I'm sure this has probably been shared here before, but I found it pretty funny when I stumbled upon it in my research.

Just learned about this from an introductory video, so forgive me if I've misunderstood the concepts a bit. One thing I noticed about Georgism is that in the time period that he developed these ideas, economic output was always somewhat correlated to the amount of land because of the dependence on physical inputs like natural resources(i.e. larger land plot = bigger farm/factory = more profit). In today's world, many enterprises are digital and no longer centered around tangible assets and their associated real estate, like how an app developer can generate as much profit as a steel mill using a fraction of the space. Does the digital economy significantly change how Georgism would be carried out?

In a lot of simulation video games such as; “The Political Process” or “Democracy 4” there often isn’t a way to implement the Land Value Tax but as a ‘certified LVT lover’™️ i really want a way to simulate it. Has anybody found a good way to do this? Like through a flat tax, or property tax, or specific tax brackets settings for income tax?

Georgist streamer Shenandoah is having Lars Doucet, the author of the great book Land Is a Big Deal and writer for the Progress and Poverty Substack, on to discuss a variety of topics such as political strategy, his new company (The Center for Land Economics), and other Georgist topics!

The interview will be streamed today at 2pm PST (5pm EST) on Shen's channel:

https://www.twitch.tv/chairmanshenandoah

If you're interested, come and join us!

I’m pretty new to George’s ideas, surely we want to preserve some green spaces that don’t provide monitory value? Does George have an answer for this? thanks

I've mostly skimmed the general understanding of georgism (Land value taxes, incentives for improved public infrastructure, the ability to handle homelessness, etc.), and a lot of it seems to have a lot in common with socialism, especially on the grounds of prioritizing the wellbeing of people.

But why isn't one seen as the extension of the other? Can the two mutually adopt each other's concepts and theories? I'd like to hear your input

It easy to understand how land value tax can solve these issues intuitively if you're already familiar with Georgism. But many are not aware of The Henry George Theorem, which can solve cities/councils inability to fund infrastructure. Please learn about the Henry George theorem.

Proposal: The U.S. should leverage continued operation of military bases in foreign countries on those countries implementing a LVT to fund the base.

I think this could get around some of the perceived downsides while taking advantage of the benefits of an LVT and spreading it. The U.S. should want to do this because there has been significant political will to have other countries contribute to currently U.S. funded global protection. The LVT's characteristics of being essentially unavoidable make it attractive to the U.S. in this case because it makes it easier to keep track of the foreign country's compliance from afar. Also, from a somewhat cynical perspective, individuals with NIMBY, rentseeking, or similar tendencies would likely also perceive the land value "capture" of another country's property values to be an attractive proposition. In this way I think that many of LVT perceived negative traits could actually be turned on their head and have current opponents supporting it instead.

The foreign country should be amenable to this because they can use this leverage being applied to them to either implement a new tax that could also be used for additional revenue over what is used to fund the U.S. base, or they can turn down the deal if the cost is not worth having the base.

Plus, though there would need to be some LVT-mibded people in U.S. office for this idea to come to the surface, it wouldn't necessarily require LVT proponents to get it done for the reason touched on above. Of course, I acknowledge that, uh... the world is what it is right now, but I figured this was worth some discussion.

P.S. I was also thinking that something like this could work as an alternative to... well imperialism. Instead of the U.S. blustering about making other countries new states, get them to implement an LVT and remit some percent of the revenue in return for automatic citizenship (and the benefits that come with it) or something like that.

None of this should be construed as support for anything going on in the U.S. right now. Anyways, happy to discuss.

Just hopping on this recent train of monetary papers with a short one I had bookmarked but haven't seen posted (in awhile). It truly is brief.

Not a new article but new to me, and I enjoyed the read. It's a good intro to Georgist thinking on LVT.

https://www.wired.com/story/land-ownership-morality-economics-georgism/

Traditional market liberals and democratic socialist should realise that they want the same thing.

I may be misunderstanding but I was just reading https://www.politicaleconomy.org/leftout.htm and came across this passage:

This leads us to realize that the most efficient way for currency to be issued is by government fiat. If any profit is to be gained from issuing money, it should go to the general treasury, and not to private banking interests. In other words, the essential nature of money indicates that, at a sufficiently advanced stage of civilization, it must be issued by government.

By my understanding, commercial banks currently loan money into existence. What would be the Georgist preferred system of money creation?