The quest to alleviate poverty has perplexed members of every generation since complex societies originated. Despite the widely held belief that with progress comes a reduction in poverty, advances in technology have proven to be insufficient in the task of assuaging the ravages of fiscal inequity. In his treatise, Progress and Poverty, Henry George champions the idea of a complete economic restructuring to address the widening “contrast between the House of Have and the House of Want” (George, 3). Henry George was born to a lower-middle class family in 1839. His formal education came to an end when he was 14, and after a succession of various jobs, he found himself as an editor of his own newspaper. A self-taught economist, George valued the writings of John Stuart Mill, Adam Smith, and David Ricardo.
Henry George’s objective in writing Progress and Poverty, published in 1879, was to propose a remedy to the “great enigma of our times”. He holds that progress begets poverty and will continue to do so as long as the economic system remains flawed. The fundamental truth that land is the source of all wealth led George to the conclusion that when land is hoarded by the few, poverty is the only logical outcome. The remedy he proposes is a restructuring of the tax system whereby all taxes are abolished except for property tax. Having a tax system based solely on land value in essence allows everyone to benefit from the value of the land, while maintaining private ownership. If land is taxed based on its actual value, land speculation will cease to be a profitable venture, and all land will be put to productive use.
Despite the fact that this is an economic text, George fails to provide any facts and figures supporting his claim that progress has had a negative effect on the lowest class of society. The lack of hard data, charts, and graphs may have been a deterrent to the implementation of his ideas by governing bodies of the time. George provides theory and his personal observations as opposed to concrete evidence. The writings of other well known economists are cited; however, the references are only found within the body of the text, and the reader has no easy way to access them. While the writing was comprehensible, many sentences were overly complex and required rereading for a thorough understanding.
Progress and Poverty being the first and only economics book that I have read, I find it difficult to accurately ascertain the validity of George’s arguments as well as any bias he may have. Because George was born into a lower-middle class family and his theory is beneficial to all classes, there does not appear to be any incentive for nor evidence of personal bias. I found the writing style somewhat dry, yet I have essentially no frame of reference for this genre of writing. One aspect of the book’s organization that I found both useful and unique was the employment of subheadings within each chapter describing the content within the coming paragraphs.
Typical history books tend to paint progress, particularly during the Industrial Revolution, as cure for poverty, if they relate the two at all. After reading this book, the paradox of progress often exacerbating poverty has become clear to me. Technological progress alone will never be able to fully eradicate poverty. Despite George’s somewhat long-winded approach in explain his economic theories, I found many sections of the text intriguing. For those students who are inquisitive and interested in the subject of economics, this book would definitely enhance their historical understanding of the topic and encourage profound thought.
Henry George’s objective in writing Progress and Poverty, published in 1879, was to propose a remedy to the “great enigma of our times”. He holds that progress begets poverty and will continue to do so as long as the economic system remains flawed. The fundamental truth that land is the source of all wealth led George to the conclusion that when land is hoarded by the few, poverty is the only logical outcome. The remedy he proposes is a restructuring of the tax system whereby all taxes are abolished except for property tax. Having a tax system based solely on land value in essence allows everyone to benefit from the value of the land, while maintaining private ownership. If land is taxed based on its actual value, land speculation will cease to be a profitable venture, and all land will be put to productive use.
Despite the fact that this is an economic text, George fails to provide any facts and figures supporting his claim that progress has had a negative effect on the lowest class of society. The lack of hard data, charts, and graphs may have been a deterrent to the implementation of his ideas by governing bodies of the time. George provides theory and his personal observations as opposed to concrete evidence. The writings of other well known economists are cited; however, the references are only found within the body of the text, and the reader has no easy way to access them. While the writing was comprehensible, many sentences were overly complex and required rereading for a thorough understanding.
Progress and Poverty being the first and only economics book that I have read, I find it difficult to accurately ascertain the validity of George’s arguments as well as any bias he may have. Because George was born into a lower-middle class family and his theory is beneficial to all classes, there does not appear to be any incentive for nor evidence of personal bias. I found the writing style somewhat dry, yet I have essentially no frame of reference for this genre of writing. One aspect of the book’s organization that I found both useful and unique was the employment of subheadings within each chapter describing the content within the coming paragraphs.
Typical history books tend to paint progress, particularly during the Industrial Revolution, as cure for poverty, if they relate the two at all. After reading this book, the paradox of progress often exacerbating poverty has become clear to me. Technological progress alone will never be able to fully eradicate poverty. Despite George’s somewhat long-winded approach in explain his economic theories, I found many sections of the text intriguing. For those students who are inquisitive and interested in the subject of economics, this book would definitely enhance their historical understanding of the topic and encourage profound thought.