Category talk:Georgist economists

This category was nominated for deletion on 30 November 2007. The result of the discussion was keep.

I'm not sure about the wisdom of this category. Perhaps some Georgists would like to claim Herbert Simon as one of their own, but his focus was on entirely different issues than those advanced by Henry George. Most economists have probably mentioned in passing that a tax on rents will not distort the allocation of resources, and that such a tax would therefore be a good idea. But to call all of these economists Georgists seems a bit procrustean. --Anthon.Eff (talk) 14:08, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I am not planning to add economists to the category on the basis of a mere "mention in passing" of non-distortion - if that were the case I would already have Mankiw and Friedman here! I propose that to be included here one must have read Henry George and believe that the public capture of rent by LVT is:

A moral issue and not merely one of efficiency.
Positively un-distorting rather than just non-distorting.
A big deal, and so worth advocating more than once.

I agree that Herbert A. Simon is the closest call amongst those included so far. He is here because he is listed on the Georgism page and his own page refers back to Georgism, but I don't know anything more about him and have not gone looking to see what he said about it. Pm67nz (talk) 21:18, 28 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]