International Union meets in Spain
Report by Pat Aller written to GROUNDSWELL, magazine
published by the American organization "Common Ground"
The International Union for Land Value Taxation and Free Trade held its 24th conference in Madrid, Spain,
27-30 May, 2004. This was exactly 91
years after Georgists from all over the world met at a conference sponsored by
the Spanish League for the Single Tax in Ronda, Spain, partly financed by
industrialist Joseph Fels, who had supported major land value tax drives in the
United States before World War I.
Unlike most previous conferences, arranged by IU headquarter's staff in
London, this was prepared by AEPERS (Asociación Española para el Estudio del
Regimen del Suelo y los Recursos Naturales), under the direction of Fernando
Scornik-Gerstein, attorney and former advisor to the Argentine government,
who lives and works in Spain and the Canary Islands, and serves as AEPERS
president. Although the number of
Spanish Georgists was decimated during Spain’s civil war, Scornik has helped to
rebuild the movement there. He also
attracted Argentine Georgists to the conference. More than 50 people attended, from Argentina, Australia, Canada,
Denmark, England, France, Scotland, South Africa, Spain, and the United
States. Simultaneous translation was
provided in Spanish and English.
Scottish Parliament sends greetings
The Scottish Parliament sent the following message, signed by ten
members of Scottish Green, Scottish Nationalist and Scottish Socialist Party
groups in the Scottish Parliament:
“We send you our best wishes and support in your deliberations in Madrid
this year. Some of us enjoyed and took
part in your last conference in Edinburgh in 2001.
“Scotland is in the throes of releasing itself from the shackles of a
historical inheritance of landed privilege.
You will know that the Parliament has committed itself to ‘investigating
the contribution land value taxation might make to the cultural, economic,
environmental and democratic renaissance of Scotland.’ We believe that the private appropriation of
the value of our common resources–such as land–is a privilege which can no
longer be justified.
“On a global scale, the failure to share equitably the value of our
common birthrights can grow awful grievances, which bring terrible
consequences, such as was visited upon your host city. Our sorrow rests with the heavy hearts of
Madrid’s citizens going about their daily business around you today.
“But we must make practical
changes to our social systems. We
believe that the taxing of land values will be a key policy reform for the
twenty-first century. Scotland must
adopt it. We as Scottish
Parliamentarians will be endeavouring to bring about this fundamentally just
and badly needed reform.”
Speeches and discussions ranged from the pragmatic to the
philosophic. The tragic history of
Georgism in Spain in the 20th century was a conference highlight.
Alannna Hartzok, IU’s main
Non-Governmental Organization (NGO) representative to the United Nations,
Council of Georgist Organizations vice-president, and Earth Rights Institute co-director, opened the sessions on 27
May with “The Need for an Earth Rights Democracy.” This was an incisive examination of local
and national socioeconomic issues in USA and a hard look at the same
globally.
Jeff Smith (Forum on
Geonomics founder/director and The Geonomist editor)
spoke on the history of speculation and corruption in America, including
privileges and tariffs for the elite, now that government can no longer give
them land.
Spanish Ministry of Finance
Before the conference, Smith had arranged to meet Professor Pedro
Herrera Molina, of the Spanish Ministry of Finance, and other department
officials. He and Hartzok presented
them with the advantages of land value taxation. They showed great interest and one was able to attend the
conference. Following the conference,
several Georgists, including two from Spain, met with the officials again. Smith later conferred with the supervisor of
those officials, Isabel Especjo Poyato, who asked for a copy of his speech and
more specifics on how LVT could benefit Spain.
While in Madrid, he also met with Spanish architects and a computer
programmer.
The next day Scornik formally welcomed IU members, other Georgists, and
visitors, and introduced IU president, Tatiana Roskoshnaya, UN-Habitat
Inter-Regional Adviser on Eastern Europe and Economies in Transition, stationed
in Nairobi, Kenya. (During later IU
business meetings, she was re-elected, and many other IU business topics were
discussed, including site and time of the next conference, as yet undecided.)
Roskoshnaya led a panel on the global crisis and housing. She stated that the former Soviet Union
nations now had the highest poverty growth rate in the world, ranging from 20
to 80% of each nation’s population. She
recalled for the audience the UN Millennium Development Goals, which include
reducing the number of people in extreme poverty and also reducing the number
of slum dwellers by 100,000, by 2015.
A project is underway in Nairobi, Kenya, to provide housing for a giant
slum from which landlords collect pure rent, because they provide no
infrastructure. If residents get new
housing, they’re likely to sell it, further enriching landlords. Roskoshnaya and a colleague have introduced
the idea of researching the land values in the slum.
Fred Harrison and other Georgists, she added, introduced LVT to the
nation of Russia, even if it’s misunderstood.
As a result, President Vladimir Putin is on record in favor of collecting
resource rents. She added that the UN,
through covenants and other documents, has declared a universal right to
housing.
Peter Gibb (chief
executive, Henry George Foundation, UK and one of Land Reform Scotland’s
directors) cited figures showing that housing costs have risen much faster than
wages. Home ownership is out of reach
of many middle-income and nearly all low-income people. At the same time, more high-income people
own two homes. He foresees
Japanese-style intergenerational mortgages unless the situation improves. Many empty houses in UK are untaxed. But he expects the Scottish Ministerial
Review to include LVT in its recommendations.
Scornik, discussing the situation in Spain, stated that housing costs
rose twice as much as salaries in the last 20 years.
Dave Wetzel (Labour Land
Campaign chair and London University Transport Studies Society former
president) described United Kingdom housing tenure varieties and believes
housing experts are finally looking at LVT.
He likened Georgism to a ball on a giant snooker (billiards) table. If it’s hit right, it could cause a ricochet
among the others. In addition to
housing, UK needs more green space, he declared.
Bill Powell (Liberal
Democrat official and local council housing advisor) said the mortgage system
is part of the problem. Using slides,
he demonstrated how renters can’t afford to buy when they retire at reduced
incomes. Perhaps, he suggested, people
should share risks with banks, as some religions have done. An individual could pay rent and buy
ownership shares in the same monthly check, “purchase in partnership.” This could be Rent/Own or Rent/Maintain, as
the person prefers. At any rate, this
benefits the individual and is not a subsidy.
Dark picture of Russia
A dark picture of contemporary economic failure is painted in “Twelve
Years of Liberal Reforms in Russia,” by Galina Titova, UN
consultant on water and fisheries, from Russia. (Roskoshnaya summarized or read parts of the paper, as Titova was
unable to attend.) Titova blames
perverse or ignorant economics and laws for catastrophic decline in production
and quality of life since 1990. “These
laws,” she said, “allowed new Russian oligarchs and transnational
corporations to enrich at the expense of natural rent.”
Titova castigated both her fellow citizens and the International
Monetary Fund and the World Bank for policies of “shock” economics that enabled
overnight privatization of Russia’s natural resources, which, by rapid
exploitation, became the source of the new export economy, cutting jobs in
infrastructure and light industry and leading to higher poverty and death
rates. It further damaged the economy
by frightening prudent foreign investors, while adding Russian capital -
seeking safe havens or riches - to the export list.
“Government is ruled by copybooks of monetarism. Its main task now is to service the foreign
debt and to protect interests of large-scale business,” Titova explained.
The ordinary Russian was cheated by vouchers to buy their state-owned
dwelling or make other purchases, because these sank in value. Budget shortages have caused drops in the
quality of education and scientific research, both needed for modern economic
growth. Teachers’ and professors’
salaries average $70 and $200 monthly, respectively. Fisheries concentrate on luxury fish for overseas markets and
have largely abandoned processing catches for both domestic and foreign
consumption, losing more than 190,000 jobs, many then created in importing
nations.
Titova compared Russia’s downward economic spiral since 1990 with
changes in China since 1978. China
adopted a “double track” method, taking into account its historic interests and
cultural traditions, thus avoiding an economic collapse. GDP has increased each
year, while Russia’s has declined.
Likewise, Poland avoided catastrophe by rejecting IMF advice. “Success in market reforms in Poland are
also a result of delin[ing] of Washington consensus doctrines....The main task
of reforms is to create conditions for sustainable and dynamic economic
growth,” she explained, and called IMF/World Bank economics
“bankrupt.” She cited Joseph Stiglitz,
former WB economist, and five US Nobel Prize economists of the “Economic
Transition Group” who opposed “shock” reform.
Yet today Russia’s economy is still measured by IMF indicators, which
ignore decline in quality of life, widening income gaps, environmental damage,
and the like, while counting as positive the huge profits in Russia’s natural
resource exploitation.
“[H]opes for rent
socialization (that has been promised by Putin for many years) will hardly be
answered while monetarists are kept in the head of economics
offices.....[N]othing is done to bring order to the use of nature and to create
a single state system of natural wealth and their taxable potential
accounting. Without accomplishing this
task, the forecast for the Russian future is dark....All successful [Russian]
monarchs paid great attention to increase of the efficiency of governmental
control over use of both lands and other natural resources and their fiscal
assessment. There is still no clear
signal that V. Putin will follow them.”
China's Land Policies
Turning toChina, Scornik reported on a variety of land laws. He said that when he met with the Chinese,
they made it very clear that land will never be sold, using Hong Kong’s leasing
of land as an example. While he doubts
they grasp the significance of rent, the government does realize that
privatization is unnecessary. The
nation owns much of the land, although there is some speculation. Leases of up to 70 years are available for
defined uses, according to “The Legal Status of Land in China,” a
compendium of laws which he distributed.
In summary, he said, “[T]he right of use of land can be mortgaged and
legally transferred, but what is very important–Article 43–states that ‘the
land user as described in the clause shall pay land-use tax in accordance with
the Interim Regulations of the People’s Republic of China on Land Use Taxation
in Cities and Towns.’...This is reinforced by Article 49, which says that ‘land
users shall pay taxes in accordance with state tax laws.’
“[T]he Income Tax in China is low (about 15%) and there is a Business
Tax of 5%. It is obvious that the
People’s Republic do not have a policy in the sense of making the rent of land
the sole source of revenue.
Nevertheless, the income coming from land, although we do not have
precise figures, must be important enough to keep other taxes low.”
South Africa Housing Rights
Peter Meakin (a trustee of
the South African Constitutional Property Rights Foundation, SACPRIF, and
property broker and appraiser) spoke on “Constitutions and Land Reform:
The South-African Case.” He
described his organization’s attempt to “restore both western and traditional
property rights in the Republic so that every South African over 18 years of
age can secure affordable access to sufficient of South Africa’s natural
resources as to give validity to the constitutional values of equality, dignity
and freedom.”
The organization’s strategy document states, “SACPRIF’s chief aim is
to bring about a change in South Africa’s land tenure laws and practices, on
the grounds that these contradict the constitutional rights to human dignity,
equality and freedom....[L]egislative measures to date have not provided poor
South Africans with meaningful access to land.
Furthermore, these measures fail to address the landless of this
generation who fall outside of the net of restitution, redistribution and
tenure-reform, as well as those countless generations to come who will find
themselves landless unless a holistic solution is found....For the last ten
years SACPRIF has lobbied government officials and parliamentarians to adopt
its approach, to no avail. SACPRIF now
wants to consider a legal challenge to the government’s land reform programme,
arguing that it is in violation of the Constitution of the Republic of South
Africa, and that, therefore, the courts may appropriately intervene.”
Section 25(5) of the Constitution provides that the state must take
reasonable steps, within its resources, to foster conditions which enable
citizens to gain access to land equitably.
The Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act states that “Mineral
and petroleum resources are the common heritage of all the people of South
Africa...” The late Sir Kenneth
Jupp, retired High Court of England judge and author of some Georgist works,
advised SACPRIF’s attorney to consider indigenous as well common law views and
practices on land ownership and holding.
Meakin explained that the new Constitution does not limit the right to
land values, as some think, and added that LVT advocacy, including that of Fred
Harrison, has had results. He closed
with a plea for financial assistance to pursue the suit, which, if lost, will
cause him and other Georgist backers serious loss.
History of Georgism in Spain
On 29 May, Ana María Martín Úriz, Spanish philologist at the
University of Madrid, specializing in the English language, spoke on “Perspectiva
histórica del legado de Henry George en España: Formación y evolución en el
pimer cuarto del siglo XX,” (Historic Perspective on the Legacy of
Henry George in Spain: Formation and Evolution in the First Quarter of the 20th
Century). This was excerpted from her
longer introduction to Progreso y Miseria (Progress and Poverty),
issued in 1985 by the Spanish government (after dictator Gen. Francisco
Franco’s death) as one of a series of “agrarian classics.” The paper, in Spanish, is too important to
summarize here. One hopes a translation
of the paper and/or the introduction will bring this heroic history to
Georgists worldwide.
Her paper had four parts: Spanish history, creation of the Spanish
League for the Single Tax, Georgist progress in Spain, and Georgism’s tragic
end there. At the beginning of the 20th
century, Spain was an agrarian nation with huge lands held by a few wealthy
people. Farm work was badly paid, and
much land was idle–untaxed, unworked.
Rising social consciousness led to Spanish translations of Progress
and Poverty and various movements–agrarian, socialist, anarchist, regional,
and separatist. The Spanish League for the Single Tax was created and published
a review for 10 years. The League’s La
Ronda meeting in 1913 (which the Franco government denied took place) brought
many groups together, but differences, especially from those who espoused
regionalism, separated them.
While the idea, but not the practice, of LVT made headway, and Georgists
had some influence on the Second Republic, others were oppressed, even
assassinated. When Franco came to power
he executed Blas Infante, regionalist, imprisoned others (one died in prison),
and exiled more. Those who went to Argentina
helped revive interest in LVT there, but others, in Spain and elsewhere, ceased
writing and planning. [Even during Franco’s regime, Spanish Georgists ordered
books from the Robert Schalkenbach Foundation.]
Scornik added that his father was among those exiled and that, while
Georgists have always been oppressed, they were treated the worst by
Spain.
Problems of introducing LVT
The practical problems of introducing land value taxation in their
respective nations were discussed by Gibb, Saul Martinez (chair,
Provincias Unidas, a socioeconomic studies foundation. and former head,
Highways Department, Argentina), and Karl Williams (editor, Progress,
Australia).
Williams listed some Green party concerns
about LVT, including possible financial strain on retirees, mortgage questions,
belief that the income tax is fairer, and “the 6 o’clock swill.” He explained the last by telling the story
of old Australia, whose social contract included affordable housing, a living
wage, tight credit, and no drinking after 6.
The last induced a crowded bar as each jostled to get his before the bar
closed. Today, without that contract,
it’s whatever the market will bear, and, Williams opined, “We have not a
housing crisis but a property boom! A
great way to run a casino but not a society.
A long way from the social contract.”
Martínez
was fired the day after he advocated LVT to defray costs of one
road. He called his nation “a
laboratory demonstrating the development of Georgist ideas.” Physiocrats influenced the Argentine
revolution, and slavery and the sale of land were abolished in 1810 (or 1813),
under Argentina’s first president, Bernardo Rivadavia, whose ideas resembled
those of George. Civil wars followed
and the law was revoked in 1857. Since
great plots of land had been acquired by individuals even before the
revolution, this further legitimized land monopolies and speculation. Sporadic attempts have been made since to
enact or apply LVT, but there is no general success.
Fred Foldvary (author and
economics professor, US) criticized economists who dismiss LVT because they say
land and value can’t be separated perfectly.
Recapture by government of even some of the excess, deadweight burden
justifies using that tax, he claimed.
For greater equity, he advises an assessment board composed of all
levels of government, local, higher, and state or federal. He’s written about privatizing communities,
if they wish, so that they pay for their own services, and he urged Georgists
to change politics and voting structures.
Don't drive in London!
Dave Wetzel recounted,
with Power Point, “The Success of the London Congestion Charge and How It
Relates to Land Value Taxation.” At first, he said, even his own Labour party opposed the
idea. The charge is £5 per day, Monday
through Friday, 7 AM to 6 PM, on a car entering central London (“clean” or
emergency vehicles, and those driven by disabled persons excepted). Now there are 15% fewer cars, 30% less
congestion, and London’s treasury is £70 million richer each year. Those who don’t pay are subject to
accelerated fines.
But Wetzel is more concerned with land.
“If we continue allowing 10% to control earth, expect a
revolution!”
A geo-confederacy was proposed by Foldvary as “The Solution
to Territorial Conflict: Pay Rent.”
He related his remarks to land disputes between Israel and Palestine,
India and Pakistan, factions in Northern Ireland, Bosnia and Kosovo, and those
Basques who wish to separate from Spain.
“When two nations claim the same territory, and both claims have merit,
partition may not sufficiently resolve the conflict...A better alternative is
to make the land common property.
Individuals could choose which nation to affiliate with, without having
to move. The possession of land would
be in the form of leaseholds which pay rent to a confederation of the
nations. The rent reflects the benefit
of the land and would compensate the others for the exclusive use of a site.”
Citing John Locke’s Second Treatise on Government, that each
person equally has ownership of his own person, Foldvary argues, “But
self-ownership does not apply to land, so human beings equally properly own the
land in common. However, the possession
of land is required in order to apply labor, and production is most efficient
with a market economy and private control of property. Locke wrote that the first owner may claim
possession, but he may only claim the yield due to land with the proviso or
condition that there be land of equal or better quality available to
others. If such land is not available,
then human equality requires an equal benefit from the land. The economic benefit is reflected in the
rent of land, and so an equal sharing of the land rent satisfies the Lockean
proviso....
“Without a global sharing of the natural land rent, the next best policy
is for it to be shared by those in a country....We can call this plan a
‘geo-confederacy.’ It consists of a
confederation of states together with the collection of the land rent....Where
two countries dispute a portion of their land, a just solution is joint
sovereignty as well as a provincial confederation. Both states whold have equal sovereignty, and the residents would
be free to decide which country to be a citizen of. The site holders would pay land rent to a legislature that is
elected by all the residents....
“[G]eo-confederacy combines choice of citizenship, confederation of
nations, joint sovereignty over disputed land, and the sharing of the land
rent....A geo-confederacy offers freedom and equality of association and equal
benefits from the land.”
Argentinean crisis: Its roots
Hector Sandler (University
of Buenos Aires professor of law and social philosophy and Institute of
Economics Training (ICE) director) spoke on “Unveiling the Mystery: Roots
of the Argentinean Crisis,” dedicated “To my dear friend Bob
Andelson,” former IU president, Robert Schalkenbach Foundation member, and
philosophy professor, who died December, 2003.
Sandler pointed out that in Argentina, a large nation rich in natural
resources, land monopoly has stifled efficient development by making land too
expensive for poor citizens, thereby inhibiting the immigration that helped the
United States progress. In 1810,
legislation forbade land sales, with a few exceptions, and slavery. However, this was revoked 1857, and 1865
laws transformed land into goods in comercio, leading to concentration
of 85% of the land in the hands of 300 landowners, fewer than 1% of the
population. The same ratio is true
today, except that the landowners have become corporations, paying no taxes or
taxes on undervalued land.
“The current legal system has transformed land into the base of any
speculative business... instead of being at disposal of work and investment of
capital,” says Sandler.
Argentina is an exporting nation – of beef, leather, grain, wool – all
from rich ranchers, who use their profits to increase their ranching and to
consume riches. As the proportion of
poor people grew, Argentina had to borrow from the International Monetary Fund
to pay for national and sub-national services. Its debts ballooned, culminating
in its recent defaults.
Sandler stated that, regardless of whether conservatives or
radicals governed, their policies ignored the effects of land speculation, land
concentration, and escape of capital for development, concluding, “Argentineans
should realize that land rent cannot be in private hands, because it is the
basic underside of public treasure. If
land rent is collected, it is possible to eliminate the taxes that hinder work
and investment....[W]ithout this there will never be a new Argentinean
miracle.”
Are universities to blame?
Sandler also spoke on “Higher
Education and Social Problems,” dedicated to Professor Iredell Jenkins,
Princeton University, USA, with the object of “finding a philosophical basis
for the political theories whose aim is to achieve a fairer human society”
and “to expound upon the mistaken roads that Law and Economics science are
marching upon.”
For example, Sandler referred to Argentina’s economic problems as due,
not to lack of resources, “but because of a wrong legal structure of
necessary fundamentals to constitute prosperous and healthy social and public
economics....the result of wrong or inadequate knowledge in the fields of
economics and juridical science. If
this thesis is true, it is possible that higher education is, in great measure,
responsible for the current disorder.
That’s why–in this case–the university system has a moral duty and a
great task in the effort to reestablish the harmony lost in our society.”
Critical of over-specialization in philosophy, law, and economics,
Sandler pointed out that, until the mid-20th century, most political leaders,
legislators, and many in the executive branch of government had law
degrees. Since then, however, he says,
economists have displaced lawyers there and also dominate financial and global
institutions.
“[I]t’s not even noticed that it is a concern of Law, not of Economics,
to establish the fundamentals of the economic order.”
Sandler continues, “One of the main causes, if not the main one, of
social, political and economic problems that many countries bear - among them,
in quite a remarkable way, Argentina - is the prevailing bias, standardized at
universities, of legal and economic science since the second half of the 20th
century.” Specialization, he adds,
leads to quite exclusive knowledge of fragments of reality, and this often
leads to the teaching of distorted, even wrong, concepts.
“Government,” continues
Sandler, “as producer of statute law, should apply all its power in the
unceasing task of eliminating obstacles, privileges and monopolies that
generated continuously at the very middle of society, hindering the process of
producing wealth and the fair distribution of the wealth produced.” He recalled that a 1912 bill proposed a
land tax on unimproved land. Though the
bill failed, an active Land League, composed of Argentinean governors, mayors,
and other politicians and intellectuals, published Revista del Impuesto
Unico (Magazine of Single Tax) from 1916 to 1926.
“These facts are ignored by those who teach Law and Economics at our
universities,” he informed his audience,
advising them that even worse brainwashing occurred in USA, documented in The
Corruption of Economics. Neo-classic
economics, which considers only labor and capital–not land–as factors of
production, suppresses all mention of natural law and Henry George, and is
supported by gifts to universities by wealthy land speculators and monopolists.
“[W]ith countless natural resources, an excellent population with high
cultural development, it cannot seriously be said that Argentina has ‘economic
problems,’ though most of its inhabitants... do have them....What we suffer
from is a bad legal structure of the fundamentals of social and public
economy. All the individual and
collective problems that bring despair to most of the population and collapse
governments have their root in our legal order....From this point of view,
universities and higher education have a great responsibility and, in
consequence, a great duty to perform.”
George and German idealism
Frank Peddle (Robert
Schalkenbach Foundation board member, Henry George Foundation of Canada
treasurer, and Canadian Research Committee on Taxation research director),
spoke on “Dialectical Philosophy and Henry George’s Concepts Reconsidered.” He urged reprinting of George Geiger’s The
Philosophy of Henry George, issued in 1931, saying nothing has been
published in that area since. He
compared German idealism of Fichte, Hegel, Kant, and Schelling with George’s
ideas, even though George misunderstood and maligned the idealists. Peddle finds reshapings in such philosophers
parallel to reshapings in natural law, on the nature of capitalism, and the
like.
The Science of Political Economy is Peddles’s favorite among George’s works. Its methodology, definitions, and concepts, such as holistic
cooperation, are very like German idealism.
One must unpresuppose all that is presupposed, which also applies
to contemporary politics. Hermeneutics
(the branch of philosophy dealing with the theory of understanding and
interpretation) is important in today’s European thought and therefore it is
necessary for Georgists also, as a way of continuing dialogue, he concluded.
Marginalists, land and George
Scornik spoke on “The Marginalist
and the Special Status of Land as a Factor of Production:
Herman-Heinrich Gössen, Friedrich von Wieser, León Walras and Vilfredo
Pareto. He stressed their views on the
special status of land, ignored by most Marxists (but not Marx) and most
neoclassical economists, especially those of the Austrian school. While he admitted that some of their ideas
were confused, each of the four recognized the importance of land.
“With this paper,” he said, “we
expect to contribute, at least partially, to widen the vision of ideas of these
four marginalists and to have proved that...the subject of land and natural
resources was very specially considered, having in certain cases–as that of
Walras–a central and unmoveable place in his proposals.” Only highlights of this paper can be
included. Scornik finds that, for those
cited, land was not simply a form of capital.
Yet George and also neoclassic, or neoliberal, economists underrate this
aspect of marginalism.
“Gössen states that ‘it would be convenient that the ownership of land
would belong entirely to the community and that the community would grant the
exploitation of each plot to whom[ever] offered to pay the highest rent,’” Scornik says, adding that Gössen’s ideas were ignored
for years, and, when rediscovered by W. Stanley Jevons, were cited for their
mathematics and not for the differential character of land ownership.
“In our opinion the most interesting thing in Wieser’s thought is
preceisely the changes he introduces to the Austrain theory of value and bring
him near in a remarkable way to the ideas of Henry George or León Walras. As George, he was a great defender of free
trade as the way to press prices downwards,” Scornik declares.
Walras wrote, “...to leave lands to individuals instead of keeping
them for the State means to allow a parasitical class to take advantage of the
enrichment that should satisfy the always growing demands of public services,” and
concludes that, if the State repurchases privately held land, “we would have
not only saved the future but repaired the past.” While he contradicts himself, and, of course,
George, in the way he would remedy conditions, Walras sees socioeconomic
justice in State land value taxation, according to Scornik. Furthermore, Walras recognizes the
importance of free trade and “free concurrence,” citing Physiocrats on the
latter.
Pareto “does not even mention the solid proposals of Gossen and
Walras, which mathematically demonstrate the benefit that nationalization would
give to the state, even paying compensation to the owners,.... being more
inclined to solutions based on taxation,” Scornik explains. “Nationalization of land seems to him a
remedy worse than the sickness.”
Scornik cautions Georgists to heed Pareto’s income distribution curves,
which pessimistically find that income changes little, regardless of economic
system, and his forecast that no social reform will last if human nature is not
changed. In the discussion that
followed, Peddle asserted that Lorenz has found the curves wrong.
In correspondence with Aller after the conference, Scornik stressed: “I
do think that the reconsideration of Marginalists and their perspective on
George’s basic idea that the rent of land should be common property, is
essential. As I explained in my paper,
George was not aware of the works of Herman Heinrich Gössen and León
Walras. I honestly think that the
attack that George delivers to Marginalism in general is mistaken. The Marginalists do not say what George
accused them of saying.”
Psychoanalysis, mind, and economics
Timothy Glazier (author of
works on philsophy, social justice) analyzed “Economics and the Modern
Mind.” He feels that one reason
people have trouble grasping George’s ideas is that the human mind has altered
over the millennia. In denying an
archetype such as a bountiful earth, the shadows of fear of scarcity and of
greed have appeared in hunter-turned-farmer and later changes in perception,
and he cited Fred Harrison’s works on the matter. Alienation follows, resulting from dissociation from the real
world. Glazier believes humanity is in
its adolescence and can eventually improve.
A psychoanalytic approach to Georgist ideas and techniques was presented
by Jon Mendel (research intern, Henry George Foundation, UK, and Ph.D.
candidate, University of Newcastle) in his two papers: “Own It: The Desire
for Housing and the UK Housing Crisis” and
“Love the Accident! The ‘War
on Terror,’ Network Technologies and Radical Political Change.” These
require the author’s permission before citing and may be reviewed later. “Hacia un Mundo Mejor,” by Joseph
Soler Corrales, in Spanish, is not included because there was no time to
translate it.
The UN, IMF, WB, and Georgists
Roskoshnaya and Hartzok closed the conference, 30 May, with analyses of
how LVT can be linked to UN, International Monetary Fund, and World Bank
policies.
In May 2003, IU was granted consultative status to UN’s Economic and
Social Council (ECOSOC), raising its number of NGO representatives at the UN
from 2 to 22, and greater Georgist impact on UN issues is anticipated.
Hartzok, who hopes to help develop a
Nigerian eco-village, where Georgist economics will be taught, cited Stiglitz’s
criticisms of the World Bank: privatization of utilities, taken over by former
government cronies; capital market liberalization, especially in real estate;
market-based pricing which forces up costs of basics; and so-called free
trade. He proposed, as solutions,
radical land reform and taxing 50% of the oligarchs’ crop rent. Hartzok who
said she would like to sink or shrink IMF/WB because of their systemic greed
policies, focused on six: 1) structural adjustment programs (SAPs), which
increase poverty, 2) debt relief, especially to poorest nations, which is a
sham, 3) the worsening of Russia’s depression, the Asian financial crisis, and
focus on banks’ bailouts, 4) the rise of AIDS, part of the rural-to-urban
migration, 5) the effects on women, especially as SAPs cut safety nets, and 6)
depletion of natural resources, accelerated by dam building and land grabs, which
she called corporate welfare for environmental destruction. She cited WB activity in Brazil, buying land
and creating mortgage debt, and mentioned that a US Senate investigation of WB
losses.
Roskoshnaya complained
that WB had intervened when Habitat attempted some LVT in the 1980s. Habitat now has a new Governing Council,
with greater Local Authorities (municipalities and cities) participation. She urged Georgists to become involved with
United Cities and Local Governments and to try to get LVT included in one of
Habitat’s two major drives, that for Secure Tenure. WB is also studying LVT, she added, and Sweden, a chief Habitat
donor, is interested.
Scornik believes a newsletter for
Spanish and Latin American readers would have an extraordinary effect, and
stated that the Spanish Georgists need serious financial support. He criticized the almost complete lack of
funds from existing Georgist organizations for the Madrid conference. The Robert Schalkenbach Foundation
contributed $2,000 for simultaneous translation, a small fraction of the aid
requested.
Gibb had suggestions for the Georgist
movement. In an amusing Power Point presentation he asked "Why are
Georgist books so ugly?"
"Appearance is our first knowledge of substance. Our arrogance as
Georgists tells us all we have to do is tell the truth. But it doesn't work
like that," he remarked.
As "the only Georgist shopkeeper" (he runs a Geogist
bookshop in Edinburgh), he finds that colorful and eye-catching covers are
vital, because browsers take less time than in the past before selecting - or
bypassing - books. He urged publication of more, and more varied, Georgist
books, and also suggested iring professional webmasters to improve sites.
Scornik believes a newsletter for
Spanish and Latin American readers would have an extraordinary effect, and
stated that the Spanish Georgists need serious financial support. He criticized the almost complete lack of
funds from existing Georgist organizations for the Madrid conference. The Robert Schalkenbach Foundation
contributed $2,000 for simultaneous translation, a small fraction of the aid
requested.
________
This report is based on the author’s notes and available texts, with
apologies that time did not permit more thoroughness or accuracy. All italics used were in the original. Texts or excerpts of some speeches may be
published later. To contact
AEPERS (Scornik invited Georgists everywhere to join it):
Fernando
Scornik-Gerstein, President, AEPERS
Avda
Alberto Alcocer, N° 7, 3° Izq, 28036 Madrid, SPAIN
Tel: 00 34 91 350 72 62 Fax: 00
34 91 350 73 06 Email: Madrid@aepers.org