Another issue is the disparity of incomes. Georgists focus on the inequity of landholding and its effect on the distribution of wealth. However, another effect on distribution of wealth is the disparity of incomes itself. As it is a different cause for a Georgist problem, it is a competing reform.

On the one hand, we have the principle that "people are not paid what they are worth". This is a moral judgement, separately to an economic one. But it is an inequity of wealth, just as Georgists would say there is a land related inequity of ownership which feeds into an inequity of wealth.

On reading through Geonomic writings, it seems that they get worked up about certain "moral contradictions" in the world around them, but are very selective about the ones they get worked up about.

Classical economics tells us that wages are set by supply and demand. One situation which Omerod focuses on is how there many graduates competing for few jobs in the financial sector, but the salaries are nevertheless quite high. If the supply/demand interaction were working, salaries would drop till the competition was more sedate.

A consequence of this view is that if there were fewer people seeking the profession of teaching children with disabilities, their salary would go up, something that is a ridiculous notion.

Certainly, with some professions there is a supply/demand interaction which does influence wages. But for the most part these interactions do not determine wages. Something else is going on. Perhaps some things need to be expensive "for show", quite apart from how you'd value the work in any objective sense. And there is a very real "ceiling" in the amount of money which can be spent on a whole public area, and on individuals in it, where that ceiling is set outside of the market. Whatever is going on in each case, it violates standard economic theory, and nothing in Geonomics would rectify this problem.

Georgist principles may mean more money is available for to provide teacher's wages. But the quantity of money available does not seem to be the most important issue. Its not so much the size of the cake as how it is portioned.

Assume Georgist principles mean there is a bigger cake. Society being the squabble it is, teachers may end up in exactly the same position, with the wealth being diverted elsewhere.

Geonomics will not fix up this problem. It is a very separate issue. If Geonomics fixes it up, the only way is along the lines of "we have a lot more money to throw around, so allocation problems will dissapear". This seems unduly optimistic.