economic liberalism

Something for nothing?

Jock — Sun, 20 Jan 2008 11:54:13 +0000

Last week David Cameron unveiled the Tories' latest wheeze - the idea that those able to work but not doing so and claiming benefits should be forced into some form of "community work" to justify their benefits after a period. Two years on Job Seeker's Allowance is enough to prove someone either unemployable or simply lazy goes the line. In some quarters it was hailed, not doubt with the help of the party spin machine, as an end to the "something for nothing culture" that pervades the benefits system.

Now, set aside for the moment the debate about whether this is some form of slave labour, or a way of quietly abolishing the minimum wage (although this latter begs the question as to whether it is right that only the unemployed should be allowed to opt for jobs below the minimum wage or whether only community groups should be allowed to pay below the minimum wage). We do in fact already have a deep rooted "something for nothing culture" in this country and seventy per cent of us, those who live in houses they actually own, believe that they have an absolute right to this "something for nothing" and over the past decade or so of rising land values, pushing house prices through the roof, they have benefitted massively.

Indeed, most of us can probably point to people who, over the past few years, have seen their wealth in the form of property, the value of their home, increase by more than their annual income from working. Equally in the same measure, we can probably point to people who, because they weren't lucky enough to have got in on this rat race of home ownership, have seen their chances of ever doing so fade as the multiple of income they now have to pay increases beyond any prudent lender would allow them to borrow.

Of course there are many who would point out that this wealth only really exists on paper; that for as long as we need a place to live the current value of the spot we own is of little meaning, as everywhere else is rising or falling in similar proportions and if we want to move we'll still need to cash in what we have and perhaps pay even more for our next home. And that this paper value is only of any use to us when we reach our final resting place or, if we are sensible about it, when we decide we no longer need the property we bought when we wanted to get the kids into a good local school or be close to the fast rail line into work or whatever and "downsize" or "escape to the country", hopefully giving us a pot of cash in the process to make our final years more comfortable.

Some may even suggest that it has been an unquestionable benefit to the economy as people have cashed in through equity release schemes and re-mortgaging to supply them with cash which has kept the consumer demand in the economy going when other countries' economies may have suffered recession and stagnation. As we face a possible slide in property values of course some of these people may find out to their cost that funding their lifestyles from the value of their home was a bad idea and that the only people, longer term, to benefit, are the bankers who they will be paying for their profligacy for years to come.

But I do not want to focus on whether housing is a good or bad investment: clearly in many cases it is a good one as the market is currently structured, albeit an unorthodox sort of investment - you don't usually get to consume something that continues to rise in value. I want to show you that it is an inequitable investment, that it is "something for nothing" and that the least well off pay for home owners' prosperity in a very real way even if that prosperity is mostly "on paper" for most of the time.

LAND: A part of the earth's surface, considered as property. The theory that land is property subject to private ownership and control is the foundation of modern society, and is eminently worthy of the superstructure. Carried to its logical conclusion, it means that some have the right to prevent others from living; for the right to own implies the right exclusively to occupy, and in fact laws of trespass are enacted wherever property in land is recognised. It follows that if the whole area of terra firma is owned by A, B and C, there will be no place for D, E, F and G to be born, or, born as trespassers, to exist.
Devil's Dictionary, 1911, Ambrose Bierce

If we go back to first principles, to what philosophy seems to call the "state of nature", some of the most fundamental assumptions are still as valid today as they ever were. We only have one planet. So every living soul born on that planet has to share it with everyone else - there is, as yet, no escape from that. The corollary of that is that everyone born on this planet has a right to a share of the planet - an absolute right, a "birthright". Some things we are completely dependent on the planet to provide for life...we need a place to live; humans cannot wander all the time, we need to sleep and to sleep we need to stop wandering. Similarly we need air, water, sustenance and again, we know ultimately of no way of producing these artificially without involving the natural resources of the planet.

Now, in that state of nature, if there's nothing else, like society, to hold us dependent on one place for any of these requirements of life, we would all be able to spread out, and appropriate as much land as we need to sustain our own lives, as individuals or families without negatively affecting anyone else. This "free land" gives us freedom, independence and life. Even today, in "overcrowded" England, as many would have us believe, there's enough land area for us all, every man, woman and child of us, to have just over a half an acre each - globally there's about 5.5 acres each of land mass. Naturally, not all these acres are fertile and even if they were, subsistence farming does not create wealth. Human growth and ingenuity requires that we specialize and socialize, which will usually mean also urbanize. Until we invent Scotty's instant transporter we have to make do by fitting many more people into urban land simply so they can be close enough to the facilities they need, and we need them to have - such as workplaces, to make working there viable.

But why should any of this mean that we give up our birthright, our common and individual birthright, to share equitably in the wealth of the planet itself? After all, you, the home owner, need me, the tenant, to work at whatever it is I do to provide you and everyone else with goods and services the economy demands. I, to fulfill my potential and contribute to the fullest to society, am better off working at what I do than ever I would be tending half an acre of small-holding (especially if you have seen my attempts to grow a window box of herbs!). But where is that birthright? Well, it is in the value of the location on which your home, office, factory or whatever stands, and it is created by and belongs to all of us!

Not one solitary square inch of English soil remains unclaimed on which the landless citizen can legally lay his hand without paying a toll to somebody; in other words, without giving a part of his own labor or the product of his labor to one of the squatting and tabooing class in exchange for their permission (which they can withhold if they choose) merely to go on existing upon the ground which was originally common to all alike, and has been unjustly seized upon (through what particular process matters little) by the ancestors or predecessors of the present monopolists.
"Individualism and Socialism," Contemporary Review (1889), Charles Grant Allen

You see, even John Locke, arch-defender of private property, recognized that there were limits to the right to appropriate land - the stuff of nature that exists in a finite amount yet which we all need to survive. Robert Nozick coined the phrase the "Lockean Proviso" for the principle that however much you take and occupy for yourself equity demands that you leave "enough, and as good, in common...to others". A hundred and thirty years after Locke wrote his Second Treatise of Government, David Ricardo formulated his Law of Rent, and a few years later Johann Heinrich von Thunen demonstrated the practicalities of this using data from his family estates.

It would be too much here to explain all of these ideas in any detail, but what they all amount to is that as you get closer to the social, employment, commercial facilities that more people need access to the land value surrounding those facilities absorbs some of the wages of all who need to access those facilities and is reflected in higher land values. So you see, this is not a fight just between the thirty per cent who don't own their home and the seventy that do. Many of that seventy per cent are also affected by this accretion of wages to land values. Think of it this way - you may have to settle (and you may enjoy it!) for buying a property several miles away from your work place or the nearest high quality commercial centre because all the property closer is too expensive. All those land owners that you pass on the way to work are gaining from your and the many other people in the same situation unfulfilled need.

Even more galling is that if we all happen to have the same incomes - you having managed to grab your slice of land at some earlier stage when it was less popular and therefore cheaper - we are taxed at the same level on those incomes. In turn both of our sets of taxes are used to invest in even more facilities that contribute to those land values. The person owning property closer to the "action" is gaining from all of our taxes disproportionately from those living further away. Similarly, the person owning property closer to the action has no incentive at all to release that location for others who may need it more at different stages in their lives, because they are continuing to gain from it and from those for whom it may now be a more appropriate place to settle. They are, quite literally, getting something for nothing, on their part at least. Something from the needs and activities of all of us that could make as good or better use of that location.

If you are interested in exploring this further, I would recommend a recent book by a chap called Fred Harrison, called "Ricardo's Law: House Prices and the Great Tax Clawback Scam (Why Tony Blair's Project Failed)" in which he shows that all the arguments about Londoners and people in the south east subsidizing other areas of the country via the tax and regional grant system pales into insignificance when you realize that the overall effect of that spending is to make property values in the south east and London increase faster.

Harrison concludes, as I do, that the entire tax system should therefore be based on the values created by all of us but currently "enclosed" by land owners. A hundred and more years ago the American self-educated economist, Henry George, encapsulated this into his idea of a "single tax" - that all the rental value of unimproved land in any jurisdiction should be collected by the state, whose fiscal program should be strictly limited to the amount that can be collected this way. He preferred, as again do I, that the state would do very little but turn that money around and dole it out to everyone, equally, in the form of a Citizen's Income; if you like, a dividend from what we all invest by creating that land value in the first place - our common birthright. At the same time, our average tax bill per individual would be halved, our economy would grow by around a third and we'd have a much more equitable society.

"The value of land rises as population grows and national necessities increase, not in proportion to the application of capital and labour, but through the development of the community itself. You have a form of value, therefore, which is conveniently called 'site value,' entirely independent of buildings and improvements and of other things which non-owners and occupiers have done to increase its value - a source of value created by the community, which the community is entitled to appropriate to itself. …In almost every aspect of our social and industrial problem you are brought back sooner or later to that fundamental fact."
[Mr. H.H. Asquith, at Paisley, 7th June 1923]

"We hold, as we always have held, that, so far as practicable, local and national taxes which are necessary for public purposes should fall on the publicly-created value rather than on that which is the product of individual enterprise and industry. That does not involve a new or additional burden on taxation, but it would produce these two consequences - first of all, that we should cease to be imposing a burden upon successful enterprise and industry; and next, that the land would come more readily and cheaply into the best use for which it is fitted. These two things would be two potent promoters of industry and progress."
[Mr. H.H. Asquith, at Buxton, 1st June 1923] read more »

The libertarian response to the BabyP case

Jock — Wed, 03 Dec 2008 08:51:25 +0000

Over at "Letters from a Tory", the question has been posed, how would libertarians have protected BabyP. It is something I thought about quite a lot when the story first broke and I've written a long response to LFAT in the comments there. But I thought it was worth posting in its own right:

I go further, in theory at least, than even LFAT's definition of libertarianism (as one who believes the state should enforce the law). I am more of an anarchist. Though people often misunderstand that as meaning absolutely no controls on what people do and no institutions to enforce them. That is wrong; anarchists would say that in doing away with government other structures, such as a “private law society ”, would emerge that are more consenual and explicitly contract and economic incentive driven. Also anarchism rests on the core belief in self-ownership and that everyone has the right to do as they please insofar as it does not affect another’s ability to do the same.

I did think quite long and hard about how the BabyP case ought to affect that perspective. The first thing I found is that there are at least another couple of dozen incidents of the death of a child (half under one and most by parents themselves) in “child cruelty” type incidents (rather than accident or bizarre whole family suicide type incidents I assume) every year in Britain. In other words, BabyP is not the unique case that the (quite justified) moral outrage it has generated seems to suggest. Maybe it’s mostly because Haringay is seen as having “form” on this issue after Climbie. It's a "good story" that "social services gets it wrong again". Not such a good story that at least another two dozen are going on every year around the country and nobody seems to care!

But the message is that whatever various social services and child protection agencies do know they “fail” a lot more than they’re telling us. My suspicion is that this is down to most other cases being completely under the radar of the state protection apparatus until it’s too late (and if so - what use are those state agencies if they are unable to prevent the most egregious abuse because they cannot see it coming?). Determined sadists are often quite good at covering their tracks. Just look at both Fritzl in Austria and our own version in Sheffield the other week. We can be shocked and say someone must have noticed that level of abuse even with the most determined concealing by the perps, but no. It happens and nobody managed to stop it or even recognize it.

Also, even in an anarchist worldview, the care of a child is something that is a joint trust between parents and the rest of society - society would have ended up paying for the effects of his tortured life, as Martin Narey (deliberately) controversially said, if he had grown up to become a “feral yob”. Indeed, as Guido says in the comments on LAFT's post, our welfare and benefits systems include some level of perverse incentive for people to have children who probably shouldn’t; or at least shouldn’t at a point in their lives when they can barely support themselves.

At the moment then we “contract out” to effectively disinterested parties (the state - who get paid in reality whatever the outcome and only get into any bother at all in the most egregious and publicly visible cases of failure) to carry out a function more properly suited to much more local, neighbourhood, and more importantly family, scrutiny. Where, in a “market anarchist” worldview, ought such oversight to lie? Can we imagine on whom there would be an economic incentive to ensure as far as is possible the safety of someone else’s child?

As others have mentioned, institutions such as the RSPCA (though I think they have been ceded too much power often) and the RNLI, already carry out an effective job in their respective fields. Something like the NSPCC would emerge as the champion of the most vulnerable in the last resort and would in a private law society be likely to take action to defend the “self-ownership” and freedom from aggression and coercion of a child, even against its parents (if it became apparent). Should a hospital say even allow a child born to someone who has not the means or willingness to make proper provision for bringing up a child (which could probably be evidenced from their pre-natal attitude or lack of attempt to make provision) to be taken home in the first place without much more scrutiny as to how good care they’re going to get?

Remember too, that we believe that in the absence of state-capitalism and the grossly distorted playing field that creates through privilege and patronage to the detriment of the poorest, even those poorest would be better equipped economically to make provision through friendly societies and such like for health care and so on. So I’m not suggesting that the poor should not be allowed to take their babies home. Just that in such an environment it would probably be more noticeable, not less, as to which parents had even made an honest attempt to make provision or establish a support network of family first, community second and paid for assistance third, and perhaps the economic incentive might fall on the delivering hospital at least to ensure that such prima facie support was available. They could then even at that early stage alert an organization such as NSPCC or find themselves on the receiving end of a negligence claim if anything bad happened.

Finally (I think), in such a more human scale society, I suggest it would be easier, not harder, for friends and neighbours to intervene earlier. It is in most of their economic interests often too not to be supporting or fostering in their midst the sort of home circumstances in which these sort of psychotic evil doers can function with impunity. Would the mother’s partner’s sadistic friend really only have been a problem for the child? Would not neighbours and other family members have an interest in ensuring they were driven from their midst? At the moment everyone is too tied up in making ends meet in an unfair world perhaps to care too much what happens next door until it spills over more obviously into their lives.

In summary, I’m not sure I can see how in an anarchist, private law type society, it could be any worse than relying on the economically disincentivised civil servants to whom we contract out our social and neighbourly awareness “duties”. And the altogether more humane, less oppressed society that ought to result from such freedoms may well be able to intervene earlier and more consensually in order to protect their own interests as well as those of the child. read more »

Repent! For the end of the state is nigh!

Jock — Mon, 03 Nov 2008 16:44:27 +0000

The End is Nigh
Originally uploaded by Martin~

Or, why I am really a "geo-mutualist" and why I think you should be too!

The revolution has begun. In fact it's been building for at least twenty years. When history looks back it will not probably be able to identify a particular date, but it could do worse than choose Christmas Day 1990, the day a humble academic computing geek communicated with his server in something nobody had really heard of called "hyper text". Finally there was something useful to do with the "internet" that would eventually draw in users from well outside of the ivory towers and military research facilities that developed it. Users in every corner of the world; users of every age and race; users of every background.

And what will history say about this revolution? Will it be seen as a great leap in human freedoms, capable of finally fulfilling Cobden's vision that "peace will come to earth when the people have more to do with each other and governments less"? Or perhaps that it heralded an era of unprecedented interference in our lives by governments?

Actually, I think it is a one way bet; that eventually it will be a revolution in human freedoms, in co-operation and in innovation. Such are the players in this brave new world; hackers working to bust the Great Firewall of China and liberate a fifth of the world's population for example; Kenyans being the first to be able to make payments quickly and simply by mobile phone; privacy technologists working to keep us one level of information security ahead of the law; game players investing ever more realistic virtual worlds; their individuality and very lack of co-ordination in many cases makes it inevitable.

What politicians can do, however, is either to make the transition long and painful, or to smooth its passage for the "good of mankind" so to speak. We can choose to stick by the state and try and keep it working just as its citizens are less and less tied to it, which will inevitably lead to more and more monitoring and restrictions; or we can choose to look at how to build alternative civic institutions and mechanisms to fulfill our needs in an era when the state has much less power to intervene at least without the force that is endemic in state action becoming more and more obvious to the point of rebellion against it.

So what is the great weapon of mass destruction that is going to bring low the state as we know it? Why, tax, of course. I'll let you into a little secret: in order to function a state needs to be able to tax: in order to tax it needs to have the ability to track transactions or peoples' wealth and changes therein. And from the taxpayer's point of view, there is every incentive to try to minimize their tax liability. Up until now, or very recently, it has been only the global super-rich who have had the means and sufficient incentive to take advantage of loopholes and allowances that enable them to choose the lowest tax jurisdiction in which to crystalize out their tax liability.

But thanks to the global and interpersonal nature of this most recent communications revolution we are on the cusp of mechanisms being easily available to the big majority of people that will enable us to minimize our "financial footsteps". When most of us only ever relate to the majority of our money through pixels on a screen or numbers on a bank statement - a small minority of trade now relies on real metal or crinkly coloured paper currency - what does it matter what those pixels are called; pounds, dollars, euro, yen? What about a completely new, essentially fictitious currency perhaps, like the "Linden Dollars" of "Second Life"?

Add e-Bay and Tesco to Second Life for example and one could imagine a world in which most of your financial transactions are conducted entirely in cyberspace, in virtual worlds that know no territorial boundaries or tax regimes (or at least that could be relocated into a sympathetic tax jurisdiction quickly if necessary), but with delivery of goods and services in the physical world. That's not to say giants like Tesco and e-Bay would necessarily be best, or would necessarily even survive the upheaval.

Those widespread international (and local) interpersonal (and business-to-business) mechanisms for sophisticated modern-day barter are now within reach and threaten the very raison d'etre of many of our longest standing institutions - banking and currency, transnational corporations built in an era when intermediaries were necessary to trade with far off lands, and ultimately the basis on which the state is founded - its monopoly of taxation. At the same time we can form non-geographic communities of genuinely voluntary co-operation in which we can build trust relationships, quasi-legal ways of dealing with disputes and so on that make trade possible with people a few short years ago we would have never had a hope of even communicating with.

So, which side are you going to be on - freedom and co-operation or ever more intrusion, regulation and restriction? And how long have we got?

Some of these technologies fall into the category of "overestimated penetration at 2 years, underestimated at 10 years." I think the state will be lucky if it has another decade of relatively easily collected taxes based on productivity, sales and incomes. If people want the state to be able to function beyond that, without increasingly authoritarian intrusion into our economic lives, we need to be looking now at how to make it pay its way through user fees for any value for money services we want it to provide. And as soon as it does of course it must also open itself to competition - else it's a monopoly again whose only rationale is to use its discretionary power to rip off the very people who both fund and use its services.

Unsurprisingly any of the various forms of land value tax will do to start with and would be especially beneficial implemented soon, near the bottom of the crash in land values currently underway. The present situation in financial markets offers an ideal opportunity for new means of trading without the sort of money so invidiously inflated and deflated by the banking cartels. Again, these alternatives could operate either on a local scale or in an international, or non-geographic trading community. Land has the singular benefit of being immoveable. You can't virtualize land as easily as you can income - for we all still need to have a base somewhere.

There's another major reason for helping this process away from the power of and dependency on nation states rather than fighting it - the state is expensive. The sort of redistributive measures required to ensure that everyone gets a fair crack at opportunity - the level playing field - are getting more and more expensive. Our interventions into the affordable housing market for example, in the form of subsidy, will continue to rise when land values rise, subsidizing the already-haves in the name of assisting the have-nots. Far better to try to ensure the fairest of level playing fields for all than trying to play uphill on a steepening playing field.

So, when you find me criticizing the state and its acolytes, it's less about what has gone on in times past - I would say times of missed opportunity for sure - but more on how we will be able to live in future, a future I think is pretty inevitable, in which the very idea of a state with the power to tax fairly will be severely compromised. The elephant in the room needs to be dealt with, and dealt with soon. Will it be freedom, or more desperate attempts to maintain the ailing state structures? You choose! read more »

geo-libertarian, internet, monetary reform, mutualism, surveillance state, tax

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 »

Land. Value. Tax.

Jock — Fri, 17 Oct 2008 22:52:59 +0000

Over at Lib Dem Voice they've printed a biographical piece from the Directory of Liberal Thought about Henry George, the leading proponent of the "single tax" in the nineteenth century that many of us know nowadays as "Land Value Tax" or "Site Value Rating". Several of the correspondents in the discussion following the article felt that they had never really understood, or had explained clearly and convincingly, what LVT is and why it is such a good thing. So I'll give it a go, though many have tried before me, and no doubt many of them more intelligibly.

Land.

Forget what you might think you know about land. In economic terms land refers to the third factor of production. If "labour" is the work that goes into something, "capital" the wealth invested or expended in producing more wealth then "land", in economic terms, is everything else - "the entire material universe not produced by the application of capital and labour." So yes, it includes the land underneath our feet, but it also includes the air, the electromagnetic spectrum, the cosmos, the mineral wealth of the planet, all in their natural states, natural fertility, self-seeded trees and plants, water and fish and non-domestic animals and so on.

Now, billions that we humans number, for most purposes most of these types of land are either unlimited or of indefinite supply. Some types we don't absolutely need to survive. Others we do need to survive. Others are fixed or limited in supply. As far as I am aware, we are pretty well attached to this planet. Every single human born so far has only had the resources of this one planet to sustain them. And since we need it to survive, then we must all, every one of us, have an equal claim on its natural bounties.

In early human society, hunter gatherer family units or tribes would simply range over as big a territory as necessary to meet their nutritional needs. For some, in fertile temperate parts of the world, this may have been a small area. For others, in less fertile territory, it might be a large area of rough foraging. But of course this sort of isolation, subsistence living, is not very conducive to human development. Through trade we grow, both as individuals and as communities. And as soon as we come together to trade certain locations become more important as places where people meet and we can no longer justly grab as much space as we want without excluding others. It is at this point that land begins to have...

Value.

The value of "land" is its "rent". Just as the cost of "labour" is "wages" and the cost of "capital" is "interest". When natural resources (land) are in infinite supply, so that anyone who wants to use some of it can just take it and there will still be plenty for everyone else, it has no rental value. But as soon as humans get together in clusters, the further we move away from being a agricultural based economy and as our survival is based more on our ability to sell our specialist labour for enough to sustain us those locations where we form our clusters begin to attract rent, because many people are in the scramble to be in the best location for their market.

A landowner might be able to make more efficient use of his location and fit more people onto a particular piece of land, or they might invest in creating a work of art for the discerning occupier who will pay a premium for quality. But the landowner, as a landowner, does not have to lift a finger to contribute to any change in the rental value of that location.

And when we buy our homes, what we are doing is rolling up all the location rent for a number of years and handing it over, together with the capital value of the buildings at that location, to the previous landowner, and usually borrowing to do so. This is a key concept in LVT - we are already paying this rent either monthly when we actually rent, or up front when we buy (but inflated often by the cost of borrowing to afford it). It is this "rent" value that Land Value Tax seeks to...

Tax.

To me, this is a big misnomer, and causes a deal of confusion about LVT even amongst "Land Value Taxers". The Georgist purist like me intends really for the community to share the rent for the locations that are made valuable by that whole community equally with everyone in that community. Shared equally because, remember, we have that equal right of access to the land as our birthright as creatures tied to it for the very stuff of life, and because we all help to create that overall rent value. We more commonly think of a "tax" as an imposition used to fund government spending. The community sharing of rent is really a way of each and every one of us paying everyone else who has just as much right to make as good use of our location as we do for the inconvenience of having to avoid it because we have exclusive rights to it.

The community in question is the area within which land has rental value - technically speaking "within the margin of production". In some cases that may still be just a single town or city - the desert outside Phoenix, Arizona, for example might well tail off to zero in rental value at the end of the irrigation system pipes. In others, it could be an entire country - for example it could be argued that we are such a small country that London creates some rental value almost everywhere in the country.

The effect of this rent sharing is that those in that geographical community, however big it is, whose productivity - ability to earn - means they can only afford to live in the cheapest locations with the lowest rents will get more, perhaps much more, than they pay out in location rent. Those whose ability to earn enables them to commandeer the best locations will be paying into the community rent fund much more than they get out. And the net effect of all that is that we create an automatic, self-adjusting safety net which, if you have nothing else coming in, should enable you to eke out a basic living on the most marginal, cheapest locations.

Of course many of you reading this actually do believe that government is sometimes the best body to deliver "essential" "public" "services" and will recoil from the idea of giving people a basic income for fear it becomes an invitation to idleness. That's fine. For you, the Land Value Tax would be a way of financing those public services. I will tend to try to persuade you to take that one further step and believe that giving people their money to spend for themselves will lead to better and more efficient services in most circumstances.

The single tax.

Now this is the other side of the equation. Nobody who is serious about LVT's benefits wants to add to the current tax bill. LVT must replace other taxes if it is to achieve its most important benefits - of freeing up labour and capital to invest and work in productive wealth creation. And so Henry George called it the "Single Tax" and his adherents were called "Single Taxers". Henry George reasoned that virtually all other forms of taxation constituted tariffs, and therefore barriers to wealth creating free trade. All except tax on land in the generic economic sense affect the resources that can be applied to productive enterprise - labour, capital and, in the end, consumer spending.

And remember, the best thing about all this is that most of us, that is everyone who is still paying a mortgage or anyone who rents anyway from a landlord, are already paying this "single tax" in the form of location rent to our landlord or previous landowner, who have done nothing as landowners to earn that bit of the rent. So reductions in any of these other taxes, such as employers National Insurance, Income Taxes, VAT and capital taxes, feed straight through into more money in our pockets. And not only that, but all the disincentives to work and creating employment created by our complex income tax system and the problems associated with benefits withdrawal rates and tax credits and so on, will be removed.

Nor must you believe that the "Single Tax" only refers to a tax on the rental value of one type of land. There are other finite natural resources that we can rightly claim belong equally to all of us but which attract an economic rental value because they are scarce amongst a given community of users. One can argue for a "Land Value Tax" on the exclusive right to transmit on particular frequencies in the electromagnetic spectrum. Or to fly through our airspace at a particular time and place. You could even describe some mechanisms for taxing polluters as a specialized "Land Value Tax" - though it may not be the best way to deal with such issues.

Common Objections:

"We've already been taxed on the money we bought our home with"

Actually, you've been taxed on what you have paid your rent with - whether you actually rented, or bought from the previous owner by paying over several years' rent up front. Any rise(or fall) in your property's rental value by the time you come to sell it on is mostly accounted for by changes in the location rent, to which you have not actually contributed, as a landowner anyway.

But think of it in a post-LVT world - you'll have paid substantially less for your home, you'll have borrowed substantially less to do so, and you will not be paying all those unproductive taxes on income and capital anyway.

We have plenty of "double taxation" in our current system anyway. I pay tax on my income, but then when I go out and spend my post-tax income on most most goods and services I will pay VAT at another 17.5% and possibly duties. And this is an ongoing double taxation - at least with LVT we're only talking about this effect being felt once - at the implementation date and then not again because all the other taxes will have been ended.

"Land rich, income poor - the "poor widow bogey""

As long ago as 1909 Winston Churchill used to be taunted by the Tories with what he called the "poor widow bogey" - the supposedly unbeatable argument that LVT would be wrong because people who happen to have seen the rental value of their location rise will have to pay more in location rent without necessarily having more income with which to do so.

First, again, think of it in a post-LVT world - you will have borrowed substantially less to acquire the various places you will have lived in your life and you will be paying, if you are efficient in your use of land at least, less in tax in the form of location rent. You will have more to save and invest in productive assets other than housing. If you choose to save for your retirement an amount that allows you to continue paying your location rent till you drop, fair play to you. But the evidence is in fact that there is a huge unmet demand for people downsizing nearing retirement (indeed it is mostly the best off pensioners who are able to do this at present). LVT, because it makes the market in land and locations much more reactive to community change, will more than likely encourage this need to be met.

But in the implementation there is some evidence that a very small proportion of pensioners would indeed face larger bills than they have at the moment. For those Land Value Taxers who would prefer to implement LVT slowly, increasing the rate of the tax over a long period of time, their answer would be to allow such people to roll up their tax bill until they do eventually sell up and move or for their estate to pay. I, preferring the big bang approach, would simply compensate people for the lost land value in bonds which they can use to pay their tax into the future.

"Confiscating the value of our biggest asset"

It is true that implementing the full rent sharing I outline above will wipe out the capitalized rent values that one is accustomed to seeing as part of the "sale price". And it is also true that this will hurt those most recently on the ladder and having just borrowed to pay for that up-front location rent.

But the home you live in is not really "wealth" in the conventional sense. Until you are at the stage of downsizing or selling up completely, the value of your home really only matters in respect of its relationship to the price of your next one. For most of us, for most of our lives, our shelter is a cost of living - either in rent or mortgage payments. And if we have slashed the cost of buying by removing the land value, then we have also slashed the cost of your next home in similar proportion.

Again though, in transition from one system to another, with my big bang approach, those who lose out can be compensated with bonds with which, for example, they could pay off any outstanding mortgage over the new land-free market value. If you take the slower incremental implementation mechanism, again, the loss will be less all at once; indeed you could structure implementation such that it effectively only capture future rises in rental values.

"Impossible to value"

This is the "experts' objection" that it will be too cumbersome to invent a system that values the rent for each plot of land every year. And more than that, that it will be arbitrary. But we know from evidence in on the ground pilot studies that we only actually have to value about one in ten plots that share common characteristics in the form of access to services and infrastructure say. It's also not really too different from the current system of self-assessed income taxes. A game is played out every year with taxpayers trying to minimize their liability and the HMRC trying to catch people out hiding some of their income. And here there is no market to help.

The average mortgage lasts eight years. That means that somewhere around 12.5% of our owner occupied housing is valued every year just to get a mortgage valuation. More in recent years where people have been encouraged to chop and change their mortgage even though they are not moving home.

And then there's the rental market. There will always remain benefits to renting for some in the population - short term workers and so on. So there will remain a rental market. This presents yet more, and really very accurate, evidence on which to base valuations- more accurate once you take away the capital gains aspect of land ownership as landlords will only be investing in a rental stream.

And ultimately the market will still highlight areas where the assessed location rents are higher or lower than investors think they should be. If buyers think the current rents are too high, they are going to offer a discount on the capital value of the buildings themselves and if assessed rents are adjudged too low by the market, buyers will offer a premium over the building values in order to get the more desirable location at a lower location rent until the location rent is adjusted the next year.

And finally, let's not pretend that this is new - we had Schedule A imputed rent on our homes on our tax returns until 1963.

"Concreting over surburbia"

There is often concern that when Land Value Taxers talk about our system leading to more efficient land use we mean that every available inch of land will be developed. There is no reason to think this in reality. It will first bring into use completely unused land - that mouldering old factory that's been sitting empty and becoming more and more of an eyesore for a decade for example.

But there's no reason why Land Value Tax would not be subject to a similar planning regime as now. It would change - because a community decision that they would prefer housing to a factory on a particular site for example will lead to that factory being redeveloped a deal sooner than it might today, because its owners are going to be seeing their location rents rise to the point that running a factory there would be inefficient compared with developing it for housing, say.

Personally I would also like to see many planning controls repealed anyway and have most (ie small scale) developments make their peace privately with its neighbours through mediation rather than state control.

Overall though, there is little evidence that people would suddenly settle for a squashed apartment instead of a suburban semi with garden and garage just because of LVT. It will encourage people to consider whether their continuing use of a particular location is cost effective for them and it will make the market more efficient and so there is likely to be more rebuilding, but that doesn't need to be at the expense of amenity.

In conclusion

So, there then was my now not so concise explanation of Land Value Tax and some brief responses to some of its most common objections. It is quite important to get across just how land gains its value though. That helps to explain why some of us see LVT as such a just and equitable way of doing things. If we had Star Trek style free instant transportation systems, land would again be worthless but while it take time (which is money opportunity lost) and money itself to get from A to B the land in between A and B is absorbing some of your hard earned income (and that of everyone else who has to pass it by every day) for doing precisely nothing.

Land values are effectively a tax on all production and one we already pay anyway. Getting rid of all those other taxes on production and capturing for the community the rental values of land will create such a different more equitable economic playing field on which we all continue to ply our various trades. read more »

Private charity, voluntary co-operation or state welfare

Jock — Thu, 25 Sep 2008 20:56:26 +0000

One of the most common points of disagreement between, let's call them "state-interventionists" and "non-interventionists", is the claim that "non-interventionism" would leave the poorest in society on the scrap heap with no welfare, no support. That the much vaunted idea of "non-interventionists" that "private charity" or "voluntary co-operation" would take the place of state welfare is just an impossible pipe dream. So determinedly do "state-interventionists" believe their own claims that they frequently castigate "non-interventionists" as heartless uncaring selfish individualists who would rather see others die than pay taxes. One quote from a Lib Dem Voice "discussion" just today will give you the general idea:

"Well none of them [Libertarians] are serious, because it an incoherent philosophy....send the kids back down the mines, it’s only a lifestyle choice."

And to an extent, I used to believe that propaganda. As a geo-libertarian of course I do have an answer of sorts - the basic income derived from land user fees (which would on their own create an almost unimaginably more equitable society in any case) would cover the basics of life for everyone, and give everyone an incentive to top it up with as much or as little work as they can manage.

But a recent discussion on a "non-interventionist" mailing list I've been frequenting recently has challenged the basic assumption of this debate for me. Would people really not contribute voluntarily to the upkeep of others if you don't have a government apparatus threatening them with the confiscation of their property and ultimately the loss of their freedom unless they pay their taxes?

It is a strange proposition. Governments for at least the last sixty years have been supporters at some level or another of some form of state welfare. They may argue about how much is appropriate but the fact is, people have overwhelmingly voted for a state that takes money from you in order to give some of what's yours to someone deemed "less fortunate". We even have a cliche about the inevitability of death, and taxes.

We have tens, maybe hundreds of thousands of people who do voluntarily give up their time to care for another. Most people are someone's relative, someone's friend, someone's colleague. And whilst I recognize that some do not have such support networks and would still require some form of collective support, most people do not want to see their friends and relatives on skid row or worse.

One has to wonder whether the interventionist route actually makes things worse. And in how many ways. When we look at our pay packets do we not think often that we've given quite enough for the support of others through our taxes thank you very much. National Insurance and Income Tax between them effectively make the worker near forty per cent worse off. I know what I would do with an extra forty per cent each month. It would pay the interest bill on the piece of land we have just acquired for our first Community Land Trust for a start.

Other taxes and protectionist policies keep the prices we pay for basics artificially high and create incentives for companies to produce cash cows rather than exciting developments. I'll bet if we didn't guarantee one pharmaceutical company a contract for however many millions of doses of Metformin diabetes pills every year a dozen others would have put the effort in to find a cure, not a chronic treatment regime.

The attempt to do welfare as a "universal" system, with the same rules for everyone, means a bloated bureaucracy enforcing inflexible regulations. If welfare were, say, to be dealt with at the parish level, and the barriers to job creation caused by taxes eradicated, I'll bet you more people would be found some work, appropriate to their abilities, even if it didn't give them everything they need and then people would feel much better about helping them out with the rest - because they were trying to help themselves as best they could. We have no way of measuring that at a national level really.

We have a Professor here at Brookes, a chap called Steven King. His area is the History of Welfare mostly in the 18th and 19th centuries - probably the period which received wisdom says was the harshest environment if you were poor or hapless. But I was fascinated by a lecture he gave a couple of years ago on being elevated to the professoriate (you are elevated to that aren't you?). Apparently when parishes were responsible for pensions, those who actually got a pension - those whom their own peers and neighbours if you like knew had simply tried and been unable to support themselves (in common parlance I guess the "deserving poor") would get on average 75% of the average working wage for their area. For others there were varying levels of support down to a pretty basic safety net that was intended to be subsistence rather than comfortable for those they felt were "swinging the lead".

And then there's the problem of administrative costs. If I had an extra 40% in my pay packet and was going to give it away, I'd know that the people or organizations I was giving it to would get all of my donation. I'll bet for the 40% the state apparatus take off me in taxes, probably half actually gets to someone who needs it, to direct service delivery, if that.

So, given all those disadvantages of, and the singular advantage that people actually vote for, this tax based welfare system at some level or another, is it not just possible that by doing away with all that coercion, all that centralization, all that unproductive bureaucracy, the people who get to keep what they earn would be quite proud to "do the right thing" by their neighbours and communities? If they vote at the ballot box to have money taken off them by the state for things they obviously believe are necessary, would they suddenly feel they were not necessary or that they should not contribute towards those same things without the threats of the state? Isn't that a totally illogical position? You'd vote for it but not do it if the people you vote for didn't force you to do it?

And so, at the very least, would it not be at least a courtesy to accept that Libertarianism is an optimistic creed; that it is positive about humanity's innate ability and even need to help each other. You may call that a naive optimism. But I'd rather be a glass half full freedom lover than the glass half empty authoritarian approach that says humanity will not help itself unless it is forced to do so by the agents of a state apparatus that may, just may, cause more problems than it actually solves. Libertarian is not a "devil may care/beggar thy neighbour" philosophy but one that places the utmost faith in people, as individuals, to know and do what is right.

And as to whether it is a "coherent philosophy" or not, I submit that "non-interventionism" is the only truly coherent philosophy in the game. For once you admit the state can do one thing better than we can through voluntary co-operation, you inevitably end up in endless arguments between factions about just how much the state can do better, and the ultimate end of that arms race is totalitarianism - that the state can do everything better than voluntary co-operation. Which is manifestly not true. read more »

Three hundred years of lies, confidence tricks and outright fraud...

Jock — Fri, 19 Sep 2008 22:27:54 +0000

...and we still don't seem to know what to do about bankers!

The Bank of Scotland, whatever is now left of it, is 312 years old. That of England just two years older. Ever since the banking system has been built on state protectionism, corporate welfare, monopoly privilege and, at its heart, a gigantic fraud.

The fraud was that a goldsmith could give both you and I receipts for my gold stored in his vaults and make money on both - from me a fee for keeping my gold, from you interest on the receipt you had borrowed from him. Indeed they found they could duplicate this so frequently, fraud upon fraud if you like, that though gold is perhaps regrettably no longer the basis of our money, the "hardest money", real "hard cash", amounts now to just three per cent of our total money supply in terms of everything we all have collectively borrowed and deposited.

To be fair, most goldsmiths at least issued notes of their own. Customers - both depositors and borrowers - chose which goldsmith to bank with on their reputation. If they became overstretched, issued what was felt to be too many receipts for the same gold, their notes would be less desirable in trade, there may even be a "run" when all the receipt holders tried to get their "real" money, the gold, out of the bank, which of course had much less gold than he had issued such receipts for. Nowadays, however, what they create and destroy in their lending business is denominated in the national currency, a currency issued nominally at least, by the state and guaranteed by the state.

This means it is no longer a private affair between a bank and its customers as to whether their business practices jeopardise their customers' savings; it is a problem for us all. We have ceded control of the supply of money issued in our name to private businesses whose main aim is to make profit for themselves and who, in the course of that otherwise noble pursuit, play fast and loose with the very air the entire economic system requires to function. And states protect them, bail them out as seems about to be the case in the US to the tune of almost countless billions, because they have to guarantee the currency they have so little control over.

Regular readers will know I am very fond of a quotation from Josiah Stamp, Liberal politican, Chairman of the Midland Bank in the 1920s and reputedly second wealthiest man in Britain in his lifetime:

"Banking was conceived in iniquity and was born in sin. The Bankers own the earth. Take it away from them, but leave them the power to create deposits, and with the flick of the pen they will create enough deposits to buy it back again.

"However, take it away from them, and all the great fortunes like mine will disappear and they ought to disappear, for this would be a happier and better world to live in. But, if you wish to remain the slaves of Bankers and pay the cost of your own slavery, let them continue to create deposits."

It rather seems to me that with the events of the past few days, we may be "taking the earth away from them" (or, more accurately and nauseatingly, buying it back from them) which they have stolen from us with their inflationary approach to money, but leaving them the power to create those deposits all over again with which, in the next bubble, they will buy it all back again.

Everyone seems to think that money has somehow been pretty constant. The way it works I mean, not whether we call it shillings and guineas or pounds and pence. But the current confidence trick really began with the depression of the 1930s and the work of two extremely wealthy, powerful men in the US who persuaded the government of their day to set up the system that enabled them to create "our" money according to their corporate priorities. The results of John D Rockerfeller and John P Morgan Jnrs' work was the Federal Reserve and the rapid ramping up of fractional reserve banking, and the eventual demise of real solid backing for that currency.

If the current crisis really does turn out to be the "big crunch" at the end of the cycle begun by that 1930s "big bang" we should be ready with policy to replace that fraudulent, anti-competitive, oligarchical system, designed by the very wealthy to keep them that way for little actual productive work with something different. Entirely different. I do not detect any mainstream politicians with the cojones to say so. Our governments and politicians are but eunuchs to the bankers, and the longer that continues, the more the vast majority of us will suffer. 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 »

BAA: Wrong Monopoly

Jock — Wed, 20 Aug 2008 19:30:01 +0000

The Competition Commission has suggested, perhaps commanded (I no longer know what sort of power the CC has given that most competition issues are meant to be dealt with on a Europe-wide basis) that BAA ought to sell some of its airports, and in particular two of the three main London ones. I am uneasy about this for two main reasons...

First off I am deeply suspicious about the timing of the Competition Commission's investigation which seemed to be a (possibly coincidental) reaction to those foreigners (Ferrovial) taking over a British company which had owned those airports for a significant time. If there was a problem with monopoly, surely it should have been taken into account when BAA was first privatised.

And second it is a big step to try and force someone to divest themselves of their own property, especially when it's not as if they are "absentee landlords" but working, and presumably working quite successfully (other than the debt burden) the property.

But there is another problem. The monopoly is not really about the airports themselves - and indeed making them compete directly by being owned by separate owners wanting to maximise their income from each individual airport is likely I would have thought to result in heavier use of all of them, increasing the discomfort for the folk who have to live as neighbours of these smelly, filthy, noisy facilities.

It is exacerbated by the fact that what they really control is access to the airlanes that supply those airports. Airlanes that are, in the economic sense, "land" - part of "unimproved" natural resources with finite space - and in this case also time - (though of course safety technologies can increase the capacity a little) for all the potential users. This is part of the commons, and Ferrovial/BAA and the longer established airlines profit directly from the monopolistic enclosure of those airlanes.

Like the Electromagnetic Spectrum they are part of the "commons" and should be leased at their full economic rent from the state for our collective benefit. They are most commonly called "landing slots" and are worth a huge amount of money - Deloittes reckons that peak day time slots at Heathrow are worth up to £30 million per pair in summer, and there are 9,562 (4,781 pairs - one to land and one to take off on) per week in high season, with an overall limit of 480,000 per year at the moment.

The slot situation is currently, by common consent, pretty chaotic. The government has capped the amount BAA can charge and capped the amount by which it can increase the charge, but 97% of all slots at Heathrow for example are not open to effective competition as they are sold at this capped cost to airlines who have been there the longest, so called "grandfather rights". Heathrow is the only airport in Europe at which there is a significant amount of secondary trading in a "grey" market which is where the £30 million per pair arises. All this profit, the economic rent, goes to the airlines and Deloittes goes on to calculate that BA's slot portfolio may be worth up to £2bn if it were included in its balance sheet as an asset compared with its market capitalisation of around £2.7bn!

The CAA should be auctioning airspace rights to all airports at whatever the market will pay, whilst airports themselves should be responsible for charging the airlines for the use of the "improvements" - the terminal access, ground facilities and so on.

This would force traffic that doesn't actually need to use these massively oversubscribed London airports out to existing regional airports first, often reducing travel times - why travel from Lancaster to London to get a plane if the destination you want is available more cheaply from Manchester - as well as bringing increased economic activity to the areas around those regional airports - airports are a huge draw for international businesses. And unless the overall capacity of slots convenient for travelers' points of origin and destination is actually more than required, would generate a goodly sum for the government in a more market efficient way than say fuel taxes.

I hope we will be having a debate at South Central regional conference on Heathrow's third runway proposals. I believe the rigorous eradicating of this money for nothing monopoly on the part of the airports and airlines through nationwide slot auctions would actually obviate the need for the extra imposition this third runway would cause on teh surrounding areas without affecting overall the competitiveness of Heathrow for flights that really need to use it. read more »

Oxford of a million minds: a bit of fun

Jock — Fri, 15 Aug 2008 22:47:53 +0000

Yesterday in my piece about the Policy Exchange think tank's suggestion that Oxford and Cambridge ought to be allowed to expand to as many as a million homes I mentioned the work "Car Free Cities" by J H Crawford which I came across a decade ago when looking into Oxford's last Local Plan. In it he postulates a city of a million people with a topology and transport system that means that any two addresses anywhere in the city would be no more than 35 minutes apart by foot and rapid transit system.

The city is made up of many districts of about 12,000 population like strings of beads along one of three overlapping rapid transport loops. Every home is less than five minutes walk from open countryside. And whilst the densities within the districts are amongst the highest on earth (similar to Seoul, for example, although nothing is more than three stories in the reference designs) only 20% of the total 100 sq mile (10 by 10) area is developed at all, leaving all the areas between the beads and strings as open countryside or managed parkland or whatever. Overall then the density is not a lot greater than Oxford's current density and less than the average of Greater London as a whole.

So, for a bit of fun, I superimposed Crawford's one million population city topology onto the ten by ten mile square centered on the current centre of Oxford. Now sure, a million population is only probably about a third of the million households the Policy Exchange report was ultimately suggesting, but if anyone says to you that it would simply be impossible to imagine a million people in the area between Wheatley and Eynsham, Littlemore and Kidlington, you can say you have seen how, and with no traffic and only 20% of the land developed to boot! It would currently take me over an hour to get from the end of one of these loops to about a third of the way out the adjacent one, incidentally.

Now nobody is suggesting that we do this, least of all me. I'm just demonstrating that it would be possible, indeed whilst making more of the green belt actually because all the space would be accessible in minutes rather than in half an hour in the car, it would reach right into everyone's neighbourhood - with open country no more than 400m from every front door. Fitting such principles into existing cities is of course much more difficult than an academic sitting at a drawing board with a blank sheet of paper. They need not be loops for example but twelve strings with termini at the end of each. It would increase average journey times but not the overall maximum of 35 minutes door to door and could be fitted in along existing radial roads as a series of villages.

Incidentally, the picture on the right here shows some of the housing in the ward with the highest density in England, at least that I can find - a "middle level super output area" either side of the Cromwell Rd in Kensington & Chelsea. I notice from Net House Prices that there have been 267 £1m plus residential property transactions in the last eight years in this post code area. This is getting pretty close to the densities that would be required in a city such as that in Crawford's book. It's hardly slum clearance stuff is it! read more »