Talk:Georgism

RfC

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Result: Not at the present time. There is consensus that Georgism should be defined in the article only in ways that are directly supported by reliable sources. At present, there do not appear to be any sources available which would allow for a broadening of the definition in the way suggested by the OP. That may change in the future, but for now consensus is against the proposed change.

Should Georgism be defined as including support for land taxes, land rents, capital land gains, pollution fees, location taxes, and fees for "use and abuse of the land-commons" in general? 13:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)

Comment - the problem with the article in the past that it didn't define what Georgism is. It just rambled on about some opinions and activities of Henry George. It may be impossible to define Georgism due to differnet groups with different philosophies adopting the term. If this is the case the article should state this, and what the different Georgists believe.Jonpatterns (talk) 13:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Note: Neutral notifications have been sent to those who have written on this talk page in the past, excluding IPs (who do not get notifications from the software), and absent editors. Collect (talk) 15:46, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• The question should not be whether the Wikipedia article should define Georgism to include something or not include something, the question should be whether proposed text is supported with citations and references. If the collection of taxes to fund pollution clean-up caused by corporations which extract public resources is or is not included in Georgism, there should be suitable references and citations supporting or debunking the factuality of the proposed text.

So the editors asking about this should be asking themselves where on the Internet are there suitable citations and references? If they can find none, the claim should not be made in the extant article. If solid, legitimate, reliable references and citations exist which support the issue, then yes, the extant article should note that.

My assumption is that there are no supporting Internet documents which are suitable which means the statement should not be included in the extant article. Damotclese (talk) 16:47, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Follow the sources - I think we've covered this ground very thoroughly already. As editors we cannot determine what is and what isn't Georgist. There must be sources that make the distinction for us. If content is added without good (generally, secondary) sources designating a person, policy, philosophy as Georgist, then it doesn't belong here. What part of policy on original research is unclear? Jojalozzo 21:03, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

• Follow the Georgist sources Wikipedia practice is that the description that people and groups give about themselves are usually considered definitive; e.g. if a person declares himself 'bi-sexual', that should be how he is described in the lead, no matter if some may call him 'gay'. Applying this principle, we should look at how Georgists describe themselves. The single unifying principle found in all Georgist organizations is that they declare the paramount importance of a tax on land on moral and economic grounds. Many explicitly define 'land' in the economic sense, to include all natural resources. So, a simple description may be "Georgists hold that a land tax is morally and economically desirable; some Georgists extend this concept to a tax on all natural resources". LK (talk) 02:32, 10 June 2014 (UTC)
• Use third party reliable sources This is normal Wikipedia practice, as some of the "Georgist sources" seem to include many things not remotely connected to Henry George at all. We do not use Scientology sources to "define Scientology" for example. Collect (talk) 01:03, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

discussion 1

Pollution and resource extraction fees are unanimously considered georgist in nature. They may not be wholly georgist on their own, but the idea of using them as the basis for taxation is. Charging people for extracting resources (depleting) land and dumping pollution on into nature/land/commons is identical to capturing rent with LVT. You might see disagreement about what constitutes pollution (e.g., carbon), but no disagreement that charging people for damaging or depleting the commons is part of georgism. Whomyl (talk) 00:33, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The problem is that what you assert is "unanimously considered", ain't. And the prior discussions on this talk page have in every case came down against this sort of "expansion of the topic" in case you had not noticed. I would note you are now edit warring to add the disputed material while the RfC is in process, which I suggest is improper. Wait until this RfC, like the prior ignored discussions, is ended. Cheers. Collect (talk) 12:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Seems like a simple RS question. Are there sources? Howunusual (talk) 20:04, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The sources given do not meet WP:RS as being reliable secondary sources at all. As far as I can tell, of course. Meanwhile, re-adding disputed material during an ongoing RfC is against Wikipedia policy. Collect (talk) 21:57, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Which sources? Which issues are contentious? Pollution taxes being georgist? If that's it, there are plenty of sources.Whomyl (talk) 22:32, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

"road crowding, water withdrawals from surface and underground sources, minerals extraction, air and water pollution, spectrum use, fish catches, billboards, etc., are major additions to land revenues." --Professor Mason Gaffney, Georgist. http://www.henrygeorge.org/taxable_capacity.htm Whomyl (talk) 22:38, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Read WP:RS. Self published sources are of remarkably limited value on Wikipedia. Find actual works by economists in peer-reviewed journals if you wish to add this material. "henrygeorge.com" is not such a source. Collect (talk) 22:45, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

That is a reprint from a peer reviewed paper or one submitted for a seminar. If you had looked at the article, you would see "NOTE: This article appeared in Georgist Journal Nos. 101-103. For a fully documented and annotated version, see Here."Whomyl (talk) 23:13, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

"Taxing air and water polluters by levying "effluent charges" won the favor of many economists influential in the 1960s. The reasoning, from Cambridge economist Arthur Cecil Pigou, was pure Georgism: make polluters pay an economical price for fouling publicly owned air and water." http://economics.ucr.edu/papers/papers08/08-12old.pdf Whomyl (talk) 23:30, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Note, the source says Pigou's reasoning is Georgist, not the policies. I expect this source is unwilling to identify the policies as Georgist because it requires inferring the policymakers' motives. Jojalozzo 23:58, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

The question is not whether one must have georgist reasoning or motives in order to support pollution fees. The question is whether georgists consistently and rationally consider pollution fees to be a central component of georgist thinking and policy. Out of a hundred georgists I have talked to, only one doubted that was the case, and for good reason, as Gaffney explains. It's not a big deal. If you are set on just trolling or limiting edits for ideological reasons, then I have better things to do. If you are serious about wikipedia and want to find good sources, then I can help.Whomyl (talk) 05:13, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Your persistence on editing without sources and your reliance on original research in your arguments here leads me to doubt your understanding of policy. You need to make your case based on policy not on your personal experience with the domain. No matter how many people you have talked to, you cannot use that as the basis for editing this article. If you can help with sources, then do that but please stop adding content that is based on your understanding of the topic without suitable sources. Jojalozzo 01:17, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Have there been a lot of Georgist policy-makers? Howunusual (talk) 02:30, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Yes, quite a few before 1940. How is that relevant though? "The Forgotten Idea That Shaped Great U.S. Cities" http://onthecommons.org/magazine/forgotten-idea-shaped-great-us-cities Whomyl (talk) 05:17, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

The assertion that "Pollution and resource extraction fees are unanimously considered georgist in nature" is outright false. There's a whole realm of Pigovian work out there which is worth a read... and which pays little attention to George. But apparently we can cite a Georgist who says that Pigou is Georgist... ;-) bobrayner (talk) 23:44, 1 June 2014 (UTC)

Pigou actually sort of was, but that's not the point. Again... the question is *not* whether pollution tax *equals* georgism and nothing else; the question is whether pollution tax *must be included* as part of a comprehensive view of georgism. I'll give your intelligence the benefit of doubt and assume you are just trolling again, because you must see that. Gaffney didn't even say Pigou was a georgist; you are just making that up, so you are way off bounds on this conversation. You are also contradicting yourself; you are always saying that georgism is not the same as land value tax, that it is broader; I agree, but now you are taking the opposite position and saying pollution taxes cannot be part of georgism because pollution taxes are not land taxes. Nonsense. Don't you anarcho-capitalists have anything better to do?70.36.139.181 (talk) 03:37, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

discussion 2

Prior discussion on this talk page (see archive Talk:Georgism/Archive_1 seems to demur on this position - that is, the article should restrict itself to the defined topic, and not extend the topic to all "land tax" supporters, etc. I take no position on this here, by the way. Collect (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC).

I strongly agree with Collect. --Fox1942 (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)

Though most noted for his advocacy of the single tax on land, there was much more to Henry George than this. A more scholarly article on Georgism, IMO, would begin with George's underlying ontological, epistemological, methodological, and ethical commitments, which can be found in his books and other writings. Put another way, what's the deeper foundation of this particular "-ism"? This, in turn, should be followed by his general economic, political, and social views grounded in those particular commitments. EPM (talk) 13:53, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

That might help. There is already a wikipedia page for Henry George, which could probably be improved: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_George#Economic_and_political_philosophy However, a problem is that "Georgism" is sort of a misnomer, since Thomas Paine clearly advocated georgism in Agrarian Justice, which is in fact the source of geo-libertarian's "citizen's dividend". Many modern georgists no longer talk about Henry George, and a few don't even like him. (Michael Hudson)70.36.139.181 (talk) 19:14, 31 May 2014 (UTC)

Tertiary sources

I often steer clear of conversations here because my knowledge of Georgism is meager at best, but... are there tertiary sources that can direct us on what exactly constitutes Georgism? I looked for an entry in the Encyclopaedia Britannica, but only found one on George himself, which didn't mention anything except the single tax. I also found this source (Encyclopedia of Global Justice) which one can glimpse through Google Books. In it, Fred E. Foldvary discusses "Georgist Theory," but again, it seems to only discuss the land value tax and the reasons George promoted it. Admittedly, I don't have the book and I can't read the whole article, so maybe someone else here can help. In any case, I think it may be best to search out these tertiary sources as a guideline for this article. -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:32, 2 June 2014 (UTC)

"Single tax" on land meant land in the *economic* sense (Land (economics)). A clearer way to define georgism is the economics of the commons, focusing on capturing rents from the "monopolization of a natural opportunity" *The Science of Political Economy: What George "Left Out"* http://www.politicaleconomy.org/leftout.htm 70.36.139.181 (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

In economics, "land" means everything that exists in nature, anything that was not created by people. So georgism covers rural farming land as well as valuable locations in Manhattan. It also includes all extractables (oil) and all severables (trees in forests and fish in ocean). It includes all other benefits that arise from monopolizing locations in space/nature (geosynchronous orbits), privileges attached to locations (taxi medallions and billboard authorization in cities), and natural opportunities (electro-magnetic spectrum ownership for telecommunications). It covers pollution taxes/quotas, since pollution is nothing more than dumping in the public air/water commons. (Instead of excluding others from nature, pollution is degrading the quality of nature). Right-of-way is considered a form of land monopoly also. That's what railways, Comcast, PG&E, and private toll roads/bridges/transit-systems use to maintain economic rents (above normal profits) over long periods. Natural monopolies (utilities) should be publicly owned, regulated, or charged fees. It would be good enough if the public owned the railway tracks and charged private companies to carry people on them. Georgists also include patents as privileges that exclude others from natural opportunities, but there is no agreement on what to do about that issue; some want to abolish patents and others want to reform the system or require patent fees. 70.36.139.181 (talk) 03:52, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for that explanation, IP, but I think you may have missed my point: do we have reliable, robust, tertiary sources that explain Georgism? -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 15:25, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

I'll keep my eyes peeled. In most basic form, it is the economic study and belief in capturing economic rent from "gifts of nature" or privileges attached thereof. That's why I often describe Marxism is a very blunt and misguided form of geoism, combining geoism with totalitarianism and general wage confiscation.Whomyl (talk) 22:23, 3 June 2014 (UTC)

Discussion 3

I think the recent addition of a source to support pollution tax as Georgist holds out promise for what we've been asking for. However I think there are some problems with it. It is a set of slides from a conference presentation, which 1) is by nature quite terse and requires unreliable inference of the speaker's intent and 2) is a self-published source which does not meet RS requirements. If the presenter wrote up the ideas in that talk and got them published in a peer-reviewed journal or book, then I think we'd have at least one source to support some of the "other tax" content. Jojalozzo 21:49, 4 June 2014 (UTC)

There was the other source from an ecology textbook that you may have missed. I think you are right about the slide presentation, but I'm working with what I happen to bump into. There are many many sources out there as evidence for this, so I just need a bit of time. I'll google it now to see what else comes up. This is a detailed presentation by the economist Ottmar Edenhofer making the same case that pollution taxes or auctioned pollution privileges (those two systems are economically equivalent) are a georgist. Edenhofer is famous for his work on pollution, not georgism, so he is a credible source. https://www.pik-potsdam.de/members/edenh/talks/20130626_Edenhofer_Input_Final2.pdf 70.36.139.181 (talk) 06:00, 5 June 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

An issue of taxing extraction as a means of supporting protecting resources is that it is, either, too late or too early. That is, it is taxing something that is gone or it is preventing use that could be a benefit~ the reason for using resources. One fails & the other will cause other ramifications which one cannot know what effect they will have. The second being repressive & which may not achieve its goal in the long run. The first only a promise of redemption of loss. It fails to protect historical existence, present use, & future preservation.

Nantucketnoon (talk) 09:57, 15 April 2019 (UTC)

property taxes?

Duh, doesn't virtually every locality in the US levy taxes on real estate? Some instead of an income tax. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 108.28.102.57 (talk) 23:34, 9 February 2018 (UTC)

Yes. I'm pretty sure that just about everybody knows that. What's your point? -- Derek Ross | Talk

(Criticism of the) Reception section

"After studying Progress and Poverty, Tyler Cowen concluded, "George had some good economic arguments, but [. . .] was politically naive. At the margin we should move in George’s direction, but ultimately landowners have to be part of the building coalitions rather than pure victims."

This criticism is a straw-man argument, since taxing unimproved land in of itself, encourages land owners to build and make use of the land and thus is indeed involving them in the "building coalition".

Economist and Geolibertarian, Fred Foldvary, argues that a Georgist land value tax can be seen as forming part of a universal ethic. "When the land rent is distributed equally among the people, and when there is no legal restriction or imposed cost on peaceful and honest enterprise, nor on the consumption of goods, then a basic income from rent, plus the easy ability to become self-employed, prevents firm owners from exploiting workers, and prevents landlords from becoming housing tyrants."[120] Foldvary was one of the few economists who predicted the 2008 GFC. In 1998 he predicted there would be a real estate-related recession in 2008 [121] and a tech bubble collapse in the year 1999 or 2000. In 2007 Foldvary published a booklet entitled The Depression of 2008.[122]

[121] Foldvary, Fred E. (1998) ""Will There Be a Recession?"". Archived from the original on November 23, 2001. Retrieved 2017-10-07., www.ProgressReport.org
[122] "Fred Foldvary". Foldvary.net. Retrieved 2013-03-26.

Mason Gaffney, a notable Georgist economist, argued in 1994, that neoclassical economics (where land and capital are combined) was a strategy in order to prevent Georgism [123]. In 2011, Gaffney criticized the economic community for excluding and ignoring Foldvary's work.[124]

[123] Gaffney, Mason (1994), "Neoclassical economics as a stratagem against Henry George"
[124] Gaffney, Mason (2011), "An Award for Calling the Crash". Econ Journal Watch, Volume 8, Number 2, 185-192

--Skywalker8 (talk) 03:03, 12 November 2018 (UTC)

That Durn 18-Year Business Cycle

Alough we have a good explanation of what happens during this cycle and in particular how it is affected by land ownership, we have yet to discover why it is every 18 years. Below I am adding an explanation related to the wobble of the moon. This is not some crazy idea, this cycle is significant for mangrove plants progress too.

‘Lunar wobble’ influences mangrove growth Long-term fluctuations in the Moon’s orbit — known as the lunar wobble — could influence mangrove canopy growth. Researchers in Australia used high-resolution satellite images to measure mangrove canopy across the continent between 1987 and 2020. They found that the wobble, which pulls low tides lower and high tides higher in a cyclic pattern that lasts about 18 years, was a major factor in the expansion and contraction of mangrove growth. Depending on the phase of wobble, mangrove ecosystems get less water — resulting in thinner canopy cover — or higher tides that increase growth. Mangroves are natural carbon sinks, so the findings could help to better assess how much carbon they will store over time. Science Alert Reference: Science Advances paper. 45.80.91.32 (talk) 06:44, 16 September 2022 (UTC)

Revertion of r/georgism addition

Not needed - no source presented that shows the relevance of the undoing. There are wikipedia reverts about everything, but it's not a reason to do it here or to any other article. Consider revising the revision of the revision. Kyleck (talk) 20:14, 16 November 2022 (UTC)