Removing Land from the Economy
is not a Solution to Poverty
David Sklar
[Reprinted from the Henry George News, June,
1971.
Originally titled: "Evaluation of Ideas"]
In "Henry George Revisited" (May HGN) Godfrey P. Orleans
says, "On the Georgian view, the problems of poverty, inflation,
unemployment, urban deterioration and others might be solved by the
simple act of removing the control of land from the private sector of
the economy."
This is not what George proposed. Before stating what he did propose,
it is necessary to expose the source of Mr. Orleans'
misinterpretation. The use of the terms "private and public
sector" have caused much mischief since they came into vogue. By
this terminology, if five families owned most of the land of a nation
we would say that land was in the hands of the private sector. We
would say the land of a nation was held by the public sector if its
title was vested in the government. The effect is the same in both
cases: control of the land of a nation by a few of its citizens.
George proposed a tax on land values as a means of breaking the
monopoly in land. This is the essential point. This would take control
of the land out of the hands of the few and make it accessible to all.
It would indeed "at once deter speculative trading in land"
because a tax on land values would take the profit out of land
speculation.
It is true that in many respects "the conclusions reached by
Henry George were quite the opposite of those reached by his
contemporaries." But Mr. Orleans' example does not illustrate
this. George agreed "that since supply was itself an expression
of demand there could never be overproduction." George did not as
stated, believe "that supply was itself an expression of a demand
for less than that which was supplied," and he certainly did not
conclude that this caused "a trend towards economic depression."
George did say (p. 270-1, Progress and Poverty) that "the
supply of labor cannot be too great, nor the demand for labor too
small, when people suffer for the lack of things that labor produces.
The real trouble must be that supply is somehow prevented from
satisfying demand, that somewhere is an obstacle which prevents labor
from producing the things laborers want
and that obstacle, it
is clear, is the speculative advance in rent, or the value of land,
..."
Mr. Orleans says that the reasoning on which George's solution is
based "is open to question," but he neither examines
George's reasoning nor opens it to question. The fact that many
volumes have been written on money does not prove that it is more than
a mere medium of exchange and measure of value, "having no value
in itself." Furthermore to say there is a fallacy in the argument
that the supply of land is fixed," is itself a fallacy.
Mr. Orleans' statement that "any increase in the total rental
value of land must be due to an increase in total income, and must
therefore correspond to increases in total wages and total interest"
is not true. The very reverse in true. The increase in total income
increases the total value of land without a corresponding increase in
total wages or interest. This fact and this alone explains why the
tremendous increase in productive power of the past hundred years has
not resulted in the elimination of large-scale poverty - has not even
lessened it - has actually given it a more desperate aspect which now
threatens the very survival of our society.
That Henry George propounded a theory of the economic cycle when his
orthodox contemporaries denied that the economic cycle could even
exist!" is a misstatement. George's contemporaries and
predecessors had numerous theories of the economic cycle, several of
which George comments on in Progress and Poverty. It is also a
misstatement of fact to say that Keynes offered the first generally
accepted explanation of the economic cycle. The overproduction theory
was one of a number that was generally accepted before Keynes, is
still widely believed, and is to be found in current textbooks.
The term "liquidity preference" is not applicable to land.
It may be suitable to monetary theory jargon but not to political
economy. Rather than say that George "failed to express the
problem clearly
because the problem could not be expressed in
the economic language of his time. . ." we should say that he was
able to express the problem clearly because he was not
hampered by the vague language of the current economists, a jargon
designed to confuse rather than clarify.
|