So, if all the economics textbooks have to admit that Henry George was right that revenues from economic rent cannot be passed on in prices like taxes–generating massive deadweight in the economy–how can the 0.1% fight back?
Why by disinformation, of course! By lying to say the quantum of rent is insufficient:-
“The percentage [of property rent in the economy] has dropped to well under one percent today”, New Ideas from Dead Economists: an introduction to modern economic thought, Todd G Buchholz, Plume, 2007, p.86.
“But by 2000 urban land rents represented only four percent of national income”, A Farewell to Alms, Gregory Clark, Princeton University Press, 2007, p.198.
“Rent is one percent of the US income in 2004”, Economics, Paul Krugman and Robin Wells, Worth Publishers, 2006, p.283.
“Rental income was 4.7 billion, or 0.079% of GDP in 1992”, Economics (Third Edition), Karl Case and Ray Fair, Prentice Hall, 1994, p.559.
“Rental income is $7.9 billion of a total GNP of $5,234 billion, or 1.5 percent”, Economics: Principles and Policy, Fifth Edition, William J Baumol and Alan S Blinder, Harcourt Brace, 1991, p.137.
“… land rent forms such a small percentage of national income: that 2% is nothing compared to the present tax percentages which is around 30”, Income Distribution, Jan Pen, Pelican, 1974, p.210.
The chart on the previous post gives the lie to these six gross misstatements, as does Karl Fitzgerald’s Total Resource Rents of Australia, 2013, which should have made the headlines all around Australia, but has been buried by the neo-classical economics fraternity who have a lie to uphold for their bosses.
See also post –> How to corrupt the economy in favour of the rent-seeker.
Australians (and others) would do well to demand answers from economists and politicians about the vast quantity of community-created economic rent being privately stolen by the 0.1%, because ignorance on the subject allows the super-wealthy to continue capturing more and more of the GDP at the expense of the 99.9%.