Roger Sandilands wrote: > Pat Gunning would particularly enjoy the paper by Aaron Fuller > on Herbert Davenport: "Single Taxer of the Looser Observance", which > nicely brings out the need to distinguish between what is true of the > individual entrepreneur (rent is a cost) and the society (rent is not a > cost). Roger, I have referred you to my paper on this subject. It appeared in the American Journal of Economics and Sociology, a journal that is financially supported by a Georgist. Larry Moss, the editor, asked me to write this paper back in 1996 or so, as I recall. Larry was aware of Fuller's interpretation of Davenport and of my previous research on Davenport's work. Originally, he asked me whether I knew anything of this Davenport's criticism. I researched the subject and located several related Davenport articles. Then I located Fuller's piece, which was the only effort I could find to deal with Davenport's criticism. So I agreed to write the article. In the article, I reported my conclusion that Fuller was misled by Davenport's cynical style into believing that Davenport held a position that is the polar opposite of what Davenport actually held. I might add that the same Fuller article later appeared in AJES in April 2004 and as part of a collection edited by Bob Adelson. No mention was made of my paper. So it is perhaps understandable that you would not be interested in reading it. However, there is no point in referring me to an erroneous interpretation of Davenport's critique of George, which I have already criticized. Finally, I would like to quote from a recent reply to Warren Samuels. On June 12, I wrote: "The proper response to someone to claims that real land in real economic interaction has the characteristics of supply inelasticity is to demand proof. Davenport mockingly called himself "a single taxer of the looser observance." He meant that he approved wholeheartedly of taxing the unearned increment. But he did not have a clue about how somebody could find it and did not believe that anyone else had. The ASSUMPTION that land is price inelastic in supply is not a means of finding it. It is a means of evading the issue." Please read my post, even if you refuse to read my paper. Best wishes Pat Gunning