With genuine reluctance, I find myself obliged to ban Larry from St Louis from commenting on this blog.
I am extremely happy for people to comment on this blog who disagree with my views. It makes it much more interesting for everybody. I wish more people who disagree would comment.
But Larry has a different agenda. His technique is continually to accuse me of holding opinions which I do not in fact hold, and which he thinks will call my judgement into doubt.
Take this comment posted by Larry at 9.35 am today:
I’ve re-read your post on the Russian spies, and once again you’ve proven to be a complete dumbass.
I predicted Russia claiming (in some minor way) those idiots. You didn’t. You thought it was a conspiracy.
You’ve once again self-indicted.
In fact my view on the Russian spies was the exact opposite of what Larry claims it was. As I posted:
I don’t have any difficulty in believing that the FBI really have discovered a colony of Russian sleeper spies in the United States.
https://www.craigmurray.org.uk/archives/2010/06/those_russian_s.html#comments
This is not Larry being mistaken – remember he claimed he had just re-read my posting. It is rather indicative of a very deliberate technique he has used scores of times, that of claiming I hold an opinion which he believes will devalue my other arguments in the mind of other readers, when I do not in fact hold that opinion.
He most often – indeed daily – does this with reference to 9/11. He tries to divert almost every thread on to the topic of 9/11 and to insinuate that I am among those who believe that 9/11 was “an inside job”. In fact, I am not of that opinion and never have been.
I have put up with this now for months, but Larry’s activities have become so frenetic and are so counter-productive to informed debate, I am not prepared to put up with it any more. I am also deeply sucpicious of the fact that he is able to spend more time on this blog than me, and to post right around the clock (often as with this one at 9.35am – think about it – what time is that in the US?).
Anyway, sorry Larry, your derailing days are over.
.
and, of course, shouting ‘genocide’ and trying to turn nationality against nationality is not precisely a cause. Or if it, is, a rather black one. “Hans, we are wearing black and have little skulls and crossbones on our caps. Has it ever occurred to you we might be on the wrong side?”
“the “misleading facts, spurious accusations, and outbursts of random anger” services…”
The Ministry of Silly Talks ?
Expect a tirade, anytime soon.
Yeah, Leicester seems like quite a harmonious place, compared to some. So does the Isle of Lewis, to where my publisher has re-located. Although I hear from friends there that Stornoway can have its moments…
Barra is a lovely island, wonderful beaches. The Atlantic rolls in, its undertow strong enough to pull a house down fathoms. But the inland-facing coast is tranquil, with lilting, turquoise waters.
There is an almost constant, low-grade wind which makes the roads actually quite dangerous for pedestrians. Because normally, you hear cars coming behind you before you see them and if you can’t hear them…
I met a film director in Leicester once. He was aged, and had directed some key social realist – but also musical and evocative – films of the 1930s and 1940s in India/ Pakistan. He’d introduced actors and actresses who’d later become enormously famous stars. But partly due to political factors and partly, the crass decay of the film industry in Pakistan, he was frustrated that his work largely seemed to have been forgotten, studied by film students and known to those working in the film world, but not more widely, except to those of his own age-group.
Zia Sarhadi was his name. There’s material on YouTube if you want to check it out. He died a couple of years later (late-1990s). ‘Hum Loag’ (‘We People’), 1951 was one of his key films. ‘Nadan’ was another. ‘Footpath’, another. He was also a lyricist and wrote songs for Lata Mangeshkar, Asha Bhosle and many others.
I talked with him about all this while we were sitting in a new shopping-mall in Leicester, watching the escalators slide up and down, up and down, everything shiny, reflective. He was the oldest entity in the mall.
I say all this to illustrate that there are many narratives and many histories which overlap and are intertwined in very profound ways. Rather than erect barriers and constantly try to seek fissures and divisions, it is better sometimes to listen to the wind and to the songs of old men.
Say goodnight to the folks, Gracie.
Pray tell me, Sir, whose dog are you ?
I find it either sad, or funny (can’t decide) that alan campbell for example, deigns to pop in and leave one line comments on a blog full of nutters. Perhaps, it occurred to me, he & Alfred just want attention?
Go ahead, alan, say a bit about yourself. Share with us!
Lads, I’d love to be able to join you in your splendid conspiraloon isolation. It would make the world seem a much simpler place and help me feel so much more significant and self-important, but no thanks.
PS what happened to those troubling late night phone-calls from Mossad?
“Lads, I’d love to be able to join you in your splendid conspiraloon isolation. It would make the world seem a much simpler place and help me feel so much more significant and self-important, but no thanks.”
Well, no-one’s forcing you to make these posts, are they, if you really don’t feel you have anything to say ?
Good point.
——“Not that I’m contesting the figures, they may well be right, it’s just the concept of the CIA publishing a “Factbook”.”——-
It’s an absolutely excellent source of information. You shouldn’t let your prejudices run away with you.
Here’s an interesting post from Postman Patel about trolling, Scotland Yard and
Dame Neville-Jones:
‘Race Riot in Whitehall 14/7/07 – nicely cooking
Odins girl88 on her(?) curious website “Idid it for the lulz” http://odinsgirl88.blogspot.com/ on Friday, 1 June 2007 points to two very curious videos posted by SalafiUK who registered as a You Tube contributor on 29th May. (“I did it for the lulz”. This usually refers to deliberate trolling behavior intended to harass Internet users for the amusement of others….said to derive from the much used acronym LOL for “laugh out loud” – hence “lulz” has the triumphant cry of the schadenfreudist, revelling in the misfortune of others.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=nFnR6bUGCvo
Upon which she comments :
“Some enterprising muslim has bodged up a video to advertise the forthcoming “Muslims against British Oppression” march aka “Please don’t lock us up for having child porn and bomb making equipment” march…..Please flag it and report as hate speech. Thanks.”
To the casual viewer this decently made short video might be seen as a short direct call to action for the “Muslims Rise Against British Oppression Demonstration”: Outside 10 Downing St Fri 15th June 2.30pm – 5pm
There is also another video from the same mysterious source.
If these fillums represent the propaganda of the Muslim jihad then my name’s Osama Bin Laden.
Quite whose propaganda they DO represent and quite why jihadist watchers like odins gal 88 spot them so quickly … well the Sphincter of the Yard may have more information…maybe even the Lady Dame Jane Patricia Neville Jones Fan Club at the RUSI – who are incidentally well placed just off Whitehall to watch it all go down.
—–“I read it somewhere but cannot verify it on the Web.”——
Yea, you’d have to Google “GDP India” or “GDP UK”.
The figures you are giving from the CIA factbook are PPP figures. The nominal figures are here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29
PPP figures are useful when making a linear comparison in a country’s GDP over the years since exchange rate fluctuations wouldn’t completely distort the figure if the PPP was altered every year.
They are misleading for nearly everything else, as the basket of goods and services is skewed towards one particular spending profile (and is very much biased to inflate countries that have cheap services).
——“What is correct is that India’s GDP on a purchasing power parity basis is much larger than Britain’s, This suggests that India’s capital resources are larger than Britain’s, since otherwise one would have to infer that the Indians get a better return on capital that the Brits, which seems unlikely.”——-
You’ve absolutely no idea what PPP is. What has the cost of a haircut or a loaf of bread got to do with return on capital?
Stephen Jones,
thanks for the clarification; it seemed odd that you defended the CIA Factbook figures when they apparently contradicted the figures you quoted yourself.
Like I said, I don’t assume that the CIA Factbook is misleading; the concept just made me laugh. Y’know, they’re usually quite keen on covering stuff up…
SIXTY MILLION INDIANS WEALTHIER THAN THE ENTIRE POPULATION OF BRITAIN
Clark,
On reflection, it seems likely that the above statement is correct, give or take a few billion.
Last night I was distracted by discussion of GDP numbers. But wealth and income are entirely different things and do not have the same relationship with one another in different economies.
The BBC document I linked to last night
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/south_asia/6257057.stm
asserts that India’s wealthiest 5%, or around sixty million people, own 38% of the nation’s wealth. For that 38% of national wealth to exceed the aggregate wealth of all Britons, India’s total wealth would have to be at least 2.6 times that of Britain, which seems entirely reasonable.
Much of the wealth of India, as of any country, consists in land and buildings. India is ten times the size of the UK and likely has at least ten times as many buildings. That difference alone, would probably mean a several-fold difference in total wealth. But actual numbers are hard to come by and probably don’t mean much anyway.
That India’s total wealth relative to Britain’s is much greater than its GDP relative to Britain’s would not be surprising. A greater proportion of wealth in Britain than in India is in the form of financial assets (stocks and shares held directly, or indirectly through insurance policies or retirement funds). Such assets yield a higher return (i.e., contribute more to GDP) than land and buildings, which are likely the predominant component of wealth in India. The reason is that all financial assets are supposed to yield income, whereas if I own a house and live in it, I have wealth but derive no income from it. Equally, if I have a small landholding and live off the produce, I have wealth but no income that is recorded in GDP statistics.
So I stick with the assertion that India is very much wealthier than Britain in natural resources, human resources and capital.
As for your admonition to check my facts more carefully, I would say that I always do try to check my facts. I suppose I can try to try harder.
But yes, I make mistakes. What is life but an unending struggle to correct mistakes? At least I try to acknowledge mistakes when I find them.
Ruth,
I guess I should be flattered that you think I in intelligence. It sort of implies I must be sort of really intelligent.
However, such speculation is futile without evidence.
Unfortunately, my old school buddy Postman Patel is no longer around to vouch for the fact that I am not really that intelligent at all.
However, he did post this prescient article about Iraq on my web site before the Shock and Awe began.
http://canadianspectator.ca/stuff/beekeepers.html
So unless you think Edward was working with the intelligence community, your thesis seems highly questionable.
Technicolour,
you’re on, though it’ll have to be a virtual fiver, as we’re unlikely to get confirmation one way or the other.
Rain tomorrow, in the South-East, methinks. I certainly hope so, it’s been dry for too long. Raincoats and dark glasses all week for some, though, as Suhayl will confirm!
Alfred,
exactly. India is much bigger and more populous, so you’d expect it to have more wealth. But you can do the same thing with random numbers.
Generate 60 million random numbers (between 0 and 100, say), and add them all together, call the result “A”.
Now, generate 30 times 60 million random numbers (using the same random number generator, 0 to 100). Pick the 60 million *highest numbers* from this second set and add them all together; call this “B”.
“B” is very nearly certainly much bigger than “A”.
*This* is what you should have spotted; nothing to do with wealth or GDP or buildings, just pure statistics.
Tedious and obvious as this is, I suppose someone should point it out.
If India is about 2.6 times as wealthy as Britain, but has over 30 times the population, Indians on average are much poorer than Britons. If we use GDP the situation for Indians is much worse.
But we all knew that anyway.
thanks clark for facts & fiver!
Here Alfred is the source of the figures the BBC gives in its link:
http://economics.uwo.ca/faculty/davies/workingpapers/thelevelanddistribution.pdf
Be aware it’s a 56-page .pdf.
If you go to pages 51 to 52 you’ll see figures for World Wealth for all countries in the survey. Using official exchange rates (which is what the survey recommends you use when dealing with the high percentiles of income distribution) you’ll find that India has 0.91% of the world’s wealth, and the UK 5.94%. Using PPP figures the UK still comes out ahead, with 4.71% to India’s 4.14%
Technicolour,
you haven’t won the fiver yet. It remains in a state of quantum superposition pending inspection of Craig’s server logs, at the minimum.
In any case, for most of history India (or the area which is now India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) was wealthier than Britain.
When envoys from the Court of James I (VI of Scotland) visited Jahangir’s Court, there was no doubt which was the more advanced civilisation.
It was only really from the time of the Industrial Revolution, which, of course started in Britain, that the relative wealth shifted. Same with China. Of course the gradual colonisation of India – which in Britain accompanied and paralleled the Industrial Revolution and accelerated after the loss of the American colonies – was a double-edged sword. India (and I mean India, not the other two) is only now recovering to a position where it can claim once again to be a real power. That’s not all Britains’s ‘fault’, of course, but colonisation definitely played a major part in it.
Same but also very different, with China.
Overall, taking the long view, maritime imperial colonisation was probably not good for India. But it happened, it’s over and we – whether in Britain or India, Pakistan, Bangladesh – and the world we inhabit are all part of the result.
Romila Thapar is a good start – and much more – on the history of India.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Romila_Thapar
Stephen,
Thanks for pointing out the link within the link.
I see the national wealth numbers given are for 2000. But according to the CIA World Fact Book, India had a real growth rate 2007-2009 of over 7%. At that rate the economy and quite likely wealth would have doubled between 2000 and now, whereas the UK had a negative 4.8% real growth rate in 2009, and likely rather slight real growth during the 2000-2010 period. Therefore, India’s real wealth versus Britain’s could have doubled since 2000. So I may not have been so far out in my estimate.
However, such figures should probably be taken with a certain amount of salt, which may be why the Fact Book does not provide estimates of national wealth.
One reason I question the data is that it seems unlikely that India’s GDP to wealth ratio would be higher than Britain’s. It seems to me it should be the other way round, since a larger share of wealth in India is in land which likely yields a rather low return on investment.
Clark,
You say “*This* is what you should have spotted; nothing to do with wealth or GDP or buildings, just pure statistics.”
No, you’re wrong. The result of the operation you describe will be about three billion plus or minus a very small percentage every time.
Think about it some more.
And obviously the average wealth and income in India is less than in Britain, but it was quite clear that I was talking about aggregate wealth and income.
Suhalyl,
You say “In any case, for most of history India (or the area which is now India, Pakistan and Bangladesh) was wealthier than Britain.”
Hasn’t India always been wealthier than Britain? It has always been ten times the size, or larger including Pakistan and Bangla Desh. And it has always had vastly more people.
Maybe I am simply antidiluvian in my physiocratic belief that land and the people it supports is the basis of all wealth and its only useful measure.
Yes, I suppose it’s just me. I should value my car, my savings account and whatever more than my children.
——“One reason I question the data is that it seems unlikely that India’s GDP to wealth ratio would be higher than Britain’s”——-
What do you mean by this?
——-“Hasn’t India always been wealthier than Britain?”——-
Not after the British had been in charge 100 years.
Actually the standard of living of the average Indian peasant was higher than that of his British equivalent until the second half of the 19th century. The change initially ocurred because under British rule the Indian peasant actually became worse off.
“Yes, I suppose it’s just me. I should value my car, my savings account and whatever more than my children.” Alfred
No, Alfred, I’m sure you rightly value your children above everything.
Alfred,
you haven’t specified which operation, the one that leads to A or the one that leads to B. But since you’ve specified approx 3 billion, you presumably mean A. B comes to nearly 6 billion (ignoring wild coincidences; in fact anything between 0 and 6 billion is possible for A or B, but vanishingly unlikely).
6 billion is much greater than 3 billion; are you sure I’m wrong?
But this all assumes that we are using a random number generator that has an equal probability of producing each number between 0 and 100. Wealth isn’t distributed like that; less and less people hold more and more wealth. This amplifies the disparity by making A smaller and B many times greater.
But Alfred, at least I did think of it. I think that you may have missed it because the figures you found suited your argument.
Compare Historical Data of Countries side by side –
http://www.indexmundi.com/
g/g.aspx?c=in&c=uk&v=65&v=67&v=94&v=118
“The result of the operation you describe will be about three billion plus or minus a very small percentage every time.”
I notice Clark did not say “generate 60 million random numbers 30 times.” – he said “generate 30 times 60 million random numbers” which IS analogous to your comparison against the top 1/30th of the *whole* of India.
(not the top 1/30th random subset of India)
Assuming equal distribution of random numbers the first value would be about 3 billion, but the second value would be about 5.9 billion.
(100 + (100-100/30) )/2 * 60 million