5 Comments

At a Georgist Conference in Melbourne in 1986, I presented a paper showing how our favourate subject of macroeconomics should be thought of in terms of being a engineered system. (In those days many of us could not even tell the difference between micro- and macro- economics!) In 2015 my book "Consequential Macroeconomics" was published, (and I will gladly send you a free e-copy when asked through chesterdh@hotmail.com), which explored this claim and extended it to the degree of showing numerically how LVT is 3 times better in the short-term than taxing other production outputs. (Georgists have wrongly thought that these other kinds of taxation are harmful, but they are simply less bebeficial o the system at large than is LVT). So I rejoyce to see how above a bit more of our Georgist world is recognizing that it is by systems thinking that we shall better understand of what our society comprises and how it REALLY works. My old Cranfield college motto "Post Nubes Lux", after the clouds--light, is beginning to shine through.

Expand full comment

Why can't you write "equality of opportunity" instead of "equality"? This was George's basic message.I am aware that for all our good intentions all we are doing is adding paving-stones to the road to hell. Georgist claims for a Single Tax are bound to be opposed by the lobby of landlords and there is no way of opposing them directly because they already have too much ower and control. Even if and when the middle-class has disintegrated into what is almost abject slavery, will these unscrupulous monopolists and speculators in our rights to natural resources, still seek to gain from something that will slowly cease to be worth much because of the little real benefit our working masses will be allowed to continue to provide. What we really need is a way to make them accept a better method of governmental control of useful sites of land, and since you can own a site for only your own life-time, the ending of site ownership when a site is either sold or inherited should become a matter for government purchase and not be included in the price of whatever buildings complete its value as an item of real-estate. By the gradual purchase of these sites as they are inevitably are presented for sale, we can eventually create a kind of nationalized supply of sites for leasing to whoever owns the buildings or wants to work the urban or rural spaces so provided. The law should provide for this changed development with lease fees being used for added land purcahses until it becomes possible to begin to reduce all the other taxes. This kind of nationalization is not the type that George rightly was opposed to. The leasee must have the right to do what he/she choses to do on the site in question.

Expand full comment

I find much wisdom in your words. The key that seems to be missing from the blueprint however, is the step by step pathway from one paradigm to another. That needs work. Then, all you need is an enlightened Government to start taking those steps, which is where I may be able to help.

Expand full comment

whose substack is this? name please. alannahartzok at gmail.com

Expand full comment