Arguing the "Rent in Price" question, one of our fundamental economists wisely states that economic rent being a payment for "value received" could not increase price, lower wages, or cause poverty. The rent went into cost but was absorbed in increased production before the price stage was reached. Then came the question: "What is the mission of the Georgeian movement if other kinds of rent also do not play the exploitive role?" And then came confusion, due to suppression of this question.

Having discovered that economic rent does not exploit, as our editors and manuals seem to teach, we must not wait but must make it perfectly clear what does exploit. Or else the answer to the question must be that our mission is accomplished. Our teachers and editors do not literally teach that economic rent takes all wages save a bare existence, but they do teach that rent does this, and they do not tell of any other kind of rent than economic. So the whole routine must go together in every statement of the Ricardian law, of the Georgeian philosophy, or of the economics of democracy: (1) Private appropriation of economic rent causes (a) monopoly of land and monopoly of rent; (b) a consumer tax system. Monopoly of land closes it to labor, reducing wages. Taxes on consumption may double prices, halve consumption and production, creating millions of unemployed, business depression and poverty. Failure to make any element here stated perfectly clear will do irreparable injury to progress in teaching. Excess monopoly or speculative rent is what our movement is built around, and because George did not make this clear until twelve years after Progress and Poverty does not discredit him. But it does discredit a teaching system that teaches such ridiculous error, even by implication.