Paul butcher

#ChristmasParties with MPs or peers unexpectedly in attendance alongside foreign businesses or charities could lead to multiple crimes in future years ... #christmasfuture

Interviewers/journalists: remember when we said Truss or Starmer should have been put under more scrutiny? Apply scrutiny now please. That means interrogating candidates on policy not just politics, and knowing as much or more about it than they do.

@TiraDeUrgue @moving_charlie I’m muting this now but here is some data showing the extent to which supply constraints have impacted the U.K compared to comparator countries (over 6.5 million rather than 5 million): cps.org.uk/media/post/202…

@UKPolicyButcher @moving_charlie That "highest level" doesn't change a iota what I said. I hope you understand this. Regarding your 5m "estimate" admitedly in the low side I can only say that ppl turn very blind to evidence but reality always end up ruling. Base your points on data not builders "low estimates"

Interesting breakdown of the *additional* costs of housebuilding on top of the existing land and material and labour costs. Still doesn’t change the fact there’s no shortage. They’re just too expensive.

@TiraDeUrgue @moving_charlie The U.K. has amongst the highest levels of social housing of any developed country. The 5 million estimate is admittedly on the low side (based on comparators)

@UKPolicyButcher @moving_charlie Britain isn't short 5m homes. Britain has a shortage of social housing only. In certain areas. Currently we have a flooding of ppty coming to the market, 1.7m empty houses, etc. Is the solution "building 5m more"? No. Builders want ppl think the shortage exists, but it doesn't.

@TiraDeUrgue @moving_charlie But you do realise all this has happened in many countries around the world as well and supply and demand still works normally again once supply is allowed? I’m saying this one last time as one last attempt at engagement on my actual point.

@UKPolicyButcher @moving_charlie This means that what they can afford is exclusively depending on how much financing (debt availability) they can get in the process For ownership, finance is the absolute driver. Not just for buyers else also for builders The build more "solution" is for the birds. Retard stuff

Yes this has happened around the world. What it hasn’t done though is destroyed the normal functioning of supply and demand. The fact that the U.K. is short by about 5 million homes is relevant … and if there was extra supply then prices would fall. As has happened recently in New Zealand and Texas.

@UKPolicyButcher @moving_charlie And that's only for those regions where they are needed. I hold a Postg Dip in Finance, and can confirm that Charlie's interpretation of supply&demand being driven by availability to finance is the correct one. 4Owning: S&D purity was altered by FOMOYOLO & 6x lending multiples.

@TiraDeUrgue @moving_charlie But it’s worked recently in various other jurisdictions with analogous situations (eg New Zealand and Texas). The same arguments were used as to why it wouldn’t work. But it did. I’m not sure people arguing this (very peculiar) argument have caught up

@UKPolicyButcher @moving_charlie He knows his stuff inside out, with all the components that play around it. He doesn't mean what you think it does. There isn't any shortage of houses in general at all, there are too many houses already in fact. Building more isn't THE solution, building more social housing is

@TiraDeUrgue @moving_charlie Yes - that’s the situation in most countries with liberalised mortgage lending. But it doesn’t explain why anyone would think that more supply would not lower prices in the U.K.

@UKPolicyButcher @moving_charlie So, nowadays for the mayority of the owning sector inside the housing market nationwide, supply & demand run now inside finance so to speak (they depend on finance [debt availability] to be activated). While the rental sector operates in a more classical supply & demand fashion

@moving_charlie Ok I’m still left not understanding what is magical/ special about the U.K.

That perspective would require builders to build knowing there was no market for them and thus they’d go out of business. Of course if you take it to hypothetical extremes it would make a difference. But the reality point people seem to struggle with is that we already have enough homes, they’re just too expensive. There are few people who wouldn’t upgrade if they could afford it and there’s a glut of unsold homes at the higher end of the market.

@TiraDeUrgue @moving_charlie Yes - but that doesn’t mean that more supply would not lower costs (as it has done in other countries with analogous interest rate backdrop). I’m trying to find out if there is something *different* about the U.K. why he thinks supply and demand do not apply.

@UKPolicyButcher @moving_charlie bankofengland.co.uk/working-paper/…

So you think that if the U.K. had the extra 5 million homes that it would have if it was more in line with its comparators it would not make much difference to affordability? (If true then this is even more of a reason to build them btw but just interested to understand how extreme your contention is)

@UKPolicyButcher Excessive lending and artificial stimulus has driven prices more than any other factor.

UK building constraints are so binding that the country would be richer today if it had been bombed more during World War II — it's a very grim situation. slowboring.com/p/the-uk-reall…

There are so many insane wildly misleading stories coming out about data centers almost every day now that I'm mostly having to give up on commenting on them to focus on actually getting blog posts out, but it feels like a tsunami. I'll share one from just today as an example.

“when you deal with an exponential your choices are too early or too late”

New post on data centers and land use, where I explain why I think we have way too much farmland

The tide is turning for nuclear energy. Americans want more reliable power, not less. ➕

Extremely cool. Don't believe the people – NIMBYs or YIMBYs – who say density has to be ugly.

Great question - I actually think this is another selling point: - Seawater is one of the best radiation shields. - Reactor fuel is insoluble in water, meaning it doesn't dissolve and spread, it just sits there. - The ocean already contains ~4.5 billion tons of dissolved uranium (naturally). A reactor core even if it did dissolve would be a rounding error. - Underwater volcanic vents and tectonic boundaries already naturally & continuously release radioactive material (radon, radium, uranium, thorium) into the ocean. - Existence proof: 9 nuclear submarines have sunk (mostly from other countries). Have been monitored for decades, shows negligible environmental impact at the wreck sites. The reactors & vessels basically just sit there, intact, slowly being entombed in sediment.

Hmm, I think I am not sold on this? I feel like a lot of my intellectual discourse experience has been: Me: "People are planning to do this really dumb thing" Other person: "That's a strawman, people are pursuing a much more complicated strategy which looks like that on the surface, but actually makes sense because they have taken precaution Y, or integrated your counter-argument, or are planning to change course later on" Me: "Oh, huh, yeah, that would be great. I guess here are my concerns with this strategy, but I agree that that policy is much better" Them: GOES AND DRIVES OFF A CLIFF JUST LIKE MY ORIGINAL MODEL PREDICTED --- Like, a lot of my life has been very smart people coming up with rationalizations for what much less ethical people or much dumber people want, and it would have been better for me to keep arguing against the dumb takes instead of arguing against the good takes which turned out to not actually affect any policies. IDK, maybe this is the brain-worms getting to me.

Nuclear-powered shipping is so obviously the right solution, it pains me we didn’t go this direction decades ago: - 10,000x fuel-density: less space for fuel, more cargo, more revenue. - 5-10 yrs between refuels: less stops, longer or new routes, higher uptime. - 7,600 U.S. military naval reactor-years: nuclear at sea is already proven. - 440 civilian land reactors: no reason civilians can't do it at sea as well. - Already proven with NS Savannah. - No dirty exhaust. Can't wait to see what Nick and his team do to push this forward.