Skip to content

Scandinavian countries have Gini coefficients of around 25%, continental Euro­pean countries of around 30%, Anglo-Saxon countries of around 40%,

None of the Scandis (unless we think of that suburb, Iceland) has one as low as 25%, they’re in the range 25 to 30. Continentals in the range 29 to 35 (Italy, that last). Anglos 30.6 (Ireland) through 35 (UK, less than Italy) and so on. Other than the US (where there are considerable measurement difficulties with not including transfers of goods and services in kind) there’s no Anglo that gets to 40%.

Accuracy, eh?

11 thoughts on “Sigh”

  1. Bloke in North Dorset

    I know Truss is following the long-standing principle of rewarding her friends, but a little bit of me is hoping that she also had in mind trolling the usual suspects.

  2. Country-by-country reporting

    Country-by-country reporting is a form of accounting created by Richard Murphy in 2003

    OT, but glancing at his glossary this gem popped up.

  3. Odd, I seem to remember seeing an archive of the East India Company accounts that showed (or “reported”) its business in different countries (or “country by country”).

  4. Dennis, Noting The Bright Light Emanating From Ely

    Murphy’s response: “Well, it would be 40% if they did the calculation correctly. Which, it just so happens, I have done. And no, there’s no reason to share that calculation with anyone.”

  5. I vaguely recall some years ago reading a review of Harald Rostvik’s book ‘Corruption the Nobel Way’ in which the author claimed to demonstrate how foreigners’ perceptions of Scandinavia are totally wrong. Rather than the social democratic model society, Norway, for instance, is portrayed as a shockingly egotistical and self-serving nation where some of the most predatory businesses are state owned. Around them corruption flourished, as arms and oil were spewed into the world, enriching the gilded few – and hinting, perhaps, a causality for Anders Brevik.

  6. Bernie G, Sweden is far more free market than it is portrayed in the media in my experience.
    When the sadly missed, by me anyway, SAAB started to hit financial issues the government came straight out that they were not in the business of keeping car manufacturers in business. They also have used their “family-friendly” policies to try and keep population from falling too much a La Peter Zeihan.

  7. This is his finest post ever:

    Every day people turn up here telling me that my predictions about the consequences of neoliberalism are wrong, and that my suggested solutions will not work.

    They may not listen, but the track record is mine to enjoy. Being right in retrospect is better than being forecast to be wrong.

    Surely it’s well past time for the men in white coats?

  8. But the Gini number is an observation. You could with equal usefulness observe the distribution of eye color, or length of hair.

    However, the wokerati use it as a measure of the general level of evil in a population, so its use must be deprecated.

  9. Dennis, On The Front Lines Fightin' Them Chlorinated Chickens

    Every day people turn up here telling me that my predictions about the consequences of neoliberalism are wrong, and that my suggested solutions will not work.

    They may not listen, but the track record is mine to enjoy. Being right in retrospect is better than being forecast to be wrong.

    Does he mention what it is he thinks he’s right about? I can’t think of anything offhand.

  10. @ jgh
    Thanks.
    I have, in the past, pointed out that country-by-country reporting – or at least for the country of domicile and every other country that accounted for more than 10% of turnover *or* profit *or* capital employed) was a statutory rerquirement for all UK quoted companies 50 years ago when Murphy was still at school.

  11. Indeed. Country by Country reporting has been on the radar since the 70s.

    The closest Spud comes to admitting this is when he says these early versions were nothing like the proposals in his suggested accounting standard back in 2020-11. Pointing out that the recently adopted OECD version is nothing like his suggested accounting standard is ignored.

    An accurate description of his input is that he suggested a version (which was ignored) of something that already existed in principle.

Leave a Reply

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