\documentclass{beamer}

% \usetheme{CambridgeUS}

\title{Rethinking Land Use: Effective Altruism Meets Georgism}

\subtitle{Mental frameworks for policy level interventions}

\author{Your Name}

\date{\today}

\AtBeginSection[] {
    \begin{frame}
      \frametitle{Table of Contents} \tableofcontents[currentsection]
    \end{frame}
}
\begin{document}

\begin{frame}
  \titlepage
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Welcome and Context}
  \begin{itemize}
  \item \textbf{Welcome!} Today, we'll explore Georgism—an economic philosophy
    with potential relevance for effective altruists.
  \item \textbf{Effective Altruism (EA):} A movement dedicated to using evidence
    and reason to find the most effective ways to improve the world.
  \item \textbf{Why discuss Georgism here?}
    \begin{itemize}
    \item EA seeks high-impact solutions to pressing global problems.
    \item Georgism offers a distinctive approach to addressing poverty,
      inequality, and resource allocation.
    \item \emph{Land Use Reform} as cause area
    \end{itemize}
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Motivation for the Land Use Reform Cause Area}
  \begin{itemize}
  \item Increased wealth transform from renters to landowners, reduction of both
    wages and total economic output by preventing workers from relocating where
    they can be most productive
  \item Building permits, Zooning Laws and Nimbyism as structural roadblocks to
    societal improvement
  \item Surface Sealing, Car focus
  \item Housing Crisis as everything crisis
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}

  If land use restrictions create these problems, why do they persist? In part,
  the costs of restricting land use in a given location are incurred by workers
  who would benefit from moving to that location, and who as such do not yet
  live there. Since restrictions are created at the local level, they are
  insensitive to the interests of these workers, who do not vote in those
  jurisdictions. Other costs of restricting land use—such as reduced economic
  output—are dispersed across society as a whole. Public choice theory explains
  why governments neglect these costs and instead focus on the concentrated
  benefits to landowners—even if, in the aggregate, the costs vastly outweigh
  the benefits.

\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Why Might Georgism Interest Effective Altruists?}
  \begin{itemize}
  \item \textbf{Root Cause Focus:} Georgism targets the root causes of social
    and economic problems, rather than just symptoms.
  \item \textbf{Systemic Change:} Proposes reforms with potential for
    large-scale, sustainable impact.
  \item \textbf{Alignment with EA Values:}
    \begin{itemize}
    \item Promotes fairness and justice in resource distribution.
    \item Aims to maximize social welfare and reduce poverty.
    \end{itemize}
  \item \textbf{Room for More Impact:} Land value taxation and related ideas are
    underexplored in mainstream policy, presenting an opportunity for neglected,
    high-leverage action.
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{What is Georgism? (Preview)}
\begin{itemize}
\item Economic philosophy developed by Henry George (1839–1897)
\item \textbf{Core idea:} People should keep what they produce, but the value of
  land and natural resources belongs equally to all
\item \textbf{Focus:} Fair distribution of \textit{economic rent} from land,
  natural monopolies, and the commons
\item \textbf{Main policy:} Land Value Tax (LVT) — taxing the unimproved value
  of land, not labor or productive capital
\item \textbf{Goal:} Reduce poverty, increase fairness, and fund public goods
  efficiently.
\end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Why Should Effective Altruists Care?}
\begin{itemize}
\item Georgism addresses \textbf{systemic causes} of poverty and inequality
\item LVT is efficient, evidence-based, and minimizes economic distortions
\item Revenues can fund public goods, reduce regressive taxes, or provide a
  basic income
\item Historical and modern examples show practical impact (e.g., land reforms
  in Taiwan, Japan, and pilot communities)
\end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Georgism and Effective Altruism Values}
\begin{itemize}
\item \textbf{Prioritization:} Tackles neglected root causes of global problems
\item \textbf{Evidence-based:} Supported by economists for efficiency and
  fairness
\item \textbf{Global Wellbeing:} Aims to eliminate poverty and promote
  prosperity for all
\item \textbf{Systemic Change:} Offers a scalable, policy-level intervention
\end{itemize}
\end{frame}

%\begin{frame}{Today's Agenda}
%  \begin{itemize}
%  \item Brief history and fundamentals of Georgism
%  \item Exploring core concepts further: economic rent, land value tax
%  \item How Georgism addresses issues central to EA: poverty, inequality, and
%    efficient philanthropy
%  \item How might Georgist policies fit into EA cause prioritization?
%  \item Critiques and open questions
%  \item Q\&A and discussion
%  \end{itemize}
%\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Outline of talk}
  \tableofcontents
\end{frame}

\section{A brief history}

\begin{frame}{What Is Georgism?}
  \begin{itemize}
  \item \textbf{Georgism} (also known as Geoism or the Single Tax Theory) is a
    social economic philosophy developed by Henry George in the late 19th
    century.
  \item Core idea: \textbf{People should own the value they produce}, but the
    \textbf{economic rent from land and natural resources should belong equally
      to all of society}.
  \item Focuses on land, natural resources, and the commons as sources of
    unearned income that should be shared.
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Historical Background}
  \begin{itemize}
  \item Emerged in the late 19th century, rooted in classical liberalism and
    political economy.
  \item Influenced by thinkers like John Locke, Adam Smith, and John Stuart
    Mill.
  \item Sought to address persistent poverty despite technological progress and
    wealth creation.
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Key Figure: Henry George}
  \begin{itemize}
  \item American economist and social reformer (1839–1897).
  \item Author of \textit{Progress and Poverty} (1879), a bestseller second only
    to the Bible in the US at the time.
  \item Sought to explain why poverty persists alongside economic growth,
    identifying private land rent as a key culprit.
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\section{The Law of Rent}

\begin{frame}{David Ricardo and the Law of Rent}
  \textbf{David Ricardo (1772--1823)} was a prominent classical economist who
  formulated the Law of Rent in his 1817 work \textit{On the Principles of
    Political Economy and Taxation}.

  \vspace{0.5cm} %
  \textit{“Rent is always the difference between the produce obtained by the
    employment of two equal quantities of capital and labour.”}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
  \begin{figure}
    \centering %
    \url{https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0yltJHY6g5I}
  \end{figure}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
  \begin{figure}
    \centering %
    \only<1>{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/rent1}}
    \only<2>{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/rent2}}
    \only<3>{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/rent3}}
    \only<4>{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/rent4}}
    \only<5>{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/rent5}}
    \only<6>{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/rent6}}
    \only<7>{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/rent7}}
    \only<8>{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/rent8}}
    \only<9>{\includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/rent9}}
  \end{figure}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
  \begin{figure}
    \centering %
    \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/calculator}
  \end{figure}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
  \textbf{Ricardo's Law of Rent:}
  \begin{itemize}
  \item \textbf{Definition:} Rent is the portion of the produce of the earth
    paid to the landlord for the use of the original and indestructible powers
    of the soil.
  \item \textbf{Key Principle:} Rent arises due to differences in land fertility
    and location. It is the economic advantage obtained by using a land site in
    its most productive use, relative to the advantage from using marginal
    (rent-free) land, given the same inputs of labor and capital.
  \item \textbf{Marginal Land:} The least productive land in use, which earns
    zero rent. All other land earns rent equal to its excess productivity over
    marginal land.
  \item \textbf{Implications:}
      \begin{itemize}
      \item As population grows, less fertile land is cultivated, increasing
        rent on superior land.
      \item Rent does not enter into the cost of production; it is a surplus
        accruing to landowners.
      \end{itemize}
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\section{Core Principles}

\begin{frame}{The Central Principle}
  \begin{itemize}
  \item \textbf{Distinction:} People own what they produce, but land and natural
    resources are not produced by anyone.
  \item \textbf{Single Tax:} Proposes a tax on land value (not on labor or
    capital) to fund public goods and reduce inequality.
  \item \textbf{Goal:} Economic efficiency, social justice, and reduction of
    poverty by sharing unearned income from land.
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{The few different ways to make money in the economy}
  \begin{itemize}
  \item Labor: You can sell your time to produce more of a valuable good or
    service.
  \item Capital: You can lend someone else your money, allowing them to make
    investments that will produce more valuable stuff.
  \item Information: You can do research, developing and selling knowledge of
    ways to create more valuable stuff.
  \item Entrepreneurship: You can take on personal risk and leverage the labor,
    capital, and information of others to create new valuable stuff.
  \end{itemize}
  And then there's land ownership. You can buy land, and then you collect rent
  from people who want to use your land.
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Problems with land ownership}
  \begin{itemize}
  \item (scarcity) there's a fixed supply of land. Realistically you can't
    create or destroy land (surface, which a mathematical area).
  \item (inelasticity) the demand for land is very stable. You can't decide to
    just not take up any physical space tomorrow.
  \end{itemize}
  This means
  \begin{itemize}
  \item landowners are effectively always running an auction for land use
  \item the rent for land use keeps rising to the highest rate someone is
    willing to pay.
  \item because you can't make more land, land owners get to capture more and
    more value as the economy grows, without the land owners actually doing
    anything valuable.
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Actually, there are a few other things like land}
  \begin{itemize}
  \item domains
  \item patents
  \item electromagnetic frequencies
  \item satellite orbits
  \end{itemize}
  (my) rule of thumb: if the thing you pay for is more like a right of usage
  than an actual item, then the market for it is economically similar to the
  land market
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Land value is (mostly) the value of society}
  \small{
  \begin{itemize}
  \item Close to essential services like schools, hospitals, shopping centers,
    and recreational facilities
  \item Easy access to public transportation and major highways
  \item Near cultural amenities like theaters, museums, and restaurants
  \item Safe area with low crime rates
  \item Well-maintained public spaces and active community organizations
  \item Strong sense of community with local events and activities
  \item Located in an area with job opportunities and economic stability
  \item Presence of thriving businesses and a flourishing local economy
  \item Upcoming infrastructure projects or public improvements planned
  \item Zoning changes that allow for increased development potential
  \item Scenic views or natural beauty
  \end{itemize}}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{General Moral Foundation}
  \begin{itemize}
  \item Everyone should benefit from natural resources and societal progress.
  \item Privately created wealth remains private; socially created wealth (land
    rent) is shared
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\section{Main Policy Proposals}

\begin{frame}{Basic Argument\footnote{inspired by this discussion:
    \url{https://old.reddit.com/r/georgism/comments/1esw8l9/where_do_you_start_when_introducing_georgism_to/}}}
  \begin{small}
    \vspace{-0.3cm}
  \begin{itemize}
  \item Nobody likes taxes, but we gotta pay for some stuff, so we should tax in
    the least destructive way we can.
  \item Turns out, land has this neat property where we can't really create it
    or destroy it, so it's almost immune to distortionary taxes.
  \item Plus, land has this ugly tendency to get hoarded and milked as a source
    of income for people who don't actually contribute anything to society.
  \item Plus plus, because of the eccentricities of how land works, you can tax
    land a fair amount before landlords can pass those costs on to land users.
  \item So, we can cut a bunch of bad taxes, like income tax and sales tax,
    replace them with a tax on unearned income from land, and make almost
    everybody better off!
  \end{itemize}
  \end{small}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{Destructive Taxes - An Example}
  \begin{itemize}
  \item Imagine there will be a 10\% tax on apple sauce starting next year.
  \item Producers are allowed to pass them to the consumer (as usual, and it can
    not be prevented really)
  \item Prices will increase by almost exactly 10\% (all things being equal)
  \item Less people will buy apple sauce, even though the underlying demand does
    not change
  \item In a year's time, there will be around 10\% less apple sauce, because
    here supply follows demand
  \item Now imagine this for other, more important goods, like medicine and
    income taxes that affect prices indirectly
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}{A tax on land value has no dead weight}
  \begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
    \begin{figure}
      \centering \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/dead-weight}
    \end{figure}
  \end{minipage}
  \begin{minipage}{0.45\textwidth}
    \begin{figure}
      \centering \includegraphics[width=\textwidth]{figures/no-dead-weight}
    \end{figure}
  \end{minipage}
  \vspace{0.1cm}\\
  \footnotesize{
    \textit{price ceiling} means \textit{price before tax} in this context\\
    source (left): \url{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Deadweight_loss}\\
    source (right): \url{https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Land_value_tax} }
\end{frame}

\begin{frame}
  \begin{itemize}
  \item empty houses/flats will be put on the market because it is financially
    reasonable to do so
  \item additionally there is now incentive to building new houses on vacant
    lots or add floors to existing buildings in high demand locations
  \item the rent distribution will shift downwards
  \item (small) businesses will have an easier time finding locations or
    operating in the existing ones
  \item people will move into the city
  \item public infrastructure can be funded better
  \item if land value is faithfully reflected in parking tickets, people will
    park cars on their own property or get rid of it
  \item tax evasion will become impossible
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}

% map of consequences ?

\begin{frame}{General Expected Outcomes}
  \begin{itemize}
  \item More equitable distribution of wealth.
  \item Incentives for productive use of land.
  \item Reduction in speculative land holding and economic inefficiency
  \end{itemize}
\end{frame}


\end{document}