1
2
3
Wealth and Want | |||||||
... because democracy alone is not enough to produce widely shared prosperity. | |||||||
Home | Essential Documents | Themes | All Documents | Authors | Glossary | Links | Contact Us |
John Lincoln
and the Lincoln Land Institute
Mason Gaffney: Introduction: The Power of Neo-classical Economics (Introduction to The Corruption of Economics, London: Shepheard-Walwyn, 1994)
Consider that there was a single-tax party, the
Commonwealth land Party. In 1924 its Presidential
candidate was William J. Wallace of New Jersey, with John
C. Lincoln, brilliant Cleveland industrialist, for
Vice-president (Moley, p.162). In 1919 Georgists
began working through the Manufacturers and Merchants
Federal Tax League to sponsor a federal land tax, the Ralston-Nolan Bill.
Drafted by Judge Jackson H. Ralston, it would impose a
"1% excise tax on the privilege of holding lands, natural
resources and public franchises valued at more than
$10,000, after deducting all improvements" (Jorgensen,
pp.8-9).12 In
1924 Congressman Oscar E. Keller of Minnesota
reintroduced it (H.R. 5733). In spite of Harding,
Coolidge, and Hoover, Progressivism still lived in
Congress. In 1923, for the first and last time, income
tax returns were made public, giving valuable
data-ammunition to land taxers. Progressivism also lived
in Wisconsin, where Professor John R. Commons in 1921
drafted the Grimstad Bill to focus the property tax on
bare land values (Commons, 1922). Commons believed that
95% of "millionaire fortunes" consisted of land and
franchise values (1903, p.253). Young State Assemblyman
(later Professor) Harold Groves was among its
supporters....
Read
the whole
article Mason Gaffney:
Interview: Is
There a Conspiracy in the Teaching of Economics and
History within the American Education System?TPR - How can my readers find out if what you're saying is really true? Name the most widely used economics textbooks in American universities right now and what they teach that is an obvious lie for the benefit of landed interests. MG - I no longer use textbooks much, but there are dozens available for the more common courses. Some are less bad than others. Strategies change over time. It is no longer common to attack George virulently, as was done in the period that my book covers, 1880-1930 or so. Today Georgism has receded as a political force, so modern strategies are less frantic and overt. Today, they trivialize, misrepresent, and brush off lightly. Paul Samuelson, Robert Solow, Peter
Mieszkowski, Theodore Schultz, and Edwin Mills, for
example, casually pronounce that land rent is only 5% or so
of total income, so a single land tax could not support
government as we know it. They offer no support for this
except to echo each other, and to cite some transparently
irrelevant data from the US Dept. of Commerce. They are, tragically, encouraged in this stratagem by
work subsidized and influenced by the Lincoln Foundation,
an outfit originally funded to promote the ideas of Henry
George, but soon coopted and diverted from its chartered
purposes. They simply ignore the few careful studies
of the matter, as by Michael
Hudson, Allen Manvel, myself, and Steven Cord, that
show much higher figures. Read the whole
article
Correcting for downward bias in
standard data f. Ernest Kurnow’s work under Lincoln and Moley Ernest Kurnow low-balled land and rent values in a chapter in Joseph Keiper, Ernest Kurnow, Clifford Clark, and Harvey Segal, 1961, Theory and Measurement of Rent (Philadelphia: Chilton Co.). In an introduction, the authors thank the Lincoln Foundation for financing their work, but then go on to thank David Lincoln and Raymond Moley personally for intellectual guidance. Then, extraordinarily, they omit the standard disclaimer absolving their advisors and taking full responsibility for the work that bears their names. This is a unique omission. Res ipsa loquitur: David Lincoln is speaking. That helps explain why researchers seeking full estimates of land values seek in vain at the Lincoln Institute, Lincoln’s alter ego. Read the whole article Mason Gaffney: In Memoriam, Stan Sapiro
As his last hurrah, Stanley sued the powerful
Lincoln Foundation to make it carry out John C. Lincoln's
will to propagate the ideas of Henry George as expressed
in Progress and Poverty. Stan researched the
case prodigiously, as was his wont, but by now his
physical powers were waning and he had to turn the case
over to others. It was an uphill battle fought on the
defendant's home turf of Arizona; it finally stalled on a
technicality. Through it all, however, Stan maintained
friendly rapport with David Lincoln himself, just as he
had earlier with Ronald Reagan. There was mutual respect
there, and it is still to be hoped that Stan's earnest
endeavors may have touched David's
conscience.
Weld Carter, correspondence, August 25, 1984
|
|
to email this page to a friend: right click, choose
"send"
|
||||||
Wealth and Want
|
www.wealthandwant.com
|
|||||
... because democracy alone hasn't yet led to a society
in which all can prosper
|