Pat Gunning writes, inter alia: "It would be amazing, however, to read in Clark that he disregarded the initial distribution of wealth, which as we know is partly, and perhaps largely, based on violent appropriation, theft, and deceit." I am delighted that Pat Gunning believes the second part of that sentence;I do also. I am a marginalist, so that is not an issue with me, although the heterogeneity of lands and stickiness of their markets makes it hard to apply in practise. Do not be amazed, however, to learn that Clark disregarded the initial distribution of land. It begins with his 1886 book The Philosophy of Wealth, where wealth is created "from the mere appropriation of limited natural gifts". "repelling intruders "is almost the only form of labor which exists in the most primitive social state". (p.10). The essential attribute of wealth is "appropriability", to create which "the rights of property must be recognized and enforced," ... "whoever makes, interprets, or enforces law produces wealth". He continues in that vein. Those who seize land and exclude others produce thereby its value. For a long exploration of Clark see the writer's "Neo-classical Economics as a Stratagem against Henry George", in Gaffney and Harrison (eds.), The Corruption of Economics, 1994, pp. 47-59. I'd reproduce it all here if I thought our ed. would allow it. As to Clark's anti-Georgist motivation, the above work also documents that, at length. Clark never mentions Marx once, but concentrates his fire on George and on the anti-Marxist Austrians. As to Clark's insincerity, John Henry's book on Clark does a good job, from a Marxist viewpoint. See also his cute article on "God and the marginal product". I agree with his points about Clark, although my own theology is more conventional than Henry's. (That is, I take Isaiah and Amos to heart - but not Romans or Revelations!) Mason Gaffney