Talk:Georgism

message: "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)
thread_title:  (Criticism of the) Reception section 

message: The Criticism section doesn't seem natural.  With almost every criticism refuted by what 'Georgists' believe.  However, we are yet to determine what defines a Georgist - indeed it may be impossible due to different traditions of Georgists having incompatible beliefs.Jonpatterns (talk) 12:17, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  (Criticism of the) Criticism section 

message: Ref 1 - Mason Gaffney's homepage
Ref 2 - Henry_George_100_Years_Later.pdf
 Keep - Both reference state Henry George as important and Ref 2 mentions Georgism Jonpatterns (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Mason Gaffney]]

message: Ref 1 - Fred Harrison's website
Ref 2 - Fred Harrison speaks at ALTER Spring Conference 2014
Ref 3 - Announcements: Fred Harrison’s New Website and Homage to Henry George georgist.com
Ref 4 - Harrison’s Traumatised Society earthsharing.org.au - introduced as a leading Georgist.
 Keep I refuse to debate this again. Harrison is a famous Georgist, regardless of what he may or may not commonly call himself.  He is the president of an international georgist organization.  Also, see his entire life's work and personal wikipedia page...Whomyl (talk) 06:38, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the quite non-utile ping.  WP:BLP requires deletion of claims not strongly sourced, and it is the job of those adding material to strongly source claims.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 14:45, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Edit (I see WP:BLP applies to any page), however I still feel in this case the following is relevent WP:PROVEIT "Whether and how quickly [removal of unsourced material] should happen depends on the material and the overall state of the article. Editors might object if you remove material without giving them time to provide references; consider adding a citation needed tag as an interim step."Jonpatterns (talk) 15:26, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

text: Harrison has other smaller organizations actually; I was thinking of "The IU", but he only makes videos for them. Whomyl (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

text: In this document, he calls himself a georgist here: http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/harrison-fred_georgism-a-reality-check-2006.html  Even georgists who have spent their entire lives dedicated to promoting this idea shy away from using the term Georgist, so you have to catch them in transcripts and internal papers.  Sometimes it is necessary to judge based on their stated beliefs, but not this time. Whomyl (talk) 14:16, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Fred Harrison (author)|Fred Harrison]]

message: Ref - China...Land Tax is needed...
 Weak remove - mentions Henry George and his followers wanted a land tax.  There is nothing that would suggest Michael Hudson is anything more than a 'Land Value Tax' advocate.  There a category on his page 'Georgism' - this lists pages mentioning Henry George.  Searching the site of Georgism returns no results.  Six articles mention Georgist - maybe one of them could sway my vote. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:09, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: He explicitly states that he is a georgist in this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Elg6i3NxvdE Whomyl (talk) 00:53, 28 April 2014 (UTC)

text: They are first person sources. One of them is in his own voice... Plus a dozen articles and other interviews. And his circumstantial history (working for georgist foundation). He certainly fits the definition of "georgist", so perhaps you have a problem with the definition?Whomyl (talk) 14:31, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If someone said exactly these words, would that make him/her a georgist in your option?  "People own what they create, but income (economic rent) from things found in nature, most importantly from land, belongs equally to all."  If someone says that and also proposes some sort of market mechanism for achieving that end (usually LVT), then the answer is clearly yes; he/she is a geoist.Whomyl (talk) 14:32, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Michael Hudson (economist)|Michael Hudson]]

message: Ref - i-agree-with-churchill-shirkers-tax
 Remove - Only mentions taxing the land, no mention of Henry George or Georgism Jonpatterns (talk) 12:40, 14 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *but not* based on a standard that sources must use "geo-". That would be unacceptable, since it would exclude full-time geoists and people who have written books and made movies promoting georgism. One of the major geoist organizations is called "International Union for Land Value Taxation" ("The IU").  Georgists sometimes opt for other synonymous terms. So people may use, "humaniteer", or "Earth sharing", or "geonomist", "physiocrat", "classical economist", etc., or simple "LVT advocate". Make an attempt to step back and work a little with the definition of geoism, without becoming too fixated on that specific word.70.36.139.162 (talk) 07:26, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: sorry -- that you "know" that someone writing something "must be a Georgist" does not fall into the category of "reliable sources" and absolutely does not meet the letter nor spirit of the WP:BLP policy. Collect (talk) 14:12, 18 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Probably a decent edit given the currently limited circumstantial evidence. Thanks.Whomyl (talk) 23:38, 19 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: [[George Monbiot]]

message: Ref - wealthandwant
 Weak keep - has read and is impressed with Henry George's work. Jonpatterns (talk) 08:13, 16 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Frank Lloyd Wright]]

message: Ref (using wayback machine) - Who was Henry George?  this ref can be found using archive.org
 Remove - the article just states - Congressman Dennis Kucinich has also positively mentioned Henry George in speeches. not really enough to say he was a Georgist. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:17, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Dennis Kucinich]]

message: http://laissez-fairerepublic.com/nolan.htm
 Remove There is no good evidence Nolan was a georgist. This source simply says LVT "is the least bad". I know more than several self-proclaimed georgists who say the same, so he might have been a georgist, but that alone is not evidence of georgism, since it might be only a recognition that LVT is efficient.Whomyl (talk) 13:42, 17 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: [[David Nolan (libertarian)|David Nolan]]

message: Lucas has stated clearly that she wants to replace Council and Business rates with LVT, but not necessarily any other taxes.  To be certain that Lucas is a geoist, she would need to show that she recommends replacing most/all bad taxes *or* make a moral argument that land rent inherently belongs to the public.  So for that reason I agree with 's decision to remove her from the list.Whomyl (talk) 06:34, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Caroline Lucas]]

message: Darrow was *definitely* a georgist at one point in his life, but I'm not sure if he remained so until his death.  Perhaps the source provided is not adequate---I have not examined it yet: http://savingcommunities.org/docs/darrow.clarence/abolish.html---but I don't have the time to dig up something better right now.  So for the moment I won't challenge his removal.Whomyl (talk) 06:46, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Clarence Darrow]]

message: Names are/ where being added and removed without discussion.  If a name is on both restored and removed then it flags them up as controversial.  Unfortunately the process seems hindered by the fact that there is no agreed standard for what constitutes a Georgist. Jonpatterns (talk) 10:31, 24 March 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Idea behind the removed 'Previously restored for adequate citation' section 

message: Is Michael Hudson reliably sourced to be a "Georgist"? 00:02, 29 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't find that acceptable, unless you can explain why a secondary source is needed when we have the words directly from Hudson.Whomyl (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my response below. It's best to keep discussion out of the survey section of an RFC. Jojalozzo 01:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)

text: Did we ever settle what constitutes a Georgist?  What is the difference between a Georgist and a land value tax advocate? Jonpatterns (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, the discussion ended up with pretty much "unless a reliable source states 'Georgist' or 'Georgism', the source does not support calling any person a 'Georgist'".   Else we likely could add Socrates and the like to the list. Collect (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not very knowledgeable on the subject, and so cannot definitively state what makes someone a Georgist.  However, my opinion is in accord with Collect's most recent comment: a source must explicitly label someone a Georgist, not just an advocate of a land value tax.  Until it is proven that Georgism only consists of this land value tax, I don't think we can make this assumption.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If there still aren't sources calling him a georgist, why does Whomyl insert content calling him a georgist, over and over again? bobrayner (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: See above Talk:Georgism#Michael_Hudson, at the end of the section  states that Hudson said he believed some of the same things as George.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not just "some of the same things as George".  There is only one thing that matters...  Agreeing with George on things is not required for being a georgist; if it were, then most georgists would no longer be geoists, including myself.  Some georgists don't even like george.  If you are looking for more, then you are reading too much into the name of the article, "georgism", which used to have "geosim" as a title synonym to make clearer that geoism existed as a philosophy before George was born. Whomyl (talk) 07:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

text: ""It is true that overall functions could un-tax labor and capital and make up the difference with a land tax. This is what George said, and it is what I believe and support."" Whomyl (talk) 06:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  If that sentence alone does not satisfy you that he is a geoist, then you are not only not understanding the definition of "geoism", you are also denying Hudson's own words when he states that he is in economic/philosophical/political agreement with georgists on the land question---the only question that matters here.  He may dislike some georgists *personally*, and he may have reason to, but that isn't relevant.  He is a "georgist/geoist", he states it clearly in multiple sources, each one clearer than the next.  I really don't understand what the confusion is about here...Whomyl (talk) 06:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the info.  In case where the word "georgist/geoist" isn't used, and possibly no mention of Henry George, how would we know someone is a Georgist?  What do you think to the example of Socrates as mentioned above. Do you think he was a Georgist? Jonpatterns (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never heard Socrates referenced in relation to georgism or land issues, so I cannot answer that example.  More broadly, I would include people like Locke and Thomas Paine, who saw land as inherently public but recognized that it needed to be owned, managed, and traded privately to maintain productive use, yet exclude the many philosophers who recognized that land was special and that private rent extraction was immoral.  That is because they didn't have practical free-market solutions, only moral objections.  Classical socialists---Fabians for example (who were greatly influenced by the georgist movement)---wanted to socialize rent as the top priority, but they are excluded as non-georgists because they generally wanted government to take over the management and control of land use. Whomyl (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I need to spend less time battling overly aggressive edits and more time clarifying this article.  That is my fault. Whomyl (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to spend less time automatically reverting everybody else, and more time finding sources that actually support what you want to say. This article could have complied with WP:V months ago. If your edits need adult supervision - because each edit is quite likely to insert content which isn't actually supported by the "sources" - this creates work for other editors, so your presence is a net negative. Eventually this article will be brought in line with policy; so far, progress has been extremely slow and difficult, but if you ease off on the reverting and the misuse of sources, we could get there a lot quicker. bobrayner (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that Whomyl's definition of what constitutes a Georgist is wider than just someone who has been described/self-described as a Goergist.  Therefore sources that would be rejected on the narrower definition would be applicable to the wider definition.  That is why I think central is issue is agree what constitutes a Georgist. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia would seem to require a reliable secondary source (WP:RS) specifically describing a person as a "Georgist."  Else we would have the amorphous position of using almost everyone who used a "land tax" from Socrates onward in the list :).   Collect (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  First of all, I'd like a source for your comments about Socrates... Whomyl (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Second, that's a straw man.  I'm not objecting to the removal of people who advocate increasing LVT---that would be every person in the world who understands economics.  *A geoist/georgist* is someone who accepts the notion of private property but takes the idea rent capture further, believing, usually with a moral dimension, that rents should be the basis of public revenue.  That's my definition and I'm sticking to it. Whomyl (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Michael Hudson (economist)]] 

message: No - I was invited here, randomly, by a bot. If a reliable secondary source says Hudson was a Georgist, then we can also say that. Otherwise I would consider it OR. Wikipedia editors evaluate content based on verifiability, not what we individually consider truth. Our interpretation of primary sources is not relevant here. I'm not aware of a source that says Hudson was a Georgist and until one is produced, I !vote no. Jojalozzo 15:56, 10 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't find that acceptable, unless you can explain why a secondary source is needed when we have the words directly from Hudson.Whomyl (talk) 08:00, 11 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Please see my response below. It's best to keep discussion out of the survey section of an RFC. Jojalozzo 01:37, 12 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Survey

message: Given the dispute, and the likelihood that Michael Hudson has gone in and been taken out of the list of 'economic georgists' several times, it might be wisest to put him in with following parenthesis "(disputed)" C2equalA2plusB2 (talk) 23:07, 12 July 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Did we ever settle what constitutes a Georgist?  What is the difference between a Georgist and a land value tax advocate? Jonpatterns (talk) 12:37, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: IMHO, the discussion ended up with pretty much "unless a reliable source states 'Georgist' or 'Georgism', the source does not support calling any person a 'Georgist'".   Else we likely could add Socrates and the like to the list. Collect (talk) 12:52, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am not very knowledgeable on the subject, and so cannot definitively state what makes someone a Georgist.  However, my opinion is in accord with Collect's most recent comment: a source must explicitly label someone a Georgist, not just an advocate of a land value tax.  Until it is proven that Georgism only consists of this land value tax, I don't think we can make this assumption.  -- MisterDub (talk | contribs) 19:55, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: If there still aren't sources calling him a georgist, why does Whomyl insert content calling him a georgist, over and over again? bobrayner (talk) 20:13, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: See above Talk:Georgism#Michael_Hudson, at the end of the section  states that Hudson said he believed some of the same things as George.Jonpatterns (talk) 14:01, 1 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Not just "some of the same things as George".  There is only one thing that matters...  Agreeing with George on things is not required for being a georgist; if it were, then most georgists would no longer be geoists, including myself.  Some georgists don't even like george.  If you are looking for more, then you are reading too much into the name of the article, "georgism", which used to have "geosim" as a title synonym to make clearer that geoism existed as a philosophy before George was born. Whomyl (talk) 07:19, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

text: ""It is true that overall functions could un-tax labor and capital and make up the difference with a land tax. This is what George said, and it is what I believe and support."" Whomyl (talk) 06:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  If that sentence alone does not satisfy you that he is a geoist, then you are not only not understanding the definition of "geoism", you are also denying Hudson's own words when he states that he is in economic/philosophical/political agreement with georgists on the land question---the only question that matters here.  He may dislike some georgists *personally*, and he may have reason to, but that isn't relevant.  He is a "georgist/geoist", he states it clearly in multiple sources, each one clearer than the next.  I really don't understand what the confusion is about here...Whomyl (talk) 06:59, 3 May 2014 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the info.  In case where the word "georgist/geoist" isn't used, and possibly no mention of Henry George, how would we know someone is a Georgist?  What do you think to the example of Socrates as mentioned above. Do you think he was a Georgist? Jonpatterns (talk) 07:55, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never heard Socrates referenced in relation to georgism or land issues, so I cannot answer that example.  More broadly, I would include people like Locke and Thomas Paine, who saw land as inherently public but recognized that it needed to be owned, managed, and traded privately to maintain productive use, yet exclude the many philosophers who recognized that land was special and that private rent extraction was immoral.  That is because they didn't have practical free-market solutions, only moral objections.  Classical socialists---Fabians for example (who were greatly influenced by the georgist movement)---wanted to socialize rent as the top priority, but they are excluded as non-georgists because they generally wanted government to take over the management and control of land use. Whomyl (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I need to spend less time battling overly aggressive edits and more time clarifying this article.  That is my fault. Whomyl (talk) 11:29, 3 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to spend less time automatically reverting everybody else, and more time finding sources that actually support what you want to say. This article could have complied with WP:V months ago. If your edits need adult supervision - because each edit is quite likely to insert content which isn't actually supported by the "sources" - this creates work for other editors, so your presence is a net negative. Eventually this article will be brought in line with policy; so far, progress has been extremely slow and difficult, but if you ease off on the reverting and the misuse of sources, we could get there a lot quicker. bobrayner (talk) 08:54, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that Whomyl's definition of what constitutes a Georgist is wider than just someone who has been described/self-described as a Goergist.  Therefore sources that would be rejected on the narrower definition would be applicable to the wider definition.  That is why I think central is issue is agree what constitutes a Georgist. Jonpatterns (talk) 11:35, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia would seem to require a reliable secondary source (WP:RS) specifically describing a person as a "Georgist."  Else we would have the amorphous position of using almost everyone who used a "land tax" from Socrates onward in the list :).   Collect (talk) 11:40, 4 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  First of all, I'd like a source for your comments about Socrates... Whomyl (talk) 05:08, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  Second, that's a straw man.  I'm not objecting to the removal of people who advocate increasing LVT---that would be every person in the world who understands economics.  *A geoist/georgist* is someone who accepts the notion of private property but takes the idea rent capture further, believing, usually with a moral dimension, that rents should be the basis of public revenue.  That's my definition and I'm sticking to it. Whomyl (talk) 05:02, 6 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: ,  appears to greatly expand what Georgism should cover as an article. Archived discussions do not appear to support this as having consensus.  Collect (talk) 13:53, 29 May 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  major expansion "bold edit" 

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

text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)

text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: discussion 1

message: 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)
replies: text:  I strongly agree with Collect. --Fox1942 (talk) 13:24, 30 May 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: discussion 2

message: 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)
replies: text: "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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
thread_title:  Tertiary sources 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Discussion 3

message: Please get a WP:CONSENSUS first.   Propose small bits and if you do not get consensus, drop the stick.   A single editor continually re-adding material contrary to any consensus is likely to cause major problems.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 01:25, 14 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Iterating -- any re-addition of the masses of material sans actual consensus will specifically be reported at WP:ANEW. 
Collect (talk) 12:56, 14 June 2014 (UTC)

text: In order for there to be a lack of consensus, there must first be an objection. Neither you nor anyone else has raised any.  You simply remove edits and claim a lack of consensus.Whomyl (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Iterating -- ***If you have reason to question or disagree with anything*** you have the right to seek consensus, but you cannot just inexplicably demand a vote in response to every edit. You can challenge edits in good faith, but you must provide some explanation.Whomyl (talk) 20:39, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

text: "addition of material is improper here"??  Not only do I not know what that means, I have no idea what editors you are talking about.Whomyl (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: @Bobrayner made a good edit that I supported.  He removed a couple paragraphs that described ecological economics in general without any obvious connection to Georgism and without any sources.  I didn't write that section and had not noticed that it was out of place, but he did the right thing removing it.  That's why I rewrote it with sources in a way that hopefully makes sense. It's currently not in the article; I added it below for review and encourage your feedback: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Georgism#Pollution_taxes.2Fquotas_and_ecology  Thanks. Whomyl (talk) 22:22, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  before re-adding masses of material 

message: @Collect, Please explain why you removed those sources.Whomyl (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *What does "rm blogs" mean?  Some of the sources look like academic web addresses and published papers.Whomyl (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)

text: *I looked up Wikipedia policy on first person "self-published" sources, and it appears that you misunderstand the policy or did not read the Twitter source. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_or_questionable_sources_as_sources_on_themselves Whomyl (talk) 20:46, 15 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I'll look at the sources you removed more closely; some of them seemed to be academic.  In any case, official Wikipedia policy accepts the use of self-published tweets, especially from verified accounts.  If there were better sources using the word "Georgism", then I would be persuaded to use those instead.  However, since Yglesias is in fact a Georgist and explicitly confirms that fact on Twitter, I don't see a better option than to use what we have.  Thoughts?  Suggestions?Whomyl (talk) 02:20, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Twitter does not make any assurance that accounts represent specific real people except in very limited cases.  Blogs are really a major problem, especially where they refer to other people, etc.  As the discussions above have repeatedly iterated -- you need to find "Georgist" or "Georgism" in the source, not simply vague references to "land taxes" or "pollution taxes" or the like.  Cheers. Collect (talk) 13:04, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: That is Yglesias's personal twitter account, verified by Twitter, and active for years.  He was listed as a georgist here even fore that Twitter source was added.  The source is first-person, self-published, and specifically says "Georgism is completely correct."Whomyl (talk) 19:37, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of sources and material "(rm blogs and twitter as sources)"

message: Are the list of taxes associated with  Pigovian tax and other taxes properly included under Georgism?   What taxes should be directly linked to "Georgism" in this article and using what criteria? 21:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And if you do not find objective reliable third party sources on a topic, it is clear that the material is not deemed important to secondary source writers. The inclusion of a "xxx tax" as being supported by Georgists can not be used to say "George Gnarph supports the 'xxx tax' and is therefore a Georgist". Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I basically agree, but I question how you will define "non-georgist".  The most likely place to find reliable explanations about what Georgists believe is from Georgists themselves.  "Taxing" the "ownership" of geosynchronous satellite orbits may just be common sense that anyone with any capacity for reasoning can understand, so that does not make advocates of taxing satellite orbits automatically "georgist", but the fact remains: 100% of geoists see satellite-location-rent capture as exactly the same as ground-location-rent capture.  You might not be able to find "non-georgist" sources saying that "taxing" exclusive satellite orbits is "georgist", but I'm sure you could find non-georgist sources saying that orbital locations generate economic rent for the "owners".  That would qualify as a secondary source that validates georgist reasoning.  Economic rent is really what georgists care about.Whomyl (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC - are Pigovian positions etc. properly included here?  

message: An extensive list of taxes has been added, many with no apparent direct connection to "Georgism" by third party sources.   I asked that consensus be determined first for such additions, but this has been re-added and re-added several times sans any discussion,  and sans any act towards determining consensus, and last time the removal was labelled "vandalism" by an editor, therefore I ask this RfC to determine precisely what the requirements should be for labelling any tax as "Georgism" in this article.  Collect (talk) 21:10, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And if you do not find objective reliable third party sources on a topic, it is clear that the material is not deemed important to secondary source writers. The inclusion of a "xxx tax" as being supported by Georgists can not be used to say "George Gnarph supports the 'xxx tax' and is therefore a Georgist". Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I basically agree, but I question how you will define "non-georgist".  The most likely place to find reliable explanations about what Georgists believe is from Georgists themselves.  "Taxing" the "ownership" of geosynchronous satellite orbits may just be common sense that anyone with any capacity for reasoning can understand, so that does not make advocates of taxing satellite orbits automatically "georgist", but the fact remains: 100% of geoists see satellite-location-rent capture as exactly the same as ground-location-rent capture.  You might not be able to find "non-georgist" sources saying that "taxing" exclusive satellite orbits is "georgist", but I'm sure you could find non-georgist sources saying that orbital locations generate economic rent for the "owners".  That would qualify as a secondary source that validates georgist reasoning.  Economic rent is really what georgists care about.Whomyl (talk) 22:14, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion

message: Please provide input if you have any thoughts on this edit:
|||Pollution degrades the value of society's natural air, water, and location commons, instead of overtly excluding others the way landowners use land titles, but Georgist view the results as essentially equivalent.  Therefore, to the extent that society determines material pollution to be harmful, Georgism proposes to limit pollution and then capture the resulting rents for public use.  In this way, Georgism is related to the school of ecological economics, since both propose market based restrictions on pollution and the capture of economic rent.  However, the schools of thought emphasize different aspects, with Georgists focusing more on the economic qualities of the natural commons, seeing land as something with use-value and nature as something with enjoyment value.  Ecological economists tend to view nature itself as being in conflict with human activity, rather than to view public interest in nature as arising from conflict between human interests.  As a result, ecologists are more likely to price pollution fines to prevent inherently unquantifiable damage to the environment, rather Georgists who are more inclined to emphasize pollution limits as a means of mediating between conflicting human interests.  A geoist variation of cap and trade would be to set limits on pollution and then auction temporary pollution permits (see cap and share).  Environmental economists advocate the use of these same tools as part of a conservation strategy but might choose different quota or tax values due to the divergent focuses.  Geolibertarians tend to take a more direct stance against what they see as burdensome regulations and would like to see these quotas and taxes replace most command and control regulation.|||
Whomyl (talk) 21:39, 16 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: And if you do not find objective reliable third party sources on a topic, it is clear that the material is not deemed important to secondary source writers. The inclusion of a "xxx tax" as being supported by Georgists can not be used to say "George Gnarph supports the 'xxx tax' and is therefore a Georgist". Cheers. Collect (talk) 11:34, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that supporters of "xxx tax" cannot be categorized as Georgist.  Saying that Pigovian taxes are included in the philosophy of Georgism does not mean that every person who advocates for Pigovian tax is Georgist.  Back when the section heading was "People influenced by Georgism", I said that advocates of land value tax, a policy completely derived from Georgism, should be included.  I'm convinced that even LVT advocates are not necessarily Georgist, but I think it is possible to explain reasoning for LVT in ways that make it explicitly "Georgist".  However, I recognize that I seem to be in the minority on that question at the moment.Whomyl (talk) 21:38, 17 June 2014 (UTC)
replies: text:  @Whomyl, I largely agree with what you have written. I would tend to believe that someone who advocates a LVT was probably influenced by Georgism, but unless he/she states so (mentions Henry George, Single tax or Georgism), we shouldn't presume. The sources that you list are reliable, especially those from peer reviewed sources. As to the insistence that only what non-Georgists state about Georgism is reliable, this is ridiculous. Firstly, there is no such requirement in WP:RS, secondly, there is no such requirement for any other group. Imagine if only what non-Christians wrote about Christianity were reliable, or only what non-astronomers wrote about astronomy were treated as reliable. Let's stick to written policy and not impose ad-hoc rules with no basis in Wikipedia policy. LK (talk) 06:23, 15 July 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Pollution taxes/quotas and ecology

message: I'm rather astonished that John Kenneth Galbraith is listed as a notable Georgist without caveat or more substantive citation than that offered. The reference in question only says that Galbraith did not agree entirely with Henry George, but read his works with great interest -- hardly the sort of proof needed to identify him as a ideological adherent. Given that Galbraith is elsewhere identifying quite strongly as belonging to the Keynesian and Instiutionalist schools, I propose to delete his name from the list here and from the parallel list on the Schools of economic thought page.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by PublicolaMinor (talk • contribs) 00:09, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: He actually said, "I am not a full devotee of Henry George but there is no one in the social world that I read with more intense interest," which is much stronger language. Perhaps it would help for you to imagine replacing the name "Henry George" with another to see how it sounds to you then. Furthermore, being a Keynesian and institutionalist is *completely* irrelevant.  You can see that more clearly by noticing that if you applied the same logic, it would be impossible for a Keynesian to also be an institutionalist.  However, I don't object to removing his name, since I am not sure how reliable the source is.Whomyl (talk) 06:57, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I, too, don't see that as sufficient justification to label Galbraith a Georgist.  — MisterDub (talk | contribs) 17:04, 5 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. If you start out saying you're not a full devotee of someone you're interested in, that means you're an enthusiast at best, but not a follower in the usual sense. EllenCT (talk) 02:39, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: "Devotee" is a very strong word, and "not a full devotee" still means he was a follower of George's ideas. However, I see your point, since he only mentioned George one other time that I am aware of, saying that George's idea in Progress and Poverty was "notably compelling".Whomyl (talk) 04:27, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Identifying John Kenneth Galbraith 

message: The sources provided are-
* Ethical Economics
* Wall Street Journal
The first one says he read 'Progress and Poverty' thought some of the ideas where good.  The second just says, he endorsed land tax, but doesn't say how.  Does this quality Churchill as a Georgist? Jonpatterns (talk) 21:54, 9 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Thats interesting, almost warrants a separate article on Churchill's speech writers. Jonpatterns (talk) 16:44, 13 January 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: That would be fascinating. Not sure if Mason Gaffney cited a source for that. He is a font of obscure knowledge and still writing now in his 90s.  It explains why I was so certain Churchill and Lloyd George were Georgists.  I still am pretty certain Churchill was, but I'm not sure if it is possible to verify that.  Lloyd George certainly at least pretended to be a Georgist, but again, it is hard to verify his true beliefs at that time of his life.Whomyl (talk) 22:44, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Winston Churchill as Notable Georgist

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Georgism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.votenader.org/issues/index.php?cid=7
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070806130249/http://henrygeorge.org:80/mumia.htm to http://www.henrygeorge.org/mumia.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers. —cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 15:53, 18 October 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Georgism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.schalkenbach.org/library/tidemanglobaljustice.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/20070806130249/http://henrygeorge.org:80/mumia.htm to http://www.henrygeorge.org/mumia.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:03, 6 January 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Georgism is not based on social or public ownership of the means of production (capital equipment). Land by itself does not constitute the means of production, it is only one factor input. Moreover, I have never read a serious economic text that considers Georgism to be a form of socialism - but I might be mistaken. I'm sure the movement might have been criticized as "socialist", with "socialist" used as an epithet rather than a technical description. So is it accurate to include Georgism in the Socialism sidebar and the Socialist sidebar on this page? -Battlecry 02:43, 4 February 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is Georgism a form of socialism? 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just added archive links to  on Georgism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add  after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add  to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20070806130249/http://henrygeorge.org:80/mumia.htm to http://www.henrygeorge.org/mumia.htm
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 01:02, 19 March 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Georgism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.progress.org/views/editorials/geoism-explained/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 22:30, 26 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Georgism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20121104040047/http://www.progress.org/archive/fold251.htm to http://www.progress.org/archive/fold251.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101214070335/http://cooperativeindividualism.org/leubuscher-frederic_bolton-hall.html to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/leubuscher-frederic_bolton-hall.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160604102744/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/eckert-charles_henry-george-sound-economics-and-the-new-deal-1935.html to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/eckert-charles_henry-george-sound-economics-and-the-new-deal-1935.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20101006175720/http://www.henrygeorgefoundation.org:80/cej/the-school-of-economic-science.html to http://www.henrygeorgefoundation.org/cej/the-school-of-economic-science.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 16:40, 10 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: In a debate on this topic which was held in the second half of the 19th and first half of the 20th century (the article names Aldous Huxley as adherent), I'd be surprised to the highest if none of G. K. Chesterton, Hilaire Belloc, Cecil Chesterton and the rest of the Distributists expressed their views on the matter. Does anyone know about such a response?--131.159.76.209 (talk) 16:41, 2 April 2017 (UTC)
thread_title: Distributist response?

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 3 external links on Georgism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120303234646/http://www.masongaffney.org/essays/Henry_George_100_Years_Later.pdf to http://masongaffney.org/essays/Henry_George_100_Years_Later.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140924001239/http://darrow.law.umn.edu/documents/Altgeld%20on%20Henry%20George.pdf to http://darrow.law.umn.edu/documents/Altgeld%20on%20Henry%20George.pdf
*Added  tag to http://www.hgclub.com.au/history.htm
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.henrygeorgefoundation.org/cej/the-school-of-economic-science.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:14, 24 May 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 8 external links on Georgism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20160604042754/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/wrigley-adrian_location-value-covenants-2010-06.pdf to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/wrigley-adrian_location-value-covenants-2010-06.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080724030349/http://www.georgiststudies.org/george100years.html to http://www.georgiststudies.org/george100years.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150717015930/http://www.cooperative-individualism.org/candeloro-dominic_single-tax-movement-and-progressivism-1979.htm to http://www.cooperative-individualism.org/candeloro-dominic_single-tax-movement-and-progressivism-1979.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213223137/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/harrison-fred_aldous-huxley-on-the-land-question-1989.html to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/harrison-fred_aldous-huxley-on-the-land-question-1989.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004215751/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/neilson-francis_henry-george-the-scholar-1940.html to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/neilson-francis_henry-george-the-scholar-1940.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131223055828/http://maclarenfoundation.net/life1.htm to http://www.maclarenfoundation.net/life1.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004212820/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/russell-bertrand_admiration-for-henry-george-1960.jpg to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/russell-bertrand_admiration-for-henry-george-1960.jpg
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110412105846/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/einstein-albert_letters-to-anna-george-demille-1934.html to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/einstein-albert_letters-to-anna-george-demille-1934.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:19, 14 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 21 external links on Georgism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140812144900/http://www.business.uwa.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/2325322/Jane-McNab-Jacqueline-Tuck-Final-b-HETSA-Paper-2013.pdf to http://www.business.uwa.edu.au/__data/assets/pdf_file/0019/2325322/Jane-McNab-Jacqueline-Tuck-Final-b-HETSA-Paper-2013.pdf
*Added  tag to http://scholar.googleusercontent.com/scholar?q=cache%3AJcjLOUlhFZIJ%3Ascholar.google.com%2F+%22land+OR+site+value+tax+OR+taxation%22+progressive+OR+regressive&hl=en&as_sdt=0%2C5
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140810011003/http://homepage.ntlworld.com/janusg/hgh/scots.htm to http://homepage.ntlworld.com/janusg/hgh/scots.htm
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140605080303/http://smarttaxes.org/2012/07/24/land-and-money-reform-synergy-in-new-zealand/ to http://smarttaxes.org/2012/07/24/land-and-money-reform-synergy-in-new-zealand/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140531110700/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/bille-frank_danish-american-georgist-1964.html to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/bille-frank_danish-american-georgist-1964.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150113053410/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/barker-charles_followers-of-henry-george-1953.html to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/barker-charles_followers-of-henry-george-1953.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140529145606/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/george-henry_a-response-to-richard-ely-on-the-question-of-compensation-to-land-owners-1887.html to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/george-henry_a-response-to-richard-ely-on-the-question-of-compensation-to-land-owners-1887.html
*Added  tag to http://www.cooperative-individualism.org/churchill-winston_mother-of-all-monopolies-1909.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131203004921/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/hayes-rutherford_henry-george-1887.html to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/hayes-rutherford_henry-george-1887.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140428034615/http://www.washingtonspectator.org/index.php/Economics/when-progressive-taxation-made-detroit-a-powerhouse.html to http://www.washingtonspectator.org/index.php/Economics/when-progressive-taxation-made-detroit-a-powerhouse.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141101042450/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/land-question_f-h.html to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/land-question_f-h.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141006085910/http://www.thenewandancientstory.net/home/post-capitalism to http://www.thenewandancientstory.net/home/post-capitalism
*Added archive https://archive.is/20150908183320/http://www.akimoo.com/2013/the-economic-thinking-of-jose-marti-legacy-foundation-for-the-integration-of-america/ to http://www.akimoo.com/2013/the-economic-thinking-of-jose-marti-legacy-foundation-for-the-integration-of-america/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213224036/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/norris-kathleen_errors-of-marxism-1940.html to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/norris-kathleen_errors-of-marxism-1940.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140911001701/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/lebrun-victor_leo-tolstoy-and-henry-george-1966.html to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/lebrun-victor_leo-tolstoy-and-henry-george-1966.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141101010830/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/land-question_i-l.html to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/land-question_i-l.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140505024740/https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/313754546486796288 to https://twitter.com/mattyglesias/status/313754546486796288
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224085337/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/schwartzman-jack_a-remembrance-of-anna-george-de-mille-and-agnes-de-mille-1993.html to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/schwartzman-jack_a-remembrance-of-anna-george-de-mille-and-agnes-de-mille-1993.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131004213045/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/neilson-francis_albert-jay-nock-on-henry-george.html to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/neilson-francis_albert-jay-nock-on-henry-george.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141213224031/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/butler-nicholas-murray_progress-and-poverty-1931-01.pdf to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/butler-nicholas-murray_progress-and-poverty-1931-01.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140808060133/http://darrow.law.umn.edu/documents/Land_Belongs_to_People_Everyman_Darrow_1916.pdf to http://darrow.law.umn.edu/documents/Land_Belongs_to_People_Everyman_Darrow_1916.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20141030071512/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/maccallum-spencer_alternative-georgist-tradition-1997-02.pdf to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/maccallum-spencer_alternative-georgist-tradition-1997-02.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131224111525/http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/lincoln-john_fighting-for-fundamentals-1928.html to http://www.cooperativeindividualism.org/lincoln-john_fighting-for-fundamentals-1928.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:03, 10 December 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: A MORE STEALTHY GEORGIST CAT   2019 Macrocompassion
 
The Georgist cat is small and lean
 
And often doesn’t get to be seen. 
It hides in the branches of an economic’s-tree 
So it takes a long while for you or for me, 
To appreciate its cute and original form 
That the landlords are so ready to scorn. 
 
The economic’s-tree has many fine branches 
(On which we contend, there are no free-lunches). 
Whilst the land-owning rich in the city all claim 
As bloated capitalists, that they’re not to blame 
For the gap that lays ‘twixt the poor and the wealthy, 
But oppose any tax to make our nation healthy. 
 
Have you heard the tale of a committee, that 
Thought to bell and get warning of a fat cat? 
But could not find a soul to apply this device, 
Because typically all were a council of mice! 
Our Georgist cat has a bell ready-fitted, 
(Which makes this analogy more to be pitted). 
 
This warning sound makes our ideals unwanted, 
For a new tax is how politicians get doubted. 
So the Georgist cat fails to catch any mice 
That pose as landlords, along with their vice. 
But how shall we silence the bell’s warning sound 
And quieten the news that our pussy’s around? 
 
Our Georgist feline is in serious error, 
‘Cause its bell draws attention not only to whether 
Valuable sites can be ethically shared, 
But also the rent from a site is declared 
As the means to replace other kinds of taxation, 
Which obviously causes the landlords vexation. 
 
In the economic’s tree many other beasts lurk 
But are missed, after learning of Henry G’s quirk 
Through the cat-finder’s recently brilliant discovery. 
This writer seeks a new means for recovery 
From our politi-unacceptable claim, 
And stealthily project LVT once again. 
 
If we would but examine some more of the tree 
Alternatives are waiting there for us to see. 
Among them is hiding a far better way 
For an equivalent LVT effect, to stay 
In essence, without causing such evil offences 
To the landlords and their partitioning fences. 
 
When a property-owner decides to sell--quick 
The gov’ment buys its land, and not the public! 
Its occupant then leases it for a similar fee 
To the One-Tax of Henry George’s decree. 
 
Any buildings on-site should be sold as previously 
But without the land, on which the price grievously 
Had risen, with huge speculation in its advance 
That stopped entrepreneurs from having a chance. 
 
The cost of this land must be raised through new bonds 
Which the government sells and the public responds, 
‘Though their interest-rate’s a bit lower than rent, 
Their returns are more stable than the average tenant! 
 
This process will take many years to complete-- 
So its financial support is no great money feat. 
After the lease-fees begin to collect, 
Gov’ments can tax less, and firmly expect 
To pursue this policy without change, until 
Sufficient cash returns to the Gov’ment’s till. 
  
With the land properly shared, the government sees 
That site development stays with the current leasees. 
Other taxes that cause so much trouble and hate 
Are scrapped, with great pleasure to all in the state, 
Except for some bankers and the tax collectors 
Whose actions no longer apply in these sectors. 
 
Land-rights will be shared through this simple device,
 
By a fast-growing country that takes our advice. 45.80.91.49 (talk) 10:10, 6 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  An alternative Georgist proposal which has the same effect 

message: 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)
thread_title:  That Durn 18-Year Business Cycle

message: 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)
thread_title:  Revertion of r/georgism addition