free market

Libertarians: torch bearers for big business?

Jock — Tue, 11 Nov 2008 02:00:43 +0000

You know who you are. Those liberals (in particular) who always claim that "libertarian free markets" will result in a corporate plutocracy, or that the current turmoil in world financial markets (yes, it's still going on you know!) is a result of "libertarian free markets". Here, especially for you (but of interest to others I hope too), is a brilliant explanation of how this mutualist understands that free markets benefit people, not corporations.

CORPORATIONS VERSUS THE MARKET; OR, WHIP CONFLATION NOW

by RODERICK LONG - LEAD ESSAY - November 10th, 2008

Defenders of the free market are often accused of being apologists for big business and shills for the corporate elite. Is this a fair charge?

No and yes. Emphatically no—because corporate power and the free market are actually antithetical; genuine competition is big business’s worst nightmare. But also, in all too many cases, yes —because although liberty and plutocracy cannot coexist, simultaneous advocacy of both is all too possible.

Read the rest... read more »

Libertarian Alliance Conference, 2008 (Part II)

Jock — Tue, 28 Oct 2008 02:01:20 +0000

If there were a few comments after dinner on Saturday night at the NLC with new acquaintances, maybe even friends, about how little of the days' talks actually helped some of them understand Libertarianism as an idea (after all, the links between aging and nano-technology and Libertarianism could have been obscure without a primer in Libertarian philosophy first) Sunday began with something that more people would recognize as a Libertarian issue...

Session 5: Ban the Ban: The Human Cost of Prohibition by Dr John Meadowcroft
Session 6: The Idea of a Private Law Society by Prof Hans-Hermann Hoppe
Session 7: The Modern Panopticon State v Freedom: Why State ID Cards are Bad by Guy Herbert of NO2ID
Session 8: Post-modernity and Liberty by Marc-Henri Glendinning

Session 5: Ban the Ban: The Human Cost of Prohibition by Dr John Meadowcroft

Meadowcroft lectures on Public Policy at King's College London and has recently edited a book called "Prohibitions" for the Institute of Economic Affairs examining the effects of the outlawing in various parts of the world of a variety of what may be regarded as "victimless" or "consensual" goods, services and activities such as recreational drugs, boxing, firearms, pornography, prostitution, alcohol and others.

He showed how in every case the outcome for the users, consumers or participants as well as the wider community is almost always worse than the effects of that which is outlawed. These arguments should be familiar to most of my readers, for I have rehearsed them, at least in respect of recreational drugs, often enough. The handing of lucrative markets to organized crime, the lack of knowledge, information and harm minimization facilities to users, the side effects of this crime on others in the community, the corruption of public officials and so on.

It was interesting in particular to see how murder rates seem, possibly coincidentally of course, to have risen and show consistent continuing rises after the banning of guns in most countries including the UK, since this is an area I know even some Libertarians (including myself until recently) find quite difficult to argue.

Consequently, he argues, prohibition is bad public policy. Rather than assisting in preventing harm it always increases harm from things that are essentially, in the classical Liberal sense, none of the state's business - what you do with your own bodies and lives which by and large do not affect others, except with consent.

I notice that, as they apparently do with all their publications, the IEA has sent a copy of "Prohibitions" to every Member of Parliament. I am sure their mailbags are full of this somewhat higher quality of "junk mail" as no doubt some of them see it and one wonders how many of them have read it, or even passed it onto their staff to read it and brief them on it. I shall be asking Lib Dem MP Tom Brake in particular, currently embroiled in an illiberal attempt to further curtail the availability of cannabis seeds against party policy, what he thought of the book and how it affected his decision to press ahead with his ill-advised private member's bill or whatever device he used.

Over the summer, in the run up to party conference in September, a number of us noted that, for a supposedly liberal party in which one might expect prohibitions to be roundly condemned as a matter of course, that we do not have a party group, association, "ginger group" whatever you want to call it, dedicated to fighting the seeming increasing tendency by our own policy makers to join in with orgies of "bansturbation". One thing I am hoping to do is to start a group "Lib Dems Against Prohibition" and perhaps try and get a motion into Harrogate conference on the issue. Watch this space. Maybe we can get Meadowcroft up to speak at a launch event.

Following Meadoowcroft came an eagerly anticipated session by someone regarded by many, it seemed, as something of a high priest of Libertarianism, and judging by the little informal gatherings in coffee afterwards, he certainly had some new acolytes in the room...

Session 6: The Idea of a Private Law Society by Prof Hans-Hermann Hoppe

I had long understood that there was a school of thought, anarchist to the core, that you don't even need to have "law enforcement" handled by the state - for many, particularly the Classical Liberals, the idea of a "minimal state" includes, more or less, only law and order and perhaps national defence as legitimate functions of that state.

Hoppe disagrees. And disagrees compellingly with answers to what might seem the most convincingly argued objections. I will definitely want to blog further about this, so I'll keep it quite brief here. Basically he argues that this Classical Liberal vision of a minimal state is a logical impossibility. Since by its very definition the state has the "territorial monopoly on arbitration" it has no incentive to minimize itself. Since it is enforcement, judge, jury and executioner all rolled into one, it has every incentive to increase the number of things it criminalizes to justify its own existence.

Instead, he posits the idea of a "Private Law" society in which individuals insure themselves against the aggression of others (in the widest possible sense - from breaches of contract to physical violence) in a free market of insurance providers (remember that we will have, effectively, abolished the state and certainly its ability to grant monopoly and protection to such providers). In the purest free market they will always have the incentive to pursue violators of the core maxim of non-aggression on behalf of their clients. And when disputes arise between insurers, counter-claims and the like, competing providers of arbitration (appeal) services also have an incentive to produce objectively fair outcomes. Their clients also have the greatest incentives to be themselves non-aggressors - to abuse a familiar phrase you would lose your no claims bonus if you biffed someone!

It probably needs more explanation than can be given here and as I say I want to blog about this more, because he certainly convinced me. I do, of course, have a certain disagreement with him about rights in landed property in particular that I need to think on and try and reconcile, but it a compelling vision of how a truly free society unencumbered by a monopolistic state could be considerably fairer and lead to much less rather than more confrontation and aggression simply because of the financial incentives involved.

I think it probably leaves me with one area of policy to explore further and understand better before I can call myself an individualist-anarchist - welfare, but this one is a significant step towards that! If I remember this conference for just one thing, it will have been Hoppe's contribution, I am sure. And inspired choice of speaker whom we were extremely lucky to get hold of who explained what will for many be one of the far outer reaches of Libertarianism that even many "hard core" Libertarians will have been challenged by I suspect.

And so, from the most theoretical talk of the weekend to what must be one of the most pressing issues for anyone concerned about our liberty in a very practical sense here in the UK...

Session 7: The Modern Panopticon State v Freedom: Why State ID Cards are Bad by Guy Herbert of NO2ID

Again, this session deserves a blog post of its own, and so I will keep this brief. Most of us in the room were I am sure already pretty united in our opposition to the National ID card program being prosecuted by the Labour government. But for me, however strong that opposition, it has largely been from the heart - the "I am a Liberal and I am against this sort of thing" of Clarence Henry Wilcock in 1950 quoted by Nick Clegg in his leadership campaign and since.

Guy Herbert provided the intellectual ammunition for me argue from the head and not just the heart, to understand the sinister machinations in government, and especially the bureaucracy that have attempted to foist this controlling policy on us for most of the last century. Indeed, I came away with the distinct impression that the Leviathan has been trying this for decades and all that is new is that they have finally found a government stupid or naive enough to swallow its arguments and agree to it!

At its heart, the National Identity Register (the database) is the most important issue (this much I knew, but perhaps not why). The state seeks to create the "single source of truth about the citizen", to fundamentally revolutionize the very definition of personhood, from independent individual, who is known through the various connections and activities they do to one in which it is only possible legitimately to exist with the permission of the state and the possession of its membership card.

The superficially beneficial arguments for having ID cards; that they will make your dealings with the state from which you benefit - welfare, health and so on, more efficient; that you will be better able to prove who you are in a whole range of circumstances; and, the worst, that it will help in the "War on Terror" - we've all heard them, and they do give the idea of a policy intended to help us - are not only superficial, but that the real agenda is not actually understood by most of the politicians charged with selling the idea to us.

That real agenda is about control and knowledge, the most intricate web of knowledge about every one of us. It seems likely, for example, that we will need to present our ID to rent hotel rooms, to buy mobile phones, to get bank accounts, insurance, perhaps even to rent your home, and that every time your ID is checked in one of these situations that will be logged against your entry in the National Identity Register. It will so fundamentally alter the balance between the state and the individual that it can be properly termed totalitarian. And even if implemented y people with benign motives is hugely open to abuse, both now in the sense of incompetence as the government has shown in data loss scandals over the past year and in the future in the hands of who knows what flavour of government with more sinister agendas.

Forget the politicians' assurances that safeguards will be implemented. Even since it was announced the functions the database will fulfill have ballooned more than most of us appreciate, can be extended without reference to parliament and are almost entirely in the hands of bureaucrats who do want to know every last thing about you in their area of responsibility. It is truly scary, sinister stuff, and as I say I will return to it again no doubt. And the worst part of it of course is that many, even most people accept the platitudes of politicians that this will be good for us.

I believe it is no longer acceptable for those political parties and individuals who say they oppose ID Cards and the ID Register to have little blog buttons or mere "oppositional" press releases, or "stunts" like saying we will go to jail rather than register for one, we have to up our arguments and explain more precisely the menacing revolution that the whole project threatens. If you only watch one video from the conference, I urge you to watch this one and like me, hopefully learn about the real agenda in more depth, and be appalled!

And so to the final session....

Session 8: Post-modernity and Liberty by Marc-Henri Glendinning

No disrespect to Marc-Henri Glendinning but I confess after all the excitement of Hoppe and the surge of anger generated by Herbert, it seemed a little surreal to end the day with post-modernist philosophy and, whilst I certainly wasn't switched off by this stage I will need to watch this session again to understand it and be able to comment on it more fully!

I did pick up on the general idea that (at least the vanguard and leadership of) the statist left have metamorphosized from what was at least an intellectually honest and fundamentally well-meaning promotion of socialist redistribution with an image of a fairer society, to one which is superficially much more "cuddly", that seems to provide succour and answers to everyone in a supposedly more free mixed economy and society but which masks a more insidious creeping totalitarianism that is anything but benign, putting the state at the centre and subjugate the individual. Beyond that, though, I will need to revisit the session to tell you any more.

And so ended one of the most intellectually stimulating and varied weekends I have ever had I think. I will need, as I said, one of David Friedman's nano-bot enhanced brains I think to be able to really thoroughly cogitate on the many ideas, some new to me, some just newly explained, I got out of the whole event. And I have material enough to keep my blogging controversial enough till next year's conference!

Everyone who helped arrange the weekend and all the speakers are to be commended, and the rest of the audience helped make it a convivial weekend in all sorts of ways in the formal sessions and in the more informal breaks and dinner. The "broad church" of Libertarianism was there for all to see, and I only wish that we could have had more Lib Dems there, perhaps ones skeptical about Libertarianism, for I am sure they would have had many of their misconceptions - in particular that Libertarianism is some selfish right wing "beggar thy neighbour" creed dispelled. read more »

drugs laws, surveillance state

Libertarian Alliance Conference, 2008 (part I)

Jock — Mon, 27 Oct 2008 02:54:11 +0000

I've just spent a fantastic weekend in the hallowed halls of the National Liberal Club at the annual Libertarian Alliance conference. If, like me, you see yourself as more of a theoretical policy wonk doing the background stuff of coming up with ideas, rather than the rather more practical work of debating actual proposals and then selling them on the doorstep, this was the perfect sort of a conference. A little like spending an entire party conference in the various fringe events where hand picked speakers with great ideas to sell challenge the little gray cells rather than in the sort of "win or lose" arguments over specific policy proposals of the main conference debates.

Yes, since going to Lib Dem conferences over the past few years, I have found the latter enjoyable, I don't think I've been on the winning side of a controversial debate yet, but this sort of event is where, I think, policies are incubated and born out of ideas presented by people with brains the size of several planets each or you gain the intellectual ammunition with which to turn that losing streak in policy debates into winning arguments.

I've come away from it with both many new acquaintances, a reading list that will probably take me till doomsday to get through and enough controversial ideas to keep my many sceptical Lib Dem friends arguing till, oh, next year's LA conference. I shall work up several ideas into blog posts of their own in the forthcoming weeks and months but to start with I thought I'd give a quick overview of the sessions and speakers. All the sessions were being filmed and will eventually appear on the LA website to refer to so if I fail miserably to pass the essential detail on, you'll be able to watch the originals should you wish...

Session 1 - The Defeat of of Aging: Our Ultimate Freedom? by Dr Aubrey de Gray
Session 2 - Future Shock: Three Perspectives on Freedom in the Twenty First Century with James Panton, Sean Gabb and Martin Summers
Session 3 - "The Global Rise of Private Education for the Poor: A Libertarian Perspective" by James Stansfield
Session 4 - Future Imperfect: Tech Revolutions That Might Happen and Their Consequences by David Friedman

Session 1 - The Defeat of of Aging: Our Ultimate Freedom? by Dr Aubrey de Gray

Aubrey is a fun, and at times controversial, biologist at Cambridge University working on the science of "fixing" the aging process. There are, apparently, two conventional approaches to dealing with the problems of aging. Basically, at the moment, from the moment we are created we start storing up the means of our own death. The very processes that keep us alive, metabolism, causes damage in our cells and throughout our bodies. That damage builds up until the body can no longer prevent it becoming one of the many illnesses associated with aging and that eventually, if we are not killed first by an external event, it will kill us. Globally, 100,000 out of the 150,000 people who die each day die of these conditions, which can be and usually are extremely unpleasant, often very painful and upsetting both for the sufferers and those who witness it - loved ones and carers.

One "school" of dealing with aging, "geriatrics" focuses on trying to prevent that damage becoming pathology ie developing the illnesses that will kill us. But it is ultimately futile. It is not repairing or removing the damage, just holding back the time it takes to become dangerous to us. And we cannot do that indefinitely.

The other traditional approach, "gerontology", focusses on trying to stop metabolism creating the damage in the first place. It sounds more promising, until you realise how little we actually know about metabolism. There is just so much that we cannot yet understand enough to prevent it causing damage, and therefore eventually pathology.

But there is a third, emerging approach that focuses on maintenance. De Gray made the analogy of a car - if you maintain it rigourously you can make it last more or less forever. And so this approach to aging focuses on repairing and eradicating the damage and maintaining cells. Repairing the damage means it does not build up enough to become pathology. As science, mostly microbiology, is constantly evolving, the types of damage we can repair increase. And because we are acting on the observable damage, there are a finite number of types of damage to focus on. We can see the damage metabolism creates much better than we understand the processes that lead to the damage.

De Gray and his team believe that at a very conservative estimate of the rate of development of the techniques required to repair various types of damage (some are easier, some still distant dreams of course) within 42 years we could have the ability to extend life by thirty years by repairing half of the types of damage we observe. So the current assumption is that the first person who will be able to live to 150 years old is already alive today and people currently in their thirties may be in time to have their lives extended by about thirty years over heir current life expectancy.

But as we move forward and discover mechanisms to deal with more types of damage, so we can repeat the "full body service" and begin to extend life out beyond the 150 years, indeed almost indefinitely. Again, given the rate of discovery, De Gray calculates that the first person to be able to live to 1,000 years will only be twenty years younger than the first person that will live to 150.

Such a prospect of course raises all sorts of issues, ethical, cost, policy and so on. But De Gray's conclusion was that given the amount of suffering that aging causes, and the costs to society of dealing with that suffering, we should not be put off from pursuing it. If, eventually, we have to answer some of the more difficult questions - what will the world's population look like if we can live effectively forever, and should we create ways in which someone can choose to end their otherwise perfectly healthy lives, that's something for the future.

And the cost of developing these techniques would appear to be minimal compared with even the cost of health care currently just in the UK. You can find out more, and importantly about how to help, financially and otherwise, at the "Methuselah Foundation" website.

Session 2 - Future Shock: Three Perspectives on Freedom in the Twenty First Century with James Panton, Sean Gabb and Martin Summers

I'm rather afraid that my relying on memory rather than taking copious notes will not do this session justice and it will be best to get the full picture from the recording of the session when it comes online. The speakers focussed on the many new ways in which our freedoms are being attacked and compromised, but more importantly on our apparent willingness to allow it to happen and unwillingness to protest against it. Even though theoretically, in a democracy, we are, sheep like in most cases, simply obeying and finding reasons to excuse the actions of those who would curtail our freedoms.

As I say, watch the video when it comes out.

After a very pleasant lunch with Tristan in the fascinating Ship & Shovell Pub just up the road in Craven Passage I'm afraid I was a few minutes late for the start of the session after lunch, "The Global Rise of Private Education for the Poor: A Libertarian Perspective" by James Stansfield , and decided to sit it out rather than disturb the room clattering in late, so both you and I will need to wait for the video! Or, there's a very good synopsis courtesy of the Oxford Libertarian Society blog .

Session 4 - Future Imperfect: Tech Revolutions That Might Happen and Their Consequences by David Friedman

Then came one of the great highlights of the whole weekend, a hugely entertaining session of futurology and technological ideas by David Friedman, son of Milton and Rose, and professor of Law at Santa Clara University. I just cannot do this fast paced entertaining session the justice it deserves in a few lines. It was based on the ideas in his new book, Future Imperfect, which you can get at Amazon, or if you are too mean, or just plain penurious, he has put it all online.

He covered areas I will probably blog about individually (when I have read the book), including privacy technology, law enforcement technology and how to get around it, reproductive technology (think Gattaca) and, most indelibly etched in my mind, nano technology. The main thought I came away with out of a myriad of interesting possibilities was "should we actually be worried about climate change if, within a few decades, we will have produced nanobots and artificial intelligence such that we will have obsoleted the human race!" - as Friedman put it, turned us into gerbils in the laboratories or even the Matrix, of self-aware super intelligent 'droids.

I chose to miss out the final, additional session of the day to meet up with Lib Dem activist from Ealing Toran Shaw for a drink before we all went into the dinner, but I will definately want to watch the video of the session and the Libertarian Alliance DVD on the subject of "The Great British Road Pricing Debate: Free Market Incrementalism or Just More State Control?" which is obviously currently a hugely important policy issue that has caused a lot of debate within the Lib Dems.

And so ended the main business of day one. I shall return to cover the very sociable dinner and day two, including such controversial issues as Hans-Hermann Hoppe on the idea of the "Private Law society" and Guy Herbert from NO2ID soon. read more »

For those of you who think you know all there is to know about libertarianism because neo-liberal Ronald Reagan said...

Jock — Sun, 26 Oct 2008 22:29:32 +0000

...that "government is the problem", or because anti-regulator Alan Greenspan named Ayn Rand as his biggest political influence, it's time you did some reading.

Each year the Libertarian Alliance awards the Chris R Tame Memorial Prize (named for the late founder of the Libertarian Alliance) for the best essay on a title chosen by its Director, Dr Sean Gabb, and this year's winner was announced this weekend at the Libertarian Alliance annual conference at the National Liberal Club - more on which in upcoming posts.

The Libertarian Alliance is the biggest grouping of the broad church known as Libertarianism in the UK, and this year's essay title was set just ahead of the main round of recent financial market troubles but focussing on the common idea that Libertarians would demolish the state, leaving what we currently know as big corporate capitalism to run amok. The full brief for contestants ran as follows:

Essay Title: "Can a Libertarian Society be Described as 'Tesco minus the State'?"

Explanatory Note

Many socialists and conservatives regard libertarians as cheerleaders for big business. Our belief in free enterprise is understood as support for the bigger, and therefore the more successful, corporations - General Motors, Microsoft, HSBC, Tesco, and so forth - and for an international financial system centred on the City of London.

Some libertarians are happy to be so regarded. They dislike the way in which big government provides opportunities for big business to acquire privileges that shelter it from competition. Even so, they believe that a world without government, or a world with much less government, would be broadly similar in its patterns of enterprise to the world that we now have. It would be much improved, but not fundamentally dissimilar.

Other libertarians disagree. They regard big business as fundamentally a creation of big government. Incorporation laws free entrepreneurs from personal risk and personal responsibility, and allow the growth of large business organisations that are bureaucratically managed. These organisations then cartellise their markets and externalise many of their costs. The result is systematic distortion of market behaviour from the forms it would take without government intervention. These libertarians often go further in their analysis by denying the legitimacy of intellectual property rights and ownership rights in land beyond what any individual can directly use.

Where do you stand in this debate? Are you broadly comfortable with a global capitalism that is raising billions of people from starvation towards affluence. Or are you a radical with a vision of a society that has never yet been tried and is as alien and even frightening to most people as anything promised by the Marxists.

You tell us.

No go and read the winning essay. Congratulations go to Keith Preston, for his entry entitled "Free enterprise: the antidote to corporate plutocracy"

But if you are too lazy to read the whole lot (c 3000 words - so no more than one of my usual posts!), it concludes...

"An economy organized on the basis of worker-owned and operated industries,peoples’ banks, mutuals, consumer cooperatives, anarcho-syndicalist labor unions, individual and family enterprises, small farms and crafts workers associations engaged in local production for local use, voluntary charitable institutions, land trusts, or voluntary collectives, communes and kibbutzim may seem farfetched to some, but no more so and probably less so than a modern industrial, high-tech economy where the merchant class is the ruling class and the working class is a frequently affluent middle class would have seemed to residents of the feudal societies of pre-modern times. If the expansion of the market economy, specialization, the division of labor, industrialization and technological advancements can bring about the achievements of modern societies in eradicating disease, starvation, infant mortality and early death, one can only wonder what a genuine free enterprise system might achieve, and would have already achieved were it not for the scourge of statism and the corresponding plutocracy. "

Now, you may still not be convinced that "government is the problem", but do us the decency of not conflating "deregulation" with "evil right wing global corporatism" and blaming "libertarianism" for the great big pile of dog-doo the state and economy is in right now. Especially those of you who claim to be Liberals, fellow travelers of Libertarianism for the past 150 years. read more »

Neither a borrower nor a lender be...

Jock — Fri, 10 Oct 2008 07:53:06 +0000

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. read more »

Short selling

Jock — Sun, 21 Sep 2008 21:48:24 +0000

There's been much talk, most of it at least tacitly approving, of the restrictions or bans imposed in the past few days on so called "short selling" company shares. Most of you probably don't know that my first career, straight out of school., was as a trader on the stock exchange, followed by stints in several stock-broker firms mostly in private client advice and fund management, before I got into IT - which was as a result of my city experience. That's all a bit apropos of nothing really. After all, you'd be right in thinking that if I had been successful in this first career I might now be funding a think tank or something. But it gives a little background to my knowledge of this issue.

Short sellers, per se, are not the problem here it seems to me. Indeed the stock exchange relies on players prepared to go short - that's what market makers are effectively obliged to be prepared to do when they make a price.

Short selling is also an important way of the market getting the information it needs to make accurate value assessments. Longer term shareholders may have more emotional reasons than pure profit to resist pressure. Even perhaps just inertia. Sometimes even tax considerations. Short selling is also a way in which holders of stock can increase their returns on the stock by renting it to the short sellers. Little risk to them.

In my day, you could short sell, effectively, for fourteen working days. The London Stock Exchange used to work on a fortnightly settlement cycle. So for example a deal you do tomorrow, if tomorrow was a new cycle, would not need to be settled until the Monday in the middle of the next fortnightly cycle. If you went short tomorrow, you could, potentially, buy back for cash settlement (a special, premium service for urgent trades that was settled the next trading day) as late as the Thursday night before settlement day - so giving you fourteen trading days to see the stock fall and buy it back.

Nowadays everything is more or less "cash settlement" with positions settled the next working day - hence the self limiting requirement to borrow stock to deliver on short positions.

No, there's nothing wrong with short selling. Once you realize that the secondary market is stocks and shares is a big gambling den in any case, how can you outlaw one type of gambler and not another.

The real problem, it seems to me, with the run on HBOS shares for example, blamed on "short sellers", is the idea that some market players, hedge funds were cited, were "hunting in packs". Now, it is conceivable that even if there's nothing wrong with the fundamental financial health of a company, such a "pack" could be strong enough to provoke a run on a stock simply by weight of numbers. This, however, would be market manipulation. It would be legal, ethical, and even just plain sensible, to suspend trading in a particular share, or even in the whole market, if there was such illegal manipulation going on, or suspected. If a suspension was unwarranted, there should still be the equivalent of a "stewards inquiry" to determine if there was manipulation, a cartel operating, and if so how to punish them.

If the fundamentals were bad for HBOS, and actually I suspect that they were worse than the financial watchdogs have been saying - otherwise opening their books would have been enough to disprove the rumours - then the short sellers simply administered the coup de grace a bit more humanely perhaps than dragging it out for weeks more uncertainty.

I very much suspect that some hedge funds and private equity fund managers do aggressively hunt in packs occasionally. The fact that the secondary market is a gambling den makes it likely. That needs investigating. Market procedures for suspending trading in a market in which the true value of a company has become impossible to assess immediately need looking at. But having a go at the short sellers, who could, after all, just be the people maintaining liquidity in a particular market, is simply creating a scape-goat. The authorities should be ashamed. read more »

"Corporatisation" of government functions does not transfer responsibility

Jock — Sun, 24 Aug 2008 04:10:40 +0000

...and is not "liberal" either.

There are often attempts by ministers (Jacqui Smith is mentioned in Sunday's Independent for example about the recent prisoner data loss) to shirk their responsibility for government cock-ups. There are also left wing commentators who crow that these incidents are clear proof that "neo-liberal" policies of "privatising" government functions are evil and should be stopped; that the "free market" does not work in the public sphere.

But I don't consider such contracting out of work as either liberal nor as implying that ministers are no longer responsible for their incompetence. Nor, even, are they truly "privatisation". To me the doctrine that says some things are better done by profit motivated companies (or other, non-government organizations) does not mean merely sub-contracting to a government service level agreement.

Yes, such arrangements may save on costs or similar. But all they are doing is delivering the same policies and procedures designed by government. This is the "corporatisation" of government. It is inherently protectionist - the government grants usually monopolistic contracts to firms, sometimes even, like Capita, that started life as a bunch of civil servants deciding they could do better for themselves by making a profit out of what they do.

No, real privatisation, so called "liberalisation" of government functions, should mean the state divesting themselves completely from interference in that policy area. For example, just because DVLA contracts out its computer systems and administration does not mean the registration and licensing of vehicles and drivers has been "privatised". Not bothering with a DVLA at all and allowing insurance companies to work out ways of ensuring the drivers and vehicles they are prepared to insure comply with what they consider to be safe would be. i.e. a different way of working, free from government entirely, and open to proper competition where new ideas and ways of achieving similar ends can be developed. Finding new structures, free from the dead hand of government to do the things we need, rather than what politicians think we ought to need.

Similarly with ID cards or passports - it is not "privatising" simply to contract out the development and implementation of a government policy to profit making firms. Indeed, this is anathema to true economic liberals - for it is corporate welfare, money for old rope if you like. My idea from yesterday about getting rid of government validated passports entirely and instead letting people buy their own guarantee of identity if and when they need one using a new mechanism such as digital certificates would be liberal; the true privatisation of functions the state previously chose to regulate and deliver itself.

And of course, such liberalisation may not end up being delivered by "for-profit" corporations at all.

So Jacqui, stop trying to hide from your responsibilities. You have cocked up just as surely as if the person with the memory stick were your permanent secretary. You are incompetent. Indeed doubly so - for not only have you failed to do your job, but you've even failed to make sure the simpler option - getting someone else to do it for you is done properly. You should go. read more »

Land Tax and Citizens Income - further discussion...

Jock — Sat, 26 Jul 2008 01:00:03 +0000

Again, I'm starting a new post to respond to some very interesting comments by Tim Carpenter. My inept attempt at a Drupal template means it's almost possible to follow a thread of comments and especially given this is going to be another long response I think it deserves an airing on its own.

For anyone coming new to this debate, it follows on from my original "three point plan" for equity and economic justice and some clarifications and responses I gave yesterday to comments on that original by Tim Carpenter, Head of Policy at the Libertarian Party UK.

Tim, thanks for taking the time to respond. However I think we are, as a colleague used to say to me "talking past each one another". Paul Lockett has put it all a deal more eloquently than myself , and for that, and if I have caused any confusion, apologies.

I am a geo-libertarian (of the "geo-mutualist" variety if you will). The main thing you seem not to have appreciated is that in calling for the "Single Tax" I mean just that - the community/state can only take economic rent on the land resources within its jurisdiction and has no call on incomes or trade. As I understand it this is the "purist Georgist" position.

The ideal 'state' would be limited to collecting the rent and distributing it all as a dividend to citizens for the reasons Paul outlined. "Commonwealth" - you are right, it's lazy, I should put a space between "common" and "wealth"! Economic rent from the finite natural resources we all require to share is "common wealth" and should be collected as such and distributed as fully as possible whilst every other tax is a tariff.

Tim: "1. When I say who defines the value of your land, you say "why does anyone need to decide", yet immediately go on to talk about collecting the tax! Someone DOES decide the taxable value and that affects the actual value. Can you not see that?"

No, the market sets a location's value. It does it all the time at the moment. And it will continue to do so in an LVT system. Even in a "100% LVT" system. If a location is appreciating in value, buyers will be prepared to pay a premium over last year's rent bill and vice versa, in a falling market sellers will effectively have to be prepared to pay someone to take the rent bill off them. The following year's rent bill will reflect that premium or discount by going up or down respectively.

Tim: "2. As you should know, we aim to eradicate income tax., so the comparison does not hold."

See above - I'm a single taxer. No income tax here either. It is a tariff on employment and trade. Though I would say that if a local community decided mutually to have a local tax on incomes or sales to finance some mutually agreed local project it would be doing so in competition with neighbouring communities that perhaps were not or were charging a different rate or a different tax. Tax competition is good, in itself, isn't it? Also I am aware of some "single" taxers who would justify retaining some income tax at least temporarily in order to try to address the "embedded" historical advantages of monopoly ownership. I don't.

Tim: "The problem comes when some local area under the influence of whomsoever, adjusts taxation on land they wish to gain access to because a new development is coming. So, building a road, whack up the value of land next to it. Farmer has no CAPITAL to develop it, so has to sell it for a knock-down price because he HAS to sell to meet the tax bill. If this does not concentrate land into a few hands, I do no know what would. This is just one example of the potential risks."

This appears to be Churchill's "market gardener" bogey, or, to others, the "poor widow" bogey. If you look at it under the current system, that same farmer, in similar circumstances is perfectly able, regardless of the squalor growing around, to sit on that land, not paying anything and watch its value "ripen" until the value, created merely by excluding others from what they need to use, is so great it becomes irrational not to sell. That process is outright extortion.

In fact, under an LVT system, land values at the margin would tend to move much more incrementally in any case. In the absence of other restrictions - zoning, green belts etc (it is your policy to remove those restrictions once an LVT system proves practical isn't it?) - you would not get these large leaps in hope value. I would actually retain green belts and such like for a while after LVT was implemented so that it can have its greatest effect in turning existing urban land to its most efficient use before going for sprawl. But I am prepared to be convinced on that. After all, we know that at relatively low densities compared with what planning guidance seeks nowadays, it would take up less than three quarters of one per cent of the non urbanized land in England to build the three million new homes predicted to be necessary over the next twenty years.

But once a point of equilibrium was reached between supply and demand rents at the margins of production would move slowly and via the democratic influence of the market. If that market and the community that makes up its participants eventually get as far as that farmer's land and all that remains to bring it in from the margin to profitable development is to develop a road, the farmer will have had plenty of opportunity to see it coming long before the tax bill becomes an issue for him.

Tim: "3. Living costs - if you have CBI as described you would still keep the most expensive parts of the Welfare bureaucracy - the entire means-testing apparatus. Housing benefit would probably remain in all but name."

I disagree. But I don't think what you understand me to have described is what I think I have! ie, in particular, that I am not paying for CBI out of income taxes, but out of the community collected rent on economic land. Land at the margins tends as I said towards a nil value. More people will be able to own their home because they will not be borrowing twice as much as the value of the capital good (the building) in order to pay the land value in up front capital. Renting a basic home at the margins ought to be achievable out of the Citizens Income.

With so many pulled out of poverty anyway by not having punitive benefits withdrawal regimes that reduce the marginal value of doing even the smallest amount of paid work and by the reduced costs of living owing to tariff eradication and the better off keeping more of their own money, the capacity of private charity or local mutualism to assist the much smaller number of people that would be needing top up hand outs above their CBI would be much increased.

Tim: "4. Income. You need to clarify here - are you saying that COMPANIES have 40% more or that wage earners do? Be under no illusions, if you have CBI, income tax will be enormous. I worked out once that if we went for CBI with no other tax changes but a cull of QANGOs, income tax would need to be about 64% flat from the very first penny (IT is currently £140bln, 7k x 50m = £350bln pa). A HUGE disincentive to working especially at the lower end. Result: black economy, unproductive citizens, more companies shutting down and a growth in imports (and do not say "cheap imports make us richer" because that only holds if we are simultaneously exporting a greater amount of higher value exports)."

I hope you'll agree that that objection is moot given I am not talking about income taxes at all. My calculation of the CBI cost at £5200 pa for adults and a decreasing proportion for under-18s to 20% for 2 year olds is around £285bn. £245bn if only the adults. I reckon there was about £200bn a year's worth of economic rent in residential land alone at the recent peak of the market. I don't think it is beyond belief that there's another £85bn in commercial, industrial, retail and, possibly, agricultural economic rents.

Tim: "5. Movement to low tax areas: A company will consider workforce supply as a prime consideration, not just rental costs. If that were not the case, expensive London would be empty. People pay top dollar for London rents because of a massive pool of labour - they can gain access to many cheap or more chance of snaring the best. To think LVT would make a company move out to a depressed area? Those places are already cheap. Why doesn't it happen now? Limited skilled labour pool. As you say the Government does it now and did it in the past (remember the Hillman Imp?) and it creates quasi-soviets. If LVT has an influence, it might IMHO move a few companies, deter some from even setting up where they need to and the rest of the companies will be bled paying higher rates just to keep near the labour pool they require. In the case of London, the move will be to New York or Hong Kong and we all lose out."

There are so many issues in this paragraph I can only assume again that I have failed adequately to have explained my position. At the moment businesses pay rents, yes? In an LVT system they will still pay rents. The only difference is that whereas currently the entire rent, that which accrues to both the building and the site or location goes to the current landowner, ie it is enclosed, privatized. Under an LVT system, the same rent is due (assuming they were paying the market rent originally), only the portion of it that accrues to the location goes to the community and that attributable to the building to the building owner. There's no corporation taxes, no more employee taxes. There's no increasing of rent or rates; there's no bleeding anyone. Except those, as landowners, who have bled the rest of us for centuries.

Areas of low land value will also be areas in which it is cheaper for employees to live (lower LVT for them too). For a business operating at the edge of profit it would seem to me to be quite an attractive move. But one that remains in London because their key skills are there is not penalised by that. Indeed, if sufficient other businesses do it who do not need to be in London for optimal profitability do move, costs will also likely fall for those left behind, increasing their profit, distributable to capital and labour.

I think there is, in particular, one form of LVT that could have a significant effect in this regard...the auctioning of air-space, via "landing slots" at airports. Making more efficient use of regional airports would draw business into those areas. I'm likely to propose this to our regional conference this autumn as part of an "anti third runway at Heathrow" motion. Interesting choices of examples though - Hong Kong of course is famous for having state owned land - everything except the Anglican Cathedral is leasehold and that has been used to raise revenue in a form of LVT and keep income taxes low. Modern valuation tracking and billing systems would make that far more efficient and not prone to some of the problems Hong Kong suffered by having too infrequent valuations.

In China before Mao took over, I understand that Chiang Kai Chek's regime looked into LVT as a way of staving off the rise of Mao's totalitarian collectivism. And in the former Soviet Union, Gorbachev I believe looked into LVT as a way of capturing the value of natural resources and in not implementing it allowed the so called "oligarchs" (really "kleptocrats" in my opinion) to enclose the revenue from that vast pool of common wealth.

I'm getting a bit tired here! I'm going to call it quite at this point and maybe think some more about the issue of mutualism. I think Paul answered the point about the "state as landlord" objections quite satisfactorily and there's no need for me to repeat it. But for fairness, other readers can read Tim's further points in the comments on the previous post.

Tim: "p.s. your page has a script that my browser asks me to kill due to risk of resource hogging."

Yes - I only notice this on older machines or slower network connections - I never experience the problem at home or at work. I think it must have been an advertising panel I have just removed, but if others still experience the problem let me know and I'll have another look. read more »

Response to some comments on "Unconditional Benefits"

Jock — Thu, 24 Jul 2008 19:52:49 +0000

In my last post I set out what I considered to be the three necessary reforms to create a more equitable society - Land Value Tax (or "The Single Tax"), Citizen's Income and Ownership for All.

In the comments, Tim Carpenter, Head of Policy at the Libertarian Party UK had several objections that I would like to address:

Tim: "LVT can seem fine and dandy at the first off, but over time who decides the future value of your land?"

Why does anyone need to decide the future value of your land? In any case, even if that were necessary the market does that anyway even at present - what people pay for a property reflects their view of what it's worth into the future - they are, literally paying up front, to the previous owner, the rent for a number of years into the future. I agree there are issues with a "100% Land Tax" where the community attempts to collect 100% of the rent (as I and other geo-libertarians would advocate). This would make the capital land value tend toward zero and how would you know whether it's moving up or down over time? Well, the answer I believe is that it would trade at a discount or premium reflecting the buyer's and seller's view of whether the "passing rent" (ie the LVT bill) was set too high or too low.

Tim: "It is fraught with risks, opportunities for corruption and chaos. If you think compulsory purchase was bad..."

As I understand it several of the big RICS member firms have discussed this and have proposed a valuation regime that they would be comfortable bidding for and would expect to be able to handle things like appeals. The Oxfordshire pilot study showed that on average there was only a need to value about one site in ten - ie that that many nearby sites would share the same land value. And there are developing ever more sophisticated data and models for modelling things like "landvaluescape" and how it changes in reaction to things like new infrastructure.

I only don't believe it is as daunting a task as taxing incomes in the multitude of ways we currently do.

Tim: "If CBI is only half what is needed to live on, then surely we will still need welfare."

The Joseph Rowntree report I mentioned included a lot of things that go much further than the "basics needed to survive" (and the headline figure of £13,400 was "pre-tax". Not that I claim that would halve the bill. However the removal of the deadweight loss created by the other taxes that would be repealed, and the ending of subsidies, particularly on agricultural land and other tariffs on the necessities of life would make them cheaper. Two ways to be wealthier - have more money or make everything you need cheaper. As Frank Gallagher in "Shameless" says "Make poverty history; cheaper drugs now!"

Tim: "Removing the minimum wage is fine but be under no illusion, the CBI will be factored into that wage (or lack of)."

But, first, they would also be factoring in the lack of payroll taxes and income taxes - they'd have nearly 40% more in their "wage bill" to play with in many cases. Second, the CBI has two purposes in my mind - one of them is to give people enough to survive, just, day to day, but the intentional beneficial effect of that is that people have a cushion that empowers them to say "no" to a coercive deal from an employer. If the marginal benefit from working x hours for y pay is not worth it and you know you can survive until you get another, hopefully better, offer, this changes the balance of power between employer and employee. And, because it is the same for all workers, and not just the ones currently stuck in the benefits trap, the employers are more likely to have to listen and produce decent remuneration. Though I do concede that there would be hundreds of thousands of currently civil servants in the job market to depress wages...:)

Tim: "It will be no solution to poverty AFAICT and your assertion that it would eradicate x y or x is not explained. I think parish provision is an interesting one, but frankly, look at places like S Wales and you will find that parishes will have little or no wealth creation so no money to spend on their army of dependants - central funding will be needed in precisely the places where people say it causes problems of unconditionality - for once the parish is spending other peoples' money the problems are right back with you again."

However, the LVT is more likely to move economic activity to areas where companies, and employees, and therefore also companies as employers, will pay less tax, which is turn will raise the economic activity in poorer areas and tend to level out regional disparities of economic activity. It cannot be any worse than the current situation where some regional economies make up more than half of their regional GDP from state handouts and subsidies to individuals and businesses.

Tim: "As another person has mentioned, the mutualist company can occur NOW. What is to change here? The fact that it does not happen now should either make you ask what stops it legally/financially or regulatory OR that it is actually a factor of how humans are socially, in that it takes certain individuals the gumption to kick start a company (and that is NEVER to be underetimated) and once they do so, why would they then let a whole load of strangers take just as much out of it as he/she does?"

I certainly don't underestimate the setting up of a company. I have been an employer for precisely one month in my life and it was a bloody nightmare. But it would certainly be less troublesome if I was not burdened with all those damn tax calculations! But again, I refer the honorable gentleman to the answer I gave a moment ago - the "cushion" that empowers the employee to say "no" a bit more; to hold out for a better share of the total returns to a business. This of course goes to the core of mutualism as I see it, as opposed to the anarcho-capitalist type of libertarianism. Mutualists believe that the current capitalist system is lop-sided, "toxic" and that it is itself a coercive and damagingly hierarchical system. Empowering labour to hold out for a better deal, making use of new corporate forms like limited liability partnerships and so on, will accelerate this change.

...and finally...

Tim: "Monetary reform and changes to fiat issuance will not happen by itself. The problem is coming up with something to replace it that actually works. I have seen many attempts and none appear to work or are just a cover operation for hatstand ideas like "social credit"."

As I think I said in response to another comment, I'm actually quite agnostic about how monetary reform should happen and what direction it should take. Personally I like the Hayek idea of fully privatised commercially competing currencies. I am told that the legislation actually already exists to allow commercial "complementary" currencies run by corporations. Air miles, Nectar and Kit-Kash are but early examples.

But consider this - if you collect 100% land rent and the capital value of land falls towards zero, the structure of the money system is bound to change - a large proportion of our broad money is lent into existence to pay for land in the form of mortgages. At the very least banks are going to need to have to adjust to that.

Actually I believe the real question is what lengths states will go to to prevent what I see as inevitable change if we allowed it. I haven't played there for a long time, and the hype about it seems to have died down a lot, but "Second Life" and "Kiva" are but a glimpse of what might be to come.

Incidentally, I presume I've been linked to in a discussion on the Libertarian Party forums (link will only work if you are a member and registered on their forums). And that, now they have closed the public forums that were accessible to non-members, I am unable to see what people are saying. I believe that none of these three policy areas step outside the bounds of libertarianism. In fact that they address more inequities that create coercive human relationships than, say, anarcho-capitalist flavours of libertarianism do. It would be nice to get the jist of what you are saying, if anything, over there! read more »

Fannie, Freddie, Africa and Europe in context

Jock — Fri, 18 Jul 2008 16:29:26 +0000

It has been estimated that Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac between them underwrite debt of some $5,000,000,000,000 and that US losses from the current credit crunch could amount to $1,600,000,000,000.

The entire external debt obligations of the world's 40 odd Highly Indebted Poor Countries (HIPCs) is some $300,000,000,000 - that's about 6% of Fannie and Freddie's problems. So any bailout of the US mortgage system is going to amount almost certainly to more money than would write off all that, mainly African, debt (were that the best way to proceed, which I believe it is, with conditions).

By contrast the EU has today decided to support the idea of giving the surplus it has made on the Common Agricultural Policy as a result of rising food crop prices (so it has been subsidising less) to "African farmers". That's about €1,000,000,000 - or one three-thousandth of Fannie and Freddie's problems and two hundredths of Africa's problems.

But where did they get that money from, how did it arise? Robbing those very African farmers by denying them access to our markets and subsidising dumping on theirs. Tariffs are pure evil, aren't they?

So, whenever anyone says to you that it's difficult to find the finance for debt relief in the poorest countries, you'll now know that is total bollocks. Just think of the scale of the US mortgage debt and what such sums could do for the 600 million or so poorest on the planet. read more »

debt money