comment: >
  
  Interested on why you don't consider yourself a Georgist *anymore*. 
  I've read up on what he proposes somewhat and a lot of it makes sense on the surface. Would appreciate a little nudge in the direction of what could constitute a failure in his proposition.
context: Someone realised you need people being able to afford to spend money to keep economy going. >
  
  Adam Smith, the father of free-market capitalism knew this 300 years ago. >
  
  Dude actively asked for certain taxes like beer taxes to be lowered to improve the condition of the poor. >
  
  Don't get him started on landlords. >
  
  Any other good places to get in depth info on landlord-ism. Books, videos etc. >
  
  Henry George created an entire movement and economic philosophy centered around value being derived from resource point of origin and demand for an abstract good that humans should be collective owners of: land.
  Landlords maintain a non-productive service on a scarce resource which is a human need for all, from which they extract extreme profits relative to their contribution of mere ownership and (as minimized as possible) maintenance. His proposal was to tax the shit out of the monopoly on valuable land (really just tax all land -- and only land).
  The parasitic reward structure would collapse as landlords would now have to compete to maintain their profits. Want to charge a higher rent? Well you're paying X amount on your downtown block of land in taxes that are returned to the people, you better have improvements to justify people not going elsewhere so you can absorb demand. You have a decades old structure in a part of town suddenly being reformed and seeing skyrocketing demand? Well your tax bill just skyrocketed too, are you going to develop the high capacity residency needed to answer for your land hoarding or will you go under?
  I'm not a Georgist anymore, but his work is worth learning and understanding.