Finally, this discussion appears to be winding down, thank goodness! I'd like to thank Roger Sandilands for his references and Roy Davidson's "correction" of his reading of my posts. However, I can't resist noting that Roger still has a bit of misreading of my amazement at the errors of analysis I said I'd found in Henry George's Progress and Poverty. Let me reproduce my words (6/13/06): "Indeed, the more I read of George's "Progress and Poverty," the more faults I find in his work. I get the same incredulous feeling I got in the summer of 1985 when I stumbled upon the fact that the reason J.M. Keynes thought that he had found the missing link in classical macroeconomics was that they didn't have a valid theory of interest. And in attempting to prove that point in the first footnote to chapter 14 of the General Theory, it is quite clear that Keynes could not recognize capital in the classical theory of interest as funds. He then proceeded to declare Marshall['s] restatements of the classical theory of interest as "nonsensical" and "absurd." "Henry George does about the same thing in chapters 1 and 2 of his book. I'm almost tempted to do for George what I've been trying to do for Keynes in macroeconomics. Just as I felt in the case of Keynes, I can't now believe that the fundamental sources of George's errors have not yet been published. Besides, I doubt that there is much interest in economics for explaining how George got it wrong. Just as George correctly recognizes that the value of land increases as the need to use it (demand) increases with industrial progress, I would need to know that there is much demand for such an effort to take up documenting the sources of George's errors. Perhaps Roger and Warren might help me in that regard." I don't think the above provide a strong basis for the kind of "confidence" that Roger infers: "James Ahiakpor takes Roy Davidson to task for a supposedly superficial reading of James's posts. But James himself admits to not having known of Henry George's substantial _The Science of Political Economy_ (first ed., 1897). His superficial acquaintance with George hasn't held him back from proclaiming, in an earlier post, his confidence that he could do with him what he has already so notably done for the world with that other confused soul, John Maynard Keynes: debunk him." Now, one doesn't have to have read everything in a famous author's work to find fault on any particular point, does one? Keynes's work had been significantly examined by numerous scholars before me. That is why I couldn't believe that his misinterpretation of capital in the classical theory of interest could have been missed by them. After 6 months of searching the literature, I wrote it up, and spent another three years "fighting" with referees before it finally appeared in HOPE 1990. The same thing applies to Keynes's misrepresentation of saving in the classical theory of growth (Southern Economic Journal 1995), which some folks still continue to teach as the "paradox of thrift." So is Keynes's mistaken attribution of the full-employment assumption to the classics (Southern Economic Journal 1997). So, I don't think Henry George is beyond still being "debunked" on his muddling of the concept of financial capital, the wages-fund, the classical inverse wage-profit relation, or anything else one might find to be inaccurate in his work. I doubt that George overcame these deficiencies in his arguments in The Science of Political Economy. (Roy reports that George didn't find any extant economic thought to have much substance! I can well anticipate some Austrians now preparing to do "battle" with George, if they also didn't know of his views about their economic science.) If he did, and I hadn't checked that source before submitting a piece on George, a referee would point it out. That's what referees are there for, isn't it? In any case, I now know where else to look, should I decide to work on "good old" George. Again, thanks for the references from Roger and Roy. James Ahiakpor