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 |
Is population
a problem?
The Civilization that is
Possible.
IN the effects upon the distribution of wealth, of making land private property, we may thus see an explanation of that paradox presented by modern progress. The perplexing phenomena of deepening want with increasing wealth, of labor rendered more dependent and helpless by the very introduction of labor-saving machinery, are the inevitable result of natural laws as fixed and certain as the law of gravitation. Private property in land is the primary cause of the monstrous inequalities which are developing in modern society. It is this, and not any miscalculation of Nature in bringing into the world more mouths than she can feed, that gives rise to that tendency of wages to a minimum – that "iron law of wages," as the Germans call it -- that, in spite of all advances in productive power, compels the laboring-classes to the least return on which they will consent to live. It is this that produces all those phenomena that are so often attributed to the conflict of labor and capital. It is this that condemns Irish peasants to rags and hunger, that produces the pauperism of England and the tramps of America. It is this that makes the almshouse and the penitentiary the marks of what we call high civilization; that in the midst of schools and churches degrades and brutalizes men, crushes the sweetness out of womanhood and the joy out of childhood. It is this that makes lives that might be a blessing a pain and a curse, and every year drives more and more to seek unbidden refuge in the gates of death. For, a permanent tendency to inequality once set up, all the forces of progress tend to greater and greater inequality. ... read the whole article Henry George: The Wages of Labor Is it not clear that here is a
natural law – that is to say, a tendency willed by the Creator? Can it
mean anything else than that He Who ordained the State, with its needs,
has, in the values which attach to land, provided the means to meet
those needs?
That it does mean this and nothing else is confirmed if we look deeper still, and inquire not merely as to the intent, but as to the purpose of the intent. If we do so we may see in this natural law, by which land values increase with the growth of society, not only such a perfectly adapted provision for the needs of society as gratifies our intellectual perceptions, by showing us the wisdom of the Creator, but a purpose with regard to the individual that gratifies our moral perceptions by opening to us a glimpse of His beneficence. ... It is even more than this. The very robbery that the masses of men thus suffer gives rise in advancing communities to a new robbery. For the value that with the increase of population and social advance attaches to land being suffered to go to individuals who have secured ownership of the land, it prompts to a forestalling of and speculation in land wherever there is any prospect of advancing population or of coming improvement, thus producing an artificial scarcity of the natural element of life and labor, and a strangulation of production that shows itself in recurring spasms of industrial depression as disastrous to the world as destructive wars. Evil upon evil. It is this that is driving men from the old countries to the new countries, only to bring there the same curses. It is this that causes our material advance not merely to fail to improve the condition of the mere worker, but to make the condition of large classes positively worse. It is this that, in our richest Christian countries, is giving us a large population whose lives are harder, more hopeless, more degraded than those of the veriest savages. It is this that leads so many men to think that God is a bungler, and is constantly bringing people into the world for whom He has not made provision. ... The Right Reverend Dr. Thomas Nulty, Bishop of Meath, Ireland, who sees all this very clearly, has made striking testimony to the design of Divine Providence that the rent of land should be taken for the community. In a pastoral letter addressed to the clergy and laity of his diocese, April 2, 1881, he says : “This great
social fact is of incalculable importance; and, on the strictest
principles of justice, it is not clouded even by a shadow of
uncertainty or doubt. There is, moreover, a charm and a peculiar beauty
in the clearness with which it reveals the wisdom and the benevolence
of the designs of Providence in the admirable provision He has made for
the wants and the necessities of that state of social existence in
which the very instincts of nature tell us we are to spend our lives. A
vast public property, a great national fund, has been placed under the
dominion and at the disposal of the nation to supply itself abundantly
with resources necessary to liquidate the expenses of its government
and the administration of its laws.
“One of the
most interesting peculiarities of this property is that its value is
constantly progressive and increasing in a direct ratio to the growth
of the population, and the very causes that increase and multiply the
demands made on it increase proportionately its ability to meet them.”
He says further: “Any
settlement of the land of a country that would exclude the humblest man
in that country from his share of the common inheritance would be not
only an injustice and a wrong to that man, but, moreover, would be an
impious resistance to the benevolent intentions of his Creator.”
There is, indeed, as Bishop Nulty says, a peculiar beauty in the clearness with which the wisdom and benevolence of Providence are revealed in the provision made for the common needs of society in what economists call the law of rent. Of all the evidence that natural religion gives, it is this that most clearly shows the existence of a beneficent God! In this beautiful provision for social needs we see that God has intended civilisation; that all our discoveries and inventions do not, and cannot, outrun His forethought; and that steam, electricity, and labor-saving appliances only make the great moral laws clearer and more important. In the growth of this great fund, increasing with social advance – a fund that accrues from the growth of the community, and belongs, therefore; to the community – we see, not only that there is no need for the taxes that lessen wealth; that engender corruption, and promote inequality, but, that to take this fund for the purpose for which it was intended would secure to all the equal enjoyment of God’s bounty – the abundant opportunity to satisfy their wants and provide amply for every legitimate need of the State. We see that God in His dealings
with men has not been a bungler or a niggard; that He has not brought
too many men into the world, that He has not neglected abundantly to
supply them; that He has not intended that bitter competition of the
masses for a mere animal existence and that monstrous aggregation of
wealth which characterise our civilisation; but, that these evils,
which lead so many to say there is no God, or yet more impiously to say
that they are of God’s ordering, are due to our denial of His moral
law. ...
To persist in a wrong, to refuse to undo it, is always to become involved in other wrongs! Those who defend private property in land, and thereby deny the first and most important of all human rights, the equal right to the material substratum of life, are compelled to one of two courses. Either they must, as do those whose gospel is “Devil take the hindmost,” deny the equal right to life, and, by some theory like that to which Malthus has given his name, assert that Nature brings into the world more men than there is provision for; or, they must, as do the Socialists, assert as rights what in themselves are wrongs. ... read the whole article Henry George: Political Dangers (Chapter 2 of Social Problems, 1883)
Kris Feder: Progress and Poverty
Today As this book was written, the
Industrial Revolution was
transforming America and Europe at a breathless pace. In just a
century, an economy that worked on wind, water, and muscular effort
had become supercharged by steam, coal, and electricity. Canals,
railroads, steamships and the telegraph were linking regional
economies into a national and global network of exchange. The United
States had stretched from coast to coast; the western frontier was
evaporating.
American journalist and editor Henry George marveled at the stunning advance of technology, yet was alarmed by ominous trends. Why had not this unprecedented increase in productivity banished want and starvation from civilized countries, and lifted the working classes from poverty to prosperity? Instead, George saw that the division of labor, the widening of markets, and rapid urbanization had increased the dependence of the working poor upon forces beyond their control. The working poor were always, of course, the most vulnerable in depressions, and last to recover from them. Unemployment and pauperism had appeared in America, and indeed, were more prevalent in the developed East than in the aspiring West. It was "as though a great wedge were being forced, not underneath society, but through society. Those who are above the point of separation are elevated, but those who are below are crushed down." This, the "great enigma of our times," was the problem George set out to solve in Progress and Poverty. ... In a competitive economy, the earnings of the factors of production measure their separate contributions to the value of the product. Payments for the use of labor are called wages; payments for land are called rent; the income of capital is interest. In George's terms, the distress of the working classes had to do with a persistently low level of real wages. "Why," he asked, "in spite of increase in productive power, do wages tend to a minimum which will give but a bare living?" The book proceeds systematically. First, George explores the prevailing scholarly and popular explanations, which relied principally on the famous population theory of Malthus, in combination with the "wage fund" theory of British political economy. Together these theories implied that the aggregate income of labor depends upon the amount of capital devoted to the payment of wages. An increase in wages required an increase in the amount of capital per worker. However, any rise in living standards above mere subsistence motivated workers to marry younger and bear more children, until population growth caused capital per worker - and, therefore, wages - to recede again. Moreover, population growth diminished agricultural productivity by forcing recourse to inferior soils. Technological advance and capital accumulation might afford a period of relative prosperity - but ultimately, increasing applications of labor to a fixed amount of land could raise output only at a diminishing rate. In short, immutable laws of nature - the population principle and the law of diminishing returns to land - were widely believed to explain the persistence of poverty. To George, the Malthusian analysis was abhorrent: It asserted that no institutional reform could fundamentally alter the pattern of income distribution, and that charitable support for the needy only compounded the problem - by lowering death rates and raising birth rates. Fortunately, he found this theory of wages to be theoretically flawed on several grounds. He also found it to be incompatible with empirical facts, based on historical case studies from Ireland, China, India, the United States and elsewhere. Today, most development economists agree with George that famine and mass poverty have more to do with faulty human institutions than with the limitations of nature. ... Most economists deem it their
business to evaluate the efficiency
of policy choices, but, claiming no special knowledge of ethics, they
leave it to philosophers and the political process to evaluate
questions of justice. Can it be true that society's arrangements to
provide for common needs must always confront a divisive choice
between equity and efficiency - between what is fair and what is
feasible?
Henry George not only denied it; he asserted the reverse: Full recognition of economic rights and responsibilities would reveal the goals of equity and efficiency to be mutually reinforcing. Neither social justice nor a well-functioning free market system can long be enjoyed without the other. "The laws of the universe are harmonious," George proclaimed. His analysis showed that the root cause of widening inequality lies not in the laws of nature, but in social maladjustments which ignore them. Moreover, the breach of justice which underlies the problem of poverty is not merely incidental to economic development; it impedes development, leading to wider and wider inequality. ...Read the whole article The Most Rev. Dr Thomas Nulty, Roman Catholic Bishop of Meath (Ireland): Back to the Land (1881) Political economists can see no
possible way in which English
operatives can permanently improve their condition, except they have
recourse to that revolting and unnatural expedient of voluntarily
restraining and limiting their numbers. "This, then," says Mr.
Cairnes -- the limitation of his numbers -- "is the circumstance on
which, in the last resort, any improvement at all of a permanent kind
in the labourer's condition turns."
If the self-commissioned apostles who preach this new doctrine only warned the people against the consequences of reckless and improvident marriages, I would join and go with them heartily. But when they advise them (as they seem to me to do) to increase and multiply according to the requirements of trade, and in such proportions as they may be wanted, for the benefit of their betters; when they advise them to increase and multiply only when trade is prosperous, prices are high and commerce flourishes, I am heartily opposed to them. These teachings appear to me not
only unchristian, but revolting
and unnatural; and their wickedness is only surpassed by the
astounding ignorance of human nature which they reveal in men who
ought to be better informed. Read the whole letter Henry George: Justice the Object -- Taxation the Means (1890) Why, look at it here today, in this new country, where there are as yet only 65 millions of us scattered over a territory that in the present stage of the arts is sufficient to support in comfort a thousand millions; yet we are actually thinking and talking as if there were too many people in the country. We want more wealth. Why don't we get it? Is any factor of production short? What are the factors of production? Labour, capital, and land; but to put them in the order of their importance: land, labour, capital. We want more wealth; what is the difficulty? Is it in labour; is there not enough labour? No. From all parts of the United States we hear of what seems like a surplus of labour. We have actually got to thinking that the man who gives another employment is giving him a boon. Is there any scarcity of capital? Why, so abundant is capital today that United States bonds, bought at the current rate, will only yield a fraction over 2% per annum. So abundant is capital that there can be no doubt that a government loan could be floated today at 2% and little doubt but that it would soon command a premium. So abundant is capital that all over the country it is pressing for remunerative employment. If the limitation is not in labour and not in capital, it must be in land. But there is no scarcity of land from the Atlantic to the Pacific, for there you will find unused or only half-used land. Aye, even where population is densest. Have you not land enough in San Francisco? Go to that great city of New York, where people are crowded together so closely, the great majority of them, that physical health and moral health are in many cases alike impossible. Where, in spite of the fact that the rich men of the whole country gravitate there, only four per cent of the families live in separate houses of their own, and sixty-five per cent of the families are crowded two or more to the single floor — crowded together layer on layer, in many places, like sardines in a box. Yet, why are there not more houses there? Not because there is not enough capital to build more houses, and yet not because there is not land enough on which to build more houses. Today one half of the area of
New York City is unbuilt
upon — is absolutely unused. When there is such a pressure, why
don't people go to these vacant lots and build there? Because though
unused, the land is owned; because, speculating upon the future
growth of the city, the owners of those vacant lots demand thousands
of dollars before they will permit anyone to put a house upon them.
What you see in New York, you may see everywhere. Come into the
coalfields of Pennsylvania; there you will frequently find thousands
and thousands of miners unable to work, either locked out by their
employers, or striking as a last resource against their pitiful wages
being cut down a little more. Read the entire article
Weld Carter: A Clarion Call to Sanity, to Honesty, to Justice (1982) Let us begin this study of the likely causes of our troubles by asking two questions:
Our stage, of course, for
making this study will be this world of ours, for it is upon this
world that the drama of human living is played out, with all its joys
and all its sorrows, with all its great achievements and all its
failures, with all its nobilities and all its wickedness.
Regardless of its size relative to other planets, with its circumference of about twenty-five thousand miles, to any mere mortal who must walk to the station and back each day, it is huge. Roughly ninety-six million miles separate the sun from the earth on the latter's eliptical journey around the sun. At this distance, the earth makes its annual journey in its elliptical curve and it spins on its own canted axis. Because of this cant, the sun's rays are distributed far more evenly, thus minimizing their damage and maximizing their benefits. Consider the complementarity of nature in the case of the two forms of life we call vegetable and animal, in their respective uses of the two gases, oxygen and carbon dioxide, the waste product of each serving as the life-giving force of the other. Any increase in the one will encourage a like response in the other. Marvel at the manner in which nature, with no help from man or beast, delivers pure water to the highest lands, increasing it as to their elevation, thus affording us a free ride downstream and free power as we desire it. Look with awe at the variety and quantity of minerals with which this world is blessed, and finally at the fecundity nature has bestowed so lavishly throughout both animal and vegetable life: Take note of the number of corn kernels from a single stalk that can be grown next year from a single kernel of this year's crop; then think of the vastly greater yields from a single cherry pit or the seeds of a single apple, or grape or watermelon; or, turning to the animal world, consider the hen who averages almost an egg a day and the spawning fish as examples of the prolificacy that is evident throughout the whole of the animal world, including mankind. If this marvelous earth is as rich in resources as portrayed in the foregoing paragraph, then the problem must be one of distribution:
Land is universally treated as
either public property or private
property. Wars are fought over land. Nowhere is it treated as common
property.
George has described this world as a "well-provisioned ship" and when one considers the increasingly huge daily withdrawals of such provisions as coal and petroleum as have occurred say over the past one hundred years, one must but agree with this writer. But this is only a static view. Consider the suggestion of some ten years ago that it would require the conversion of less than 20% the of the current annual growth of wood into alcohol to fuel all the motors then being fueled by the then-conventional means. The dynamic picture of the future is indeed awesome, and there is every indication that that characteristic has the potential of endless expansion. So how is it that on so richly endowed a Garden of Eden as this world of ours we have only been able to make of it a hell on earth for vast numbers of people? The answers are simple: we have
permitted, nay we have even more
than that, encouraged, the gross misallocation of resources and a
viciously wicked distribution of wealth, and we choose to be governed
by those whom we, in our ignorance, have elected. As the principal
focus of this paper is on inflation, let us give this process its
full name which is fiat money inflation and let us define this as the
process by which a government continues the issuance of irredeemable
paper money until the quantity so issued finally renders it
worthless. ... read the whole essay
Mason Gaffney: Cannan's Law Everything above points to there
being a low ceiling on Georgist
taxation applied locally. Henry George recognized that the power
elite of landowner/employers use Malthus' doctrine to oppose raising
wages -- it would just spawn an invasion of new brats into the work
force, they said, bringing wage rates back down to bare subsistence. To
make his points, George had to refute Malthus. George's view
mostly prevailed, with exceptions, until fairly recent times.
Neo-classical economists even hijacked it, with a reverse spin, to
trivialize land values. Whatever we may think of Malthus today,
there is no doubt that the fear of population increments from outside
the taxing polity now plays the role that George ascribed to
Malthusianism, and plays it with devastating effect.... read
the whole article
Mason Gaffney: Economics in
Support of EnvironmentalismLeapfrogging,
floating value, and compensation
The environmental damage from those attitudes might not be so bad were it not for leapfrogging, urban disintegration, and floating value. Leapfrogging is when developers jump over the next eligible lands for urban expansion, and build farther out, here and there. This has been a problem in expanding economies ever since cities emerged from within their ancient walls and stockades, but in our times and our country it has gone to unprecedented extremes, with subsidized superhighways and universal auto ownership and truck shipping. Alfred Gobar, savvy real estate consultant from Placentia, has recorded the amount of land actually used by city and suburban dwellers for all purposes. From this, he calculates that the entire U.S. population could live in the state of Missouri (68,965 square miles). That would be at a density of 3625 people per square mile, or 5.67 per acre. That is 7683 square feet per person. On a football gridiron, this is the area from the goal to the 16-yard line. He is not being stingy with land, at 3625 persons per square mile. The population density of Washington, D.C., is 10,000 per square mile, with a 10-story height limit, with vast areas in parks, wide baroque avenues and vistas, several campuses, and public buildings and grounds. This is also the density of Whitefish Bay, Wisconsin, a well-preserved upper-income residential suburb of Milwaukee, with generous beaches and parks, tree-lined streets, detached dwellings, retailing, and a little industry. San Francisco, renowned for its liveability, has 15,000 per square mile. More than half the land is in non-residential uses: vast parks, golf courses, huge military/naval bases, water surface, industry, a huge regional CBD, etc., so the actual residential density is over 30,000 per square mile. On Manhattan's upper East Side they pile up at over 100,000 per square mile. They do not crowd like this out of desperation, either. You may think of rats in cages, but some of the world's wealthiest people pay more than we could dream about to live that way. They'll pay over a million dollars for less than a little patch of ground: all they get is a stratum of space about 12 feet high on the umpteenth floor over a little patch of ground they share with many others. They could afford to live anywhere: they choose Manhattan, they actually like it there! Take 10,000 per square mile as a
reference figure, because it is
easy to calculate with, and because it works in practice, as noted.
You may observe and experience it. At that density, 250 million
Americans would require 25,000 square miles, the land in a circle
with radius of 89 miles, no more. That gives a notion of how little
land is actually demanded for full urban use. It is 9.4% as big as
Texas, 4.2% as big as Alaska, and 7/10 of 1% of the area of the
United States.... read the whole article
|
|
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
|