The Philosophy of Henry George

Edwin H. Friedman

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

LET'S take a flash-back, to the time when Henry George held forth, to see what, if any, difference there was between the world in which he moved and that of our time. We may thus judge for ourselves whether his thinking and preachments are really outmoded as is sometimes charged. The year 1879, I think you will agree, is a particularly good year to serve as the basis of comparison.

I delved into some statistical data in preparation for this little journey back into time. The closest year of the United States census to 1879 was the year 1880. The population then was 50,155,783. Today, according to reliable estimates, it is 166 millions, perhaps more. What is the significance of this vast increase in the number of people? George said that with every mouth that came into this world there were also two hands that went with it.

The enormous increase in the population of the United States has engendered an unprecedented speculation in land sites, particularly for industrial, commercial and residential uses. At this moment building lots and acreage in and about cities and municipalities of all sizes throughout the country are at their highest prices in history.

What about production? Our/ current economists speak' of it as the "gross national product" and estimate it as about 420 billions of dollars for this year. This is a far cry from the gross national product of George's day, to be sure, but all the more reason now exists to emancipate land - the source of all production - from the monopolistic grasp of the land speculators.

This tremendous productive output incidentally, seems to confirm in part George's refutation of the Malthusian thesis. Manifestly, subsistence need not lag behind the growth of population.

Henry George has shown that the failure of organized society to collect the economic rent of land necessitates the taxing of labor and the products of labor. What about such taxation? Well, everyone knows the amount of the so-called "Eisenhower Budget" for this fiscal year. Something like 71 billions, isn't it? Back in George's era, statistics show, the government expended the sum of approximately 256 millions a year which was only three-tenths of one percent of what they're spending now. And that spending, by reason of the taxation which it necessitates, comes largely out of the pockets of labor.

John Marshall an early Chief Justice of the United States Supreme Court and one of the best, said that the power to tax is the power to destroy. The destructive nature of our current tax policies is becoming increasingly evident every day. I have observed in my experience as a lawyer that business and financial ventures depend largely on the tax consequences which are expected to ensue. Deals are made and deals fall through solely because of the tax impact on the enterprise and on the individuals involved.

It is paradoxical, but true, that corporations which have been losing money are coveted by other corporations. The "tax loss," as it is called, helps reduce the successful businessman's tax burden, and this makes a failing business a desirable thing!

One need not be a historian or a sociologist to know that wars have been caused by economic stress or economic disparity between the warring nations. When Progress and Poverty was first published the Civil War - or War of The Rebellion, if you prefer, had been over for 15 years and the next war, the Spanish-American, was still some 19 years in the future. Since then, the U. S. has been involved in three major wars and the worst one of all is now being feverishly prepared for. Would it not be the understatement of the year to say we are presently "at peace"?

What of the other evil consequences which unwanted poverty and economic insecurity bring in their wake? What of the family and the home? I thought it would be interesting to see what the marriage situation was in Henry George's day as compared to the present. Well, curiously enough, the rate of new marriages annually has remained the same. One would have thought that there would be a greater percentage of people entering matrimony in times like the present which are alleged to be so much better economically. On the other hand, the rate of divorces annually is very significant - back in 1890 it was 0.5 percent now it is 2.5 percent - a 500 percent increase!

Other vital statistics are similarly enlightening: The number of crimes committed has increased approximately 27 percent since the turn of the century - that is roughly four times as fast as population has increased. Persons under 18 represent about half the number arrested for theft of one sort or another. Crimes against property - that is, robbery, burglarly, embezzlement and larceny - have taken a big jump proportionately since Henry George's time.

A few weeks ago, I had occasion to attend a session of the night court on Centre Street in Manhattan. I was struck by the relatively large number of shoplifters that were picked up in the department stores and the number of people who were arrested for trying to ride the subways by putting a slug instead of a 15-cent token into the turnstiles. One pathetic old man pleaded to be sent to jail so he could at least have a "home." Now, this is the year 1957 I am talking about, not 80 years ago.

So my search has not revealed that economic distress or, better, the fear of economic insecurity, has been ended for all time. It is still very much with us today. Civilizations have been known to decline and fall as the result of the prolonged impoverishment of the masses, and the lack of incentive. For the moment, we are living in an era of plenty, but it can mean plenty of trouble. With all the present-day creature comforts, there is still a vast number in this land of ours, to say nothing of the rest of the world, who find life a difficult struggle to obtain the bare necessities of life.