IEA Podcast

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 is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

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.


This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

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.


This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

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.


This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe

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.


This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit insider.iea.org.uk/subscribe