From the annals of Ritchiedom

if wealth is measured in any way that does not equate to totting up the amount Luke Johnson has in his bank account then more equal societies (created in part by redistribution) are wealthier on every measure anyone can think of.


Gini numbers show the level of inequality in a society. A lower Gini thus means, by Ritchie\’s argument, that a country with such a lower number is wealthier than one with a higher one.


UK, 35.97.

Laos, 34.65.

Laos, wealthier than the UK?

Algeria, 35.3? Vietnam 34.4? Kazakhstan? Armenia? Albania?

Moldova? 33.22? Bosnia?

Well, that\’s that little idea shot to pieces then, isn\’t it. For there just ain\’t any rational way to claim that those countries are wealthier in any manner than the UK, despite being more equal.

Sorry, but there just ain\’t.

9 thoughts on “From the annals of Ritchiedom”

  1. Well, you’re both wrong to think that totting up money in Luke Johnson’s bank account is a way of measuring wealth in the first place, because for every £1 in his bank account there must be £1 of debt somewhere else and money all nets off to nil.

  2. I am starting to think that Richard Murphy is actually a character Tim made up to parody Leftist numpties. Problem is he’s laying it on a bit too thick and giving the game away. Dial the battiness down to, say, Will Hutton levels and the hoax will be a lot more convincing.

  3. Envy is one of the deadly sins and sating it should be the last thing a government should be thinking about.

    LVT, Yes. Fines for working and employing people, HELL NO!

  4. How about if you compare purchasing power?
    I would guess the answer is still no but would that be true?

  5. The point about the Gini Coefficient is that it doesn’t tell you anything useful. It appears to, but it doesn’t. It’s a typical progressive statistic. It measures something progressive rather than something meaningful.

    Like all statistics, to get a meaningful number it has to throw information away. The significant thing missing from the Gini is any measure of how the wealth is obtained; particularly, it contains no information about how productive the population are. Since wealth is a reflection of productivity, it thus misses the important question of how wealth is being gained.

    If the Gini coefficient is worsening, Progressives declare this to be a Bad Thing with an implication that wealth is being misallocated- because they presume that “More equal” is better. But in a market economy, wealth is awarded to more productive individuals. So a worsening Gini may well be telling you that there is a growth in the inequality of productivity. That is, the gap between highly productive and lowly productive is growing.

    Since socialism encourages increasing numbers of the population to reduce their productivity- even paying them to withdraw from the market altogether, or to take low productivity jobs by incentivising them (with tax credits, minimum wages, etc), we should expect increasing socialisation to worsen the Gini Coefficient.

    Thus the increasing “gap between rich and poor” is proof that socialism is working. It should be expected in a social market economy. The aim of progressive socialism- to reduce most of the population to bonded serfdom- is right on track.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

From the annals of Ritchiedom

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *