Britain doesn't have enough second homes

From Theodore Zeldin’s “The French” (1983):

Almost one in every six families has access to a second residence

Translate that into British, we’ve some 25 million households, there should be 4.25 million second homes.

According to George Monbiot we have rather fewer:

Before the pandemic, government figures show, 772,000 households in England had second homes. Of these, 495,000 were in the UK. The actual number of second homes is higher, as some households have more than one; my rough estimate is a little over 550,000.

We are, thus, short some 3.75 million second homes. If we wish to be like the French that is.

This is more than just snark - tho’ snark is always fun. The important thing to understand about housing across cultures is that each is a technology. A machine for living in. And those cultures, technologies, which have people living in dense urban cores, in apartments, also have the wide ring of summer places surrounding them. This is true - from personal experience of people here - for Germany, of the Czech lands, or Russia (to the point that one of us has endured a lecture from a Soviet car factory manager on the importance of providing dachas for the workers. And it was important, growing your own was the only way you’d get vitamins, let alone vegetables.) No, an allotment is not the same thing - it is illegal to even think about staying overnight on an allotment. All these country places will have at least a shack with bunks.

The Southern European towns tend not to have gardens attached even to the houses, let alone the flats. But they have different inheritance practices (real property must, by law, be divided equally among all kids) and are also several generations closer to the land. At least a part share in Granny’s hovel out in the country is near universally available.

Those stack-a-prole worker flats that our UK urban planners think we should all live in are only part of that whole housing technology. By observation that works only with that addition of the second place in pulchra agris. The British solution to the same idea, that housing technology as a whole, has been the des res with front and back garden and on that quarter acre plot of land. Exactly the thing that is now illegal to build given required densities of up to 30 dwellings per hectare.

They’re technologies. Suburbs of housing with gardens, or flats with second houses. They’re integrated technologies, things where you need both parts to make them work. Our British planners have decided to go off half-cocked with only half of either technology. They’ll allow the house but not the garden, the flat but not the shack in the country.

We might have mentioned before that we really don’t like planners or planning. This is one of the reasons why - the planners we actually get are ignorant.

Banning ultraprocessed foods

We are aware that Sir Simon did not write the headline but:

Banning ultra-processed food is not a nanny-state issue. It’s common sense

So, on the basis of a laughable book from Dimbleby fils (the man, recall, who made his money selling fish finger sandwiches) we should ban:

Fizzy drinks (sugary or sweetened); crisps and packaged snacks; chocolate, confectionery; ice-cream; mass-produced packaged breads and buns; margarines and other spreads; biscuits, pastries, cakes; breakfast ‘cereals’, ‘cereal’ and ‘energy’ bars; milk drinks, ‘fruit’ yoghurts and drinks; ‘instant’ sauces. Many preprepared ready-to-heat products including pies and pasta and pizza dishes; poultry and fish ‘nuggets’ and ‘sticks’, sausages, burgers, hot dogs, and other reconstituted meat products; and powdered and packaged ‘instant’ soups, noodles and desserts. Infant formulas, follow-on milks, other baby products.

That is actually the recommendation. Or as it can be put, “Enjoy your turnips, serfs”.

We’d actually enjoy watching someone try to do this. But then we do have that anarchist love of watching riots and chaos in the streets. For there’s just no way that this could be done in a free society or without them. Therefore it will not be done. But as we say, it would be fun watching someone try.

Our own opinion is that this is just another version of the desire for sumptuary laws, as with the hopes for bans on fast fashion. If even the poor can have a change of clothes, interesting food, then what’s the point of being privileged? Therefore those things that enable the poor to be as their betters must be banned.

It’s a very common and very unattractive part of human nature.

The other way to look at this is as a proof of Hayek’s contention in The Road to Serfdom. If government becomes the provider of health care - the NHS - then the population will be managed at the pleasure of the health care system.

Bank balance

The UK financial sector, one of our most important industries, has had its share of problems and faces more than its share of challenges.

The uncertainty about Brexit and access to European markets, specifically the lack of much positive government action to capture the advantages of Brexit, does not help. Also, business is still flat since the Covid lockdowns; additionally, commercial property has been hit and more people are defaulting on loans.

Higher interest rates have hit the mortgage market too. Then there is Fintech (financial technology) which is challenging some of the traditional players, like the high street banks. Though customers are increasingly demanding digital banking, their systems are largely stuck in a previous era — thanks to the laziness that comes from having a cosy regulated market rather than one more open to new competition.

Plus all the problems in the pensions sector — investment conditions and the multiplicity of pension plans, and the general lack of transparency in pensions (need I say over-regulation by a jealous Treasury?). And there is growing competition from other financial sectors such as New York and Singapore (which again, is a direct result of the UK government’s over-taxing and over-regulating).

So what is to be done? Lower taxes on UK businesses would help. Instead of companies (and their financial needs) going abroad, or not coming to the UK in the first place, we need to attract businesses in and induce them to say. And encourage people to start new businesses too. High tax, by increasing the risk in already risky ventures, kills business creation stone dead.

We need more competition, too. Right now, getting a banking licence out of the regulators is like getting a smile out of a stone. The barriers to entry should be a lot lower. Right now, we are regulating banks as if they are all enormous, and that their failure would be a national disaster — as the failure of big banks was in the 2008-09 financial crisis. (And what did Gordon Brown do about it? He forced banks to merge, creating institutions that were arguably safer but which were even more ‘too big to fail’. ) And yes, if we have institutions that we really cannot afford to lose, they should indeed be carefully regulated.

But new, small banks are different. If a small bank fails, it’s a very limited disaster, not a nationwide one. We can get over it. Even if deposits are guaranteed by the taxpayer, the amounts at risk are manageable, unlike the 2008-09 bank bailouts, which saw government debt soaring and gave us much of the debt overhang we have today. It is quite possible too that customers of new banks are more aware of the risks than customers of large and established banks; so perhaps the need for taxpayer bailouts is less.

So the answer there is to have banking regulation that reflects the existential risk (or lack of it) of the institution. Large ‘too big to fail’ banks should have tough regulation, small ‘if it fails we can deal with it’ banks should be more lightly regulated. That would encourage more competition in financial services, and therefore greater focus on customers and keeping customers safe, instead of regulator-focused box-ticking complacency.

If The Guardian can't even grasp GDP then why pay attention to its economics?

The Guardian does try to tell us what we should be doing about the economy. Then there are those acres of paper devoted to telling us how economics is going to kill us all. The problem with this is that if the people who write and edit the paper have no clue of the basics of economics then why should we pay attention to their blatherings?

For example, we have an assitant opinion editor there telling us about Kate Raworth’s Doughnut Economics. Which, when stripped of its verbiage, is simply a statement that economic growth is constrained by reality. Well, yes….

But here we’ve got what The G thinks is the explanation of it all:

Growth, the process by which a country increases the amount of goods and services it produces, is supposed to raise people’s wages and provide governments with an income that can be invested into public services such as schools and hospitals.

And no, that’s not it at all. Growth here is GDP, obviously. And sure, there are problems with GDP, it doesn’t measure distribution, doesn’t include non-monetised transactions like household labour and so on. But at what GDP sets out to do it’s pretty good. And what it doesn’t set out to do is measure the amount of goods and services. In fact it’s entirely nothing to do with that at all.

GDP measures - as best it can - the value added in an economy. Further, by definition value added in production equals all incomes equals all consumption - because our incomes and our consumption are the value added. So, if GDP, value added, rises then by definition total incomes rise.

This is an important distinction. It’s also one all too many fail to make. For if the economy, growth, GDP, are the volume of stuff then sure, we’ll face physical limits pretty quickly. If growth is about value add then the limitation is in knowing how to add value - not something notably constrained by the physical world, rather by the state of knowledge.

This is back to that Herman Daly differentiation between quantitative growth and qualitative. He insists - as does Raworth - that physical limits mean we can only have that qualitative growth. We think the physical limits to quantitative growth - and we do know our minerals and metals around here - are a lot further away than most people do but we’ll agree they exist. The bit that’s being missed is that GDP, that standard measure of growth, includes that qualitative growth. In fact, the majority of growth recorded in GDP is that qualitative, not quantitative.

But the real point we want to hammer home here is that people are critiquing that standard economics without even grasping the basic definitions and terms of art in use. No wonder they’re all so mystified by it.

So, that's Brexit solved then

We’ve been told by everybody and their grandmother that Brexit is a terrible idea because it gums up trade. Those checks on paperwork, goods, at the border simply make us all so much poorer. Our first answer has been well, if the checks make us poorer then let’s not have the checks - why would we want to make ourselves poorer by having them?

A second answer from the Flemish:

Belgium is pitching for British business with a “Gateway2Britain” computer app making it easier for exporters and importers to trade with the Flemish economic heartland.

The claim is that it really is that simple too:

The new app aims to make trade “as frictionless as possible”…Gateway2Britain will allow traders to provide one set of data online, which will be shared with other supply chain and logistics companies.

No, really, that simple. So why not just roll this out - from our side - over all sources and destinations. Making sure, of course, that government has absolutely nothing to do with it. Given UK official IT we’d end up with an app that turned off the taps in Aberystwyth when we wanted to tap a market in Abbeville.

These purported to be grand bureaucratic problems can in fact be solved. And why not learn from the Flemish? They, after all, also don’t want to be in political union with the French.

We're always surprised at the inability of doctors to do science

We shouldn’t be surprised, of course, for it’s a long running problem. This is just the latest instance:

Children’s doctors are calling for an outright ban on disposable vapes to reduce their popularity among young people as the long-term impact on lungs, hearts and brains remains unknown.

The government should ban single-use disposable vapes, which can be bought for just £1.99 and are most popular with young people, the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health has said.

This would reduce their environmental impact and discourage children who have never smoked from taking up vaping and risking long-term addiction and lung damage.

As we’ve noted many a time vaping and smoking are substitutes, not complements. More people vaping means fewer people smoking. As we’ve seen with the Snowdon Curve, this is simply one of those things that are true. And as Chris Snowdon notes again. New Zealand has legal, nicotine containing, vaping, Australia does not. Smoking rates in New Zealand have fallen against those in Australia since the legalisation.

Well, there we are, actual science, vaping reduces smoking rates. Therefore doctors who wish to reduce smoking rates should support vaping. Rather than try to ban it. Because that’s what science tells us is true.

Ho hum. Still, there is always that silver cloud. That latest proposal to bring in half-trained doctors has its merits. Maybe they’ll take due regard of science as the full doctors don’t?

Burying the death tax

Benjamin Franklin famously said, “In this world nothing can be said to be certain, except death and taxes.” Unfortunately, in the UK they arrive simultaneously in the form of what is called “Inheritance Tax,” but is in fact a Death Tax.

 There is a moral case and an economic case for abolishing the Death Tax (IHT). Both are valid.

 The moral case is that people have already paid tax on their income and capital gains during their lifetime. To tax those assets again is double taxation, akin to taxing people who buy spirits VAT on the excise duty they have paid.

One of the strongest human motives is the love for our children and the desire to improve their lot in life. We want the freedom to pass on to them the saving we’ve accrued in our own lives so that theirs might be better, and we want to do so without the state seizing a large part of that wealth before it reaches them.

Abolishing the Death Tax will incentivize investment and economic growth. When individuals know that their assets will be subject to significant taxation upon their death, they are less inclined to accumulate wealth or invest in long-term ventures. Removing this tax burden could thus encourage entrepreneurship, risk-taking, and investment, leading to economic expansion and job creation.

The UK tax system, including the Death Tax, can be complex and burdensome to navigate. It is estimated that IHT accounts for 10 percent of the tax code, while generating only 0.2 percent of revenues. Abolishing it would simplify the system and reduce administrative costs for individuals and families. The time and resources currently spent on estate planning and tax avoidance strategies could be redirected to more productive activities, benefiting the economy as a whole.

Abolishing the tax will help reduce tax avoidance and evasion. Wealthy individuals often employ complex legal structures or transfer assets to offshore entities to mitigate their exposure to IHT. Its abolition would reduce the incentive to engage in these practices, leading to a more transparent and fairer tax system overall.

The Death Tax puts a significant burden on family businesses and assets, potentially leading to their liquidation or breakup to meet tax obligations. Abolishing the tax could help preserve intergenerational businesses and assets, allowing families to continue their legacies without the fear of hefty tax bills.

It is likely that abolishing the tax could incentivize charitable giving. When individuals are not burdened by the prospect of a significant tax liability on their estates, they may be more ready to donate to charitable causes.

Given all of this, it is not surprising that IHT is reckoned to be the least popular tax levied in the UK. The Adam Smith Institute has been publishing papers against it for decades, and it now senses a rising tide of hostility to it. The time is long overdue for the Death Tax to be quietly put down and given a decent burial.

Well, of course, a union would say this

From the GMB General Secretary (via press release):

“But, our future requires a mix of energy sources – new nuclear, renewables, hydrogen, and oil and gas.

“It would be a huge mistake to put all the nation’s eggs in one energy basket.“

We can’t say we disagree with that and we do indeed think that the replacement for fossil fuels is going to be a bit of this and a bit of that. The grand joys of fossils is that they are general purpose, the problem with so many of the mooted replacements is that they solve specialist problems. So, we’ll need a number of solutions. Assuming there’s a problem that needs to be solved, of course.

However, we vehemently disagree with this:

“They believe in plans not bans.

“Plans built around unionised, decent jobs.”

We don’t want any jobs associated with these plans at all. Think on it. If someone invented a magic box that provided the nation’s energy desires with the labour of just the one bloke turning the knob every Monday morning we’d be overjoyed. We’d have hundreds of thousands of people who could go do ballet, teach kids, work in the NHS, play footie and prepare puddings for us to enjoy rather than labouring in the electricity mines.

Jobs, that is, are a cost, not a benefit.

Unionised, decent, jobs are even worse as they cost us even more.

Now, of course, a union leader would say the above, obviously. But that doesn’t mean that the rest of the society needs to be taken in by the special pleading. Whatever it is that we do about climate change - or any other thing - we want to employ the minimum of human labour possible in doing that thing.

After all, the art of economic advance is in working out how to destroy jobs, kill ‘em stone dead.

The difference between the Stern and Nordhaus approaches

One of the joys of economics - as with any science, social or other - is that it is possible to draw rules from one example. Those rules are then generalisable across other examples. This means we can use the difference between the Stern and Nordhaus approaches to climate change to opine on the size of the Irish dairy herd.

Irish farmers are rebelling against a proposal to cull tens of thousands of cattle a year to help Ireland meet its climate change targets.

The Irish government wants to reduce emissions from farming by a quarter by 2030. Media reports last week suggested that one option being considered was to reduce the national dairy herd by 10 per cent – meaning a cull of 65,000 cows a year for three years, at a cost of €200 million (£170 million) annually.

When considering climate change a number of different responses are possible - it’s not happening, it’s not us, it doesn’t matter etc among them. But leaping over all of that consider the difference in construction between the Review and the Nobel on the subject.

Stern tells us to have a relatively high carbon tax now - $80 per tonne CO2-e. Nordhaus that we should have a low one now (“now” being when these plans were suggested) of perhaps $20, rising much higher, to $240, in some decades. The difference is that Stern is saying we should deliberately kick start the capital replacement cycle, Nordhaus that we should work with it.

We’ve got bits and pieces of perfectly good kit lying around the economy, it has cost money to make them, they’ll carry on working well for years to decades. We can rip those all up and replace them with non-emitting kits at some cost- Stern. Or, we can wait until they fall part, as kit does, then replace them with non-emitting kit - Nordhaus.

It will clearly be cheaper to do this the Nordhaus way. For the cost of the non-emissions part will only be the marginal costs of making it non-emittive, rather than the total cost of the kit - because we’re waiting until we’ve got to build a new one anyway. We’re doing this with cars (however badly etc) by not banning petrol cars from the road, but not allowing new ones and letting the fleet age into obsolescence.

It’s also true that within Stern’s Review is an intriguing insistence that Nordhaus is right. For Stern points out that humans do more of things which are cheaper, less of things which are more expensive. We must therefore be efficient in our approach to emissions reduction. For, by being efficient we make the change cheaper, therefore we do more dealing with climate change. Yes, this does produce the odd result that Stern should be in favour of the Nordhaus approach but then demanding an entire and perfect consistency from an economist really is asking a bit much.

So, we’ve a generalisable rule - working with the capital cycle is cheaper, more efficient, than trying to force it. Therefore it is also preferable as it means we have more resources to do more about climate change, we do more climate change dealing with.

As we understand it, admitting that our rural knowledge is pretty limited, dairy cows have a working life of 6 or 7 years in Ireland. The capital stock is therefore going to be entirely replaced by 2030 anyway. Which means that this Stern approach - let’s start reducing that capital stock right now! - is contraindicated. We should use the Nordhaus. As the dairy herd turns over simply don’t allow the full replacement.

This will cost nothing, saving the €200 million to reduce climate change elsewhere. Or even fructify in the pockets of the people.

Sounds like a plan really. Work with the capital cycle, not against it. Then again this is a suggestion that politics doesn’t pay money to farmers, something that doesn’t have a good track record.

Renewable energy and the very basics of trade

As David Ricardo pointed out, if we all do what we’re least bad at and trade the results then we’ll be better off. That is what the lesson of comparative advantage is, yes. Forget the cloth and wine, that it’s between countries and all that. Whatever assets there are lying around should be put to their best - least bad - uses and then we swap around the resultant higher production. Division and specialisation of labour and the resultant trade from Smith, Ricardo telling us how that division should be logically underpinned.

At which point, something about Morocco wanting to become a renewables superpower or something:

Morocco also plans to harvest bright Saharan sun through conventional solar panels. These can generate three times as much power in the North African country than they would in the UK.

So, the solar panels should be in Morocco not on the north facing roof of some building in Hebden Bridge then. For whatever amount of money - or subsidy - spent on solar panels we’d get three times the electricity, we’re richer.

This is not, clearly not, how public policy actually works currently. We’re bombarded with insistences that Britain must produce the power that Britain consumes. That local power delivered locally is better.

Note that this is nothing, nothing at all, to do with renewables or fossil fuels. The logic is that whatever it is that we use as a power source should come from whoever, wherever, is most efficient at producing the power we intend to use. Local makes us poorer, trade makes us richer.

So, to be richer we should trade. Given that that is the opposite of the current political and cultural insistence we are left with the one big question. How on Earth did the entire society end up getting this so wrong?