tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post5509999426378272183..comments2023-10-25T08:46:20.242-05:00Comments on The Distributist Review: Chapter XV: Taxes, Economic Rent, and ExternalitiesJohn Médaillehttp://www.blogger.com/profile/16463267750952578888noreply@blogger.comBlogger20125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-4041752405029603212009-01-19T22:17:00.000-06:002009-01-19T22:17:00.000-06:00I think a distributist rap group would be super-co...I think a distributist rap group would be super-cool, except that I don't look good in baggy pants.<BR/><BR/>I completely agree that education is a common good to be funded from the public purse. Indeed, one of the reasons that night is coming is that the education system is completely dysfunctional, and that applies to Harvard as much as to the inner-city schools. <BR/><BR/>But I don't understand why you think that people controlling the schools would lead to bad choices.John Médaillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16463267750952578888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-3566089777126090402009-01-19T14:25:00.000-06:002009-01-19T14:25:00.000-06:00Master Medaille sounds like you should be cutting ...Master Medaille sounds like you should be cutting your next rap album. ;-)<BR/><BR/>The examples I would give would be American education before public bussing, Canada, and much of Europe. These systems pay/paid for their schools through property taxes, including the parochial ones in many cases. Even in the case of parish and other church schools, they were predominantly paid for out of a quasi-income tax, the tithe. IIRC, prior to the modern era education in Asia was considered primarily a private good. Yes, some Europeans have moved to a per student subsidy (tuition by any other name, just a matter of who pays.) <BR/><BR/>Perhaps an analogy would help. Many people argue that the EITC is good for the same reason that you believe a tuition voucher would be good: it allows people to afford what they otherwise couldn't. In the long run, the EITC and other public aid is no longer helpful because costs have risen. Perhaps it is people living in places they should have left long ago. Whatever the reason, a market distortion is created that eventually consumes the subsidy. I would expect the same thing to happen with tuition vouchers. This has happened with higher education and its grant and loan programs. I don't know why we wouldn't expect it to happen to elementary or secondary education.<BR/><BR/>Fundamentally though, I believe it confuses a public good with a private good. Education certainly provides personal enrichment, but its value is in its improvement to society. A low cost education available to the masses is a great benefit to society, allowing the poor to rise to their proletarian peer's level.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-81756113770497955032009-01-19T13:56:00.000-06:002009-01-19T13:56:00.000-06:00Mr. Forrest. It is "Mr." Médaille, not "Dr.," or m...Mr. Forrest. It is "Mr." Médaille, not "Dr.," or maybe "Master Médaille," since that is what my degree is. I like the latter, since it has a vaguely kinky and threatening air about it, although I doubt I could get my wife to use that title towards me.<BR/><BR/>I confess I am not at all clear how tuition misdirects education, or even that the student (which often means his parents) is unaware of where the real opportunities are. Of course, this is more about training then education. Maybe you could give me some example of an alternative system?John Médaillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16463267750952578888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-84600298505065439732009-01-19T13:49:00.000-06:002009-01-19T13:49:00.000-06:00Lord Marchmaine (I assume you are of a noble famil...Lord Marchmaine (I assume you are of a noble family, like Waugh's Marchmaines), I am somewhat perplexed that you ascribe to me two things I did not say, both of which I have explicitly denied.<BR/><BR/>1. I have never said the state owns all of the land, although I have pointed to instances where this was the case: the Feudal system and several georgist states. What I have said is that <I>ground rent is due to the community and is the community's natural income.</I> But in these cases, the state does not "own" the land as a freeholder does; it is only the ground rents that socialized, not the actual produce of the land. <BR/><BR/>2. I cannot see how you got, from a chapter titled "Fictitious Commodities: Land" that I thought land was a real commodity. I was a great pains to show that land could never be a real commodity because the supply is fixed and not regulated by the price, which is what happens with real commodities. <BR/><BR/>But it is precisely to contribute to what you call "intangibles" and what I call "the entire purpose of an economic system" that we introduce the subject of land, because land is the most basic of economic relationships. All other economic outcomes will depend on the laws of property, which vary widely from culture to culture. <BR/><BR/>In our culture and system, the owner of the land appropriates the ground rent, while the state appropriates a portion of the fruits of human labor. This is backwards, and contributes to the instability of the "intangibles" you speak of. Without the unearned wealth of capital gains in land, we would not have the urban sprawl, the extensive suburbanization, and the threat to the farmland on the periphery.<BR/><BR/>It is merely factual to point out that the king of England did "own" all the land, but not the use of the land; that was held in fief from the king, in tenancy. This is technically true even today; titles in land are "fee simple," that is, in fief. Although the terminology has long since diverged from the actual usage. Still, it is curious that we do not have a pure allodial deed, even though the allodium is the norm.<BR/><BR/>Wherever you have a free market in land, the Law of Rents will operate. The only way around it is to prevent a market in land. This was part of English law until the 12th century, although they got around it by sub-infeudation, a sort of quasi-market in land. And in ancient Hebrew law, the land could not be sold, but only leased until the next Sabbath year. "You shall not sell the land in perpetuity, for the land is mine, says the Lord; with me you are but aliens and tenants." (Deuteronomy, I forget where). But here we encounter a contradiction: in order to prevent the law of rents from operating, you would have to turn over control of the land market to the state. In other words, in order to avoid socializing some income stream, you would have to socialize the market itself, and have the gov't allocate land. I don't want to go there.<BR/><BR/>You point to the practical problem of the person who has a holding in a village, and vast city grows up around him. In such a case, the ground rent will force him to develop the property or to sell. However, this is a prudential problem with prudential solutions. For example, the tax may be deferred until the land is sold, at which time the capital gains will go to the community, which is the author of the gains. In fact, we do something like this in Texas. Whether it is actually a good idea, or a good idea in all cases, is a prudential question and depends on specific circumstances.<BR/><BR/>I suspect that you are most concerned with the city gobbling up rural land and small farms. But this is what happens today. It is the fact that city land can be profitably held off the market that leaves so much city land under- and un-developed and forces developers to the periphery. When this unearned profit is removed, the only way to profit from land is to use it, and land that cannot be used by its owner will be abandoned or sold to someone who can. This takes the pressure off the periphery. <BR/><BR/>I hope this addresses your concerns.John Médaillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16463267750952578888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-9198303225938823722009-01-19T13:06:00.000-06:002009-01-19T13:06:00.000-06:00Marchmaine,While property may not belong to the St...Marchmaine,<BR/><BR/>While property may not belong to the State, the conception of property as a total right to use and disposition is also a modern construct, tending to envision our forefathers as libertarians. In the development of rights, the structure enjoyed absolute ownership and from there rights accrued that weren't necessarily ownership. England prior to enclosure had tracts of land members had a right to farm but did not own.<BR/><BR/>If Mr. Medaille is to be faulted for focusing on cities and suburbs, it is largely because the idea of living on a plot is a modern one. The romanticization of 40 acres in the country is just that. Without modern transport, it is a wicked existence. I forget where I say the stat, but I read somewhere that the typical 3rd world farm is the size of a typical housing lot here in the States.<BR/><BR/>Dr. Medaille,<BR/>Tuition is a capitation tax. If we replace government with Uncle Henry, this becomes clear. Why it is significant is that tuition distorts real demand for education. Rather than local businesses and communities deciding what education is needed in their communities, schools respond to the demands of uninformed students about what they think the community demands. The process of making schools funded by tuition is what makes the market dumb. That the initial tuition is collected by Uncle Sam in a different way to be distributed still makes it dumb money.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-64484268351195332062009-01-19T12:19:00.000-06:002009-01-19T12:19:00.000-06:00John -As a Catholic Royalist Distributist Freehold...John -<BR/><BR/>As a Catholic Royalist Distributist Freeholder with 2 advanced degrees, I should be about as sympathetic an audience as you might want.<BR/><BR/>However, reading this chapter (and Chapt. X) I am puzzled by what *assumptions* you are making that would impact policy rather than justify economic theory.<BR/><BR/>Two assumptions that I detect (and wonder at) are:<BR/>1. All land a priori belongs to the state.<BR/>2. Land is a "commodity" (forgive my imprecise use of the term here) that can/will/must be exchanged for the most productive use.<BR/><BR/>Regarding #1<BR/>a. The reference to Feudal England is imprecise (there are very distinct era's of Feudalism) and highly selective. But the implication somehow that the Government/State/King had prior rights to the land in a feudal society is simply inaccurate. It requires the the distinctly un-feudal mechanisms of the modern state to even contemplate such a violation. There is more here, but I merely point this out as a proof point that you gloss over that does not really prove your point.<BR/>b. Using Hong Kong and Singapore and Taiwan as further proof of #1 may be correct, but it is hardly persuasive. All of these states fundamentally validate the assumption that the modern State owns the land, and we simply rent from the state. Such might indeed be a "pragamatic" assessment of 21st century reality, but it hardly seems morally defensible as a Catholic or a distributist.<BR/><BR/>Regarding #2<BR/>a. What, if any, is the value of such intangibles as stability, family, community, and/or a "living" that comes with property or specifically, land?<BR/>b. What happens when the economic rent of a property eclipses the tangible "living" of a property?<BR/>c. It is all well and good when we are sticking it to "The Man" like the Kennedy's or the Bush's... but what happens when you become The Man?<BR/>d. The examples you cite here touch almost exclusively on the economic practices of Cities and Suburbs, and in that environment of transience, temporary rentals and fantastic opportunity (and real wealth) the policy aspects are seemingly negligible (or at least consistent with existing practices). How then does this impact the other 80% of America from a policy perspective?<BR/><BR/>To use our old distributist friends, the Butcher, Baker and Candlestick Maker; how would an increasing economic rent incommensurate with the growth of the "living" impact their ability to provide for their families?<BR/><BR/>If I understand the principles correctly, the rational butcher would have to sell the land to a more productive user (or invest more to make it more productive himself)... in Manhattan this might be business as usual... but why endorse a policy that places the state in the role of "arbiter of the use of property"?<BR/><BR/>The same can be said of pastoral and/or agricultural "livings." It is demonstrably incorrect to assume that "local" municipalities take decisions to grow and add services according to consensus or even a majority vote. The economic rent of property can change value rapidly and without commensurate benefit for existing owners - except in-so-far as they liquidate their property.<BR/><BR/>Outside of Manhattan, it is common practice for businesses to own both the property and the improvements.<BR/><BR/>My question here, is this: If we grant that the State is the a priori owner of all land ("real property") and that land will be taxed at its *Theoretical* Economic Rent, would this not unjustly force viable "livings" to sell and move (or expand against their will/skill-set)?<BR/><BR/>From a policy perspective, does not this liquid property approach run contrary to other non-economic goods?<BR/><BR/>Do you see any key mitigating factors in some sort of real implementation? Perhaps only resetting the Economic Rent when the property changes hands?<BR/><BR/>I'm willing to admit that I'm completely wrong from a pure Economic Theory assessment; but as I note above, I am as sympathetic a reader (actually building a local distributive business) as you could find... and while I may be wrong, it is safe to say that what you have written leaves me completely unpersuaded... and I suspect for your mission, this is even worse.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-39365074586800215302009-01-19T09:43:00.000-06:002009-01-19T09:43:00.000-06:00Jeremy, I don't think the gov't does provide the s...Jeremy, I don't think the gov't does provide the same level of service. I think we can test this by imagining police or fire protection as a "private" service. Will they charge the same for a $50,000 house as they do for a $5,000,000 house? I doubt it. <BR/><BR/>But the real issue is how to pay for it. The answer can only be from the revenue of labor or of rent. That's it. There are no other choices. The value of ground rent comes from the community, and forms the communities natural income. That income should serve the common good and fill the public purse. It should not be diverted to private use because it is not the result of private effort. Those things that are the result of private effort, the fruits of labor and capital should not be taxed at all, other than fees for actual services, such as tolls.John Médaillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16463267750952578888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-10721161112886301252009-01-19T09:39:00.000-06:002009-01-19T09:39:00.000-06:00MZ, land is not priced by what is produced on it, ...MZ, land is not priced by what is produced on it, but by what <I>can</I> be produced on it, the <I>highest and best use.</I> On a theoretical level, the plot accross the street from WTC costs the same as the WTC. In practice it doesn't because it likely could not get a permit to build that high. but whatever can be built will determine the price.<BR/><BR/>Again, the Law of Rents is not contentious. Few economists and no real estate experts would disagree. <BR/><BR/>I agree about the infrastructure being necessary to the productivity; the question is who pays? In general, there should be no subsidies from the public to the particular, and doing so always distorts the price system. <BR/><BR/>I agree that education is, at least in part, a common good to be funded in large part from the common purse. I am still not quite sure how this relates to a capitation tax.John Médaillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16463267750952578888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-792286772046722802009-01-19T09:04:00.000-06:002009-01-19T09:04:00.000-06:00Colleagues, I sense some of those offering comment...Colleagues, I sense some of those offering comments aren't familiar with the many websites that answer some of the questions being posed. There are many, normally accessible using the Georgist search engine www.askhenry.com. In a few cases the search engine employed cannot access a server, as for www.wealthandwant.com, which is one of the best collection of articles. I offer this contribution for those just tuning in.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05437360477548440472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-31575794519370956502009-01-18T23:44:00.000-06:002009-01-18T23:44:00.000-06:00Hello Mr. Medaille,This is the first I have heard ...Hello Mr. Medaille,<BR/><BR/>This is the first I have heard of this kind of taxation. It was a very enlightening read. However, I have long held to the idea of a flat fee tax. This comes from the theory that a government which provides the same level of services to everyone should have an equal claim on every citizen's support. If someone breaks into my house, a law enforcement officer should be as quick to my defense as he is to anyone else's. When I am dragged into court, I expect the judge to decide between me and my accuser with justice. When my representative goes to DC, I expect him to represent my interest's just as much as he represents the interests of the large corporations in my state. Alas, in a system where income is taxed on a percentage basis, (whether progressively or at a flat rate) the government inevitably pays more attention to individuals or corporations with larger incomes. We have designed a perversity, where the poor are carried by the rich. And the rich are free to carry the poor wherever they wish. Originally, this system was designed to, "soak the rich." This system does not interest me at all. I want to keep the rich from contributing a cent more to my government than I do.Jeremy VanGelderhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08108522223092798020noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-15947271968333792082009-01-18T22:22:00.000-06:002009-01-18T22:22:00.000-06:00That was a very interesting paper.To address a few...That was a very interesting paper.<BR/><BR/>To address a few things:<BR/>1a) At the scale of a WTC you start speaking of virtual communities. IIRC, there were some 50,000 workers in the WTC. Like the factory, the reason the land has value is what is produced upon it. A Georgist recognizes the value of proximity as he values the land closer to market higher than that of land farther from the market. The remedy would seem to be to consider square footage at some point if we are to stick to strictly Georgist principles. For example the value of the 50th floor is less than that of the 5th floor. It seems easier to do that than to say the land of the WTC has exceptional value and therefore the tall structures (now lost) are capital investments commesurate with the land value. Perhaps we are misunderstanding each other. Would you say the land value of WTC is the same of the equivalent parcel across the street in Manhattan? If so, then the WTC wouldn't be taxed in proportion to its economic value.<BR/>1b) The easiest way to eliminate subsidy is to proscribe the practice rather than attempt to extract equal compensation. In Alaska and remote Canada, they simply won't grant a building permit. In many cases they won't even grant title and instead they will offer x-year concession for the purpose of pasture, crop, or forestry.<BR/><BR/>Capitation tax is another word for per user, poll tax, etc. Whether it is Uncle Ernie paying the tuition, or government issuing the check, if we are paying for education by the student, then it will act as such. In Europe, the higher education model is for tuition to be a very small portion of the revenue. Part of the difference is that I think Europeans see education as a benefit to the community as only incidental to the individual whereas it is the opposite for us. You also see this is Asia. Whereas we are graduating economics majors, arts majors, and finance majors, our Asian counterparts are educating engineers and scientists.<BR/><BR/>As for agriculture, we have other considerations. The Salinas Valley produces a large quantity of our produce. Leaving aside the question of how things are accounted (for example, many small farms are the equivalent of 1099 employees), I think we would agree that we wouldn't see the productivity out of the Salinas Valley without the infrastructure to distribute the produce. Lacking that infrastructure (where we see a lot of the subsidy) the Salinas Valley may be more productive, but at the cost of moving a lot of the land out of production. Don't get me wrong, on the whole I think this would be a good thing. I agree with the French that regions should feed and provide water for themselves and trade for those goods they can't provide. And perhaps, this should be revisited when I see your next chapter.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-4974797097160506872009-01-18T18:47:00.000-06:002009-01-18T18:47:00.000-06:00John, trying to fish out and follow your book chap...John, trying to fish out and follow your book chapters finally clarified for my why I dislike blogs: they not only chuck out the venerable book invention of the Table of Contents, and force to reader to go back to scrolls; then the reader must read the scroll backwards. What were they thinking!?<BR/>----------<BR/>What I don't understand is this: geonomics keeps saying that under Land Dues, each landowner would be motivated to develop. But that's not the world I want! I want parks and greenbelts and urban gardens and farms. How would that work?<BR/><BR/>VeraAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-81637733059714845352009-01-18T17:59:00.000-06:002009-01-18T17:59:00.000-06:00M. Z., Very thoughtful comments, and the kind of q...M. Z., Very thoughtful comments, and the kind of question that frequently comes up. <BR/><BR/>1. a. If you build a replica of the WTC in Dallas, it would not command a fifth of the rent. Since the buildings are identical, the difference must be in the ground rent. THIS IS NOT CONTROVERSIAL. Economists of all stripes, from Milton Friedman to Joseph Stiglitz agree on this point. Even the economists who opposed Henry George rarely did so on the facts of the case, which are fairly well-known and not usually disputed.<BR/>1.b. Removing the subsidies would address this problem. You only build in those areas because you don't believe that you will pay the cost of fire protection, and you will not pay the full cost of transportation. Bad development decisions are made when the costs do not show up in the price, but are externalized on some third party.<BR/><BR/>2. The operative part of your comment is that the corrupt schools were closed; the Milwaukee School system, otoh, is still open. It is easier to withdraw funding from a variety of private schools than it is from a large monopoly of them (whether public or private.) I am not quite sure I understand the relationship of land tax to a capitation tax, or its influence on college tuition. Maybe you could elaborate on that point for me.<BR/><BR/>You are correct about Hong Kong; the gov't, even under the British, owned all the land and leased out the development rights. What this amounts to is that ownership is socialized while use is privatised, sort of an elegant solution to the "public/private" argument over land. The same is true of Singapore, which owns 77% of its land. Note the success of these states, way out of proportion to their size. <BR/><BR/>As for farming, the question is, "If large scale farming is so efficient, why does it require such huge subsidies?" In fact, it is not efficient (as Adam Smith noted in <I>The Wealth of Nations</I>). Generally, it conserves labor, but wastes capital, as the agri-business farm tends to be over-capitalized. See http://www.mcleveland.org/working_papers/Equality_Productivity_and_Growth.pdf<BR/><BR/>I will be dealing with this question of how the subsidies distort the price mechanism in the next chapter. For now, you cannot even compare the efficiencies unless you account for the subsidies.John Médaillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16463267750952578888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-5388922154974771762009-01-18T16:49:00.000-06:002009-01-18T16:49:00.000-06:00I hope to get into this in more detail at some poi...I hope to get into this in more detail at some point. Keep in mind that I'm someone sympathetic with distributism. I may expand one of these into a full blown post at some point, but I thought I would touch on them here.<BR/><BR/>1) Land use taxing certainly has a role to play in any taxing scheme. It is my favorite tax in fact. There are two (at least) other considerations.<BR/>a) a place like the Sears Tower, Trump Tower, or the WTC has an impact far greater than its land foot print. In the case of the bookends, freeways were reconfigured to specifically provide the capacity needed for vehicular traffic to those buildings. Added to this is the ability to pay. I would speculate that the 14 acre site of the WTC accounted for at a minimum basis points of GDP. Your typical 14 acre plot would account for fractions of a pip of GDP. Admittedly, the NYC land will be more valued instrinically, but this will not come close to approximating the differential in economic activity, because we aren't considering it directly.<BR/>b) At the other end of the spectrum we have many parcels of land whose development places great burdens upon others. Think for example of all the houses now exposed when Western fires come. Another example would be land destruction through pasture being converted to crop land. Added to this, and one of the bigger deficits I see, is that there seems to be no concept of public land. I'm not aware of any literature - doesn't mean it doesn't exist - arguing that all things being equal private land is better at allocating resources than public land. Hong Kong, IIRC, owns all its land and leases it. One of the bigger issues distributists have had is that they have tended to deny the greater expense (lesser efficiency) of small farming versus corporate farming. (Often boutique farms are compared to try and even the playing field.) Yes, there are interventions that advantage bigger farms. If we are to encourage small farms, it is going to need to be a deliberate policy choice. France is one country that has chosen to do this.<BR/>2) This complaint may surprise you, but I have to completely disagree with you about vouchers. I think they first theorized by Friedman. Foundational to the theory seems to be the idea that things can't be worse, but the evidence in Milwaukee says they can be. There have been several private schools that have been closed by the State already because of corruption of the private schools. There hasn't been a whole lot of improvement in the public schools, and the traditional private schools haven't changed a whole lot. The idea of the voucher isn't a unique funding structure. It is simply a variation on the capitation tax. Where we've had the most experience with this is the fed programs for college. College costs have grown exponentially under this scheme. In Canada and many other places, schools including parochial ones receive money by being a taxing authority themselves. Typically they tax property.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-39175505141604742792009-01-18T08:31:00.000-06:002009-01-18T08:31:00.000-06:00rj, I hope to have the book out by early summer.rj, I hope to have the book out by early summer.John Médaillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16463267750952578888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-6369147618035372472009-01-17T18:37:00.000-06:002009-01-17T18:37:00.000-06:00I've always had an interest in Distributism so I'm...I've always had an interest in Distributism so I'm pleased to see a modern economics book on it. Am just wondering if this book will be published and if so, when?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-67968255119353016582009-01-17T14:47:00.000-06:002009-01-17T14:47:00.000-06:00Anon, at the bottom of the article, see the tag "T...Anon, at the bottom of the article, see the tag "The Political Economy of Distributism" and click on that; all the other chapters will be displayed.<BR/><BR/>hwbatt, thanks for the leads; I will check them out. Actually, I think it an advantage if the receipts are lower, but I suspect they are higher; I want to be as conservative as possible.John Médaillehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16463267750952578888noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-29945723166368310332009-01-17T13:57:00.000-06:002009-01-17T13:57:00.000-06:00John, I would like to comment, but need access to ...John, I would like to comment, but need access to the older chapters, and do not see them listed on the blog. Where to look? <BR/><BR/>My quick suggestion is to use less abstraction and more examples.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-29013670864623296052009-01-17T13:33:00.000-06:002009-01-17T13:33:00.000-06:00This is a very well written chapter, and I will lo...This is a very well written chapter, and I will look to find and read the others. But one quibble: I aver that there is indeed sufficient rent available as a tax base. Terry Dwyer's research in Australia puts the rent on (real estate) land alone at about 29% of GDP. And Mason Gaffney's recent article titled “Hidden Revenue Capacity of Land”, in the summer issue of the International Journal of Social Economics, argues that there is easily enough rent to support public services. Lastly, several theoretical articles on the "Henry George Theorem," one by Stiglitz, argue that available rent is adequate.Unknownhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05437360477548440472noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7608702.post-91050325276036285482009-01-17T11:53:00.000-06:002009-01-17T11:53:00.000-06:00Great chapter, John. I was just reading Belloc's i...Great chapter, John. I was just reading Belloc's ideas on this very subject as laid out in his "Essay on the Restoration of Property." I will be talking about it on Monday night's program. I will make sure to talk about this as well. <BR/><BR/>Once again, excellent chapter.Paleocrathttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09247190026778661113noreply@blogger.com