As a self contained statement, it is difficult to question. However, Georgists quote a large theoretical economic justification for why this is a good thing in broader terms.

The statement above might then be expanded to "Not only does LVT correct an inequity, but the change in pressures means that the economy, operating through known economic principles, can deliver increased prosperity for all."

There is therefore the underlying assumption that "economic equilibria, properly set up, will deliver increased wealth and an equitable outcome."

To this extent, Geonomics becomes mainstream economics with a little bit "extra" to make the difference.

Needless to say, the promise of a "properly set up economy" is an unsettling one. Every economic theory has its version of just what a properly set up economy is.

But people have grown cynical about economics, even on the idea that a "properly set up economy delivers equitable wealth". The foundations of economics have been criticised.

The issue then becomes : to what extent is Geonomics relying on classical economics to deliver positive results, to what extent has it separated itself from classical economics. For, much as Geonomists would claim to be different from "classical economics", Geonomics and classical economics have a common foundation.

We'll now take a broad look at mainstream economics, and then consider what the implications for Geonomics are. This criticism is not necessarily true, but it provides a counterpoint to the "optimism" shared by classical economics and Geonomics.

According to Paul Omerod, writing in 1994, Economics failed to predict the Japanese recession, the strength of the American recovery or the collapse of the German economy.

This is mainstream economics. It's difficult to see how Georgist elements could have changed the predictive ability (perhaps there is an argument that a Georgist world would be less susceptible to dramatic changes.), or how Georgist economics changes its descriptive ability - Georgism seems to be mostly a prescriptive result, with emphasis on a particular element of description.

Omerod questions competitive equilibrium :

"By definition, any model necessarily abstracts from and simplifies reality. But the model of competitive equilibrium is a travesty of reality."

"It cannot be emphasised too strongly that, in practice, the competitive model is far removed from being a reasonable representation of Western economies in practice. By definition, any model necessarily abstracts from and simplifies reality. The world does not consist, for example, of an enormous number of small firms, none of which has any degree of control over the market in which it is operating. Small firms may be fashionable at present, but it is the large multi-national companies such as Ford, BP and Sony which dominate the world economy. it is entirely illegitimate to make the link between the model and the observed sucess of the Western market economies."

Omerod, feels that the success of and attraction of marginal economics (treating the economy as a potential, a principle behind competitive equilibrium) comes down to three factors :

1. It demonstrated the superiority of the free market economy and served an ideological function.

2. At inception, the idea of equilibrium was in keeping with the scientific spirit of the times.

3. It was a formidable intellectual achievement, involving the use of mathematics to achieve a description of the real world.

Omerod seems to believe that the attachment to marginal economics is the result of a tie to ideology, rather than its objective descriptive ability.

Omerod has problems with the concept of marginal utility :

"In the technical phrase used to describe this assumption, consumption is subject to diminishing marginal returns."

"The purchase of a third car, for example, would be unlikely to increase the mobility of most families by very much. Its value would be seen as a source of convenience"

But, also, there is the fact that having more cars means you can "show off" your wealth. This is conspicious consumption, a concept which Thorsten Veblen developed, which I consider in another section.

Then we have the assumption of the separation of the seller and the market :

"Even though the company is small, limited by the technology of its production, it can nevertheless exercise some degree of control over its limited market by appealing to its own unique qualities. Brand loyalty can be built up, and the price of the product increased by exploiting that loyalty."

"In the theory of marginal economics, by contrast, it was assumed that all the small firms in any given market produced identical products, with no single firm of a size to influence the price of the product being sold."

Omerod's theory is for the most part, about businesses rather than a theory of the sale and value of land. However, Georgist assumptions about the land is that it sits inside the overall economy.

Now, Georgist economic theory does depend on marginal economics, as an assumption about how values will redistribute themselves. This undermines Georgist theory, as considered in Will landlords be able to pass on increases due to Land Value Taxation ?

While not strictly Georgism, some Georgists seem to embrace the "baggage" of mainstream economics (economic rationalism ?) - that the market will automatically find the best solution, that minimalist Government is the way to go, regulation and price controls can never have a positive result, user pays is always best, and so on. John Young's viewpoint shows this quite clearly.

This a view seems flawed, because of the analysis above which shows how flawed the overall economic framework is.

The issue then becomes : what is the intervening framework between Geonomic reforms and the delivery of greater, and more equitable wealth ? Can it be criticised within the above framework, or do it have a separate rigour of its own ?

It seems that Geonomics owes too much to classical economics, and that the means by which it delivers its increased wealth are suspect.