In part 2 of my Georgism series, Wyatt, the sole critical paper I could find, cited an elusive paper by Hagman. An intrepid reader sent me a copy, and we’re already of to a great start as it opens with a fictional letter to the author concerning a report on Land Value Tax on Mars
The Secretary of Space is now writing to Henry George III and giving him orders from the President of the United States to set up the colony of New Chicago on the planet of Mars at a location scouted by Colonel John Glen II
I am not making this up
Basic Martian land tax policy is to first establish a budget, and then raise that amount of money from land rents and no more. This is basically identical to the policy Ted Gwartney supports, and probably falls well short of 100% LVT in this scenario
George III expects land value increase from development to fully cover public spending needs, citing evidence from Howe from 1904-1908
George III insists LVT will not be passed on to the tenant, citing something from Haig.
Starting to feel Wyatt is doing his selective citing of Georgists thing again where he misrepresents what they actually say
Omg it gets better. This whole thing is a bizarre Georgist fan fic frame story! HAGMAN IS NOT GOING TO BREAK CHARACTER FOR THIS WHOLE THING.
Okay entire history of land taxation of Earth. Let’s go future space George.
So weird!
This was published in the UCLA law review by the way, so remember that next time your favorite sci fi short story gets rejected.
We're told the movement reached it's height between 1910-1920 during which there were two prominent experiments: The Houston Plan under J. J Pastoriza, and The Pittsburgh-Scranton experiment.
I will definitely be looking up the citation for the Pittsburgh-Scranton experiment later.
There were no other major experiments in the USA according to Space George, other than Hawaii in the 60's, which he argues doesn't really qualify as a truly Georgist LVT experiment.
"Early experiments begun in other countries however, notably in France, Denmark, Germany, Australia, New Zealand, and Canada, were continued and in some instances expanded in scope."
Allegedly Pittsburgh had shown success as late as the 60s and a Georgist revival was growing when the Joint Center for Urban Studies started lobbying against it
Space George name checks all the Georgist organizations of the 20th century, describes them as poised to strike when state constitutional bars on split rate taxation (pastoriza’s bane) struck
Uniformity clauses caused problems but many experiments YOLO’d anyway
This thing just goes on and on, I found the part Wyatt is quoting. The "Valuer General of New Zealand" mentioned in Wyatt is a fictional character visiting New Chicago, Mars, to explain the history of Land Value taxation in New Zealand.
Okay! So what follows after that is an account of Land Value Taxation succeeding really well early on, and then dramatically falling apart for various reasons and concludes with Land Value Taxation being a dramatic failure on Mars.
The problems that happened on new Mars are (keep in mind this is all a piece of weird fan fiction):
- Difficulty with assessments
- LVT supporting such dense building that there was TOO MUCH density
- Overtaxation
Okay so now we have the historical interview with the Valuer General of New Zealand. It's a weird fan fiction frame story in space, but it's still a historical account.
WHAT WENT WRONG IN NEW ZEALAND, OH WISE VALUER GENERAL?
Okay! An actual claim here, and it looks like Wyatt wasn’t jerking our chain after all. Hagman actually supports his claim
Aaaand that's it for New Zealand. So if we want to know more we have to look up the citation for Bird and the 1961 Assessors' News Letter.
Hagman never talks about this again and just goes on to talk about the failed fictional LVT experiment on Mars
So the weird frame story is obviously a vehicle for transposing historical details about things that happened on Earth with LVT experiments and working them out as a thought experiment, but the framing is SUPER unhelpful as it's hard to separate historical account from fiction
Basically this article is a super weird way to make what amounts to a mostly theoretical argument with a sprinkling of historical details. In the end this article is mostly only useful to mine for its citations.
We get a little taste of some kind of vague problem with New Zealand's LVT experiment but we're just told there was "no evidence" but it's not really explained what went wrong
Crucially, we don't see ANYTHING from the Valuer General of New Zealand telling us about whether land value taxes are capitalized into the price of land, which is the only thing we really cared to find out about by going down this rabbit hole.
I cannot stop thinking about the fact that Kazakhstan and Alexandra Elkabyan exist in a sufficient state to put them beyond the reach of established IP enforcers is responsible for a greater contribution to the advancement of human knowledge than billions of dollars in funding
The deadweight loss that has been lifted by the existence of Sci-Hub is so large as to literally be uncalculable, there is so much extremely necessary research that simply could not be done without it and it all depends on Central Asia thumbing its nose at IP treaties
If anything ever happens to this precious woman every academic needs to announce a general strike
Based on feedback, there are 3 general objections to Georgism that I feel are worth rigorously researching and addressing.
1. Georgism encourages paving the earth in the name of profit 2. The transition to Georgism is too costly 3. Georgism is politically unviable
I'd like to register for the record that I don't have fully formed opinions on these just yet! For instance, I was first introduced to Georgism by a friend and mentor of mine, and 1. is actually his chief concern with it (for which he makes various modifications).
2 & 3 are kind of tied up in the same general point, and basically rely on finding case studies and examining them in detail.
I think the general point to be made here is that way more radical things than Maximum Georgism have been pulled off before.
"What do you think of the studies?"
"They're wrong, here, look at my thought experiment."
"I'm willing to believe they might be flawed. What was flawed about their methodologies that made you distrust their conclusions?"
"They're wrong, here, look at my thought experiment."
"Your first study is flawed because reasons."
"I disagree but let's grant you that anyways. I included multiple studies for this reason. What do you think of the other dozen studies?"
"Your first study is flawed because reasons."
I am very, very, very tired of people slinging theory back at each other ALL DAY without being willing to be pinned down to scenarios in which we're willing to be proven wrong to each other. I will abandon Georgism in a heartbeat if you can reliably prove it's predictions false.
"Here's why I think X is true"
"No, it's obviously wrong"
"Here's an exhaustive literature review with widespread empirical research that strongly suggests its true"
"No it's obviously wrong"
"Why"
"It's obvious"
"Are you going to engage with the cited sources?"
"No it's obvious"
Look I am not the smartest guy in the world and I am often wrong about things -- sometimes even *provably* wrong -- but please at least make an effort here sheesh
Point out some flaws in the studies. Question the evidence, kick the methodology in the nuts. But please do SOMETHING other than just continue to assert nothing but your own theories over and over again
I'm always a little thrown off whenever someone doesn't address a core piece of something I've written with actual evidence of their own, but talks about how immature and obviously false the piece is, and then when I ask for clarification says I'm stupid if I'm even asking
Like cool story bro but maybe you're the one who's arrogant and childish
My next favorite is someone who refuses to state their disagreement to a fundamentally empirical question in the form of a falsifiable hypothesis
Some people say Land is not an important thing in the economy. The evidence says otherwise, read this thread for more.
I have five testable hypotheses for whether land is a "really big deal" or not:
1. Most of the value of urban real estate is land 2. America's land rents equal a sizable % of government spending 3. Land represents a significant % of all major bank loans
...
4. Land represents a significant % of all gross personal assets 5. Land ownership is highly concentrated among the wealthy