Paul Mason still isn't understanding the Laffer Curve, is he?

That the Laffer Curve is obviously true at some level of taxation still escapes all too many people. 100% taxation of everything would leave no activity to be taxed and zero taxation of anything would raise no revenue. At some point inbetween there's a maximum amount of revenue that can be extracted from the system, quite obviously and quite clearly.

But even among those who manage to get that there are still all too many who fail to realise that each form of taxation has its own curve. We generally think - we think it's a bit high, true, others a bit low - that something like 40% on incomes is a rate which most people will cough up for. There are very few indeed who believe that a 40% VAT would have the same sort of effect. And no one at all who thinks that a 40% transactions tax, say stamp duty on housing or shares, would be an optimal level of anything at all let alone a tax rate.

Different taxes thus have different peaks of their respective Laffer Curves. Something which Paul Mason seems not to know: 

Windfall taxes on bank profits and on bankers’ bonuses, and a crackdown on offshore tax avoidance could – if Labour is prepared to be aggressive enough – collect serious amounts of money. So could a financial transaction tax. Touted for more than 20 years by economists on the centre left, the sums raised by a so-called Tobin tax may not be spectacular, because many of its benefits come in the form of financial markets reducing risk and suppressing speculation, thereby lowering any potential tax take.

But in February, former JP Morgan economist Avinash Persaud proposed a plan to extend the UK’s existing tax on share-dealing to bonds and derivatives. Even this modest proposal would generate £5bn a year. In the form advocated by the Trades Union Congress, it could raise at least £20bn.

That TUC version is from the egregious Richard Murphy so we know that that's going to be wrong. The only question, as ever, is in working out why it's wrong. Fortunately, one of us has already done that. The EU's own calculations of even a 0.1% FTT were that that was well above the peak of the Laffer Curve.

And it was truly above the peak too. We are not talking about people avoiding or evading the charge, leaving the country or anything like that. Such an FTT would lower share prices, make capital more expensive, thus lead to less investment and a smaller overall economy. A smaller overall economy from which the rest of the taxation system would be able to extract less revenue, even after we take into account the direct revenue from the FTT. And recall, this was the EU's own analysis of their own proposal.

An FTT loses tax revenue, not gains it, because an FTT at any rate is higher than the Laffer Curve peak for that particular type of tax.

Which is our message to Paul Mason and others who think there is some vast pot of tax money out there that can be gained. Kings and Parliaments have been trying to extract money from us for at least a millennium now. There are no pots someone hasn't tried to tax as yet, there is no miracle to extract more from us without our noticing. And yes, Art Laffer was in fact right at a certain level of tax rate, that rate dependent upon which tax we're talking about.

This word "liberal" is getting rather abused

The word liberal being so abused as to make near no sense in this from Giles Fraser:

The EU debate, now breaking out all over Europe, has flushed out the extent to which the so-called left, now overrun by liberalism, has largely abandoned this historical position. In this country, the liberal left now believes that support for the single market and economic free trade is the very thing that distinguishes them from a so-called hard Tory Brexit. This is an astonishing change of position. It used to be obvious to democratic socialists that the terms of international trade should be set not by the market alone but also by democratically elected governments subject to the will of their electorates. But the liberal left, perhaps not trusting how ordinary people (as opposed to more enlightened economic “experts”) might vote, thinks that trade should be free of the irritating interventions of democratic accountability. They want it to be frictionless – an irritating euphemism that ultimately means: not subject to will of the people.

The liberal project, from its inception (whether you want to start that with Smith, or Hume earlier, or Cobden later) has always been most insistent on the subject of trade.

It isn't nations that trade with nations, it isn't political entities which trade with political entities. It is individuals and associations of individuals - perhaps companies, perhaps cooperatives, but just groups of people - who then trade with individuals and associations of individuals.

Thus who should be able to trade, and how, with whom, is something to be left to individuals and associations of individuals. It is precisely by it being the people who trade who decide what and how to trade that trade is subject to the will of the people.

Instead of being run through the nation state, the thing which does not trade, and thereby be subject to hijacking in favour of special interests.

Perhaps not many people would be interested in Norwegian beef. But it's not the voice of the people that has placed a 344% import tariff upon it, is it? It's the concentrated interest of Europe's farmers that has led to that, and the 200% on such from Morocco, the 80% from Colombia.

The point of free trade is precisely that it is liberal, that it is the expression of the voice of the people.

But then in this diminished modern age we have rather fallen, haven't we? Time was when it was Bishops of the Church of England who mangled morality on our behalf, now we have to make do with mere Canons. Eheu fugaces, where is Spacely-Trellis these days?

We would not say that this surprises us

The House of Lords tells us that farming exports are hugely reliant upon access to the market of the remnant European Union:

Leaving the European Union without a trade deal in place could put up to 97% of British food and drink exports at risk, according to a House of Lords report that lays bare the agricultural industry’s overwhelming reliance on local markets.

As negotiations between the EU and British government appear to take a turn for worse, concerns are growing that failure to reach an exit deal could leave many industries facing steep tariff barriers in future – something government ministers hope could be offset by opportunities in other international export markets.

The latest Lords report on the implications of Brexit exposes particularly high dependency on the single market and associated EU trade deals among British farmers and food manufacturers.

We just cannot say that this surprises us. For as they also say:

It is the impact on farmers that is giving peers most cause for concern, and the report warns of a possible quadruple whammy from Brexit as they lose access to EU farm subsidies, European export markets, access to European workers and protection from a cheap imports from outside the EU.

The entire EU system is built so as to keep small scale Northern European farming viable. That's why those barriers against cheap imports, the things which would make the average person across the country so much better off. That's why the money lifted from wallets as tax to pay the subsidies. And of course that's why exports are so reliant upon those other places which have extortionately high food prices as a result of trying to keep small scale Northern European farming viable.

And, of course, the great promise of Brexit, that we can reconsider this and other such arrangements and decide whether they're worth it.

We think not of course. Subsidies these days are the single farm payment and that's just, as David Ricardo pointed out 200 years ago last fortnight, going to act as an increase in rental value and thus push up the capital value of land. Abolishing the system as a whole will thus reduce the capital requirement for anyone desiring to go into farming and thus, well, you know, make it cheaper to be a farmer? Plus, also, make food cheaper for all us consumers as the repeal of the Corn Laws showed that 150 odd years ago.

And it really is true that we're supposed to be doing our economic management for consumers, not producers. Abolish the entire system of agricultural subsidies and we'll all, in aggregate, be better off. Thus we should abolish all agricultural subsidies.

As we've been saying, nothing so conservative as a modern lefty

George Monbiot reiterates something we've been saying for some time now:

Conservatism takes three main forms. Inclusive conservatism seeks to protect objects of value for the benefit of everyone. These might include great urban vistas, or national parks, or wildlife, or works of art, or great institutions, such as the NHS and the BBC. This is the conservatism governments invoke when a nation goes to war.

For of course those are all the things that our current left scream are the national treasures and which must never be changed in any manner. That is, there's nothing quite so conservative as a modern lefty.

After that burst of truth we do find the main nub of his argument to be terribly, terribly, amusing:

In converting European law into UK law through the so-called great repeal bill, the government will grant itself the power, as its white paper states, “to correct the statute book where necessary”. “Correcting the statute book” will come to be seen as one of the great political euphemisms of our time.

The corrections will take the form of secondary legislation, which means using something called a statutory instrument. The government estimates that 800 to 1,000 of these instruments will be required – on top of the usual total – and their impact will be profound, as they are dealing with huge issues. In practice, there is almost nothing parliament can do to challenge them. As the Brexit analyst Ian Dunt points out, the bill is “shaping up to be the single biggest executive power grab in Britain’s postwar history”.

Statutory instruments cannot be amended. Due to a combination of government control over the parliamentary timetable and a number of arcane and archaic procedures, hardly any have been blocked in the 70 years of their existence. Already their power is freely abused. They are supposed to be reserved for technical matters: straightening out laws in ways that don’t alter our relationship to the state. Increasingly, they are used to sneak more significant changes through parliament. As the journalist Jane Fae reports, 1,900 a year were used, on average, by the last Labour government (a high enough number, which probably incorporated plenty of abuses); under the Conservatives this has risen to more than 3,000.

Unpicking EU legislation will be done by SI, which isn't a greatly democratic method, that's the argument. Which does rather miss the point that almost all of the EU legislation was imposed by SI without Parliament being able to reject it even if it roused itself sufficiently to do so.

That is, it seems just fine to use this method to impose the Brussels Terror but not to get out from under it.

We would, harsh though it might seem. categorise that argument as being a hypocritical one.

Polly has what she wants and yet still isn't happy

Not that we think this is odd, for we don't think Polly will be happy until we all do what we're damn well told and tug that forelock while you're doing it boy. But still, the internal dissonance in her own piece is quite wondrous:

 He is waiting to see whether in her election manifesto, Theresa May will turn out to have meant what she said in her “sacred text”, her single speech pitching for the leadership. She said back then that though the FTSE traded at the same level as 18 years ago, “executive pay has almost trebled” with “an irrational, unhealthy and growing gap” between bosses and workers. She pledged “to make shareholders’ votes on pay not just advisory but binding” with full transparency of “the ratio between the CEO’s pay and the average company worker’s pay”.

We entirely agree, shareholders are the owners of a company. The CEO and other executives are their employees. And employers should indeed decide what to pay their employees. Which is of course exactly what happens today:

This is the comical charade of governance, a half day’s embarrassment. When it comes to voting on top executives’ remuneration, those in the room press little buttons, then up on the screen comes the total of all institutional shareholders: result – 8,885,701,000 votes, or 96%, gifting Gulliver his £8m. It was never in doubt.

Quite why shareholders being able to do what Polly insists shareholders must be able to is a comical charade is beyond us bears of little brain.

But Polly does want us all to know that she's very unhappy about us all doing what she insists we must do, determine the pay of our employees. And don't you forget it.

Larry Elliott on Macron's problem

An interesting little example of how entirely sensible commentators can fail to see the implications of their own observations. Larry Elliott observes that Emmanuel Macron should be thinking about more than just supply side reforms of France's labour market. He's right, of course:

And that’s because the assumption is that all France’s problems stem from structural rigidity and the lack of labour market flexibility rather than from inadequate demand. The classic neo-liberal diagnosis is that the French state is too big and needs to be pared back through significant cuts in spending. Likewise, the French unions are too powerful and the unemployed need to price themselves into jobs by working harder for lower wages.

This has been the standard explanation of France’s economic woes ever since the abandonment of Keynesianism in the early 1980s. The abiding economic orthodoxy has held that low inflation should be the sole aim of macro-economic policy and should be achieved through control of the money supply; that fiscal policy - changes to tax and spending - is ineffective; and that the economy is a self-adjusting mechanism that will revert to full employment provided prices and wages are flexible.

France, in other words, was not giving up anything of real value when it joined the single currency because all that was required was for the European Central Bank to keep inflation low and for politicians in Paris to embark on meaningful structural reform.

The Keynesian take on France, by contrast, would be that adjustment to shocks tends not to be automatic but comes through the use of all the main economic levers: interest rates, the exchange rate and fiscal policy. The failure to deploy all these weapons explains why growth in the 12 original members of the eurozone averaged 3.4% a year in the 1970s and 0.1% between 2009 and 2015.

That is, rather, to assume that economic policy which I think is good policy is therefore Keynesian policy. Using the exchange rate, for example, is a standard part of any IMF program to pull a country out of the doldrums. And it was Milton Friedman's entirely correct critique of the euro before it even started, that the design did not allow the use of the exchange rate to cushion change. He didn't predict Greece or Finland or Italy specifically, but did point out the general point that when an asymmetric shock hit then not being able to use the exchange rate meant that the only solution would be that internal devaluation.

Or as we can also put it, only supply side policy.

But leave that niggle aside and consider what is really being said here. France has problems different and specific to that country, not entirely shared with other eurozone members. The solutions lie in being able to vary the interest rate, the exchange rate and fiscal policy - quite possibly with some supply side work as well. But interest and exchange rates are specifically blocked off by euro membership in its very essence, while the surrounding rules strictly limit fiscal policy.

Thus it is the rules of the euro itself which limit the room for action, leaving only that supply side policy available. Which is where we get to the implications of the observations. If that is the diagnosis, as Elliott thinks it is, then the solution is for France to leave the euro.

Or, of course, as Friedman said it was and some of us have been shouting for two decades, the euro is a bad idea and it should never have been started. The solution is therefore for everyone to leave it.

Clean energy

Environmentalism has a bad rap. It’s associated with hippies in hemp shirts, with pungently medicinal smelling beard wax and salt in place of deodorant. The reality is that a shift to clean energy helps everyone. It will improve living conditions, drive down prices and free up human capital for choice-creating innovation. And the shift does not need to be subsidised or blackmailed into existence, it is coming. It makes sense both to the markets, and to the people who make them up and want to see the coral reefs survive. Oil and gas get more expensive as they get more scarce, and as finite resources they are getting more scare, this makes the opportunity cost of prioritizing finite resources over clean energy greater. Geopolitically, many oil and gas resources are held by volatile state powers such as Russia and Saudi Arabia, meaning they are subject to price fluctuation and the stable prices of clean energy are more appealing to risk averse markets. As well as solely economic reasons, there are a lot of rich people like Bill Gates and Elon Musk who value a continually healthy planet and fund research into things that preserve this.

After initial research costs, clean energy is astronomically cheaper than the dirty energy of old. It can be largely automated, no permits are needed to dig for it, and even a judge on their first case wouldn’t award a payout to a solar worker claiming black lung. These reductions in costs can be passed on to consumers, in the form not only of cheaper energy for the home, but of cheaper consumer goods created using clean energy, and cheaper services provided in energy intensive places like office buildings and sports facilities.

Secondly, many public pressures to resist international trade are reduced, freeing up cross border trade. Agreements like the Paris Accords, which instruct members to sanction heavy polluters are a tricky issue, with politicians often made to demand lower emissions and less industry on threat of losing valuable, earth conscious voting blocs. If China and India moved to cleaner energy, such as solar panels which could generate plenty affixed to the roof of a Mumbai factory, these pressures would be reduced. This would allow greater free trade with these countries and their cheap, loose labour markets, and this would push down the prices of many goods for consumers as well as offering a wider range.

Finally, in a long-term point, human capital would expand. Pollution is not only bad for your lungs, it’s bad for your brain. Many pollutants inhibit the development of brain tissue, making people exposed to it in infancy less intelligent and capable of innovation. Additionally, a lot of intelligent, qualified people are tied up in projects such as making mines safe, or flood defences from global warming, or trying to develop mouth guards that prevent carcinogenic particles entering the human body. A move to clean energy could free up this human capital, and allow more to be created, which facilitates greater innovation and development. Pollution could be stopping us from perfecting self-driving cars and space travel, if that’s not a reason to curb it, nothing is. 

When did social mobility become the only aim of the education system?

We can imagine that social mobility might be one of the things that you think about concerning a school system. But to set it as the one and only over-riding measure seems to us to be going very much too far:

Heads are being urged to "vigorously" oppose the expansion of grammar schools in England.

The National Association of Head Teachers will debate calls to reject a new wave of grammars in the absence of evidence that it aids social mobility.

If grammars can only exist if they aid social mobility then that is indeed insisting that social mobility is the only measure of the design of the education system. Which does look like, to us, an error.

It's entirely true that there's not a great deal of social mobility around. But as Greg Clark has shown, that's also true in places like Sweden that don't have grammars. And there's also that long insisted upon point that grammars increase social mobility by providing the bright from any background with an academic education.

But we would still insist that the basic contention here is wrong. It cannot be true that social mobility or its furtherance is the only measure of a school system. We really do think that we want to consider other matters too, like the costs of the system, what it's teaching perhaps, possibly even whether the system is teaching anyone anything at all. That last being something we're really not all that sure about for at least some British schools.

E-Commerce and the end of market failure

The invisible hand is shaky, sometimes it drops things. Many people would accept this as collateral damage, no system will always work perfectly, but instead it is used as the justification by most major world governments to regulate and take control of industries much more efficient under market forces. The rise of e-commerce is a handy wrist brace for the invisible hand, it helps prevent broken plates and gives states fewer chances to step in. This happens in myriad ways, but I’ll explain three- the magic number.

The first market failure it all but eliminates is asymmetric information. If you go to your local independent technology store, you don’t know anything about what you’re buying. You don’t know if the Apple Macs are real, if the chip and pin machine will steal your details, if the product you buy will even work or if anybody will give you money back when they break. But if you go to an online independent technology store, all this is available in a few short clicks. Google marks trusted shops for you, it tells you your details are safe, plenty reviews give you the quality of the product and typing the name of the store followed by “scam” will give you hundreds of reports from ad-funded consumer watchdogs. Of course, a store could theoretically build up months and months of good reputation just to rip you, dear reader, off, but that is in nobodies interest. Your bad review will mar them forever, and they need your business when you come in for your next generation computer in a year or two.

“But what about monopolies?” I hear you cry, “Can’t monopolies still exercise monopoly power over consumers?”, and your complaints are heard. By and large, no, they can’t. E-commerce cuts away the vast majority of barriers to entry for new firms. No bricks and mortar store, easy outsourcing and a range of competitively priced graphic designers brings start-up costs down to mere hundreds rather than thousands. If a company is using its monopoly power to make abnormal profit, a second firm can step in and do the same thing a few pounds cheaper. This keeps prices down for consumers without ill-thought-through government determined price ceilings or cronyist subsidies. Of course, natural monopolies such as oil and gas remain, but that is a tiny proportion of the monopolies consumers must deal with on a daily basis.

Finally, e-commerce just gives far more choice to consumers. Take the example of a t-shirt, it is now far easier for me to signal my preferences of what I want in a t-shirt. If I want one for cheap, I use a Chinese importer, if I want a brand name, I go to that brand’s website, if I want to annoyingly virtue signal to everyone around me, I buy a The Future Is Female shirt from a small business operating on Ebay, Etsy or some other hosting site. Not only does this give consumers more choice, but the ease with which preferences can be compiled into metadata and distributed makes it far easier for the market to respond to consumer demand.

E-commerce is letting loose the invisible hand from the shackles of government intervention, and curing it’s carpel tunnel in the process. 

We can't help but note that there's something wrong with this headline

Vaginal mesh left me in agony. When will women’s health be taken seriously?

This is rather a subject do jour at present and the problem is indeed real:

In the 21st century it is hard to imagine women being maimed in a surgery with risks that they are not being properly warned about.

This, however, is the reality of vaginal mesh. A net-like implant, it is used to treat incontinence or prolapse, conditions that have often, but not always, been caused by childbirth. Between 2006 and 2016, more than 92,000 women in England have been treated with a polypropylene surgical material that is either inserted as a mesh patch or a vaginal tape, known as TVT, TVTO and TOT.

There are indeed risks  and it's not for us to decide whether they are worth it or not. We also have no opinion on whether this specific treatment is good, as good as can be, or even acceptable.

However, we would rather like to insist that if someone has designed a treatment specifically to treat a common enough complaint in women, if that treatment is generally available at no marginal cost to he recipient, then we do rather think that both people and the system are taking women's health seriously.

That is, the very existence of vaginal mesh treatment is evidence of being serious.