Things have improved for the majority in first world countries since George's times. George had the view that, like Marx, employees would be kept on sustenance wages.

Perhaps the excesses of poverty are worse in the US than they are in Australia, but if they are, it does not seem related to Geonomics.

Times have changed. There are many possibilities for much of the community to earn wages that are more than sustaining. Things are not as bad as George describes, and the "sustaining wage" has been pretty much disproven (at least, once you get past some minimum level of wealth, unrelated to land).

George also describes systematic monopolistic landholdings which are outright civil abuses - English Lords holding great tracts of land, for example.

There is nothing like this in Australia, where many people hold their own land, and there is nothing like a monopolistic situation. There is cheap land to be had outside the cities, but people want to live in the cities. Its is a subtle issue.

Certainly, George describes an unfair situation - where landlords reap a benefit that the community has provided.

However, the book "The Prosperity Paradox" does not live up to its title.

First, improvements in technology _have_ made a difference to the world, and the overall standard of living.

We don't have "prosperity for all", but people re-assess what they mean by prosperity with the passage of time. Nowadays, people expect carpeted floor, a car, a TV, video and hi-fi. There were times when all of these would have been considered luxuries.

There are arguments that once people could raise a family on one income, but that is no longer possible. There may be an issue here. But the point is that "prosperity for all" is not as simple a issue as Georgists would have us believe.

Thorsten Veblen, in "The Theory of the Leisure Class", wrote : "As increased industrial efficiency makes it possible to procure the means of livelihood with less labour, the energies of the industrious members of the community are bent to the compassing of a higher result in conspicious expenditure, rather than slackened to a more comfortable pace".

In other words, the surplus value is captured by an elite, who waste it.

According to George, increased wealth is captured by landholders. According to Veblen, increased wealth is absorbed in luxuries in conspicious consumption. They're both possible; but its an obvious point that if we "fix" the problem of wealth being captured by landholders, it will still be captured in conspicious consumption. A problem of "wealth capture" which stops the spread of prosperity persists.

Another issue is why wealth has been spread unevenly, quite apart from the presence or absence of prosperity, or conspicious consumption.

George would say it is because as the economy grows, those with land capture an unearnt component. Certainly, I can see this argument. However, not all of this economic growth is captured by landowners. It is captured by the general community.

Disparities of wealth occur in the community, quite separately to whether someone owns land or not.

Land ownership is one factor causing disparities in wealth, but it is by no means the full explanation for the so called "prosperity paradox". Velblen's perspective is but one thing I can think of which could bear on the so called "Prosperity Paradox". There could be many others. The Georgist explanation is simplistic, with no depth.

Yes, George has identified an inequitable situation - where people earn wealth without any effort. But this has limited impact on the "prosperity paradox".

There are several elements to the Geonomic position. One is that "there's this wealth we could capture and put to good use" another is "people are grabbing this wealth unfairly, we should grab it instead", and lastly "stopping people grabbing this wealth, and using it for government revenue rather than other distorting means generates the right pressures in society so that a better outcome results".

There is an inherent redistribution in the Geonomic position. Will this rid us of poverty, or at least of the disparities in the possession of wealth ?

Geonomists say it will. But it does not seem to be the sole cause of poverty. Making land cheaper cannot hurt. But there are other factors at work.