[Discussion continued from RVW--Frey on Laurent, ed., _Henry George's Legacy in Economic Thought_ HB] James suggests that many advocates of the land value (or rental) tax simply want a redistribution of income. I agree. But, prejudice aside, I would blame Marshallian microeconomics for most of this, not Marxism. If you ask people what they learned from their university economics classes, ninety-nine per cent of those who remember anything will tell you demand and supply. It is in classes that teach this where the damage is done. "We" teach about markets as if they can exist without the nature of the "thing" traded, the demand for it, and the opportunity cost of supply having to be discovered and communicated. Yet mere reflection makes it impossible to deny that some human agent must perform such actions before a market can exist. Are we and our professional descendants brainwashed? This Marshallian microeconomics, believe it or not, is mainly classical economics (Davenport 1935: Introduction). As such, it shares some of the characteristics of George's classical economics. Most of us in the US have Samuelson and his copying popularizers to thank for our predispositions, along with now-discredited break-budget, inflationary Keynesian economics. Those of my generation had this micro ingrained in them and they have been teaching it as if it is gospel. I'm sure that Roger will correct me if I am wrong, but it seems to me that the reason he keeps writing about land rent without discussing entrepreneurship is that he simply has not learned to think about price determination in any other way than by assuming that markets and prices already exist. In his thinking, entrepreneurship (as I have been using the term) helps one understand why prices including land rent change, but it is not relevant to understanding why prices, including land rent, exist in the first place. Davenport, Herbert J. (1935) The Economics of Alfred Marshall. Ithaca, New York: Cornell University Press. Pat Gunning