Time to rant about economics and politics
Jul. 14th, 2008 05:42 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
tcpipIt's been a while since I've had a jolly good rant about politics and economics and related subjects and this is as good as time as any. So let me get stuck into three favourites; land and housing prices, religion and the NSW government, and finally, the environment and vested interests.
Firstly, let me draw your attention to the collapse of the UK housing market. A few days ago Barratt Development has announced cuts of 1200 jobs in attempt to crawl out the £1.66bn debt it's found itself in - and it's not an isolated incident. Housing prices have been falling for months now in the the UK, with expectations that a million homeowners could end up in negative equity. Why does this occur and why now? Because the value of land is hopelessly inflated, fuelled by speculation in what Winston Churchill accurately described as "the mother of all forms of monopoly", a fact well recognised by almost all economists. Many months ago, Alan Moran of the Institute of Public Affairs, commented correctly that "land based wealth is an illusion" and condemned government rationing of useful land as a restriction on supply. He's right of course, but regrettably typical of the IPA he lacks the intellectual and moral courage to point out that all landlords - public and private - reduce supply. Hence the need for a massive increase in land taxes with an equivalent reduction in taxes on productive goods and services. As that most heroic lawyer (yes, they do exist) Clarence Darrow deemed to say: "The 'single tax' is so simple, so fundamental and so easy to carry into effect that I have no doubt that it will be about the last land reform the world will ever get."
Sometimes Green Left gets it right, such as their article on Religion and Socialism. However these principles have not been embodied in the legislation by the NSW Labor government for World Youth Day 2008 which carries fines of up to $5500 for those causing "annoyance" and "inconvenience" to participants. Apropos, a student who smuggled out a Eucharist wafer has been receiving death threats. Back in NSW however, it is clear that with the decision to go ahead with electricity privatisation (contrary to public opinion) and this fundamental breach of civil liberties and the right to protest, that Premier Morris Iemma simply has to go. Fortunately, there seems to be some moves against him.
In recent weeks, the Garnaut Review has been released, an independent assesment of the effects of climate change to the Australian government and commissioned by the Australian Commonwealth government and the State and Territory governments. Following on with this is the aim of the G-8 nations to halve carbon emissions by 2050 (perhaps too little, too late). Whilst all this is happening, OnlineOpinion publishes an article entitled The UN climate change numbers hoax, where the authors cannot understand why review commentary on the IPCC working groups was, in their eyes, minimal (maybe they agreed with it?). I took the opportunity to show that one of the authors (Tom Harris) one held dual positions as the Executive Director of Natural Resources Stewardship Project whilst holding a position as Director of Operations for the registered energy-lobbying firm, the High Park Group. Further, Mr. Harris has been on the public record advocating a campaign to deliberately create chaos and confuse everyone about climate science. In response to this, the chief editor Graham Young has deleted these true and directly verifiable comments three times. If there was ever any doubt of OnlineOpinion being a highly-biased in favour of the AGW denial industry, it is certainly all over now - and others have noticed.
Firstly, let me draw your attention to the collapse of the UK housing market. A few days ago Barratt Development has announced cuts of 1200 jobs in attempt to crawl out the £1.66bn debt it's found itself in - and it's not an isolated incident. Housing prices have been falling for months now in the the UK, with expectations that a million homeowners could end up in negative equity. Why does this occur and why now? Because the value of land is hopelessly inflated, fuelled by speculation in what Winston Churchill accurately described as "the mother of all forms of monopoly", a fact well recognised by almost all economists. Many months ago, Alan Moran of the Institute of Public Affairs, commented correctly that "land based wealth is an illusion" and condemned government rationing of useful land as a restriction on supply. He's right of course, but regrettably typical of the IPA he lacks the intellectual and moral courage to point out that all landlords - public and private - reduce supply. Hence the need for a massive increase in land taxes with an equivalent reduction in taxes on productive goods and services. As that most heroic lawyer (yes, they do exist) Clarence Darrow deemed to say: "The 'single tax' is so simple, so fundamental and so easy to carry into effect that I have no doubt that it will be about the last land reform the world will ever get."
Sometimes Green Left gets it right, such as their article on Religion and Socialism. However these principles have not been embodied in the legislation by the NSW Labor government for World Youth Day 2008 which carries fines of up to $5500 for those causing "annoyance" and "inconvenience" to participants. Apropos, a student who smuggled out a Eucharist wafer has been receiving death threats. Back in NSW however, it is clear that with the decision to go ahead with electricity privatisation (contrary to public opinion) and this fundamental breach of civil liberties and the right to protest, that Premier Morris Iemma simply has to go. Fortunately, there seems to be some moves against him.
In recent weeks, the Garnaut Review has been released, an independent assesment of the effects of climate change to the Australian government and commissioned by the Australian Commonwealth government and the State and Territory governments. Following on with this is the aim of the G-8 nations to halve carbon emissions by 2050 (perhaps too little, too late). Whilst all this is happening, OnlineOpinion publishes an article entitled The UN climate change numbers hoax, where the authors cannot understand why review commentary on the IPCC working groups was, in their eyes, minimal (maybe they agreed with it?). I took the opportunity to show that one of the authors (Tom Harris) one held dual positions as the Executive Director of Natural Resources Stewardship Project whilst holding a position as Director of Operations for the registered energy-lobbying firm, the High Park Group. Further, Mr. Harris has been on the public record advocating a campaign to deliberately create chaos and confuse everyone about climate science. In response to this, the chief editor Graham Young has deleted these true and directly verifiable comments three times. If there was ever any doubt of OnlineOpinion being a highly-biased in favour of the AGW denial industry, it is certainly all over now - and others have noticed.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2008-07-14 08:01 am (UTC)Firstly there is the empirical claim of the medieval warm period having comparable temperatures to the current environment. Which is true, but the rate of increase in the twentieth century is far more significant and there's the problem of our existing infrastructure (especially agricultural infrastructure) being geared towards a particular climatic environment.
Secondly there is simply those with strong vested interests and their paid shills who simply can't tolerate the idea of having to do things differently. Sometimes people see "a 50% reduction in carbon" and think "that'll wreck the economy". Such claims indicate a poverty of imagination.
In Dr. Pilmer's case I think he just needs to research more. Climatology and geology have often been in some conflict in this subject, not the least by the vagaries in paleoclimatology. His claim that there is no correlation between carbon dioxide levels and temperature is certainly contrary to the available direct evidence.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-14 02:43 pm (UTC)Creationists at least have a psychology I can apprehend. They think atheistic scientists want to be free of God's moral strictures, and have thus invented an argument that we're only animals. That's stupid, but is at least a belief in a meaningful motivation for their opponents.
But climate change deniers don't even seem to have that.
BTW, I am embarrassed that I've never been exposed to the idea of simple land value taxation. It's an intriguing concept.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-15 07:07 am (UTC)WRT to land value taxation it's a model I've been trying to break for years. The fact that I have been unable to demonstrates in my mind how incredible robust it is.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-15 02:56 pm (UTC)Say you have a little old lady living in a small cottage she and her husband bought for a song in 1965. Since then, the value of land in her neighborhood has soared, but her pension hasn't changed, so she cannot afford the taxes on her house. Sure, she could sell that house and move, but uprooting her like that isn't so good: it disrupts her and the community.
But I can think of ways to address that. You could make a rule that says that if you own a single plot of land, and you live there, then you can defer taxation on increases in its value beyond the growth in the consumer price index, and pay those taxes at the later time when the property is sold. Or something like that.
There's also taxes I like as tools of policy, primarily in order to make costs visible in the market that otherwise would be negative externalities: taxes in carbon, tobacco, sugar, et cetera. But it would be nice to set these taxes at levels that meet our policy needs, rather than to meet our revenue needs.
Plus I still like progressive income tax, though it sure would be nice to tax folks only on their income above about $60k ...
no subject
Date: 2008-07-17 01:44 am (UTC)The easiest initial mechanism is subdivision. If Grandma Jones has a big block of land in a area that's now developing quickly, she can sell off parcels of it. If, for whatever reason, the land becomes extremely valuable and it is not longer plausible to hold onto a old shack when the place should really have a (insert: block of flats, factory, harbour etc) then I think that simple economics would have to take its course.
no subject
Date: 2008-07-15 06:19 am (UTC)