Have Left Foot Forward even heard of economics?

The richest 10 per cent of Londoners were a quarter wealthier in 2010/12 than they were before the recession, whereas the poorest 10 per cent lost nearly a fifth of their net income over a similar period.

What in fucking buggery are they trying to do, comparing changes in wealth with changes in income?

Especially in the middle of a housing boom. Are these people simply ignorant or are they malevolent?

23 thoughts on “Have Left Foot Forward even heard of economics?”

  1. “Are these people simply ignorant or are they malevolent?”

    Are you joking? They are active peddlers of propaganda to advance the cause of a death cult that has murdered millions. Of course they are malevolent.

  2. They are not stupid (or at least many of them are not). They deliberately choose to publish misleading statistics and sometimes ones that are false.
    Remember that Will Straw is running for Parliament.

  3. I guess they think that because the wealth had increased therefore that must simply be because their income has increased. The idea of assets increasing in value and the notion of a personal balance sheet and net worth will be totally alien to them.

  4. File alongside umpteen cases of ‘Firm X pays only Y in tax despite turnover of Z billion.’ outrage…

    Lying cunts in cuntish lies shock.

  5. It’s not entirely foolish. Poor people have no wealth to measure. Whatever the merits of whatever else these people say, increasing wealth is itself an income, so it’s not unreasonable to compare what the rich are making compared to what the poor are making.

    Austrian economics has long predicted that State manipulation of inflationary currencies via the banking system wipes out the lower classes since the people who get the money first get it at higher value, etc. That is, sound money benefits the poorer by representing true values (i.e. it does not financially privilege anyone) whereas unsound money benefits the wealthy at the expense of everyone else. This would appear to be consistent with that.

  6. And if they were presenting it for the reasons you give Ian–as well as the remedy of sound money- that would be fine. But they have no idea of those things. They are trying to cultivate the bitter weed of envy and sanctimonious hatred on behalf of the worst of causes.

  7. Well, I don’t think many wealthy people keep their money in a tin under the bed. Unless they’re Ken Dodd. But anyway, if last year I had £10 in the tin, and this year I’ve got £20 in the tin, that’s surely an income by any meaningful definition.

  8. Well, I might have reduced my expenditure of course. But I doubt that applies much to London’s wealthy.

  9. It does in my philosophy, not sure what an official economist would say. If I rent out my money and get a return on it, that’s income, surely? No different to renting out anything else, like renting land or cars.

  10. @ both Ians
    Increasing wealth increases the ability to spend and consume, but so does an increased limit on one’s credit card. It is not an income but can, in many circumstances, provide a substitute for one. Someone who buys property for X and sells it for 2X plus inflation without needing to spend 2X plus stamp duty to replace it has extra wealth than can be used in lieu of income. If someone buys a house to live in and the price of that house *and every alternative dwelling* doubles his/her wealth is nominally double or, if a mortgagee, more than double, but he/she has nil additional income. So Ian B is not, in the general case, far wrong but in the specifics of London house prices he has fallen for LFF’s con trick.
    House prices in the UK rose 147% between Q2 1997 and Q2 2010, but in London it was even worse: 172%. Under a government that included from start to finish, the father of LFF’s Will Straw, inequality of wealth increased significantly (the bottom half saw their share of national wealth decrease by two-thirds from the level under Mrs Thatcher. LFF are now trying to imply the current government/Mayor is to blame.

  11. Do you know, if that statistic meant that one of my acquaintances, who used to live in a flat off the Kings Road, entirely on benefits, was no longer able to afford it, I’d say that was a GOOD THING.

    Heartless bastard that I am…

  12. @ ukliberty
    Yes: I have to pay tax on it even though the shrinkage in the value of the bank deposit is greater than the nominal interest. i.e. I pay tax on because my wealth is shrinking less fast.

  13. “The richest 10 per cent of Londoners were a quarter wealthier in 2010/12 than they were before the recession,” and are many of them completely different individuals, busy getting their loot out of China, Russia, the Middle East and so on.

  14. “the poorest 10 per cent lost nearly a fifth of their net income over a similar period”: and are many of them completely different individuals, having presumably arrived from Somalia, Bangladesh, Iraq, Bulgaria and Romania and so forth, bringing with them, on average, few skills required in an advanced economy, and a pronounced disinclination to own up to any income they do receive.

  15. Ian B again: “But anyway, if last year I had £10 in the tin, and this year I’ve got £20 in the tin, that’s surely an income by any meaningful definition.”
    But if I had a house which was worth £12,000 when I bought it and £80,000 now, that’s not an income, but it would be regarded as an increase in wealth, would it not?.

  16. I don’t know if the piece has been edited, but it now refers to the richest 10% increasing their “wealth in terms of income” or some such construction.

  17. Bloke in Costa Rica

    It’s a stupid fucking name as well. If they want to go anywhere they’ll have to put their right foot forward as well, unless they’re dancing the hokey-cokey, which in all honesty would probably be a less harmful use of their time.

  18. @ BiCR
    An orthodox boxer will have his left foot forward when he is throwing a punch.
    Who says they are going anywhere?

Leave a Reply

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