Sorry for the absence, been busy. Here, this should do a bit better in explaining some of this. Also, Greg does not like being proved wrong, considering he is not even open to the possibility of being wrong. Bullheaded and prejudice.
but I donāt think many readers here would understand how it relates to Foucauldian Theory/Derridean theory and ultimately critical social justice, I think we would all like you to explain the link here a little further
Georgism, as it relates to social justice, was consumed by other branches of sociology/economics/philosophy that focus on critical theory. I do not think that Georgism, being a heterodox school of economics, is why it fell out of favor in the West. There has consistently been a battle between neo-classical and institutional economics in the US, and the NC school was eventually propped up by the Keynesian school which integrated some institutionalist work (Schilesser, 2012).
As to your point about economic stratification, I think in an American context I donāt think its ridiculous to put a big emphasis on economic stratification/class. Nobody here is saying its paramount. People who read a lot of critical theory may disagree but its a ongoing debate for example whether race was invented to enforce economic classes in America.
Yes, it is an ongoing debate, but it is not a debate worth having from either a materialist or positivist point of view. Also, we have to have a way to empirically test the hypotheses claimed by CRT, and yet we cannot. This debate can be found all the way back to Parsons (the structural functionalists) versus the Theory schools (Frankfurt, French Post Modern, Italian Cultural Marxists) (Moore, 1960).
The argument about the importance of LLCās from Acemoglu and other growth economists can be summed as: Limited liability is a human invention that has facilitated enormous economic growth around the world, particularly since the time of its general application in advanced countries during the nineteenth century. The individual legal identity of companies, coupled with the limited liability of their owners, has provided protection for investors from the risks associated with their investments. It has thus contributed to increasing the sources of capital available to finance projects which might otherwise have been considered unviable. Further reading is Acemoglu and other growth economists. (citation)
The distinction you make about prices differences between houses and education is a fatal error of reasoning from a price change. Education has the cost inflated from exogenous shocks (government intervention into the price), homes are a function of scarcity, and exogenous shocks (institutions, laws, etc.) That is not to say that cars are somehow not a function of institutions, but obviously, the effect has been limited through technological advancement. Which land nor education have had significant technological revolutions in.
Schliesser, Eric. āInventing paradigms, monopoly, methodology, and mythology at āChicagoā: Nutter, Stigler, and Milton Friedman.ā Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 43, no. 1 (2012): 160-171.
Moore, Wilbert E. āA Reconsideration of Theories of Social Change.ā American Sociological Review 25, no. 6 (1960): 810-18.
Acemoglu, Daron, James A. Robinson, and Thierry Verdier. Canāt we all be more like Scandinavians? Asymmetric growth and institutions in an interdependent world . No. w18441. National Bureau of Economic Research, 2012.
!!!
for a very interesting interview