General Election 2015

[buctootim]

The rich are buying government bonds. It is a fact. They get a much higher return on them than many other investment vehicles. Government borrowing globally has soared. The rich are earning off the back of it.

 

"In a paper on household wealth over the past decade, economist Edward Wolff at New York University found that wealth inequality rose sharply from 2007 to 2010 and has remained largely unchanged since then.

One reason: The wealthiest 1 percent put three-quarters of their savings into investment assets. By contrast, the middle class had 63 percent of their assets tied up in their homes, with home equity accounting for about a third since they have large mortgage debt. Wolff found "striking differences in returns by wealth class." The top 1 percent earned an average annual return of 5.91 percent between 2010 and 2013—far more than the 3.27 percent earned by the middle three quartiles. And that was due mainly to having more exposure to the stock market.

 

While stocks played a role, the paper says that bonds may be the real secret to the better investment gains of the rich. "Wealthy families might be able to earn 6 percent on their bond portfolio (e.g., by investing in foreign markets or in high-return convertible bonds) while the rest of the population might earn 3 percent only, and that differential might have increased over time," the paper said."

 

Source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102196033

 

 

I know it concerns the US, but it won't be much different here. The rich are getting richer off of governments borrowing more money. So it is ironic when leftie parties want to increase borrowing, when all they are doing is making the global rich, even richer.

 

The seriously rich aren't buying government bonds / gilts. Interest rates are at record lows, despite (or because of) record borrowing. Most really wealthy people put their cash with hedge funds where the best ones have averaged returns of 40%pa for the past 10 years, or in land and property. The minimum amount to be invested in hedge funds is often $5m and up - so excluding the plebs like you and me. The dangerous thing with them is that they make their money from volatility - they need crises, stock market crashes and company car crashes - they don't make 40% pa from stable markets. Its in their interests to rock the boat so they they can short sell - and where do their gains come from given the overall market value hasn't increased? - from the run of the mill asset managers, the people who are looking after the measly pension funds of the the plebs (thats you and me again). Money transfer from the middle class to the rich. Nice

Edited 27 April, 2015 by buctootim

[Johnny Bognor]

The seriously rich aren't buying government bonds / gilts. Interest rates are at record lows, despite (or because of) record borrowing. Most really wealthy people put their cash with hedge funds where the best ones have averaged returns of 40%pa for the past 10 years, or in land and property. The minimum amount to be invested in hedge funds is often $5m and up - so excluding the plebs like you and me. The dangerous thing with them is that they make their money from volatility - they need crises, stock market crashes and company car crashes - they don't make 40% pa from stable markets. Its in their interests to rock the boat so they they can short sell - and where do their gains come from given the overall market value hasn't increased? - from the run of the mill asset managers, the people who are looking after the measly pension funds of the the plebs (thats you and me again). Money transfer from the middle class to the rich. Nice

 

Yes, and the gap between the rich and the middle classes is widening too. This is because the super rich are able to tap into higher yielding investments, where mere mortals can't.

 

Nevertheless, government borrowing makes whoever is doing the lending richer. Ultimately, it is those who own the wealth that are in a position to lend it.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Nail. Hit. Head.

 

Only a third of Britain's billionaires were actually born british. The super rich have come here, in their droves, bringing their wealth (often earned elsewhare) with them. This in itself creates a bigger gap between rich and poor.

 

I know, why don't we tax the **** out of them, they'll **** off, meaning the gap between rich and poor will get smaller. Problem solved. Oh wait a minute. Will the poor be any better off?

 

A better policy, would be to see how we could get them to spend more of their wealth, which was earned elsewhere, in the UK. This would stimulate demand, grow the economy, reducing the need for Government borrowing. But we can't do that, because the laws of envy won't allow it.

Have you read the Spirit Level? Its data would seem to suggest that inequality is counterproductive in and of itself

[Johnny Bognor]

Have you read the Spirit Level? Its data would seem to suggest that inequality is counterproductive in and of itself

 

I haven't read it, but communism which is as close to equality as you will get, isn't very popular with the people that live under it. So much so, that it only flourishes under totalitarian regimes, where people are forced to endure it.

 

everyone bangs on about non doms. So, envy aside, would you rather the wealthy move here, putting some of their money into our economy, or would you rather they ****ed off and spent it elsewhere?

 

it might make you feel better, but you wouldn't be better off

[shurlock]

Thanks for taking the time to expand.

 

It's all a question of where this money comes from. Governments can either raise it in tax or borrow it. If we assume that the tax levels are probably at the point where revenues are maximised, and some say they are beyond that, then we are left with increased borrowing with all that that entails.

 

I disagree with your assertion that you're 'giving rich people more wealth', you're just not stealing quite so much of it from them. You talk about money as though it belongs to the state instead of the individuals.

 

There's nothing wrong with personal saving, it's part of the bedrock of a capitalist society. Of course, over the past few years savers have seen the value of their deposits reduced by interest rates which have been lower than inflation which in my opinion has been due to deliberate government policy to devalue the cost of their borrowings at the expense of the savers. Effectively there has been a huge transfer of monetary worth from the savers to the borrowers.

 

As for helping the poor, don't discount the increase in personal tax allowances. Now let's get the N

I thresholds in line with these too.

 

There's nought wrong with saving but there's also the paradox of thrift. When everyone is saving, nobody is investing and spending the same amount to keep the economy moving forward. What might be good individually is bad for society as a whole.

 

We've been living through a period during which some countries (China, Germany, oil exporters etc), aided and abetted by undervalued currencies, have been generating huge savings and relying on the demand of others for their growth. It may sound perverse but, against this backdrop, the UK, US, Southern Europe and other deficit countries have been acting as consumers of last resort without whom economic activity would be significantly weaker. The consequences of the need to balance the large amount of global savings are hard to miss: bubbles in major economies, excess borrowing by low income households and/or potentially unsustainable fiscal policies by governments.

 

Alas, too many moralists on the right who can't see the woods through the trees have gristled about the symptoms rather than the causes of this. Any solution will ultimately require surplus countries to get serious about generating their own demand which, in fragile countries like China, will entail huge structural and almost certainly painful reform. For many policymakers, it's easier to kick that can down the road.

 

As for interest rates being low, you get things back-to-front. Interest rates have fallen steadily over the last few decades well before QE. Ultimately interest rates reflect the supply and demand for loans -and the relative demand for safe assets. On the supply side, demographic change and increasing life expectancy have pushed up savings (driving interest rates down); while uncertainty about current and future income, heightened by the crisis, has had a similar effect. It goes without saying, so has the need to pay down debt.

 

On the demand side, a perceived lack of profitable investment opportunities, at least at home, has put a lid on interest rates by suppressing the demand for loans. Some even argue that the glittering new sectors of the 21st century don't need the same amount of investment that the heaving smokestack economy of the 20th century demanded (WhatsApp, which is valued at $19bn, was conceived and is maintained by 30 odd software engineers who like pap are probably splitting their time on a place like this).

 

Finally, there has been a shift in preferences towards safe assets. Following the Asian Financial Crisis, many central banks in emerging economies piled into safe sterling and dollar-denominated assets as an insurance policy to stave off future, potential runs against their currency or banking system. Given the business they're in, pension funds and insurance companies and increasingly banks have a preferences safe assets, something which has been reinforced by the regulation introduced in the wake of crisis. The crisis also put to the bed the free market belief that the private sector can create safe assets: the financial technology producing risk-free assets out of subprime mortgages and other assets has been exposed as a sham -one reason why governments will have no problems in servicing their debts. They are the only game in town.

 

You are right to the extent that rock-bottom interest rates have distributed wealth from savers to borrowers; but let's be clear, the victims are disproportionately poorer savers. Another consequence of low interest rates has been a hunt for yield - instead of getting shafted by low interest rates from savings accounts, many have moved their money to other higher yielding assets -notably, equities and properties which are disproportionately owned by the rich. The rich have had a great run over the past seven years thanks to asset price inflation. Of course, it is also a recipe for instability as it makes bubbles more likely while low interest rates masks the viability of many 'zombie' businesses and balance sheets as coupon obligations are low and easy to meet. The big concern is that, for all the reasons mentioned above, low interest rates are not only failing to stimulate a real take-off but that they are here to stay.

 

In sum, sticking plasters come to mind, though actually understanding the problem is a good start.

Edited 27 April, 2015 by shurlock

[Ex Lion Tamer]

I haven't read it, but communism which is as close to equality as you will get, isn't very popular with the people that live under it. So much so, that it only flourishes under totalitarian regimes, where people are forced to endure it.

 

everyone bangs on about non doms. So, envy aside, would you rather the wealthy move here, putting some of their money into our economy, or would you rather they ****ed off and spent it elsewhere?

 

it might make you feel better, but you wouldn't be better off

Sorry your discussion above made me think you were one of the more thoughtful posters, I wouldn't have bothered if I'd known you would come back with a load of rubbish about communism:mcinnes:

[Johnny Bognor]

Sorry your discussion above made me think you were one of the more intelligent posters, I wouldn't have bothered if I'd known you would come back with a load of rubbish about communism:mcinnes:

 

hahaha

 

What about the question? Is it better to have wealthy people move here and in doing so spend money here or is it better for them to not come and spend it elsewhere?

 

On the one hand the rich poor gap would close, but Would the poor be better off?

[buctootim]

hahaha

 

What about the question? Is it better to have wealthy people move here and in doing so spend money here or is it better for them to not come and spend it elsewhere?

 

On the one hand the rich poor gap would close, but Would the poor be better off?

 

Is it better to have starbucks and Amazon and Google here not paying tax but employing people, or does it skew the market and disadvantage others? At least they employ people. What value is there in the UK collaborating in an international tax avoidance merry go round for individuals?

 

Yes the majority of the super wealthy in the UK aren't Brits. Britain is one of the best tax havens for non UK citizens. So the wealthy Russians and Swedes and Germans live here and the wealthy Brits live in Switzerland and Monaco and mega wealthy people live happy tax free lives in the country of their choice.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

hahaha

 

What about the question? Is it better to have wealthy people move here and in doing so spend money here or is it better for them to not come and spend it elsewhere?

 

On the one hand the rich poor gap would close, but Would the poor be better off?

 

The Spirit Level shows that across measures for physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, violence, teenage pregnancies, and child well-being, outcomes are significantly worse in more unequal rich countries, regardless of their absolute level of wealth. The pattern is also repeated across more and less unequal US states.

 

Have a look at some of the charts here:

 

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/about-inequality/spirit-level

 

Why this might be is up for speculation. They think that inequality erodes trust, increases anxiety and illness, and encourages excessive consumption (in order to keep up with the richer people we see around us). it I'm just throwing it out there as its interesting - but its certainly better evidenced than your theoretical assumptions about rich people spending in our country

[Johnny Bognor]

Is it better to have starbucks and Amazon and Google here not paying tax but employing people, or does it skew the market and disadvantage others? At least they employ people. What value is there in the UK collaborating in an international tax avoidance merry go round for individuals?

 

Yes the majority of the super wealthy in the UK aren't Brits. Britain is one of the best tax havens for non UK citizens. So the wealthy Russians and Swedes and Germans live here and the wealthy Brits live in Switzerland and Monaco and mega wealthy people live happy tax free lives in the country of their choice.

 

Yes, if there was international collaboration, that would be a different argument. But many lefties, just want them taxed as it seems like an easy source of revenue. Without global standardised tax rates for the super rich, it is better to have them here, rather than not.

 

There is a difference with the likes of Amazon, Google and Starbucks in that they are operating here, whilst avoiding tax. This is wrong and I would like to see more done in this area.

 

To me, there is a difference between simply living here and having full scale operations here.

[Torres]

your theoretical assumptions about rich people spending in our country

 

To be fair, that's unarguably true.

[buctootim]

The Spirit Level shows that across measures for physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, violence, teenage pregnancies, and child well-being, outcomes are significantly worse in more unequal rich countries, regardless of their absolute level of wealth. The pattern is also repeated across more and less unequal US states.

 

Have a look at some of the charts here:

 

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/about-inequality/spirit-level

 

Why this might be is up for speculation. They think that inequality erodes trust, increases anxiety and illness, and encourages excessive consumption (in order to keep up with the richer people we see around us). it I'm just throwing it out there as its interesting - but its certainly better evidenced than your theoretical assumptions about rich people spending in our country

 

Wealthy people like to live in places where there are good restaurants and shops, relatively low crime, relatively little extreme poverty facing them, good flight links and other people like them. Not many countries fit that bill. Their benefits to the UK are limited, we could certainly tax them a bit.

[buctootim]

Yes, if there was international collaboration, that would be a different argument. But many lefties, just want them taxed as it seems like an easy source of revenue. Without global standardised tax rates for the super rich, it is better to have them here, rather than not.

 

There is a difference with the likes of Amazon, Google and Starbucks in that they are operating here, whilst avoiding tax. This is wrong and I would like to see more done in this area.

 

To me, there is a difference between simply living here and having full scale operations here.

 

Yes but the point is there is a race to the bottom in offering low tax regimes for rich people just as there is for corporation tax. Britain is doing to the rest of the world (along with Switzerland, Monaco etc) what Luxembourg, Ireland etc have been doing to us on corporation tax.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

Wealthy people like to live in places where there are good restaurants and shops, relatively low crime, relatively little extreme poverty facing them, good flight links and other people like them. Not many countries fit that bill. Their benefits to the UK are limited, we could certainly tax them a bit.

That's kind of the opposite to what the Spirit Level suggests. They should all leave London and New York and go to Scandinavia if that's the case

[buctootim]

That's kind of the opposite to what the Spirit Level suggests. They should all leave London and New York and go to Scandinavia if that's the case

 

I havent read the Spirit Level. Scandinavia is a high tax area, smallish cities, limited theatre and restaurant culture, comparatively difficult access to the rest of the world and lacking in that polyglot international money set London and New York have.

[shurlock]

I expected better from you Pap.

 

The rich are buying government bonds. It is a fact. They get a much higher return on them than many other investment vehicles. Government borrowing globally has soared. The rich are earning off the back of it.

 

 

"In a paper on household wealth over the past decade, economist Edward Wolff at New York University found that wealth inequality rose sharply from 2007 to 2010 and has remained largely unchanged since then.

One reason: The wealthiest 1 percent put three-quarters of their savings into investment assets. By contrast, the middle class had 63 percent of their assets tied up in their homes, with home equity accounting for about a third since they have large mortgage debt. Wolff found "striking differences in returns by wealth class." The top 1 percent earned an average annual return of 5.91 percent between 2010 and 2013—far more than the 3.27 percent earned by the middle three quartiles. And that was due mainly to having more exposure to the stock market.

 

While stocks played a role, the paper says that bonds may be the real secret to the better investment gains of the rich. "Wealthy families might be able to earn 6 percent on their bond portfolio (e.g., by investing in foreign markets or in high-return convertible bonds) while the rest of the population might earn 3 percent only, and that differential might have increased over time," the paper said."

 

Source: http://www.cnbc.com/id/102196033

 

 

I know it concerns the US, but it won't be much different here. The rich are getting richer off of governments borrowing more money. So it is ironic when leftie parties want to increase borrowing, when all they are doing is making the global rich, even richer.

 

Oh dear, johnny, you're all over the shop.

 

You do realise that the commentator is referring to the whole bond universe, in particular, the riskier corporate sector, bonds with credit ratings of BBB, not far off junk? You do realise that only companies can issue convertibles. By contrast, gilts and US treasuries, of varying maturities, have yielded diddly squat. It's even true of basketcase Eurozone bonds.

http://www.wsj.com/articles/chances-for-positive-returns-on-eurozone-government-debt-diminish-1429720411

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/dcab178e-e290-11e4-aa1d-00144feab7de.html#axzz3YN4QMa5s

And finally equity markets have been on a tear over the last 2-3 years.

 

Schoolboy stuff

Edited 27 April, 2015 by shurlock
Crappy mobile

[Ex Lion Tamer]

I havent read the Spirit Level. Scandinavia is a high tax area, smallish cities, limited theatre and restaurant culture, comparatively difficult access to the rest of the world and lacking in that polyglot international money set London and New York have.

Yes fair enough, you've refined your list now.

 

Do have a read of the Spirit Level, its a pretty important book

[Johnny Bognor]

but its certainly better evidenced than your theoretical assumptions about rich people spending in our country

 

So the super rich who live here don't spend anything? Really???

 

Tell me, what do they eat? Where do they dine out? How do they get about? Do they do up their own properties (not buying anything from B&Q)? Where do they park their yatchs? What do they do if they need a new outift?

 

That's even more ridiculous than my ascertation that communism is about equality LOL

 

 

The Spirit Level shows that across measures for physical health, mental health, drug abuse, education, imprisonment, obesity, social mobility, trust and community life, violence, teenage pregnancies, and child well-being, outcomes are significantly worse in more unequal rich countries, regardless of their absolute level of wealth. The pattern is also repeated across more and less unequal US states.

 

Have a look at some of the charts here:

 

http://www.equalitytrust.org.uk/about-inequality/spirit-level

 

Why this might be is up for speculation. They think that inequality erodes trust, increases anxiety and illness, and encourages excessive consumption (in order to keep up with the richer people we see around us). it I'm just throwing it out there as its interesting - but its certainly better evidenced than your theoretical assumptions about rich people spending in our country

 

Just look at the calibre of people, a finer bunch of nutjobs, you'll never meet.

 

I picked a chart at random. It was the imprisonment chart. Let's conveniently choose some countries, that they conveniently chose not to include and compare them to the UK

 

Lets compare the Czech Republic and Hong Kong to the UK.

 

Incarcination Rate (prisoners per 100,000 population)

Czech Rep = 163

UK = 148

Hong Kong = 126

 

Rich Poor Gap (Ratio of income or expenditure, share of top 10% to lowest 10%)

Czech Rep = 5.3%

UK = 13.8%

Hong Kong = 17.8%

 

This quick back of a fag packet caluclation shows that, the wider the gap between rich and poor, the lower the imprisonment rates.

 

**** me, I should write a book.

Edited 27 April, 2015 by Johnny Bognor

[Batman]

The Green Party will automatically release a % of male prisoners in England and Wales as long as they show some sorrow towards their victims.

 

Too many men are in jail and seem to be victimised in that respect.

 

 

A nice touch from them...

[Johnny Bognor]

This spirit level book is a ****ing joke...

 

Singapore has the largest rich poor-divide on the imprisonment chart. As it has the 2nd largest imprisonment rate, it thus proves that "the wider the gap, the more people are in prison" LOL

In about 30 secs, with virtually no effort at all, I found a few countries that shows the opposite.

 

Now, let's take the teenage birth rates graph, remembering that Singapore has the largest wealth gap (according to the imprisonment chart). Oh hang on, wait a minute, where's Singpore? They haven't included one of the countries with the largest gaps between rich and poor. Why is this? Oh, could it be that Singapore happens to have one of the lowest teenage birth rates in the world??? There was me thinking that the rich poor gap is responsible for higher teenage pregnancy rates.

 

If this bunch of jokers want to be taken seriously, they can't just pick and choose the examples to suit their own agenda and pass this off as research. However, look at their back grounds, they have no legitimacy at all.

Edited 27 April, 2015 by Johnny Bognor

[Ex Lion Tamer]

This spirit level book is a ****ing joke...

 

Singapore has the 2nd largest rich poor-divide. On the imprisonment chart, it is rightfully there as it has the largest imprisonment rate, thus proving that "the wider the gap, the more people are in prison" LOL

In about 30 secs, with virtually no effort at all, I found a few countries that shows the opposite.

 

Now, let's take the teenage birth rates graph, remembering that Singapore has one of the largest wealth gaps and was oh so prominent on the imprisonment chart. Oh hang on, wait a minute, where's Singpore? They haven't included one of the countries with the largest gaps between rich and poor. Why is this? Oh, could it be that Singapore happens to have one of the lowest teenage birth rates in the world???

 

There's me thinking that the rich poor gap is responsible for higher teenage pregnancy rates.

 

If this bunch of jokers want to be taken seriously, they can't just pick and choose the examples to suit their own agenda and pass this off as research.

Professors Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, who produced a detailed peer-reviewed book following many years of study, or Johnny Bognor's fag-packet research taking a few examples and trying to prove a rule. Hmm yes I wonder who I trust more

[Torres]

In the London Review of Books University of Cambridge lecturer David Runciman said that the book fudged the issue of its subtitle thesis of its UK first edition, and asked whether it is that “in more equal societies almost everyone does better, or is it simply that everyone does better on average?"

 

In the European Sociological Review, sociologist John Goldthorpe argued that the book relied too heavily on income inequality over other forms of inequality (including broader economic inequality), and demonstrated a one-dimensional understanding of social stratification, with social class being in effect treated as merely a marker for income. He concluded that much more research was needed to support either the Wilkinson and Pickett "account of the psychosocial generation of the contextual effects of inequality on health or the rival neo-materialist account".

 

Richard Reeves in The Guardian called the book "a thorough-going attempt to demonstrate scientifically the benefits of a smaller gap between rich and poor", but said there were problems with the book's approach. "Drawing a line through a series of data points signals nothing concrete about statistical significance [...] since they do not provide any statistical analyses, this can't be verified."

 

John Kay in The Financial Times said that "the evidence presented in the book is mostly a series of scatter diagrams, with a regression line drawn through them. No data is provided on the estimated equations, or on relevant statistical tests"

 

In 2010, Tino Sanandaji and others wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal in which they said, "when we attempted to duplicate their findings with data from the U.N. and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), we found no such correlation"

 

Peter Robert Saunders, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Sussex University, published a report for the think tank Policy Exchange questioning the statistics in The Spirit Level. He claimed that only one of the correlations in the book—that between infant mortality and income inequality—stood up to scrutiny, and that the rest were either false or ambiguous.

 

Christopher Snowdon, an independent researcher and adjunct scholar at the Democracy Institute, published a book largely devoted to a critique of The Spirit Level, entitled, The Spirit Level Delusion: Fact-checking the Left's New Theory of Everything. One of its central claims is that Wilkinson excludes certain countries from his data without justification, such as South Korea and the Czech Republic. It also argues that Wilkinson and Pickett falsely claim the existence of a scientific consensus when much of the literature disagrees with their findings.

[Verbal]

Just look at the calibre of people, a finer bunch of nutjobs, you'll never meet.

 

I picked a chart at random. It was the imprisonment chart. Let's conveniently choose some countries, that they conveniently chose not to include and compare them to the UK

 

Lets compare the Czech Republic and Hong Kong to the UK.

 

Incarcination Rate (prisoners per 100,000 population)

Czech Rep = 163

UK = 148

Hong Kong = 126

 

Rich Poor Gap (Ratio of income or expenditure, share of top 10% to lowest 10%)

Czech Rep = 5.3%

UK = 13.8%

Hong Kong = 17.8%

 

This quick back of a fag packet caluclation shows that, the wider the gap between rich and poor, the lower the imprisonment rates.

 

**** me, I should write a book.

 

I'm not sure about "finest bunch of nutjobs you'll never meet." One of them is a colleague of mine.

 

One thing you might want to look at: you've used Hong Kong and Singapore as examples of "countries". Hong Kong is no longer a "country" (and never was, in the full, independent sense of the word). Singapore is a city state (with a population of just over 5m), and city states always distort the picture as they often have all kinds of benefits that don't apply elsewhere. You might as well include Monaco and San Marino.

 

And all this stuff about communism? You're coming off like a reverse-image pap! I expected better from you.

[ecuk268]

This spirit level book is a ****ing joke...

 

Singapore has the largest rich poor-divide on the imprisonment chart. As it has the 2nd largest imprisonment rate, it thus proves that "the wider the gap, the more people are in prison" LOL

In about 30 secs, with virtually no effort at all, I found a few countries that shows the opposite.

 

Now, let's take the teenage birth rates graph, remembering that Singapore has the largest wealth gap (according to the imprisonment chart). Oh hang on, wait a minute, where's Singpore? They haven't included one of the countries with the largest gaps between rich and poor. Why is this? Oh, could it be that Singapore happens to have one of the lowest teenage birth rates in the world??? There was me thinking that the rich poor gap is responsible for higher teenage pregnancy rates.

 

If this bunch of jokers want to be taken seriously, they can't just pick and choose the examples to suit their own agenda and pass this off as research. However, look at their back grounds, they have no legitimacy at all.

 

There's a golden rule in statistics "Correlation does not imply causality".

 

In other words, just because 2 sets of statistics correlate, it does not mean that one has caused (or is caused by) the other. It would need a lot more detailed study to show this.

[Johnny Bognor]

Professors Richard Wilkinson and Kate Pickett, who produced a detailed peer-reviewed book following many years of study, or Johnny Bognor's fag-packet research taking a few examples and trying to prove a rule. Hmm yes I wonder who I trust more

 

When people tell me about research, I will look at who is paying for it / funding it or what their political leaning is, and I can pretty much tell you the outcome. They will have just bothered to do some research to "prove" their hypothesis.

 

 

19. If greater equality makes countries less violent and more law-abiding, why does Sweden have the highest rate of rape and theft of any country in your list? Why does Finland have the highest murder rate in Europe?

 

As we discuss in The Spirit Level, there are multiple influences on health and social problems, and income inequality is only one factor

 

Oh and there was me thinking that was the thrust of their theory LMFAO

[Ex Lion Tamer]

In the London Review of Books University of Cambridge lecturer David Runciman said that the book fudged the issue of its subtitle thesis of its UK first edition, and asked whether it is that “in more equal societies almost everyone does better, or is it simply that everyone does better on average?"

 

In the European Sociological Review, sociologist John Goldthorpe argued that the book relied too heavily on income inequality over other forms of inequality (including broader economic inequality), and demonstrated a one-dimensional understanding of social stratification, with social class being in effect treated as merely a marker for income. He concluded that much more research was needed to support either the Wilkinson and Pickett "account of the psychosocial generation of the contextual effects of inequality on health or the rival neo-materialist account".

 

Richard Reeves in The Guardian called the book "a thorough-going attempt to demonstrate scientifically the benefits of a smaller gap between rich and poor", but said there were problems with the book's approach. "Drawing a line through a series of data points signals nothing concrete about statistical significance [...] since they do not provide any statistical analyses, this can't be verified."

 

John Kay in The Financial Times said that "the evidence presented in the book is mostly a series of scatter diagrams, with a regression line drawn through them. No data is provided on the estimated equations, or on relevant statistical tests"

 

In 2010, Tino Sanandaji and others wrote an article for the Wall Street Journal in which they said, "when we attempted to duplicate their findings with data from the U.N. and the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD), we found no such correlation"

 

Peter Robert Saunders, Professor Emeritus of Sociology at Sussex University, published a report for the think tank Policy Exchange questioning the statistics in The Spirit Level. He claimed that only one of the correlations in the book—that between infant mortality and income inequality—stood up to scrutiny, and that the rest were either false or ambiguous.

 

Christopher Snowdon, an independent researcher and adjunct scholar at the Democracy Institute, published a book largely devoted to a critique of The Spirit Level, entitled, The Spirit Level Delusion: Fact-checking the Left's New Theory of Everything. One of its central claims is that Wilkinson excludes certain countries from his data without justification, such as South Korea and the Czech Republic. It also argues that Wilkinson and Pickett falsely claim the existence of a scientific consensus when much of the literature disagrees with their findings.

This is the sort of response I was hoping for, albeit less "cut and pasty". I'll have to read properly later, but I believe some of these criticisms have been addressed in the second edition of the book, which includes full data as an appendix.

[Johnny Bognor]

I'm not sure about "finest bunch of nutjobs you'll never meet." One of them is a colleague of mine.

 

One thing you might want to look at: you've used Hong Kong and Singapore as examples of "countries". Hong Kong is no longer a "country" (and never was, in the full, independent sense of the word). Singapore is a city state (with a population of just over 5m), and city states always distort the picture as they often have all kinds of benefits that don't apply elsewhere. You might as well include Monaco and San Marino.

 

And all this stuff about communism? You're coming off like a reverse-image pap! I expected better from you.

 

Singapore was their example, having the highest wealth gap in the world. They used it to help prove that the rich-poor divide causes higher rates of imprisonment. They didn't use Singapore when it didn't suit their argument that the rich-poor gap causes higher teenage pregnancies. So have a word with your nutjob mate...

Edited 27 April, 2015 by Johnny Bognor

[Whitey Grandad]

When people tell me about research, I will look at who is paying for it / funding it or what their political leaning is, and I can pretty much tell you the outcome. They will have just bothered to do some research to "prove" their hypothesis.

 

Yippee! At last I have found someone with the same beliefs as me I refer everyone to the Global Warming thread.

[Wes Tender]

 

Quote Originally Posted by Spirit Level - rebuttal of false claims

 

19. If greater equality makes countries less violent and more law-abiding, why does Sweden have the highest rate of rape and theft of any country in your list? Why does Finland have the highest murder rate in Europe?

 

Could the Swedish rape and and theft be in their genes? After all, the Vikings were renowned for their rape and pillage.

 

As for the Finns, it seems that they're a pretty violent lot when they get p*ssed.

 

http://sciencenordic.com/alcohol-behind-finlands-high-homicide-rate

[solentstars]

Sorry your discussion above made me think you were one of the more thoughtful posters, I wouldn't have bothered if I'd known you would come back with a load of rubbish about communism:mcinnes:

welcome to the club lion tamer..i realised that ages ago his posts were nonsense but he believes it thats his choice,when you get childish quotes about lefties or communists.it says alot about that mindset.i expect hes the type who believed that rubbish about trickle down economics rubbish from the 1980s still..lol.

[shurlock]

When people tell me about research, I will look at who is paying for it / funding it or what their political leaning is, and I can pretty much tell you the outcome. They will have just bothered to do some research to "prove" their hypothesis

 

 

 

How about the political axes to grind of this rabble-rousing lot? Whose pocket are they in?

 

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/sdn1402.pdf

 

For a quick and dirty write-up if you need a bit more time to get your head around the returns on core government bonds and how bond markets work more generally. Take your time

 

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/330931dc-c4ca-11e3-8dd4-00144feabdc0.html

[solentstars]

Yippee! At last I have found someone with the same beliefs as me I refer everyone to the Global Warming thread.

whitey i would not be boasting about that..he he

[hypochondriac]

welcome to the club lion tamer..i realised that ages ago his posts were nonsense but he believes it thats his choice,when you get childish quotes about lefties or communists.it says alot about that mindset.i expect hes the type who believed that rubbish about trickle down economics rubbish from the 1980s still..lol.

 

Says a lot when you get similarly disparaging remark about those who choose to vote Tory.

[Johnny Bognor]

Says a lot when you get similarly disparaging remark about those who choose to vote Tory.

 

I'm voting Johnny Bognor, so it's water off a ducks back

[Johnny Bognor]

How about the political axes to grind of this rabble-rousing lot? Whose pocket are they in?

 

http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/sdn/2014/sdn1402.pdf

 

 

Who funds the IMF? Therein lies your answer.

 

The same applies to all media, newspapers etc. I did laugh when Boris called Andrew Marr a BBC lefty yesterday. Andrew seemed to take it quite well, although he did struggle with his apology to Cameron.

 

 

For a quick and dirty write-up if you need a bit more time to get your head around the returns on core government bonds and how bond markets work more generally. Take your time

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/330931dc-c4ca-11e3-8dd4-00144feabdc0.html

 

So you think that government borrowing doesnt benefit the rich?

Edited 27 April, 2015 by Johnny Bognor

[hutch]

That's kind of the opposite to what the Spirit Level suggests. They should all leave London and New York and go to Scandinavia if that's the case

 

They should certainly steer well clear of Sarnia

[badgerx16]

They should certainly steer well clear of Sarnia

 

You need to be very careful how you steer in Sarnia, you might risk a traffic violation.

[solentstars]

Says a lot when you get similarly disparaging remark about those who choose to vote Tory.

whys that..since i voted tory at the last election .

[Johnny Bognor]

whys that..since i voted tory at the last election .

 

... and I didn't vote at all. I will however go to the polling booth this election, as people have fought and died for my right to vote. However, I dont have to and won't vote for any of the parties on offer on my ballot sheet. I will spoil my paper, as that is my right. If enough people spoilt their ballot papers, it would be hard for the political parties to ignore. It's far better to do that, than not to vote at all.

[hypochondriac]

whys that..since i voted tory at the last election .

 

You get childish political comments from across the spectrum. It's not the sole reserve of the right wingers. Lefties are just as guilty.

[Smirking_Saint]

It's all sitting under Smaug in the Lonely Mountain.

 

(if you're going to talk shít, do it properly, I say)

 

So are you saying that Labour are the rag tag bunch of dwarfs with hopes pinned on a hapless hobbit that doesnt really know whats going on but wants to be loved ?

 

The same dwarfs which caused smaug to burn the world once and foolishly want to do it again ?

 

Thats a pretty good analogy pap

[shurlock]

Who funds the IMF? Therein lies your answer.

 

The same applies to all media, newspapers etc. I did laugh when Boris called Andrew Marr a BBC lefty yesterday. Andrew seemed to take it quite well, although he did struggle with his apology to Cameron.

 

 

 

 

So you think that government borrowing doesnt benefit the rich?

 

The IMF, that most strait laced of institutions, the scourge of lefty, antiglobalisation protestors, the cheerleader of fiscal orthodoxy, the authority that Osborne cites ad nauseum whenever it doles out a crumb of praise on the UK?

 

You still don't get this bond market lark, do you -all while moving the goalposts. QE has benefitted the rich -I've said so explicitly; but the idea that they "get a much higher return on them (government debt) than many other investment vehicles" (your words) is bats**t crazy. Thanks to the demand for safe assets, macro uncertainty and QE, yields on sovereign bonds have fallen to practically nothing - despite recession-induced borrowing. Investors today are buying government bonds on which they will lose money if they hold them to maturity. Thus JP Morgan estimates that nearly $2.42tn of the world’s government bonds trade at negative yields.

 

Worse, should interest rates go up at any point (they can't go any further down viz. ZLB), it would spell carnage for the price of many of those bonds. So no, you couldn't be more wrong -Natalie Bennett costing her green petting zoo on an abacus is less wrong than you.

 

HTH

Edited 27 April, 2015 by shurlock

[Whitey Grandad]

... and I didn't vote at all. I will however go to the polling booth this election, as people have fought and died for my right to vote. However, I dont have to and won't vote for any of the parties on offer on my ballot sheet. I will spoil my paper, as that is my right. If enough people spoilt their ballot papers, it would be hard for the political parties to ignore. It's far better to do that, than not to vote at all.

 

There really should be a box for 'none of the above'.

 

[video=youtube;bXEglx-or6k]

[Johnny Bognor]

The IMF, that most strait laced of institutions, the scourge of lefty, antiglobalisation protestors, the cheerleader of fiscal orthodoxy, the authority that Osborne cites ad nauseum whenever it doles out a crumb of praise on the UK?

 

Errrr. I was agreeing with you. The tories quoting the IMF is no different to a Saintsweb lefty posting an article from the Guardian.

 

You still don't get this bond market lark, do you -all while moving the goalposts. QE has benefitted the rich -I've said so explicitly;

 

I was first to point out that QE can damage the poor. It does benefit the rich, so at least we agree on something

 

 

but the idea that they "get a much higher return on them (government debt) than many other investment vehicles" (your words) is bats**t crazy. Thanks to the demand for safe assets, macro uncertainty and QE, yields on sovereign bonds have fallen to practically nothing - despite recession-induced borrowing. Investors today are buying government bonds on which they will lose money if they hold them to maturity. Thus JP Morgan estimates that nearly $2.42tn of the world’s government bonds trade at negative yields.

 

Worse, should interest rates go up at any point (they can't go any further down viz. ZLB), it would spell carnage for the price of many of those bonds. So no, you couldn't be more wrong -Natalie Bennett costing her green petting zoo on an abacus is less wrong than you.

 

HTH

 

OK, let's get back to the original point being made. I was quoting an article that tries to explain why the rich have gotten richer, which seems to suggest that it is more about the performance of their investments (whatever they might be) as opposed to specific tory policy. You can get into the details of specific investment vehicles, but the billionaires (many who have moved here) made their money outside of the UK, prior to moving here. How the **** is that the fault of the tories?

 

But in them moving here, it shows that the gap has widened. I was merely suggesting that in them moving here, the poor haven't got poorer. The gap, which is a statistic, has got bigger. I was also asking the question as to whether them being here is desirable or not. No-one has answered that. Could it be that they know I am talking sense, but it is at odds with their political bias? I also suggested that if they were taxed, they'll bugger off, leaving the poor here to stay poor. Is this not a rational assumption?

 

I, personally, would rather look at ways in which this wealth can be unlocked (I have been on record before on this matter), with a carrot as opposed to a stick, to inject their wealth into our economy. I would rather that than them to **** off somewhere else. But to see this straightforward point of view, you need to take a centralist stance and put aside your envy-laced reading glasses.

Edited 27 April, 2015 by Johnny Bognor

[Wade Garrett]

Hmm, your Avatar isn't exactly a short back n sides.

 

I wish. Been sporting a 6 inch parting for quite some time.

[Wade Garrett]

In economics there is supply side and demand side reforms. Supply side is making business more efficient, demand side is making sure consumers are able to buy goods and services.

 

The basic fact is that the Tories had big cuts planned for the last parliament, but they had to row back on them because their initial cuts were causing economic growth to stagnate. They were taking money out of the economy and there was less money circulating for people to spend as a result, meaning less demand for goods and services. This is bad for consumers and bad for business.

 

The way to have a healthy economy is to make sure that everyone has spending money to spend on businesses, so it becomes a virtuous circle. Public sector spending is a big part of that I'm afraid.

 

The thing is, if you give people at the bottom money it grows the economy better because they have immediate spending needs, meaning they put it back into the economy via goods and services. If you give money to the rich or even middle class (via tax cuts or otherwise) then a sizable proportion save it rather than spending it because they already have everything they need.

 

Everything the Tories have done in the last five years has hit the poorest hardest while helping the wealthy. I know you think that if you give rich people more wealth then they use it to create jobs but I just don't think that's true.

 

Great post. Trickle down economics just doesn't work.

[badgerx16]

So are you saying that Labour are the rag tag bunch of dwarfs with hopes pinned on a hapless hobbit that doesnt really know whats going on but wants to be loved ?

 

The same dwarfs which caused smaug to burn the world once and foolishly want to do it again ?

 

Thats a pretty good analogy pap

 

Whilst the nasty party squat in Mordor, with 'call me Dave' sat high in Minas Morgul casting his evil eye over public spending and letting IDS lead the Conservative Central Office orcs in laying waste to the benefits system.

[Ex Lion Tamer]

You get childish political comments from across the spectrum. It's not the sole reserve of the right wingers. Lefties are just as guilty.

That's true, but the lefties on here are much more likely to back up their opinions with evidence

[bridge too far]

That's true, but the lefties on here are much more likely to back up their opinions with evidence

 

That's probably because lefties are more intelligent

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2095549/Right-wingers-intelligent-left-wingers-says-controversial-study--conservative-politics-lead-people-racist.html

 

[hypochondriac]

That's true, but the lefties on here are much more likely to back up their opinions with evidence

 

Nah. That's just your bias talking.