Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Sat Jun 17 11:12:44 2006 |
In-Reply-To: |
|
Message-ID: |
|
References: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
This is a reply to Roy Davidson's suggestion that we put the discussion
into historical context by referring to Albert Nock. The reply is
necessary because the quotation threatens to divert one's attention to a
set of subjects that are irrelevant to the policy issue.
The Georgist proposal being evaluated, I would like to remind Roy, is
whether a tax on land rents or on increments in market value of land
would cause a distortion. In other words, can an unearned increment be
identified and taxed? If a Georgist tax causes the same broad kinds of
distortion as other taxes, there is obviously no significance to the
Georgist proposal or to his reasoning behind it.
All of this business about the sources of wealth and the causes of
property is irrelevant to the policy issue, which is the thrust of all
modern Georgist appeals. Such diversions are sometimes used by Georgists
to change the subject when challenged. Roy tell us that he introduces
Nock�s quotations in order to �put the discussion into historical
context.� Perhaps he could explain further why context is necessary and
how Nock's these ideas help to provide context. It seems to me that the
only relevant question is whether the Georgist proposal is capable of
achieving the aims that George claimed it could achieve.
George defended his tax proposal with a classical theory of land rent.
In my view, a reasoned analysis of the likely effects of that proposal
-- one carried out by putting oneself in the shoes of those affected --
reveals the superiority of the neoclassical "entrepreneur view" approach
to policy evaluation over the classical approach and leads to completely
opposing conclusions about what the tax would accomplish. Of course,
this is only "revealed" to those who are willing and able to keep their
minds on the policy issue.
With respect,
Pat Gunning
|
|
|