Doubling down on error

I think it\’s fair to say that Alex Harrowell doesn\’t like me very much.

For the first time on record, the share of Spanish GDP accounted for by profits exceeded that accounted for by wages.

This isn\’t true as I pointed out:

“For the first time on record, the share of Spanish GDP accounted for by profits exceeded that accounted for by wages. ”

Err, no.

Because GDP is not a split between the labour share of income and profits.

It’s a split between the labour share of income, employer paid taxes on employment, consumption taxes, self-employed income (so called “mixed income”) and profits. Plus some other little bits.

That the labour share has fallen below 50% is indeed true. But that does not mean that profits are over 50%.

And he responded:

Tim, on what planet does 46.2 not exceed 46? I know you’re not a member of the reality-based community, but I thought the rightwing operationalisation of post-modern thinking had stopped short of opting out of arithmetic as yet more of the liberal metropolitan elite’s so-called expert consensus.

It goes without saying that you didn’t click through to the link, as the relevant numbers are in the strap line – you wouldn’t even need to read down the story…(and yes, the self-employed are counted).

Then we mutter about how good Google Translate is and I get bored and look up the actual figures:

Spanish GDP stats for 2011 (inc. last quarter) are here:

http://www.ine.es/jaxi/menu.do?type=pcaxis&path=%2Ft35%2Fp009&file=inebase&L=1

In which we find the following:

Compensation of employees, 501 billion and change.

Operation surplus,gross/mixed income, gross, 480 billion and change.

Nett Taxes on production and imports, 91 billion and change.

(Table 7 b for those keeping score at home).

For the final quarter of 2011 they are, in order, 123 billion, 124 billion and 20 billion.

124 billion is indeed larger than 123 billion. But the 124 billion is not profits, it is profits plus self employed income.

Which is and was my point.

7 comments on “Doubling down on error

  1. “rightwing operationalisation of post-modern thinking”

    What. The. Fuck. Does this mean? More Leftie gibberish?

  2. it is profits plus self employed income.

    …like the original source article says, like the series has been since the 1980s.

    it’s just that you can’t add up.

    Tim adds: Now you’re tripling down Alex. Profits plus self employed income is not the same as profits.

    Your statement: profits are higher than wages. This is incorrect.

    Why not just agree? Something along the lines of “Oh, yeah, I’d forgotten about the way mixed income was treated!” or some such?

  3. also, this is a beauty:

    The translation is wrong (i.e yours or rather Google’s). As Random Lurker said, “increased” means “bigger” in the original text. I’m spanish, i can read 😉 . 46,2% is bigger than 46%. Just because 0,2% is bigger than 0%.

    Your point has change a lot in three times in three responses my friend. (1º 50%-50%), (2º wrong translation of bigger), (3º now self employed income).

  4. “I thought the rightwing operationalisation of post-modern thinking had stopped short of opting out of arithmetic as yet more of the liberal metropolitan elite’s so-called expert consensus.”

    *I* think it’s fair to say that Alex Harrowell is a fuckwit.

    A fuckwit who should probably go and look up the meaning of ‘operationalisation’ and then come back and tell us how he he imagines that such a concept would be even remotely related to ‘opting out of arithmetic’, when it means precisely and very exactly the opposite.

    Looks to me like his conceptualisation is not veridical, even in the narrative sense.

    Your discourse would be more impressive to those us who are intimately familiar with that particular form of language use and the academic frameworks from which it is derived , Alex, if you actually understood what it meant.

    Fucking retard.

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.