| ||ASK HENRY ABOUT:|
Letters to Henry
Send a letter
Hi, help me I need some funds to start my own business in South Africa.Its hard to survive here.I will repay you as soon as I make money. Please respond!!!!!!!!
-- from Nkosinathi Maseti
In "Natural Order, the State, and the Immigration Problem", Hans-Hermann Hoppe claims that the institution of the state is the cause of emigration. But according to FRANZ OPPENHEIMER one must also focus on LAND MONOPOLY (on which he blames the defects of capitalism). Franz Oppenheimer defines 'monopoly' as a position of economic power which makes exchange differently urgent for the partners, thus violating the equivalence of exchange essential for a free society. His thesis is that the exchange economy does not tolerate 'great landed property' - that economic institution of the plolitical means - as legitimate and on an equal footing with property arising from work personally done. The state, says Oppenheimer is a creature of forcible conquest, a parasite on the body of the community. As soon as the state comes into existence it creates the 'large estate'!! The masses have been shut out from the land; it was 'monopolized' by the conquering class under the legal form of the 'large estate'. When the land is enclosed, the consequence is that people are forced to EMIGRATE because the way to a livelihood at home is blocked. It is the closing of access to the land which ultimatedly causes immigration, claims Franz Oppenheimer. Sincerely, Gilbert De Bruycker - Belgium
-- from Gilbert De Bruycker
Dear sir, Till recently I've always wavered between Henry George and Franz Oppenheimer. According to Oppenheimer land is plentyfull. If land is no longer limited as an effect of great land property, there is enough land for those who want to use it. The only condition is that nobody should appropriate more land than he and his family can till AND that the acres are in inverse proportion of their rent capacity; there would not exist groundrent anymore! Land rent is a differential; what matters is not the rent per acre, but the total amount of rent depending on the number of acres owned. That's why Franz Oppenheimer dismissed Henry George's proposal of the 'single tax'. But now - after having read a critical essai of Oppenheimer's major work - I am not longer sure that Oppenheimer is right. In "Oppenheimers System des liberalen Sozialismus" (Jena 1928), Kurt Werner explains why "Die Differentialrenteunterschiede durch blosse Hufengrössenunterschiede im umgekehrter Proportionalität nicht können ausgeschaltet werden" ( also E. Pleissner in Zeitschrift für die gesamte Staatswissenschaft 1912, p.369 : " die Ungleichkeit der Einkommen aus gleiche Arbeit wird wieder hergestellt"). What will disappear - after abolition of great landed property - is the 'rack-rent', i.e. rent at the margin (cf. Max Hirsch, 'Democracy versus Socialism', p.130). As M. Pantaleoni in his 'Pure Economics', p.270 explains, there can be a rent APART from qualitative differences in lands. If lands are less in amount than the demand, the only limit to the price consists in the comparative degrees of final utility of these lands and the other commodities. The price obtained is a surplus profit. After all, Henry George didn't make a mistake with his proposal of the "single tax'!
-- from Gilbert De Bruycker Belgium
Hi the link of "Henry George" is dead. Henryk Rostowicz http://landtax.co.il/english/
-- from Henryk Rostowicz
I have two points which are troubling me. 1/GEORGE contends that improvements in the techn. of production increases the production of wealth and also rent. But REISMAN in his book 'Capitalism' explains that rent in such a case will DECREASE. Some time ago I mentioned this in the discussion room, but the reactions were not wholly to the point and rather confused. Afterwards I discovered that Max HIRSH in his'Democracy versus Socialism' (p.446) had to admit that GEORGE was to some small extent in error when he alleged that the effect of improvements in methods of production is to increase rent, because ONE KIND OF IMPROVEMENT in agriculture, a very rare one, i.e. that of methods applicable to ALL land REDUCES RENT. On this last message there was no reaction, and this is strange because according to KYRIAZI in his 'Libertarian Party at Sea on Land' (p.49) HIRSH "agreed completely with George". Hirsh he says "answered all the criticisms of Georgism". You understand that this is puzzling me not a little. This in fact was the reason I hoped for a reaction of Prof. FRED F. FOLDVARY as the most and best specialized Georgist; of course I realized that this was not be so evident and I merely let it be a wish. 2/WILHELM RÖPKE in 'Die Lehre von der Wirtschaft'(p.252) gives another explanation of 'Die Grundrententheorie' on basis of the theorie of 'the opportunity costs'; a theory which Prof. FOLDVARY accepts (according his Dictionary). RÖPKE explains that what appears as a 'differential rent' is nothing else than the PRICE of a 'factor of production'. Landrent he says , is the price paid for using this factor; land is SCARCE and can be used in ALTERNATIVE WAYS. In landrent, he explains, we find the expression of the fact, in what degree land of this or that kind (type) is more or less scarce! Land has to be withdrawn from certain uses for other, better ones. The function of land-rent is to register this fact and to make sure that land of a certain kind in a certain region or place finds THE BEST ALTERNATIVE USE. Land-rent always exist when there is a shortage of it and has NOTHING to do with the availability or existence of 'free, but less fertile land' as the theory of the differential rent claims (cf. Prof. Foldvary's Dictionary). These are severe objections against the principle's of geo-economics, and since here in Belgium I know of no-one who is intersted or specialized in Georgism, I put again my hope on you (or others, you are acquainted with) for an answer on these. Sincerely Yours, Gilbert De Bruycker - Belgium.
-- from Gilbert De Bruycker
I am looking for a quote that I seem to remember from Albert Nock. It was something to the effect that "If man's first dictum is survival than his second is certainly exploitation of his fellow man." Is my recollection in error or where might I find the quote.
-- from Harold G. Richard
Now that I've chatted a bit and it appears that nobody has the answer, I think its about time that we started to talk and think sense.
If LTV is such a good thing and our approach is a scientific one than it must be possible using these methods (whicj eventually include the best language of all, mathematics) to prove it. That means in the exact science of the physics and mechanics departments of study, to model and simulate for any reasonable set of conditions the fact that TLV will result in greated progress than the taxation of productive processes.
Since I can already claim that there are no takers it is obvious that we drastically need to improve our methods of analysis and presentation. I might add that I am well on the way to achieving this apparently wild claim but could do with a little encouragement (and help).
-- from David Chester
Can anybody provide me with a proper explanation of general equilibrium in macroeconomics? It is my opinion that
a) this subject is vital to the understanding of our subject BUT
b) there is not one Georgist who has grasped the meaning and implications.
I hope that i am wrong.
Sincely, David Chester, P.O.B 381, Petach Tikva, 49103, Israel.
-- from David chester
I would like to draw your attention on a critique i have read in 'Man, Economy and State'(p. 888) of Murray N. Rothbard , about unearned increment.
'Growing capital structure, division of labor, and population tend to make site land relatively more scarce and hence cause the increase.The argument of the georgists is that the landowner is not morally responsible for this rise, yet he reaps the benefit.
The difficulty with this argument is that it proves far too much. For which one of us would earn anything like our present real income were it not for external benefits that we deive from the action of others?
Specifically, the great modern accumulation of capital goods isn inheritance from all the net savings of our ancesters.
We are all, therefore, free riders on the past. We are also free riders on the present, because we benefit from the investment of our fellow men.
The landowner has no more of an unearned increment than anyone of us."
It should be helpful for me to know what your opion, and answer is about Rothbard's argument.
-- from gilbert de bruycker
I am a danish georgeist - member of the board of the political party "Retsforbundet", which in english is "society for justice" . I have just connected to the internet and its wonderful to discover, that we are not alone in the world. I will often return to this site. One of the questions, I am dealing with, is: what will land tax pay to society. Just looking at the land value in Denmark brings many people to the conclusion, that land tax is not "enough" to met our needs - but I think that the reduction of normal tax on labour etc. will increase the land value - so we gradually can swift from tax to single tax. Excuse me for my poor English.l
-- from Thorkil Sohn, Denmarkmrk
henry you are always cool! Why not have Super henry T-Shirts at '99? This site is FANTASTIC! Sincerely, Sue & Scott
-- from sue & scott
VERY cool! This kind of informational center point has been needed for a long time. Thanks!
-- from Scott Kroyer
How great it is! This is what I have wanted to have for a long time. I'll tell about this to Korean Georgists.
-- from Yoon-Sang Kim
What a great site! I have bookmarked it and will return often.
-- from Ron Malone
Send mail to Henry!
Use this form, or simply email if you prefer.
back to Henry