I agree. While he is, of course, most famous for Progress and Poverty, I
think his Science of Political Economy is a tour de force of pre-Marxian
political economy.
-----Original Message-----
From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
Sent: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 1:16 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [PEN-L:7866] Re: RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: de Soto
Martin,
Well, what George is most famous for today
(and was at least somewhat famous for in his own
day) is his advocacy of a single tax on land as a
general solution to many economic problems.
This actually drew on arguments of Ricardo and
even on Quesnay. In his day I think he was viewed
as some sort of a leftist, more or less.
Today I know of at least one libertarian Austrian
who is a big fan of George's. He is Fred Foldvary
who labels his own views as "geonomic" or something
like that (not "geomantic" I know, but the "geo" is in there).
Barkley Rosser
-----Original Message-----
From: Brown, Martin (NCI) <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: Wednesday, February 07, 2001 11:58 AM
Subject: [PEN-L:7850] RE: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: de Soto
>This is actually kind of complicated. He first became prominent as a
>journalist around this issue. He later repudiated his position on the
>Chinese question. While many of followers of George evolved into a strange
>brand of libertarianism; his own writings are quite clear on two points:
The
>value of all natural resources should be socialized; All other forms of
>monopoly value should also be socialized. For example he argued against
>patents much in the same vein as Perelman....
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: J. Barkley Rosser, Jr. [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
>Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 1:15 PM
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
>Subject: [PEN-L:7770] Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: de Soto
>
>
>Maggie,
> It is also most certainly not true that Henry
>George's "main claim to fame" is his anti-
>Chinese writings. Heck, I had never even
>heard of them before you mentioned them,
>and I have even read most of Progress and
>Poverty, his most famous book (and the
>biggest selling book in the US on economics
>in the 19th century). I certainly have heard
>about his arguments for a single tax on land
>many times.
> This is not to defend any bad things he said
>about Chinese or other groups. I concur with
>Jim about a lot of the old leftists (although
>where George should be placed in the political
>spectrum is a rather murky business).
>Barkley Rosser
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Jim Devine <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>Date: Sunday, February 04, 2001 5:02 PM
>Subject: [PEN-L:7751] Re: Re: Re: Re: de Soto
>
>
>>I wrote: > Henry George? he was a leftist (of sorts),
>>
>>Maggie wrote:
>>>Jim, Jim, Jim, do NOT get me started on Henry George.
>>
>>Yeah, I knew about George's bad side. A lot of old leftists were bad,
>>especially on issues of racism, sexism, nationalism.
>>
>>could you explain the Mechanics' views more? are they sort of like
US-based
>>Ricardian socialists?
>>
>>Jim Devine [EMAIL PROTECTED] & http://bellarmine.lmu.edu/~JDevine
>>
>>
>
>
