This is George Carty's Typepad Profile.
Join Typepad and start following George Carty's activity
Join Now!
Already a member? Sign In
George Carty
Recent Activity
Or to be even more accurate, most of what you are buying is *location*.
Keith, The problem is that we live in a gerontocracy where the pensioner vote typically decides elections (note how they have been protected by the "triple lock" while working-age benefit claimants have been hammered). And pensioners want to protect their streams of rentier income at the expense of the real economy.
Toggle Commented Feb 11, 2017 on The case for privatization at Stumbling and Mumbling
@aragon The real basis of social conservatism in the United States (and possibly also in the UK -- check out "Phone Home" on the From Arse to Elbow blog) is the notion of the "inherited obligation family" identified by Doug Muder: "If my daughter goes to college, and my son decides he's gay and moves to the city, who’s going to look after me when my job finally wrecks my back and I can't work any more? I raised those kids, and they owe me — but those liberals are telling them they're 'free' to 'choose.' Likewise, if my sister leaves her abusive husband, the family's going to have to look after her and their kids. It’s a burden we'll bear, but it's better for everyone in the long run if they can stick to their vows and work it out. If the county opens a shelter and gives her an out, she won’t have the incentive to suck it up and do the right thing by the rest of us."
Toggle Commented Feb 9, 2017 on How lies work at Stumbling and Mumbling
What can be done about the electoral tyranny of the MEWing and BTLing minority that Blissex is always banging on about? Sounds like a good argument for PR.
@ Dipper "The EU exists to solve a particular problem, which is to prevent war between nations in Europe. The way they are doing this is by abolishing nations in Europe. This may be the right thing to do in Europe, but it isn't addressing a British need." Haven't European wars also been very costly to Britain though (from the War of the Spanish Succession through the Napoleonic Wars to World Wars I and II)? And since you (unlike a lot of Brexiters) don't seem to object to the EU's existence, couldn't it be argued that Brexit runs counter to the centuries-old British foreign policy dictum "don't let the Continent unite against us"? "Consequently British needs are not considered or catered for at all by the EU, and we had no effective influence on those institutions you name as they were collectively not concerned with our issues." Any good examples of this _not_ connected to migration? "The biggest example of this is the expected population growth which is equivalent to gaining two Londons in thirty five years (although only just over one is due to immigration). If we voted to remain there was absolutely nothing we could do about a massive increase in our population, and this increase is not to address any problem we have, but to enable the continent to solve its own inability to provide work for its young people." Since you yourself admit that almost half of our population increase is natural rather than due to immigration (from inside or outside the EU) do you believe that also needs to be limited somehow (and if so, then how)? Or do you desire (as some Brexiteers seem to) to replace free movement within the EU with free movement within the white Commonwealth, so that Australia, New Zealand and Canada can revert to their traditional role as the UK's overseas Lebensraum? "We have far more chance of influencing those institutions by being outside them than we have by being in them, as now they have to explicitly consider the fact that the UK has freedom of action when making decisions that affect us and there are consequences to their decisions." That may have been the case were it not for the facts that: a) many EU countries are already pissed off at the UK for demanding so many special privileges in the past (the Thatcher rebate, formal exemption from the Euro, exemption from Schengen), and b) many EU governments will want to make an example of the UK to deter their own electorates from electing far-right anti-EU parties (such as the Front National in France, the PVV in the Netherlands, or the AfD in Germany).
Toggle Commented Nov 30, 2016 on Criminally stupid at Stumbling and Mumbling
How many people on the Western political right genuinely admired right-wing tyrannies such as Pinochet's Chile or Apartheid South Africa, and how many supported them purely because they thought the alternative was Marxist (even pro-Soviet) rule? After all Pinochet overthrew an actual Marxist government (the first such government in the world to be democratically elected), and the ANC was also strongly Marxist in its politics (perhaps because of the Apartheid regime's unwillingness to compromise, and/or because South Africa's mining-dominated economy was very amenable to state control).
Toggle Commented Oct 21, 2016 on The freedom-hating right at Stumbling and Mumbling
My workplace was overwhelmingly for Remain (not surprising, as Audi is currently their most important customer) -- the one admitted Leave voter I found is an avid fan of the Zero Hedge website (and presumably thinks the EU is doomed anyway).
Toggle Commented Aug 7, 2016 on On causes of Brexit at Stumbling and Mumbling
Blissex: "The EU13 expansion, without any transitional period of restricted immigration to the UK from the lowest wage countries, was also perhaps a long term plan by UK eurosceptics to destroy lower class support for the EU." Unlikely, given that Britain's Prime Minister at the time was the moderately europhile Tony Blair. More likely he wanted to build a pro-British bloc of nations in Eastern Europe to counter the Franco-German axis, and miscalculated that those working-class voters who lost out from mass Eastern European immigration (whose numbers he also badly underestimated) would have nowhere else to go.
Toggle Commented Aug 7, 2016 on On causes of Brexit at Stumbling and Mumbling
"It's social and cultural change, stupid!" is clearly an Islamophobe rather than a racist. But BCFG is wrong about the invasion of Iraq -- while it certainly didn't help things, it wasn't for the West's material gain (although well-connected firms such as Halliburton did profit handsomely, it was largely at the expense of the American taxpayer rather than the Iraqis). And the Syrian Civil War (which provoked the flood of refugees into Europe) is at its root a war over water, caused by a combination of climate change, the inept policies of the Assad regime, Turkey's Southeastern Anatolia dam project, and also the rapid increase in global food prices following the 2008 Crash, as speculators piled into commodity futures. Another thing, given that Vladimir Putin wants to break up the EU (and has been bankrolling Europe's far-right parties for this purpose) and given that Assad is dependent on Russian military support, how likely is it that those gang-rapes in Cologne were perpetrated by shabiha (Syrian regime thugs) who travelled to Europe posing as refugees, under instructions ultimately coming from the Russian dictator?
Blissex, I guess the problem is that while coal was an inherently democratic fuel in that it required a large workforce to mine it (and thus more of the price of coal went in aggregate to the miners' wages rather than to the coal owners) oil and gas are inherently anti-democratic. They requires very little labour to extract and are very concentrated geographically, allowing those lucky enough to own the land where they are found fantastically wealthy. We already have a power source (nuclear fission) that blows all chemical fuels out of the water where energy density is concerned, but the oil and gas rentiers have been able to stymie its progress through over-regulation, by using their concentrated wealth to both corrupt politicians directly (such as former German chancellor Gerhard Schröder, who instituted a phaseout of nuclear energy in Germany and was rewarded with a cushy job at Nordstream AG, set to build a Russia-Germany gas pipeline to replace the output of Germany's reactor fleet) and to finance fearmongering anti-nuclear propaganda (always via so-called "philanthropic foundations" in order to hide the true source of the money). The fact that many left-wingers opposed nuclear energy was also probably down to the fact that the Soviet state was itself one of the oil and gas rentiers.
By "mercantilist" I mean "export as much as possible, import as little as possible". Why shouldn't we adopt such a policy when we are currently drowning in foreign debt? Germany and most East Asian countries currently follow such a policy -- in contemporary times it often involves government intervention to push the currency artificially low in order to gain competitiveness. Other more direct methods are also used -- for example the South Korean tax authorities aggressively audit any citizen with the temerity to buy an imported car. I view international trade as being like an iterated prisoners' dilemma with free-trade nations as co-operators and mercantilist nations as defectors. Since the East Asian nations have demonstrated themselves to be defectors, why co-operate with them?
Toggle Commented Feb 28, 2016 on (Mildly) against Brexit at Stumbling and Mumbling
Why is it that a lot of the Outers are selling Brexit primarily as a means to cut net immigration (and note that a lot of the anti-immigrationists are motivated less by racism or xenophobia as by a belief that the UK is overpopulated), but very few of them are taking the next step and arguing that Britain should become a mercantilist nation on the East Asian model?
Toggle Commented Feb 28, 2016 on (Mildly) against Brexit at Stumbling and Mumbling
Carol, I'd suggest that urban containment policies -- which became increasingly popular towards the end of the 20th century due to environmental concerns -- were a bigger factor in the global house price bubble of the '00s. The fact that the United States bubble was confined mainly to coastal cities in what Paul Krugman called the "Zoned Zone" illustrates this. In non-coastal America (Paul Krugman's "Flatland") developers can easily buy land at near-agricultural prices, so no bubble can form in the first place. Of course the UK's building land market is even more restrictive still, due to the Town and Country Planning Act 1947 (and its successors).
Toggle Commented Feb 18, 2016 on Debt, & ideology at Stumbling and Mumbling
Isn't the cause of our ballooning national (public + private) debt the fact that way too much of our money has been drained away into the central banks of mercantilist nations, mostly in East Asia? The current "austerity" versus "stimulus" debate is merely about how that excessive debt is distributed between the domestic government, household and corporate sector: the real problem is the CURRENT ACCOUNT deficit stupid!
Toggle Commented Feb 11, 2016 on Costs of austerity at Stumbling and Mumbling
How likely is it that the Cologne sex attackers were actually Da'esh terrorists who wanted European countries to close their borders to Syrian refugees and thus render them unable to escape from their own monstrous rule in Syria? (And perhaps also start mistreating their resident Muslim populations as well, thus making them more susceptible to Da'esh's anti-Western propaganda.)
Ben, why does red-state America have so much poverty and inequality in spite of some of the lowest land prices in the developed world?
Toggle Commented Dec 20, 2015 on Beyond social mobility at Stumbling and Mumbling
Maybe Keynes didn't count on the Town and Country Planning Act 1947, which allowed the parasitic rentier elite to come roaring back with a vengeance? It is notable that even now, houses built in the 1930s (after the masses became more mobile -- although more due to trains and buses than cars at this stage -- but before the T&CPA) are especially prized in Britain.
Toggle Commented Nov 20, 2015 on Keynes' error at Stumbling and Mumbling
Surely it would be better for third-world immigrants to go to countries with plenty of land and resources, like the USA, Canada, Australia or Argentina, rather than countries like the UK that are already densely populated? By the way, how difficult would it be to stabilize the Maghreb countries (Morocco/Algeria/Tunisia) enough to build big retirement resorts there? That would kill two birds with one stone: reducing the cost of providing healthcare and pensions (and eliminating heating costs altogether) for those elderly Western Europeans retiring there, while also providing desperately needed jobs for young Maghrebis. Many northern Europeans already retire to southern Europe of course, but most southern European countries have demographics even more parlous than the north, while north Africa has far more young people.
Protecting the environment is certainly a good idea, but it seems to me that the big green NGOs push a lot of policies that are far more effective at enriching rentiers than they are at protecting the environment. For example , if we were really serious about fighting car dependency we'd essentially have to reconfigure our towns and cities along more-or-less Japanese lines, with most people living in flats clustered around train stations. And the only way such flats could be built affordably would be either as part of New Towns built on rural land acquired at rural prices, or by the government compulsorily purchasing appropriate sites (ie not peripheral sites with poor public transport access, which far too often were those actually used for council flats) at far below market rates in order to build tower blocks on them. Instead we get Green Belts and other measures which do not make carless living easier, but which do massively drive up the price of housing. Perhaps those greens who were not on the take were still lying about the mechanism by which they expected their policies to work? Maybe their real aim was not to reduce vehicle miles travelled but to price people out of having families (but they couldn't mention a eugenic aim of this kind in public)... And as for energy policy, landowners pocketing subsidies are actually small beer compared to the oil companies and City speculators. The corruption of environmentalism by oil money has a long history -- it started in California when the Sierra Club (up to that point an aesthetically-motivated organization similar to to today's anti-wind-turbine campaigners) was bankrolled by oil interests to fight hydroelectric dams and thus clear the way to sell natural gas as a fuel for electricity generation. Mandating that utilities take wind or solar electricity whether they want to or not (and thus forcing other generators to shut down until the weather is no longer playing ball) is probably the most effective policy that Big Oil/Gas has to kill competition from baseload generators such as coal and nuclear.
My argument is that the LEADERS of environmentalist organizations wanted to be lifestyle protesters rather than getting productive jobs, so they got the 1% to pay them for pushing policies ostensibly to "save the planet" (but really to enrich the 1% further). And if house prices hadn't inflated so much due to urban containment, the boomers would have had a lot less equity to withdraw in the first place, wouldn't they?
Incidentally, I wonder how much the post-1970 "rise of the rentiers" has been enabled by the gradual environmentalist hijacking of left-of-centre politics? Restricting the supply of building land by Green Belts and restrictive planning laws is the biggest example, as is the anti-car campaign (which increases the price of property in locations well-served by public transport) but the green craze for renewable energy also benefits three groups of rentiers at the expense of the general public: 1) Rural landowners, who are paid to erect wind turbines or solar panels on their land 2) Oil companies, which sell the gas which has to provide "back-up" (at least 70% of the time) for the unreliable wind and solar power 3) Commodity speculators in the City, who benefit from the increased volatility of energy generation. Perhaps the strength of the North-South divide is also rooted in the Town and Country Planning Act, as the actual productive industries in the North inherently needed actual space in which to operate, and were thus far more vulnerable to high land prices than the essentially parasitic financial and bureaucratic activities in which London and the South East specialized, and which have minimal land requirements.
Bob, while LVT is a good idea, it won't make an unaffordable city affordable as demonstrated by Hong Kong. In Hong Kong all land is owned by the government (functionally equivalent to a 100% LVT) but it is still one of the world's most unaffordable cities. The only real route to housing affordability (short of going the Singapore route of putting more than half the population in social housing -- the UK historically maxed out at about a third) is unrestrained sprawl, as practised by most non-coastal American cities. Incidentally, why does red-state America still have big problems with poverty and racism, despite being less afflicted by land rent than almost anywhere else in the developed world?
"what barrier to entry maintains the rent, do we think?" The Town and Country Planning Act 1947 (and its successors) of course...
That should have been "favouring finance and bureaucracy (which need very little space)"
Toggle Commented Oct 27, 2015 on Steel, & austerity denial at Stumbling and Mumbling
From Arse to Elbow seems to be blaming the current demise of steelmaking in Britain on Thatcher's war on the coal industry. But could the root cause of British industrial decline go all the way back to Attlee's Town and Country Planning Act (or perhaps more accurately to the amendments to it made by subsequent Tory governments, which allowed landowners to retain the planning gains)? This has made buildable land very expensive in Britain (hundreds of times more expensive in fact than in unconstrained American cities), favouring finance and bureaucracy (which need very space) at the expense of actual productive industry, and creating the destructive petty-rentier mentality that Blissex describes so well. The United States is a bigger industrial player because unrestricted fringe construction keeps land rents low, while Germany works by combining rent control, subsidies for new construction, and provision to confiscate land from overly-greedy speculators.
Toggle Commented Oct 27, 2015 on Steel, & austerity denial at Stumbling and Mumbling