.79.184 (talk) 05:06, 28 January 2015 (UTC)

Why is there in Critical Section in the article?

There is no Critical Section in the article. Not only are Mr George's absurd predictions (for example that allowing the building of private railroads in California would throw the population into poverty) allowed to stand without challenge, his Ricardian (David Ricardo) land economics is just presented as fact. Even though it was refuted, by Frank Fetter and others, more than a century ago.176.249.235.31 (talk) 15:17, 19 May 2015 (UTC)

George's philosophy was entirely anticipated by Locke

In his 2nd Treatise of Government, Locke argued after Hooker that the earth was given to man in common and value created by the mixture of labor with it, and being stored in specie, then pointed out: "But, since gold and silver, being little useful to the life of man, in proportion to food, raiment, and carriage has its value only from consent - whereof labour yet makes in great part the measure it is plain that the consent of men have agreed to a disproportionate and unequal possession of the earth - I mean out of the bounds of society and compact;...." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.241.26.8 (talk) 04:29, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Land Nationalization

The section on Tax on the value of land and natural resource titles is probably insufficiently titled, or it needs to be somehow divided into two separate segments. George was known at the time(and quite popular for this position, among his union supporters) for his agitation in favor of land nationalization. To simply call this a "tax proposal" or "tax policy" is insufficient, especially when this section already directly quotes George from his own book calling for all land to be held in common. That's land nationalization. Progressingamerica (talk) 00:21, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Well, if the land doesn't belong to the nation then what does? If Canada were to send in its military to take over Microsoft's Redmond campus, it wouldn't be resolved by Microsoft's legal team. Or even their security team. The US military would step in. And fast. The US government may have granted land title to Microsoft but the land remains US territory subject to US law. In a very real sense all US territory ultimately belongs to the US government even when it has delegated control of land parcels to its citizens. So all land is nationalised whether it is held in common, held by a private citizen, or held directly by the government. -- Derek Ross | Talk 05:09, 29 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Henry George. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 09:11, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Henry George. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:56, 2 November 2017 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Henry George. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 17:06, 6 December 2017 (UTC)

Lack of any Critical Section

The entire article is pro Henry George and assumes his economics to be correct. A reader not familiar with these matters would not know, from reading this article, that Henry George's view of the economics of land, and the David Ricardo view of the economics of land upon which the Henry George view is based, was refuted by the American economist Frank Fetter at the end of the 19th century.2A02:C7D:B417:4800:6DE6:1013:DF82:AE06 (talk) 17:09, 25 February 2018 (UTC)

Missing George's pretty racist anti-immigration views with respect to Chinese.

Missing George's pretty racist anti-immigration views with respect to Chinese. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 73.213.130.217 (talk) 16:03, 3 July 2018 (UTC)

Economic contributions

There appears to be a minor NPOV problem with the subsection Economic contributions in the form of some fanboy/fangirl rebuttal of criticisms of George. Even if a statement is reliably sourced, it should not read as if the editor is providing the rebuttal. I have not dug into the source to see that it is reliable, and I do not care to invest enough in the article to resolve the issue. --Born2flie (talk) 03:42, 20 December 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for deletion:

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 05:07, 2 March 2019 (UTC)

The details about the "Landlords Game" are a part of the history of the Georgist Movement and should not be deleted. Without the reason for this bad proposal being provi9ded there is no justification possible for such a change. Macrocompassion (talk) 08:40, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

Replace with Color Portrait?

He was so great, why not use the following image/portrait of him?:

https://www.famouseconomists.net/images/henry-george.jpg — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.167.126.25 (talk) 15:50, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Henry_George/Archive_1&oldid=1183393905"