No, fatty lardbuckets aren’t having more sex

Just everybody has been getting this story wrong.

Normal weight men and overweight men reported the most sex partners, and underweight men reported the least.

The same holds for women. And people have been reporting that fatties thus have more sex.

No, that’s not what they’re saying. They’re saying that fatties have more sexual partners. This is not the same thing as more sex.

Think of it this way: you’re Adonis, the fit bird with the gorgeous knockers drops her knickers for you. And, given the monogamous proclivities of most human females lets on that she’ll only continue doing so if you behave. You’re going to be getting lots of high class sex but you’re not going to be chalking up many partners.

You’re not, in short, going to be chatting up the fat birds in the last 10 minutes of the disco hunting a shag. And if you’re the fit bird with the great knockers you’re also not going to be one of the fat birds being chatted up, you’re long gone with Adonis there.

It’s not complete and perfect as a point of course: but in some manners more sexual partners can be an indication of less sex: ‘coz it’s an indication of not getting it regularly with the one person.

Something for the stump dwelling scorpion

Soaring numbers of GPs are retiring in their fifties because pension changes have made it unprofitable for them to carry on working, experts warn.

Dunno how serious it actually is but as an example of how things are connected it’s great.

So, in order not to be subsidising pension pots, something our stump dwelling scorpion insists is a very good thing to do, there’s now lifetime limits on how much you can stash away in a pension pot.

And highly paid professionals like GPs are absolutely the sort of people who will hit this limit. So, some of them are doing so and retiring.

It really is necessary, when thinking about economic or tax changes, to recall that the shine bone really is connected to the knee bone….

What a great idea

Here’s a better outcome: the EPA should mandate that Volkswagen exclusively produce electric vehicles within five years for the US market.

There’s a name for a socio-political system that gives the state that sort of power over private sector economic actors.

Same one used to describe the system that gave us the original Volkswagen actually.

This progressive consumption tax just gets better and better, doesn’t it?

In the long term we cannot consume our planet

So tax has to ultimately discourage excessive consumption

As noted in previous comments, consumption = production and either and both are economic activity. He is insisting that we should all be taxed in order to make us poorer. Not, well, yes, but think of the joyous things we can buy with the tax: he is insisting that we must all be poorer.

The charge would be on flows through bank accounts excluding those under common control

It includes corporate bank accounts, of course it does.

I readily admit: this is an idea that I have not modelled as yet. The precise rate is not clear: they would be low.

But we can have a stab at it. He says no tax below £20k in this scheme. Just for ease of calculation call that £25k as we can pretend that that is mean income, close enough for this. All of the economy is income to someone: he’s not differentiating between labour and cap[ital income here.

So, the entire burden of the £100 billion in tax must be carried by the 50% of the economy on more than mean income. Economy is £1.7 trillion, meaning that the £100 billion must be coming from £850 billion in incomes and thus the rate is 12%.

12% on bank transactions, eh?

I could have made some horrible logical error there but I don’t see it if I have.

OK, you can split it out, 6% at the business end paying out and 6% at the receiving end but that’s still 12%.

But that does really have to be the rate. Simply because he’s exempting those below (or about-ish) mean income, and presumably everyone’s first 20k or so. And thus he’s trying to raise £100 billion from something that cannot be larger than £850 billion. Actually, given that his exemption is about mean (or median maybe) income then the rate would have to be higher than that, wouldn’t it?

Christ almighty, he’s mad!

The controversial measure is set out in Mr Murphy’s new book, called The Joy of Tax, which is published this week.
Mr Murphy (below) says in the book that the new consumption tax could raise over £100billion a year and replace National Insurance Contributions, which disproportionately hits poorer people.

It says: “I think that a progressive tax on the total sum paid into and out of people’s and companies’ bank accounts is now essential.
“This simply requires that the rate charged increase as the total payments into and out of bank accounts connected to a person increase.
“This is the tax that can, in the 21st century, end the absurd need to tax labour and its wealth creation and instead shift that tax to excessive consumption, a shift we know is now needed.”

That’s not a consumption tax you fucking moron. It’s a transactions tax. You are taxing the transaction: it’s a transactions tax.

Friday afternoon physics question

So, we’re playing around with a little app for smartphones. Trivial, not even a joke but a jokule, perhaps a jokette.

And electric current is electrons moving along, right?

So, how many electrons makes how much current?

As all know, my relationship with engineering is akin to that of Polly’s with logic. But there’s two (?) ways of measuring current, volt and amp. Being, as I understand it, the rate and volume (err, perhaps pressure?)? Umm, roughly?

If that be true then again as I understand it, then 1 volt at 1 amp is going to be half as many electrons as 2 volts at one amp, or one volt at two amps.

Are people laughing at me already?

But if that is so then, say, how many electrons is one volt at one amp for one second? And is it then just simple multiplication after that? 10 volts at 10 amps is 100 times as many electrons?

It’s the actual number of electrons on the move that I want to find out.

Murphaloon logic

So in other words we have a change that has no impact at all. I have yet to read the detail, but if offshore trusts are unaffected by this move then frankly it is a waste of time: these trusts are the way that non-doms hide their income from the UK. If they’re outside the scope of the new regime the whole thing is little more than a sham.

OK, so Osborne has said that non-doms don’t owe tax on some of their cash. That’s the rules.

Wouldn’t it be good to have a Chancellor who actually wanted to collect the tax owing by those who live in the UK?

But we do have a Chancellor who wants to do that. Because the non-dom’s don’t owe tax on this money according to them rules, do they?

Isn’t this career going well?

Most people will know me as the feminazi lawyer. The Daily Mail labelled me a feminazi after I had the temerity to challenge sexism, a crime that apparently justifies invoking the terminology of national socialism. It is rather fitting that the term has gained traction among the rightwing media, as it was popularised by right-leaning polemicist Rush Limbaugh in the 1990s (although he credits economics professor Thomas Hazlett for coining the term).

Feminazi is not an innocuous insult. According to Limbaugh a feminazi is “a feminist to whom the important thing in life is ensuring that as many abortions as possible occur”. In comparing feminists to the Nazis, Limbaugh is cynically deploying iconography of the most odious kind.

One of the joys of watching this go on is that the only people who can afford to do the occasional Guardian piece (CiF pays £85) while studying for their PhD are birds being supported by their hedge fund boyfriends.

Well, yes, but….

To watch American politics today is to watch money speaking. The 2016 US elections will almost certainly be the most expensive in recent history, with total campaign expenditure exceeding the estimated $7bn (£4.6bn) splurged on the 2012 presidential and congressional contests. Donald Trump is at once the personification of this and the exception that proves the rule because – as he keeps trumpeting – at least it’s his own money. Everyone else depends on other people’s, most of it now channelled through outside groups such as “Super PACs” – political action committees – which are allowed to raise unlimited amounts from individuals and corporations.

There may well be a lot of money floating about. But it’s not as if the voters aren’t getting a good look at a whole bunch of people, is it? OK, so the Dems is Hillary v Bernies with O’Malley nowhere. But the Reps are killing off the weaker candidates one by one, what the system is supposed to achieve. It doesn’t look like the money is denying democracy, does it?

Slightly embarrassing

I’ve been seeing a slew of pieces by Anne Marie Slaughter around the place and been wondering why people are taking her views on such subjects seriously.

It’s only just dawned that this is not the same person as Ana Marie Cox.

I’m going to be really pissed if the senility sets in before I’ve really enjoyed that mid-life crisis.

Umm, what?

While I sympathise with the workers who had to clean up on Sunday, and am deeply sorry that some children were intimidated by the protest, the petty vandalism that occurred pales in comparison to the brutality of the gentrification that is destroying the lives and demolishing the homes of some of London’s most vulnerable people.

Some 49% of the children in the borough live below the poverty line.

Gentrification would reduce that number, surely?

Hmm, this is interesting

The world’s energy infrastructure is at risk from the extreme weather expected to result from climate change, a group of prominent energy companies has warned.

Energy systems, including fossil fuel power stations, distribution grids, and the networks that reach to people’s homes, are all at risk from effects such as flooding, severe storms and sea level rises, according to a new report from the World Energy Council, which brings together energy companies, academics and public sector agencies.

And how much more at risk are windmills and solar panels?

Why doesn’t this surprise?

Russia-linked hackers tried to hack into Hillary Clinton’s private email at least five times, emails released on Wednesday reveal.

So, the question is, given the state of American government IT as exposed by, was she more secure on her own server than on the State network?

It would be amusing to think she was safer but I don’t think that’s actually true.

In fact, assuming that “Russians” (meaning, “spies from anywhere”) knew that she was running a private server I’d say it’s odds on that it was successfully hacked. Protecting against industrial grade hacking just ain’t easy.