This group of economists is more aware of Georgism than others.
Georgism has its place in history, but I do not see how predicting one
crash translates into an outstanding record. Cycles appear to be a
monetary phennomena, which is why Keynes and Friedman became
mainstream, and why Hayek remains popular among a smaller crowd. We
are witnessing history- there is a Keynesian revival and also a
smaller Austrian revival. Why has there been no discernable Georgist
revival during the crisis that has a strong connection to land?
Perhaps because it is just one event. Even a broken clock is correct
twice every day. Perhaps it is because even this crisis is still tied
to finanacial markets and central bank policy, like all other modern
cycles. Perhaps because the land component is tied to public policies
that promoted subprime lending (as asserted by Austrians), rather than
to 'natural land value'. My own read on Georgism is that Posner dealt
the last fatal blow in his 'Takings' book, and this chapter of history
should end there.

The claim that Georgists are ignored here simply is not true.
Georgists get more attention from the HES crowd that from any other
corner of the profession. The problem, as I see it, is that Georgists
have not made a convincing case to those who do listen. My own
conversations with Georgists have simply run in cirlces.

There are three explanations for the lack of a Georgist revival: 1
Georgists are unfairly ignored 2 Georgism is rejected by we who do
know about it because it is wrong 3. The critics of George have it
wrong, but you Georgists have not made yourselves clear. #1 is untrue,
as historians of thought we have all read about George, and Georgists
do participate in the HES conference. #2 seems right to me. If its #3,
then the burden is upon Foldvary and Gaffney to clarify their
position.

Doug Mackenzie
[log in to unmask]