WorstallWatch

July

2006-07-09T05:13:00.000-07:00

It's been a strange week for Tim. He's been spamming himself, wronging alleging that Polly Toynbee didn't tell the truth about her mother's death, and getting more of his facts muddled. Major apologies for failing to Watch successfully, but at the moment I don't think it's necessary.

A modest man...

2006-06-01T05:04:00.000-07:00

Our Tim has been, in his usual modest way, telling the Press Gazette why he 'pulls columns apart'. Apparently it is:

as someone specialising in jeering at economic illiteracy, I know I'm never going to run out of material.

Much the same could be said about Tim's output. In that very piece he says:

[When Toynbee] thinks that minimum wages do anything other than lower the incomes of the working poor

Of course minimum wages do other things than lower the incomes of the working poor. In fact they often raise the incomes of the working poor, as the report he quotes from says, "It has brought higher wages to many low-paid workers."

Furthermore his website is littered with economic illiteracy. Who can forget the claim that if inheritance tax, which takes in about £4bn a year, was abolished then in a few generations there would be no need for a welfare state? Not a single justification was given.

Lots of days in May

2006-05-24T03:38:00.000-07:00

Falling behind here, and sadly this isn't going to be a proper post either. However at present our analysis is not needed, as the commenters are doing a good job in keeping Tim's occasionaly lunacies in check.

May

2006-05-16T08:47:00.000-07:00

Apologies for the lack of posts, this reflects I think as much of a lull in Tim, and especially Scott's, posting as my own. Obviously there is nothing more exciting than:

What I'm interested in doing is moving from something that was primarily and narrowly concerned with criticism of the news media (and, for the most part, just two newspapers) to a broader perspective of cultural criticism - looking at the arts (the Whitney Biennial review represents a step in that direction), TV, books, movies etc. from the warped Ablutionist perspective.

But there's clearly no rush.

Ablution Watch

2006-05-06T04:39:00.000-07:00

Over to the Daily Ablution, where Scott is showing us his rigorous research techniques in a story about a fire station not being allowed to show the English flag:

Further confirmation of the story [in the Telegraph] is to be found in the local Barking and Dagenham Recorder:

As if it's not possible, or even probably, the original source is the same for both articles. To be fair, however, in this instance he did actually ring the Fire Station at the centre of the story, but it was the wrong Watch (they're spreading, aren't they?).

Anyway, his take on the story:

Can you think of any other nation in the entire world in which a display of the national flag would be prohibited for fear of causing offence? Is there any society as craven as this one? I am, for once, rendered almost speechless.

Almost, but not quite, as he manages another 398 words. All of which of course are missing the obvious point - that the English flag has a recent history of being appropriated by the far-right, who are not unknown in Barking. This is so well known that I can only assume Scott is deliberately missing the point to allow him the mock outrage. The reasons why the far-right were able to hijack the flag would be worth an article - I would suggest it was partly because of a lack of flag-waving tradition, and because of the use of the Union Flag in more official settings allow the English flag to be associated with English nationalim. These however are only ideas.

To some extent the flag has been reclaimed in recent years, particularly for sporting events. Nevertheless pace George Orwell I doubt it is only English intellectuals who had problems with it. I was in a coastal town where the propery seem cheap a few months back, and friends of mine were looking to buy a house. All seemed nice enough, until we saw a house displaying the English flag. Then another one, and another. This really did set alarm bells ringing, and later these were confirmed when we saw a large army barracks. So dislike of the English flag and dislike of our Brave Boys. Truly an Ablution nightmare.

Up to April 30th

2006-05-01T01:04:00.000-07:00

Bit concerned that Tim has referred to me as his 'stalker', as I had assumed the first time he did he was joking. To ensure there is not misunderstanding, this blog no more stalks Tim Worstall than he stalks Polly Toynbee*.

* Assuming he doesn't stalk her. If subsequently we find out he hangs around her apartment block in Clapham then the comparision was wrong.

Ohmy

2006-04-27T09:09:00.000-07:00

This post is going to be in defence of Tim Worstall. Andrew Ian Dodge has said that our Man:

has a dress sense right out of Starsky & Hutch

That's right. Andrew Ian Dodge is commenting on someone else's dress sense. What can you say?

The Daily Ablution

2006-04-25T08:40:00.000-07:00

This post, and the comments to it, and the one below, and the comments to that, are the sort of posts that make you feel slightly in need of a wash after reading them. As exciting as Scott's living arrangements are, you really don't need that kind of thing.

Friday 21st April to Tuesday 25th April

2006-04-25T08:36:00.000-07:00

Miles behind, but luckily Tim is in the air and so can't blog...er can only blog once. Well anyway, this post officially catches us up.

Monday 17th, Tuesday 18th, Wednesday 19th, Thursday 20th April

2006-04-20T05:28:00.000-07:00

Not a great deal to report. In the post on Melissa Benn's piece Tim declares that it is obviously not interesting as it has no comments, when in fact it has lots of comments. Readers might wonder why this is worth Watching - we all make mistakes after all. But I think it is important, as it illustrates what is wrong with so much blogging - the over-the-top attacks based on very little fact-checking. In any other medium, for instance the pages of a national newpaper, no-one would be quite so rude about another person without making some basic checks, which clearly Tim didn't in this case.

Friday 14th to Sunday 16th April

2006-04-16T05:31:00.000-07:00

The piece of which a shorter description would be "Jim Glass is Right", sorry, "Jim Glass is right", is very Timesque. Tim takes issue with complaints that the projected returns on privatising social security were incompatible with US economic growth projections, as apparently he believes that no-one, except Jim Glass, was aware that companies derived income from overseas operations. He then quotes a statistic that 60% of US companies sales derive from home operations, and apparently all of that means "Jim Glass is right".

WW will restrict ourselves to a few comments:

1. The 60% figure seems too low - the Economist run a similar article in February also quoting Patrick Artus's figures and he said 75%.
2. We don't recall Krugman, De Long or Baker saying that US companies did not have overseas operations, or that US consumers did not buy foreign shares, just that it was not likely.
3. Current figures bear that out. There is some slight issue with apples and oranges in the following sets of figures, but it gives some idea of the magnitude. Profits of US companies in 2005 were $1,146 bn, of which overseas operations and US holdings of foreign shares added $334bn bn. However there were also outflows of $128bn, making a net equity addition of $206bn, ie under 20% of total profits. It's important to note here that around 50% of these profits come from Europe, which is not demographically unchallenged itself.
4. Furthermore those aren't the only inflows and outflows. In 2005 US GDP was 12,487 bn, and then there was 508bn of income from abroad and 474 bn of income flowing overseas. So the net earnings from income abroad was just 34 bn. In the context of US GDP then this is about 1/4 of 1%. If you think about it in terms of equivalent people then that would be about 600,000. I think there is something like 40m retired US citizens, a number that is rising quickly. So even if they got all the returns then it would mean their incomes were about 2% higher than they would otherwise be).
5. But can the situation change? Jim Glass envisages people sending their savings directly to Chinese mutual funds, presumably when they exist. However there are many signs that the situation will worsen. The current account is obviously the major thing to note here. Indeed the fact the US has a surplus on overseas income at all is somewhat of a mystery, and in this excellent summary Barry Eichengreen looks at the arguments. The two most commonly heard are in conflict - and as Eichengreen says there is apparently no reason to believe that the US can continue earning higher returns on its investments than it pays to overseas holders. Why? Because Markets Work.

Broadly speaking the issue here, as it has been in many of these discussions over the years, is a fallacy of composition. Because we can diversify our portfolios (or at least diversify our portfolios of quoted company shares, which is not the same thing) and even get some income from abroad, it is believed that everyone can do it, and perhaps worse, that everyone is doing it.

Wednesday 12th April and Thursday 13th

2006-04-13T00:33:00.000-07:00

Not much to report on, except perhaps the piece on Doctors, where Tim bizarrely takes on the position of defending a Statist Monopoly, with Anthony Cox in the comments apparently of the view that what he wants should apply to everyone else.

Monday 27th March and Tuesday 28th March

2006-04-11T11:11:00.000-07:00

I'd forgotten that I'd promised to look at other right-wing pundits than Tim, and specifically the lunacy that is the Daily Ablution. In a post on global warming he approving quotes this piece from Bob Carter, which "incidentally points out that there's been exactly zero global temperature rise since 1998".

And Scott is right, it does. Indeed the title is "There IS a problem with global warming... it stopped in 1998". Now it's not entirely clear if Bob Carter did choose this title. I doubt he did as its indefensible. He does say, however:

Consider the simple fact, drawn from the official temperature records of the
Climate Research Unit at the University of East Anglia, that for the years
1998-2005 global average temperature did not increase (there was actually a
slight decrease, though not at a rate that differs significantly from zero).

Now if this had been in the Guardian, or said by someone left-wing, Scott would have jumped on it like a flash. As it's not, he's not. It's totally unsupported by the Climate Research Unit's work. It's true only for certain data, and only because 1998 was a very warm year. Even on this data it would be like earning £40k a year in 1998, and then £20k in 2002, £25k in 2003, £30k in 2004 and £35k in 2005, and saying that your income was on a downwards trend.

Friday 7th to Sunday 9th

2006-04-09T02:26:00.000-07:00

Much written, not much Watching. The commenters have done their jobs however, so the only line I'll take issue with is this one:

Who owns it makes no difference to whether the industry is in Britain, of course.

The "of course" is classic Worstall, usually said after he's criticised Polly Tonybee for something she has said that later turns out to be right. The "no difference" is far too strong, to quote Lance Knobel, "there is a significant amount of research showing it does matter. Over time, high value-added activity tends to concentrate in country of ownership".

I'd also rather question the piece on oil. Tim appears to believe the main market-distorting thing in oil now are Chinese subsidies, while the other Tim in the comments (who works in oil, I think, or some energy field) appears to believe that there was a totally free market in oil before OPEC.

Update: The piece on David Cameron's way to make the world a better place makes one of the points we were discussing below - the absurdity that is 'fisking'. Tim knows, and everyone else knows, that when David Cameron says 'take the bus when you can', he means, 'instead of driving'. Tim has to pretend not to realise that to make his point. Why oh why?

Thursday April 6th

2006-04-06T13:23:00.000-07:00

The only post that stands out is the one on the journalists complaining about the Home Office deluging them with information. The comments say it all really - Tim's idea that bloggers can do it all for the journalists for a small fee is bloggocks. Can you imagine a broadsheet journalist waiting for someone to dig up information for them, and instead getting hundreds of Scott Burgess-wannabees sending back an hysterically over-the-top 'fisking' of whatever press release they've been given and believing it to be the epitome of cool, analytical, thought?

April 4th and April 5th

2006-04-05T12:08:00.000-07:00

All quiet on the Worstall front*.

* I don't mean there have been no posts , just nothing particularly Watchable.

SPECIAL FEATURE

2006-04-05T02:24:00.000-07:00

Yes, I've gone outside my comfort zone of Tim's site, and am delivering Quality Watching on the Guardian's newish Comment is Free site. Specifically this post, in which Tim, who gets rather uppity when people claim he is 'right-wing', leaps into attack the poster for a party support he doesn't have.

Monday 3rd April

2006-04-03T12:48:00.000-07:00

As one might expect from where it is, Tim's column at Tech Central Station isn't very good. Essentially he wants to explain why economists are 'right-wing' or 'classically liberal'. His conclusion, "Economists are right-wing because, on economics, the Right is right".

Why? Because:

In other words, if you study a science then it can't really be all that much of a surprise that you learn something of that science. And if economics is indeed a science then there are such things as correct answers, ones that will be recognized by all practitioners of that very same science.

So what is the best example of a 'correct answer' that this 'science' gives us? The minimum wage, which apparently economists don't believe in, and liberals do. Tim notes:

the essential point being that rises in the minimum wage almost certainly have a detrimental effect on the incomes of those who receive them, for if you raise the price of something then people will buy less of it.

Minimum wages. Bit of a let-down, eh? For a start there are loads of economists, particularly outside the US, who do support minimum wages. Second, this idea of if you raise the price of something then people will buy less of it is sounds much like those famed "Laws of Supply And Demand", which get more press coverage than the Laws of Gravity, though no-one seems to know what they actually are. It would be equally as obviousin this example to assert that if you raise the salary of someone you'll get a better quality worker. It's not trite to note that workers aren't pieces of coal, and their pay is not irrelevant to thir work. Indeed if raising the price of something means people buy less of it, and in the case of labour this means that 'it almost certainly has a detrimental effect on the incomes of those who receive it', then it's been a pretty desperate last 20 years for CEOs in the United States. Which obviously it hasn't.

Friday 31st March, April Fool's Day, Sunday 2nd March

2006-04-02T07:32:00.000-07:00

So I'm already getting behind. Is this the beginning of the end? Luckily - if not coincidentally - there aren't any posts that seem necessary of a Watch. I'm a bit surprised that Tim is worried about not being let into America because he is a journalist; I think he'll be ok. He criticises the Observer's demand that airlines are taxed VAT on their fuel, noting that newspapers don't pay VAT. He'd have perhaps been better to note that trains do not pay VAT either, but I'm not here to do his job for him.

Otherwise let's hope next week brings us something to get this site back on track - there should be a Polly Tonybee post at the very least.

Thursday, 31st December

2006-03-30T11:42:00.000-08:00

Or is it still March? Time's dragging. We had some statistical claims today, which were by and large fair enough. The choice of 1992 as a start date to compare the UK economy is basically a Tory device, but when comparing with France or Germany then any start date would do after 1990 (though Germany was the fastest growing of the three in the 1990s due to a unification spurt (and of course partly has been the slowest in the 2000s because of a post-U slump)).

Wednesday 29th March

2006-03-29T13:49:00.000-08:00

Little to report on today, with even the statutory attack on Polly Tonybee lacking any bite. Where are the legendary attacks on her statistical claims with worse statistical claims? Have we achieved our aim to get a greater standard of statistical accuracy at the cost of no statistics at all? Is the Law of Unintended Consquences going to be our undoing?

Answers on a postcard please.

Tuesday 28th March

2006-03-28T11:24:00.000-08:00

This post on acccountancy seems muddled-headed. Rules restricting accountancy firms from offering consultancy services if they also do audits are not uncommon, and I think was one of the main reforms instigated in the US after the Enron/Arthur Anderson and other scandals.

For example:

In response to recent accounting scandals, new Federal legislation restricts the nonauditing services that public accountants can provide to clients. If an accounting firm audits a client’s financial statements, that same firm cannot provide advice on human resources, technology, investment banking, or legal matters, although accountants may still advise on tax issues, such as establishing a tax shelter.

I imagine Tim doesn't believe such laws should exist, or even a requirement that firms have their books audited. He would argue that the free market should take care of it and firms that aren't audited would be shunned. I think that would have been a better line of argument than the "Isn't the EU crap" jeers.

Monday 27th March

2006-03-27T05:39:00.000-08:00

A new week and another piece having a go, albeit a mild one, at Paul Krugman. Not this time because Tim disagrees with him, but because he doesn't believe Krugman should think like this.

Basically Tim's argument is this:

1. Krugman is a liberal and believes in income and wealth redistribution. Krugman is an internationalist so should be indifferent between Americans and foreigners.
2. Mexican immigrants gain more from working in the United States than poor Americans lose from lower wages and less jobs because Mexican immigrants are working in the United States.
3. Point 2 is therefore income redistribution.
4. Krugman should therefore like it.

I can't say I agree with point 1. There are many reasons why one might place more weight on the welfare of poor Americans than potential immigrants. Even if you don't feel any particular emotional link to other citizens of your own country, there are obvious practical issues, most of which stem from the fact that newly unemployed/poor 'native' citizens aren't going to be deported.

Having said this, Krugman's column is a bit of a shocker. It would have gained from a line at the start of the effect of "If I was to make a case against immigration, this is how I would do it". The estimates he uses on the costs to lowly-educated 'native' Americans are the ones at the high-end of the range studies have found. He doesn't suggest other means by which the impact of immigation could be improved. But this isn't KrugmanWatch, so I'll shut up.

A bonus post

2006-03-26T23:16:00.000-08:00

We're now just over a week into this site, and its reception has been just fantastic. Already (in the comments!) we've been attacked by Timophiles, for being pointless, bad at grammar, a non-English speaker. But we've also been criticised by Timophobes for not being ruthless enough in destroying his arguments, or something like that. This is all based on writing only about two substantial posts.

"Quit whilst you're ahead", goes the old saying. But that would be too easy. We're in this for the long term. Or a least four weeks, depending on whether it gets sufficiently warmer in Europe to allow a holiday.

Sunday 26th March

2006-03-26T05:19:00.000-08:00

Oh dear, I actually got off my lazy backside and wrote a long piece, which I seem to have deleted. I'll be quick then - the Tim post which is worthy of a comment today is the one on education and women's earnings.

To summarise the post which is now sitting in some cache in the sky.

1. Tim has written a lot of good and informative posts on this.
2. I think he rather glosses over the use of the 'educated' in Alison Wolf's article, which in turns means 'professional' and refers (in this case) to only 13% of women in employment.
3. The full article though also mainains that the large pay gap of 66% of lifetime earnings for the least educated women (compared to 12% for educated women with children) is due to rational choices on part-time work and bringing up children.
4. That educated women are having fewer children because of a 12% lifetime pay gap seems strange, and Wolf's article doesn't really explain it, though I think she means also in terms of time at work foregone and the cost of bringing up children.
5. Where I might differ from Tim here is that I think his policy desires would make things worse. The nation has an interest in its poplation being maintained. That less-educated women have children therefore is a good thing. The huge pay loss they take (66% of lifetime earnings) is partly made up by government subsidies - child benefit, child trust fund, free heathcare and free education. Tim wants to do away with this and replace it with a negative income tax. This would almost certainly lower the income of lower-educated women, and would certainly raise the relative cost of having children. It's unclear what it would do for the choices of higher-educated women.

Saturday 25th March

2006-03-25T04:44:00.000-08:00

Nine posts but nothing that particularly stands out as worthy of a comment. This Watching lark is easy than you might think if you don't actually bother to write anything.

Update

2006-03-24T13:46:00.000-08:00

I missed a classic Worstall.

He in one post says:

It’s? Its? Do you still get marked down for grammar and punctuation these days?

So, someone wrote It's, rather than Its. This Worstall believes is worthy of a post. A reason to avoid a company. A commenter notes however in a post just two below that Worstall has written:

Or take it further and connect the delightful young heiress, that very same Paris Hilton, with the full phrase in all it's original glory

Oh dear.

Thursday 23rd March and Friday 24th March

2006-03-24T07:36:00.000-08:00

Less than a week gone and already I'm falling behind. Hello to all my new readers - and thanks for the kind comments and tips.

So two days and another 14 posts. Not a great deal to say about most of them again.

This post on Paul Krugman is weird. It's admittedly rather hypocritical for a Watcher like myself to label someone else obsessive but Worstall does seem to have some issues with Professor Krugman. Today's post is particularly strange. I think Worstall's entire criticism is that Krugman uses the word 'rich', which means someone with a large wealth, when he is really describing someone with a large income. That rather minor linguistic quibble gets him so overexcited he begins the post:

Oh dear. Ooops, indeed. Even Heh.

For otherwise there is nothing wrong with Krugman's analysis. As pointed out in the comments, Gates' has an enormous income, far higher than 'middle class'. Furthermore spending your wealth does not make you have a negative income. Obviously.

Wednesday, 22nd March

2006-03-22T12:42:00.000-08:00

Here we go again. 14 posts. Most of them pretty bog-standard.

Only one classic Worstall. He declares that France isn't a market-economy, and rubbishes a claim by an economist that labour regulation doesn't affect the overall level of employment. Nothing is provided in terms of evidence, indeed it is left to 'Dsquared' in the comments to point out that in fact this is what a report indeed shows.

Pooterism

2006-03-21T05:52:00.000-08:00

There's a lovely Pooterish moment on the Daily Ablution today:

The implication here is that the opinions of a "professional" - like, let us say, Yasmin Alibhai-Brown - are somehow superior to those of the average informed and interested observer. I see no reason to assume this to be the case. If I was to become established as a highly paid professional blogger (Inshallah!), while Ms. Alibhai-Brown simultaneously quits her job to maintain a non-income-generating blog, would the objective values of our observations suddenly be transposed?

21st March 2006

2006-03-21T05:22:00.000-08:00

Blimey, they keep on comin'. Today's 13 (count 'em) posts are again not particularly contentious, though we have the usual embarassing spectacle of Worstall attacking Polly Toynbee for her grasp of economics. His record on this is not brilliant.

In response to Toynbee's assertion:

Ernst & Young is quoted all over the rightwing press with a spurious calculation that households now pay "the equivalent of" £9,000 extra tax under Labour. Weasel words, "the equivalent of". That would be the case only if every household earned the same and paid the same taxes, rolling in business and all other taxes. But that's nonsense in this wildly unequal society.

Worstall says :

Err, all taxes are paid by households. Just as all income flows, in the end, to households.

This is an obvious misreading of her point. I think what has happened is Worstall knows that people often make the mistake of saying that businesses pay taxes, when in fact at the end of the day only people can pay taxes (though it's more complex than this, obviously), and he hasn't bothered to see if Toynbee has made the mistake. Her point is of course that households pay different taxes, and earn different amounts of money. In other words the 'average' is not representative (as in fact is surely the case).

To her point that the corporation tax is the lowest in Europe he offers this:

Given that the amount raised in Corporation Tax has been rising, difficult to see that NuLab cut anything but the rate, isn’t it?

No, it isn't difficult. The amount raised by corporation tax could be rising for three reasons. Most obviously that the burden of it has been raised, which is what Worstall wants to argue. But also of course the amount raised will rise with a) an increase in the rate of taxable profits, and b) an increase in inflation. Worstall provides no information for us to come to any conclusions.

Monday 20th March and the bloody weekend!

2006-03-20T01:57:00.000-08:00

Oh lord. Tim blogs on the weekend too. This wasn't realised. Anyway it gives us an excuse to be brief.

The post on Single Double Time makes some claims about the position of Britain - to the West of Europe - that are only partially true. Parts of France, most of Spain and obviously Portugal and Ireland (though they are also on GMT) are further west.

The post on taxation perhaps illustrates what's the worst thing about Worstall's site. He is very keen on repeating things he reads in newspapers without checking what they actually mean. In this case Minford's 'study', which is repeated in more detail in The Business and very similarly, but apparently based on the author's own work, in The Sunday Telegraph.

The Times basically misreported it - the calculation is of a marginal tax rate, ie it's what you pay on every extra £100 earned, not on every £100 earned. This was not made clear in the Times' report. Furthermore it is not clear on what basis the numbers have been calculated - it is not easy to work out what is paid in VAT or excise duty on marginal income, as it has to be spent, not saved, and then spent on things that incur either.

Nothing that remarkable in the rest.

Friday, 17th March

2006-03-17T01:39:00.000-08:00

Not the greatest of launch days for this blog, as Worstall's output is relatively fact-free today. And I'm not going to start going over old posts. So all in all, very depressing.

Welcome!

2006-03-15T08:25:00.000-08:00

Welcome to WorstallWatch, a blog which aims to look at the statistical accuracy of British right-wing pundits and bloggers, in particularly Tim Worstall. The reason for forming this blog his hopefully not to continually point out errors in the pieces, but encourage a better standard of right-wing blogging. Indeed Worstall is by no means the worst offender, and his blog is one of the better ones, but his voluminous output at least means we might have something to write about.