.

Now, that it is claimed the President has stated he has become a Keynesian, it might not be amiss to point out the essential difference between Keynesian and neo-Keynesian and Georgism.

Keynesianism centers around the State. Georgism centers around the individual. It is somewhat analogous to the difference between the Ptolemaic and the Copernican systems of astronomy. In the Ptolemaic system the center of reference is the earth, whereas in the Copernican system it is the sun. In this physical analogy neither system is the "true" one. It is merely that the Copernican system leads to simpler formulae describing the motions of the planets.

In the case of Keynesianism vs. Georgism a neutral person might claim that neither is the "true" one. However, as a value judgment certainly the Georgist will claim his is.

Attempts are constantly being made to modernize George's concepts. This is all to the good for after all we stand on George's shoulders. It is for us to correct his errors just as it is for those who come after us to correct ours. But if Keynes' ideas are to be grafted onto George's, it must be clearly understood what is being attempted. It is similar to trying to graft the Ptolemaic system on Copernican. It may well be that now that we have the computer, some problems in astronomy may yield better results by using Ptolemy's concepts. Similarly, if one is trying to describe the economic behavior of man en masse, it may be that some of the techniques of the Keynesians may yield more fruitful answers. For example, in the field of marketing, as a sales manager seeks to plan a nation wide sales campaign, such techniques may give them the information they seek.

But Georgists are not concerned with such problems. Their main concern is the establishment of conditions of justice under which the individual may utilize his capacities to the fullest extent he so desires. All institutions as Government which man may wisely or unwisely create are for the purpose of enhancing the possibilities that the individual can attain the ends he seeks. The only qualification on the individual is that he does not interfere with the equal rights of another individual to attain his ends.

It is questionable, therefore, just how much grafting of Keynesian theory on Georgism can help in furthering the interests of the individual. One might be inclined to say none, but such a dogmatic attitude ill befits those seeking to be reasonable in their approach to social problems.

The school of modern economic thought which probably most closely approximates Georgism is the Austrian School. That school appears to center its philosophy on the individual also. Some of its. devotees might favor more governmental action than Georgists, some a lot less. But essentially it is an individualistic school of thought, and as such has much to offer Georgists, just as Georgists have much to offer to it.

It would appear, then, if there is to be any adaptation of modern economic thought to Georgist concepts it is the Austrian school to whom Georgists should look, not the Keynesian. Unfortunately, most academic economic thinking has been of the Keynesian variety in the United States, so many are unaware of the Austrian School or have little understanding of its philosophical orientation, Georgists should take the time and trouble to become acquainted with it. The path it is on and the direction in which it is moving is toward furthering the rights of the individual, and it must never be forgotten it is the individual and only the individual who is important.