The standard theory of the market as it is expressed in the classic supply and demand curve, also known as the Marshallian curve or cross, notes that the price gravitates towards the quantity supplied by the quantity demanded, and that this ensure a state of equilibrium.
Figure 1
This is undeniably a very useful tool for giving a 30 minute talk on economics for a short and sweet answer; but it’s all wrong.
The claim that the Marshallian Cross is wrong does not invalidate the value in the basic demonstration it provides; nor the utility gotten out of a short answer to a question of market activity, but it is very much like taking a photo of a couple at point A, then a few minutes later at point B. We are skipping the market process and assuming perfect states of equilibrium. In fact, further analysis of the cross allows us to realise, that we violate the possibility of disequilibrium, and in so doing, the entrepreneur.
Let us examine this in more detail in the next few diagrams:
Figure 2
In our diagram we suppose, firstly, that the price is above equilibrium, where there is excess supply (Ex S) over the quantity demanded (QD). What does this do to the price? – It forces it down.
In our second point, we suppose that there is an excess demand (Ex D) over the quantity supplied (QS) this has the same effect but in reverse by forcing the price up.
Notice how under the curve, we assume two things:
That we are consistently in equilibrium.
That there is always a single price.
Under the Neo-Classical view, everything that is to be known is already known; man is omniscient. He has access to perfect knowledge and he need merely to analyse the data he already knows; there is no room for discovery of unknowns, nor room for the entrepreneur. The entrepreneur to our curve is an analytical pest.
I mentioned above the assumption of there always being a single price, below we can see a quite comical examination of what is meant by this:
Figure 3
Under the equilibrium model and the Marshallian Cross, we are hypothetically assuming that with each supply curve, there is an equal demand curve running parallel to it. In fact every demand curve assumes an equal supply curve running parallel to it also; thereby consistently assuming the hypothetical to reality, that being only a single price is constant, and there is no possibility of two or more prices existing for the same product.
“It is a fundamental law of Economics that there is a single price for a product. However, this is a tendency. The reason to say it is a tendency is due to the fact that at any time, the market can be filled with ignorance”
It is a fundamental law of Economics that there is a single price for a product. However, this is a tendency. The reason to say it is a tendency is due to the fact that at any time, the market can be filled with ignorance; either optimal ignorance, whereby you know you lack information but the cost outweighs the benefit of acquiring said information, or further, the ignorance may be based in the absence of information (not knowing what you don’t know).
If there is no optimal ignorance, nor absence of information for a particular consumer good, input or resource, then the tendency for pricing signal’s to converge to a single price occurs.
To give an example, I am optimally ignorant of how to speak Korean. I would like to know how to speak and understand it, but I have analysed the cost in terms of resources and time are too great, and would be better spent on ventures I value more highly.
I would give an example of where I personally have an absence of information…but I don’t know what it is.
Further examination of this gap to which is ignored and incompatible with the equilibrium state of affairs is detailed below:
Figure 4
In the diagram shown above, under the Neo-Classical equilibrium context, we assume a quantity of QR. The question is what is the highest price that is low enough, to get consumers to buy this quantity? The answer is the top left noted as HP. Following this, what is the lowest price which is high enough to get suppliers to offer this quantity? The answer is the bottom left LP. This indicates; under an Austrian perspective rather than a Neo-Classical perspective, as shown in the greyed out section, that there is a gap.
A wider examination of this gap can be explained before moving on further:
We suppose two examples: Sellers selling a good; let’s say shoes, for £10 at the LP quadrant. Buyers who are late to the market, or hold a high marginal utility for shoes find they cannot acquire shoes, but would be more than willing to pay £17 for shoes. The second example, being that sellers selling shoes in the HP quadrant, are selling shoes for £20. Buyers with lower expendable income, or whose marginal utility is lower, cannot afford the shoes at £20, but would be willing and able to buy at £16. There is an absence of information for both buyers of the HP and LP, and sellers of the LP and HP. Sellers (buyers) of the LP are unaware they can sell (buy) at a higher price, and buyers (sellers) are unaware they can buy (sell) at a lower price.
We have a situation where two prices for the same good prevails because of ignorance.
“This is where the entrepreneur comes in. A sharp individual sees there is an unexploited opportunity by seeing the price difference. If they are sharp; as we have assumed, they will see there is opportunity for pure entrepreneurial profit”
This is where the entrepreneur comes in. A sharp individual sees there is an unexploited opportunity by seeing the price difference. If they are sharp; as we have assumed, they will see there is opportunity for pure entrepreneurial profit. The entrepreneur will buy shoes from LP for £10, and sell to buyers from both HP and LP for £15. Buyers from LP who were willing to pay £17 will gladly pay the £15, and buyers from HP who could not afford £20, but were willing to pay £16, will be able to satisfy their needs/wants by purchasing the shoes for £15. Additionally, sellers from LP will see they made a critical error as they could have sold for a higher price, and sellers from HP will see they could have sold more for a lower price; ergo, the market through entrepreneurial alertness has moved from disequilibrium to a position closer to equilibrium.
The market is in positions closer to disequilibrium positions, and the entrepreneur through the incentive for profit, discovers these gaps and brings prices closer to that of the tendency of a single price.
The market process is one of discovery; rather than an equilibrium state of affairs.
Competition Under The Market Process
Taking into consideration our examination of Neo-Classical Equilibrium, and the market as a process of discovery, what does the equilibrium state of affairs and the market process of discovery have to say about competition?
The Neo-Classical has a stark difference in terms with regards to competition as compared to the layman, and that of the process of discovery.
Under the equilibrium theory of the market as a state of affairs, the definition is classed as Perfect Competition. Perfect competition is a state of affairs, where we have an unlimited number of buyers and sellers; all sellers are selling at the exact same price, and all buyers are buying at the exact same quantities. All decisions, quantities, and production methods are known, and so everyone is constrained into this state of affairs, due to nothing else to discover.
Under perfect competition, no seller attempts to sell for a higher price, because a single market price is established and it would be suicide, and no seller equally attempts to sell for a lower price, because he knows for the set single price he can sell the exact same quantity. Furthermore, buyers do not attempt to bid a higher price because they know they can purchase the same quantity for the single price, and buyers do not attempt to acquire a lower price, because they will not acquire the products they desire.
Under the equilibrium theory of the market as a state of affairs, all quantities demanded and quantities sold are perfectly inelastic; they are static.
This theory of competition, ironically, has no semblance of any form of competition; under the layman sense or that of the market as a process of discovery.
Under the equilibrium state of affairs, everything is already known, and nobody can buy or seller at higher or lower prices, and so there is no competition.
Additionally, this state leaves no room for the entrepreneur.
I have mentioned the market as a process of discovery several times; what is it that is meant by this with regards to competition?
Competition under the market as a process, is simply freedom of entry.
“Under freedom of entry, there are no privileges in the form of institutional blockage into the market. A man can be a very successful entrepreneurial producer, but is constantly looking over his shoulder because at any point, another could enter the market”
Under freedom of entry, there are no privileges in the form of institutional blockage into the market. A man can be a very successful entrepreneurial producer, but is constantly looking over his shoulder because at any point, another could enter the market and undermine his product by selling at a price, quantity, or quality that is more appealing to consumers.
If we look back at our example of the entrepreneur buying shoes for £10 and selling for £15, because other sellers held an absence of information, and had not seen an opportunity for profit, we can understand the role competition plays in the market as a process of discovery. The market is flooded with ignorance from various economic actors, who overlook opportunities due to an absence of information and a lack of omniscience. These unseen opportunities; if our entrepreneur is sharp, are discovered, either through active search for opportunities or through a sharp eye where no search was active, and merely saw what was unseen by others.
What is required for the market to operate as a process, is decentralised discovery. What is required for competition within the market process, is freedom of entry.
Sources:
Israel Kirzner: Competition and Entrepreneurship (pp. 10-11, 13, 20, 26, 28, 37-40.)
Israel Kirzner: Discovery, Capitalism and Distributive Justice (pp. 8, 23-31.)
Israel Kirzner: Competition, Economic Planning and the Knowledge Problem (pp. 9-10.)
Entrepreneurship and the Market Process with Israel Kirzner (2011) YouTube video, added by Foundation for Economic Education [Online]
Croydon resident Zachary Stiling is standing for the Heritage Party on the London wide list in the upcoming GLA elections. The party is led by current GLA member David Kurten who is also running for London Mayor. The party stands for free speech and liberty, traditional family values, national sovereignty and financial responsibility. Zachary is also standing in the Kenley by-election for Croydon council on May 6th. This will be the first time the party has run in a Croydon local election.
Can you tell us a bit about your background, and how you came to join the Heritage Party and be running for the GLA and Croydon Council?
I developed libertarian sentiments as a teenager when it became apparent to me just how far our lives are intruded upon by unnecessary bureaucratic legislation. Over the past 50 years, many aspects of life have come to be governed by an extreme safetyism, which has been eroding individual responsibility and has generally been detrimental to quality of life as a whole. I have acquired a mantra, ‘Government by education, not by force’.
At the same time, I have been conscious of the unethical practices of Silicon Valley as it exploits Third World wage slaves and Western consumers alike. The contempt with which social media regards individuality is abhorrent, and it failed in its moral responsibility to abstain from censorship during the lockdown, when society was effectively made dependent on it for conversation.
Accordingly, I don’t own a mobile phone, which is an inoffensive personal choice but the cognitive dissonance it induces sometimes is alarming. Many people cannot believe that it is possible, much less desirable, to live without frivolous technologies. This dependency will worsen as working from home becomes ‘normal’, with employers expecting employees to blend work equipment into their private spaces. The dangers of this should be obvious. Most people do not properly understand their technology, so by making themselves dependent upon it, they are inviting exploitation.
Such practices as outlined are unconventional, but I regard them as rational and virtuous. As my university effectively obligated mobile phone ownership, I am conscious of a time when my lifestyle, though harmless, will be impossible because of conditions placed upon it by government, society and their institutions, so I have always entertained entering politics in case I ever needed to defend my own existence.
“That almost everyone in government has been complicit in accepting the single greatest crime ever committed by a democratically elected government against its citizens in British history has made clear the need for a thorough overhaul of the political system”
The imposition of the lockdown in March, 2020, spurred me into action because I recognised from the start that it would be devastating and probably not even succeed in its purported intention. Historical precedents show that totalitarianism only ever creates death and misery, and a mandated orthodoxy is the antithesis of true scientific principles. Nullius in verba. That almost everyone in government has been complicit in accepting the single greatest crime ever committed by a democratically elected government against its citizens in British history has made clear the need for a thorough overhaul of the political system.
I was pleased when I discovered David Kurten had created the Heritage Party last year to oppose government overreach. I am pleased, too, that other parties have been created with similar intentions, although it is a pity we are not presently able to work alongside one another. I believe in the Heritage Party over and above the others because it has a properly developed manifesto with sound policies extending beyond the issues of freedom and censorship. Liberty is not the only component of a healthy society. Responsibility and beauty are necessary, too, and the Heritage Party understands that.
As a lifelong Croydon resident, I am pained by the decline of Croydon and London but, even so, I find much in their people and environment to cherish. With so much worth fighting for, I wish to reverse the decline and make London and Croydon places people may delight in and lead fulfilling, satisfying lives.
“Heritage Party – Free Speech and Liberty” is the party’s name on the London Ballot. Can you tell us a bit more about the party’s policies and what you hope to do in London?
The Heritage Party offers a socially conservative voice in politics, embracing prudence, humility and wisdom. In addition to liberty, personal responsibility and traditional values, we believe in low immigration, self-sufficiency in skills, equality before the law, parliamentary reform in favour of proportional representation, civic beauty and the protection of the countryside.
On the London Assembly, three of our priorities will be policing, transport and housing. Total reform of the police is needed now it is so political. As it stands, it is not doing its job and people of all political creeds have lost faith in it. We want more police on the streets, where they should be able to engage with the public in a friendly manner, for the prevention of serious crime, but we will not allow them to harass citizens for exercising their natural rights to freedom of speech, association and movement within the public realm. We will reverse the upside-down approach to policing displayed at protests throughout the last year. Police will not be allowed to interfere with the public’s right to protest, but we will not let them capitulate to rioters who engage in violence and destruction.
“We oppose Sadiq Khan’s profiteering war on the motorist, which includes the expansion of the ULEZ, a permanent congestion charge, the Greater London boundary charge and congestion-causing Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. We support London’s cabmen and will increase the cab license to 20 years”
The retraction of cash payment on buses and the London Underground erased a fundamental choice, so one of the Heritage Party’s first actions will be to restore cash payment across London’s transport. We oppose Sadiq Khan’s profiteering war on the motorist, which includes the expansion of the ULEZ, a permanent congestion charge, the Greater London boundary charge and congestion-causing Low Traffic Neighbourhoods. We support London’s cabmen and will increase the cab license to 20 years, bring back a Euro 6 diesel option for new taxis and enforce the Uber court ruling. Uber shows contempt for its workers by refusing to pay them minimum wage. The fact that it operates by flooding the streets with taxis which are mostly unoccupied and is thereby probably London’s worst culprit for congestion and air pollution seems to have escaped Sadiq Khan.
Irresponsibly, almost every contender for the London Assembly promises more houses. The Heritage Party recognises the need for affordable homes for Londoners, but it also recognises the need for sensitive development. The policy of building more and more homes is unsustainable, and due in large part to uncontrolled mass immigration which the Heritage Party opposes. Writing in England and the Octopus in the 1920s, Clough Williams-Ellis raised awareness of the damage that was being wrought upon English countryside and culture by rampant development. That we have had a century to address the issue and have only succeeded in escalating the problem is disgraceful. London has no moral obligation to accommodate all who wish to immigrate here and it is not the better for housing them at the expense of its countryside and green spaces. Where development occurs, it must occur on brownfield sites and houses must meet certain quality standards. Many new developments are of appalling quality; fittings are cheaply made and have a short lifespan, the wider community is bereft of important social facilities, and there is no architectural style: it is purely generic. The blandness or outright ugliness of much modern architecture is dispiriting and demoralising, and a blight on the landscape for decades after is construction. Beauty is uplifting, and the Heritage Party will ensure that future development equals or improves upon the prevailing aesthetic of its environs.
In curating London’s streetscape, we oppose the philistinism of Mayor Khan’s Commission for Diversity in the Public Realm, which is culturally destructive and undermines important values. While not every statue is a public asset, those targeted by the commission are among the best for visual beauty, historical importance and promoting achievement and moral virtue. An advanced city respects its past, embraces historical truths as foundations for learning and improvement, and appreciates that the benefits of modern life were arrived at through the toil of its past citizens.
In Croydon we have an epidemic of knife crime, a dying town centre and a bankrupt council. What are your thoughts on the issues facing the borough?
Knife crime is a complicated issue but, with nuance, we can see that a combination of parental, social and cultural influences steers people towards crime. It is imperative that we understand these root causes, and respond appropriately, if we are to address knife crime in the long-term. The political faction that insists the police is institutionally racist and effectively absolves the criminals of responsibility for their misdeeds is a regressive hindrance. Police visits to schools, for the purpose of engagement rather than intimidation, could do a lot to keep children on the right track and identify signs of anti-social behaviour before they go too far, and the council must provide effective social services for children who experience harm or neglect in the home.
One of the biggest problems for young people is the lack of leisure facilities, the provision of which would help them find a purpose and appreciation for life. As a case in point, youths have been riding off-road motorcycles in my local woods. That is anti-social and thoughtless, yet there is nothing of malice in it. Those young motorcyclists have enthusiasm for a very good hobby. Off-road motorcycling helps develop safe and skilful riding, and it encourages an interest in engineering; in competition, like all sports, it helps participants cultivate a sense of fair play. It is precisely what ought to be encouraged in young people, and yet they have nowhere to pursue their hobby. Few people know that Croydon once hosted a motor-racing course. It had dance halls, cinemas and live music venues, now almost all gone. It is developments such as these that Croydon Council should encourage. There is this rather tragic attitude that young people should be ignored and left to entertain themselves with the internet, so it’s scarcely surprising that so many drift wayward for want of a place in the world.
This ties in with the decline of the town centre, with investors understandably lacking confidence in a town with a high crime rate. Boxpark is supposed to be an exciting new development, but I expect its novelty will wear off when people realise they’re paying through their nose just to eat in a pile of shipping containers. The recovery can probably only be long and slow, but if it is to happen at all we must first release the shackles of lockdown and Mayor Khan’s anti-motorist schemes. When town centres are struggling, it is lunacy to impose a Greater London boundary charge on motorists which will deter people from visiting or working in Croydon, and the north of the borough is already suffering thanks to LTNs, which make towns even less accessible to motorists. I am conscious of the need to reduce traffic in some areas, but indiscriminately punishing motorists is not the right way about it.
As we emerge from the lockdown, it is imperative we help local businesses get back on their feet. Croydon’s historic pubs are one of its greatest assets and we must protect them at all costs. The council should offer assistance where necessary and stand up to unscrupulous developers. Westminster Council has set a fantastic precedent in ordering the developers who illegally demolished the Carlton Tavern to rebuild it to its original appearance, and Croydon should follow suit. I extend my congratulations to Croydon North MP Steve Reed, who has already used that precedent against developers who demolished a 1920s bungalow in Upper Norwood; the demolition was illegal, even though the council had inexcusably granted permission for the developers to build flats there. Croydon does not need vast commercial developments like the stalled Westfield centre, it needs to encourage small business owners and local entrepreneurs.
The council’s bankruptcy was the consequence of longstanding ineptitude and financial mismanagement, which is impressive considering the depths to which it was prepared to stoop to generate revenue. My father was one of many people issued with a fixed-penalty notice for disposing of waste at a council recycling site. The cardboard he was disposing of ultimately did not remain in the bin because it was overflowing, and he subsequently received a fine he was unable to appeal. I am not sure whether that or Brick by Brick, the council’s in-house building firm, should be regarded as its biggest disgrace. Also predisposed towards architectural blight, Brick by Brick has been a byword for failure, constructing housing that has frequently transpired to be uninhabitable with the result that it has been a loss-making object of universal ridicule. It needs to be put out of its misery. The real losers, though, are not the councillors who have resigned but the residents of Croydon who face cuts to their services, including the loss of libraries.
“It is my hope that I should be able to help London, Croydon, and Kenley be safe, beautiful places with thriving economies and strong cultural worth, as success stories for freedom and limited governance”
If elected how would you use your role in the Greater London Authority or on Croydon Council and what would you like to achieve?
If elected, I should like to use my position to work with local communities to deliver the best solutions for their respective concerns. It is presently the case that local authorities are too subservient to central government and are frequently required to waste time and funds performing arbitrary tasks that do their areas no good at all, so I will do everything I can to see that local interests are represented.
I would work to promote London as a centre for culture and learning with my support for the arts sector. I will do everything I can to help it recover from the damage of the lockdown and suffocating need to conform with the demands of the identity-politics lobby, so that it can truly proclaim itself the home of world-leading museums, galleries and theatres.
I would be interested in working with the Create Streets think-tank to deliver sensitive development, and I should be very glad to co-operate with charities such as the Georgian Society, Victorian Society and Campaign to Protect Rural England, all of which undertake vital work in protecting and preserving our history and the quality of our environment.
It is my hope that I should be able to help London, Croydon, and Kenley be safe, beautiful places with thriving economies and strong cultural worth, as success stories for freedom and limited governance.
Croydon leading the list of local boroughs with executives paid over £100K, according to report.
The TaxPayers’ Alliance have issued their 2021 Town Hall Rich List of council employees in the UK in receipt of over £100,000 in total remuneration. The list covers the financial year 2019-20, and since then we have seen Croydon Council issue a Section 114 notice, declaring de facto bankruptcy. It’s not hard to see why the council ended up in this position when despite years of complaining about a lack of funding, and years of maximum council tax increases, Croydon Council still had 19 people earning over £100,000 a year, with six people whose remuneration exceeded the salary of the Prime Minister.
To put this in context, neighbouring Bromley had just 9 staff whose remuneration exceeded £100,000. Sutton had 10 staff, Merton 9, Tandridge 2, and Reigate & Banstead 6. Whilst our inner London neighbours Lambeth had 18 and Lewisham 15 (both fewer than Croydon), Barnet a similar sized borough made do with just 9 staff on over £100K.
Private sector organisations often benchmark salaries against other similar organisations. Indeed, within the council, schools are required to benchmark themselves on a range of financial measures against others similar schools. We wonder if it has ever benchmarked their own executive salaries, and if it has, what conclusions they drew? We can see why Croydon Council’s external auditors Grant Thornton described the situation at the council as follows: “There has been collective corporate blindness to both the seriousness of the financial position and the urgency with which actions needed to be taken”.
The current council leader, and others in the cabinet were in the cabinet at the time these bumper salaries were being paid out. What were they doing to control council expenses? Of course we now know those councillors were in receipt of the highest average allowance in London.
Many things have changed at Croydon Council but the latest figures still show 16 people being paid over £100,000 and two on more than the nation’s Prime Minister. Deep cuts are being made to front line jobs and services, can we say that is being reflected in the salaries of those at the top?
As council tax bills are landing in people homes, the people of Croydon who will pay for the mismanagement of the council budget have the right to ask, why we are being expected to once again pay more, when the those at the top of the council seem to be so well rewarded.
Croydon Council Pay over £100,000, 2019-20:
Council
Name
Job title
Salary
Sub total
Pension
Total
Croydon
Jo Negrini
Chief executive
£189,165
£189,165
£29,193
£218,358
Croydon
Guy Van Dichele
Executive director (interim) of health, wellbeing & adults
£197,171
£197,171
£11,983
£209,154
Croydon
Shifa Mustafa
Executive director, place
£156,060
£156,060
£24,085
£180,145
Croydon
Jacqueline Harris-Baker
Executive director of resources and monitoring officer
£153,936
£153,936
£23,795
£177,731
Croydon
Robert Henderson
Executive director of children, families & education
£148,886
£148,886
£22,986
£171,872
Croydon
Hazel Simmonds
Executive director of gateway, strategy & engagement
£137,700
£137,700
£21,252
£158,952
Croydon
Undisclosed
£157,500
£157,500
Croydon
Lisa Taylor
Director of finance, investment and risk and interim S151 officer
Christopher Wilkinson is an independent libertarian-minded candidate proposing to stand for the Lichfield City North division in the 2021 Staffordshire County Council election and the Stowe ward by-election for Lichfield City Council. Chris also runs a group called the Independent Libertarians and has a podcast, the Libertarian Listener, which both Mike and Dan have appeared on. We spoke with Chris on our Podcast back in October and have caught up with him on his upcoming campaigns.
“Perhaps worst of all has been this focus on the ‘common good’ – the rotten, Soviet-style idea that we’ve all got the same interests, same needs, and same ambitions as everyone else and that we’re willing to sacrifice our own job, income, business, mental health and physical wellbeing for the sake of the lowest common denominator in the community. Nothing could be further from the truth”
Chris you’ve run before and are taking part in two election campaigns in May. What’s prompted you to take on these challenges and what are the differences between the two races?
These elections are especially important since they’re the first since COVID-19, and they look set to be a virtual referendum on how the main parties have responded to the issue. Over the past year we’ve seen our civil liberties and freedom severely restricted, the economic strength of the nation destroyed, and reactionary government policies encroaching into every aspect of our daily lives – unprecedented and immoral, especially for peacetime. Perhaps worst of all has been this focus on the ‘common good’ – the rotten, Soviet-style idea that we’ve all got the same interests, same needs, and same ambitions as everyone else and that we’re willing to sacrifice our own job, income, business, mental health and physical wellbeing for the sake of the lowest common denominator in the community. Nothing could be further from the truth. That philosophy is so against the grain of human progress, prosperity and self-fulfilment that it has never worked in any historical example, and my attempt in this election will be to attempt to drag politics back to reality. As there are very few people in the area willing to stand for office, the onus is upon those with a passion to provide change to make it happen hence why I’m standing in both elections. The main difference will be the area covered; the City by-election is being run in my own ward of Stowe, and the County election covers Stowe with two adjacent wards; Chadsmead and Curborough. One benefit of this approach is that a wider number of people get to hear a pro-liberty message, which may in turn inspire them to get more involved in local politics and help fight for local people in future elections. There will be other differences, particularly with the scale of the issues varying between local and regional level, and the amount of walking involved when delivering the leaflets!
Stowe is currently represented by Labour and Conservative in a Conservative city. How do you think they will be better represented by an independent and what do you think are the big issues in Stowe?
I think people are rightly put off by party politics after what they’ve seen over the last twelve months, and so standing as an independent that can put local people’s interests first and assess local issues objectively instead of focusing on party ideology and dogma would make for a far better representative in any area. Political events over the past five years have been very polarising and the key advantage of being an independent candidate is that I’m able to find common ground between people who would otherwise stand apart. In the Stowe area, the most major concerns among residents are the transition back to normality and restarting the economy. The city’s age demographic is slanted more towards the older generations who rightly have concerns over feeling safe going outside again and being in busy areas. I want them to enjoy their lives as best as possible, so it’s critical that elected representatives give truthful information regarding COVID-19 instead of merely relaying the government’s fearmongering and skewed macro-level statistics. Lichfield also has a highly skilled managerial workforce and as such has generally lower-than-average levels of unemployment coupled with a city centre in economic decline – to see unemployment levels rise and businesses in the city centre shut their doors for the final time, especially pubs and ‘non-essential’ shops, therefore represents a significant worry for both residents and visitors. I’ve been speaking with several local businesses and organisations as to how we can bring more people into the city centre and my manifesto will reflect the consultation I’ve had.
“However, demolition work on the proposed site had already begun – a few businesses, including a profitable Ford car dealership, were consequently evicted. The site today is a wasteland obscured by hoardings covered in local government advertising for the city”
Following the failure of Friarsgate, the city now has a ‘Masterplan’. What are your thoughts on what went wrong with Friarsgate and what do you think of the new plan?
Friarsgate was a £54 million shopping development first proposed by the Conservatives in the 1999 local elections that was still in development nearly twenty years later. To put the scale of finance in context, it would have been the equivalent of five years of budget spending by Lichfield District Council in today’s terms. The scheme couldn’t attractive private finance and the council, quite rightly, were not willing to meet the extra cost on behalf of taxpayers. However, demolition work on the proposed site had already begun – a few businesses, including a profitable Ford car dealership, were consequently evicted. The site today is a wasteland obscured by hoardings covered in local government advertising for the city which cost more than £20,000 at the taxpayer’s expense. It went wrong both at a council level and in terms of the economy generally. Referring to the phased strategy and planning permission needed for the Lichfield Masterplan, District Councillor Little was reported in a Lichfield Live article on 7 October 2020 as saying ‘…we need the support from commercial and legal experts to aid us in that process as we haven’t got that expertise within the council to ensure proper governance’ – an admission, if ever one was becoming of the council, that incompetence within the local authority was partly to blame for the downfall of Friarsgate. The truth is there’s very little demand for large commercial infrastructure, especially in a city such as Lichfield, and that restrictions within the COVID-ravaged economy will come to haunt such developments for years to come. The retail sector has been in structural decline for a long time not least due to the growth of online shopping and increasing business rates levied by councils all over the country. The design of Friarsgate was very metropolitan and certainly wouldn’t have suited the quaint character of a cathedral city such as Lichfield. From my research speaking to business owners in the city centre, the main draw factor to Lichfield appears to be its picturesque setting, traditional architecture and unique old-world shopping experience. The council’s economic policies should be reorientated more towards preserving and enhancing Lichfield’s history and heritage as opposed to trying to turn the city into replicas of nearby places such as Tamworth or Burntwood. Lots of smaller niche shops would be more advantageous for local people and visitors than a sprawl of chain stores; Fine & Vintage, a small independent retailer, is an excellent example of what I think Lichfield ought to aim for. At present, the Masterplan does not encapsulate all these crucial factors that will make the difference between the proposal being a success or failure, and so reform and review – not speed and spending – would be the most appropriate way to go about this project.
“Currently there are plans for housing developments at Nether Stowe and Leyfields on urban green space plus the construction of a filter lane cutting through part of the Festival Gardens – I strongly oppose all these projects and will do my best if elected to bring about more suitable alternatives”
With plans for over 4,000 houses for the city and calls for a gender-neutral term to replace chairman, what are the other big issues in the city?
Lichfield was once a semi-rural small historical city with many people saying they’ve moved to live here for its quiet, idyllic setting. The growth in housing in the area over recent years has been unacceptable and has eroded that traditional image of the city. It’s also important to bear in mind why the growth of housing has occurred. The council has adopted a Local Plan and numerous neighbourhood plans to improve certain aspects of the city that are being rolled out over many years. Overlaying that are the central government’s own house building plans. The issue here in Lichfield, however, is that the supply of housing is already above trend as was revealed by District Councillor Tax last October. The government must reconsider its housing targets for this area as central planning does not consider our specific requirements and, if elected, this is something I will pursue with determination. An oversupply of housing is never desirable since bricks and mortar have been a key driver of the British economy over the past twenty years – if that hidden wealth falls due to a lack of demand, we’ll all be paying an extra price in either higher taxes or lower public spending as councils and the government try to stabilise their budgets. Eerily, a similar phenomenon has already occurred with industrial space located south of Lichfield Trent Valley Railway station and the recently constructed Imperial Retail Park took two full years to reach full occupancy. Financial and material resources would be more effective elsewhere at this time. In terms of gender-neutral language, my preference is very clear – if I wished to be referred to as ‘chairman’ or ‘chairwoman’ or ‘chairperson’, I’d hope to be referred to as chairman, chairwoman or chairperson respectively. It’s a matter of personal preference that certainly shouldn’t be enforced to delegitimise natural gender values. There is nothing wrong with being a man or a woman, and our language should reflect that by reinforcing who we are as individuals. It’s hardly a headline issue, and there are bigger fish to fry what with the state of our potholed roads, cracked pavements and empty grit bins! Above all, the issue of the environment is very high on the agenda. Currently there are plans for housing developments at Nether Stowe and Leyfields on urban green space plus the construction of a filter lane cutting through part of the Festival Gardens – I strongly oppose all these projects and will do my best if elected to bring about more suitable alternatives.
You are also planning to run in the Lichfield City North division for Staffordshire County Council. Tell us about the area and what you hope to do for it. What would you like to see change at the council?
I believe in representative local democracy. As such, I hope to act on the priorities of local people as expressed through the survey I’ve issued to them which will be used to create a manifesto that truly represents the people whilst forging consensus on which we can build for the future. We’ve got to meet the challenges posed by remote working, education beyond the classroom and healthcare beyond the hospitals. I also aim to be a pro-business representative. One key consideration is a proposal to extend the Cross-City railway line towards Derby to alleviate road traffic on the A38, increase visitors and tourists from the East Midlands, and to make work at Fradley Park more accessible for those who don’t own a car. More can be done in terms of technical support to make the most of the shift from the physical to the digital economy by assisting small independent businesses to sell their products online, plus helping promote our unique Cathedral. Future housing developments must include supporting infrastructure such as shops, gyms, parks and public services to encourage the growth of the community and foster social cohesion. We’ve got the adapt quickly to the new needs of the economy by installing fast broadband in offices and cafes, adopting a more flexible approach to Business Improvement District investment that ensures no business becomes burdened with charges beyond its means, and keeping business rates and parking charges low to facilitate higher footfall. There must be an attitudinal change at the County council level about how to conduct local government – there are consultations being run with the same low response rates time after time, a lack of accessible representation and too much authority being held at the top instead of being devolved to local councils. Councillors must realise that there is no one single way of accomplishing something; what’s good for one area may not necessarily be good for another. I think there has to be a greater consideration for the externalities of decision-making particularly regarding the difference between policy on paper and policy in action; the notion that the ends do not justify the means. To use the local housing developments as an example, it might be desirable for those moving in having a home of their own and the boost to the local economy arising from that, but those who already live there are losing green space where their children may play, the local roads will be more congested and dangerous as a result of more vehicles lining the streets, and air and noise pollution will be worse.
“a redefinition of the relationship between state and citizen because, as we’ve seen in the past year, the state has assumed the position of the master and the citizen has become its servant”
As we move out of the lockdown, what would you like to see done on the road to recovery both locally and nationally?
I’d like to see a redefinition of the relationship between state and citizen because, as we’ve seen in the past year, the state has assumed the position of the master and the citizen has become its servant. Now we’re hopefully coming out of one of the worst periods in modern socioeconomic history, I’d like to see a fundamental challenge to the traditional authoritarian approach of statist government in favour of a libertarian approach that values the freedom, autonomy and natural rights of the individual with an emphasis on sovereignty, personal choice, free speech and expression, family values and the rule of law. I believe this a philosophy that can be expanded at both a local and national level, and I will work with unremitting energy – whether holding public office or not – to see it come to fruition.
If people would like to know more or get involved, how do they get in touch?
We discuss the relaxing of lockdown restrictions and the possibility of Covid Passports. We then chat about the recently announced London Mayoral & GLA nominations and the 5 upcoming Croydon Council By-Elections.
Mike Swadling of this parish is Vice Chair of Governors at Winterbourne Nursery and Infant School in Thornton Heath, Croydon. Many of us have found lockdown hard, too many of us have failed to put the time to good use, but one local school has used this period to good effect.
“Founded in 1906, Winterbourne Nursery and Infants School sits on a site with separate Junior Boys and Girls schools. The last remaining single-sex, state-funded junior schools in the country. Whilst the schools often cooperate they remain very much independent schools, with their own staff, heads, budgets and governors”
“ensure compliance with required regulations and the good governance of public resources. Following much hard work over the previous year the school received a commendable ‘Substantial Assurance’ audit”
“Teachers provide a warm, nurturing start to each day with a live online session. They give clear guidance and support to pupils and parents about the day’s learning tasks.”
“This past year has been a challenge for everyone, some of us have used the time to set goals, many of us have failed to achieve them, but one local school, Winterbourne Nursery and Infants, can rightly say, its whole community should be proud of its journey of self-improvement”
There is a fierce differentiation between Professor Israel Kirzner’s entrepreneur and his role, and that of the late Joseph Schumpeter’s entrepreneur and the role he plays in the market.
For those who are unaware, the entrepreneur, as according to Professor Kirzner, is an equilibrating force who, through discovery, perceives unseen opportunities for pure profit due to imperfect knowledge of market participants; under the market process and the state of disequilibrium, he moves the market closer to a state of equilibrium. The late Schumpeter had, as would appear on the surface, the complete opposite view of the entrepreneur. To Schumpeter, the state of equilibrium is a set routine; an even state of circular flow, and the entrepreneur, for Schumpeter, breaks away from convention; he is a disruptive force, who breaks away from the set and known; to destroy existing structures, creating a new state of disequilibrium by dislodging it from the state of equilibrium.
At a first glance these two concepts can easily be seen as separate theories of entrepreneurship; and they are. However, both theories can also be looked at as being the same, but under a different lens of perspective; one expanding to see a wider view, another contracting to focus on a singular area of interest.
This is what I hope to share with the reader; an idea that Kirzner’s and Schumpeter’s entrepreneurial actor and process can be seen as merely being witnessed from differing angles of the same lens and can, in theory, be woven together.
It should be noted I will be referencing Professor Kirzner’s work; Competition and Entrepreneurship, solely for this. Due to Schumpeter’s passing before Kirzner’s work on entrepreneurship began, we cannot know of his views of Kirzner’s work, or what his perception of Professor Kirzner’s entrepreneur would have been. In such case, I shall refer to Kirzner’s work to give insight into the perceived theoretical difference between the two concepts of the entrepreneur.
If we look into Professor Kirzner’s writings on the monopolist, he speaks of how, if a perceived monopolist holds his position due to a claim of ownership over a particular resource required for production, from a short-run view he would appear to be a monopolist. However, if our view is not focussed on a particular period, and is instead expanded to before he acquired the resource and it is that of a long-run view, if his acquiring was due to other profit seekers not knowing of the profit opportunities of this resource, due to a state of disequilibrium, then he is an entrepreneur who; through discovery, saw an absence of information and a missed opportunity for pure profit.
Taking this understanding into mind, if we return to the two arguments from Krizner and Schumpeter on the topic of the entrepreneur, we can theorize that the two are true, but merely being viewed through the same lens at a short-run, contracted view, and a long-run, expanded view of the entrepreneurial process and market state of equilibrium and disequilibrium.
What is meant by this? Let us go into a bit of investigation.
According to Schumpeter’s view of the entrepreneur, when the market is in states of equilibrium; producers produce the same quantities of goods and services as that of previous periods, the entrepreneur detracts from this convention and breaks away into a new route of market activity; distorting existing structures and moving the system into uneven states of disequilibrium. This, according to Schumpeter, is the creative destruction of the market economy, and the market process.
If we contract our lens to view the perception of the market actors prior to the entrepreneur’s activities, then we can see how, to the understanding of what is known to said actors, they were in a state of equilibrium and the “pest” known as the entrepreneur, had unravelled what they perceived to know as being all information available. We are now looking at the economic process prior to the entrepreneur’s arrival, within a short-run period.
As explained earlier, according to Professor Kirzner’s view of the entrepreneur, at any given time, the market is paved with ignorance of the individual economic actors, with missed, unknown opportunities, and that the market is in these states of disequilibrium, due to no actor having perfect knowledge; no economic actors are omniscient. The entrepreneur, as an outside observer, sees these missed unperceived pieces of information of resources to which could have more profitable uses, consumer desires not being met, and want/needs unknown to consumers to which they had no prior understanding for their satisfaction; he prepares forward looking, multi-period plans in order to achieve pure entrepreneurial profit. It is this outcome, if successfully perceived, which brings market activity via a process, closer to a state of equilibrium.
If we now expand our lens to ex-post the entrepreneurial actor’s seeking of the opportunity for pure profit, we see; through our expanded lens, that there were unnoticed, unknown opportunities for profitable market activity, to which the producers prior faced an absence of information (they don’t know what they don’t know), or, they faced optimal ignorance (they know what it is they don’t know, but it is more costly than beneficial, and so efficient to be ignorant).
While Kirzner and Schumpeter did have different theories around the subject of the entrepreneur; there is no doubt to be had, if we take Professor Kirzner’s short-run and long-run argument of examining the monopolist; with regards to looking at the matter from a shorter or longer period, it becomes possible to see why a state of equilibrium was perceived by the economic actors with regards to their known information ex-ante the entrepreneurs arrival.
This short piece should not be seen as a criticism of either Professor Kirzner’s or Schumpeter’s work; on the contrary, it is an attempt to explain that the two theories can be examined to be perspectives of differing periods of time, from the perspective of the economic actors of said differing times; the ex-ante and ex-post of the entrepreneur.
This is purely designed to be a short piece on the matter; if further examination is desired, you may find it in the following books:
Competition and Entrepreneurship – Israel Kirzner
Discovery, Capitalism, and Distributive Justice – Israel Kirzner
Essays on Capital and Interest – Israel Kirzner
Theory of Economic Development – Joseph Schumpeter
Capitalism, Socialism and Democracy – Joseph Schumpeter
At the beginning of March, Rishi Sunak; Chancellor of the Exchequer, announced the first budget since the pandemic was declared.
As part of the budget and this “recovery” plan, two specific changes to taxes were announced: Corporation Tax is set to rise on large companies from 19% to 25%, and a freeze on Income Tax thresholds; bringing roughly 1 million more people into paying Income Tax, and a million more into paying at the higher rate.
The Institute for Fiscal Studies reported it is set to raise an extra £29 billion by 2025-26.
But this is fallacious at best and bad economics at worst.
One thing to note of before continuing; which will help in explaining the problems with these hikes, is that Governments’ don’t control taxes, they control tax rates. Taxes are what happen when you combine tax rates with economic behaviour. In addition corporations don’t “pay” taxes, they collect taxes; taxes to a corporation are simply an additional cost, and an increase to costs will create differing economic behaviour.
With these in mind it should become obvious at merely a glace that the tax hikes are not going to have the perceived effects the Chancellor thinks they will.
Let us address these in separate sections; from the simplest to most complex, starting with the new Income Tax thresholds.
“Most jobs paying these rates are part-time or sales assistant retail work, therefore it will have a negative financial effect on these demographics; such as single parents looking to work part time and students. Further, this will cause a hit to high-street businesses struggling to find employees”
Freezing the Income Tax thresholds will force those earning £12,500 and below to start paying Income Tax. This will inevitably lead to low income individuals to see their living standards drop further, due to the forced decrease in expendable income, many will find it more difficult to satisfy their wants/needs and see their marginal utility of goods drop. As a result a few things will happen:
More people with no work experience or qualifications will remain and enter the benefit trap, since the credits and additional welfare assistances will be not necessarily more appealing, but more manageable for meeting expenses than the large cost to incomes, due to welfare acting as a substitute to income, rather than a supplement, which means the government will not be getting as many additional receipts as they imagine.
Due to those earning £12,500 or lower paying Income Tax, spending by those demographics will see a decrease, which means there will be less revenue generated via the Sales Tax, and this decrease in consumption could further hurt small businesses already on the margin.
There will be a further disincentive to work in these positions. Most jobs paying these rates are part-time or sales assistant retail work, therefore it will have a negative financial effect on these demographics; such as single parents looking to work part time and students. Further, this will cause a hit to high-street businesses struggling to find employees, and as mentioned above, will mean the government will not get as many additional receipts as they imagine.
There will be mounted pressure to raise the minimum wage in an attempt to counteract the introduced taxes. If this occurred those unable to produce at the new rates, would find themselves laid off and unemployed; essentially making it impossible for them to find employment; increasing the unemployment rate, and, once again, decreasing the degree of receipts the government is expecting to gain.
But that is just the lower income thresholds, as mentioned above millions are expected to be pushed into the higher Income Tax rate of 40%. What can we expect the results of this will be?
Similar as mentioned above, the push up to a higher tax threshold will mean those previously paying 20% will find due to the decrease in expendable income that their living standards will decline do being able to satisfy less needs/wants, and will find their marginal utility of goods and services decrease.
I’ve gone over this a few times in previous pieces but to reiterate, let’s illustrate what is meant.
If we look at the Mangerian representation of marginal utility we get a much clearer picture of this:
Suppose ‘A’ has an annual income of £30,000; after a progressive income tax of 20%, ‘A’ is left with £24,000. Additionally suppose ‘A’ has 9 needs/wants in order of importance for satisfaction. These are:
Food.
Bills.
Clothing.
Travel.
Owning a Pet.
Pet Food.
Leisure.
Saving.
Holidays.
Suppose ‘A’ is only able to satisfy six of these needs/wants. Because marginal utility is based on the level of satisfaction = utility, and the lowest want = marginal, ‘A’ would do without the 9th, 8th, and 7th. Under the pushed up threshold of 40%, ‘A’ would be left with £18,000, and would have to do without the 6th, 5th, and 4th.
Now these needs/wants illustrated are not determined and can be interchanged with each other or different goods and services based the subjective values of the individual, but it still stands that the new threshold will force median earners to restrict themselves further.
This in turn has a negative feedback to the industries which provide those goods and services done without. Those industries, to which consumers pushed into higher tax thresholds have done without, will in due course see a drop in sales; not just meaning they are making fewer or no profits, but are not covering their costs, which will in turn cause further unemployment, closing of shops in locations hit hardest, and possibly lead to bad deflation; the kind of deflation which occurs due to economic downturns in production and productivity.
There are also the effects on savings and investment.
If people are leaving consumption needs/wants unsatisfied in order to satisfy those needs/wants that hold a higher marginal value, then we can expect those median earners to reduce the amount they are saving; since current consumption is more intense than ability and/or desire to save for future consumption, once pushed into an Income Tax threshold of 40%
In such an instance MV (money velocity) would be at a high, indicating people’s time preference for current consumption. This would mean the banks would not be able to lend as much, and the interest rate would have to rise; signalling to businesses and entrepreneurs that now is a bad time to expand their capital goods or bring new markets to consumers.
This would mean fewer businesses will be able to diversify themselves through expansion, leading to a slower growth in production and job creation.
“Does it sound like a bad budget? …The Corporate Tax is scheduled to rise from 19% to 25%, making it the highest rate of Corporate Tax since 1982 when the rate was roughly 30%”
Does it sound like a bad budget? Well we haven’t even gotten into the Corporate Tax and things are about to get a lot worse with even more negative feedbacks.
The Corporate Tax is scheduled to rise from 19% to 25%, making it the highest rate of Corporate Tax since 1982 when the rate was roughly 30%.
This will have a variety of negative effects, depending on how businesses respond to the rise in corporate tax; a combination of behaviours could be expected, considering the harm to which the economy has been subject to due to the lockdown and other government policies.
While the budget states that it is only large corporations that will see their tax rate increase, it is still to have a negative effect on small businesses; but we’ll get to that as we go along.
As stated earlier, not only are taxes what happen when combining tax rates with economic behaviour, but corporations don’t “pay” taxes, they collect them. What should be heard when “we’re raising taxes on corporations” is uttered, is:
“We’re going to use corporations as a funnel for higher rates of collection”.
With this in mind what behaviours are to be expected from the funnelling of taxes via corporations?
Let’s talk about consumer prices first, because this links closest to what was mentioned with regards to Income Tax.
One way economic behaviour can respond to an additional cost is to see an increase in consumer prices. This would mean alongside the new Income Tax thresholds, many consumers will find their cost of living rising sharply, and have to readjust their optimal ranking of goods and services they hold a utility for, to which would mean there would be additional needs/wants left unsatisfied.
This, similar to what was stated earlier, would mean businesses would not see as high profits as the government is counting on, and government receipts via the Corporate Tax would see a decrease, because people are seldom able or willing to spend as much.
This large reduction in spending, alongside a possible withholding from investment into expansion, is what could lead to the bad kind of deflation. A basic outline can be seen below.
In the illustration shown above we see a basic example of a fall in spending. Aggregate Demand (A.D1) shifts downwards to the curve of A.D2. This causes output to fall also, as displayed by Aggregate Supply (A.S1) shifting downwards to A.S2. This leads to the price of goods in turn falling from P1 to P2.
It must be stressed that to class this fall as a good thing would be in the negative. Remember, these falls in prices and demand aren’t because an optimal quantity of goods have satisfied consumer wants/needs for the complete period in which they wish to utilise them; it is because overall spending has fallen, and because output has shrunk. Which means there are expansions of capital goods that have been abandoned, and in order to offset the cost, wages have to be cut, workers laid off and prices have to fall.
It is a somewhat similar story with regards to other behaviours that can be an outcome of the tax hikes.
A rise in tax rates on profits would mean in order to offset the additional cost, wages could see a decline. This brings us back to what was mentioned earlier about lower expendable income in a cycle:
Income Tax Rate Rises – Less Expendable Income – People Spend Less – Corporate Tax Rate Rises – Wages Fall/Prices Rise – Cost of Living Rises – People Spend Less – Cost to Businesses Rise/Revenue Falls – Outputs/Wages Fall.
Leading to, as mentioned before, the government finding its receipts are not as plentiful as they anticipated; fewer receipts via the Sales Tax, Corporate Tax, and, if workers are laid off, Income Tax.
Another Area to talk about is the process of production and entrepreneurship.
Capital and production are forward-looking, multi-period processes. The process of production is not a simple, pre-determined static motion; entrepreneurial producers set plans in motion during set periods and can have these changed, moved forward as they originally anticipated, or at worst abandoned at the difference stages of completion.
To go into more detail, let us suppose the following:
Suppose I hold a claim to wheat seeds. I wish to plant the seeds and grow wheat in order to make bread, so I search to purchase land that is suitable for my purposes. I find a landowner and agree to pay him with a portion of the funds I receive from selling the wheat, plus interest.
After time has passed and the wheat is fully grown, the first period of my plan is complete. I discover there is a high demand for vodka, and so must make the choice whether to continue with the production of bread, produce vodka, or sell my wheat to those who produce vodka. I finally decide on the selling of the raw wheat itself.
After selling my wheat to bread makers and vodka producers, I pay the land owner and must make the following decision:
Do I continue to pay him for the use of this land; or, with my revenue, do I buy the land outright, and rent it to producers looking to produce wheat for bread and vodka, knowing that this is an industry in high demand. Or, alternatively, do I buy the land outright, and continue to produce wheat for high demand industries without needing to pay rent?
Ultimately I decide to buy the land outright; initially to produce wheat for bread and vodka. However, I see consumers are favouring a competitor for bread, and demand for vodka is not being met due to most wheat producers selling to this bread maker for possible higher returns. Finally I decide to dedicate my wheat production to the manufacturing of vodka alone; specialising in one particular area of the market.
The point of this long winded story, is to illustrate that at any time, initially perceived long-run plans for the market can change. That the market process is not an indefinite, unchanging plan, but that the plans producers make are multiple; in varying periods of production and can change from initial desired outcomes.
Because the process of production is a long-run, multi-period one, added externally imposed costs do not merely effect the outputs by seeing a smaller scale of outputs, they can and will effect different periods of production; which can in turn, effect the employment of those in the production of goods of higher order. The market is interdependent, and so negative shocks to one period of the process can and will send negative feedback to earlier stages of production.
I gave mention earlier to how the rise in Corporate Tax rates would have an effect on small businesses and not just larger businesses; this, like most of what we’ve talked about here, would be a knock on effect.
How so?
Small businesses unlike larger, more international businesses don’t have the ability to branch out; nor large stocks of capital to diversify themselves and rely on other companies to provide products for them to line the shelves with. Small businesses don’t have the means to produce output, nor do they have large quantities of capital goods to utilise input materials should a supply run short. If the higher rate of Corporate Tax causes a reduction in outputs, or, at the least, a slower expansion of production, then small businesses; particularly small, family owned retail shops, will find the already produced, output stock they can store for sale will be heavily reduced or have a higher cost.
A higher Corporate Tax rate may not hurt small businesses directly, but it hurts them indirectly by reducing the amount of outsourced goods they can afford; requiring them to lower their stock or increase their prices, making them more at risk of shutting down.
“The Laffer Curve theorises that there are two peak points of a tax rate, at which the government would receive 0 revenue. At the top is a 100% tax rate, at which the government would receive zero revenue due to driving out any and all investments, wages, savings and other means of generating wealth”
Before concluding I want to briefly talk about the Laffer Curve.
The Laffer Curve theorises that there are two peak points of a tax rate, at which the government would receive 0 revenue. At the top is a 100% tax rate, at which the government would receive zero revenue due to driving out any and all investments, wages, savings and other means of generating wealth. At the bottom is 0% tax rate, at this point the government receives zero revenue because it places no rate of tax on its citizens and their activities.
While it shows at both these points the government receives 0 revenue, each peak point has different effects on citizens. At the top point the citizens’ economic activity would be non-existent and be put into positions of poverty, while at the bottom point the citizens economic activity, productivity and accumulation of wealth would be at its maximum optimal level; higher tax rates slow economic activity, lower tax rates accelerate economic activity.
So why, even if we believe what has been discussed here to be the worst of a worst case scenario, hasn’t the government seen these issues?
Well the shortest answer I can give without taking too much more of the readers time, is that it is a theoretical error with Mainstream Economics, viewing the economy as a static period; merely a mathematical formula not affected by human choice, values, ambitions and action. It is viewing economic activity as if it is not affected by externally imposed costs; that the economic actors will bring about a certain level of activity regardless of how high a tax rate is increased. It is seeing you have 12 eggs to make a large cake, taking 8 and believing you can make the exact same sized cake with 4 as you could with 12.
There is little excuse for a fallacious budget. Even if taking the assumption that such a bad budget was desperately brought in, in order to expand the governments revenue there are two problems with this:
Taking a larger amount from a small pie is not the same as taking a smaller amount from a large pie. Or, in money terms: There’s a difference between taking, say, 5% of £300 million, and 20% of £3 million.
The government already has a large revenue stream. Revenue isn’t the government’s problem, and I’m going to show this briefly before concluding:
Let us compare Government debt with Government receipts; the amount of money the Government collects in a year from all sources.
If we give the Government some leeway on its debt for the year 2020 and take a look at this ratio from the year 2019, we see the following. First it is important to look at the revenue streams from the financial years of 2009 to 2019.
As is shown, the Government receipts in the financial year of 2019 were at 634.64 billion GBP; an increase of 52.95% since the year 2009.
Next we look at the Government receipts compared to Government spending for the year 2019.
Government spending compared to receipts, was 851.3 billion GBP; which equates to roughly 34.13% higher than all sources of revenue collected by the Government.
Finally let’s look at the Government receipts for the year 2019 as compared to the debt as it stood in 2019.
“The Government doesn’t have a revenue shortage problem; the Government has a spending spree problem.
If the government was looking to have economic recovery, slowing down that recovery is certainly a strange way of doing it”
In quite startling results the government debt in 2019, stood at 1821.9 billion GBP; or 1.8 trillion. The government debt is 187.07% higher than the Government receipts collected from all sources.
The Government doesn’t have a revenue shortage problem; the Government has a spending spree problem.
If the government was looking to have economic recovery, slowing down that recovery is certainly a strange way of doing it; to say the least in the most polite way possible. if the Chancellor was serious about recovery, and giving the private sector a strong push off the ground, he would’ve done well to have drastic reforms to the tax system; particularly Income Tax and Corporate Tax, into low, flat rate taxes of 5% and 10%.
Politicians like to talk a lot about the private sector giving back to the public, but for a year, the private sector has made huge sacrifices; sometimes willingly, sometimes forced on to it, in order to keep the public sector afloat; perhaps then, it’s time the public sector and the government, gave back to the private… something other than more debt, preferable.
The purpose of these notes is to present some facts about the campaign to stop global warming and climate change. The climate has changed in the past, is probably changing now, and will change in the future. The campaign is trying to stop the unstoppable.
The natural factors affecting global temperature are very powerful: terrestrial, solar, galactic, and cosmic. Although the manmade contribution to CO2 levels in the atmosphere is claimed to be substantial it is actually very very small and the effect on temperature will be minimal.
1: There are 5 organisations which monitor global temperatures:
Terrestrial: GISS Goddard Institute of Space Studies. Part of NASA.; NOAA National Oceanic and Aerospace Administration (USA).; HADCRUT Climatic Research Unit, UK Met Office
Satellite
RSS Remote Sensing Systems, USA.; UAH University of Alabama, Huntsville.
They all produce slightly different figures. The terrestrial ones have been “homogenising” the figures i.e. adjusting the recent temperatures upwards and older data downwards for years. I prefer to use the satellite data which is more reliable.
“Professor Chris Holland of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research said: “The data doesn’t matter. We are not basing our recommendations on the data. We are basing them on the climate models.” Such quotes are never mentioned in the news media”
2: Revealing statements from the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC)
In 2007 the IPCC Assessment Report 4 contained the following statement in the chapter by Working Group 1 : “ The climate system is a coupled non-linear chaotic system and therefore the long term prediction of future climate states is not possible”
And it was further confirmed in 2010 by Ottmar Edenhofer Chairman of the UN – IPCC Working Group 3 who said “ One must say clearly that we redistribute de-facto the world’s wealth by climate policy. One has to free oneself from the illusion that international climate policy is environmental policy. This has almost nothing to do with environmental policy any more”. When it became clear during the temperature pause, 1999 onwards, that the forecasts were not supported by the empirical data, Professor Chris Holland of the Hadley Centre for Climate Prediction and Research said: “The data doesn’t matter. We are not basing our recommendations on the data. We are basing them on the climate models.” Such quotes are never mentioned in the news media.
3: Carbon Dioxide
Carbon Dioxide in the atmosphere has recently been increasing by about 2 molecules per million molecules (00.0002%) per year and now stands at about 410 molecules per 1,000,000 molecules (00.04%). This is expressed as parts per million by volume (ppmv) . I prefer to express it in terms of 10,000 molecules of atmosphere. In 1900 the volume of CO2 in the atmosphere was 3 molecules in 10,000 molecules; in 2020 it was 4 molecules in 10,000; that is an increase of 1 molecule in 10,000 in a period of 120 years and that extra 1 molecule is alleged to have caused the global warming (0.8C). Is the climate of the world so delicately balanced that a change of 1 molecule in 10,000 can cause dangerous global warming? CO2 can warm the atmosphere – but not much. These facts are never mentioned in the news media.
4: The warming effect of CO2 is logarithmically reducing.
This means that as more and more gets into the atmosphere the additional CO2 has less and less effect. As we are now at 410 molecules per million any additional CO2 will have only marginal effect. (see paper by Dr. David Archibald available at http://wattsupwiththat.com/2010/03/08/the-logarithmic-effect-of-carbon-dioxide). As to whether the hypothesis that manmade CO2 is having any significant effect is correct – well you can see that the answer is probably no. This is never reported in the news media.
The point is that any extra CO2 introduced into the atmosphere now will have no effect on global warming. (Archibald,D, 2007)
5: Measurement of CO2.
Since 1958 this has been done by the laboratory at Moana Loa, Hawaii using infra-red spectroscopy. Between 1812 and 1961 it was done in various laboratories around the world using the Pettenkofer method. In those 149 years this gave results varying from 270 ppmv to 440ppmv (1. Beck, E. 2007, Energy and Environment 18: p259-282; 2. Plimer, Heaven and Earth p 416). See the graph below. The IPCC have ignored without explanation the thousands of measurements using the Pettenkofer method with the variable results shown below except to take the lowest figure of 270 ppmv as the pre industrial era level which, apparently, is reliable while rejecting the figures of 440 ppmv in 1825 and 1940 as not reliable. Since 1958 the Moana Loa results show a consistent rise of about 2 ppmv per year. The laboratory is situated near the top of one of the largest volcanoes on earth surrounded by the warm Pacific Ocean. Volcanoes emit large quantities of CO2 and warm seas degas large quantities of CO2 also. Professor Ian Plimer states that over 80% of Moana Loa measurements are dismissed as poor data – i.e. non conforming.
Determination of atmospheric CO2 by the Pettenkofer method (solid line of 5 year averages) between 1812 and 1961, deductions of atmospheric CO2 from Antarctic ice core (gas chromatography) and edited measurements of atmospheric CO2 from Mauna Loa (infra-red spectroscopy,1958 and onwards). One method of measurement shows great variability in atmospheric CO2 yet another method does not. The high values of CO2 by the Pettenkofer method have been rejected by the IPCC yet the lowest value is used by the IPCC as the base line pre-industrial value for atmospheric CO2. Graph derived from Professor Plimer’s book “Heaven and Earth” page 420. The diagram below shows CO2 as a proportion of the atmosphere and as a percentage of the greenhouse gases.(Dr. Tim Ball www.technocracy.news.com). 2% x 3.62% x 3.4% = 00.0024%
So forecasting man’s effect on future climate in terms of doubling total CO2 is factually dishonest.
6: Growth in CO2 compared with global temperature
It is interesting to note that the increase in CO2 (derived from NOAA via Moana Loa) shows an increase of 2 parts per million per year.. Compare this with the graph which shows the CO2emissions increase per year in million metric tonnes. This calculated tremendous growth has had no impact on the annual growth measured by NOAA.
7: The life of CO2 in the atmosphere is short
There are 37 scientific papers which have examined the life of CO2 in the atmosphere. In 35 of them the findings varied between 3 years and 7 years. One of them found 25 years (Suess&Lal 1983). One of them found in excess of 100 years. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (IPCC) chooses to take 100 years . This is never mentioned in the news media.
8: Methane
Methane is widely claimed to be significant in global warming as it is 20 times more effective than CO2. Its volume in the atmosphere is about 1,800 molecules per billion i.e. less than 2 molecules per million. Yes, like CO2 it can warm the atmosphere but not much. What is more, methane quickly and spontaneously oxidises into CO2 and water. (Plimer, “Heaven and Earth” page 183). This is never reported in the news media.
9: Water vapour
Water vapour is the main warming gas and forms 95% of all the warming gases. It is beyond the control of man Water vapour has a substantial warming effect. Interestingly water vapour in the form of clouds has both a warming and a cooling effect simultaneously. The net effect is still in dispute. This is never mentioned in the news media.
10: There is one factor which destroys the CO2 hypothesis
The most fundamental assumption of the hypothesis is that an increase in CO2 will cause an increase in temperature. This assumption is programmed into the computer models and has a compound effect on forecasts. In fact every record for any period of time and duration shows that exactly the opposite happens – temperature increases before CO2. (Professor Tim Ball, Phd. The Corruption of Climate Science, page 162.) This fact is never mentioned by the IPCC or reported in the news media.
“From 1885 to 1916 the temperature was falling slightly; from 1916 to 1940 it was rising slightly; from 1940 to 1975 it was falling slightly; from 1975 to 1998 rising slightly; 1998 to 2020 there has been no statistically significant change”
11: 1885 to 2016
Between 1885 and 2016 the global temperature anomalies varied a little up and down with cold and warm spells. From 1885 to 1916 the temperature was falling slightly; from 1916 to 1940 it was rising slightly; from 1940 to 1975 it was falling slightly; from 1975 to 1998 rising slightly; 1998 to 2020 there has been no statistically significant change. This is shown in the graph below derived from www.WeatherWatch.co.uk, temperature Fahrenheit.
The graph below shows global temperature anomalies 1998 to 2019 published by GWPF January 2020. You can see that there is no correlation between CO2 and temperature.
According to the laboratory at Moana Loa during most of those 138 years the level of CO2 consistently rose and the hypothesis that CO2 creates dangerous global warming was formulated in the period 1975 to 1998. However, you can see that for 53 of those years the global temperature was rising and for 85 of those years it was falling or steady. Why did the temperature fall when CO2 was rising? These temperature changes can only be seen if measured in tenths of a degree This is never reported in the news media.
The graph below produced by Anthony Watts shows the changes in global temperature since 1887 converted to a normal wall mounted domestic thermometer.
Source:Plot of NASA GISS global average surface temperature from 1880 to 2013, with thanks to James Sexton for conversion assistance. Data derived from “Global Land-Ocean Temperature Index in 0.01 degrees Celsius, base period: 1951- 1980”, National Aeronautics and Space Administration accessed 10th July 2014 http://data.giss.nasa.gov/gistemp/table.data_v3/GLB.tstdSSTtxt
“warming from 1694 to 1730 was similar to 1988 to 2005. It is interesting to also note that the temperature recorded in 1730 was the same as that recorded in 2008. Until the effect of natural causes of global warming or cooling is established it is impossible to establish the extent of warming caused by manmade CO2 emissions. If any”
12: Global temperatures
It is clear that global temperatures have risen irregularly since the Little Ice Age (at its coldest 1645 to 1715) when rivers in Europe including the Thames were regularly frozen over. The global temperature has risen at a rate of about 0.3C per hundred years since then. The Central England Temperature (CET) from 1659 shows a rise of approximately 1 degree centigrade. The graph also shows the lack of correlation between CO2 and temperature. Most of that time man produced very little CO2. Natural forces are at work. You can see that warming from 1694 to 1730 was similar to 1988 to 2005. It is interesting to also note that the temperature recorded in 1730 was the same as that recorded in 2008. Until the effect of natural causes of global warming or cooling is established it is impossible to establish the extent of warming caused by manmade CO2 emissions. If any. None of this is ever mentioned in the news media.
13: The reduction in the number of weather stations
The graph below derived from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (USA) shows the reduction in the number of weather stations.
Fig. 5 : Evolution of land stations and global temperature. Beginning of 1990, thousands of meteo stations located in cooler rural zones (e.g. Siberia, North Canada) stopped recording data (source :ftp://ftp.ncdc.noaa.gov/pub/data:ghcn/v2/v2.temperature.readme).
The above graph shows a reduction of approximately 8000 weather reporting stations and the effect on global temperature which has created a false warming. This is never mentioned in the AR summary reports of the IPCC. Nor is it reported in the news media.
“Both NASA and NOAA have forecast that solar cycle 25 will be the lowest for 200 years. If global temperatures fall to the levels experienced in Solar Cycle 5 during which the Thames froze over at Westminster in 1814 and 1816 the implication is widespread crop failures. No Western government is making preparations for this”
14: What of the future?
Many climate scientists believe that the earth is about to enter a 30 year period of cooling based upon the present low number of sunspots. Records of sunspots show that periods of low sunspots correlate with periods of low temperature. Both NASA and NOAA have forecast that solar cycle 25 will be the lowest for 200 years. If global temperatures fall to the levels experienced in Solar Cycle 5 during which the Thames froze over at Westminster in 1814 and 1816 the implication is widespread crop failures. No Western government is making preparations for this. This is never reported in the news media.
The above painting by Abraham Hondius shows the frozen Thames in 1677.
Daily observations of sunspot numbers from 1st January 1977. Source WDC-SILSO, Royal Observ. Belgium.
The Maunder Minimum coincided with the Little Ice Age; The Dalton Minimum was another period of intense cold during which the Thames froze over in London in 1816. If the prediction by NASA is correct similarly cold temperatures can be expected. The major effect will be widespread crop failures.
The graph below gives the temperature on the Greenland ice sheet during the last 10,000 years derived from the Greenland Ice Sheet Project 2 (GISP2) ice core. Data source from Joannanova.com.au. The direction of the trend is clear.
Professor Henrick Svensmark of the Danish National Space Institute has demonstrated the connection between sunspots and climate identifying that the flow of cosmic rays varies with the number of sunspots. A low number of sunspots allows more cosmic rays to penetrate earth’s atmosphere. A high number of sunspots reduces them. Cosmic rays ultimately develop into nuclei from which rain drops form thus forming clouds. Clouds cool the earth. Thus low sunspots allow more clouds to form leading to periods of colder climate. This process was confirmed by experiments at CERN.
15: Climate Cycles
Many astronomers and other scientists have determined that climate changes in regular cycles. Research done by Dr. Theodor Landscheit starting in 1976 and studies by Fairbridge and Sanders (Columbia University) show that our climate varies – warm to cold, cold to warm – in cycles about every 180 years giving a double cycle of 360 years. It is thought that this is due to the sun’s motion about the centre of the solar system. Research by Dr. Paul Mayewski on the Greenland Ice Sheet has identified a 1440 year cycle (Journal of Geophysical Research, 30.11.1997) of intensely cold climate which has also been identified in North Atlantic deep sea cores by Bond et al (Science, 14.11.1997). From these cycles it can be deduced that the 360 year cycle, and the 1440 year cycle are due to coincide early in the 21st century. Add to this that the last serious ice age occurred about 11,500 years ago (1440×8) and it looks possible that we are in for serious cooling followed by catastrophic cooling in the not too distant future. No government is considering this.
16: The forecasts
The forecasts of Catastrophic Anthropogenic Global Warming due to increasing CO2 in the atmosphere use computer models which have been severely criticised by sceptical scientists. See the graph below. Until the proportion of CO2 created by natural factors is known the proportion created by man must be unknown. This is never reported in the news media.
17: Computer models
Computer model forecasts indicate an increase in global temperature of between 2C and 6C by the year 2100. The forecasts of 73 models, upon which the IPCC relies for its Assessment Reports, are given below compared with actual observations of global temperatures 1976 to 2012. This is never reported in the news media.
A similar graph can be found in AR5 Technical Summary figure TS-14 with the following discussion in box TS3: “ However an analysis of the full suite of CMIP5 (Coupled Model Intercomparison Project) historical simulations….reveals that 111 out of 114 realisations show a GMST (Global Mean Surface Temperature) trend over 1998 – 2012 that is higher than the entire HADCRUT4 trend ensemble (box TS3 figure 1a; CMIP5 ensemble mean trend is 0.21C per decade). This difference between simulated and observed trends could be caused by some combination of (a) internal climate variability, (b) missing or incorrect RF, and (c) model response error.” GWPF 6.11.19
18: The Great Barrier Reef, Australia
At a lecture in the House of Lords on 4.11.2019 Dr.Peter Ridd,, who has spent 35 years studying the reef, presented the following: Many of the threats to the Great Barrier Reef, such as from sediments and nutrients from agricultural runoff, and from climate change (either natural or manmade), have been greatly exaggerated. Far from being in very poor condition, the GBR is actually one of the most pristine and unspoiled ecosystems on earth. The manifest discrepancy between alarmist claims and observational evidence is due to a systemic failure of Quality Assurance systems used for science and relied upon for public policy decisions. This was not reported in the news media.
19: 2014 the Warmest Year Ever
The terrestrial record (GISS, NOAA, and HADCRUT) give this impression. Between 1990 and 2000 approximately 8000 weather stations were removed from the record. These were mainly rural stations which experience cooler temperatures than urban stations because of the Urban Heat Island effect. If RSS and UAH satellite figures are used (which are far more comprehensive) 2014 turns out to have been cooler than several other years in the last 18. This is compounded with the fact that the terrestrial data records have been altered to raise modern temperatures and reduce historical temperatures (Report by Prof. F.Ewert). This is never reported in the news media.
“Over the last twenty years various “experts” such as Al Gore have predicted that the Arctic will be ice free before and including 2018. None of the forecasts came to fruition. They still haven’t”
20: Global Sea Ice
Arctic sea ice and Antarctic sea ice are seasonal. Arctic ice has slowly declined in area for 30 years but in September 2018, was 470,000 square miles (1.2 million sq kilometres) more than it was in 2012. This is more than the area of France, Germany, and Italy combined and illustrates the variability of the arctic ice.
The above graph shows the annual minimum September monthly average sea ice extent in the Northern Hemisphere from 2007 through 2019 according to two different data sets: Sea Ice Index (SII) from NOAA and Multisensor Analyzed Sea Ice Extent (MASIE) from NIC (USA National Ice Centre). The chart begins with 2007 ending a decadal decline and beginning 12 years of stochastic instabilities around a plateau. The linear trend lines are flat for both indices. The volume of ice in the Arctic has no pattern and the SII figure for 30th Sept 2020 is 4.25 million square kilometres. Although this is low it is equal to the combined areas of 22 European states and the trend shown above is not significantly affected.
Over the last twenty years various “experts” such as Al Gore have predicted that the Arctic will be ice free before and including 2018. None of the forecasts came to fruition. They still haven’t.
With regard to Antarctic sea ice January is the Antarctic summer and sea ice extent in 2020 is at the 1979- 1990 average. According to USA National Sea Ice Data Centre the Jan 2020 extent exceeded the level of 16 of the years since 1980. So for 40 years Antarctic sea ice has been variable and is now (2020) higher than it was in 1980. This is never reported in the news media.
21: Polar Bears
Polar Bear population is sparsely spread over the Arctic. The International Union for the Conservation of Nature (IUCN) in 1966 estimated that only 10,000 polar bears remained. In 2006 IUCN estimated that the population had increased to 25,000. In 2017 the number of bears is close to 30,000. Polar bear population does not depend on ice; it depends on the availability of baby seals. This is never reported in the news media.
22: Hurricanes
Frequency and intensity is measured using the Accumulated Cyclone Energy Index (ACE). In the last 30 years there has been a steady decline in the number and strength of hurricanes and cyclones which continues into 2020. On a scale of 1 – 5 in the last 10 years only 3 of strength 3 or higher have reached land in the USA. See the graph below.
Global hurricane frequency 38 years. Top line is the number of hurricanes exceeding 64 knots – steady decline over 38 years. Bottom line is number exceeding 96 knots – no significant increase. In that period CO2 increased by approx. 76 ppmv. And the temperature anomaly by 0.2 C
23: Tornadoes
These have been declining in frequency in the last 10 years. As shown in the graph below. The numbers are stochastically irregular but the trend is clearly downwards at present. (source spc.noaa.gov/wcm 1.1.2021)
24: Sea Level
The factors affecting sea level are complex: geological, sea temperature causing expansion, and land ice melt. In the last 100 years global sea level has risen by approx. 8 inches. The current rate of increase is about 2 – 3 mm a year and this will cause a rise of about 12 inches by 2100 AD, adaptation is the best approach not the reduction of CO2 in the atmosphere. The graph below shows average sea level at New York 1830 to 2019.
25: Islands in the Pacific and Indian Oceans
A 20 year study published in 2018 has revealed that atolls and low lying islands in the Pacific and Indian Oceans are not at as much risk as has been thought. 709 islands were studied looking at data from the 1940s and it was found that no atoll lost land area and that 88.6% of islands were either stable or increased in area while only 11.4 % contracted. (GWPF 29.11.20)
26: Carbondioxide is plant food
Plants grow by photosynthesis, using water, sunlight, chlorophyll, and CO2 . CO2 is plant food without which there would be no life on earth – it is one of the basics of the food chain and if it falls below 250 molecules per million, plants will struggle to grow. If it falls below 150 molecules per million then vegetation growth is likely to cease.
27: CO2 warming – No Basis in Science
To establish a theory in science it is necessary to follow the Scientific Method. This requires experimental work and the publishing of a paper including all the detailed workings setting out the hypothesis. Other scientists test the hypothesis or compare it with actual observations. If the hypothesis is validated it is accepted as a theory – until someone else disproves it. No laboratory experiment has ever proved that CO2 has the capacity to substantially warm the atmosphere. The New Zealand Climate Science Coalition has offered a $NZ10,000 prize to the first person to prove that man made CO2 can cause dangerous global warming. Similarly, Professor Peter Ward, BA,PhD, of Columbia University, USA, has offered a prize of $US10,000 for the first person to do so. Neither has ever been claimed. This is never reported in the news media.
28: Electric vehicles
In order to unnecessarily achieve net zero carbon dioxide emissions and stop the unstoppable, governments have committed to banning the internal combustion engine and converting to electric vehicles by 2050. In the case of the UK the additional electricity required will require the output of six additional nuclear power stations. This will involve an enormous misallocation of national resources. Furthermore in order to get that electricity to the batteries of the EVs will require the complete rewiring of the UK. Thousands of transformer stations will need upgrading; the distribution cables from the transformer stations to households will need upgrading and this will involve the digging up of almost every urban street in the UK. This will be a further misallocation of £billions of pounds of financial resources and create a massive amount of CO2. The UK government has made no plans for this. This is never reported in the news media.
29: IPCC motivation
The terms of reference of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change are to examine global warming in the light of Manmade CO2. As a result they do not give consideration to scientific reports which identify different causes or which falsify the reports on which they base their hypothesis. A list has been compiled since 2014 by the website No Tricks Zone which details over 3000 scientific papers which express scepticism of the IPCC “science”. They also, apparently, ignore inconvenient empirical evidence.
“Their target is to reach net zero emissions by 2050. They say that net zero provides the opportunity for “intentional societal transformation” and do not hide their belief that capitalism and economic growth threaten the future of the planet”
30: NetZero
Their target is to reach net zero emissions by 2050. They say that net zero provides the opportunity for “intentional societal transformation” and do not hide their belief that capitalism and economic growth threaten the future of the planet. They seek to replace capitalism with top down coercive central planning on a global scale encompassing energy, manufacturing, construction, transportation, agriculture, and land use. (GWPF report 40, Rupert Darwall). Their motivation is political aiming to create a system of world government by the UN general assembly secretariat with real power using climate change as a vehicle. The whole agenda has been hijacked by extremists seeking to undermine the economy and social stability of European countries. (Dr.Peiser, GWPF 10.9.19)
31: The Plan
Their plan was revealed at the IPCC conference in Copenhagen 2009. A draft treaty (see below) was submitted for approval by the conference which in clause 38 provision was made for a 3 part system of control: Government; Facilitative mechanism; Financial mechanism. The details were very intrusive, effectively controlling national economies to achieve UN objectives. In fact a system of world government run by unelected UN officials. The draft treaty was not approved but the cat was out of the bag. For the avoidance of doubt clause 38 of the draft treaty is provided in paragraph 32 below.
32: Draft Treaty
UN Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change
Copenhagen 2009 Draft Treaty Clause 38
38. The scheme for the new institutional arrangement under the Convention will be based on three basic pillars: government; facilitative mechanism; and financial mechanism, and the basic organization of which will include the following:
(a) The government will be ruled by the Conference of the Parties with the support of a new subsidiary body on adaptation, and of an Executive Board responsible for the management of the new funds and the related facilitative processes and bodies. The current Convention secretariat will operate as such, as appropriate. FCCC/AWGLCA/2009/INF.2 Page 19
(b) The Convention’s financial mechanism will include a multilateral climate change fund including five windows:
(a) an Adaptation window,
(b) a Compensation window, to address loss and damage from climate change impacts, including insurance, rehabilitation and compensatory components,
(c) a Technology window;
(d) a Mitigation window; and
(e) a REDD window, to support a multi-phases process for positive forest incentives relating to REDD actions. (REDD, Reducing Emissions from Deforestation and Degradation)
(c) The Convention’s facilitative mechanism will include:
(a) work programmes for adaptation and mitigation;
(b) a long-term REDD process;
(c) a short-term technology action plan;
(d) an expert group on adaptation established by the subsidiary body on adaptation, and expert groups on mitigation, technologies and on monitoring, reporting and verification; and
(e) an international registry for the monitoring, reporting and verification of compliance of emission reduction commitments, and the transfer of technical and financial resources from developed countries to developing countries.
The secretariat will provide technical and administrative support, including a new centre for information exchange.
Alternative to paragraph 1–38
[The shared vision shall take the form of preambular text that encapsulates both the long-term global goal and pulls together the other elements of the agreed outcome, in the following form:
The Conference of the Parties,
Seeking to further implement the Convention, in light of evolving science and mindful of evolving economic development and emissions trends,
Recognizing, in the light of Article 2 (objective) of the Convention, the importance of identifying one or more reference points in the mid-century timeframe that can guide the efforts of the Parties and the international community and against which aggregate global efforts can be continually assessed,
Considering, in that regard, that [ ] is/are desirable global indicator(s), Having a shared vision of [summary that ties together the elements of the agreement],
33: Conclusions
Many peer reviewed papers have been published putting forward causes for warming other than CO2. However, what is needed to stop the madness that has seized governments around the world, and which is causing enormous misallocation of the world’s resources, is a rational consideration by experts, from both sides of the argument, of the evidence for warming caused by CO2. This is a widely used technique in industry and commerce known as a Red/Blue assessment to resolve a controversial issue. This must be organised preferably independent of any government agency.
Consideration must also be given to the evidence of natural climate change. Until the contribution of natural change to the warming or cooling of the climate is established it is impossible to establish if manmade CO2 has any effect.
Recognition of the true purpose of the UN’s climate change hypothesis must be publicised.
Withdrawal from the targets set by the 2015 Paris Conference and repeal of the Climate Change Act 2008 and subsequent legislation is now urgent.
Even the most ardent Remainers must be breathing a sigh of relief that the UK isn’t currently involved in the vaccine chaos engulfing Europe.
17 countries including Germany, France, Italy and Spain made the controversial decision to suspend the use of the AstraZeneca vaccination in the wake of reports that the vaccine could cause serious blood clots.
Italy has admitted that the move to halt the use of the AstraZeneca vaccine was political and sputnik spoke with Michael Swadling from the Croydon Constitutionalists to find out just how damaging this move could prove to be in the fight against the pandemic and why this has is evidence that Brexit has been good for Great Britain.it. But surely, surely, the job of a nation, of a government, is to protect their people’s health. And in this case, put their differences behind them, and actually copy what Great Britain has done and get this vaccine out to people”
“isn’t that they won’t achieve the goal. In the end, it isn’t that they won’t get people vaccinated. But that slowness of the vaccine is just a window of opportunity for the virus to kill more people”
“Local decisions throughout life are always better than decisions in a far away bureaucracy.The closer decisions are made to the person the more suited they are to their needs. Britain had that opportunity as a nation to say what’s best for our interests. And our interests might be different from France’s interest. They might be different from Germany’s interests”
