Nimbyism explained – 2

A while back – August 2013 – I posted this on my local Forum: I had a eureka moment about this a few days ago – the rise of the NIMBY is a consequence of greater fragmentation of freeholding. It’s obvious really – if more occupiers have the legal rights of freeholders, they will use… Continue reading Nimbyism explained – 2

Restricting housing supply

Channel 4’s Dispatches last night (7th November, 2016) Britain’s Homebuilding Scandal lays the blame for restricting housing supply firmly on developers – and much of the content is also here in the Telegraph, in a piece written by the Channel 4 presenter, Liam Halligan It’s time to get building: Sajid Javid pledges to break the… Continue reading Restricting housing supply

The Pru 100

Unlike Team Sky on the Champs Elysées, we’d not practised this for crossing the finishing line, which is why we both look a bit worried.  A week on, Annie is off travelling, and I’m catching up with my life post retirement, with a blog about the whole experience, and thanking everyone who sponsored me, on… Continue reading The Pru 100

Kognitiv dissonans

This week’s Economist has an article on Property in Sweden Home is where the heartache is

If it wasn’t for the Nimbies inbetween

More evidence that capitalism wouldn’t be so bad if it wasn’t for the Nimbies inbetween. This graph from Matthew Rognlie’s paper disaggregating Piketty’s overall story of increasing returns to capital is well known (although not as well known as it should be …) Deciphering the fall and rise in the net capital share But today I… Continue reading If it wasn’t for the Nimbies inbetween

Since housing is, economically, a luxury good, why not tax it more?

An exchange in comments on a recent blog by Jolyon Maugham about the difficulties of structuring a sin tax SOME TENTATIVE THOUGHTS ON A SUGAR TAX reminded me of a posting I made in June 2014 on my local forum, but which is now only visible to registered users.  Jolyon’s blog showed the normal regressive pattern… Continue reading Since housing is, economically, a luxury good, why not tax it more?