Why is it that truths are the most shrieked about?

This is certainly impolitic from Elon Musk. It’s also rather broadbrush and so not wholly, 100% and exactly true. But there is still a great deal of truth to it:

Musk’s new obsessions (beyond the validation and human affection that he mistakenly believes he will find on social media) are attacking public servants, slashing social spending and going after the most vulnerable. “In most cases, the word ‘homeless’ is a lie,” Musk tweeted recently. “It’s usually a propaganda word for violent drug addicts with severe mental illness.”

Homeless has a different meaning over in the US. It’s not that claim from Shelter - the 300,000 homeless in this country - which is not about people rough sleeping at all. That’s about those in housing that Shelter thinks should be better. In the US homeless does rather mean sleeping in a tent on the pavement.

But, as here, those who are that sort of homeless - rough sleeping - are preponderantly those with one or more mental health or addiction problems. Those who are simply without housing tend to, as here, get picked up by the varied services designed to do so. There’s a transience to being homeless through housing problems that is. The long term version is not, in fact, something about housing at all.

It’s about the closure of the asylums perhaps - tho’ that is also a fairly brutal way to put it and again a version that is not wholly and exactly true.

But the thing we’d really like to know. Why is it that the things which cause the most shrieking over at The Guardian are the things that are - largely and usefully - true?

Tim Worstall

How to Deregulate

Elon Must is one of many coming into political office pledging to cut red tape and make regulation simpler and lighter. Few manage to do it because every regulation has its vociferous supporters. Many big established companies support regulation in their sector because the costs of compliance inhibit new market entrants. They are big enough to support it but the new upstarts who might complete with them cannot.

Furthermore, regulations appeal to those cautious enough to want everything to be proven safe before it can be allowed. The EU is notorious for embracing the precautionary principle, banning GM foods and even internal gene editing using CRISPR technology, despite no evidence of harm to humans and with huge potential benefits.

Anyone starting a new business has to comply with thousands of pages of regulations. House builders have to comply in minute detail with stacks of regulations constituting a pile several feet high.

There is a way to do it which goes along with the grain of English Common Law, but against that of the Stature-driven Continental law. It is to establish standards by broad directives that are then later detailed by the decisions of judging bodies.

For example, instead of the many pages detailing the toilet facilities that employers have to provide for their employees, the requirement might be imposed upon employers to provide adequate and decent toilet facilities. The critics might pounce, asking what counts as adequate and decent, and the answer is that this would rapidly be established by a series of decisions by courts and tribunals, building up a body of precedent in the way Common Law works in England. Very soon employers would know what they had to do.

By using Common Law precedent to build up regulations instead of trying to put in writing at the start the detailed requirements, the regulations would be made simpler and more flexible. It would also free up businesses to build up markets and create wealth instead of spending a large part of their time in form-filling and excessively detailed compliance.

Knowledge of Elon Musk and his record suggests that he might just be the one to succeed where thousands have failed in cutting out the wastage of excessive regulation and detailed compliance. If someone manages to draw his attention to this article, he will know how to do it.

Bit of a blow to the degrowth fantasists

Larry Elliott talks about the failure of the European Union economy. We think he gets the problem wrong. Sure, the one single monetary policy for disparate economies, without that central fiscal redistribution, never really was going to work. Some of us have been saying that since first discovering this ‘ere internet thing (the archives of sci.econ still exist somewhere out there). But the actual problem is that the EU tries to Mazzucato new industries. Control, regulate and plan them from the centre. That’s just something that doesn’t work.

But that’s all obvious. This we think is more interesting:

Stagnant living standards mean unhappy voters

Whatever is true about the climate, the environment, precious Gaia and so on. Whatever is true in the minds of degrowth fantasists. Wherever we are in the doughnut economy and however philosophically correct limitarianism is. When it comes to Hom sap, us ‘umans out here, no economic growth makes us unhappy.

This is rather connected to the Easterlin Paradox, that those in richer countries seem - past a certain point - no happier than those in poorer. That Easterlin effect does rather fade away if we use log scales, true. But our contention (a contention is something weaker than a claim, something that’s a useful working assumption that is until more work has been done on it) is that it is continued economic growth that makes people happier.

Two and three percent a year real growth is what makes for happy, shiney, people. We don’t, not particularly, note that each year. But over the decades of a lifetime it becomes entirely obvious that things are getting better. Which makes for those happy, shiney, people - the children will have a better life than the parents.

That is, it’s not the state of having grown that produces human happiness, it’s the observation that growth is happening which does.

As we say that’s a contention. But we do think it’s a useful working assumption - a standard analysis of our own UK politics these days is that folk are more than a bit grumpy given the lack of sustained growth in recent decades, yes?

From which a lesson. Degrowth just isn’t going to work, not in a democracy. Oh, and, obviously, don’t try to Mazzucato those new industries and technologies that produce the happiness enhancing growth. Obviously, don’t do that.

Tim Worstall

Our word, well, fancy that…..

Competition works, does it?

Drill into rail’s latest passenger and financial figures and there is a silver lining for those who believe nationalising trains might deliver more reliability, lower subsidies and fares.

But there is a huge caveat: success will depend on ministers choosing to copy an operating model that has proved to be hugely successful on Britain’s East Coast intercity route for a quarter of a century. This is where three privately owned non-subsidised train companies, known as open access, compete aggressively with the state-run operator.

As we’ve been known to point out it’s not, particularly, ownership that matters. Yes, capitalism works but John Lewis and the Co Op are decidedly socialist - being cooperatives - organisations and you really don’t see us with signs outside them chanting “Capitalism Now!”

It is competition between different suppliers that matters. As here on the East Coast line, as also on the Spanish high speed routes. Yes, obviously, there’s only one set of rails but multiple companies - organisations, we’d not care if one or more was a co-op - can run over them.

It is competition that increases productivity and as Paul Krugman has been known to point out, productivity isn’t everything but in the long run it’s pretty much everything. So, competition in rail services - why not?

Tim Worstall

If it’s so great why do we need a law?

UK Listing Rules dictate that a minimum of 40pc of board seats should be held by women. At least one senior position, such as the chairmanship or chief executive role, should also be held by a woman.

The listings rules work on a comply or explain basis, meaning that companies are not forced to hit the 40pc gender diversity but must explain why they have fallen short if they do.

The argument has been that such diversity increases the profitability of a company. Could be true, certainly - having diversity in management could lead to a greater understanding of the diverse desires of the population and so to making more money. But as with oh so many contentions this is something that might be true, might not be.

The thing being that there’s no actual evidence that it is true. The best we get from the Norwegian experiment is “Furthermore, nothing indicates that the quota policy has negatively affected the running and profitability of firms” and an absence of direct harm is not the most ringing of endorsements.

The recent American experience with Nasdaq is not hugely informative. For the overturning of the insistence is only a court ruling that the exchange doesn’t have the legal power to so insist rather than an evaluation of the effectiveness.

The thing is we really do think that capitalists are greedy. They’d like to increase their profits. So, if gender diversity does so then they’ll do it once they’re apprised of the possibility of improving their profits in that manner. That is, we don’t, in fact, require a law or even a rule. It’ll happen jus’ ‘coz it’s good, see?

Which does have an interesting logical conclusion. Those insisting upon the law, the rule, must be those who think that it does not, in fact, increase profitability. For if they thought it did then they’d not be arguing for a law, would they?

Tim Worstall

A Great Day for World Trade

On Sunday without much fanfare, one of the most monumental days in world trade took place. It generated few headlines, but its effect will be significant and long lasting. The UK became the twelfth member to join the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (usually abbreviated to the CPTPP).

The UK are now trading partners with Mexico, Japan, Singapore, New Zealand, Canada, Australia, Vietnam, Peru, Malaysia, Chile, and Brunei. We now have privileged access to each other’s markets. The twelve members have combined economies representing 14.4 percent of global gross domestic product, at approximately US$15.8 trillion as of 2024. The CPTPP is thus one of the world's largest free trade areas measured by GDP. There are larger ones, but the crucial significance for the UK is that we have joined a rapidly growing trade area. The EU single market is larger, but it diminishes annually as a percentage of global trade, whereas the CPTPP is growing each year.

Furthermore, it represents a shift in UK trade policy as we look further afield than Europe and toward the growing markets and economies of the East and South. The UK is the first European country to join, and it is able to do so because it is no longer in the EU. The EU single market is not a free trade area, but a Zollverein, a protectionist customs union designed to protect its domestic producers behind a tariff wall that acts to deter outside and cheaper competition.

EU members cannot join because they must obey the EU’s Common External Tariff, whereas the point of the CPTPP is a lowering of tariff barriers to encourage greater trade between its members.

Sunday’s accession to the CPTPP by the UK means that we cannot rejoin the EU or sign a trade deal with them that involves tariffs on goods from our CPTPP partners. 

In joining the CPTPP, the UK has turned away from its past associations and nailed its colours firmly to the mast of the future. Other nations are in the pipeline to join the bloc, which means it will grow even more in size and economic significance. Bravo for Britain, and Bravo for the future of world trade.

Would recycling disposable vapes make us richer?

We’re told that there’s an environmental outrage going on out there:

Thirteen vapes are thrown away every second in the UK – more than a million a day – leading to an “environmental nightmare”, according to research.

There has also been a rise in “big puff” vapes which are bigger and can hold up to 6,000 puffs per vape, with single use vapes averaging 600. Three million of these larger vapes are being bought every week according to the research, commissioned by Material Focus, and conducted by Opinium. 8.2 million vapes are now thrown away or recycled incorrectly every week.

Oh. Gosh.

Material Focus has calculated that the number of vapes thrown away per annum could instead be powering 10,127 electric vehicles.

Our word. That’s the lithium in the vape batteries that could, instead, be used in car batteries.

As we once calculated the Earth’s endowment of lithium is 2,850,000 billion tonnes. With a B. So we’ve no hard shortage of the right type of atoms. It becomes purely a financial consideration therefore.

To a suitable level of accuracy a car battery - an EV - requires about 10 kg of lithium. So, we’re talking 100 tonnes of lithium (10,000 x 10 / 1,000) and each tonne has a cost of about £8,000 for virgin material. We’ve an £800k problem. We’ve also got that 8.2 million a week number, x 52, call that 400 million a year of these disposable vapes - round numbers because don’t be silly about accuracy here.

0.2 pence of lithium per vape therefore. That’s 0.2 pence which has already been paid by the purchaser of the disposable vape of course. The costs are covered already.

But, say, OK, that’s a valuable natural resource that should be recycled. Hmm. Minimum wage in today’s UK is £12 an hour now, close enough. 20 pence a minute or 0.33 pence per second. If that recycling takes more than one second of human time then it’s loss making for us all as a society. Effort, human labour, is being used on something that produces less value than the labour being expended upon it.

There is a little part of this we’re not sure of. We have a feeling that - but don’t know - the recycling process requires moving to “black mass” which then has to be processed as a lithium concentrate, not as lithium. This would move the value of the Li contained another decimal place out - 0.02 pence per vape.

Note that we’re entirely leaving out any transport costs to a factory to do the recycling, the recycling process itself. The process is societally impoverishing if even one second - or, perhaps, one tenth of one second - of human labour has to be expended upon the process.

We’re all in favour of recycling. One of us once recycled a few lorry loads of Soviet nuclear power station scrap into go faster, magalloy, wheels for the cars of boy racers. Made a considerable - house purchase level - profit out of doing so, the profit, the value add, being the proof that the process was societally enriching. Value was being added by the process, see?

Recycling when value is being added is a great idea. Recycling that does not add value is not a great idea.

This idea that disposable vapes should be recycled is societally impoverishing. Therefore we shouldn’t do it.

Of course, no one is actually promoting this idea as a result of having gone through the numbers. Nor is the point to make society richer. It’s a combination of the pecksniffs and the puritans. The pecksniffs are horrified at the idea that anyone might enjoy themselves and the puritans want to enforce worship of the new state religion, that altar to Gaia.

Being forced to make ourselves poorer in order to accommodate the religious desires of others? The only correct response is “Gerroffoutofit”. After all, we did - finally - decide a few hundreds years back that religion, on these silver girt and sceptered isles, was a private, not public, matter.

Tim Worstall

Why don’t we, you know, just build another London?

To return to our current favourite subject. We’re told, endlessly, that Britons must live in chicken coops with no garden because we’ve just not got the land for anything else. We must preserve the national patrimony by everyone living in tattered shacks:

Up to a billion solar panels will be fitted across Britain by 2035 under Ed Miliband’s plan to hit net zero targets, data suggest.

The Energy Secretary’s proposals will carpet the country with panels covering an estimated 750 sq miles, a bigger area than Greater London.

But it appears that we do have the land. We’ve enough land to build another London. So, why don’t we, erm, just build another London? The current one houses, what is it, perhaps 8 million people? At the usual 2.4 people per household that’s about 3.3 million dwellings. Sure, we might spread it about a bit, use a bit of land here, a bit there. But 3 million houses would aid in solving at least some of our housing problems.

If we do have space for this much solar - something we are assured we do - then that means we’ve this much space available. We should use whatever space we have available for its highest valued use. Which is, in the case of land, under houses. We already have that proof that we’ve got the land therefore we should use it to build those houses. QED.

If MiliEd is serious of course we can always put solar cells on top of the houses and solve two problems at the same time.

Of course, this will mean that fewer Britons will have to live in tawdry chicken coops which is why some will oppose the idea.

Tim Worstall

A basic working theory - the world’s gone mad

We’d also insist that this is a workable theory, not just a useful working one. That the world around us has gone mad.

Ed Miliband will decide whether Britain’s biggest solar farm can be built on Winston Churchill’s ancestral estate after the renewables project cleared a key hurdle.

The Planning Inspectorate confirmed on Friday that the Botley West Solar Farm on Blenheim Estate had been accepted for examination.

Months of scrutiny will now follow to determine the project’s feasibility before the Energy Secretary will decide next year whether it can proceed.

If approved, the site will cover at least 2,471 acres of the 12,000-acre estate and provide renewable energy to more than 300,000 homes in Oxfordshire.

This is, because of course it is, in the Green Belt:

This is a huge proposal, covering 1,400 hectares (14 sq km, 5.4 sq miles) of mostly agricultural land in Oxford’s ‘Green Belt’ a ring around the city intended to be kept free of new buildings and other developments.

The Green Belt is that area of land which will, if built upon, be the ruination of the national patrimony. That’s the claim at least.

If that land were devoted to housing at current minimum density insistence we could plonk 42,000 houses there. This would also never be allowed of course - ruination of the national patrimony etc.

But now for the madness. A solar farm - whether those are useful or not at our northern latitudes - can be placed 5 or 15 or 50 miles wherever. We have this technology called “wires” that can move the resulting electricity around. There is no argument, at all, in favour of the ruination of the national patrimony to produce a bit of electricity that is.

Housing, on the other hand, everything is location, location, location. Being 5 - or 15 or 50 - miles closer or further makes all the difference. So, if we’re willing to ruin the national patrimony then it is for housing that we should be willing to do so and not solar farms. Yet that is exactly, precisely and wholly the opposite way around from how the system, governance and the world actually works.

Time to return to the ancestral wisdom of the Yorkist* forbears. “The whole world’s mad ‘scept thee and me. Not so sure about thee, neither.”

Tim Worstall

* Probably. They’re unlikely to have been Lancastrians up there.

Don’t let the activists create the definition

We have to say this is a new one on us:

charging deserts

where a vehicle with only 10pc of its battery remaining would not be able to reach a site with at least six rapid or ultra-rapid devices

This strikes us as activists insisting upon entrenching their prejudices into the very language. We also insist that this is dangerous. For, by said entrenching into the language we’re all deprived of the ability to argue against the prejudice. Who, after all, would be in favour of “charging deserts”? Other than, you know, the people who might want to question the merits, costs, sensibility, of having 6 charging devices every 50 yards of the country’s roads?

There is also considerable form for this. Poverty these days means being on less than 60% of median household income. Low wages are less than 66% of median hourly wage. They’re both measures of inequality, not poverty - and make no reference at all to the actual standard of living. Fuel poverty is being unable to heat an entire house to 19 oC (we think we’ve got that right) on less than 10% of disposable income. That is, everyone before about 1980 was in fuel poverty.

We don’t object to people desiring such things even as we might disagree - desiring greater equality is valid even if we think that it’s wrong. But we do object to those prejudices becoming the definitions. We should not allow the activists to define the language for us that is. Despite it being obvious that only the activists are going to be willing to sit in the conclaves where such definitions are cooked up.

Charging deserts indeed - we’re absolutely certain that there are vast areas of the country many miles from a site with half a dozen petrol pumps….and to claim that a petrol pump is a more efficient machine than a charging station, well, yes, it is…..

Tim Worstall