Randomly Selected Article or Link

We've seen much over recent weeks about how awful the City has been. How banks have made rash dodgy loans. Short sellers, overpaid executives and whatever else...

But I'll let you into a little secret: for every loan there is both a lender, perhaps a dodgy spiv with too high a bonus to be sure, but just as importantly there has also to be a borrower.

We have seen a little po-faced political bemoaning of the culture of consumer debt, but this unsecured credit - spending money - does not appear to be the primary debt that has caused this collapse. With few exceptions, when the banks talk about the sub-prime loans lying like a half-dead half-back at the base of a maul, they are talking about mortgages. Are not these borrowers to be condemned in equal proportion? Did the bankers force them to borrow? Are not they just as greedy, in their own way, as the bankers making themselves rich on those borrowers' seeming insatiable demands for more money? Maybe these are the real "sub-prime loons" that are really responsible for bringing our economies near to systemic collapse?

Of course it would be electoral suicide to lay so much blame on the ordinary "Joe Sixpack, the hockey mom". And indeed it would be quite wrong to do so. For most of those mortgage borrowers, perhaps especially what has become known, horribly disparagingly, as the "sub-prime" borrowers, were being completely rational. Rational, that is, in an utterly irrational system. And the results of that rational behaviour are now serving to highlight just how irrational the system is.

Indeed, it is so utterly irrational a system that those borrowers we might want instinctively accuse of being the least rational - those whose chances of paying off the large loans were the smallest - are in fact the most rational. Because in that mad upward spiral of house prices, those still left renting would be the worst hit. The urgency of getting out of renting and fixing your future housing costs at today's rates is all the more pressing.

Because here's the second little secret for tonight: we all rent.

This may seem counter-intuitive in a world where 70% of folk "own" their home and most of the rest want to. If you are, or can recall when you were, on the point of making the transition from renting to buying the first time, this will be easier to understand. One of the factors in your decision to stop renting and to buy instead will have been whether the mortgage payments, as compared with your current rent payments, are reasonable value, over the length of time you expect to be needing to use that property.

Of course there are many other factors as well. Some in favour of ownership, such as being able to improve, redecorate or even trash the property, and having the prospect of capital growth. Some in favour of renting, such as not being responsible for all the maintenance, or not being stuck with a mill stone if you can't sell it when you need to move. And of course the supreme benefits: a. you don't need to charge yourself rent - after all you are paying for it anyway and b. if you get to the end of your payments okay, you get it rent free for as long as you like and still get to sell the rights to it hopefully at a tidy profit.

But as tradable assets, our properties are valued on the basis of the yield it could achieve to an investment buyer now, and their view of how that is going to change over the time they expect to hold the investment. And when we buy a home, what we are actually buying is the right to collect the rent on that property for several years ahead at a "fixed" price today that we think will benefit us. Few owner occupier buyers will probably think about it that clinically. They might instead look at local comparisons to assess what they ought to be willing to pay. But so long as there is a rental market, and since there are some disbenefits to ownership as noted above it is likely that there will always remain a rental market, the money-value to the market is going to be based on its current and future rental potential and the overall yield over the time an investor would expect to hold that property investment.

So, what rising house prices indicate is that investors believe that there are going to be higher returns in terms of future rent potential. And if you are still a tenant, higher returns to the landlord mean higher costs to you. So if it is economic to freeze the rent payments at or near today's levels for the foreseeable future, you definitely want to do so. This becomes a bubble because the effect of future expectations compounds itself. Throw in relatively cheap loans and people can afford more in the present to secure those expected future gains.

Okay, now having, I hope, got you thinking in terms of "rent" I want to get you thinking about the different components of this "rent".

Take two identical, some might call them identikit, homes. Two same model "Barratt boxes". Only one is in Kensington & Chelsea, the other in Blaenau Gwent. I choose them because they are the highest and the lowest respectively local authorities by "land value" in England and Wales. Three bedroom, 100 sq m and with a rebuild cost of £1500 per sq m. On the face of it, they ought to cost about the same to buy, somewhere around £150,000, but of course they don't, do they.

If you managed to find the same little plot in K&C as in Blaenau on which to place your "Barratt box" you'd probably find that in Blaenau it would cost next to nothing - probably a couple of thousand pound per plot, for the trouble of clearing it! But in K&C it would cost several million and probably wouldn't be worth your while putting that Barratt box on it! In fact, in the recent purchase of Chelsea Barracks by the Candy brothers, which was reported as £959m for 12.8 acres, your average tenth of an acre plot would set you back a cool £7.3 million.

In fact, the Chelsea Barracks site is a good one to look at, since it will not involve criticizing the "poor widow" for not developing her prime land, but the government! What did the government, the Ministry of Defence do to make that barracks land so valuable? It certainly wasn't its former use as a barracks! It's not because it was a barracks that makes it an in demand site. But because of all the economic and social activity that goes on around the site. In fact, once upon a time, as a barracks, no doubt the site would have attracted the usual motley collection of military hangers on - whore-houses, bars and so on - it may even have depressed local land values initially, but certainly for the past few decades holding it out of its more productive use has meant other local prices have been pushed higher than they would be if all that land had been used productively.

In fact, the proportion of the "rent" due to the value of the building, the same sort of building as in Blaenau, is a tiny fraction of the overall rent. The rest is due to the location. The popularity of a location which is made up of dozens of factors, but centres around the fact that there are hundreds, thousands, of people who could beneficially make use of that location to be nearer work, social and other opportunities created by the surrounding community.

Now, here's the easy part to remember. What Land Value Taxers want to see, from David Ricardo, Adam Smith, J S Mill, Henry George to Lloyd-George, Churchill, Asquith and many others to the present day, is that the portion of the rent a property yields due to its location, and not the building on it, should be collected by the community and redistributed amongst the community instead of privatised by the highest bidder (or in some cases still the person with the most brutal land grabbing ancestor!), shored up by cheap bank loans. It is rent due to its monopoly as a good location that many people could make use of rather than any effort of the landowner.

In an LVT based tax system, when you "buy" your home, you'd be buying the right to collect the rent for the building alone. This is something you as an owner can affect, through your diligence or negligence in maintaining it or in building something of higher density on the same site. In the language that a typical home buyer will understand better, we want you to pay the £150,000 for the Barratt box to Barratt or the previous occupier, but you pay the remainder, the rent caused by its location, in annually assessed chunks, to the state instead of paying taxes on the earnings from your economically productive labour.

You can already, I hope, see the advantages. This bubble we have lived through over the past decade, the angst of people priced out of the market stressing about if they ever will get out of renting, the ballooning of borrowing that now threatens the very system that created it, will be things of the past. For as long as you can justify paying the location rent given the benefits that particular location gives you nobody can shift you. If that rent rises it is a sign that more and more people are being excluded from land that they might make more productive use of than you. Why should you be able to exclude them for as long as you like and then also reap a massive profit from having cost so many others much money "avoiding" your plot?

Instead of that home in Kensington & Chelsea costing you £7.35 million up front, it'll cost you £150,000 or so up front, which you can borrow to pay for if you need to, and a hefty annual location rent bill instead of both the remaining £7.2 m mortgage it would have cost you to buy the location up front and your income and other taxes on productive labour. Your disposable income is likely to be maybe 30% higher just for losing those income taxes. You can save in a wider range of productive assets for your future than just the monopolistic endeavour of owning a popular, or up and coming location. You may even choose to save so you can continue to pay the location rent when you stop earning for whatever reason - though most would probably find it just as good to save for an income in retirement and to downsize or move so that someone else can have the benefit of the local school you no longer use, the local rail station you no longer commute from and whatever other factors have made your location a popular one and for the proximity of which you would continue to pay even after you have stopped using them.

In the lingo, this is called creating "free land". Returning it to common ownership and paying as you go to occupy the bit that most suits you at any particular time of your life.

Even apart from the source of government revenue this would provide (though some of us would prefer to see the rent collected and simply doled out to all citizens in that community as a community dividend, a basic universal non-withdrawable income in place of most cash benefits) it fundamentally shifts the burden away from working and producing and onto inefficient use of scarce resources.

It is essential in an environmentally responsible regime, because it makes the choice of whether to live close and not pollute by commuting or to live far and spend a fortune in travel costs, more available to more people.

And it is essential in a liberal regime, as it gives people a choice in the "taxes" they pay - the tax savvy will soon work out that if they can spot an up and coming area that still meets their needs early they will pay less tax and watch the services there get better as others catch on, until it reaches some kind of equilibrium again. And it stop people making monopoly profits out of excluding others from what we all need access to - a location to base ourselves at.

This would be so much more than just a "tax switch" though - it would so fundamentally change the fairness, equit, economic justice for millions of people who, knowingly or not, are trapped in a system that takes money from them to line the pockets of landowners, the ranks of whom are getting ever more distant for many people all the time.

Following on the theme from my post this morning about how we could protect data about us held by agencies of the state by using a sort of a personal key and PIN like your bank's call centre has to validate with you before they can access your data, my mind wandered onto other uses for such a key.

It has been a recurring theme in this blog that the internet in particular and modern communications in general represent a great threat to the balance of power between states (and incidentally also global "intermediary" corporations) and their citizens. I say threat, but it's only a threat if you are in a position of power in a state or corporation seeking to continue to exert control over your citizens. Indeed, for the individual, it is the greatest potential opportunity, and the vehicle by which Richard Cobden's quote at the top of this blog's front page may become reality: "Peace will come to earth when the people have more to do with each other and governments less."

Many of our institutions - governments, trans-national corporations, even currency - evolved to deal with issues of trust between people who would likely never have personal contact with each other in ever more remote markets. When trading, you've got to be able to trust that you will be paid for example - one person's "IOU" is not as good a guarantee as piece of paper endorsed collectively by an entire state - a national currency.

But we have an ever increasing range of other innovations to help us trust each other; developments that are increasing quickly with the advance of the internet. We can access our credit files, we can buy digital certificates that help give others confidence to trade with us over the web because they guarantee we are who we say we are and so on. So why not shift these into the "real world".

Why do we actually need, say, a passport to travel across borders, issued by a nation state, when we could have just as secure a guarantee of who we are through some kind of personal digital certificate from an organization bearing the risk, with strong encryption embedded in it? The British government keeps trying to sweeten its totalitarian ID card scheme by telling us, amongst other things, that it will make proving our identity to others in all sorts of transactions much easier. But in fact the history of government involvement in protecting the source data of those identities is appalling, and, as the technology gets more pervasive it seems to be getting worse.

How much confidence can you have in a government issued identity mechanism when so much data has gone missing already? Those identities are, thanks to state incompetence, all but worthless. Of course that's why, partly at least, they want to take biometric data. But in computer security it is generally accepted that being able to produce "something you have" (say a credit card or internet digital certificate) and "something you know" - a password, PIN, or private digital encryption key is far better than ony one or other of these pieces of information on its own. So far as I can see the ID card system, or the passport, with or without a national identity register, does not fulfill both of these - only the former. It is inherently weaker than the commercially available alternatives.

So, why not replace the need for passports issued by a state with identity mechanisms authenticated by trusted corporate or social organizations for whom financial success or failure rests on people being able to trust the people they certify. So you could have a personal account with Thawte as the primary guarantor, for example, and that certificate could be counter-signed by a certificate from other organizations, such as governments, who want to "mark your card" as one of their citizens, granting you the protections normally written on a passport.

It's not easy to get some of these certification authorities to guarantee your bona fides. You need often as much verification as you do to get a passport with other trusted people verifying who you are and so on. But you would not need to give these data to the poroous security mechanisms of the state which has proved beyond any reasonable doubt that they cannot keep the information secure, nor does it offer the other benefit of a private contract - the ability to sue the ass off them if they damage your reputation or security by losing your data - or the corporate incentive of only being able to make a profit if you actually deliver on what people expect of you.

And you also get a choice of how strong you want the certification to be. If it's only guaranteeing small personal trades for example, you may only need to spend a few pounds and fill in a quick web form, validate your address and you're in business. If you want to travel overseas, or deal in bigger sums, or trade with distant counterparties, you may want stronger levels of guarantee and pay accordingly. It's a global standard pretty well too. So you'd have no problems using it to prove your identity in all sorts of applications - travel, trade, opening a bank account, starting a company, getting insurance, benefits, accessing what little data about you the state actually needs and so on - none of which would need to be on any single central database owned by a bunch of data-incontinents like the government is proving to be with the attendant dangers of losing all your data at once.

So, you see, we no longer even need governments to help us prove who we are. And in fact they appear to be singularly bad at doing so. The threat inherent in this is that the currently all powerful state needs to be able to do this, or it loses control of its citizens. And they are shit scared of that. If we are not mindful, in their lust to maintain that power they will get immensely more authoritarian and intrusive. The time is coming when we will no longer need them. We must do all we can to hasten that day before they get their claws in too deep into these emerging trust mechanisms.

This is something I've been meaning to write for months, but was particularly prompted to do so by a program on BBC last week about surviving the house price downturn. One guy had built himself a property portfolio worth about £8m (about £5m of which was debt) from a standing start renting a single room in a three bedroom house share five years ago.

He stated, correctly of course, that any numptie can make a killing while everything's rising, but it takes skill to do so in the uncertainty we are now in. His current ploy is to drop leaflets on people in areas where negative equity may be about to bite offering stretched home owners the chance to sell out quickly to him, at a deep discount, but continue renting the same home and with a guaranteed option to buy back again at a pre-agreed premium when things look better.

This sort of thing has long gone on, particularly in the "right to buy" market - albeit with some differences - unscrupulous bucket shop lenders go round offering to lend those who would not get a mortgage enough to buy their council home who then have trouble with their mortgage payments, they offer them a "rent-back" deal which is only just less than the mortgage payments so what they were paying £70 a week for as a council house in which they had no equity was now costing them double that still with no equity.

Anyway - many of you will know that I "run" a group called Oxfordshire Community Land Trusts , which is a mechanism for delivering more affordable housing for the "intermediate market" - those stuck above the income levels that would justify the deep subsidy of social rented housing but below a level that they can afford to get on the ownership ladder. Basically it works by the CLT owning the land and not crystalizing out the gain in land value on every transaction. People pay what they are judged to be able to afford rather than related to the home they need - I would pay nearly full market rates for a one bed flat whilst a family on half my income would get their three bed needs met on half my payments. But I would get twice as much equity as they do. Effectively we are all subsidizing each other through the Mutual Home Ownership Society that takes on the long term debt for the development and which all the residents join.

And earlier in the year we were asked whether this was still an attractive option in a falling market. Obviously it changes the landscape somewhat. Now perhaps more of a problem is that people who could afford to buy outright are unable to get mortgages through no fault of their own. Indeed this could be a boon to the CLT market, because we could find ourselves with more better off residents who would therefore be able to subsidize even lower income houses (it all works on averaging out the total payments you see).

But also by tweaking the model, from a development model to an acquisition model, I believe we could help out those over-stretched households currently prey to the man I mentioned above and with a long term benefit to the success of future CLT projects. In this scenario, the CLT would buy up houses and convert them into mutual ownership. The occupant instead of having to rent from the profiteering speculator landlord would get to keep whatever equity their current circumstances allow them to commit to with the CLT effectively holding the balance. As circumstances change, the household could buy back extra equity (without themselves actually having to borrow anything - Mutual Home Ownership looks more like rent from the occupants' perspective).

What we need to make this happen is access to funds - not necessarily large funds - just a revolving facility that allows us to step in quickly when a household is in distress and lenders start to take action against them - we get them the money to pay off all or most of their distressed borrowing and then the Mutual Home Ownership Society borrows against its commercial facility to take on the house itself with the household's new calculated affordable commitment.

Who has such funds? Well, local authorities have a duty nowadays to try to prevent homelessness, not just deal with it after the fact. Such a scheme has got to be a more efficient use of public money than say, Vince Cable's idea of getting councils to reward previous speculative build by buying direct from builders and converting them to social rented housing (I don't think it's a bad idea - just that mine is better!). Even existing lenders might find it more attractive to convert the loan to a MHOS than to repossess.  In the longer run the CLT ends up with more freehold land that would eventually, when the housing on it has reached its planned end of life be theirs to redevelop in the interests of the local community at that time and in the meantime the distressed owners get to keep their existing home, albeit with lower equity levels and lower debt levels.

Dare I even suggest that this might be a better way to spend $700bn than rewarding the bankers who helped cause the problem in the first place?  Julia Goldsworthy , get in touch if you want to know more!

I don't get to go to conference. It's always freshers week here at university and I get to give my one speech of the year to a crowd of a couple of hundred steadily drinking freshers who don't want to hear what I have to say and this year were crushed to hear that the arrivals meeting took up the first half hour of the Arsenal-Man United game.

But lame as I am, after a weekend working and with next weekend on duty, I decided my brain felt already a bit like I imagine an egg feels when it realises its next role is as an ommlette and I belatedly took today off work (leave, not sick). And so I was able to see at least part of the Lib Dem conference debate on the Tax Commission proposals on quarter of a TV screen on my set top box.

They say every journey starts with a single step, and it will be no surprise to people who know me as a Georgist "Single Taxer" nowadays to hear that personally I think that the Tax Commission's work has been just that first step. And what a debate. I am glad to be in a party in which such steps are taken democratically, with full and frank debate, with opposing views heard and applauded. But party is only part of the story.

Whether or not Ming's leadership was on the line, however, were they to have voted for Evan Harris's 50% amendment, I very much doubt. Other people do not seem to understand liberal leadership and make everything a test of strength (and let's face it, the Tax Commission was not Ming's vehicle but the party's, triggered by Charles Kennedy after the last election and well on its way to a final report before Ming became leader). I do think my own membership would have been on the line, though, because whilst we might have taken that first step, for me we would have instantly withdrawn our foot and it would have become an uncertain shuffle.

Gareth Epps mentioned in his speech that he was in the party to win elections, and that was what the party also needed to do more than anything, and that "economic purists" were unlikely to achieve that because "economic purism" is difficult to sell to people. Far more difficult, to him and many others, than by maintaining an easily understood totem indicating where our hearts are - that we can and would take from the best off to help the worst off. But it was a totem that, had it been retained, would have been at 180 degree opposition to the economic theory of the rest of the paper, of shifting the burden of taxation off people and onto resource use and depletion. The beginning of the end of the peonage of taxing the results of our efforts and enterprise.

So maybe a political party is not the place for me at all. I don't want to win elections (and I have a fair amount of practice at not doing so to prove it...:) - I only want to change the world. And I don't really believe that politicians change the world. Winning elections may give them the opportunity to do so, but rarely does it actually seem to happen. It's ideas that change the world. And watching today's conference debate made me realise that selling even the most modest ideas to a democratic body is an almost superhuman task. And one left to far better salesmen, demagogues and the occasional spiv than I will ever be.

As I wrote back in spring, Anthony Fisher, Ralph Harris and Arthur Seldon became my unlikeliest of political heros when I discovered the history of their part in selling an idea, probably the last idea to revolutionize western politics, to the politicians that actually began to understand and appreciate it and try to implement it. Of course, I could be cynical and suggest that that idea, monetarism, morphed into nothing more than another opportunity for one party to gain an electoral edge. One wonders whether, if Conservative policy in the seventies had been set the way Liberal Democrat policy was today through such open and democratic means, a room full of people would have understood John Hoskyns's Stepping Stones plan (was that its name?) let alone approved of it, or whether it was more a case of strong leadership and a conjunction of celestial bodies taking control behind the scenes.

Anyway, back to the debate today. There were many comments, from both sides of the debate, about being proud of Lloyd-George a century ago and of his peoples' budget. So am I. But I remind everyone that a large and probably the most radical part of that budget was never implemented. A radical idea that many of us, including several members of the Tax Commission itself, are still fighting for while many others who invoke L-G have probably forgotten or never even knew he stood for! Land Value Tax.

It was good to hear Mike Williams who chaired the Tax Commission highlight it as an area we wanted to do more work and produce new policy for as soon as possible. I was sad to hear him say that there are no silver bullets, because those of us who are convinced by the "Single Tax" do believe it is just such a killer application. In the debate over whether to tax incomes or asset wealth it would be worth some of those in favour of the 50 pence rate to consider why L-G was never able to implement it; the implacable opposition of the wealthiest and most advantaged in the land and "their representatives" in the House of Lords and what they gave away - no less than the right to govern - in order to ensure it wasn't implemented.

Today the party took a small step. It wrapped it up in cuddly, saleable, spinnable terms like "Green Tax Switch" which will serve it well. But it has yet truly to grasp the fairness, simplicity and philosophical superiority of the Single Tax idea, shifting away from the envy and arbitrariness of taxing personal success completely and onto externalities and economic rent. Shifting the whole rationale for the state's interference in what we do with what we make into the stewardship of the resources we share and take and use.

In the process, Land Value Tax would, almost incidentally, achieve more environmentally sustainable patterns of living and working, a better distribution of the wealth generating capacity around the country and create a system that puts more responsibility and freedom to choose back to the individual and community and away from the monolithic state apparatus. The next steps may be harder. They could and should go way beyond the 5% of the total tax burden that this paper switches - the more the more effective. But they head where Liberals should not fear to tread.

Maybe I'm a "man out of time" but nothing in politics makes me more nauseous than Tony Blair or David Cameron strutting around seemingly proclaiming their unique ability to govern. To me, even as a Catholic who you might think would be more used to authority and conscientious obedience to such a figure, the leader, whether of party or government, should be no more than "primus inter pares" and probably more administrator-in-chief pulling together the ideas and energies of those around him or her.

And so I was already in the mood to comment on Linda Jack's blog on Friday, outlining a paper that went to FPC stressing that we needed our "Narrative" (what?) to hook into Ming as leader. But now I presume that paper is the one by Greg Simpson ("head of policy and research" for the Lib Dems) that's been leaked to the Independent and about which Andrew Grice has written at some length today.

This seems to have met with some approbation, not least by Linda herself again, but also so far with Paul Walter on his own blog and Richard Huzzey writing at Lib Dem Voice. So I'm going to be slightly contrary and demur from this Ming-fest. Not because I don't believe Ming capable of it. Far from it. I think he has more wisdom on his shoulders than Blair and Cameron combined - and some of the more intemperate and personal remarks that always surface about him after a policy announcement say to me that many have no counter to him other than ad hominem.

But I do not believe that pandering to the cult of celebrity that has permeated politics as much as our prime time television is the radical liberal way to "re-establish in the minds of voters the 'anti-establishment' core of our liberal philosophy." Indeed, I'd say that one of our weaknesses as a party continues to be not that the leader is invisible, but that voters have even less idea of who else might be in a Lib Dem government than they do of a Tory or Labour government. SImon Hughes can't do everything you know! Okay, that's a bit harsh - many of our front bench team are getting better coverage than ever previously - but you know what I mean.

Our credentials for government do not stand alone on some "narrative" centered on the leader (I've still to work out what this actually means, and I think "ideology" is sufficient). A leader who is already (and in some circles for a long time before he even became leader) the most recognized figure, but on the radicalism of the whole party.

We are already way out of my personal "comfort zone" by being too pedestrian, not radical and not liberal enough. If Greg's advice is important it is in his exhortation to be more radical. But it applies to us all. And the way we choose not to thrust forward a leader as some kind of party champion or "born to govern" chief like Cameron can be part of that radicalism. I hope we don't join the cult of personality crowd that this advice seems to advocate, though I don't doubt Ming is up to the task were we to.

Technorati Tags: narrative, radicalism, lib dems, ming campbell