George in the 21st Century
Part 1
Mason Gaffney
[
GroundSwell, March-April 2007]
(Note: Owing to the provocative and complex nature of the
discussion on labor, capital, and interest, we will devote a
complete Insights to it in the July/August issue of
GroundSwell.)
Henry George warned his 1879 readers that mistakes are generally
concealed by the respect paid to authority. He urged them to think
for themselves, and to follow truth wherever it may lead.
In ten years or less he rocketed from ground level into the lofty
orbit of authority himself, author of several widely-quoted books,
beaming down instruction and inspiration to new forces in politics
in several nations including his own.
What now of respect paid to authority? He continued to urge
people to think for themselves. He did not want you or me to follow
him slavishly or cultishly. So it is with Georges advance
approval that I venture to suggest how we might improve on his
teaching.
Improve? In whose opinion? This could be an opening for
sectarianism and schism. I abjure them. What unites us is prior to
what divides us, and must always be. We unite in believing, like
Moses, that each member of each succeeding generation has an equal
right to the earth, and this right should be implemented
continuously, practicably, starting now. Beyond that there are
matters of explaining our views to others, of keeping up with
changes in circumstances, of aligning with this or that party or
topical ism: those have always evoked, and probably always
will evoke disputes over different methods of analysis, rival gurus
and egos, and incompatible personal preferences. So be it, we
must learn to live with the tension, and achieve unity with
diversity: let our motto be e pluribus unum.
To improve on George, in my opinion, we need two big classes of
changes. One is to acknowledge some errors in his original work,
errors that have handicapped his missionaries and exegetes from the
start. The other big class is to adapt his basic idea to modern
conditions.
A.
Some Georgist Errors to Discard
1. Capital and labor. George went too far identifying
capital with labor, on the grounds that labor produces capital. He
overlooked the role of land, plus preexisting capital, in producing
new capital. He neglected the role of saving.
Capital, in a word, is anything produced by mankind, in tandem
with land and other capital, that has not yet returned to dust,
i.e. that retains some value. Georges attempted distinction
between capital proper and other wealth (i.e. consumer
capital like housing) is vain and useless at best, a distraction
from his central thesis, an invitation to aimless hairsplitting, and
misleading in that it downgrades both the quantity and productivity
of consumer capital.
2. Capital formation. George as a theorist was insouciant
about the need for market incentives to create and conserve capital.
He wrote (Book I, Chap. 5) that a healthy economy automatically secretes
its needed capital. In this respect he superficially resembled Marx
and Keynes, but only in theory. In practice, he saw the role of
taxation in weakening such incentives, and so his policy proposals
do recognize the need for incentives for capital. It is his
rationale that is twisted he thought that by untaxing capital
he was untaxing labor.
This left a blind spot among some who are not alert to the bias
and distortions involved in untaxing capital while taxing payrolls
directly (Gaffney, 1995). There was no payroll tax in Georges
day, and no withholding from wages (we have Milton Friedman to thank
for that). Today the payroll tax alone raises more funds than the
corporate income tax, while the money is spent to lower high-bracket
income-tax rates while the national debt heads for the moon.
It is income less consumption, i.e. saving, that creates capital.
The saving of landowners and capital owners, not just the saving of
laborers, creates capital. Actually most saving today derives from
property income, mainly corporate income. Once formed, Capital
is kept in existence from age to age by perpetual reproduction
J.S. Mill. But if this reproduction fails, capital dwindles
away.
3. Income-creating spending. To reproduce capital, the
owners must reinvest it concurrently as they divest it through
sales, in the normal course of business: for the economy as a whole
is a great going concern with reinvestments anticipating
and equaling sales. Net new savings must be invested, too, and
normally are not just concurrently but even in anticipation
of future saving. Investing generates incomes and jobs. George
needlessly belittled the role of income-creating investing. Again,
his policy proposal, to untax capital, would foster such job
creation (a conclusion also reached by Keynes), but he went out of
his way to deny the relationship, which he regarded as affronting
the dignity of labor a stubborn polemical reflex from his
labor union days.
4. Role of interest rates. Interest is paid because
without it, demand for capital exceeds supply. Why is there demand?
Because capital is productive not just in biological forms,
as George wrote, but in all forms. Why is there no infinite supply?
Because without interest, prodigals would waste capital away, as we
will illustrate.
George had little concept of the role of interest rates in
allocating capital: in saving potential working capital from being
sequestered in pyramid-building kinds of projects
(whether developmental, premature, or megalomaniac). He dismissed
his contemporary Austrian economists for what he mistook as merely
scientistic obscurity, pomp and pretense, while he missed the valid
analysis underlying them (Gaffney, 1976). He condemned them not for
what they were, but for the attitude of academicians who would quote
them to buffalo Americans who, like George, did not read German.
Interest rates also prevent people from dissipating capital in
profligate consumption. That is because if loans were free of
interest, one could borrow infinitely to build and operate a yacht
longer than a battleship a la Larry Ellison, a private golf course a
la Walter Annenberg, a stable of race horses, residences all over
the world, a few monuments to ones self a la Saddam Hussein or
W.A.C. Bennett of B.C. (his monuments doubled as dams), a
million-acre ranch or two a la Ted Turner, a holy war against the
infidels a la Osama bin Laden, a crusade to control the holy
warriors oil fields a la George W. Bush, ... all the things we
see prodigals and politicians actually doing today when they have
unlimited funds and no constraints. If the loans ever came due, one
could simply borrow again at zero interest until there was no
more capital to borrow, which would be soon.
George was apparently unaware that his academic nemesis,
Professor J.B. Clark of Columbia University, disliked the Austrians
even more than he did. Ironically, Clark disputed the Austrians as
part of his anti-Georgist campaign: they analyzed how capital turns
over (is formed and dies), distinguishing it clearly from land,
which does neither. Clark was engaged in recasting theory to fuse
land with capital to cleanse theory of ideas basic to understanding
Georgist tax reform; so he had to discredit the Austrians.
In a word, Austrians stressed that a function of interest rates
is to direct capital away from too much hard path
technology, reserving it for the soft-path. The way they
saw it, higher interest rates discourage what we now call upstream
production (mining, primary products) in favor of more downstream
production (processing, storing, packaging, distributing, recycling,
etc.), nearer the ultimate consumer. They didnt use those
terms. Rather, they called them higher and lower
stages of production, but a rose by any other name ... .
Thus, interest rates are friendly to the environment, and the
popular panacea of lower rates leads us from soft to hard
technology. (George in his first book, Our Land and Land Policy
(1871) criticizes the waste of capital in premature railroad
building, but he mutes this in later works.)
B.
Needed modern adaptations
Like any great writers ideas, some of Georges are
timeless. Others need adapting to later insights, perceived
problems, technologies, and social organizations.
1. Green economics. Georges paeans to compact
settlement, both rural and urban, comport well with the modern need
to discourage invasion of wilderness areas, wetlands, etc. George
would satisfy the demand for land on the lands best suited for human
use, leaving most of the earth for nature (Gaffney, 1976). It is
true that he understated the high capacity of good lands to meet all
human needs (Gaffney, 1999). In some colorful oratory he overstated
frontier virtues, anticipating Frederick J. Turner. His work on the
marginal productivity theory of wage determination puts too much
emphasis on the farming margin of cultivation, following
Ricardo. In practice, however, George (like Ricardo) was an
urbanist: at times a seaman, at times a miner, a typesetter and
journalist, ever a union man, he never claimed to be a farmer. He
understood full well that the margin of production
refers to the last measure of output one can afford to squeeze from
the best land, and not just to toiling on that strip of
herbage strown, that just divides the desert from the sown.
In other respects, fully to green up Georgism we need
to free it from its exclusive focus on the virtues of a land tax
levied in the form of a property tax (Gaffney, 1998). George himself
stated his central thesis in a more general form: We must make
land common property. To him, the property tax was simply the
most convenient and practical tool to that end, one directly at
hand. It was also in his day the major source of public revenues.
Now, we need at least two changes. One is to recognize the
occasional virtues of taxes on extracting or withdrawing natural
resources from the earth. (Gaffney, 1967, 1977, 1981, 1982, 1983,
1998). This has become the most common meaning of green taxes.
An example is withdrawing water from rivers and aquifers (Gaffney,
1992). A second example is levying effluent charges on polluters,
where that is feasible (Gaffney, 1965). This proposal harks back at
least to A.C. Pigou (1928), and often bears his name.
Obvious as may be the virtues of such green taxes, polluters have
successfully rallied behind an alternative, the tradable pollution
permit. This idea entered academia through J.H. Dales and Ronald
Coase, who challenged the polluter pays principle. It
entails in practice, when nobody is looking, a massive validation of
pollution, making it a kind of property right, based on ancient
and honorable histories of pollution. With tragic
predictability, most academic economists favor the Coasian giveaway
system. This is not the place to skewer it as it deserves, but
obviously Georgists should prefer a polluter pays
system.
A less obvious, but more challenging case is dealing with non-point
pollution. Here, simple market-oriented policies are impossible to
apply. Some problems call for systemic changes that make us think
outside the box of the market and its logic. I have offered up a
package of such changes elsewhere (Gaffney, 1987). It is too big a
topic to open here.
A second big change needed is to adapt to the unhappy fact that
the property tax is no longer the mainstay of our tax system. It was
when George wrote. It should be, but it isnt, so sweating
bullets to reform the property tax can be loves labor lost, in
those states where other taxes dwarf it. There was no point in
racing our pulses over the one-time reform in Hawaii, as once we
did, for the property tax rate there was and is too low to matter.
Property tax reform is perilous even in Pennsylvania, where the
legislature any afternoon could cap the rate statewide, as it has
threatened. In Michigan under Gov. John Engler the State in 1995 did
outlaw the local property tax for public schools, replacing it with
a sales tax. (Tragically and predictably, Michigan quickly developed
the second highest unemployment rate in the U.S., after Mississippi,
as hundreds of thousands of jobs leave the State, and thank you,
Gov. Engler.) Even in New Hampshire, where the property tax is
substantial, Federal taxes swamp the effects of local taxes. We need
to look into reforming Federal taxation, even if that means
proceeding without instructions from our great helmsman, Henry
George.
2. Taxing preemptive capital. Some capital
serves its owner to preempt common lands. An example is a large,
fast, noisy, dangerous, oil-slicking, air-fouling motorboat on a
small lake. By taxing or banning such resource-hogs we would
instantly make thousands of small lakes larger, in terms of
satisfying human wants.
More generally, there are one million registered recreational
boats in Florida alone, from dinghies to superyachts. Their moorings
and canals observably preempt prime waterfront space where they
compete with condos and mansions. Inland Michigan has even
more boats than Florida, while all the coastal states have hundreds
of thousands.
Size per boat keeps growing, in waves of sterile emulation, where
money is burned to prove one can afford it without blinking. (Veblen
might be chortling up on his cloud, thinking I told you so!)
A 40 yacht was once the ultimate; then came superyachts
of 80; next, megayachts, 150; and now gigayachts,
up to 525 for the Prince of Dubai, with Larry Ellison in hot
pursuit to be ichiban. 525 is as long as a battleship of the
dreadnought class of W.W. I. It is nearly half as long as the QE II
or an oil supertanker, but it is all for just one owner and his
toys. Worldwide, 651 more mega and gigayachts were under
construction in 2005. As the average boat lengthens, Marinas
are having to consolidate smaller slips into longer, wider, deeper
ones. Bear in mind that the beam of a boat rises roughly in step
with its length, and draft and height in significant steps, while
maneuverability falls.
A more everyday example is the preemption of space on streets and
highways by vehicles. Georgists for years have recognized parking
meters as applied Georgism. Professor Donald Shoup of UCLA has won
great acclaim with excellent recent works on the rich revenue
potential of such meters, if priced properly. Now we need to grasp
that moving vehicles, too, occupy scarce, valuable public space, and
should pay for it. The moving vehicle actually preempts more space
than the parked one, and needs to be constrained.
How do you catch a moving vehicle to pay a tax or rental? Several
methods are already in place, actually: tax the fuel; tax the car as
personal property; tax the sale of cars; fit cars with transponders,
paid in advance, that register their passing key checkpoints. In
choosing and improving methods, we can do no better than think of
ourselves as applying Georges principle that land space
on the surface of the earth is common property.
The political nut is tougher to crack. Only a few states
(California is one) tax cars at all as property. In Virginia, Jim
Gilmore (R) ran for Governor in 1997 on a platform plank of taking
the property tax off cars. Voter reaction was so favorable he is now
seeking his Partys nomination for President of the U.S.,
citing that success. You can imagine what his victory
would mean for national policies.
Think what that means. In Virginia, the capital in a business
building is taxed, but the capital in the cars on the parking lots
around it is untaxed, creating an obvious bias for parking lots over
buildings. Then when those cars hit the public road and preempt more
space, they are untaxed, even at rush hours when they are jammed for
miles.
To beat the ground traffic we fly the friendly skies. Then we
find that the possession of a small plane, for business or hobby,
lets one person preempt a scarce landing slot ahead of a jumbo jet
with 300 passengers packed like sardines inside it, who may get
stacked up for hours.
Offroad vehicles are another obvious example. Part of our great
secular superstition about property is the notion that a piece of
capital equipment is as sacred as, or more sacred than persons
themselves: that the vehicle endows its owner with more rights to
public space than the simple possession of two legs. It makes sense
that everyone has an equal right to a public sidewalk. It does not
make sense that they may bring their Urban Assault Vehicles and
18-wheelers with them. The idea that they can may hark back to
centuries of deference to mounted warriors, but is also encouraged
today by merchants who see motorists as bearing more cash than
pedestrians do. Above all, those who foster this attitude are the
makers and sellers of vehicles, fuels, and paving materials.
The totemic attitude toward polluting vehicles is frozen into law
and public attitudes. Thus, the law condemns the person who takes
direct action against polluting vehicles by monkeywrenching.
This is vandalism, a crime against property, a felony. But the law
condones the vehicles themselves, and turns the greater felons free,
who vandalize other men and the earth, recklessly.
Surfboards make another example, but once one gets the basic
idea, one can furnish scores of additional examples of preemptive
capital. To tax such capital is, in effect, to tax the grabbing of
common lands by the owners of the capital. Sometimes regulation or
banning is the better choice, depending on particulars, but the
principle is Georgist: recognize land as common property, and take
measures to assert that common ownership.
3. The rural landed gentry.
Georgists have focused on urban land, stressing its towering
value p.s.f., and also its high value per capita. Well and good,
those are important points. However, some go on to favor ignoring
rural areas completely, to placate the rural vote, and the putative
empathy of urban Americans with their rural roots, and the supposed
rural preservation of old cultural values.
If those notions ever had merit, they do not today. George
himself did not think they had merit in his day, either: his first
book, Our Land and Land Policy (1871) went into great detail about
the villainies (his word) involved in monopolizing rural land from
the public domain. He later exposed how General Francis A. Walker,
Professor of Economics at M.I.T. and Director of the U.S. Census,
was concealing the growing concentration of ownership of rural land
an early example of How to Lie with Statistics.
When General Walker counterattacked, George demolished him. In the
process, George invented what today economists call the Lorenz Curve
(did you think theyd call anything the George curve?)
Georges work influenced the U.S. Census to begin arranging
farm data in a template based on that curve, and to report on
farmland separate from buildings (which it did until 1940).
Today, more than ever, persons of great wealth have fled the
cities and amassed vast and valuable lands in rustic retreats. To
name but a few, there are San Juan County, Washington; Pitkin County
(Aspen), CO; Vilas and Walworth Counties, WI; Napa and Sonoma and
northern Sta. Barbara Counties, CA; Kenedy County, TX; Barrington,
IL; the Hudson Valley and much of The Adirondacks, NY; Berkshire
County, MA; Nantucket Island, MA; Manchester and Woodstock, VT;
Fauquier County, VA; Bourbon County, KY; and much of the whole State
of NM. In addition there are individual spreads so vast they
constitute regions unto themselves: San Simeon, the Newhall empire,
the Bosworth and Chandler and Tenneco ranches, the King Ranch, Sta.
Catalina Island, the Irvine Company and the O'Neill holdings in
Orange County, CA, the McIlhenny lands in LA, Gardiners
Island, NY, the Georgia-Pacific and Weyerhaeuser timber holdings,
the Scully farms in IL, the timber empires of northern ME, and so
on.
Once known for blood sports, and politically aligned with
shooting, hunting, and fishing associations, owners in these areas
now also wrap themselves in the mantle of environmentalism a
major challenge for those seeking to reconcile fair taxation with
ecological values.
In such regions, land values per capita run high. Vilas County,
for example, an abandoned old cutover county centered on
Eagle River, now has the highest land value per capita in Wisconsin,
thanks to its many little lakes, and the high social status of
summering there.
Where farmland is valued for its cash crops, absentee owners hold
much of Iowa and central Illinois, with rents going to Chicago
lawyers and European investors. It is likewise in the oven-like
Imperial and San Joaquin Valleys of California, whose absentee
owners are more likely to live in coastal California, but also have
addresses all over the world some real, and some in tax
havens (Gaffney, 1982).
There is no reason, in equity or efficiency, to exempt all this
personal wealth from taxation. The challenge is to implement
policies to sift out the legitimate contributions to the environment
from the country club and boating and beachy and trophy
and privacy and hunt club and fin and
feather and snow-bunny qualities that give these
lands most of their market value.
Those rustic retreats are only the leading edge of manorial
suburbanization. Inside them we find low-density, high-valued
suburbs like Atherton, Belvedere, Rolling Hills, CA; Sag Harbor,
Scarsdale, NY; Lake Forest, IL; River Hills, WI; North Vancouver and
Point Grey, B.C.; West Palm Beach, FL; and so on. These are
communities that fuel todays booming demand for landscape
architects, and turn so many retired golf professionals into country
club designers and real estate developers.
Here we meet the homeowner problem. Georgist
campaigners at the local level often make a campaign issue of how
the tax burden on homeowners will fall if the voters
will just downtax buildings and uptax land. Carried to an extreme,
this ignores all differences among homeowners, melding
the landed gentry on huge lots or vast acreages with the poor in
modest hovels on tiny crowded lots, or parts of lots. It ignores
renters in apartment units. We must prepare for cases where taxing
those vast acreages will make the taxes of richer homeowners rise
and explain why that is a good thing. The homeowner
orientation of some Georgist campaigners can play into the hands of
those who favor income taxation and sales taxation over property
taxation. If the goal is indeed to favor homeowners per
se, then we should abandon the property tax altogether in favor of
income and sales taxes. Why? Because the income-tax base exempts
non-cash income, most notably the imputed income of owner-occupied
lands, including homesites, plus lands held for sport and
recreation. The imputed consumption of these lands is also exempt
from sales taxes. So is their purchase and sale, because sales tax
laws everywhere exempt sales of real property.
Alternatively, if we accept the income and sales taxes as givens,
we must allow that they are both outrageously favorable to
owner-occupants, so there is no overall merit in jiggering the local
property tax the same way. On the contrary, owner-occupied housing
is an unpreempted tax base that localities should seize, to redress
the balance. Georgist campaigners who focus on gains to homeowners
are understating the revolutionary side of their reform, and
confusing their audiences. The original George was more like Johnny
Cashs singer dressed in black: he sang for those
who have nothing, the landless, the tenants, the young, orphans with
nothing to inherit (as opposed to the mythical orphans who own all
the land), the ex-cons trying to go straight, the damaged vets
trying to get clean, the exploited workers, for everyone the
homeowners were before they became owners. He also sang for the
upwardly mobile, the students and trainees, the innovators and
entrepreneurs and adventurers who turn their capital and turn the
wheels of capitalism. He was not so thrilled by retirees with empty
nests they wont let go. Their buildings, yes, he would exempt.
But if those buildings rest on land of high social utility, they are
backing into the role of land speculators. Call them the passive-aggressive
type.
It is not that George or his allies are against homeownership.
Georgist tax reform makes it easier for first-time buyers to enter
the market, and tends to raise the number of owner-occupants.
However that sometimes entails inducing passive-aggressive
speculators, melded in among existing homeowners, to let go of
excess land they do not need. That basic point gets lost when
campaigners pitch their message solely to existing homeowners,
lumping them all as a class. Folklore and commercial drama make
sympathetic figures of passive-aggressive speculators.
Environmentalists cozy up to landed gentry as soon as these set
aside some land for wildlife, and abate the bloodlust of their
foxhunting. The challenge for educators and economists is to explain
that their role in the land market can be just as anti-social as
those who are more transparently aggressive and greedy. It is a
mighty challenge, I allow; but it is whats out there, and we
must face it, or settle for tokenism that absorbs our lives and
resources while papering over the major issues.
Summary to this point.
George would have approved of our seeking to improve on his work,
excellent though it was and is, provided we do so in a constructive
spirit. I have suggested four errors in George, all dealing with
capital, that lead us into blind alleys.
- One is identifying capital with labor;
- two is thinking that untaxing capital achieves the goal of
untaxing labor;
- three is to deny the useful role of investing in employing
labor; and
- four is to dismiss the Austrian and other economists who
analyzed the positive role of interest rates in allocating scarce
capital to the best uses, and in encouraging capital formation by
domestic saving.
Next I have discussed how best to adapt traditional Georgism to
bring it to bear on some leading issues of the 21st Century. First
is to green it up. One is to shift its emphasis from
beating back remote frontiers to intensifying our use of our
internal frontiers. These are what economists call the
intensive margin of production, as opposed to the extensive
margin. A graphic example is the top story of a high-rise building.
In terms of extractive resources we need to recognize the occasional
useful role of taxes or royalties based on units of production, as
opposed to property taxes alone. When it comes to pollution control,
or aquifer regulation, such taxes are essential.
We need to adjust to the fact that the property tax has shrunk
down to a minor part of the whole tax system, as other taxes have
replaced it. So focusing our efforts on reforming the property tax,
while ignoring new taxes that are even worse than taxes on capital,
is not the best use of our time.
We must grow conscious of how some people use preemptive
capital to hog more than their share of open-access resources
like lakes and highways, and to see such capital as a means of
establishing de facto ownership of common land. It is a short step
from that to see the virtue of taxing such capital in various ways,
varying with particulars.
It is time to recognize that great wealth no longer limits itself
to owning land in cities. Our landed gentry has gone rural and
sylvan and holds vast swaths of the countryside for rustic pleasures
we used to associate with obsolete English squires. Many of these
owners double as homeowners. It is time to drop the idea
that LVT is a boon to homeowners as a class, and raise consciousness
of the differences among homeowners.
In a sequel we will consider more ways to adapt Georgism to the
21st Century.