Taking localism seriously

4154
taking-localism-seriously

One of the annoyances of my privileged position as someone watching the political and economic world go by (and yes, it is indeed a privilege to be able to combine work and interest so) is that almost no one on the political side of that divide is ever willing to actually take their own ideas seriously.

For example, localism is something that everyone at least pays lip service to (we here take it very seriously of course) whether it be under that rubric or "more power to the community". But as this letter to The Times makes clear, everybody then acts as if local power wielded locally by locals is the very last thing that any system should allow to happen. As the famed boat, Raedwald, pointed out about the Magistrates Courts:

Many of the arguments against the old systems are around objections to (hateful term) a 'postcode lottery'. Well, those 'postcode lotteries' often reflected very accurately the values and relativities of local communities; the Welsh benches from 'dry' shires that savagely disposed of alcohol-related offences, and the harsh penalties for thieves imposed by benches in the northern Mill Towns. When I was a lad the bench covering the seaside retirement towns of Frinton and Clacton had the reputation of jailing speeding youngsters - and the message was understood; don't race in Frinton.

That's exactly what localism means: that locals get to run their locality as they wish. We should also not forget that while the authority was indeed handed down from the centre to those JPs the methods of deployment of that authority were not. Hand the power back and let people get on with it.

We should also note that Magistrates are unpaid volunteers (as the letter notes) and are very much part of Burke's "little platoons". That voluntary collectivism which has so enriched our society over the centuries and which the current state of politics seems so insistent on trying to snuff out.

In pursuit of the greatest happiness

With many calling ‘happiness economics’ the future of economic thought, ASI Fellow Tim Worstall responds to Lord Layard’s latest proposal on National Happiness.

GDP is not the be-all and end-all of our existence; it talks of value added to economies but has little to say about anything else.

Richard Layard and Joseph Stiglitz (one a Nobel Laureate, the other one of those who tried to jam some economic understanding into my brain) rightly tell us that gross domestic product isn’t in fact the be-all and end-all of how we should be measuring life, the economy and everything. They also, again correctly, point to various alternative ways in which we might measure, thus set as our target, things which are more important than merely the value added in an economy.

What is always interesting is to take such suggestions and follow them to see where they lead: so let’s do exactly that with the proposal from the professor at the old alma mater, my Lord Layard.

So I propose a campaign for the Principle of the Greatest Happiness. This says I should aim to produce the most happiness I can in the world and, above all, the least misery. And my rulers should do the same.

Sounds like a plan, so, using only the professor’s own work, where will this lead? Specifically, where will this lead us if we try to design a tax system which accords with this principle (that’s the “rulers should do the same” bit)?

Vital clues can be found in his book Happiness, something which if you haven’t read you probably ought to. There are two major points made about the taxation of incomes in it and we’ll add just one commonplace observation from the world around us to reach what we must assume will be the taxation system that will produce the maximal amount of happiness: the top fluffy kitten count, if you will.

The first point is that happiness does indeed rise with income – but only to a certain point. That point varies a little, dependent on where you are and with exchange rates and so on, but a reasonable estimate is about £15,000 a year. Less than that and earning more money makes you happier simply because you’re earning more money. More than that and you might be happier or not, but it’s not the extra money that’s making you so.

Excellent. So the first and most obvious principle of our high kitten-cuteness tax system is going to be that we’re not going to tax incomes below £15,000. This would clearly make people less happy, as it would take them below that number where higher incomes make them happier.

The second point is a little more complex. The contention is that when we earn more than £15,000 we create a kind of pollution. It’s never quite really nailed down: one way of describing it would be jealousy, the green-eyed god, over the fact that others have more than we do. Layard’s description is more gentle, in that others having more impels us to emulate them; we try to keep up with the Joneses. In doing so we strive for higher incomes, despite the way that these will make us no happier, at the expense of the many other things that will make us happier – time with family, with friends and so on.

Thus those earning more than £15,000 are imposing an externality of unhappiness on those around them: and we all know what happens to such negative externalities in welfare economics. We tax them! This is exactly the same economic argument behind carbon taxes, the congestion charge and air passenger duty. The polluter must pay the social cost of their pollution. Turning the argument around the other way, that positive externalities should be subsidised is exactly the economic argument used for tax contributions to basic science and such things as universal primary schooling. There’s nothing odd or strange about the economics here, only the aspect of life to which it is being applied.

Layard’s estimate is that the unhappiness caused by those on higher than £15,000 incomes is some 30% of the amount of those higher incomes. Someone on £1,015,000 a year is causing £300,000 of unhappiness elsewhere while someone on £45,000 is causing £10,000s’ worth (umm, OK, I’m using one third not 30%, but you get the picture). We should thus tax the two, respectively, £300,000 and £10,000 for the externality of the non-fluffy kitten time they are imposing on those around them.

Our third point is simply the commonplace that people do not like to pay taxes. Yes, yes, I know, there are endless screeds here at Comment is free insisting that no, really, offering up the sweat of our brow to the state is such a pleasurable experience that we’d all do it willingly, without the compulsion of law. Actually, this seems not to be the case. Last time I got the figures from the Treasury (for the tax year 2005), it turned out that only five people across the entire nation had voluntarily paid more than was their legally demanded due – and four of those were dead. So if we adopt the entirely uncontroversial economic idea of revealed preferences (don’t look at what people say but what they do) we can be sure that for the vast majority of the population taxes are not something paid for the joy of them. They are, in fact, something which make us unhappy.

This now gives us the details which we need to build our tax structure for optimal happiness. We can and should tax those who cause unhappiness in others by the value of the unhappiness they create through their higher incomes. We should not tax more than this for we will be creating unhappiness by doing so. Finally, we should not be taxing incomes below £15,000 a year because taking money below that sum will again increase unhappiness.

So our tax system with the highest fluffy-kitten count, the one that will “produce the most happiness” as our rulers should strive to do, just as we ourselves should, is a flat-tax system of 30% with a high personal allowance of £15,000 a year.

While this is, of course, very different from our current tax system, it is still progressive (yes, it is: work out the maths for yourselves – as incomes rise so do the portions of those incomes paid in tax) and it ticks all the boxes that will lead to maximal happiness.

In the UK, the US and Germany, happiness has been stagnating for decades. A civilisation based on the Greatest Happiness Principle would be a great improvement. Yes, indeed it will, as long as we actually accept the implications of that Great Happiness Principle as laid out for us by one of the great researchers into that principle, Richard Layard himself.

The only conundrum left is that there are only two organisations that I know of (that I am a member of both of them is entirely coincidence) which actually have as suggested policy anything close to this top cute-kitten system: Ukip and the Adam Smith Institute. But then the reason that I am a member of both is because they are both well ahead of the progressive crowd, in so many important ways.

Published on guardian.co.uk here.

Ending child labour

4153
ending-child-labour

Despite our reputation around here as market crazed fanatics whc would do and argue anything to further the interests of international capital there is indeed a method to our perceived extremism: no, not that we are in fact market crazed fanatics.

I certainly am driven to recommend markets as the solution to most problems most of the time simply because markets are indeed the solution to most problems most of the time.

Take for example the problem of child labour. Most certainly we would all prefer a better world in which the young go to school and prepare themselves for making the future world even better. But as Paul Krugman points out, this isn't actually one of the options available to those who currently labour in carpet factories, brickworks or upon garbage dumps. The options are work or starve.

So what might we do to try and reduce these pressures upon the young innocents? How about globalisation?

We examine the effects of trade liberalization on child work and schooling in Indonesia. (...) Our main findings show that increased exposure to trade liberalization is associated with a decrease in child work and an increase in enrolment among 10 to 15 year olds. The effects of tariff reductions are strongest for children from low skill backgrounds and in rural areas. However, a dynamic analysis suggests that these effects reflect the long term benefits of trade liberalization, through economic growth and subsequent income effects, while frictions and negative adjustment effects may occur in the short term.

Please note, this is not a result of us in the rich countries reducing our tariff barriers to Indonesian products. This is the result of the Indonesian government reducing tariff barriers to imports. Just another proof that imports are what make us all rich and that it is wealth that reduces child labour.

The policy prescription seems obvious as well. All those campaigning for the end of child labour (a worthy and noble goal) should in fact be campaigning for the poor countries where child labour exists to reduce their import tariffs. Sadly, of course, this is not what happens: all too many seem to be arguing for both the end of child labour and also that those nasty western products must be kept out of the poor countries so as to protect infant industries. A depressingly counter-productive course of action.

Out of control spending

4152
out-of-control-spending-

As reported by the BBC, this government has finally decided that spending cuts are going to be necessary after Gordon Brown lead many to believe cuts would not be needed. Were we really expected to believe that a government that has put us nearly £900 billion in debt may not have needed spending cuts? With government spending reaching over 44% of the entire national income did the government truly expect to sit there and tell the British people that spending cuts might not be obligatory?

Government spending has simply reached astronomical proportions. We can no longer claim to live in a free market society. We live within the bounds the government has set for us, instead of the government living within the limits we have given to it. The invisible hand has been cut off, and the free market is caged. I am insulted that the government would dare to look at the people who elected them – the very people who they have laden with over £14,000 of debt each – and say that they believe spending cuts ‘might’ be necessary. What ‘might’ be necessary is a change of command from government to the people, and from the treasury department to the free market.

Government spending is nothing more than a facade to cover up increased debt and limited economic growth through open and fair trade in the free market. How much more government control of the economy do people need to see before they realize that government is painting them into a corner, or would they rather begin to climb the walls rather than stand up for change?

Baroness Scotland: hoist her by her own legislation

4151
baroness-scotland-hoist-her-by-her-own-legislation

I find Baroness Scotland odious and wish that she would be hoisted by her own legislation and extradited to the United States to face Racketeering charges for employing an illegal immigrant as a cleaner, with the same prospect of spending 30 years in a Texas slammer as the NatWest Three.

But I would be despondent if she lost her job as Britain's Attorney General simply because she didn't ask for the passport, work permit, or citizenship papers of her 'daily'. Who on earth does? At least she paid tax and national insurance on her cleaner's wages, which is far more than most other people would do. In politics, it's best to watch your back.

Equally, there would be a poetic irony. It's the government's job to make sure that people are not here illegally – not the job of innocent householders who haven't got the energy to clean their own homes because they have to work round the clock to meet Gordon Brown's tax demands. They pay handsomely for the government's much-vaunted promise to keep the streets of Britain free of illegal immigrants. As Attorney General, Baroness Scotland is a part of that, and if she is falling down on the job, then yes, she should go.

Not that the policy makes sense anyway. Many supposed asylum-seekers flood here because of our cushy welfare system. Maybe we should start there if we want to stem the tide. But many other immigrants come and are willing to work hard, in dirty jobs, in order to better the condition of themselves and their families. If anything, we should be congratulating businesses and householders – and even ministers – for giving a job and a home to such deserving folk.

You're a what?

4149
youre-a-what

I love Jeremy. I love fast cars. I love progress. But I learnt some things and those things terrify me. I learnt that climate change will make my future unrecognisable. I know that I’ll not have the same choices that Jeremy has now. If we keep on loving the fossil-fuelled lifestyle then by the time I hit 49 the world will be too busy coping with the impact of climate change to bother about how big an engine is possible. I’m the biggest libertarian of them all – I’m dumping dung at Clarkson’s gates so he might understand that his attitude will land us all in [it].

So said Tamsin Omond after dumping a load of manure on Jeremy Clarkson's lawn. Oh dear. This graduate seems to be using words she doesn't understand. Perhaps she should go back to university and find out what it means to be a libertarian.

Libertarians certainly wouldn't dump manure on the gardens of those who held views that were opposed to their own. They adapt to their surroundings and/or compensate others who they impose upon. What they don't do is run amok based upon some perceived future that may or may not actually occur. They found their beliefs in fact based upon a thirst for knowledge. Libertarians change their own lives so that they can live happily with themselves. They refrain from imposing their views on those around them recognising, maturely and respectfully, that they have no ownership over others. This is undertaken so that they themselves do not have their way of life infringed.

Sorry Tamsin, but you are not a libertarian. You're an enviromental-fascist. Please leave us alone so that we can avoid having our progress hindered and our futures' ruined via inhibitive enviromental legislation aimed at saving mother Earth.