I recognise these two

Nor do entry barriers guarantee quality. Indeed, many of the faults blogs are accused of apply as much to old media, where they played out in elephantine slow motion and with a tenured complacency symptomatic of a medium blessed with too much protection from competition. Some of the most questionable analysis I have ever read came dressed in academic clothing, and is all the more dangerous for that. One paper from Sheffield academics, for example, purported to prove that Britain doled out £93bn of corporate welfare and had Labour politicians hopping with excitement. Another I recall from 2009 was an analysis issuing from a “radical” think-tank, claiming to show that childcare workers generated £7 for every pound they are paid, while advertising executives destroyed £11.

That seond was described by Giles himself as “not economics frankly” and I was one of those who leapt in upon the first.

9 thoughts on “I recognise these two”

  1. Damn, I was hoping ElReg came to their senses and offered you a 500% raise to come back until I saw the publication date.

    In the case of childcare workers I am sure I could play with the numbers until I can show the 7:1 ratio. The stay-at-home mom just isn’t counted in the GDP properly. Even worse is that this is an apples to oranges comparison. We know(I’m sure someone here has proper references handy) that most children do better when receiving care from a parent. This means the £7 of spending is not for the same product. I’m too lazy to bother doing math for this topic but I’m guessing the lost life-time income due to the poorer start in life more than offsets the added taxable gains for a few years. Of course we are twisting numbers to make them fit so the calculations will be useless in the real world.

    The advertising executive argument can also be made but there is not much point in doing so. Yes, most likely, the advertising executive makes a boatload and handing them more money won’t help the economy much. To form a useful conclusion we need to look at total advertising spending, not just the portion claimed by the top.

  2. Its a near-thankless task trying to unravel left-wing doublespeak, isn’t it?

    Sadly, it needs to be done somewhere so that the general public at least has a chance, whether taken or not, to sidestep the bullshit.

    Bit like “investment” in the NHS, which is really just paying ever-increasing running costs.

    Higher-rate taxpayers being “subsidised” because they use pensions to defer income, and thus pay the income tax when the pension starts paying out – as in when they actually get the income.

    It’s a “bail out” when it gets lent to a bank, but “saving our steel/car/whatever industry” when it gets spent on a failing company in a Labour area.

    “Giveaways” when there’s a tax cut. Even though they aren’t giving you anything, quite the opposite. Just taking less.

    “Austerity” and “cuts” when the public sector spunks even more money than the year before, never mind that it also has to borrow it.

    Any others?

  3. My comment above was regarding bullshit leftie terms like “corporate welfare” and “aggressive tax avoidance”, BTW.

  4. “One paper from Sheffield academics, for example, purported to prove that Britain doled out £93bn of corporate welfare and had Labour politicians hopping with excitement”

    I thought Kevin Farnsworth was at York University when he published that craporola. Perhaps he did the ‘research’ (!) at Sheffield. Either way, two very suspect universities. Why does the taxpayer have to fund a department of Social Policy & Social Work at York? FFS, that’s an incubator for leftists on a mission.

    Subject to the rule of law, I’m coming round to Ecksy’s call for a purge of the universities.

  5. Cynic, the witless allegation that fossil fuels are more heavily subsidised than renewables continues to be repeated.

  6. ‘a transfer of more than £3,500 from each household in the UK’

    Dingbat talks about CASH, too.

    There is no cash, there is no transfer.

    Aditya Chakrabortty has a 12 year old’s knowledge of finance.

  7. First comment on that piece that Timmy forgot to link:

    ” I have been largely unaware of the blogosphere until now”

  8. @Chester Draws

    Yep, just looked that up Google and got a hit from (chortle) Greenpeace:

    “Far from just explicit subsidies, it includes any and all kinds of financial support for fossil fuel production — from direct spending and tax breaks to state-owned enterprise and public finance.”

    Now, I’m no economist, not even a GCSE or A-level in it, but:

    Tax break: again, how is not having your money knicked a subsidy? It’s your bloody money to start with.

    State-owned: isn’t that only a subsidy if it is run at a loss, with the difference between the market rate and what the consumer directly pays being made up with tax money? If so, that’s a specific case. Not all of ’em.

    Public finance: is that a subsidy or a loan? ‘Cos a loan isn’t a subsidy unless you aren’t expected to give it back, right?

Leave a Reply

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