Posted by Christie Malry on
October 25, 2011 at 8:47 pm
Household Income has stood still for the last 4 years: The big squeeze.
The graph above shows the 'real' increase in household income since 2007. As you can see the level of disposable income reached in 2007 (Q3) is basically where the nation's household disposable incomes are now. When this autumn's hikes in fuel, transport & housing costs are factored in the actual picture will be even bleaker than that. The pain we are currently going through resembles that of 1979-83, the first term of the Thatcher government when disposable incomes grew just 1.1% in the first three years of her administration.
Eoin is complaining that 'real' (ie post inflation) disposable income has been positive in each quarter since 2007. Now, you can argue about which inflation measure has been used (he doesn't say) or whether fuel, transport and housing costs tend to increase at a rate that's faster than the main inflation measures (they do have a tendency to). But to say that household income has "stood still" is demonstrably false. That's a mathematical impossibility, given that every quarter shows at least some growth.
Is there no beginning to this man's economic ability?
Filed under: Economics, Other blogs with tags disposable income, eoin clarke, eoinomics, idiots, inflation
No Comments »
Posted by Christie Malry on
October 25, 2011 at 8:23 pm
The graph ... shows BP's profits from 1 Oct. 2010 to 30 June 2011. It compares them with the rise in UK GDP for the same period. This is just to give you an idea as to how much the oil giant's profits have outstripped the measurement we use to judge the nation's economic progress. Am I the only person who finds it disturbing that one company's profits can vastly exceed the entire GDP growth of the United Kingdom?
Yes, Eoin, you probably are. Because the comparison is thoroughly bogus.
On the one hand you have the profits made by BP from its worldwide operations. Profit, you'll recall, is the difference between what BP sells (basically refined oil) and what it costs to get it (the cost of pumping it out of the ground or deep sea). And it employs people all around the world to do that. BP is very profitable because it's good at getting oil out of the ground, and all around the world people really want oil. A lot.
On the other hand you have the UK's Gross Domestic Product. That's the market value of all goods and services produced in the UK in that period. Only Eoin isn't taking GDP, he's taking the increase in GDP, ie GDP for a particular quarter minus GDP for the equivalent quarter in the previous year. There's simply no reason at all why we would expect the increase in GDP to have any relationship at all to the profits of a multinational group. Trivially, during a recession, any profitable company would have profits that exceed the change in GDP.
So Eoin is getting all hot and bothered over something that only a total economic numpty would attempt to compare in the first place. He should stick to the women's history.
Filed under: Economics, Other blogs with tags bp, eoin clarke, gdp, idiots
2 Comments »
Posted by Christie Malry on
October 25, 2011 at 7:29 pm
The Telegraph has a strange headline for its story today on UBS's latest results:
UBS profits beat forecasts despite rogue trading scandal
UBS has reported a pre-tax profit of close to Sfr1bn (£709m) for the third quarter despite being hit by a Sfr1.8bn loss from an alleged rogue trading incident.
I don't think this is what they mean. Presumably when they broke it to the markets that they'd had a serious fraud, the forecast was restated to take account of it.
So it might certainly be the case that the bank did better than analysts expected. But it's wrong that the scandal had no impact whatsoever on the bank's ability to meet its original forecasts.
Filed under: Accounting, Other blogs with tags banks, fraud, telegraph, ubs
No Comments »
Posted by Christie Malry on
October 25, 2011 at 7:17 pm
Without a hint of irony:
The corrosive power of advertising and its link to the financial crisis is a major theme in the Courageous State. I’m told it should now be on sale by 14 November. You can get a copy here.
After his commentators take the piss (which, to his credit, he posts), he explains:
I am careful to define the power of the supply of information and to differentiate it from pernicious advertising in the book
Filed under: Entertainment, Other blogs with tags advertising, idiots, irony, richard murphy
1 Comment »
Posted by Christie Malry on
October 24, 2011 at 9:53 pm
Oh yes, they really did.
Filed under: Entertainment with tags fail, flickr, typos
No Comments »
Posted by Christie Malry on
October 24, 2011 at 9:47 pm
It looks like Accountancy magazine has started the process of preparing itself for the inevitable oblivion that must surely follow once its subscriber base has been obliterated by the cancellation of the member agreement with ICAEW.
They have launched accountancylive.com, which looks to be a pretty acceptable accountancy news site. But there's nothing obviously there that you can't already get from Accountancy Age. And it's unclear what would encourage people to spend £99 a year on a subscription to the printed magazine. Especially given that ICAEW will be sending a free magazine to all members from February.
Filed under: Institutes, Other blogs with tags accountancy age, accountancy live, accountancy magazine, icaew
3 Comments »
Posted by Christie Malry on
October 24, 2011 at 9:06 pm
So a survey finds that the vast majority of senior finance staff actually do support mandatory auditor rotation after all...
MANDATORY AUDITOR ROTATION is supported by almost nine-in-ten (87%) finance executives, and the group is calling for a shorter rotation period than the European Commission's porposed nine years.
The survey by recruitment specialist Robert Half questioned 200 chief financial officers and finance directors.
Almost half (49%) plumped for a new auditor at least every four years, while 82% called for rotation on a three-yearly basis.
This flies in the face of feedback from the 100 Group, made up of FTSE-leader FDs, who said mandatory rotation and other proposals "show a fundamental misunderstanding" of the issues and are "deeply concerning".
The results indicated large and listed companies are most in favour of mandatory rotation every three years.
I haz solution! If you want to change your auditors, just do it. There's no need to be forced to do something you already want to do and can quite easily do.
Seriously, it makes these finance directors sound utterly pathetic. Like a whiny bunch of smokers who want smoking to be banned everywhere just because they're too weak to give up on their own.
Ironically, if they really do want auditor rotation then there will be no need for the European Union to act on the matter. Because it will just happen.
Filed under: Auditing, Regulation with tags 100 group, accountancy age, auditor rotation, european commission, finance directors, robert half
No Comments »
Posted by Christie Malry on
October 24, 2011 at 8:55 pm
Bad news for those still pitifully claiming that the 50% tax rate won't lead to people leaving. From Accountancy Age:
Walsh [Chief Executive of Diageo] added: "At the moment, if I am going to create jobs, I am not going to create them in the UK because it's a high-cost environment. If I employ staff in Singapore with a 10% tax rate, I don't have to pay them as much for them to feel good and to go home with more money."
So, even if you accept that people won't leave - and I don't - here is a company saying that he will create new jobs in another country because he simply can't afford to base those jobs in the UK.
But there's more:
A study published by Lloyds TSB showed that 15% of Britain's 5.5 million expatriates have cancelled plans to return in the UK.
Oops! Not only are new jobs not being created here, but existing expats increasingly don't want to come back home. Which is very uncomfortable reading for those that still want to claim that the 50% tax rate doesn't hurt our economy.
Filed under: Economics, Taxation with tags accountancy age, diageo, expatriates, idiots, income tax, richard murphy, singapore
2 Comments »
Posted by Christie Malry on
October 24, 2011 at 9:16 am
While certain pundits have celebrated the "We are the 99%" slogan as brilliant, it is beset by problems:
- While it's mathematically true that the vast majority of the population, including me and most probably you, are indeed in the 99%, that doesn't automatically give legitimacy to what a small portion of that 99% does in the name of the rest of their brethren. The people who are defiling London's public spaces and poncing off the free wifi at Starbucks don't act in my name. While public opinion is hard to gauge, the comments on this article on the Guardian suggest that, even in a friendly newspaper, there are many - far more than 1% - that totally disapprove of the protests.
- There is no consistency over what constitutes the "1%". The term is bandied about to refer to banks, politicians, rich people or any corporation. Given that companies can't vote, it's silly to lump them into the 1%. Particularly as the companies are actually largely owned by us, through our pension funds.
- Even though they deny it was down to them, it was a major mistake to stand off against St Paul's, an action that has led to the cathedral's closure. St Paul's is the city's and the country's treasure. It's the landmark that controls so much of London's building development because its sightlines must be protected. Recently it was refurbished at a cost of some £40 million, to restore it to its past beauty. The protestors would be foolish to presume that the majority in London will tolerate this defilement of such a national institution for that long.
- The top 1% contributes a phenomenal amount to our nation's coffers. Looking at direct taxes alone, the richest 1% pays over 25% of all income tax. The current protests against the rich looks very much like an extreme case of sour grapes.
- The protestors don't know what they want, other than something "different". They won't be able to get beyond tiny amounts of support until they can define more clearly what they stand for. Their current ideas are totally incoherent and, frankly, bonkers. If they don't decide fast, they will lose all the momentum they have gained. At the moment they look like they may yet end up more inscrutable, more indecisive and more unaccountable than the politicians they want to replace.
- The basis of democracy is that it represents everyone. Democracy insists that minorities are protected, even those that did not vote for the ruling party. It's unethical to allow the majority, even an overwhelming majority, to gang up on a minority. And this remains true, even when talking about a minority for which many in the majority may have little sympathy (the super rich). In blaming all our society's woes on "the rich", there are ugly echoes of the hounding of Jews throughout history.
Filed under: Current issues, Politics with tags democracy, godwin's law, hmrc, mob rule, occupy, occupylsx, parliament, pensions, rich, st paul's cathedral, starbucks
12 Comments »
Posted by Christie Malry on
October 23, 2011 at 9:16 am
My, Guardian writers are a whining bunch of moaning minnies aren't they?
Stone Roses tickets show concert price inflation is out of control
The £55 price tag slapped on tickets to see Ian Brown and co is way too much, but they're not alone in putting excessive pressure on fans' wallets
Seeing as they sold out 150,000 tickets in 14 minutes, it rather looks as if the tickets were underpriced, not overpriced.
It may be, of course, you honestly believe that the tickets were almost entirely bought by touts. And, even then, you can have the satisfaction that if the hypothesis that they're overpriced is right, thousands of touts will have to either shoulder the loss or attend an overpriced gig they didn't really want to see.
Guardian readers looking for a cheap deal might want to take a look at The Stone Roses
and Second Coming
, which are both pretty inexpensive right now.
Filed under: Economics with tags guardian, stone roses
1 Comment »
