Thank you for this helpful write-up of both the larger intellectual context of “georgism” & the larger politics of “georgism” beyond the Land Value Tax.
I wonder if the alternative name of “Geo-Economics” could serve both to expand the implied & perceived scope of georgism while giving a nod to Henry George.
The land value tax isn't a Pancea (nothing is), but it seems very likely to have massively beneficial affects. Even the cities and towns that have partially implemented the land value tax have seen measuable and substantial successes. I wrote more about this here: https://governology.substack.com/p/land-value-tax
Georgism is just physiocracy (classical economic theory, aka science) rediscovered and explained thoroughly in English. George, just like modern citizens, was unaware of basic economics because those who can afford to fund public education do not want it publicly understood.
But, he figured it out on his own and then, realized he was not the first to do so. But Adam Smith did not emphasize the land issue probably due to his benefactor, the Duke of Albemarle. So, George took it upon himself to carry out his clear mission, to write Progress and Poverty, essentially THE Economic Science 101 textbook.
But georgism (basic economics) is simple enough to teach elementary school children. There 2 factors of production, land and labor. And we should tax land exclusively so we can have equal access to it and government will never run out of money. Efficiency (and fairness) requires we tax for the use of the resource, location, not the amount of wealth produced with it.
Good to see this well expressed explanation which helps to counter knee jerk rejection of the basic principles. It contrasts well with the current 'neo-feudalism' state of econonics
Individual liberty, according to George, is the result of equal access to land, i.e., location (existence) that will allow society and civilization to evolve instead of declining like many previous ones.
The best way to treat various other natural resources will not be devised until AFTER we are allowed equal access to location (life on Earth). Release us first. THEN, we will decide how to treat oil, the oceans and the electromagnetic spectrum.
I enjoy your blog and linked to it in my latest post. I've been pushing a Corporate Asset Tax for awhile and think it is consistent with Georgist beliefs.
A very good and valuable article. The only small question I would raise is in using the word 'ideaology' to describe georgism. Really the writings of George present an analysis of how the economy works along with common misconceptions that result in injustices. George speaks of a 'remedy' rather than an ideology. 'Socialism' or 'anarchism' may be ideologies, but not the practical proposals of George.
Thank you for this helpful write-up of both the larger intellectual context of “georgism” & the larger politics of “georgism” beyond the Land Value Tax.
I wonder if the alternative name of “Geo-Economics” could serve both to expand the implied & perceived scope of georgism while giving a nod to Henry George.
Georgism surely is a panacea, it's just we don't permit ourselves to believe in panaceas.
The land value tax isn't a Pancea (nothing is), but it seems very likely to have massively beneficial affects. Even the cities and towns that have partially implemented the land value tax have seen measuable and substantial successes. I wrote more about this here: https://governology.substack.com/p/land-value-tax
Georgism is just physiocracy (classical economic theory, aka science) rediscovered and explained thoroughly in English. George, just like modern citizens, was unaware of basic economics because those who can afford to fund public education do not want it publicly understood.
But, he figured it out on his own and then, realized he was not the first to do so. But Adam Smith did not emphasize the land issue probably due to his benefactor, the Duke of Albemarle. So, George took it upon himself to carry out his clear mission, to write Progress and Poverty, essentially THE Economic Science 101 textbook.
But georgism (basic economics) is simple enough to teach elementary school children. There 2 factors of production, land and labor. And we should tax land exclusively so we can have equal access to it and government will never run out of money. Efficiency (and fairness) requires we tax for the use of the resource, location, not the amount of wealth produced with it.
Thank you for you work. It's really helpful for understanding georgism in a modern way.
As far as the name goes, @janning from "The Georgist Toolkit" has an excellent way to reconcile the name Georgism for those who don't like naming the whole thing after a dude. https://open.substack.com/pub/georgisttoolkit/p/georgism-whats-in-a-name?r=2vdgbs&utm_campaign=post&utm_medium=email
Good to see this well expressed explanation which helps to counter knee jerk rejection of the basic principles. It contrasts well with the current 'neo-feudalism' state of econonics
There is already - look up "geonomics" & the coiner of the term - Jeff Smith
Individual liberty, according to George, is the result of equal access to land, i.e., location (existence) that will allow society and civilization to evolve instead of declining like many previous ones.
The best way to treat various other natural resources will not be devised until AFTER we are allowed equal access to location (life on Earth). Release us first. THEN, we will decide how to treat oil, the oceans and the electromagnetic spectrum.
I enjoy your blog and linked to it in my latest post. I've been pushing a Corporate Asset Tax for awhile and think it is consistent with Georgist beliefs.
https://kinkyeconomics.substack.com/p/george-likes-the-cat
A very good and valuable article. The only small question I would raise is in using the word 'ideaology' to describe georgism. Really the writings of George present an analysis of how the economy works along with common misconceptions that result in injustices. George speaks of a 'remedy' rather than an ideology. 'Socialism' or 'anarchism' may be ideologies, but not the practical proposals of George.
"System of thought" might be a less loaded, which is really what was intended by the term. Georgism is, of course, not exhaustive.