Advocating for the Common Good
in the Corporate Environment

Edward J. Dodson

[Orignally written in May, 2006. Updated July 2010]

A summary of my efforts to secure support from David Maxwell, Chairman of Fannie Mae, for restructuring of how government raises its revenue, and what occurred after I joined the staff of Fannie Mae in 1984.

As the year 1984 was coming to an end, so was my employment with Provident National Bank in Philadelphia, where I had worked for seven years in the Mortgage Lending group. From 1982 on I managed the department. However, in mid-1984 Provident National Bank merged with Pittsburgh National Bank (PNB Financial), and a decision was made to close down Provident's mortgage lending activites, transferring the department's responsibilities to a subsidiary of PNB Financial. Once the transfer of the department's operations was completed, I began my search for a new position elsewhere in the industry.

By 1984 I was also deeply committed to the reforms in how government raises its revenue that were at the heart of the political and social activism of Henry George at the end of the 19th century. During 1980-81 I had completed the program on political economy offered at the Henry George School of Social Science in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, and had joined the school's faculty as a volunteer instructor. From that point on, I brought the "Georgist" perspective into my professional life, began to write regularly on the subject and attempted to generate interest in the subject among my housing finance colleagues.

In November of 1984 I happened to view an episode of the television program "Adam Smith's Money World." His guest that day was David Mawell, the then Chairman of the Board of the Federal National Mortgage Association, headquartered in the District of Columbia. On November 12, 1984, I wrote the following letter to George Goodman, the journalist who created the modern persona of 'Adam Smith' for his writing on economic matters.

Dear Mr, Goodman: The first opportunity I had to experience your video efforts was the documentary you narrated several years ago dealing with O.P.E.C. Your new program, is a delightful continuation of the same high quality and a welcome addition to PBS. The intent of this letter is to convince you that your recent program on housing requires further treatment. In my view, neither George Sternlieb nor David Maxwell offered much insight into the underlying causes of the so-called "affordability gap" experienced by those families seeking homeownership. To say that high interest rates and the escalating price of housing are the causes of declining affordability mistakes effect for cause. The price of housing, the price of money and the level of family income are affected by market and political dynamics. These are the causes. Our task is to identify those which adversely affect the affordability equation and propose solutions (if our societal goal is to maximize the affordability of housing). David Maxwell alluded to the primary variable of housing affordability; the price varies materially from location to location. As an economic analyst you might recognize the more descriptive term, "site value." Underlying the housing market is the fact that the supply of sites is by its nature local, while the supply of financing, materials, labor and buyers has greater uniformity nationwide. Moreover, specific government interference in the local market for sites may enhance, constrain or otherwise impact total supply (e.g., the availability of publicly funded roads, sewer and water facilities, schools, hospitals, etc.). As some economists* have pointed out, the uniqueness of each site makes its price much closer to a monopoly price independent of its use. A close look at what has happened to each factor cost leads to appropriate policy directions. The real wage of construction workers has not increased very much during the last decade (particularly when all taxes paid at the local, state and federal levels are considered). The cost of housing materials went through the roof in the mid-1970s but has abated considerably because of productivity increases and the substitution of energy sources (a process further enhanced by the deep recession still existing in the developing nations, who have been forced to export raw materials and other commodities -- resulting in a buyer's market for the industrialized nations). No such relationship exists between the world economy and localized land markets. Over this same period site acquisition costs to developers have increased dramatically, in large measure producing housing price increases to the consumer wherever employment in that local economy has been relatively stable or growing. Why, then, isn't the market for sites competitive? Why does this market not react to the forces of supply and demand? The original Adam Smith analyzed the dynamics at work, borrowing from his French colleagues Quesnay and Turgot. Today's economists have operated with blinders on, I must conclude, to not recognize the connections between inflation and site "rent." As a consequence, our entire system of taxation is designed to penalize productivity and favor speculation in what are mistakenly identified as "capital gains" in land values. (Absent transfer payments) labor must take action -- produce -- to obtain wealth. Physical capital must also be used as a factor of production if its owners hope to obtain wealth. That portion of production returned to the holder of land was, on the other hand, identified by Smith (and, more specifically, by Ricardo) as an extraction - what today we would think of as a redistribution of wealth from the producers to the nonproducer. At the local level, infrequent and politicized assessments of real estate penalize capital and encourage holding of vacant or underutilized sites. As damaging is the practice of applying one rate of taxation to both capital and site values. With low carrying costs associated with land holding, the owner can wait and wait until surrounding growth (more often than not government funded) fuels an escalation in the amount which can be extracted for the use of that site. Heavy speculative activity can bring development to a standstill (which has been the outcome in Atlantic City). The answer has been around for a long, long time - and is a proposal I have come to appreciate for its simplicity. At the most obvious level, our municipal governments can adopt a restructuring of their property tax systems to gradually transfer the burden of taxation off of capital and onto land values. The idea was, as you are probably aware, popularized by the 19th century economic reformer Henry George -- and later by the likes of Tolstoi, and Winston Churchill. A few economists have supported this measure over the decades, one of whom (Mason Gaffney of the University of California, Riverside) was largely responsible for turning me into an advocate. I cannot help dreaming of the supply-side impact of tax reform grounded in this measure. Just maybe the production incentives would prove a sufficient stimulus to housing and other construction to permit a reduction in other taxes on business and on individual income. Reform is also needed in the federal tax code to distinguish gain on the sale of land from other individual and business income. Permitting the rise in land values to be exempt from annual taxation and then given preferential treatment as "capital gains" seems the height of folly under a supposedly capitalist system. This letter, hopefully more of a challenge to the conventional wisdom than ordinarily presented, has been written because of my growing conviction that our political and economic system is threatened by these structural flaws. The end result can only be a greater concentration of wealth in our country and a further deterioration of democratic values. As a participant in the real estate market I have seen the above processes at work first hand. Something must be done before it is too late; only public discussion and awareness will, I conclude, lead to peaceful and evolutionary change. I hope you agree. Sincerely, Edward J. Dodson, Senior Mortgage Officer * Suggested sources would include Harry Gunnison Brown, Arthur Becker, C. Lowell Harris, Mason Gaffney and Dick Netzer.

Within a few weeks, I received a response from George J.W. Goodman, which created an opportunity for an exchange with David Maxwell.

Dear Mr. Dodson, Thanks for your letter of November 12, which just reached me. I appreciate your remarks on site value, and I will keep your letter handy so I can find the references. I am not sure just how complex we can get without losing an evening audience, but we are probing to find where the limits are. I've taken the liberty of passing your letter on to David Maxwell. He is a very intelligent executive, and I think his comments were aimed at a broad common denominator. I do appreciate the time you took to write to me, and I am certain we will return to housing at a future date. With best wishes, George J.W. Goodman

To my great suprise, a letter soon followed from David Maxwell dated December 7, 1984 -- a letter that contained some rather interesting information I hoped could serve as the basis for enlisting Mr. Maxwell as an ally in the campaign for meaningful tax reform.

Dear Mr. Dodson: Jerry Goodman (Adam Smith) was good enough to send me a copy of your letter to him of November 12. You may be surprised to learn that I thoroughly agree with you about the taxation of raw land. In fact, I wrote my third-year paper at Harvard Law School on Henry George, using the experience of Arden, Delaware as a case-study of a place which had put his theories into practice. I think this whole matter is important to pursue, but I doubt that it would have been possible to cover it properly in the brief time available on "Money World." Sincerely, David Maxwell

David 0. Maxwell Chairman of the Board and Chief Executive Officer Federal National Mortgage Assn. 3900 Wisconsin Avenue NW Washington, DC 20016 Dear Mr. Maxwell: Thank you for your letter of December 7. I am encouraged to learn of your views supporting Henry George's 100 year old proposal. All that is now required is to convince our legislators and colleagues in the housing sector that this revision to our tax system must be implemented. As you may know, Pennsylvania is the one state where cities of substantial size are Constitutionally permitted to apply a higher property tax rate to assessed land values than to improvements. There are now seven cities using this technique, and a recent film documentary on their experience has been produced by Walt Rybeck, who heads the Center for Public Dialogue in Kensington, Maryland. Up to now, efforts to stimulate public discussion of this proposal have been carried on by a small handful of people dedicated to the ideas Henry George offered in his writings. I have become convinced of not only the merits but of the necessity to replace the existing property tax with the land value tax. Those of us directly involved in the housing sector must come together on this issue if necessary legislative changes are to occur. I would like to suggest a roundtable discussion, inviting Walt Rybeck to participate and use his film as a focus for the discussion. Perhaps Mr. Goodman would be interested in attending. Sincerely, Edward J. Dodson Senior Mortgage Officer

June 25, 1986 George J.W. Goodman 45 West 45th Street New York, NY 10036 Dear Mr. Goodman: Your ADAM SMITH'S MONEY WORLD program this past week on the housing market was quite good; however, as you may recall from previous correspondence, my feeling is that the discussion fails to penetrate beyond effects. Shouldn't we attempt to analyze causes? Perhaps you saw the enclosed column by Michael Kinsley in the Wall Street Journal. I am now writing for an English quarterly called LAND & LIBERTY and took the lead from Kinsley to write on the impact to our social structure of the upward pressure on housing prices. Getting back to your program, while there is nothing wrong with George Sternlieb he is not the only expert on housing Nor are his views universally accepted. Your audience might obtain an equally persuasive but very different perspective from either Dick Netzer at N.Y.U. or Michael Sumerquest of the National Homebuilders Association. Both of these economists understand very well the nature of taxation and of the land market. Sincerely, Edward J. Dodson

January 20, 1987 Mr. David O. Maxwell Chairman Federal National Mortgage Association 3900 Wisconsin Avenue, N.W. Washington, DC 20016 Dear Mr. Maxwell: For the last six or seven years, I have been working closely with a number of individuals and groups across the nation (and elsewhere) who believe the tax structure in almost every country is a major cause of economic instability. It was at my suggestion that you were contacted in late October by Walter Rybeck of the Center for Public Dialogue, who solicited your public support for a restructuring of the property tax toward the system of "site value" taxation proposed by Henry George. You may recall that we exchanged correspondence several years ago on this issue, on which you expressed both an awareness and a sympathetic posture. At that time I was senior mortgage officer with Provident National Bank in Philadelphia and represented the bank in its involvement with various public and private housing interest groups. Site value taxation appeared to offer communities a powerful yet largely ignored tool for generating noninflationary economic growth. Although I left The Provident at the end of 1984 I have continued to dedicate a considerable amount of time and energy on behalf of this reform. My activities along these lines have been less visible, however, because my career experienced a change in focus. As you may recall, The Provident merged with Pittsburgh National Bank to form PNC Financial Corp. in 1984. At mid-year we began a transfer of all residential mortgage activities to our new sister organization, The Kissell Company. There was nothing the bank could offer me that had the potential to satisfy my commitment to the housing sector; thus, toward the end of 1984 I contacted a number of industry friends to let them know I would be available. And then I thought of Fannie Mae and decided to explore what opportunities might be available within the Northeast Regional Office. Shortly thereafter, I came to Fannie Mae in Quality Control as an Assistant Supervisor and have been Supervisor for about a year and a half. What we do is important and rewarding work, although a considerable amount of time is often required before we see tangible results. The same is true of the effort to convince the public (and our elected officials) of the folly in penalizing those who work and produce for a living while allowing those who speculate in land to cause havoc with our economic wellbeing. I am hopeful that you also see the seriousness of this problem. If so, and if you reach a decision to work in some way with those of us already active, I hope you will call on me to help. Sincerely, Edward J. Dodson

Date : February 1, 1988 To : David O. Maxwell, Chairman and C.E.O. and Roger E. Birk, President and C.O.O. *^ From : Edward J. Dodson, Supervisor - Quality Control Northeastern Regional Office Subject : RECOMMENDATIONS FOR A NEW POLICY AGENDA FOR OUR INDUSTRY CONSISTENT WITH OUR CONCERNS FOR FINDING SOLUTIONS TO ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL PROBLEMS I am sure I am not alone in welcoming the leadership role you have taken in search of solutions to the many problems related to the housing needs of American families. Mr. Birk, in your recent remarks to the Home Builders you declared with conviction that "we had better not settle for 'Band-Aid' solutions." I could not agree more and have myself been working with a number of public interest groups to effect positive changes in our legislative and regulatory environment. As I read your recent presentations, we apparently share similar concerns over the problems facing our society; namely, Housing affordability for all American families, including newly-formed households, the elderly and those now homeless; Stability of economic expansion and job creation, without inflationary side-effects; A gradual reduction not just of the Federal deficit but of the national debt as a whole; Improved international competitiveness generated by strides in industrial productivity and structural changes in the management of American business; and An end to the wildly fluctuating currency exchange rates that threaten international trade and increase the demand for so-called 'protections' against unfair competition in our domestic markets. My concerns over these issues involve (as I am sure do yours) not only those appropriate to being part of the management team of our company but also the responsibilities of citizenship and family. For many people involved in activities that are militarily-oriented or produce harmful environmental side-effects, the pursuit of business success and profitability put them in direct conflict with personal feelings relating to societal responsibilities. Thankfully, our contribution to the nation is one of which we can all be very proud. Mr. Maxwell, as you may recall from past correspondence from me, I have expressed my own belief that it is the structure of our system of taxation that is a fundamental cause of many of the above problems and see this as an appropriate arena in which to exert influence by expressing both corporate and individual concerns. As a citizen, what is also important to me is that great injustices have been perpetuated by our systems of law and taxation as they relate to 'property'. Unfortunately, despite the continued existence of a large (and growing) segment of our population consigned to a permanent state of impoverishment, despite frequent periods of serious inflation and economic contraction, and despite ineffective attempts to apply fiscal and monetary adjustments -- we shy away from focusing in on fundamental questions of how our society is structured and do not ask whether there is something inherent in our system that must be removed if we are to achieve real positive change. Not enough of us are willing to make the effort to examine what we are doing based equally on principle and practical result, so I hope you will permit me to raise a number of philosophical issues not normally discussed where policy initiatives are concerned. The intent of this writing permits only a brief digression into the nature of our relationship with one another -- as individuals, as citizens of the same society and as members of one species. The reasoning I draw on is not mine but comes in part from the philosopher and educator Mortimer Adler, whose book THE COMMON SENSE OF POLITICS should be required reading by every American. Adler traces the philosophical origins of our form of government to the writings of John Locke and the concept of 'sovereignty of the individual' over oneself and one's 'property'. From Locke we received the 'natural rights' doctrine and a concept of liberty defined as 'freedom constrained by justice'; actions violating the liberty of another fall, then, into a realm Locke identified by the term 'license', the nature of which made such actions legitimately subject to societal control. As members of the same species, adds Adler, is there any question that we have the same inherent human rights? Accept that we do, and the next question is what those rights are. At this point, the discussion of rights, liberty and license requires bringing in the ideas of another philosopher with whom you, Mr. Maxwell, are somewhat familiar. I am referring to the nineteenth century writer, Henry George, who accepted the Locke/Adler logic for treating all humans as fundamentally equal and deduced therefrom specific rights we each possess. In doing so, George supported Locke's theory of property in one's labor and the products of one's labor, a definition consistent with liberty. What could be more just than that one should rightfully own oneself and one's products. Which raises the most important and unresolved socio-political issue in history: Who has a right to own nature, which is the source of all production but is not itself produced by man? The ownership of nature falls not within the labor basis for property but in Locke's realm of license, as a form of privilege. What we have largely ignored in our thinking about the justness in our laws is that titles to nature and to claims on the economic value of nature exist only within the political framework of a society. And, throughout history, an overriding human motivation has been to secure and retain privilege within the legal framework; unfortunately, as our legal and tax systems have taken on greater and greater complexity, the underlying injustices have become obscured. The economic value attached to licenses, whether titles to nature or monopolies against competition, or merely processes to ensure minimum qualifications of certain practitioners of a trade, are societally-created and not individually-produced. From this fact, Henry George stated that justice required two actions on the part of legitimate government: To collect the economic value of titleholdings and licenses for use in providing for necessary public services (distributing, if available, any excess back to all citizens on a pro rata basis as a sort of public dividend); and Protecting legitimate private property (i.e., production) from confiscation by either private groups or the government itself. In this sense, taxation of wages or of capital or produced goods is a form of confiscation and should be held to an absolute minimum. It is generally acknowledged that wealth is becoming more and more concentrated in our own society and throughout much of the world. Armed with a flawed understanding of Keynesian demand management theory, our economic planners and political representatives embarked on a spending spree designed to minimize poverty in America without having to look too far into its causes. As we have learned, the welfare state is an expensive proposition that has enormous negative side-effects. Today, our concerns have shifted to the production side of the equation in the form of 'supply-side' initiatives. So long as there was little international competition for American businesses, our social welfare legislation achieved somewhat of a leveling by means of transfer payments. Now that real economic growth has slowed and government expenditures are out of control, however, public resistance to higher and higher taxes has given us two options: finally move toward collecting unearned income derived from titleholdings and licenses; or, finance current expenditures (largely by borrowing from the unearned income received by those who hold such titles and licenses), to be repaid by taxing future production. I would add that policies of monetary intervention have added fuel to the fire by building in an inflation premium into the price of goods and services. The indictment I have set down for your consideration is one that is not widely appreciated or accepted. For example, while a large number of economists specializing in problems of the less developed countries recognize monopoly privileges as the cause of maldistribution of wealth and a primary reason for political upheaval, they do not see any correlation between these circumstances and the structural unemployment characteristic of the bottom socio-economic group within the American population. It was interesting to me that in the Senate a few years back when the aid package to El Salvadore was being debated, and opponents were demanding land redistribution as a condition for approval, Jessie Helms suggested that if having 5% of the families owning 95% of the land called for land redistribution in El Salvadore, then the same was true for our own country, where the concentration is just about the same and becoming more so. As American policymakers are beginning to understand, the globalization of technology and, hence, production capabilities, now seriously limits unilateral policy changes. Every action taken is counterbalanced by all other players in the marketplace. The resulting challenges to our overall standard of living are reflected in the vast numbers of personal and business bankruptcies, the demise of family farms and the millions of homeless across this country. Again, the connection between these facts and the inherent structural flaws in our system are not widely appreciated. An area where this is evident is in the policy changes recommended by the IMF and other agencies working to restructure the debt of the LDCs. It was, by and large, the formation of O.P.E.C., one of history's most effective monopoly-driven transfers of accumulated financial reserves, and the resulting 'stagflation' in the industrialized West that sent the international lenders to the LDCs, desperate to find a home for the 'hot potato' of reserves O.P.E.C. could not spend on massive development projects of their own. By the time we in the West adjusted the CPI, had increased 300% and the LDCs were experiencing domestic inflation rates of 50 - 1,000% while their development projects never reached the stage of production planned on to offset the costs with export revenues. The IMFs answer? Cut domestic spending and shift production to export of raw materials and cash crops. With such intense pressures on so many countries to export, the global marketplace became a buyer's market, made even more so because of the dwindling number of potential buyers. Then, in 1981, the influence of the supply-siders provided a powerful short-run shot in the arm to American consumption. At the same time that food and materials costs were falling, lower marginal tax rates and other tax reduction measures brought increases in the disposable income of many American families. By late 1983 (accolades to former Chairman Volcker notwithstanding) deep stagflation in much of the world worked its magic and inflation appeared to be beaten in the United States, in Japan and to a lesser extent in Europe. Conservation measures, domestic production, falling international demand and North Sea drilling tipped the balance against O.P.E.C. Regional economies based on 'exports' of energy materials and agricultural products lost their markets to rock bottom priced LDC exports, and we ended up with Houston and the demise of small-town, rural American communities. The metropolitan areas of the Northeast and elsewhere, however, had achieved diversification in their economies that enabled them to avoid the misery of other sections of the country and the global community. The buying binge then extended (and continues to extend) to real estate, as global liquidity drove interest rates back down to low double digits and then single digit figures. Economic laws governing the interplay of the factors of production (i.e., land, labor and capital) took over, and landowners -- who possessed the factor most fixed in supply -- gradually were able to capitalize a sizable portion of the employed workforce's 'windfall' in purchasing power into higher and higher land prices. To be sure, many ordinary homeowners profited by this same market dynamic, especially if they took their retirement incomes and unearned gain from the sale of the land underlying their hone and moved to an area of the country where land values had remained stable or declined. The immediate victims have been those on fixed incomes who were renters and not homeowners, or those who were just entering the housing market and in a stage of new family formation, or those who suffered long term unemployment and could no longer afford to either relocate or even rent housing. Ideally, the measures needed to start the dominoes falling in a positive direction must be built around the two policy prescriptions cited from Henry George's proposals of a century ago. There is a fledgling attempt by a handful of Representatives in the House to develop a bill that would seek to capture at least part of the value of the nation's land and natural resources. Ironically, some estimates of the potential annual rental value of public lands suggests that if market values were collected (and spending remained stable) we would not have a Federal budget deficit at all. This is because government policies have virtually given away this source of public revenue to special private interests. As I believe you are aware, Mr. Maxwell, the primary direction involving government policy thus far has, however, been at the municipal level and a restructuring of the property tax to achieve a gradual exemption of all improvements from taxation, leaving the assessed value of sites as the source of revenue generated. Led by the cities of Pittsburgh, Scranton and Harrisburg, the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania has moved the furthest in this direction of any state in the nation; enabling legislation to do likewise is under consideration in at least a half dozen other states. For the last six years I have worked with a group here in Philadelphia seeking support for similar legislation, and one member of City Council is currently pushing for legislation to exempt all property improvements from the real estate tax in one step. At the moment, the mayor is noncommittal but is supposedly studying the effects of this proposed measure. As I hope this necessarily long analysis has shown, the causes of so many of our socio-economic problems are to be traced to the same sources. Under present socio-political arrangements there is a built-in degree of coercion that prevents markets from smoothly operating and from being self-correcting. Starting with the property tax, we need to focus our attention on changing not simply the rates of taxation but the sources as well; in doing so, I suggest we would achieve both greater justice in the distribution of wealth ownership and greater economic efficiency. I understand that I cannot ask you to accept my analysis at face value; however, I do hope you will think about the issues raised as you work with both public and other private groups for changes that are more than "Band-Aid" solutions. There are a number of economists and other policy experts around the country who have contributed very valuable research data that support much of the economics I have discussed; the philosophical arguments must meet our own tests of reason and logic. Certainly, I stand ready to serve as a resource in whatever capacity you might find useful should you find any practical merit in pursuing the measures herein presented as part of our company's overall agenda for policy changes. Thank you.

Date : February 16, 1988 To : Edward J. Dodson From : David O. Maxwell Subject : Policy Recommendations Thank you for your erudite and convincing memo of February 1. I share your belief that policy recommendations must be undergirded by a firm philosophical base and I can assure you that your ideas will certainly carry much weight as we continue to consider the issues and problems facing America and the world.

Although I had some hope that the last exchange between David Maxwell and me would result in an invitation to present my ideas to our team of government relations people and others in the company, this did not occur. As an organization, Fannie Mae was not yet focused on meeting the affordable housing needs of minorities and lower income households. David Maxwell's priority was bringing Fannie Mae back to profitability after years of continuous losses. Mr. Maxwell retired from Fannie Mae in 1991, succeeded by James A. Johnson. It was Johnson's vision that created the company's Housing & Community Development group, to which I moved in 1995 as a market analyst and business manager. With each year that passed, the company established new field offices for the purpose of better meeting the affordable housing objectives established and to participiate, where feasible, in revitalization of distressed communities.

Along the way my position responsibilities expanded to include work on program development. One year a proposal I submitted to the corporate development team was selected as the best idea submitted, after which I was invited to have lunch with our Vice-Chairman, Larry Small. Over the course of about two hours, our conversation covered a wide range of subjects. I took the opportunity to introduce him to Henry George's proposals and how the aodption of these changes would go a long way to stabilize housing markets. He listened attentively. He asked good questions and expressed agreement with much of what I had to say. Yet, as with David Maxwell and Roger Birk, there was never any follow-up.

By this time, Franklin Raines had succeeded Jim Johnson as Chairman and C.E.O. of Fannie Mae. Under his leadership, the role of our Housing & Community Development group continued to expand. The company began to establish a presence in cities all across the United States by creating "Partnership Offices" charged with developing innovative financing structures to expand the supply of affordable housing units. As has been extensively reported in the press, this was also a period of dramatic expansion in the use of new investment strategies and vehicles -- hedging operations, strip securities, derivatives, long-term stand-by commitments, and others. The regulatory environment was also changing, with the introduction of requirements on financial institutions that certain assets be revalued periodically to reflect changes in market value and other more stringent accounting rules issued by the Federal Accounting Standards Board.

With consequences still developing, Fannie Mae's accounting practices were challenged by its regulator, and Franklin Raines was forced to leave Fannie Mae. Months earlier, I happen to see Mr. Raines interviewed on television. He was asked by the program host what would make him feel that his work at Fannie Mae and in the housing sector had been successful. He responded that he would feel satisfied if in the distribution of wealth and income in the United States, minorities experienced the same proportion of wealthy, middle income and low income households as the White majority. Our division was scheduled to have a strategy meeting in Washington, D.C. a few weeks later. To focus the attention of my colleagues on the issue of poverty in America -- even if only for a brief moment -- I decided to make a gift to everyone participating of Henry George's book, Social Problems. At the opening of the meeting, I asked for a few minutes before the group, recounted what Frank Raines had said during his interview, and told them I was firmly convinced that if the ideas contained in Henry George's book were made the law of the land that the problem of poverty could be greatly reduced and eventually eliminated from our society. My colleagues enthusiastically applauded, thanked me for the gift, and more than a few said they would read the book as soon as they could make time to do so.

Over the remaining months before my retirement, I heard from a few of my colleagues that Henry George's book had given them much to think about. They were all facing an uncertain future.

I continue to engage with many of my former colleagues through the online "Community Development Banking" discussion group, which has been in existence now for around fifteen years. Shortly after my retirement from Fannie Mae, I prepared a detailed analysis of the coming economic downturn ("The 2010 Economic Depression"), followed by an examination of the origins and causes of the financial meltdown in the United States ("Death by Debt Strangulation"). I offered these studies to my former colleagues and several hundred requests followed. Since 2005 I have regularly updated the presentation on the financial crisis and continue to receive expressions of interest and thanks.

I sometimes wonder what good all of the above efforts have achieved. None of the individuals I worked with over the last three decades has stepped forward to work alongside us in the Georgist cause. There have been moments of great expectation that then dissipated. The key to what motivates any person to embrace and then commit themselves to an idea or set of ideals is a real puzzle. I do not consider myself to be extraordinary in any way. So, why is it that I see so clearly the fundamental importance of the systemic changes we fight for while others do not? Of one thing I am certain: I am not likely to ever learn the answer to this question.