Catching up on my reading: While following your exchange with Ed Dodson I read the final section of George's posthumously published magnum opus, "The Science of Political Economy" (dedicated, incidentally, to its sponsor, Tom L. Johnson). The manuscript ended with "Book V" on money still not fully finished, but before he died the author was able to affirm that except for refinements on Wages, Interest and Rents, the subjects had been mainly covered as planned. (Says the editor, H.G. Jr.)
I can't remember reading a more satisfying explanation of the nature, functions and likely evolution of the instruments of money and credit (which, George explained, almost certainly preceded money itself). it would not be appropriate from this single text (49 pp) to label George as a "greenbacker". On the other hand, some of the rationale he provides could certainly be quoted to support government as a critical actor in giving value to money. And it is obvious that other sections of this book are strongly reflected in "The Lost Science of Money". One example is George's disdain for the approach of the Austrian school. On the other hand, his exposition often seems on the verge of endorsing the position of Bohm-Bawerk that interest is the reward of waiting, in a way that almost over-rides Aristotle and his scholastic heirs on the issue of usury as the unnatural "breeding" of money. (This would not be supportive of Zarlenga's position.) ----- Original Message ----- From: William B. Ryan <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> Sent: Tuesday, September 16, 2003 1:15 PM Subject: [SOCIAL CREDIT] addendum: george and the greenbackers > For the moment I'll retract somewhat from my > statement that the Georgists didn't endorse Bryan, > and reserve my opinion on the relationship between > George and the greenbackers for the moment pending > further research. Virtually every claim that George > was a greenbacker I have found sources back to > Zarlenga, but that doesn't mean he wasn't a > greenbacker ipso facto. George did refer sometimes > to "greenbackers" in his addresses to drive home > certain points about the single tax having a higher > priority than financial reform, that I know, which > would seem to infer he was something other than a > greenbacker. I have found two or three sources that > say that George did endorse Bryan that have no > obvious link to Zerlenga. > > One example: > > ***] > Bryan moved to bring other silverites into his > coalition: > > fusion of radicals > > Populist Party (Tom Watson as VP) > National Silver Party > Single Taxers of Henry George > Rev. W. D. P. Bliss's Christian Socialists > "Broad gauge" Prohibitionists > [*** > > Here, the single-taxers are classified by the writer > among the "other silverites." No mention here that > among the "fusion" were the various greenbacker > parties that endorsed Bryan and were prominently and > officially in the fusion which is a significant > omission, to my mind, that calls into question the > degree of scholarship displayed. It is news to me > that the Georgists were considered to be > "silverites." Even Zarlenga describes George as > being a "greenbacker" which is a whole 'nother animal > from the populists though they were kindred in > spirit. As I have said, I think calling George a > "greenbacker" is a stretch. I think it is true that > radicals in general were invited to join the "fusion" > coalition and that many did so officially. > > Note: the correct spelling of granger is without the > i. > > _________________________________________________________________ > Compare Cable, DSL or Satellite plans: As low as $29.95. > https://broadband.msn.com > > > > --^---------------------------------------------------------------- This email was sent to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] EASY UNSUBSCRIBE click here: http://topica.com/u/?a84IaC.bcVIgP.YXJjaGl2 Or send an email to: [EMAIL PROTECTED] TOPICA - Start your own email discussion group. FREE! http://www.topica.com/partner/tag02/create/index2.html --^----------------------------------------------------------------
