It didn’t take long before Henrich misinterprets Georgism and goes off on his own straman hunt.
"However, there is a counter-point to the challenge to Rothbard’s assumption. The socialists say that rent is unearned income, and thus theft, making no distinction between the value of land as is and the value added to it by man’s labor. The Georgists refine this socialist argument, saying that the portion of rent earned because of the inherent value of the land is unearned, while the portion earned because of the improvements the landlords have made on the land due to their labor (or those they acquired the land from) is earned. This Georgist assertion has both theoretical and practical problems*.
The theoretical problem is that, from a certain point of view, we receive many benefits due to things we did not earn, both good and bad. Does anyone deserve have the type of mentality that causes him to want to rape women? Did Ghandi earn his natural gift of being an extremely kind and wise man?
Where he flubbed is the word “inherant”. This is not correct. All value comes from exclusion. Exclusion from created form protects the practice of freedom. Exclusion from substence or natural form assaults freedom. Georgism specifically calls for the value from assault to be collected, while any value from creation remains to the creator.
The summary of georgism is “Keep all you make, pay for all you take”. If an interpretation runs counter to that, then its not Georgism.
So when David Henrich tries to compare the yield from talent and personal initiative with that gained from exclusion from the general store of freedom he conflates across the very distinction that defines Georgism. Guarenteeing a strawman.
But as I earlier posted. I think its a mistake to preach the simplicity of Georgism because people are always getting caught up in their own assumptions. (Just as David did.)
So here is a question. What constitutes freedom and property?
If land can be produced artificially, it follows that its supply isn’t fixed. There’s no need to distinguish naturally produced land from artificially produced land.
The supply of land can expand. It can also contract.
If there’s unowned land somewhere, does that mean all landowners together still have a monopoly?
Even if there isn’t, you seem to be using a very different definition of “monopoly” from that which Austrian-school economics uses. That’s fine, but you don’t explicitly point that out. By your definition of “monopoly”, all women together have a monopoly on the production of human beings, from the male point of view (and vice-versa, from the female point of view).
By that definition, one could say that each person holds a monopoly on his own body.
I personally don’t care whether economists of the classical school also used “monopoly” that way. Austrian-school economics doesn’t.
I will once again point out that the notion of “best use” is entirely subjective. Thus there’s no objective way to determine economic rent of land, or anything else for that matter.
Who do you think would claim that land? How would they back up their claim(s)?
Homesteading involves more than making a verbal declaration. If you think otherwise, then I hereby claim ownership of all planets in the Alpha Centauri triple-star system, and you’ll now be committing fraud (at best) if you make a claim that interferes with the claim I just made.
I find it interesting that Mr Foldvary uses a citation of Leland Yeager in favor of the similarities between his “geo-economics” and the Autrian school. Yeager, who does bear a profound influence from George, has made very clear on several occassions that he does not endorse the single tax. George’s intellectual endeavors crossed marginalism at certain points but he was never to be confused with the marginalist revolution. Yeager has shown that George’s economic thought and Austrian economic thought have strong parallels, but the single tax was one area where the two had little, if anything, in common.
For those here who haven’t read it, Yeager’s Is the Market a Test of Truth and Beauty? is a fantastic collection of Yeager’s writings which also includes his classic paper on this subject, “Henry George and Austrian Economics”.
Autolykos wrote that there can be artifically produced land. He is using a physics definition of land rather than that of economics. In economics, “land” means natural resources. “Natural” means apart from human action. Artificial production implies human action, or labor, and the product is a capital good, not land. The distinction matters morally because self-ownership implies the market ethic: “to the creator belongs the creation.” Capital goods properly belong to the producer. But land is not the product of human action. Economically, artificially produced solid surfaces have an opportunity cost, while the provision of land has no opportunity cost, since it is already there, and no more is being produced.
In a conversation with him, I got the impressin that Leland Yeager believed that land rent is an efficient and equitable source of public revenue. If however he does not believe so, what source of public revenue does Leland Yeager believe is optimal?
Autolykos, since you believe in homesteading, please tell me the required parameters, such as how much time is needed for the land occupation, what uses quality for occupation, and how intensely the occupation needs to be (e.g. can you just throw a few seeds on the soil and come back a few months later, or you do you need to toil daily, or what?). Please justify your answers.
Autolykos wrote that economics only cares about the meaning of supply as the quantities offered for sale. But he provides no logic for that. Economics involves both meanings of supply. For example, what determines the price of a share of corporate stock? The total number of shares available matters, and also in the short run, the number of shares offered for sale. If the company splits the stock two for one, usually the price per share gets cut in half. That shows that supply #1, the total shares in existence, does matter.
No, I’m simply using a different definition of “land” from yours (and presumably other Georgists’). To claim that your definition of “land” is that which is universally used by all economics is utterly inaccurate, to the point of being intellectually dishonest.
Why would the price of goods offered for sale be affected by goods not offered for sale? But even if I accept arguendo that the first meaning of “supply” does matter, it still results in supply being variable overall.
Share price adjustments after stock splits are done to maintain the same amount of market capitalization afterwards. But there’s no such thing as the “true value” or “true price” of a share of stock, just as there isn’t such a thing for a parcel of land.
This is no red herring. The very meaning of property is the fundemental question. Since Georgism is a very simple take on what property is: “That which is consistant with equal freedom”, its more useful to explode falacious thoughts on property, and reveal the truth remaining then to somehow deal with the thickened web of confusion that destroys comunication. The trouble is not with understanding Georgism, it is with jettisoning BS, So starting with fundementals is the logival way to proceed. That way words are defined and the concepts are built up instead of randomly and falsely assumed. Since homestead is absolutely critical to your concept of property is also critical that you riggidly and logically define it. Anyhing else and you will only be wollowing in a land of question begging.
The exercise of defending homestead will reveal either assumptions or truths. Truths will likely be the recognition of tautoloiges. Assumptions once laid bare can either be discarded as statist rubbish or accepted as neccesary for equal liberty; but exposing them is the first step.
At this point, I disagree. I asked him a couple questions, which he refused to answer. Rather, he proceeded to ask me some questions instead. I can only surmise that he did this intentionally in an effort to distract me. If so, I’d say he failed.
It sounds like you’ve already answered that fundamental question for yourself. So I can only surmise that your goal here is to convince the rest of us that the Georgist definition of “property” is the correct one.
Clearly, this was a pragmatic assertion and demands a pragmatic response. Presumably, therefore, you know of such a place that has zero taxes?
“Land” using the economic definition of the word refers to natural opportunities. By definition, economic land cannot be produced artificially.
There is a need to distinguish naturally produced land (in the physical sense) from human-produced land (in the physical sense), for the same reason that there is a need to distinguish between goods I have produced and goods you have produced. What you have produced is yours to keep and what I have produced is mine. Production determines original property, and in the case of naturally produced land there is no human producer, so determination of ownership is non-trivial.
No, because improvements to land are counted as capital and their return is a capital yield, not rent.
I don’t care what you call it. It does not follow logically.
As I mentioned before, that’s not the definition used by all branches of economics. I don’t believe the Austrian school of economics, for one, uses that definition. In any case, the supply of ground surface is not necessarily fixed. Surely you agree with that.
As a follower of the Austrian school of economics, I completely disagree that production determines original property. This is likely to be the crux of our dispute. Why do you think that production (and only production) determines original property?
Why can’t land itself be counted as capital? I suspect this has to do with your belief that production determines original property.
Regardless, value (including rental value) is still subjective.
You were comparing the costs of implementing the LVT to other forms of taxation, were you not? Any alleged economic destruction in the absence of any taxation is not a cost of implementing some form of taxation, so it simply doesn’t apply. In other words, you’re making a category error here.
Regardless, I eagerly await your proof that this alleged subsidy to land values 1) necessarily exists in the absence of the LVT, and 2) is necessarily more costly (substituted for your phrase “economically destructive”) than the costs of implementing the LVT.
How is that necessarily the best possible use? Who’s to say what objectively constitutes “best possible”?
Autolykos writes taht there is no objective way to determine the economic value of anything. Why then do households and enterprises hire professional appraisers to estimate the value of gems, stamps, coins, and real estate? Property insurers seek appraisers to be able to ensure the replacement value of property rather than an exagerated claim. Are all the books and courses on property appraisers worthless and nonsense? And if I want to estimate the value of gold I hold, why is the current market price of gold meaningless?
How you personally define land is irrelevant to the question of whether the Georgist land value tax is justified, because Georgists aren’t using your definition and they do not mean to tax land under your definition.
Because that is just common sense. Why do you think that I don’t own what I produce?
Under your definition of land, some land will be capital, but that is not the classical economic definition that Georgists are using when they say that they mean to tax land.
Individually it is subjective, but there still objectively exists a highest bid that someone will pay to rent land.
Only if you redefine the word “costs” in order to avoid facing the issue.
I thought it would be obvious from the way I phrased the above (alas, evidently not) that “best possible use” does not refer to a qualitative description. Instead you may literally substitute “allocated to the highest bidder” for “put to best possible use” in the sentence “LVT encourages land to be put to best possible use”.