Posted on 04/12/2014 12:47:45 PM PDT by ProgressingAmerica
Hobson would know - he himself was a member of the Fabian Society.
First published in 1897, this writing is in the public domain.
blf
I’ve always found Henry George interesting. I believe his ideas have been used by bad people to promote bad things. But I’m not entirely sure that George’s ideas themselves are completely wrong.
Private ownership of land and natural resources is an aspect of the institution of private property and private ownership of the means of production that has been condemned by economists who in other respects were supporters of capitalism, most notably Henry George.
Their case against private ownership of land and natural resources rests on the theory of land "rent" developed by David Ricardo. Ricardo concluded both that the natural or equilibrium level of wages is subsistence, and that rent tends to constitute a larger and larger proportion of the total income of a country, as the country grows in wealth and population.
But, actually, private ownership of land is an essential foundation of economic progress, and the more it is respected, the more rapid is economic progress. Thus, it is precisely private ownership of land that prevents land rent from constituting an ever growing share of income. For private ownership of land operates to increase the productivity of land and thus reduce its scarcity value and rent.
Private ownership of land provides the means and motive for making each piece of land more productive and for bringing into production every piece that is better than what is presently in use. It is thus the most powerful force operating in favor of abundance and against any growing scarcity of the better grades of land. Thus, it works to reduce land rent and its economic significance.
Look around any large city. You will see privately owned land sitting idle, or significantly under developed. Why hasn’t private ownership provided the “means and motive for making each piece of land more productive”?
Where have his ideas “been used by bad people to promote bad things”? I find his ideas mostly unused. Where they have been applied even feebly, they have produced good results.
While I am by no means a progressive, I am a confirmed Georgist. His concepts should be the basis of a just society.
Most of us agree that we need government, and that someone has to pay for it. We debate about how large that government should be and how it should be funded. George’s concept of a land use tax provide solutions to both these problems.
What gives land its value? Why is an acre of land on Manhattan Island worth thousands of time that of land in the Nevada desert? The difference in value is due solely to social institutions. Since society creates this value, society is entitled to the rent on this land, which in normal circumstances is adequate to pay for the necessary institutions of government. An individual is free to use as much land as he wants for his purposes, as long as he will pay the land’s rent. What could be fairer?
Then, we can eliminate income tax. A tax on income makes free men into slaves. We can also eliminate tax on capital, because this is an indirect tax on income.
Why has such a beneficial system not been universally adopted? The wealthy spend a great deal of money buying political parties, so that they do not have to pay rent on the land they control.
“Keenly intelligent, genial and sympathetic, his nature contained that flavor of obstinacy which borders on fascination, and which is rightly recognised as essential to the missionary.”
Hmmm, “missionary.” In a political sense, better (and more appropriately) known as an “agitator” (as in “Community Agitator” – once known as “rabble rousing”). Lately adopted and honed to a fine modern edge by American Democrats, commonly called “Liberals,” but who could be more accurately described as National Socialist Democrats.
“The popularizer of a new idea requires for his task a certain capacity of dramatic exaggeration.”
“Spin.” It’s called “spin,” but, if we were to be brutally honest, we would acknowledge it to be nothing more than a rather desolate and miserable form of the common lie.
“A certain dramatic opportuneness . . . gave to Henry George the public ear.”
Yup . . . dramatic opportuneness . . . that’s how it’s most commonly done. And, if the “dramatic opportuneness” does not happen of its own accord, National Socialists manufacture it . . . just as they did in the Twenties . . . and the Thirties . . . and the Teens . . . and before . . . and later.
Another “Fascist warning” BEEP!
Well said, dear YHAOS!
Local zoning, land regulation and permitting laws create the problem. Toss in urban taxation and spending priorities and voila you have a massive misallocation of capital which prefers fallow to productive property.
Where you find persistent poverty you find socialism.
Scarcity is the steady and natural state of this world. Shortages are caused by government action. Fundamental to the idea of private property is true ownership which includes self-determined use. That is becoming a rare bird even in the countryside far away from urban socialists.
Your comments and pseudonym are in conflict.
Bump.
Nonsense. My central tenet is liberty. It is only through Georgism that liberty can be fully attained.
The evils of which you speak (and we agree, they are evils) were brought in to being by a land holding cartel in order to create scarcity and increase its wealth. Socialism was a failed attempt to deal with this scarcity by controlling labor, capital, and land. Georgism , OTH, frees labor and capital, and allocates to society the wealth that it created, the value of its land.
Yup. See #8, this thread.
Interesting, but I cannot find a single historical success story for Georgism in practice.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism#Criticisms
You are largely correct. However, this article lists some small victories.
http://www.progress.org/tpr/property-tax-shift-successes/
A little etymological referesher: Fabius was the general who eventually ended the Carthaginian threat to Rome by shilly-shallying, dilly-dallying, and staying away from large battles with the invader, nibbling away at his forces in many small 'hit and run' engagements. His tactics of evasion and escape forever after took his name. In fact the Senate made it his last name Fabius "Cunctator", Fabius the Delayer. The Socialists in England borrowed his name when they realized that they could never overcome tradition in a pitched battle or a straight-up vote, so they decided on a small win here and there until, they reasoned, the whole structure would tumble berfore them. It worked. And it's working here.
His ideas? Like the idea that land must be made common property?
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/bloggers/2919746/posts
Page 295 of Progress and Poverty. I don’t see where any good can come of this, or how it can be misunderstood.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.