Georgism

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georgism

by thunderbong • 3 years ago

99 103 3 years ago

en.wikipedia.org

dools• 3 years ago

Fun fact: Monopoly was originally called The Landlord’s Game and was created by a Georgist Feminist to illustrate the problem of rent:

https://www.stmarys.sa.edu.au/women-in-stem-elizabeth-magie....

klabb3• 3 years ago

That’s fun and perhaps strangely more relevant than ever. It seems like most capitalist players today strive for playing monopoly games instead of traditional market games (like providing a better price and/or higher quality products). Especially in tech, nobody wants to make merely a better product, but rather a “platform” or “marketplace”, where controlling access is the goal. Sure, sometimes we get a totally cool new product or VC subsidized pricing for a while but the end goal is more often that not that the company sells you permission to access some service that you’ve come to rely on. This is true both if you pay with money or you trade your personal information in exchange for your attention (ie ads).

In some cases, there are legit reasons for middlemen to exist and provide some reputational or safety function. But it feels to me like we’re seeing an unnatural bend towards this model, even for things that serve no such purpose at all (like most iot crap, heated car seats, drm ink etc etc).

Biologist123• 3 years ago

Funny, Monopoly in my childhood invariably ended with a massive fight between siblings. It’s still a ‘sort-of’ family joke.

distances• 3 years ago

In my opinion Monopoly is one of the worst possible options to choose for a game night, and has turned countless of people away from board games. It's a real shame that this abomination is so often the default choice when there are literally tens of thousands of better games around.

* Current BGG rank 25002

kazinator2• 3 years ago

Big LOL here, Hackernews.

Reading through this article, this thought popped into my head: hey, that Monopoly game is basically Georgist, isn't it!

So I head over to: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Monopoly_(game)

"[..] created by Lizzie Magie in the United States in 1903 as a way to demonstrate that an economy that rewards individuals is better than one where monopolies hold all the wealth[1] and to promote the economic theories of Henry George"

jonasdegendt3• 3 years ago

Except the way the game is played doesn't implement Georgism, or am I not getting it right? It goes buy once, seek rent forever.

If Monopoly was Georgism you'd be paying taxes representing the potential value of your color/land e.g. every lap, regardless of if you put a bunch of hotels on there or not, or if someone landed on it or not.

zer0tonin• 3 years ago

That's the point, the game is pointing out the flaws of the current system.

BirdieNZ2• 3 years ago

The original Landlord's Game has two rulesets, and it switches to the Georgist ruleset when enough players agree (I think > half). The first ruleset is similar to modern Monopoly, but when enough players agree to switch because they're all getting destroyed by the top 1-2 players, then it changes to a Georgist style policy/rules.

kazinator2• 3 years ago

Right! Now, come to think of it, why did I make that connection anyway? A long time ago, I read something whose details escaped me, along the lines that Monopoly was invented under a different name by woman, and the game being about unbridled capitalism and rent seeking was later reversal or perversion of her original concept.

trylfthsk• 3 years ago

One bit of historical fuzziness I'd hope someone could clear up:

How do the Georgist Progressives tie into 1910's progressivism tie into modern progressivism?

I recall a bunch of Midwestern georgist mayors were called progressives at the turn of the century, but I don't recall anything I've read on the progressive era explicitly noting any georgist influences.

larsiusprime• 3 years ago

You should read this book: https://www.press.jhu.edu/books/title/12372/land-and-liberty

Basically, the Georgists weren’t actually part of the 1910’s progressive movement, they were more aligned with the broader liberal movement.

Chris England makes the case that the Georgists were actually kind of rivals with the turn of the century progressives who were all about elite expertise and top down, often authoritarian central planning steeped in eugenics and malthusianism.

The Georgists on the other hand were more for bottom up reform and what we would now call classical liberalism; they distrusted expert central planners and rejected malthusianism.

Re midwestern mayors — Tom Johnson was a key Georgist reformer, known as “the best mayor of the best run city in America” (Cleveland). A former streetcar monopolist, he was won over by Henry George to work against his own former business interest and went on to fight the streetcar monopolies and fight for municipal ownership of public transit and utilities.

As for the connection to modern movements —

Certain strains of modern progressivism (though not all) have carried on the Malthusian and central planning ethos — especially “degrowth” advocates. Georgists old and modern oppose this mindset.

The libertarian movement was founded by, among others, Alfred J Nock, who was a devoted Georgist. The modern libertarian movement can be opposed to or quite friendly to Georgism, depending on various things.

AdamN• 3 years ago

Could one look at the Mensheviks and the Bolsheviks through a similar lens as you do with the Georgists vs the 1910s Progressives? The Mensheviks being more bottom-up (and willing to go slower if needed) and the Bolsheviks being top-down (in order to move faster) but both with the end goal of moving forward with Socialism?

least2• 3 years ago

I'd say that my beliefs most closely align with geolibertarianism, though I would say in most cases a self-described libertarian in this day in age would generally find geoism antithetical. To me it's the only reasonable compromise for private land ownership, which is inherently unethical on top of the land value tax being the most ethical form of taxation.

Individuals will make poor decisions about what to do with land all the time, but I find that preferable to the government making those decisions about all land all the time, which is why a lot of progressive movements don't resonate with me. Private land ownership is useful and geoism aims to reconcile the ethical concerns and the more pragmatic ones, like disallowing owners from sitting on their property and doing absolutely nothing with it.

keiferski8• 3 years ago

The main Georgist policy recommendation is a tax assessed on land value, arguing that revenues from a land value tax (LVT) can be used to reduce or eliminate existing taxes (such as on income, trade, or purchases) that are unfair and inefficient.

If I am understanding this correctly, wouldn’t it result in a world where landowners put the minimum amount of investment into the land, and then move to cheaper land as soon as possible/when their current land becomes more valuable?

The assumption here seems to me that land in NYC/wherever is inherently valuable, which doesn’t seem true to me. Especially in a remote working world increasingly detached from physical spaces.

chipsa4• 3 years ago

The value of the land in NYC is related to all the other stuff next to the land you’re valuing. Other people’s improvements make your land more valuable, because you’ve got the subway line nearby. And the pizza shop on the corner. And the bar across the street.

keiferski8• 3 years ago

But why would any of this continue to exist if landowners have no interest in improving the value of the land? Lower Manhattan today is worth billions, but 50 years ago parts of it were empty enough to be used as lofts by squatting artists.

Let’s say land value taxes are implemented in New York today. Suddenly companies have a real incentive to leave and move somewhere with cheaper land values - way more incentive than today, as in theory they will be taxed mostly on land value, not revenue. What’s to stop Manhattan from slowly becoming empty again as people leave, jobs leave, corner stores close, subway maintenance worsens due to less revenue, etc.?

thaumasiotes6• 3 years ago

And when you buy the subway line, the pizza shop, and the bar, the value of your land will go back down?

ameliaquining2• 3 years ago

This is why you are only supposed to tax the unimproved value of land. This is different from the property tax that's commonly used by local governments in the U.S., which includes the value of buildings and such, and so acts as an incentive against development.

keiferski8• 3 years ago

How is this “original unimproved” value determined? Presumably the improvements of the previous tenant have to factor in somewhere? When is the cut off point?

orthoxerox• 3 years ago

I've never liked the term "unimproved", since it makes people think of rich soil, mineral resources, water access as the only things that increase land value.

It's easier to think about it as the tax on the improved value of all other lots except your own.

simonsarris• 3 years ago

A precondition of Georgism being sane is that 1 acre in downtown Manhattan must be taxed HIGH and 1 acre in Nowheresville must be taxed LOW. One is more desirable than the other. No one argues this point but sometimes they lose sight of the fact that places can go from desirable to not, or vice versa.

Given this, if you improve your land, or everyone in the neighborhood improves their land, and desirability goes way up as a result, you've just raised the value of the land, improved or not. Anything you do to make the area a better place to live increases your taxes. This is a dangerous thing to put at odds. It's something a lot of pro-Georgism people ignore because they only think in steady state (Manhattan will stay Manhattan and Nowheresville will stay Nowheresville), but that's not a tenable assumption for a lot of places.

mdasen2• 3 years ago

The current system discourages people from investing in the land because the more you invest in the land, the more it gets taxed.

The Georgist assumption isn't that land in NYC (or wherever) is inherently valuable. However, I think we'd all agree that a plot of land in NYC is valuable - maybe you think it shouldn't be, but I think we'd both agree that it is. The value might not be inherent to the land. Much of the value of land in NYC is because of what others have built in NYC.

Georgism encourages land owners to invest in the land in valuable places (like NYC) because they will be taxed the same whether they improve the land or not. If they have a vacant lot, they pay $X in taxes. If they have that same lot with an office building on it, they pay $X in taxes.

The current system allows land owners to profit off the improvements others create around their land without making any improvements. Many people sit on unimproved property in major cities like NYC because they pay almost nothing in taxes on unimproved property.

Let's say that you own a vacant lot in a part of a city that's seeing revitalization. People are putting up office buildings, biotech lab space, etc. In the current system, you think "if I just wait another 20 years, I'll have the only unimproved land in the area and it'll be worth 10-100x more!" You pay near-zero property taxes and look to profit off what everyone else is creating around your property. People creating housing, office space, lab space, etc. are all creating value around you and you're looking to leech off that value. Every resident, worker, artist, community organizer, etc. that ends up in your area is creating value near your property and you get to leech off that value they're working hard to create.

In a Georgist system, the taxes on your vacant lot would increase and that would encourage you to put the lot to use or sell it to someone who would. In effect, a Georgist system taxes you on the value that everyone is creating around you rather than letting you leech off that value.

The assumption here seems to me that land in NYC/wherever is inherently valuable, which doesn’t seem true to me. Especially in a remote working world increasingly detached from physical spaces.

Going back to this point, from a market-based perspective, we can both agree that land in NYC is valuable - that people are willing to pay more for land in NYC. You might think they're foolish to pay for it, but they are paying for it. The vast majority of the most successful companies are all locating themselves in the most expensive cities in the world. Most people disagree with your assessment of the value of land in NYC.

Cities provide access to lots of opportunities. Yes, remote work detached from physical spaces might offer that. One can debate the value of remote work for the next decade. However, right now, land in NYC is definitely valuable. Most people and companies still perceive a lot of value there - even if you don't. Therefore, a vacant lot in NYC is squatting on a lot of value

then move to cheaper land as soon as possible/when their current land becomes more valuable?

Ah, but this is where markets work. If the land becomes more valuable because it is more valuable to you, then you wouldn't want to move. If the land gets assessed at a higher value, but it isn't delivering that value to you or anyone else, demand will go down and then the valuation goes down.

I think what's hard for you wrapping your head around this is that to you the land in NYC isn't valuable. Would you pay to rent an apartment in NYC? I think the answer is "no" based on how you've talked about it. You probably think people renting apartments in NYC are wasting their money. However, most people don't think that way. If they did, everyone would leave NYC and rents would go down. Maybe you find no value in location. That's not true for most people.

You might be correct about the future: maybe all work will become remote and to take it a step further let's say that all friendships, dating, education, and community move to remote/metaverse. NYC no longer has any value beyond things like access to a good harbor.

But in the world we live in today, NYC is highly valued. You might not value it highly, but it is highly valued. There are many highly valued things that I see no reason to be valued highly - but I acknowledge that they are highly valued even if I don't personally value them. In the world we live in today, people can squat on vacant lots and leech off what others are building around them.

Maybe location will have zero value in the future. I don't want to put words in your mouth, but that seems to be where your thought process is going: NYC doesn't seem to have any value for you and in a remote-working world, physical space wouldn't have any value (beyond things like shelter and such). If that's the case, then all land would have equal value and pay equal Georgist taxes.

That's not the world we live in today. Even if you think people are foolish for valuing NYC highly, I think you can agree that they are valuing NYC highly. Even if you think companies are wasting money on offices in NYC, I think you can agree that they are paying lots of money for those NYC offices. That's the reality on the ground. Likewise, the reality on the ground is that there are people squatting on land that would provide real value to people if it were improved, but they're hoping to pay near-zero taxes and just squat on the land realizing a profit for zero work on their part - leeching off the work of those around them.

To flip this around on you: why do you live where you live? Why do you not move to the middle of nowhere 100 miles from anyone else? Even for those who don't like cities and might want to move to rural areas, they often still put value on place/location to an extent. You want to be proximal enough to a supermarket. Most people don't want a 4-hour round-trip to get food. Many people want to be within community rather than just being lonely - that could just mean being proximal to people that can come over and watch sports with you at your home (which they won't drive 2-hours to get to) or close enough that you can join a gym or do recreational sports with others. And you might answer that you can buy workout equipment for your house and chat with people online while watching sports together or that you'll just order food to be delivered (though if more people decided to move to inconvenient locations, free delivery to rural areas would probably need to cease as it's basically subsidized today).

But I'm guessing that you still value place/location as most people do. You might be more flexible and cost might sway you more, but I doubt that you're truly agnostic to place/location. If you live in the suburbs, there's almost assuredly a cheaper town you could have moved to and didn't move to. As such, you found more value based on place/location. Even in rural areas, there are cheaper places you can move to that people decide not to move to.

BenFranklin100• 3 years ago

I like your explanation. Some may think it repetitive but you arrive at the same point from slightly different angles and your writing is clear. It gets the message across to those who may not have fully appreciated the mantra that in real estate it’s all about location, location, location.

keiferski8• 3 years ago

Thanks for the long reply, but I think you kind of missed the point entirely. The question was about what would happen if Georgism were adopted. Not what NYC is like now. I'll respond to each section:

Well, certainly it has some value, but I don't know if this value is "inherent." The fact that large parts of lower Manhattan was a kind of wasteland in the 70s would seem to indicate that it there isn't a huge amount of value in the land itself. Detroit is another good example, although definitely not as much as NYC.

Most people disagree with your assessment of the value of land in NYC.

Again, I think you are reading too much into my comment. These companies are centralized in NYC because of the social factors, not because of the inherent value of the dirt there. In the not too distant past, large parts of Manhattan had dramatically less value than today. Plenty of other cities in the world were once far more important than they are now.

Ah, but this is where markets work. If the land becomes more valuable because it is more valuable to you, then you wouldn't want to move.

But wouldn't you then be taxed more because of this value? Again, that doesn't really solve the issue. You'd just want to sell the land and move somewhere that has a lower tax burden.

Well, I didn't say those things and you are claiming far more than I did. So yeah, you are putting words in my mouth.

All of the comments about my personal living location are again, not really relevant to the point at all. At no point did I say NYC is not a desirable place to live, that I think the land doesn't have value, or that I have some issue with living in cities and prefer rural areas.

My question is not about how NYC is now, it's about what would happen if Georgism were adopted, and if this would set off a cycle of companies not investing into urban areas because their tax burden was determined by land value and not revenue. All of the things about NYC today are frankly irrelevant to the discussion, because the question is about effects of the policy if implemented.

Some of the philosophy all sounds reasonable and rational if the intention is to spur development from empty lots, but I still don't see how Georgeism prevents capital exit. Your assumption here is that when choosing between "keep empty lot and get taxed X" or "build thing and get taxed X", those are the only options. The other option is just to leave, which again is what my question is about. You might say, "then someone better able to capitalize on it will buy the lot," but what if there are no buyers? That's a pretty big assumption to make.

Finally, you're making a lot of giant leaps that a) I didn't make and b) aren't necessary for my point to be relevant. BigCo doesn't need to go from NYC to a barren tundra; it can just go from NYC to a smaller, cheaper city that has lower land values. If those land values rise a decade later, they can just move to another one, ad infinitum.

I still don't see how replacing income/revenue taxes with land value taxes will prevent this sort of behavior.

coldtea5• 3 years ago

You might be correct about the future: maybe all work will become remote and to take it a step further let's say that all friendships, dating, education, and community move to remote/metaverse. NYC no longer has any value beyond things like access to a good harbor.

Even if it's all remote work, many people like the urban lifestyle, of many things to do, shops, bars, pilates, nail saloons, pizza places, comedy clubs, dance clubs, delis, cafes, culture centers, galleries, gelato shops, museums, libraries, and so on. So, it's not like all incentives to a big city are office work opportunities.

gardnr• 3 years ago

New Zealand had varying degrees of LVT over the course of 100 years. The main takeaway from this thesis[1] is that it is difficult to get all parties on board and that the concessions required prevented the tax policy from being effective. At a national level it was abolished in 1990. Some local councils continue to collect local rates using a tax on unimproved land value but this can't be described as Georgism.

1. THE USE OF LAND VALUE TAXATION IN NEW ZEALAND (1891 – 1991) By Dylan Hobbs https://researcharchive.vuw.ac.nz/xmlui/bitstream/handle/100...

Georgism

Related Stories