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. ”
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:
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.