Re: 1911 Reference Book Cites The Single Tax

Henceforth, this will be the automated reply to this
inveterate Georgist's spams, which are unworthy of
discussion in this or any forum:-
----------------------------------------------------

I copied this anti-Georgist commentary from some
recent postings to USENET. My thanks to the
author.
-------------------------------

1) The community says: "We need more land, but
beyond the ridge is the unknown, filled with risk
and danger. Here's the deal -- we want adventurous
people to go out and look for usable fertile land, so
the community can grow. Yes this will be costly
and risky, you must leave your jobs and families,
lose income, take risks in the unknown and likely
fail. So we must provide way to pay you fairly.
"Thus: If you succeed in finding usable land of
value to the community, and showing us the way to
it, you may *keep* its value and *trade the same*
to others in the community for *exactly its own
value* in free exchange -- for goods, services,
dowries, whatever. "In this way if you succeed in
finding land for our community, you will receive a
reward of *exactly the value* that you produced for
us. "What could be fairer?"

2) The community convenes and says: "This
commons business where we all use all the land and
all the waterholes together for our cattle herds as
much as we want just isn't working -- the land is
stripped bare and the water is all contaminated with
cattle crap and people throwing their garbage in it.
It's getting on being a tragedy. "How about if we
introduce a little specialization to increase our
group welfare? Here's an idea... "What if some
people trade their cattle to the rest of us for the
waterholes in return? Then they can maintain the
waterholes and fence 'em off to keep the cattle from
crapping in them and everybody else from messing
them. And they can charge the cattle owners for this
service -- not too little or the holes will still get
spoiled, and not too much or they'll lose income.
Competition between them will get them to the right
amount. "And we can do the same thing with the
land, people can trade their cattle for plots of it, then
specialize in maintaining it for a voluntarily
negotiated fee. "In the end the waterholes and the
land will all be in much better shape, so they will be
able to support *more* cattle than today, so WE'LL
ALL BE RICHER! The whole community will be
much better off. "Who's up for doing this, lets see
the vote..."

Bah, that's *two* ways land could originally have
been obtained with no "appropriation" at all.

The Georgist is refuted! And refuted again! ;-)

As if how land was distributed 1,000 years ago has
any effect at all on the economically optimum way
to allocate land today.

This whole argument about "original -- way, way,
back first ownership" is another example of how
Georgism is a *moral* creed, a subjective *belief
system* of shoulds and should-nots, not any kind of
economic analysis. That's why Georgists get so self-
righteously inflamed about these things -- those
who disagree with them aren't arguing economics ...
they are *immoral*!

And also why Georgists are compelled to make
things up out of whole cloth -- as this thread will
continue to demonstrate! -- to cover the difference
when reality conflicts with their moral creed, which
of course must come first!

Hey, nobody "appropriates" land today except
politicians using the government's power.

Land investors are compelled to buy it for market
value.
-------------------------------

What the people there would be saying is: "In

return for you doing some

exploration, we're giving up our right to use the

land beyond the ridge. But

not only that, we're also giving up the rights of our
children,
grandchildren and all our descendents forever."
That would be an absurdly stupid and unfair

agreement, and the grandchildren

are fully entitled to reject it.

No, it would be an entirely intelligent agreement
that enriches everybody and their grandchildren and
all future generations -- and it would be entirely
stupid to reject it.

Let's consider Economic analysis versus Georgist
analysis of same:

[] Economic analysis:

It takes work, cost, and risk to bring needed new
land to the community that needs it. Thus, the land
*won't* be brought into the community if people
aren't paid to explore, discover and bring it in.
Therefore it is in the community's benefit to pay
risk-taking explorers to bring in such land.

The proper amount to pay anyone for work -- both
morally and as a matter of economic efficiency -- is
the value that the work produces. Here the value of
the explorers' work and risk-taking is the value of
the land that they bring and add to the community
by it. Precisely.

The simplest way for the community to pay the
explorers an amount precisely equal to the value of
said land is, very obviously, just to give them
property rights in the land -- so they may own it
*and trade it* for items of equal market value.

~~ economics alert! economics alert! ~~~

We can then expect the explorer-owners of the new
land *to trade it* to other members of the
community for other items of equal market value
(money, goods, retirement condos, whatever). For
there is no reason at all to believe the explorers will
be the best users of the land, of all the people in the
community -- that is entirely unlikely.

**TRADE IS MUTUALLY BENEFICIAL**
Voluntary trade is mutually beneficial -- and will
increase the wealth and welfare of the community in
at least three ways.

First, although the traded items have equal market
prices, each party profits from the trade by
receiving something more valuable *to him* than
the thing he gives up, thus increasing the welfare of
each party. This gain from trade is called "consumer
surplus", and accumulated consumer surplus is what
makes consumers -- i.e. "the community" -- rich.

After the first round of trade, between the explorer-
owners and their initial trading partners, secondary
rounds of trade will follow as the initial trading
partners now, on the basis of their changed
positions, trade with everyone else. Etc. More gains
for everyone with every trade! More consumer
surplus! More gains in welfare for the community!

Second, the trade will distributes the *increased
average wealth* of the community (more assets /
same # of people -- even Georgists can do that
math!) equitably among the community on
voluntary-exchange basis. Third, the increased
assets of the community leads to further
specialization of production, as people have more
opportunity to focus on what they do best, which
permanently increases the community's income.

People who value the land more than the explorers,
because they can make better use of it, will obtain it
right away. As all land is unique, it will have new
uses and provide new benefits that the community
never saw before. Then the explorers will buy
yachts as toys and pay medical bills to cover their
injuries -- so incomes will rise in the boat building
and medical professions, leading to innovations
there, etc. And the secondary rounds of trade will
further these benefits.

OK That's *three* different ways the community
becomes richer... unto the grandchildren!

Summary:

* More real assets are brought into the community.
* This creates more real wealth per person (more
real assets in the community divided by same
number of people.) So the community becomes
RICHER right there.
* This creates new trade within the community.
More trade means more consumer surplus, which
makes people STILL RICHER, and also more
specialization of production, increasing real
productivity and income and making the community
EVEN RICHER YET.
* The providers of the new assets brought into the
community that made all this possible were paid
*exactly* the value of the assets that their labor,
risk-taking and expense produced for the
community -- precisely the fair and moral, as well
as economically efficient amount.
* The community's newly created wealth will be
passed to its grandchildren, so they are already
guaranteed to be richer.
* The entire process can be continued indefinitely,
as long as there is new land to be discovered
economically at the price of exploration, making the
entire community RICHER and RICHER and
RICHER through continued gains in per capita asset
wealth, consumer surplus, and productivity/income
down through the generations to grandchildren,
great-grandchildren, great-great... EVERYBODY
RICHER.

[] Georgist analysis:

The above process is unfair to the community's
grandchildren because it won't give them "free"
access to land that somebody has to pay for to bring
into the community.

Of course, they won't ever get access to the land at
all, because nobody is being paid to cover the
expense, risk, and effort of bringing the land to the
community, so it will never happen.

Thus there will be *no* wealth gains from increased
assets/per capita, or increased trade & consumer
surplus, or increased productivity & income.

Thus the community and its children and
grandchildren will be POOR.

But this POVERTY will be smart, fair, and morally
superior because it will preserve for future
generations the "free" use (in some theoretic
Georgist sense) of land that they will never use.

Although why Georgists think it is morally superior
to claim "free" use of land that someone has to pay
dearly for to provide them ... nobody's ever
explained to me what's moral *at all* about that.

And a qualification on the "morally superior" part
of killing incentives for economic growth to help
the grandchildren is that poor children are much,
much more likely to DIE YOUNG, and rich ones to
live. If you could ask the grandchildren about that,
I'm not sure they'd endorse your view of the moral
superiority of their poverty.

So maybe *you* are lucky, from a purely selfish
and pragmatic point of view, that your ancestors in
fact embraced "the absurdly stupid and unfair"
economic point of view, and rejected the more
moral Georgist one.

Now that that decision of theirs has made you rich
and healthy, you can actually afford to embrace the
keenly intelligent and moral Georgist viewpoint.
-



On Feb 26, 6:35 pm, r...@xxxxxxxxx wrote:


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: automated reply to Georgist spams
    ... people to go out and look for usable fertile land, ... the community can grow. ... land, people can trade their cattle for plots of it, then ... who disagree with them aren't arguing economics ... ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: reasoned argument v. georgist fanaticism
    ... people to go out and look for usable fertile land, ... the community can grow. ... land, people can trade their cattle for plots of it, then ... who disagree with them aren't arguing economics ... ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: automated reply to Georgist spams
    ... Explorers do not create land. ... The benefits of trade are not dependent on ... the community can grow. ... who disagree with them aren't arguing economics ... ...
    (sci.econ)
  • Re: in reply to the Georgist spammer
    ... people to go out and look for usable fertile land, ... the community can grow. ... land, people can trade their cattle for plots of it, then ... who disagree with them aren't arguing economics ... ...
    (sci.econ)
  • automated reply to Georgist spams
    ... people to go out and look for usable fertile land, ... the community can grow. ... land, people can trade their cattle for plots of it, then ... who disagree with them aren't arguing economics ... ...
    (sci.econ)