Hi Pat, I've been paying close attention to the discussion. I think it would have ended long ago had you directly pointed out the covetousness of George's single tax proposal: Roger Sandilands and Warren Samuels probably wouldn't have made their contributions after that. I think you are using the definition of entrepreneurship that Cantillon and most Austrians have employed, but which most people apparently have not become acquainted with. (By that definition, the beggar or thief is an entrepreneur.) That's why I think they can't see the point of a landowner being an entrepreneur. However, I don't think you easily persuade people to treat landlords the same as all other property owners because they can always come back with the claim that land is fixed while other resources are not. Therefore, landlords are a different breed. After a while, I just get tired of an interminable debate. Get people to realize the essence of an argument. Maybe then they'll quit their persistence in error. (Talking about elasticities would just be another diversion and a waste of time.) I'm pretty sure most admirers of George's single-tax argument don't realize that they are Marxists in disguise. When they do, I think they'll quit belonging to that camp. That's what I'd been waiting for you to do. I finally had to do it clearly myself. Cheers, James Ahiakpor