Blog

Where did the apartments go? – Berlin’s Rent Cap Act

Students For Liberty write about Berlin’s Rent Cap Act its failings and implications for New York and elsewhere. 

” Berlin passed a rent freeze to fix its housing shortage.  Twelve months later, the number of apartments available to rent in the city had literally halved”

In February 2020, Berlin passed a rent freeze to fix its housing shortage.  Twelve months later, the number of apartments available to rent in the city had literally halved.  Rent control is one of the most-studied policies in economics. Berlin just gave us the cleanest test we have.

The law was called the Mietendeckel, Berlin’s Rent Cap Act. It froze the rent on roughly 1.5 million apartments built before 2014, rolled prices back to their June 18, 2019 level, and forced landlords to cut existing contracts starting in November 2020. Tenant unions cheered. Landlords went to court.

The market response was immediate. New rental listings in Berlin fell from more than 600 per week before the announcement to fewer than 300 after the law took effect. That is a 56% collapse in the flow of apartments reaching renters, inside twelve months, documented week by week by economists at DIW Berlin and Aix-Marseille.

“New rental listings in Berlin fell from more than 600 per week before the announcement to fewer than 300 after the law took effect”

Where did the apartments go? Owners pulled them off the rental market. Rental-to-owner conversions in Berlin jumped from 12,700 units in 2019 to 19,200 units in 2020, a 51% increase and the highest annual figure since Germany began tracking that number in 2005. Every one of those units is a rental that no longer exists.

Builders read the same signal. New dwelling completions in Berlin fell 14% in 2020, in the same year that the rest of Germany’s completions rose about 5%. Building rental housing in a city that had just told owners what price they were allowed to charge stopped making financial sense.

“Builders read the same signal. New dwelling completions in Berlin fell 14% in 2020, in the same year that the rest of Germany’s completions rose about 5%”

The shortage spilled across the border. Potsdam, the neighbouring city in the state of Brandenburg, was not covered by the freeze. Rents there rose roughly 5% by the first quarter of 2020, 9% by the second, and 12% by the third. Renters priced out of frozen Berlin bid up rents wherever the law did not reach.

Landlords who kept advertising began posting two prices on the same unit. One at the legal cap. One at the market rate that would kick back in the moment the freeze was struck down or expired. 11% of listings carried this double price in February 2020. One month later, in March, it was 34%. By March 2021, close to half. The average gap between the two prices was 51%.

“Renters priced out of frozen Berlin bid up rents wherever the law did not reach”

On April 15, 2021, Germany’s Federal Constitutional Court struck the law down in its entirety. Rent regulation on private housing is a federal power in Germany, and Berlin’s state parliament had no authority to set the rules.

The ruling was retroactive. Tenants who had paid the lower capped rent for months were now billed for the difference. A Sparkasse Berlin survey found that 47% of Berlin renters had saved nothing for the bill. Monthly repayments ran from €100 to €500 per person. Some households owed several thousand euros in a single letter from the landlord.

Berlin is now one of the cleanest natural experiments in the economics of rent control. A single city, a single law, a defined start date, and Potsdam sitting across the border as an unregulated comparison. Assar Lindbeck, the Swedish social-democratic economist, once wrote that rent control is the most efficient technique known to destroy a city, next to bombing. Berlin’s data put numbers on the claim.

“In twelve months, Berlin delivered fewer listings, fewer new buildings, higher rents in the neighbouring city”

Rent control does not create apartments. It gives a discount to the people already holding a lease. It removes apartments from the market for everyone else. The people trying to move in, the students, the recent graduates, the workers arriving for a new job, never see the door open in the first place.

In twelve months, Berlin delivered fewer listings, fewer new buildings, higher rents in the neighbouring city, and a legal bill sent to the very tenants the law was written to protect. On June 26, 2026, New York City’s Rent Guidelines Board voted 7 to 1 to freeze the rent on roughly one million stabilized apartments, delivering Mayor Zohran Mamdani’s central campaign promise.

Every number above is drawn from a peer-reviewed study in Management Science measuring Berlin’s twelve months under the freeze. New Yorkers weighing the same policy have the result already in hand.

Reproduced with kind permission of Students for Liberty. You can find the original X thread at https://x.com/sfliberty/status/2094924529625657396, find them on X at  https://x.com/sfliberty you can also find them online at https://studentsforliberty.org/.

“Rent control does not create apartments. It gives a discount to the people already holding a lease. It removes apartments from the market for everyone else”

Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill

Families Against Involuntary Medical Euthanasia have let us know about a protest they have outside Parliament on September 11 against the Terminally Ill Adults (End of Life) Bill:


Stand Up. Speak Out. Turn Up! Join us outside Parliament on September 11 to protest the return of the deeply dangerous and antidemocratic #AssistedSuicideBill Let’s stop the the Kill Bill together! #NotThisBill #NotThisWay #NotNow

Podcast Episode 105 – Politics in Pubs: Direct, Parliamentary, or Devolved Democracy?

At the Politics in Pubs Central London event we were joined by Neil Petrie of The Direct Democracy Movement and Joanna Marchong, the new Senior Analyst and Head of Campaigns at Onward for a lively debate about the best form of democracy. https://politicsinpubs.org.uk/.

Spreaker

iTunes

Podchaser

Podcast Addict		Deezer

Spotify

Castbox

Amazon

You can find more about The Direct Democracy Movement at https://ddrightnow.com/, including details of books https://ddrightnow.com/books and videos https://ddrightnow.com/videos on the subject. Neil Petrie can be found on X at https://x.com/PetrieNeil35553.

Onward aim to set the agenda on the right, researching and creating policies to solve the problems that are making the UK poorer, the public disillusioned, and the state less effective. They can be found at https://ukonward.com/, and on Facebook and X. Joanna Marchong can also be found on X at https://x.com/marchong_joanna.

Visit Politics in Pubs at https://politicsinpubs.org.uk/ for more on their events in London and beyond. We also have a brief write up of this event below.

The Swiss model or the drawbacks we’ve seen? – Politics in Pubs in London

Against a backdrop of frequent changes of prime minister, no party polling above ~30%, rising government debt, and talk of devolution. We had two main speakers:

  • Neil Petrie (Direct Democracy Movement / board member), who strongly favours a Swiss-style semi-direct democracy.
  • Joanna Marchong (Senior Analyst and Head of Campaigns at the Onward think tank), who is more sceptical of how devolution has worked in the UK and highlighted accountability problems.

Neil Petrie’s main points:

  • The UK’s pure parliamentary/representative system is fundamentally flawed and “corrupt from the outset.” He described party whips as a “handling operation” (historically called the patronage secretary) that keeps MPs in line via patronage, with leaders themselves controlled by backers. Voters rarely feel heard.
  • Neil advocated the Swiss model (in place since 1848): a mix of representative parliament plus citizen rights to force referendums. He summarises it as the “0-1-2 system”:
    • Mandatory referendums for constitutional changes.
    • 1% of voters can trigger a referendum on new legislation.
    • 2% can launch a popular initiative (propose new ideas themselves).
  • Referendums happen several times a year (national and local). Decision-making is pushed down via subsidiarity (to cantons and communities) where possible; major issues like defence stay federal.
  • Switzerland has far lower debt-to-GDP (<40% vs UK >100%), people control the purse strings and therefore spend more carefully than politicians, and the country uniquely has nuclear shelters for its entire population (~9 million). He references US state-level initiatives (e.g. California) and the book Let the People Rule as supporting evidence that voters are more fiscally responsible than legislators.
  • Brexit was a rare positive example of (limited) direct democracy. He has long supported the idea (via the Referendum Party, UKIP, etc.) and notes Nigel Farage has praised the Swiss system.

Joanna Marchong’s main points:

  • Joanna agrees trust in politics and turnout are at historic lows and that people want to feel heard, but argues that simply moving power closer to people (devolution or more referendums) does not automatically improve outcomes.
  • UK devolution evidence is poor after 25 years in Scotland and Wales:
    • Scottish education was among Europe’s best in 1999; maths scores are now below the England average and at OECD levels.
    • Crime remains high; drug deaths are far worse than the European average (roughly four times the level when Trainspotting came out).
    • A&E waiting times that are linked to hundreds of avoidable deaths per year.
    • Per-capita funding has been higher than in England, yet results have deteriorated.
  • True devolution requires both the power to spend and full accountability for failure (no automatic Westminster bailouts). Many current UK metro-mayor and council arrangements lack this; some (e.g. Andy Burnham in Greater Manchester) have delivered visible successes such as bus fares, while newer or less experienced ones struggle with budgets, ring-fenced spending, social care, SEND, etc. Examples of heavily indebted councils (Birmingham and others) illustrate the problem.
  • Referendums have drawbacks: they “unbundle” issues that should be traded off together (e.g. “more NHS spending?” gets a yes; “higher taxes?” gets a no). Simple binary questions ignore complexity and can lock governments into conflicting mandates for years (as seen in California). Parliament’s job, done properly, is to package competing public preferences into coherent budgets and policy. The current system fails at this, which is why people demand referendums, but switching wholesale risks worse outcomes.
  • Cultural and institutional differences mean Swiss or US models do not transplant easily to the UK. Any serious devolution needs stronger local capacity, genuine fiscal responsibility, and clearer national-local boundaries.

The discussion was lively and civil. Neil repeatedly stresses that giving citizens veto/initiative power produces more sensible, lower-debt outcomes. Joanna repeatedly stresses evidence of under-performance under existing UK devolution and the practical difficulties of pure direct democracy.  We took a short break for drinks, followed by an audience Q&A.

TPA’s NHS Rich List 2026

In July, the TaxPayers’ Alliance published their now-annual NHS Rich List. Among its key findings were that in 2024-25, there were 1,603 NHS managers on a salary of £100,000 or more. This included 17 who had salaries over £300,000, and 574 senior managers who had a salary greater than the prime minister’s (£172,153).

“Taking a leaf out of our local council’s book, they were one of only three trusts for which “No accounts have been published.”

Of course, it’s not just salary that matters: 292 NHS senior managers received at least £300,000 in total remuneration (comprising salary, expenses, benefits, bonuses and pension benefits). The highest salary belonged to a senior manager at Newcastle upon Tyne Hospitals, receiving £377,500 (£382,500 total remuneration). The trust was ranked 41 out of 140 in England for A&E waiting times, a solid but unremarkable performance on this indicator. Nottingham University Hospitals (131 of 140 for A&E waiting times in England) had a chief nurse who received a total remuneration of £ 712,500. The full research paper makes fascinating reading.

Being the Croydon Constitutionalists, we would like to bring you details from our own local Croydon Health Services NHS Trust. Taking a leaf out of our local council’s book, they were one of only three trusts for which “No accounts have been published.” Helpfully, the Trust does suggest that “Further details of staff and board members’ allowances and expenses may be obtained by emailing ch-tr.foil@nhs.net.” More helpful would have been publishing their information, like 193 other trusts.

“574 senior managers who had a salary greater than the prime minister’s”

Looking at other trusts serving south London, the most striking figures include:

Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals (some of these were shared with St George’s University Hospitals NHS Trust to which 50% recharged. Figures obtained by combining accounts).

  • Group deputy chief executive officer, who received a salary of £265,000 + £17,500 bonus, plus £1,591,250 pension-related benefits. A total of £1,875,000.
  • Group Chief Nursing Officer.  A salary of £185,000 plus £1,103,750 pension-related benefits for a total £1,290,000.

St George’s University Hospitals

  • Group Chief Executive’s salary of £335,000 (shared, 50% recharged with Epsom and St Helier University Hospitals).

South London and Maudsley

  • Chief Executive’s salary of £232,500 plus a £321,250 pension for a total £552,500.

King’s College Hospital (which includes Princess Royal University Hospital in Bromley)

  • Chief Executive’s salary of £337,500.
  • Chief Nurse’s salary of £197,500 plus £461,250 pension for a total of £657,500.

South West London and St George’s Mental Health

  • Chief Executive’s total remuneration of £337,500.
  • Chief Medical Officer’s total remuneration of £367,500.

These and other details are available in the Full Dataset.

“I would like to think most of what happens in the NHS is about living, but in the Midlands Partnership University they seem to have a specific ‘Director for lived experience”

National Picture

Of the 1474 jobs listed some job titles leap out of the data.  Whilst the title may not comprehensibly cover the role undertaken, and no doubt many do incredibly worthwhile work, at first glance some might be categorised as ‘nice work if you can get it’.

The Royal Papworth Hospital has an ‘Advisory non-voting member’ receiving a total remuneration of £147,500.  I would like to think most of what happens in the NHS is about living, but in the Midlands Partnership University they seem to have a specific ‘Director for lived experience’ on a total remuneration of £157,500.

You could argue the value of one’s lived experience is enhanced by culture.  Thankfully the University Hospitals Sussex have this covered with a ‘Chief culture and organisational development officer’ receiving £167,500 per annum.  As does Mersey Care with a ‘Chief people and culture officer/deputy chief executive for non-clinical services’ receiving £187,500, Walsall Healthcare, via a ‘Director of culture and people’ receiving £167,500, East Lancashire Hospitals with a ‘Executive director of people and culture’ receiving £187,500, Essex Partnership University whose ‘Executive director of people and culture’ receives £327,500, North East London where there is an ‘Executive director of people and culture’ receiving £152,500 this compares to the ‘Executive director of people and culture’ at Nottinghamshire Healthcare receiving £142,500, or the one at Blackpool Teaching Hospitals receiving £162,500.  Of course only being a ‘Director of people and culture’ brings your total package in at £147,500 at James Paget University Hospitals.

“Thankfully the NHS keeps receiving the record budgets, so vital in funding HR executives across the country”

Some of these roles overlap with HR or ‘People’ as they are the role is now often referred to.  At the Bradford Teaching Hospitals this role is covered by the ‘Chief people and purpose officer’ receiving £172,500 (with great purpose no doubt).  Directors of people and HR variously receive £147,500 at the Portsmouth Hospitals University, £135,500 at Central London Community Healthcare, £142,500 at Sheffield Health and Social Care, and £157,500 at Great Ormond Street Hospital for Children.  Thankfully the NHS keeps receiving the record budgets, so vital in funding HR executives across the country.

NHS Trusts don’t run themselves, they need a ‘Chief corporate affairs officer’ (total remuneration (£232,500) at Alder Hey Children’s Trust, or a ‘Chief of strategy and partnerships’ (£227,500) in Bolton, or a ‘Chief of strategy and transformation’ (£157,500) in Hampshire and Isle of Wight Healthcare Trust, or as the Royal Cornwall Hospitals have a ‘Chief performance, partnerships and transformation officer’ (£192,500).

You might wonder how we the public know all this (aside from the great work done by the TaxPayers’ Alliance).  Well, I’m pleased to note the South West London and St George’s Mental Health Trust has that covered with a ‘Better communities programme director’ (£192,500) and the Sussex Partnership covers it with a ‘Chief communications officer’ (£162,500).  Trusts like Northumbria Healthcare, Liverpool University Hospitals, University Hospitals of North Midlands, York and Scarborough Teaching Hospitals, Wrightington, Wigan and Leigh, and South West London and St George’s Mental Health, have this crucial role covered with a ‘Director of communication’, ‘Director of communications’, or a ‘Director of communications and stakeholder’ on total packages ranging from £107,500 to £232,500.

The data and research is really worth a look.

“NHS Trusts don’t run themselves, they need a ‘Chief corporate affairs officer’ (total remuneration (£232,500) at Alder Hey Children’s Trust”

Everything is a problem

Mal McDermott of the Libertarian Party UK writes about many of the problems holding Britain back.

“Everything is always a problem, one to complain about, write to a councillor about, form a committee about”

The heat has been quite something as you may have noticed, from my side of the country in the depths of the Souf,to the frozen lands beyond the wall (Speculation states that Scots are having a Y2K moment as their thermometers don’t go into double digits) we are having a hot time of it.

On top of this we have had the usual slew of hosepipe bans, wilting crops, people getting into trouble in the water trying to cool off, cracked pavements, non-air-conditioned homes presumably built in the last ice age for heat retention and the useful small talk of “how about this heat?”

“Where is the entrepreneurship? Where are the people selling ice cream and beer on the beach, the swim teams forming volunteer life guard groups”

Problem after moan after problem after whinge. It’s a typical response, but also a result of policy and culture. Everything is always a problem, one to complain about, write to a councillor about, form a committee about, get an MP in for a photo op about. Because God forbid that anyone with no doubt scurrilous, exploitative and capitalistic tendencies would actually do something about.

Where is the entrepreneurship? Where are the people selling ice cream and beer on the beach, the swim teams forming volunteer life guard groups, the people hawking cheap sunglasses bought in bulk of Temu? There at home, complaining on the internet, begging a faceless bureaucracy to fix their lives.

But they’re not entirely to blame, their whole lives they’ve been fed this line, they have witnessed every attempt at private industry being crushed by red tape and taxes. Why bother trying to do anything when Johnny Law is just going to kick down your door and send you to the slammer longer than someone convicted of manslaughter for trying to hawk a can of Carlsberg on the Sea shore?

“Vape and betting shops are to be stamped out by the politburo. Zero fun allowed, now get back to work or being depressed”

Andy Burnham, himself from beyond the Watford gap and his collection of conniving communists are this week attempting to crack down at the last response to this constant crack down. Vape and betting shops are to be stamped out by the politburo. Zero fun allowed, now get back to work or being depressed in bed, either suits the Labour louts. The fact that taxes and rates have meant that only insanely high margin businesses can operate would of course be sacrosanct to the Marxist ghouls in charge.

“we are beaten down by a state of busy body pencil pushers who are clueless of the realities outside of their projected models”

We are supposed to be a capitalist society, problems are to be met with ingenuity, solutions and profit. Everyone benefits, people beat the heat and others bring home the bacon. Instead, we are beaten down by a state of busy body pencil pushers who are clueless of the realities outside of their projected models and let’s be honest what they reckon is going on.

Is there a percentage something could go wrong, possibly, but whatever it is, it won’t be 100%, so we are always getting less than we could as a government ban means everyone gets 0%. The UK should be enjoying a pop-up and small business boom. Instead thousands more will be jobless and I’m left beerless on the beach, watching the waves, and in the distance, is that a small boat I see?…

“God forbid that anyone with no doubt scurrilous, exploitative and capitalistic tendencies would actually do something”

You can learn more about the Libertarian party at https://libertarianpartyuk.com/, follow them on X/Twitter at https://x.com/LibertariansUK and Facebook at https://www.facebook.com/libertarianuk.

Originally posted on the 13th August at https://www.facebook.com/libertarianuk/posts/pfbid02ofwBhxwQWSPqYCydEhaRpLeKFSD6GMATNceSATpGg392StaoHJK87igGWkLpqpgil.

Image from Grok.

Are we run by a Uni-Party?

It used to be that we knew the difference between our major political parties and what each one stood for. After 14 years of Conservative government we had record high taxes, spending and immigration. We also saw Net Zero policies that gave the state greater control over private activity, a steady stream of bans and nanny-state measures, and a significant clampdown on free speech. The Liberal Democrats supported many of these policies while in the coalition and have since pushed for even more restrictive ones in opposition. The Labour government that took office in 2024 doubled down on every one of these areas.

However, the Conservatives are now changing tack in many areas from the policies they pursued in office. Andy Burnham signals a change in style, rhetoric and, increasingly, some policy areas from the first two years of the Labour government. In local and devolved government we still see clear differences in the practices of the established parties. At the same time, Reform and Green administrations in local government often appear to align more with previous councils than they differ from them.

Join Hugo Timms, Staff Writer at Spiked Online, and a guest TBC, for a lively debate on the question: Are we run by a Uni-Party?

Politics in Pubs – London
The Warwick, 25 Warwick Way
Monday 21st September, 7pm.

London – Are we run by a Uni-Party?

George Ayittey on Africa’s wrong turn to socialism.

Students For Liberty write about Ghanaian economist George Ayittey and how American billionaires often founded the company that made them rich. However, in socialist-era Africa, the wealthiest people were heads of state and their ministers.

“In Ghana, Nkrumah’s government built 64 state enterprises before his overthrow in February 1966. Only three or four were profitable”

In 1960, newly independent African leaders had a choice: capitalism or socialism. Almost all of them picked socialism. A Ghanaian economist named George Ayittey spent forty years documenting what happened next. His findings are in print, and almost nobody outside Africa wants to hear them.

The reasoning in 1960 looked airtight. Colonialism had been run by Western capitalists. So capitalism was a tool of oppression. Socialism, its opposite, would be the path to liberation. Kwame Nkrumah in Ghana, Julius Nyerere in Tanzania, Sékou Touré in Guinea, Mengistu Haile Mariam in Ethiopia, and Robert Mugabe in Zimbabwe all reached the same conclusion through the same logic.

The logic was tidy. The results were catastrophic. In Ghana, Nkrumah’s government built 64 state enterprises before his overthrow in February 1966. Only three or four were profitable. By 1970, the Ghanaian state was setting prices on nearly 6,000 items across more than 700 product groups.

“By 1976, the state had relocated more than 11 million peasants into roughly 8,000 collective villages. Much of the relocation was done at gunpoint”

In Tanzania, Julius Nyerere called the program ujamaa, a Swahili word for familyhood. By 1976, the state had relocated more than 11 million peasants into roughly 8,000 collective villages. Much of the relocation was done at gunpoint. Government bulldozers flattened old houses so families could not return.

Tanzania exported 540,000 tons of maize in 1970. By 1974 it was importing 300,000 tons. Within a few years a country that had been able to feed itself was depending on Western grain shipments to survive.

“Out of a population of 5.5 million, about 2 million Guineans fled the country. The richest territory in French West Africa ended up importing food it once exported”

In Guinea, Sékou Touré made unauthorized trade a criminal offense. Smuggling could be punished by death. Out of a population of 5.5 million, about 2 million Guineans fled the country. The richest territory in French West Africa ended up importing food it once exported.

Ayittey then asked the question he considered most important. How do the rich get rich in the United States compared to Africa? In the United States, the wealthiest people are builders. Elon Musk built Tesla and SpaceX. Jeff Bezos built Amazon. Roughly two thirds of American billionaires founded the company that made them rich.

In socialist-era Africa, the wealthiest people were heads of state and their ministers.

  • Mobutu Sese Seko of Zaire (now the Democratic Republic of Congo): estimates of stolen wealth ranged from 1 to 5 billion dollars.
  • Sani Abacha of Nigeria: around 5 billion.
  • Ibrahim Babangida of Nigeria: roughly 12 billion.
  • Hosni Mubarak of Egypt: estimates ran as high as 40 billion.
  • Muammar Gaddafi of Libya: estimates reached 200 billion.

Ayittey put it plainly. The combined net worth of every American president from George Washington through Barack Obama, all 43 of them, was about 2.7 billion dollars in 2010 figures. Sani Abacha alone stole more than that in five years in office. African socialism built a ruling class that created nothing and extracted everything.

“Roughly two thirds of American billionaires founded the company that made them rich. In socialist-era Africa, the wealthiest people were heads of state and their ministers”

The argument Ayittey most wanted Africans to hear, and the one almost nobody quotes, is that socialism was never African. Pre-colonial Africa had open markets, long-distance trade, and private enterprise. Cloth-weaving, iron and gold smelting, regional commerce. Property was held by extended families and clans, not by the state.

Nyerere and his peers took kinship-based property and relabelled it communism. They confused village solidarity with state ownership. They imported a nineteenth-century European industrial ideology and applied it to agricultural societies that already had functioning markets older than the modern European state. Shortages, political prisons, and a parasitic ruling class followed.

South Africa in 2026 is preparing the same policies. The Expropriation Act was signed in January 2025. The MK Party introduced a constitutional amendment bill this April to push land restitution claims back to 1652 and remove compensation from the property clause.

Zimbabwe ran this experiment in 2000. Tobacco export earnings fell from 600 million dollars to 175 million by 2009. Maize production did not return to pre-seizure levels until 2017.

Ayittey warned about this for thirty years. He died in January 2022. South Africa is doing it anyway.

“Zimbabwe ran this experiment in 2000. Tobacco export earnings fell from 600 million dollars to 175 million by 2009”

Reproduced with kind permission of Students for Liberty. You can find the original X thread at https://x.com/sfliberty/status/2070649595445584346, find them on X at  https://x.com/sfliberty you can also find them online at https://studentsforliberty.org/.

Germany’s Wirtschaftswunder, and the end of price controls.

Students For Liberty write on how the end of price controls helped drive Germany’s post war recovery.

“Cigarettes served as currency. Shops were empty because the real economy had moved to the black market”

In 1948, a German economist abolished the price controls that the Nazis had created, and the Allies and most of Germany’s own experts wanted to keep. They told him it was madness.

The setting: Germany, three years after the war. Twenty percent of housing destroyed. Official food rations ran between 1,040 and 1,550 calories a day. Cigarettes served as currency. Shops were empty because the real economy had moved to the black market.

Germans had lived under price controls for twelve years. Adolf Hitler imposed them in 1936 so his government could buy war materials cheap. Hermann Goering added rationing in 1939. Under the Nazis, breaking price controls could get you the death penalty.

“By 1947, the money supply was five times its 1936 level. Prices were still frozen. The obvious result was mass shortages”

In November 1945, the Allied Control Authority (the United States, Britain, France, and the Soviet Union) kept Hitler’s controls in place. By 1947, the money supply was five times its 1936 level. Prices were still frozen. The obvious result was mass shortages.

His name was Ludwig Erhard, economics director of the Anglo-American Bizone. He had refused to join the Nazi Association of University Teachers. During the war he wrote a memorandum outlining a postwar market economy, one that made his hope for a Nazi defeat clear.

Every serious voice said controls must stay. The Social Democratic Party wanted central direction. Labor unions agreed. The British authorities agreed. Most German manufacturers agreed. Even some Americans agreed. The memory of the 1923 hyperinflation made decontrol look reckless.

“Once the Deutsche Mark had real value and prices could move, the stockpiles came out of storage”

On Sunday, June 20, 1948, the currency reform introduced the Deutsche Mark. The same day, the Bizonal Economic Council passed a price decontrol law over Social Democratic opposition. Erhard spent the summer eliminating controls, allocations, and rations by directive.

By Monday, June 21, shop windows filled with goods that had “not existed” the week before. They had existed all along. Producers and traders had hoarded them because the old currency was worthless and controlled prices meant selling at a loss. Once the Deutsche Mark had real value and prices could move, the stockpiles came out of storage. The black market did not need to be dismantled. It moved into the shops.

That July, U.S. General Lucius Clay called him in. Clay: “Herr Erhard, my advisers tell me what you have done is a terrible mistake. What do you say to that?” Erhard: “Herr General, pay no attention to them! My advisers tell me the same thing.”

In June, industrial production sat at 51 percent of its 1936 level. By December, it had climbed to 78 percent. Absenteeism fell from 9.5 hours per week in May to 4.2 hours by October. Yale economist Henry Wallich later wrote that “the spirit of the country changed overnight.”

Germans call this the Wirtschaftswunder, the economic miracle. It had a mechanism. Twelve years of price controls had held down a working economy. Erhard removed the controls, and the economy came back. What made him rare was refusing to defer to every credentialed voice in the room.

“In June, industrial production sat at 51 percent of its 1936 level. By December, it had climbed to 78 percent”

Reproduced with kind permission of Students for Liberty. You can find the original X thread at https://x.com/sfliberty/status/2077165253062783066, find them on X at  https://x.com/sfliberty you can also find them online at https://studentsforliberty.org/.

Direct, Parliamentary, or Devolved Democracy?

With the new Prime Minister waxing lyrical about devolution, no party above 30% in the polls, and spiralling government debt demanding tough choices, we ask: which democracy best serves us — Direct, Parliamentary, or Devolved?

Join Neil Petrie of The Direct Democracy Movement and Joanna Marchong the new Senior Analyst and Head of Campaigns at Onward for a lively debate.

Politics in Pubs – London
The Warwick, 25 Warwick Way
Monday 3rd August, 7pm.

You can find more about The Direct Democracy Movement at https://ddrightnow.com/, including details of books https://ddrightnow.com/books and videos https://ddrightnow.com/videos on the subject.

Podcast Episode 104 – Politics in Pubs: Digital ID: Panacea or Dystopia?

At the Politics in Pubs Central London event we were joined by Viggo Terling of the Adam Smith Institute, and Darwin Friend of the TaxPayers’ Alliance, for a discussion about Digital ID and whether it will prove to be a panacea or a dystopia, and what if anything we can do about it.

Spreaker

iTunes

Podchaser

Podcast Addict		Deezer

Spotify

Castbox

Amazon

Visit Politics in Pubs at https://politicsinpubs.org.uk/ for more on their events in London and beyond. We also have a brief write up of this event below.

Mixed Panacea and Dystopia: Digital ID – Politics in Pubs in London

The discussion centred on whether a UK digital ID system would be a productivity-boosting modernisation or a costly, trust-eroding government overreach. The timing of the event allowed it to be framed against the day’s news of the proposed under-16 social media ban (requiring age verification) and broader concerns about data, trust, and liberty.

Viggo Terling was broadly supportive of well-designed digital ID, strongly prefers private-sector model.  He strongly criticised the government’s nanny-state tendencies (e.g., the under-16 ban) but sees huge potential in digital verification.  Viggo advocated the Swedish BankID model, created and funded by banks (not taxpayers), voluntary but near-universally adopted (~99% of adults), used for signing mortgages, loans, government services, etc., via facial scan on a phone or card. 

Darwin Friend was sceptical, especially of government-led schemes.  He opposes mandatory or government-run digital ID due to broken public trust, history of failed projects, and cost overruns.  Darwin noted past ID card scheme under Blair wasted £4.6 billion before being scrapped. Darwin also identified the under-16 social media ban + age verification as a “slippery slope”/precursor to broader digital ID and data consolidation.

Both strongly agreed private-sector, voluntary systems are preferable and that data privacy, cybersecurity, and operational security are real issues.

Darwin’s advice for opponents: Arm yourself with facts (e.g., Big Brother Watch), resist publicly, support parties opposing it, and keep making the case.  Viggo advised people to be proactive, lobby to improve the design rather than just oppose. Focus on benefits (productivity, convenience) alongside risks.

We have a civil, thoughtful debate between two broadly libertarian-leaning speakers.  Both highlighted that how digital ID is implemented (government vs private, mandatory vs voluntary) matters far more than whether it exists in principle. The event ended with audience Q&A after a break.