Invited Comment on Warren Samuels's “Speculative Memorandum”

Abstract

In his Speculative Memorandum, Warren Samuels addresses important question of why Georgist Movement has not succeeded. As he so cogently points out, consistency dominant of hard work and productivity as well as logic itself would seem to have led to success, but that simply has not been case. Many cities in world tax land values than buildings with good results, but nowhere has full single tax been implemented. Samuels's Speculative Memorandum stimulates at least these comments: (1) The Speculative Memorandum correctly points out that public expenditures have made land more (or less) valuable (?), but private expenditures they have replaced would have done so as well. Didn't taxes on production that funded these public expenditures decrease land values? (2) The Speculative Memorandum points out that the intensive taxation of unimproved land conflicts with dominant ideology of property, but it had previously pointed out that Georgian logic was eminently consistent with dominant ideology. A similar inconsistency could be ascribed to its assertion that George had antagonized Puritan beliefs and values, even though Speculative Memorandum had previously pointed Out otherwise. (3) The Speculative Memorandum incisively points out that homeowners, a large group, have generally opposed single tax- incisively, because homeowners wrongly think their taxes would increase to a 100% single tax or first-step two-rate building-to-land switch in local tax. (4) The Speculative Memorandum states that land values can't be separated from building values, although later in same paragraph it states that land valuation be done fairly easily by extrapolating from sales of vacant or subsequently demolished property (but be it noted here that there are many other ways to ascertain land values). (5) The Speculative Memorandum cogently points out that changes in taxation are usually incremental rather than revolutionary or wholesale and that this has prevented single tax from achieving success. But two-rate approach has already done this in 21 cases. (6) The Speculative Memorandum asserts that farmers would pay taxes with single tax, but few studies that have been done have not shown this to be case-no doubt because agricultural land values are moderate compared to urban land values. (1) At very least, we could exempt farm improvements. (7) The Speculative Memorandum asserts that economists have tended to avoid any unsafe position, any position that might bring identification with radical reform movements, but there have been (and still are) many socialist economists. (8) We can ask what Speculative Memorandum means by asserting that another reason for failure of Georgist is diversity of additional agendas, issues, and personal self-interests with which it was often mixed. Further elaboration would have been useful. On other hand, it asserts that Georgist message should have been recast in succeeding generations to take account of new conditions, for example, rise of regulatory and welfare state, But what recasting should have taken place? The validity or non-validity of single tax needs to be discussed here, although that might have been beyond scope of a speculative memorandum. (9) The Speculative Memorandum is to be greatly praised for criticizing George's reliance on natural law, because natural law grossly violates is-ought barrier. (2) (10) George was much admired in his time and was not generally considered self-righteous, rigid, tendentious, and imperious. (11) It may be that George's followers have been intellectually ineffective, had private agendas that obscured pure Georgist message, and Georgist organizations competed with destructive results, as Speculative Memorandum states, but many readers would like to have this specifically substantiated. …