Why was Henry George not successful?
Here you may find some interesting answers from a book written by
Mason Gaffney
“Neoclassical economics is the idiom of most economic discourse
today. It is the paradigm that bends the twigs of young minds. Then
it confines the florescence of older ones, like chicken-wire shaping
a topiary. It took form about a hundred years ago, when Henry George and
his reform proposals were a clear and present political danger and challenge
to the landed and intellectual establishments of the world. Few people
realize to what degree the founders ofNeo-classical economics changed the
discipline for the express purpose of deflecting George and frustrating
future students seeking to follow his arguments. The strategem was
semantic: to destroy the very words in which he expressed himself. Simon
Patten expounded it succinctly. “Nothing pleases a …single taxer better
than … to use the well-known economic theories … [therefore] economic
doctrine must be recast” (Patten, 1908: 219; Collier, 1979: 270).’
George believed economists were recasting the discipline to refute him.
He states so, as though in the third person, in his posthumously published
book, The Science ofPoliticalEconomy(George, 1898:200-209). George’s
self-importance was immodest, it is true. However, immodesty may be
objectivity, as many great talents from Frank Lloyd Wright to Muhammed
Ali and Frank Sinatra have displayed. George had good reasons, which we
are to demonstrate. George’s view may even strike some as paranoid. That
was this writer’s first impression, many years ago. I have changed my view,
however, after learning more about the period, the literature, and later
events.
To read on please follow this link:
http://masongaffney.org/publications/K1Neo-classical_Stratagem.CV.pdf
I am very interested in finding out why there is so much resistance to applying the ideas that Henry George promoted in the 19th century.
The above publication seems to be giving some interesting links.
On the 10th of April 2014 I wrote the following in my blog:
You may have noticed that I googled a lot these past few days. It all had to do with where past civilisations and our civilisation are headed for.
The unequal distribution of wealth and privilege is examined. Progress as well as poverty, how can this be? THIS IS THE QUESTION.
In 1979 Agnes George de Mille, the granddaughter of Henry George, published this:
w.progwwress.org/tpr/who-was-henry-george/
I found the above when I googled ‘Henry George‘. There are many more links to Henry George in Google!
AuntyUta 
berlioz1935April 10, 2014 at 9:41 am Edit #
Research and mathematical modelling has shown conclusively that unequal distribution of wealth has led to the downfall of civilisations. But the Rineharts of this world can not get enough. They never do. They think natural justice is for suckers.
auntyutaApril 10, 2014 at 10:03 am Edit #
This is a very interesting subject, Berlioz, isn’t it?
The question is, what is a “just” society?
I know that for instance Henry George was an eloquent speaker and writer, advocating for changes in society to achieve “social justice”. In the 1800s millions of people listened to what he had to say. To this day there are people who study him. Alas, nothing much has changed anywhere as far as social justice is concerned.
Here is a link to my diary on taxes:
https://auntyuta.com/2014/05/26/utas-diary-6/#comments