Instead of its privatisation, the public capture of economic rent generates a world of abundance.

Question for AI: Did Christian socialism call for the public capture of economic rents instead of taxes on purchases and earned incomes?

Reply: Christian socialism, as a broad movement, has historically emphasized social justice, communal welfare, and critiques of unchecked capitalism, often drawing from biblical principles like stewardship and care for the poor. While specific policy proposals vary across thinkers and contexts, the movement generally hasn’t coalesced around a singular focus on capturing economic rents (like land or resource rents) as a primary alternative to taxes on purchases or earned incomes. However, some strands align with ideas akin to Georgism, which emphasizes taxing unearned income from land and natural resources rather than labor or consumption, resonating with Christian socialist values of fairness and reducing inequality.

For instance, certain Christian socialists, particularly those influenced by 19th-century thinkers like Henry George (who, while not explicitly a Christian socialist, shared overlapping concerns), supported land value taxation as a way to capture economic rents. They saw this as a morally grounded way to redistribute wealth without penalizing productive work, aligning with Christian ethics of justice and communal good. Figures like George Herron in the U.S. or some within the British Christian socialist tradition (e.g., the Guild of St. Matthew) occasionally echoed these sentiments, though their focus was often broader, targeting systemic issues like private monopolies or exploitative labor conditions.

That said, Christian socialism as a whole doesn’t uniformly advocate for replacing taxes on purchases or earned incomes with rent capture. Many Christian socialists have supported progressive taxation, public ownership of key industries, or welfare programs, without explicitly prioritizing economic rents. The movement’s diversity—spanning Catholic social teaching, Protestant reformism, and liberation theology—means proposals differ, often shaped by local economic contexts.

Whereas Australia’s total land prices represented $2000 per head (i.e for every man, woman & child) in 1971, now we’re at an astonishing $364,000 per head! (Refer ABS 5204 Table 61)

Go, Oz!

And we wonder why our productivity is waining!

Our economists seem to be lost on this.

Anyone for revisiting the Henry Tax Review?

…. IF MICHAEL HUDSON AND RICHARD WOLFF DON’T WANT TO ACKNOWLEDGE HENRY GEORGE’S INPUT.

The highlighted interview above is most enlightening under current world circumstances, but in my opinion–not theirs, obviously!–Henry George correctly amended both Adam Smith and Karl Marx in Progress and Poverty.

…. by Warren Mosler

And I think he may agree with regard to inflation: –

~~~~

Australia’s defence minister Richard Marles has joined in solidarity with counterpart Pete Hegseth’s USA warmongering speech against China.

I guess we’ve got to show China what we’re going to do with it if it were to attack Taiwan? “Peace through strength“, eh Richard?

We’re just being tough, right? We’re not really angling for WWIII?

While I prefer diplomacy to chest-thumping and threats, perhaps China has become a handy scapegoat for the USA’s increasing socio-economic troubles. You know: “Look over there!“

Sounds remarkably like the British Empire facing off against Germany in the early 20th Century. All that hubris eventuated in WWI. There was no way out of the warlike atmosphere that had been created.

Felix, qui potuit rerum cognoscere causas.

….. did exist in the 15th Century, after the effects of the black death had been remedied.

Does today’s English worker have more than 50% of his income left to spend after food, clothing and shelter? No way! He’s become ‘financialised’!

Listen to Storm Jameson’s account of “The Decline of Merry England”!

~~~~

How?

The rent was publicly captured, until Henry VIII decided otherwise.

Question: Committing to land-price inflated mortgages has much to answer for in currently failing world economies, IMO. Enough to convince one to see Georgism as being a superior model to the rent-seeking excesses both in capitalism and communism. No?

Answer: You’re diving into some spicy economic territory here, and I love it! Let’s unpack your point about land-price-inflated mortgages and Georgism’s appeal, keeping it sharp and conversational.

You’re not wrong—skyrocketing land prices, especially in urban areas, have juiced up mortgages to obscene levels, tying people to decades of debt just to own a home. In many failing or stagnant economies, housing costs eat up way too much income (like 40-50% in some cities), leaving less for spending, saving, or investing elsewhere. This chokes consumer demand and economic mobility, while banks and landlords rake in profits. It’s a textbook case of rent-seeking—unearned wealth from owning finite land rather than creating value. The 2008 housing bubble showed how this can tank entire economies when speculation runs wild. Data backs this: in the U.S., median home prices have outpaced wage growth since the 1970s, with the price-to-income ratio jumping from ~3 to over 5 in many markets by 2025.

Now, Georgism—taxing land value instead of labor or capital—has serious legs as a counter to this. Henry George argued that land, being a finite resource, shouldn’t be a golden ticket for rentiers to hoard wealth. A land value tax (LVT) hits speculators holding undeveloped lots or inflating urban land prices, encouraging productive use of land and reducing price bubbles. It’s not anti-capitalist—it’s pro-market by leveling the playing field, rewarding work over monopolistic ownership. Unlike communism’s heavy-handed state control, Georgism keeps private property but taxes the unearned value of location. Studies like those from the Lincoln Institute of Land Policy show LVT can stabilize housing markets and fund public goods without distorting economic incentives.

But here’s the flip side: implementing Georgism isn’t a slam dunk. Transitioning to an LVT means upending entrenched property tax systems, which are political sacred cows. Homeowners and real estate tycoons would fight tooth and nail—look at how Prop 13 in California locked in low property taxes for decades, inflating prices further. Plus, valuing land separately from buildings is tricky and could spark disputes. And while Georgism tackles land speculation, it’s not a cure-all for every economic woe—trade imbalances, tech disruption, or monetary policy still matter.

So, does Georgism beat the rent-seeking excesses of capitalism and communism? It’s got a strong case—capitalism’s land monopolies and communism’s state monopolies both distort wealth creation, and LVT sidesteps those traps. But it’s not a silver bullet, and the politics of implementing it are brutal. Still, it’s a bold fix for the mortgage mess and land-price insanity. What’s your take—ready to storm the barricades for a land value tax?

Reply: Yep! I’m in!