To stick to the present situation would be something like a man who was observed in Times Square looking earnestly along the pavement. He was asked what he was looking for. He said “I lost my watch.”

It (land value taxation) guarantees that no one dispossess fellow citizens by obtaining a disproportionate share of what nature provides for humanity.

... often analysis seems to be based on the assumption that future economic output is almost entirely determined by inexorable economic forces independently of government policy so that devoting more resources to one use inevitably detracts from availability for another.

Economists are almost unanimous in conceding that the land tax has no adverse side effects. ...Landowners ought to look at both sides of the coin. Applying a tax to land values also means removing other taxes. This would so improve the efficiency of a city that land values would go up more than the increase in taxes on land.

To stick to the present situation would be something like a man who was observed in Times Square looking earnestly along the pavement. He was asked what he was looking for. He said "I lost my watch."

Currently a level of unemployment of 7% or more seems to be required to keep inflation from accelerating, a level quite unacceptable as a permanent situation.

I had had intimations that (a nomination was) in the works for the Nobel Prize, ... I didn't put my chances more than about 50/50.

The bottom line for me out of this is that from 1992 to today, researchers can't find a defining reason why the public view of the courts has improved. The only thing that has changed is the way we do business. The good news is we can make a difference.

Ten billion dollars less of deficit means $10 billion less of disposable income ... and a loss of at least 100,000 jobs.

This news reflects the great strides that state courts have made to reach out to the public in the past decade.