The Georgist theory of change, though valid, has proven a little lonely. It goes something like this: –

1. If we were to tax land rents–in the widest sense of the word ‘land’ (that is, all the economic rents of our natural resources), and un-tax incomes and purchases: –

2. then land prices must decline because land prices represent the private capitalisation of uncaptured rent;

then private mortgage debt will decline, because the land component, now more than 80% of the cost of a home, must decline (because of the point above); 

then miners will also pay their fair 50% EBITDA share to the nation, i.e. before taxation, because that is what is required as rent from any other commercial ‘going concern’. (Why have they been exempted?); 

then all prices will decline at least by the amount of taxation which has been reduced (as the extent of publicly-captured, publicly-generated rents rise), because, unlike rents, all taxes are passed off into prices; 

then commercial ‘super-profits’ will decline, including the internet-based giants paying their proper share of the electromagnetic spectrum rents, because more of their rents/super-profits are being captured to the public purse.

3.  Thereby, then the world will regain productivity, progress and prosperity, without poverty, because reinvigorated economies would also be able to deliver a dividend to all their citizens from surplus economic rents – and there’s plenty there! (Like 50% of the economy, ATCOR and EBCOR)

Why then have Georgists been unable to sell such a great story to the public? Could it be because they’ve been opposed by powerful vested financial interests, including banking, real estate and media?

It might prove valuable to revisit the Georgist theory of change when the US, UK and Australian real estate bubbles burst shortly then, because Georgism explains the boom-bust phenomenon precisely.