IEA Podcast

In this Institute of Economic Affairs podcast, host Callum Price is joined by Editorial Director Kristian Niemietz and Senior Economist Dr Valentin Boboc. The episode examines the political turmoil in Westminster, the Government’s King’s Speech, and what both mean for the UK economy. The discussion centres on the bond market, fiscal credibility, and why political chaos matters far more when public debt is already stretched.

Dr Boboc and Kristian Niemietz dig into the UK’s deteriorating fiscal position, with around 8% of all public spending now going on debt interest alone. They assess why bond markets are nervous about whoever ends up leading the Government, arguing that the real problem is not the chaos itself but the absence of any credible plan on spending, growth, or taxation. The King’s Speech is assessed in detail, including the Government’s “Regulating for Growth” bill, the nationalisation of British Steel, and what Kristian describes as Chris Snowdon’s “capitalist command economy” thesis: a state that does not want to own industry directly but increasingly dictates what private companies produce and how.

The conversation closes with a look at a Labour backbench growth paper that Kristian describes as the closest thing to a centre-left supply-side agenda he has read in the British context. He and Dr Boboc explore why rationing key inputs like land, energy and childcare drives up costs and then triggers expensive spending programmes to compensate, and what genuine fiscal consolidation through growth might actually look like.

The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.

The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff.

In this Institute of Economic Affairs briefing, Dr Kristian Niemietz is joined by IEA Head of Lifestyle Economics Dr Christopher Snowdon to examine a question with no easy answer: what kind of economy does Britain actually have? Neither neoliberal nor socialist, Chris makes the case that the UK has drifted into what he calls a “capitalist command economy” — one where industries remain largely in private hands but are increasingly directed, targeted, and fined by the state.

Chris and Kristian work through the evidence: boiler companies fined for not selling enough heat pumps, car manufacturers penalised for selling too many petrol vehicles, supermarkets being required to track and reduce the calories their customers buy, Gatwick Airport granted a new runway only on condition it controls how its passengers travel. They trace the roots of this model through price controls, rent regulation, minimum wage creep, and the Government’s habit of outsourcing its policy goals to business while escaping the blame when things go wrong.

The conversation closes with the question of whether this model is stable. Drawing on Mises’s concept of interventionism as an inherently unstable system, Kristian asks whether the capitalist command economy simply creates the conditions for a more conventional socialist government — or something else entirely. Chris argues the real problem is that Britain lacks even a word for what it has become, and that naming it is the first step to challenging it.

The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.

The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff.

In this Institute of Economic Affairs podcast, Lord Frost is joined by Kristian Niemietz, Editorial Director, and Dr Valentin Boboc, Senior Economist, to work through three of the week’s most pressing economic questions. The episode opens with a debate sparked by a Daily Telegraph piece from former IEA chair Neil Record, who argues that Britain may not have a housing shortage in the conventional sense. Niemietz and Boboc push back, examining how demand grows faster than supply as a country gets richer, why the rental market tells a far bleaker story than headline ownership figures suggest, and how over £70,000 of regulatory costs have been added per housing unit in recent years alone.

The conversation then turns to the Planning and Infrastructure Act and its restrictions on vexatious judicial reviews, using the recent case of a solar farm as the first real-world test. The panel assesses whether cutting the artificial waiting period from 14 months to two months represents a genuine turning point for infrastructure delivery in Britain, or whether NIMBYs will simply adapt and find new avenues for delay.

The final segment examines a warning from Conservative MP Neil O’Brien that Treasury forecasts for capital tax revenues may be built on shaky foundations. With the Government leaning heavily on stamp duty, capital gains tax, and inheritance tax to plug a fiscal gap, Boboc and Niemietz argue the tax base is too narrow, too volatile, and too geographically concentrated to deliver the roughly £30 billion the Treasury is counting on by 2030.

The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.

The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff.

In this bonus episode of the Institute of Economic Affairs podcast, host Callum Price is joined by Director General Lord Frost and Editorial Director Kristian Niemietz to answer listener and viewer questions. Released to mark the podcast recently passing its 200th episode milestone, the panel tackles a wide range of topics submitted by the audience, from public spending and austerity to inflation, climate policy, housing and migration.

The discussion opens with the challenge of winning public support for a smaller state, with Lord Frost arguing the current tax and spend model is close to exhausting itself and that the ideas need to be ready for when it does. The panel go on to address Milton Friedman’s monetary theory and how it applies to recent inflation, before turning to climate policy, where they make the case that adaptation through market incentives is preferable to emergency state-led intervention. The housing section examines why supply constraints drive price volatility, why migration has complicated the political case for building, and why expectations of ever-rising house prices are a consequence of policy rather than culture. The episode closes with questions on the Norway model, the Reform versus Greens policy comparison, whether small staters should work in the public sector, and Stephen Davies’ Great Realignment thesis.

The panel also reflect on passing 200 episodes of the weekly podcast and what the IEA’s role is in shaping the economic debate at a moment when the dominant political settlement looks increasingly fragile.

The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.

The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff.

Thumbnail image: Greta Thunberg, Stockholm, 30 April 2024. Photo by Frankie Fouganthin, licensed under CC BY 4.0. via Wikimedia Commons.

Thumbnail image: Margaret Thatcher. Photo provided by Chris Collins of the Margaret Thatcher Foundation, licensed under CC BY-SA 3.0, via Wikimedia Commons.

This week on the IEA Podcast, Lord Frost, Dr Kristian Niemietz and host Callum Price dig into the Bank of England’s decision to hold rates at 3.75% — and whether the Governor should still have his job after the near 10% inflation disaster of 2021-22. With three wildly different scenarios on the table and the spectre of rates hitting 5.5%, the question is whether the Bank is still too soft on inflation and too cosy with a Government that desperately needs good news.

Then the team turns to wealth taxes. Kristian has published a new IEA paper demolishing the case for them — and the arguments are sharper than you might expect. Britain already raises more from wealth-related taxes than almost any OECD country. Wealth inequality has been broadly flat since 1990. And even the most optimistic wealth tax proposal would raise, at best, 1% of GDP — nowhere near enough to fund the endless list of promises its advocates attach to it. The real question is why this idea has consumed so much of the national conversation when it solves almost nothing.

Finally, the Government’s plan to effectively ban traditional tumble dryers in favour of slower, less effective heat pump models. Is this net zero policy, EU alignment by stealth, or simply Ed Miliband picking your appliances for you? The team argues it is a perfect microcosm of everything wrong with British economic policy — a rich country solution imposed on a country that simply cannot afford it. Subscribe to the IEA on YouTube and on Substack at iea.org.uk for more.

The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.

The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff.

In this Institute of Economic Affairs podcast, Callum Price is joined by Kristian Niemietz, IEA Editorial Director, and Arun Advani, Director of the Centre for Analysis of Taxation and a former Wealth Tax Commissioner. The discussion centres on the IEA’s new paper, “Fool’s Gold: The Case Against the Wealth Tax,” covering why the idea has gone from niche curiosity to political obsession, what the evidence actually says, and why both guests conclude a wealth tax is, at best, a bad idea within the normal range of bad policy ideas.

The conversation examines the core problems with a wealth tax in practice: the valuation difficulties, the risk of capital and people leaving the country, and the fundamental contradiction at the heart of the wealth tax campaign, which simultaneously promises to cut taxes on working people, fund the NHS, finance the climate transition, and reduce inequality. Advani draws on the Wealth Tax Commission’s findings, including the estimate that a 1% tax on wealth above £10 million could raise around £10 to £12 billion, but notes that behavioural responses mean the real figure would be considerably lower. Niemietz argues the real cost of the wealth tax debate is its opportunity cost: every hour spent on a policy that will not work is an hour not spent on things that would.

The final section turns to what should be done instead. Niemietz points to the genuine drivers of falling wealth inequality in the post-war period: wider pension saving and rising home ownership. He argues that liberalising planning rules and building more homes, at the scale Britain managed in the 1930s, would do more to spread wealth than any tax on it. Advani adds that fixing the existing, poorly designed taxes on capital income and transfers would be a more productive use of political energy than building an entirely new tax from scratch.

The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems. The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff.

Modern Monetary Theory has taken the internet by storm. From viral Twitter threads to bestselling books, MMT promises that governments can spend freely without the usual constraints — that money can be printed to fund hospitals, green energy, and public services without consequence. But is any of it true? In this episode, Christopher Snowdon sits down with economist and author Emmanuel Marjorie, who spent years studying MMT from the inside, to find out.

Emmanuel lays out the most charitable case for MMT — the steelman version its own proponents rarely articulate this clearly — before systematically dismantling it. From the theory's flawed inflation model to the accounting mistake at its very foundation, the conversation exposes why a theory that sounds intuitive to millions of people online falls apart under even basic scrutiny. As Emmanuel reveals, MMT was not disproved by its critics — it was undermined by an error its founders never acknowledged.

If you have ever wondered why governments do not simply print more money to solve their problems, or why you pay tax if the state can create currency at will, this is the episode for you. Emmanuel's new book, If You Can Just Print Money, Why Do I Pay Taxes?, is out now (https://emaggiori.com/mmt/)

The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.

The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff.

In this Institute of Economic Affairs interview, Dr Christopher Snowdon speaks with Roger Bate, Fellow at the International Centre for Law and Economics and former IEA Fellow, about the failures of the World Health Organisation during COVID and the case for fundamental reform — or outright replacement. They discuss the International Health Reform Panel, a new group co-chaired by former WHO insider David Bell and former UN Assistant Secretary General Ramesh Tacker, which is pushing for a first-principles reassessment of what a global health body should actually do.

Roger sets out how the WHO’s funding model has shifted dramatically over its 80-year history, with over 80% of its budget now coming from voluntary donors including the Gates Foundation, Bloomberg Philanthropies and the European Commission rather than nation states. He argues this has left the organisation aligned to donor priorities rather than public health needs, contributing to its failures on COVID — from dismissing the airborne nature of the virus to going along with Chinese-style lockdowns while abandoning its own pandemic playbooks. The conversation also covers the ongoing pandemic treaty negotiations, the WHO’s damaging stance on tobacco harm reduction and vaping, and the question of who should lead the organisation next.

Roger and Christopher discuss whether the WHO can be reformed from within or whether a replacement organisation is needed, the role of billionaire philanthropy in distorting global health science, and why budgets for tuberculosis, malaria and HIV are being squeezed to fund pandemic preparedness plans modelled on the very response that failed. Roger argues the most momentous event since the Second World War has gone almost entirely without honest evaluation — and that without one, the next pandemic will repeat every mistake of the last.

The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.

The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff.

In this Institute of Economic Affairs podcast, host Callum Price is joined by Managing Editor Daniel Freeman and Energy Analyst Andy Mayer to discuss the latest UK unemployment data, the impact of artificial intelligence on the labour market, and the Government’s recent energy market reforms.

The episode opens with the latest jobs figures, which showed unemployment falling to 4.9% — but with the bulk of that drop driven by people leaving the workforce altogether rather than finding work. The panel examine the role of the Employment Rights Act, rising employer National Insurance contributions, and the equalisation of the minimum wage for younger workers, arguing these policies have made hiring significantly more expensive and are contributing to rising economic inactivity, particularly among 18 to 24 year olds. The panel also touch on the Unite Union staff strike against their own union and the broader implications of expanded trade union access rights. A new Centre for American Progress report on AI and the UK labour market is then assessed, finding little disruption to employment so far, with the counterintuitive example of programming jobs actually rising since the rollout of tools like ChatGPT.

Andy Mayer then walks through Ed Miliband’s proposal to reform the renewables obligation system, which would shift older wind farm contracts from market-linked pricing to the contracts for difference model. Mayer argues that while the reform may produce more price stability, it is unlikely to deliver lower bills and risks undermining the price mechanism in the electricity market, leaving Britain with a consistently expensive energy system. The panel close by discussing what a sensible alternative energy mix might look like, with nuclear identified as the only viable firm, low-carbon power source.

The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.

The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff.

In this episode of the IEA Podcast, Callum Price is joined by Editorial Director Dr Kristian Niemietz to launch a new series on the IEA Insider Substack: Millennial Liberalism. The series, inspired by the IEA’s 1985 anthology The New Right Enlightenment, brings together young classical liberals to share how they came to their ideas in a generation overwhelmingly hostile to free markets. Kristian explains why liberals of any era have interesting origin stories worth telling, while their left-wing peers rarely do, because being left-wing at a young age has become the default rather than a deliberate choice.

The conversation digs into the polling that defines the moment. More than one in three young Britons hold a positive view of communism, two-thirds back BLM, and around half favour reparations for the transatlantic slave trade. Kristian argues this is not boomer slop from the right wing press but the sincere answers of millions of young people, and he dispels the comforting myth that this generation will grow out of it. The data shows older millennials in their early 40s already think indistinguishably from teenagers, meaning the traditional rightward drift with age has effectively stalled.

Callum and Kristian also explore why the old left-right map no longer fits, with progressives driving cancel culture and the British right increasingly defined by NIMBYism and a refusal to build anything. They discuss what unites today’s young classical liberals with the boomer-era thinkers who came before them, the intellectual sources they still draw on from the Chicago and Austrian schools to Robert Nozick, and what gives Kristian hope that liberalism can survive as one credible option among many, even if it never becomes the majority view.

The Institute of Economic Affairs is a registered educational charity. It does not endorse or give support for any political party in the UK or elsewhere. Our mission is to improve understanding of the fundamental institutions of a free society by analysing and expounding the role of markets in solving economic and social problems.

The views represented here are those of the speakers alone, not those of the Institute, its Managing Trustees, Academic Advisory Council members or senior staff.