Are Georgists Nuts?

Marshall Crane

[Reprinted from the Henry George News, January, 1957]

Once or twice a year someone who ought to know what he is talking about comes out with a statement of the number of pupils who are currently studying the economics of Henry George. It will not be long before some of these neophytes will be holding down chairs in Congresses, legislatures, and city councils. Others will be teachers, writers, editors, lawyers. And all of them will be voters. What may they not accomplish?

I am reminded of a letter from a man whom I regard as one of the greatest living Georgists. He is a ranking economist and sociologist, and I am sure that you have heard of his educational and political activities. Every public library of any size contains at least a couple of his books. In his letter he quoted an acquaintance - not an economist and not a Georgist - who had recently remarked to him: "Sure! I've read Henry George. I think he's fine. His theories are as sound and logical as they can be. But I can't deny that his disciples - Georgists, is that what you call them? - do get me down a little. To be honest with you, I think they're all nuts!"

What do you think of that? I'm a Georgist. You're a Georgist. Well? Are we nuts? They say that even your best friends won't tell you.

I wish I knew more Georgists. I do know quite a few. All are inclined to be individualists, and some are unusual and amusing people - genuine "characters," in fact. But none are dumbbells, and all have seemed sane to me. What, then, did my eminent friend's friend means?

He speaks very highly of Henry George and of his principles, yet he thinks that others who accept these principles are nuts. Isn't there a contradiction here? They are nuts because they are Georgists, yet not because of the doctrines of Henry George, which really are Georgism, its very heart and soul.

How are we to explain this man's position? Are we to conclude that George's theories have a different meaning to him than they have to us? I cannot see how. For Henry George is almost unique, in that there just are no variant interpretations of what he wrote, or so it seems to me. If he is known at all, he is understood. Progress and Poverty was an expository work, not an analytic one, and in it the author took the reader by the hand and led him from one principle to the next. He may have shocked the academic economists of his day by his scorn of their polite double talk and semantic gymnastics. (He actually defined his terms - the bounder!) But no reader has ever been in doubt as to what he meant.

This being the case, it appears that we must assume that our critic believes there is something the matter with contemporary Georgists' ideas for applying their master's theories to our present-day economy. There is no other explanation of his remark.

There is, of course, a "lunatic fringe" of folks who just occasionally quote Henry George, for reasons best known to themselves. Some of these people have prescriptions for curing assorted ills of our economy which are real masterpieces of fantastic creation. But it was not these wacky geniuses that our friend had in mind when he spoke of nuts. There are not a great many of them, for one thing; hardly enough to be the subject of such a generalization. And their ideas are too varied and fantastic for anyone to mistake them for Georgists.

Realistic Approach

No, it is my opinion that this chap was speaking of the type of single taxer who somehow fails to see that any reform will have to be built against the background of our economy as it actually is today. He was restating a fact which we have all heard again and again, but which we really cannot hear too often: that the social scientist who is not a realist is little more than a dreamer.

And though it was surely an exaggeration when he said that "all" Georgists were of this breed, I think we must agree that the species does exist, and that its "nuttiness" is a decided handicap to the movement in general.

Think, for instance, of the business firm which has invested capital funds in land or its equivalent. The source of that capital is land, rent, interest and wages. In its original form it produced rent, interest and wages. Now that it is land, however, its product will be rent alone. What else? But is it realistic to expect companies which have invested their capital in land to support our program? It is quite true that eventually a change to land-value taxation will be of tremendous advantage to capital enterprise, but in many instances the immediate effect will be to cripple it, at least until some adjustment to the new system has been made. Or so it will seem to many boards of directors. And very few legislatures are likely to work for tax reforms in opposition to industrial constituents.

Some companies, engaged in commerce, mostly, pay little or no direct tax on real estate, but their landlords see that they do pay indirectly. Usually they are quite aware that land values will always be highest on just the sort of property which is most useful to them. So, while they will profit eventually with the rest of the community as the production and consumption of goods increase, they will, in many cases, suffer while any such change is being put into effect.

In other words, our industrial and commercial corporations are, potentially at least, the most powerful opponents the single tax has. Yet I have met Georgists who become very indignant when I suggest that it might be a good idea to soften the impact of tax reform for them, either by some economic technique or, perhaps, by some sort of policy of more gradual change. They remind me that Henry George's theories are based on moral principles. They are horrified at the mere thought of what they call "compromising with evil." No bread at all is apparently better than anything less than a whole loaf, so far as they are concerned. To hear them talk, one is inclined to doubt if they would be Georgists at all if they did not believe they were backing a "lost cause." There is a definitely masochistic flavor to their line of talk.

I would like to suggest that it may be these who were referred to as "nuts" by our critics - not because of the general principles but because of the utterly impractical approach to anything which can properly be called reform. What do you think?