We are developing the social individualist meta-context for the future. From the very serious to the extremely frivolous... lets see what is on the mind of the Samizdata people.
Samizdata, derived from Samizdat /n. - a system of clandestine publication of banned literature in the USSR [Russ.,= self-publishing house]
Why are such “small” sites not viable for the large developers? More pertinently perhaps, why are there not small developers who choose to build on sites of such scale? Because the bureaucracy – that interminable fight through the local council to gain planning, the demands for most of the profit to arrive as social housing and on and on – means that no small scale builder can survive. It’s necessary to be operating at a large scale to pay for all of that. You simply have to be a large organisation, building at scale, to be able to afford the army of your own bureaucrats necessary to fight the state.
So, abolish that bureaucracy and small scale builders will reappear and those 850,000 homes will be built.
850,000 houses missing in London alone. That’s what the current planning system denies us all. Probably a good idea to fire the bureaucrats and have the houses instead.
Once investors begin to doubt the real return available on sovereign liabilities, the speed with which they can respond becomes important. Modern financial wealth can be reallocated almost instantaneously. An investor dissatisfied with cash or government bonds can move into foreign equities, commodities, gold, property funds or another currency without waiting for wages, consumer prices or conventional money velocity to adjust. Monetary distrust can therefore appear first as a portfolio movement rather than as an immediate surge in spending on goods. This makes attempts to suppress sovereign yields potentially less stable. The wider the gap between the return investors believe they require and the return governments are willing to permit, the stronger the incentive to move elsewhere. In earlier periods, geographical, institutional and technological frictions slowed that process. Today, capital can react to a deterioration in expected real returns within seconds.
That is where the primary danger lies. The market may require a yield high enough to compensate the private holder for inflation and fiscal risk at precisely the moment the sovereign cannot comfortably afford to pay it. Yet if policymakers prevent yields from rising to the level required to clear the market voluntarily, they have not eliminated that required return. They have merely created an incentive for private capital to leave government debt for foreign assets, commodities, property, gold or anything else expected to preserve purchasing power more effectively. The monetary danger examined later in this article begins when there is no politically tolerable yield at which both the government’s financing needs and the private investor’s required real return can comfortably be satisfied.
One plausible macroeconomic consequence of such a divergence is stagflation, in which both inflation and weak growth coexist. Persistent supply shortages and increasingly expensive capital would weigh on real growth, while the fiscal and monetary response required to prevent financial liquidation would make it difficult to extinguish inflation completely. This is the central problem examined in this article.
… I noticed a UK aid sticker fixed above a tiny incubator. Inside was a premature baby fighting for breath. Nearby stood oxygen equipment that staff explained had been funded through UK support. I learned that when power outages struck the hospital, as they often did, that equipment helped keep vulnerable newborns alive.
Being in the presence of these sometimes inconceivably small children, seeing the UK aid sticker labelled across the incubators that were keeping them alive, emotion completely overcame me. It was not only sadness. It was pride. Pride that people in Britain, most of whom would never meet that baby or their family, had helped make survival possible. Seven years later, that moment remains one of the most impactful of my life.
Many years ago, I turned against foreign aid – well, against most government-to-government foreign aid except immediately after natural disasters. How can I justify such a stance? Don’t I want premature babies in Sierra Leone to have incubators? I do want it. I want it very much. But take a look at this graph comparing the change in GDP per capita in current USA dollars of Sierra Leone and South Korea from 1960 to the present. In 1960, South Korea was at $158.8, a little higher than Sierra Leone’s $142.0, but still desperately poor. The next year South Korea’s figure ($94.2) was actually lower than Sierra Leone’s $142.3. I don’t know why that sudden year-on-year dip in South Korea’s wealth happened or if the effect were even real, but there can be no possible doubt about the reality of what happened over the next six and a half decades. The GDP per capita of the Republic of Korea is now $36,227.0, forty-three times higher than that of Sierra Leone, which is $846.7.
I want Sierra Leone to have incubators the way South Korea has incubators.“The Republic of Korea (South Korea) maintains excellent maternal and newborn health outcomes through its advanced healthcare system. With a maternal mortality ratio of approximately 8.1 deaths per 100,000 live births and a neonatal mortality rate of approximately 1.3 deaths per 1,000 live births, the country ranks among the world’s safest for childbirth.” South Korea did receive some foreign aid in the 1960s and 70s. Then it stopped. The country is now a donor rather than a recipient. Sierra Leone has received orders of magnitude more aid, and it has never stopped. In terms of things you can point to, like the incubators Mr Harewood saw, no doubt all that aid did some good. But in terms of that which is not seen, I believe that aid did more harm than good. The unceasing torrent of money made it less likely that Sierra Leone would do as South Korea did and so get South Korea-like outcomes.
So I’m not a fan of foreign aid. You knew that. Bet you didn’t know until you saw the headline to this post that Guardian readers are scarcely more enthusiastic about it than I am. Here are the top-level comments to Mr Harewood’s article ordered by number of recommendations:
misterrusty
27 Sep 2026 8.51
133
If Africa, which is 3 times the size of Europe stopped all the tribal infighting, it might become rich enough to support itself. The question is why a continent with such huge resources is so poor it has to rely on aid.
–
aunib
27 Sep 2026 9.07
120
We’re currently running a 4% GDP deficit and the interest on our debt is £110B a year. Charity is for surplus cash, and our government doesn’t have any of that at the moment.
–
Manchotte
27 Sep 2026 8.52
110
But the question remains: when will these African countries be able to support themselves? Sixty years since independence and they are still relying on British aid. Where did all the £100 billion go? apart from Swiss bank accounts!
–
Firtree
27 Sep 2026 9.26
92
Can someone please explain to me how it is okay for the government to borrow 10s of billions every month to keep us afloat while giving a big chunk of of it to others for free?
–
Bathreader
27 Sep 2026 8.50
83
Foreign aid is laudable but has to take its place with other priorities.Defence is the urgent priority after years of underspend.
–
The Guardian does its best to hide this preponderance of aid-sceptical sentiment among its readers by taking all eight of its “Guardian picks” from among the pro-aid comments, but anyone who sorts by “recommends”, as most people do, cannot fail to note that it is only on the sixth comment down that we finally reach one that is unambiguously in favour of foreign aid.
Edit: if the link to the graph comparing historical GDP per capita for the Republic of Korea and Sierra Leone is too much for your browser, you can generate it yourself by going to the World Bank “GDP per capita” page, https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/NY.GDP.PCAP.CD , and entering both “Sierra Leone” and “Korea, Rep” into the search bar.
The sad reality here is that virgin steel production in the rich countries is a dying technology. We just don’t need it any more. Pretty much every steel we do want can be made from scrap in an electric arc furnace. And those few – very few – steels that cannot be won’t cover the costs of running our own blast furnace. It’s over, like hydraulic power companies and thorium lamp mantles. This is, of course, what happens with every company, every technology, eventually. It stops being worth doing so people stop doing it.
The only thing of value here is what lefties and socialists put on manly men doing manly things, buffly. And while that’s a perfectly acceptable, even sensible, kink there’s no reason why the rest of us have to pay for that. But there we are, nothing so conservative as a socialist or lefty. Nothing can ever be allowed to die off, all must be preserved.
And, you know, wouldn’t it be nice if they’d thought through what their plan was going to be before they spent the half billion? With that more – ooooh, much more – to come?
The economist who says a policy will probably raise employment, other things being equal, is telling the truth as far as it goes. The one who says employment will rise by exactly 2.3% has mistaken a guess for a measurement, and dressed the guess up in a suit it did not earn.
Markets do not work because they are mathematically optimal but because they let millions of separate judgments, made by people with knowledge no central model could ever gather, correct each other in real time. That is not a formula. It is closer to a conversation, conducted in prices instead of words, and no economist has yet written an equation that listens as well as a market does.
The issue here is that taxes upon employment income end up being paid by the workers, not the employer. It’s wholly standard analysis that this is so, that the incidence of things like national insurance, social security, is on wages, not upon corporate profits.
Thus that entire £3.5 billion is a rise in taxation upon the wages of the workers. That’s just the way it works out.
If our rulers knew this and decided to do it anyway then I’d at least admire their sneakiness. But what worries me rather more is that peeps like Our Ange will be believing that the £3 billion does in fact come from the employers. You know, that they’re simply ignorant.
Markets are discovery mechanisms. In war adaptation and discovery are a matter of survival.
Ukraine began the war with a traditional military procurement system. Large, standardised orders from suppliers chosen by the defence ministry with no room for adjustment to individual circumstances. Ukraine’s key innovation was to decentralise military acquisition, placing the funding and decision-making power in the hands of military commanders on the front lines.
Enabled by their earlier implementation of a public electronic procurement system Prozorro, groundbreaking in its own right by allowing greater price competition and transparency, Ukraine launched DOT-Chain Defence in July 2025. Perhaps best described as an ‘Amazon’ for weapons systems, Military units independently select, order, and reserve the necessary equipment, see delivery timelines, leave feedback, and receive quick responses. The system is designed to eliminate unnecessary bureaucracy and allow frontline brigades to order in exactly the resources they need at any given time with minimal delay. If a product is low-quality individual units will cease to order it as soon as battlefield conditions expose its flaws, providing rapid feedback to manufacturers to improve their products.
The e-points system is another recent deployment. A unit carries out a combat mission and uploads video proof of its achievements, targets destroyed etc., to the DELTA combat and control system. The unit is then awarded e-points at the end of the month, a virtual currency which it can use to purchase the weapons systems of its choice.
By introducing clear incentives at every step of the process, combat units are motivated to provide results, manufacturers to improve quality and the Ukrainian military machine becomes ever more effective.
The business secretary, Peter Kyle, has told UK pension funds to “get off their high horses” and invest in Britain or be forced to do so by law.
Expressing frustration at the level of investment in British companies after years of government initiatives, Kyle said the UK’s biggest asset managers “should feel a patriotic duty in making Britain a success”.
“I don’t think mandation is ideal in any circumstances. But I’ll use it if I have to, because I’m in a rush,” he said.
Speaking to the Guardian on the sidelines of an event at Lloyds Banking Group’s headquarters in London, he said he was “fed up” with being asked by the City to tweak regulations to boost investment in the UK economy, only to see a lack of investment follow government reforms.
“Don’t make us come back, because we’ve got lots of other things we want to do … It feels like they are still sitting on the fence, so will more powers be needed? I hope not,” he said.
“They are representing British savers. And so they should feel a patriotic duty in making Britain a success. And not just sitting aside from the economy, in a walled-off garden. They are out there with the rest of us. They need to get off their high horses.”
Yes, the pension funds are representing British savers. Which means the only duty those pension fund managers should “feel” is the duty they have by law; their fiduciary duty to those savers to invest those savers’ money in the way that is best for those savers. Not best for Britain-as-a-whole, and certainly not some politician’s pet project that nobody in their right minds would risk tuppence on if they were not forced to do it. Best for those savers. Because it is their money. Sorry to labour that point, but it is a point Labour seem to have difficulty absorbing.
And you won’t make Britain a success by forcing people to “invest” (what a lie that word is) in the way the Government tells them to. Britain’s historical success was built on being one of the few countries where people could invest their money as seemed best to them.
Did you notice the mafia-like threat in Peter Kyle’s words “Don’t make us come back, because we’ve got lots of other things we want to do … It feels like they are still sitting on the fence, so will more powers be needed? I hope not”?
Kyle has form on that. This time last year, when he was Secretary of State for Science, Innovation and Technology, he said that to question the Online Safety Act is to side with child abusers. His specific target was Nigel Farage, but he applied the same sentiment to everyone. In his own words,
“I cannot understand how anyone can be against these measures. How could anyone question our duty to keep children safe online – particularly when it comes to child sexual abuse content and from online grooming?”
There is a never ending number of biscuits, not finite. Socialists think there is a biscuit tin under the bed, everyone has to share, 1 for you, 1 for me. They fail to learn how to make cookies with their granny who thought grandad was talking sh1t. Families 😂😂
The Samizdata people are a bunch of sinister and heavily armed globalist illuminati who seek to infect the entire world with the values of personal liberty and several property. Amongst our many crimes is a sense of humour and the intermittent use of British spelling.
We are also a varied group made up of social individualists, classical liberals, whigs, libertarians, extropians, futurists, ‘Porcupines’, Karl Popper fetishists, recovering neo-conservatives, crazed Ayn Rand worshipers, over-caffeinated Virginia Postrel devotees, witty Frédéric Bastiat wannabes, cypherpunks, minarchists, kritarchists and wild-eyed anarcho-capitalists from Britain, North America, Australia and Europe.
All content on this website (including text, photographs, audio files, and any other original works), unless otherwise noted, is licensed under a Creative Commons License. Powered by WordPress & Atahualpa
Recent Comments