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]
|
“In the pantheon of destructive, counterproductive laws of the last few centuries, Labour’s new Renters’ Rights Act, which starts today, must be up there with the worst. Perhaps alongside the Corn Laws of 1815, or the Trade Union Act of 1906 that allowed unchecked industrial unrest and economic decline, or the Town and Country Planning Act of 1947 that constrained housing supply. It is that bad. The Renters’ Rights Act is sold as a moral crusade: a bold attempt to drive rogue landlords out of England’s private rental sector and protect tenants from abuse. As with the soon-to-be-implemented Employment Rights Act 2025, it is a cure that worsens the disease. Just as higher unemployment will come from the Employment Rights Act, so higher rent and fewer tenancies will come from this Renters’ Rights Act. Employment rights creating more unemployed people, renters’ rights creating more people that cannot rent. Classic performative socialism.”
– Tim Briggs on CapX.
One take-away from all this in my opinion is that this will seriously damage private landlords who own, say, one to five properties, and benefit larger, more institutional landlords, including corporations. Ownership of rental property will become concentrated into the hands of medium-sized and large companies, which I suspect is exactly what the existing government (and not just the existing one) wants. Such landlords will be more pliable when it comes to political pressure to adopt this or that new rule. Also, at the margins, it makes the rental sector less flexible, which also hampers the ability of people to move around in finding and obtaining new jobs. This adds to the baleful impact of the new employment legislation in the UK, which amongst its features is an attempt to re-unionise the workforce and shorten periods when an employee is on probation and can be let go. Even the BBC covers this aspect of such rules, referring to “unintended consequences”.
The point has to be made over and over that there is cause and effect. Make X more costly, or potentially risky (such as by making it harder to fire a person, evict a delinquent tenant) – there will be less of X. We impose speeding tickets on speeding motorists, so why should it be different if we somehow increase the cost of doing something, all else being equal? In fact, it would be honest if a politician said “yes, imposing these rules will reduce supply of X, so we will need to make up the difference in some other way”. But this hardly ever happens. There’s just this assumption that a new piece of law or tax will be absorbed. This is a species, in a way, of the magical thinking that we also get in areas such as around Net Zero.
“Britain is running a live experiment in how fast you can drain a tax base before you start draining a country. This recent article in The Times reports on a freedom of information request by Wealth Club to HMRC has revealed that the top 1% of taxpayers (circa 500,000 people) contributed nearly £94 billion in tax in 2023/24. That’s a third of all income tax collected. The top 100,000 paid almost a fifth of the national total on their own. At the same time, Britain is losing those very people. The latest Henley Private Wealth Migration Report forecasts £66 billion in wealth leaving the UK this year as record numbers of millionaires move abroad. That follows 10,800 departures in 2024, the highest ever recorded.”
I got this on my Linkedin page, from a chap called John Russo.
Here’s more:
“Critics call this alarmist. They point out that only 0.6% of the UK’s millionaires are leaving. But this misses the point. It’s not the number of people that matters. It’s the volume of capital, the density of investment, and the influence of networks that disappear with them. When a founder, a fund manager, or a family office relocates, their employees, service providers, and charities often follow. The irony is that the UK’s tax system remains among the most progressive in the developed world. Those with higher incomes already contribute the majority of national revenue. But the politics of envy has become the economics of loss.”
Hard to dispute any of this. Read the whole thing, as someone once put it.
The central principle of the “Land Value Tax” which makes it different from normal Property Taxes, is that it would be the land only – so, for example, someone who kept land as a nature reserve, would pay the same tax as someone who built a factory on the land.
In the United Kingdom, since 1929, farmland has not been subject to Property Tax (called “Rates” here – a form of taxation that goes all the way back to Tudor times, first introduced to fund the Poor Law – most of Scotland did not have such a system till 1845, France did not have Poor Law style benefits till well into the 20th century), farmers, if they owned the land, would have to pay the Land Value Tax – thus turning farmers into tenants of the state. Although, of course, much would depend on how high the tax is – what really matters about taxation is not the exact form of it, but how high it is. There is no such thing as a “good tax” – all taxation is harmful, but how harmful taxation will be is determined by how heavy the burden of taxation is.
For example, property taxes in Alabama do much less harm than property taxes in New Jersey – but this is NOT because property taxes are structured fundamentally differently in New Jersey than they are in Alabama – it is just that they are much HIGHER in New Jersey, and, therefore, do more harm.
That is why, for example, the present obsession of the Tax Foundation with the exact way taxes are designed, rather than with the overall burden of taxation in American States (there has not been a State and Local Tax Burden report from the Tax Foundation since April 9th 2022) and European countries, is so disheartening – the Tax Foundation seems to have lost its way and is no longer really doing what it was created to do.
That discussion with supporters of the Land Value Tax is pointless can be seen from the Wikipedia article on the matter – the article is almost entirely a “puff piece” (any real criticism is quickly edited out – so much for “anyone can edit”) of both the Land Value Tax and the economic (the false economics of David Ricardo and others), philosophical, and even theological, theories behind it.
In the West one example of the theological thinking behind the Land Value Tax is the idea, to be found in John Locke and others, that God gave the world to humanity in-common and that, therefore, private ownership has to be justified – either by “as much and as good left for others” or by some form of financial payment (to be collected by the state – for some reason).
Logically a supporter of the idea should be against population increase, for example against immigration, as the more people who came into an area – the more landless people there will be, so the less money each landless person would get (in various benefits and services) from the Land Value Tax.
Henry George reflected this – with his opposition to people going to California, even opposing the building of railways as this would make it less difficult for people to go to California. Even the “Christian Socialist” John Rawls (once very popular in academia) seems to have rejected the idea of a world tax – holding that American taxes should go to Americans in terms of welfare state programs – of course if one “imports the Third World” (the policy of many in the Democratic Party since 1965 – especially during the Biden Administration of 2021 to 2025) then government spending does go on the poor of the world – as they have come to the nation (the same is true in Britain and other nations). Claims, by the CATO Institute and others, that Third World immigrants are “net taxpayers” (that they provide more in taxes than they take in benefits and services) are false. Ideologically motivated deceptions.
For those people who reject the theological basis of the Land Value Tax (and its real basis is theological, see above, rather than in the false economics of David Ricardo and others), the matter is of little interest – if one holds, with Hugo Grotius and others, that God did NOT give all land to humanity in-common – then no “justification” of private ownership is needed, either by “as much and as good left for others” or by some form of financial payment.
via. I,Hypocrite… suitable commentary from Café Viennois
It seems to me that for Iran to use the Straits to squeeze the rest of the world into acquiescing into its brutality is a ploy that brings diminishing returns. Given that oil can be piped as well as shipped via a tanker, construction of more pipelines to take the stuff – and gas – over land rather than via sea seems screamingly obvious. Sure, pipelines can be attacked and that creates issues around security. Even so, the key is to have options. I have heard it said that one reason behind the Hamas Oct 7 attacks was that Iran wanted to stymie a pact between Israel and Saudi Arabia that would, as part of it, include a cross-region pipeline or set of pipelines (maybe with the oil reaching the Mediterranean coast in Israel).
As conflict between U.S.-Israeli forces and Iran effectively shutters the Strait of Hormuz, Saudi Arabia has activated a 45-year-old contingency plan to bypass the blockaded waterway and keep global crude markets afloat. The centerpiece of this strategy is the East-West pipeline, a 1,200-kilometer artery that transports crude from the kingdom’s eastern fields to the Red Sea port of Yanbu. Long considered a redundant relic of the 1980s Iran-Iraq War, the line is now the primary exit point for Saudi exports.
State-owned oil giant Saudi Aramco has rapidly reoriented its logistical center of gravity toward the west due to the lingering threat of Iran closing the Strait of Hormuz.
Even if the Straits retain some value, that is going to erode and fast in the next few years, is my guess.
And this whole saga also highlights the truth of a quote attributed to an American fracker business executive, who is supposed to have said that these folk are not just extracting more oil and gas, but are helping to save Western civilisation. Whoever that was, he or she wasn’t exaggerating.
As of the time of going to press, President Trump has announced a two-week ceasefire. I worry that this gives Iran breathing space – I don’t think the region will be sorted out until or unless the regime in Tehran is overthrown, although this needs, ultimately, to come from Iranians themselves.
That said, it is worth taking stock of what has happened in terms of the loss of military power in Iran, including its ability to make nukes. That’s not a trivial achievement. And the world – including China – has had a good look at the impressiveness of the US and Israeli air forces and special forces. It has, to be fair, also had a good look at the parlous state of the UK’s military, particularly its pitiful navy.
“If money is infinite, why is there poverty?”
Because money isn’t wealth. It’s a claim on wealth.
You can print claims. You can’t print the goods and services those claims are supposed to buy.
Give everyone $10 billion and nothing gets richer. Prices just explode until that “wealth” buys nothing.
Poverty isn’t a shortage of paper.
It’s a shortage of production.
Printing money doesn’t solve that. It hides it for a moment, then makes it worse.
– Rock Chartrand
The truth of course is that ‘Net Zero’ is an article of faith. A state religion masquerading as a moral crusade despite the evidence it is expensive, ineffective, and generally regressive.
Low carbon subsidies transfer wealth from the general population to landowners and corporations. It’s state socialism delivering a caricature of pre-Corn Laws Toryism.
– Andy Mayer
While you might think free parking in NHS hospitals is a bit of throwaway populist fluff, it still tells you a lot about how populists think. If they do not see the immediate value in administration then it simply shouldn’t exist.
We then get some confirmation of how Lowe thinks from an interview with David Starkey. Lowe wants to recruit candidates who are accomplished business leaders (basically people like Rupert Lowe).
Regardless of what you think of Lowe’s values (there’s not much I disagree with), the bottom line is that he’s hopelessly naïve and has absolutely no idea what he’s doing. Starkey is right. Politics is not business. Businessmen are often successful because they take risks, and delegate the details to their people. It does not make them experts, and it does not mean their business success is transferrable to politics. Setting things up is a lot different to running things (as Lowe is about to discover).
Very often businessmen have very little understanding of the day to day running of their businesses. They hire people to do that for them so they can think about other things. We saw this during Brexit, where the media was asking CEOs how Brexit might affect their businesses, to find they were no more informed about the complexities of EU customs rules than the man in the street.
– Pete North
Read the whole thing as it is an interesting practical discussion about allocation of scarce resources
Youth unemployment has surged to 16.1%, meaning that one in six young people want a job but can’t find one. It’s no surprise when some estimate that half of the over 200,000 jobs lost since Labour took office have been among the youngest.
– Andrew Griffith.
For those who don’t recall, the expression “Labour Isn’t Working” was the banner of a Conservative Party election campaign of 1979, and while unemployment rose sharply in the early term of office of the Thatcher period – that was also a period of the monetarist squeeze against inflation – the devastating impact on the Labour Party of being associated with unemployment – and union mayhem and inflation cannot be overstated. Even today, the shame of a party that used to bang on about the “dignity of labour”, when many working-aged adults aren’t in employment or seeking it, should be far higher than it is. But as we seem to be reminded almost daily with this clanking and sanctimonious government, a sense of shame appears to be absent. Being a socialist, it seems, means never having to say you’re sorry, and never having to understand that incentives matter.
“Spanish is clearly now the world’s coolest language. So why do we push children to learn French?”, asks Gary Nunn in the Guardian.
His argument for pushing children to learn Spanish rather than French is something about Bad Bunny, whoever that is, singing at the Superbowl, whatever that is, plus a slightly less childish argument about how more people worldwide speak Spanish than French. So they do, but that does not rescue the entire article from having the air of being written by una rata en un saco. Mr Nunn may well get his wish that Spanish should dislodge French as the main language taught in British schools, but the triumph will be spoilt by whispers that there is increasingly little practical point in teaching any foreign language to children who already speak English, the language the whole world wants to learn. Mr Nunn says that his Spanish has allowed him to “remote-work my way across Latin America and learn to salsa with guapo men in nightclubs” which is nice for him, but the number of current pupils likely to dance in his footsteps is low.
Fate played a cruel trick on British teachers of modern languages. When I was a girl, they had just fought a successful campaign to dethrone Latin and Greek. In vain did the teachers of dead languages bleat about widening cultural perspectives and indefinable cognitive benefits. Teachers of French and German and Spanish talked better, stronger, more manly talk about how many tens of millions of living humans spoke their favoured languages; about exports and global relevance and earning potential. They quoted Willy Brandt, “You may buy from me in your own language, but sell to me in mine”, and they won.
But now the German for “job” is “der job” and the Spanish for “marketing” is “el marketing” and it turns out that Germans and Spaniards will not just buy in English but conduct their international business in it. And the teachers and enthusiasts for modern languages are reduced to fighting over which of them will grab the largest share of the shrinking number of English-speaking pupils willing to put the effort in to learn any of them, while dredging up from memory all that benthic detritus about “seeing the world in with different eyes” that they mocked so mercilessly when it came out of the mouths of the classicists half a century ago.
[Added later in response to comments: I do not mock it. To me, the ability to see the world with different eyes; to see how thought itself can be differently arranged, is a huge benefit. Just not the sort of benefit that gets you a better job, not if you are a native English speaker. As translation software improves, even the payoff from all those years of study of being able to find your way around a foreign city disappears. The emotional benefit of being able to make a friendly connection with people you meet abroad by speaking their language will never die, unless brain augmentation makes us into a new sort of human, but that is almost the only advantage left that a living language has over a dead one. In terms of widening your understanding of how varied human cultures can be, dead languages win.]
As I have been saying for more than a decade, my feelings about the triumph of English are not particularly triumphant. Not only do I mourn the beigificiation of the world, I fear that when we are down to just Mandarin, English and Spanish the state will find it even easier to control us than it does now. There have been many times in history when minority languages served as a literal speakeasy for minority opinions and where dead languages helped keep free thought alive.
Although the pandemic response is much too late to fix the medieval plagues used to justify it, it remains of great relevance to Pharma investors who see unbeatable advantage in converting taxation dollars into rising share valuations. Governments supporting the CEPI 100-day vaccine initiative are giving public money to support the research and maintain manufacturing readiness of private companies who will then sell their products back to the very same taxpayers, ideally mandated by those governments. This will occur in response to disease surveillance that the same hapless taxpayers are funding. A whole army of global health bureaucrats is positioning to run this – these officials only need a theoretical risk to recommend lockdowns. The 100-day mRNA vaccines will return freedom. The business case here is simply irresistible.
– Dr. David Bell
Away from the perma-misery of politics, wars, regulatory nonsense and so on, I came across this article on the Substack of the Rational Optimist Society (with a name like that, it is not a place to go for the doom-scrollers):
“Housing is arguably the most broken industry in the world, with tough competition from healthcare and education. It’s a gigantic market that affects us all,” writes Stephen McBride.
He argues that firms such as Cuby Technologies are doing for housing what shipping containers did for transportation and global trade, with massively positive effects.
Cuby’s product is the Mobile Micro-Factory (MMFTM). It’s a standardized, portable factory that turns homebuilding into a predictable manufacturing process. I can see that acronym MMF, in this context, getting the same visibility as SMR for “small modular reactors”, and tapping into the same idea of using economies of scale, mass customisation and fiendishly clever computer tech to produce lots of useful, not eye-wateringly expensive things for our homes, power generators, whatever. And I can see, in time, how this fits with still-developing tech such as 3-D printing (which has been around a while). It will of course give some folk the vapours, such as those in the construction trades, much as happened with other disruptive changes. But if, for example, ageing and other forces squeeze labour market supply of people in such trades, then business models such as the MMF one, able to churn out homes, will have a lot of appeal. Plus new jobs can be created around design and all the associated, value-add opportunities that can arise.
One aspect of all this is that if it lives up to the billing, the precision with which homes are built will be very high.
Also, there is an appeal, is there not, for the likes of Elon Musk in figuring out how to efficiently produce things for spacefaring and the settlement of Mars. I can bet he is following all this closely.
Final thought – for places that have suffered a devastating loss of housing (such as Southern California exactly a year ago because of the fires), being able to produce attractive homes at scale for people seems to have a lot of appeal. And, er, that’s where the horrible politics comes in. To date, only a fraction of the number of houses lost have been replaced. That is a shameful state of affairs, and one for which the local politicians deserve to pay a high price.
|
Who Are We? 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.
|
