There have been useful discussions with David Bofinger, Neil Gilchrist and Kerry Mc Nally, from which some of the material here derives.
The book "Why Economists Disagree", by Cole Cameron and Edwards, is a damn enlightening book. It would have been great if they'd written a section on Genonomics.
If you are just after a list of pages, see the contents page.
If you have no idea of what Geonomics is about, see this introduction.
In looking at Geonomics, you'll find a lot of arrogance in in the way it is expressed. Criticism is frequently considered to be by people who dismissed Henry George as a crank because he did not have professional qualifications in Economics, and there is the view that anyone who looks at Geonomics must be convinced of its merits.
There's the quote by Tolstoy :
"People do not argue with the teaching of George: they simply do not know it. The teaching of George is irresistibly convincing in its simplicity and clearness. He who becomes acquainted with it cannot but agree."
Well it does seem that way to me. Henry George does not seem a crank with or without professional qualifications. But the argument is not convincing. It seems one way of looking at the world, dependent on some arbitrary assumptions. For many Georgist assumptions, there are alternative assumptions which seem at least as valid. If it has truth, it is but a small part of a bigger picture.
My review of Geonomics has been prompted by others. During my review of Geonomics, it was difficult to find any material the least bit critical of Geonomics. All you have are Georgists singing its praises. And yet, so many problems with Geonomics were obvious to me. And, anyone looking at something seriously would try to find references to counterarguments.
So, I've put this web page up. More information is located here. Please read it before you think of sending me email !
A brief summary of the position here follows, with links to the relevant detailed pages.
The book "The Prosperity Paradox" does not live up to its name. At the end of the book, it seemed that if it explained anything about the origin of poverty, it was only a small part of a larger picture.
One of the major claims made by Georgists is that land value taxation cannot be passed onto tennants. While there's some truth here, the argument is not iron cast.
Georgists also make the claim that income tax is unherently unfair. Well, that's not clear at all. See here
The author of the "information kits" claims that mainstream/neo classical economists do not understand the vital difference which land has, and that arguments against Geonomics and land are wishy washy and miss the point.
"Quasi Rent" is considered in the Encyclopedia Brittanica. It considers "rent" (very important to Geonomists), and developments from it. It acknowledges the distinction between land and capital, and then considers how they are analogous in some circumstances. The analogy between land and capital does not seem to be "sleight of hand" as the kit's author would have us believe. Its an argument, a line of thought. Perhaps correct. Perhaps not. But certainly no worse than Georgist arguments. See here
Georgists claim that their view is "apolitical" and defies categorisation on the left/right divide. In my view, that's a distortion. It has its own leanings, and while not itself "pure" Geonomics, there seems to be a lot of "laissez faire" baggage in the views of Georgists. See here
A lot of arguments in favour of Georgist principles seem flawed. That land value tax would never be passed onto tennants, for example. (see land value changes, also linked above). However, a recent exchange with Bryan Kavanagh has led me to concede a little more to the Georgists on this point.
Importantly, many also claim that income tax is a gross intrusion and LVT is not. That's something questionable.
Geonomics focuses on LVT without concerning itself with infrastructure decisions which affect land use. These decisions seem more important than LVT. See here
As we look around, we see a lot of problems with the nature of economic activity around us. Its difficult to see Geonomics impacting on these other (possibly more important) problems. See Excesses in the economy, The distribution of wealth, Disparities in Income, Unemployment
Still, there's a bit of sympathy in my view of Geonomics, with perhaps 10% agreement. There are bits of Geonomics which strike a chord.
There's a version of economics which has been developing which we might call "environmental economics" or "social economics". There are some common threads between these viewpoints and Geonomics. But they are also sufficiently different that the relationship is more along the lines of them being "inspired" by Geonomics rather than a stronger relationship.
My economic viewpoint is strongly influenced by Thorsten Veblen, J K Galbraith and Paul Omerod.
Omerod's view is that a lot of the analytical techniques of mainstream economics are misleading at best and downright wrong at worst. These tools are used by Geonomists, and this is one problem with Geonomics - if we do not believe in the promises of mainstream economics, why should we believe in Geonomics ?
Veblen's view is that surplus value is captured through conspicious consumption by a wealthy elite. That's where a lot of wealth ends up.
Galbraith is a development of Veblen. It views economic activity as largely superflous production of useless goods where the primary goal is to keep people employed but not produce goods which are in any sense needed.
This viewpoint provides an alternative view of the origin of problems in our world, and a counterpoint to the Geonomic solution. See Georgist Economics and the Economic Promise
Further, in arguing about economics, there's not just our principles and the analytic scaffold we build up along the way. We can also look at the world and compare it to our theories. This is a whole other area, see here
One issue with Geonomics is that there are a few bits of truth in it, but it ignores a broader context in order to say something stirring. See Just what IS Geonomics, anyway ?
But, Geonomics does make some quite interesting statements and it also has some problems. See here
Anyway, there's a summary. Click here to return to my home page.