Wowzer!! How's This For Being Totally & Utterly Misconstrued?

So this happened, and it's one of those rare things that when it does happen it reveals fascinating things about humans. I just joined a Mensa debating forum containing what seemed like a few select, intelligent people, and just as I was given access by the admin, a woman called Amber happened to start a thread with her opening statement - a statement that was definitely wrong.

So, maintaining politeness at all times, I made a statement that was definitely right and contrary to what she had reasoned, and subsequently a couple of people joined the thread to tell me how wrong I was. Then after explaining to them where they were going wrong, they were so shocked at what I was saying they accused me of being a troll and within 20 minutes the admin had banned me! By then there were about six contributors + Amber, all thinking I was saying what I was saying to wind them up, when actually I was explaining what are, admittedly counter-intuitive, but absolutely correct points.

It is fascinating when you meet people who are so confused that the opposite of their falsity (the truth) seems so bizarre that they mistake you for a trolling nutter who is not even worthy to remain in the group.

Those that want to know what the discussion was about will be pleased to know that I copy and pasted all the text before losing access to the group, and put the meat of it in this blog post I just created. It's a funny old world!

 

There is only one negative thing that comes from having frequent sexual encounters with multiple partners - there is more chance that sexually transmitted diseases will be passed on.

(Opening statement in a Mensa group. from a lady called Amber)

Realising that that is not just wrong, but the opposite of the truth, I responded with:

Actually, no, there is only one positive thing that comes from having frequent sexual encounters with multiple partners - there is less chance that sexually transmitted diseases will be passed on. 

Here is how the rest of the conversation went.

Amber: Do pray tell James how?

JK: Here’s how it works - the more people in the promiscuity pool, the more people having one night stands, which means those infected have a reduced chance of having sex, which equals a reduced chance of the infected ones passing on their infection. It is counter-intuitive, but many true things are.  It may seem intuitively that the more people you have in a pool of people who are having sex when one has an STD, the more people end up having STDs, but precisely the opposite is true! The more people you have in a pool of people who are having sex when one has an STD, the fewer people end up having STDs. It's a simple case of numbers - the more people in the pool, the greater the competition, so the greater likelihood that Mr. infected won't pass on his DNA.

Ronald:  Maybe this is true on the first go-round. However, that one person infects at least one other -- then you have two others with an infection to spread, and they infect two others... You begin to see the logical progression there?

JK: But that isn't correct, and here's why... I'll try to explain it in a bit more detail - first I'll show you with the mathematics, then I'll back it up with an analogy.

THE MATHEMATICAL REASON: Suppose you go for a night on the town full of people on the pull. That is what we've called the 'pool' - and it consists of, say, forty people; twenty are infected, twenty are uninfected, and you don't know which is which. This means you have a 50-50 chance of finding a safe partner. Now let's say that next weekend the same forty people are out, but it's the annual carnival, where an extra one thousand people are out on the pull. You now have about a 1/25 chance of finding a non-safe partner - hence, the more people you have in a pool of people who are having sex when a few are infected, the fewer people end up being infected. Further, you mustn't mistakenly think that every single person is going to get lucky - the pool won't facilitate everyone's success (mathematically it's almost impossible) - so by adding more to the pool you increase the number of safe people, and thereby reduce the chances that the infected people will get lucky and thus pass on their DNA.

THE ANALOGY: Think of it in terms of pollution - pollution is when a pernicious external force finds its way into a benign or neutral system (it could be ecological, physiological, or whatever). Having a smaller pool is analogous to increased pollution because (to put it bluntly) by not being in the pool the uninfected majority would diminish the chances of an overall de-pollution. Or if you prefer, the pollution rates are greater with a smaller pool. If you are one of the recklessly promiscuous people with a high probability of being one of the infected you add pollution to the pool every time you ingratiate yourself into it. If you are one of the infected, your chances of pulling are decreased by the greater numbers in the pool, because competition for mates becomes fiercer.

Let's now put this into practice by looking at your statement and seeing which way the logic takes us. You said: "Maybe on the first go-round. However, that one person infects at least one other -- then you have two others with an infection to spread, and they infect two others... You begin to see the logical progression there?"

Now then, you are right that one person infects at least one other, and you are right that you then have two others with an infection to spread. But looked at carefully you should be able to see that your statement vindicates me, not you. The reason is this; what would make the pool safer and less polluted - by making it smaller? No, that will only make it less safe and more susceptible to pollution. But if we do what I said the logic dictates and add more people to it, we make pollution less conducive - thus we have a safer pool.

Amber: James your scenario is unsound. It assumes that your small group will be heavily infected, and a large group will be strongly uninfected, thus diluting the infected group. But there's no valid reason to assume your starting assumptions.

JK: Amber, I'm afraid you're mistaken - what I've said is not to do with forecasts about the difference between a small and large group's infection rate. It is to do with more people lowering the probability that the infected ones will get the chance to pass on their infection.

Ronald: But if you pick 20 random people from the population and have sex with one, or pick 1,000 people at random from the population and have sex with one, your odds of encountering an STD are exactly the same.

JK: This is another mistaken approach because it requires an assumption based on no background information. But with the above example you do have background information - you know that the people entering the pool are low risk entrants because they are not promiscuous. I have explained this in my last post - the logic is correct, and its veracity is self-evident because it is based on mathematical facts.

Ok, look, you mustn’t think of the non-promiscuous people having lower probability than the promiscuous people, because you’re forgetting my original claim – that an increased pool of promiscuous people would reduce the spread of infection. That’s the point – we are saying the whole pool is now promiscuous, so you cannot simply imagine that it is only the infected people who are promiscuous.

The reality is, the pool is full of promiscuous people, and the more people that enter it the less likely that infected people will spread their infection. Pretend you are one new person in the pool, and you have been sexually cautious in the past. It's great for the pool that you've decided to become promiscuous. Your presence in the pool is good on two counts (probabilistically): if you pull an uninfected partner you divert that partner from a potentially more precarious tryst; if you pull an infected partner you divert that partner from giving it to someone who might spread it at a more proliferated rate than you. Rinse and repeat that cycle every weekend! ;-)

It's not just that the individual's chances of safe sex are greater, it is also the case that a larger pool = the less likely that infected people will spread their infection! It's a 100% mathematical fact of conditional probability. You keep mistakenly assuming that every single person in the pool is going to mate every single time, when I've already said that's not the case.

Louis: "having frequent sexual encounters with multiple partners - there is less chance that sexually transmitted diseases will be passed on" says James Knight. I think we have a troll in the midst, only an attention-seeker would make such a ridiculous claim. 

JK: Yes, it could be that I'm just trying to seek attention from a bunch of people I've just met and with whom I'm only ever going to have the weakest of social ties, or it could be that, in actual fact, everyone who has contributed to the thread thus far is not quite yet seeing why what I've said is right. I believe that what I’ve said already in this thread more than comprehensively conveys the truth of my claim. I grant you, though, it is somewhat counter-intuitive, and is perhaps akin to a circuit board epistemology where one sudden eureka light can light up the whole situation, leaving you wondering how you missed it to begin with. I suppose these things require a bit more wrestling with precisely because they are counter to our intuitions. Our minds have not evolved to accept counter-intuitive notions very easily - and when one considers things like, say, monotonic voting systems, 0.999 denoting a real number that can be shown to be 1, water being heavier in liquid form than in solid form, the Monty Hall problem, and things of that nature that confound the more intuitive feelings, one understands why a crowd can pull together and argue in the opposite direction.

The picture makes sense to me because, as I said, I imagined a heuristic model in which infection was seen in terms of pollution. In this instance the pollution model meant that a counter-intuitive notion was quite clear. What I've argued is not incorrect - perhaps it requires you to gather it together in a different way - but whatever works for you really. Once you think of it in terms of economics it's fairly obvious really - that if you are a frivolously promiscuous individual with a high probability of causing infection, you are going to pollute the partner pool every time you enter into it with the intention of promiscuity — and for the good of the pool you should be discouraged, just as anybody causing pollution should be discouraged. Therefore, the corollary of that - arguing with the signs reversed - is that that if you are a very circumspect individual with less propensity for promiscuity and a low probability of infection then you are going to improve the quality of the partner pool every time you enter into it. Evidently, in the case of the latter, that’s the opposite of causing pollution, and it would make the pool less polluted - the more of these types, the merrier - for precisely the same reasons that pollution should be discouraged.

Amber: Your whole argument is surely set on the faulty assumption that there's a reliance on the external forces diluting more than helping it spread, is it not?

JK: No Amber, it has precious little to do with the extent to which external forces dilute, it is to do with rates at which infected people copulate, and an increase in pool size reducing the rate, where everyone in the pool is equally promiscuous. More people in the pool, more competition, less success for the infected ones. Hence, my above comment. If you keep increasing the pool further, you will keep diminishing the chances of one of the infected ones pulling a mate, because statistically more of the safer people will pull (this is the nature of probability). You'll keep making the pool safer by adding more fresh promiscuity to it, because those additions will increase the competition further, and continue to lessen the probability that one of the infected will get to pass on his or her DNA on any given night! The competition means that they will pull less frequently. Which means they will get the chance to pass on their infection less frequently. Add even more to the pool and this infrequency is more probabilistic, and so on.

Louis: Yep definitely trolling.

JK: Or in other words, Louis, you don't have a comeback because this conversation is over your head, so you resort to crass, baseless accusations. Look it's fine if you don't get it - like I said, some counter-intuitive things require a bit more of a lateral approach, but if you think about it carefully you will be able to arrive at the same conclusion I have.  

Ruedi: If I understood James Knight correctly, I think his argument works as long as he can keep the sample population expanding at a faster rate than the infection rate. That's not really a feasible approach - sooner or later, the population will reach infinite or somewhere near that, and at that point, the infection risk will catch up and neutralize earlier gains

JK: Hi Ruedi, thanks for an attempt at least at some kind of sensible engagement. I think you nearly got it right when you said "his argument works as long as he can keep the sample population expanding at a faster rate than the infection rate", but then you go off track by saying "That's not really a feasible approach - sooner or later, the population will reach infinite or somewhere near that, and at that point, the infection risk will catch up and neutralize earlier gains."

No, no it won’t. You're missing the vital component in the equation, which is increased competition. As the percentage of infected people is reduced (or equivalently we add more uninfected) there is less chance that they have sex because competition is greater. This could even eventuate in a situation where there is only one infected person who as the group increases in size never gets look in and is thus squeezed out, never seeing intercourse. If you keep adding fresh blood to the pool it is likely you will have a situation where the infected percentage actually goes down as they die off and fail to breed new germs by passing them on. How do I know that? Because that is exactly what happens in biological evolution where alleles get fixed in a population in evolution and others die out. What my pollution model shows is that there exists some critical value of the percentage of the infected where it starts to increase – it’s what’s call the tipping point; on one side of the tipping point the infected percentage goes down and on the other side it goes up – we just need more and more fresh blood to ensure the infected percentage continues to diminish.

Louis: I just cannot believe you've got us all engaging in dialogue about a ludicrous claim that more people in a pool where because of sexual activity diseases will spread makes it more safe than when there are less people in the pool. I'm still calling troll.

JK: Ah, still nothing to contribute except this tiresomely narrow philosophical pez dispenser analysis, Louis - I've all but given up on you guys. I'm not sure I can say much more to convince if you don't already get it by now. I'm reminded of the obvservation by Charles Babbage about having an opponent who strikes him as so confused that he is difficult to understand - "I am not able rightly to apprehend the kind of confusion of ideas that could provoke such a question". Ho hum!

I'll have one last crack and then I'm outta here. What you guys have done is erroneously made an assumption that assumes that the probability of infected person copulating is a constant whereas I have repeatedly told you that this decreases with the percentage of uninfected persons in the pool due to competition factors. This in itself would lead to a reduction in the rate of increase of the percent infection; however the absolute numbers infected would still increase.

I haven’t even needed to do this yet as the mathematics justifies it alone – but if I wanted to present more of the real life model I could factor in the disabling effects of the infection - that is the infection causes a loss of the ability to breed the infection - hence infected people are going to drop out of the copulatory pool (when most people find out they have an infection they wilfully remove themselves from casual sex). The infected population is subject to, not one, but two competing rates; not just the rate of increase of new blood but also the rate at which they fall out of the "germ breeding" pool. This means that as the number of uninfected people increases the rate at which the infected persons can spread the infection is less than their disablement rate. Hence their population involved in breeding the germ reduces. If this continues they will die out completely.

It is not that being infected significantly affects competition, it is being in a group in which more members are added - it's not just the infected people who are having less sex - almost everyone in the pool is having less sex (on average) - but because the uninfected new blood astronomically dwarfs the infected, the rate at which the infected's sex drops is more significant than the rate at which the uninfected's sex drops - because remember we are showing that the infection is getting diminished in the pool.

There really isn't much more I need to say in this conversation except that everything you need to establish my opening remark - that with more new people in the pool there is less chance that sexually transmitted diseases will be passed on - is contained in this discussion.

(End of discussion)

After that discussion thread, which I'm glad I saved now, I found I could no longer access the thread or the group, which means I must have been banned - a truly odd thing to happen given that everyone else was getting the wrong end of the stick, and I was actually the only one getting the right end of it. It's a crazy situation to encounter people so unable to grasp the truth that to them the truth seems crazy, and the messenger a troll. I suppose one is reminded of Nietzsche and the quote about those who were seen dancing being thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.

Anyway, after my ban, I decided to do a bit of research to see if anyone had undertaken any studies on this matter - and to my (not that much of a) surprise I found that a guy called Michael Kremer has a 54 page paper that goes into all the ins and outs of why what I said above is the case.

There's a lot of text to sift through, which I sped-read earlier before wring this blog post - but the first equation on page 16 and the surrounding text is most germane to the discussion above  The first equation on page 16 gives us the value of the rate of change of infection (the Y with a dot over it), with the tell tale being the minus sign where the "Y dot" is equal to the rate of increase of infection minus the death rate of the infected.  

I wish I could have survived just an extra few hours so that people in the group could have seen the proof, rather than them all thinking I'm some kind of trolling nutter who was just there to wind them up. Like I said, it's a funny old world!

Inequality - 5 Myths Debunked: Myth 5

Concluding the series…

Myth 5: Only a few people make the world unequal.

Reality: In actual fact, we all make the world more unequal.

It's not just those in the top earning bracket that make society more unequal, we consumers make it more unequal too. In most cases however you spend your money you are making the world a more unequal place. When you buy £100 worth of goods at Sainsbury's you are helping shareholders earn a bit more in dividends. Most shareholders are better off than most people in the UK, and nearly everyone in the developing world - therefore you are contributing to income inequality. Even more extreme, when you buy a new CD, or go to the cinema, or buy tickets to Jimmy Carr's latest comedy show, or purchase a new car, or buy a best-selling author's new book you are distributing some money to some of the richest people in society - authors, actors, musicians, car manufactures, and so forth.

Clearly from an economic perspective there is nothing wrong with that. When you buy Radiohead's new album you make the band members and the record company a little bit better off, but you also reward their hard work in making an album. Equally importantly, the transaction is full of winners; Radiohead and the record company and the retail seller all gain by making a profit, and you gain because you obtain something that you valued more than the money it cost to buy it. But you also made the world a bit more of an unequal place.

Tied into this myth is the myth that when a country increases its inequality it decreases its prosperity. I don't know how anyone could think that's true. The reality can be conveyed by simply imagining this. If the UK saw its own equivalent of Bill Gates, Warren Buffett, Michael Bloomberg and Mark Zuckerberg rise to the top, it's obvious that as a result the UK would become simultaneously more unequal yet more prosperous.

End of series - hope it was helpful and edifying!

 

Inequality - 5 Myths Debunked: Myth 4

Continuing the series…

Myth 4: A rich place like the UK has far too much inequality.

Reality: The UK's inequality is a sign that things are improving for developing nations.

To see why inequality in the UK is not a problem, we need to talk about its relationship with global inequality. The general wisdom on global inequality is roughly this: that a much more globalised free market is helping poorer countries develop a lot quicker than they used to, and incidentally at a faster rate than the richer ones. Notice the key word there being 'global' inequality. National inequality - that is, in-country inequality in places like the UK and USA is rising.

An increase in in-county inequality in places like the UK and USA is exactly what you should expect to see when there is a decrease in global inequality, because people in wealthy nations in the lowest and second lowest quintile are now competing for jobs with people in the lowest three (or in some cases four) quintiles in developing countries. In other words, increased inequality in the UK and USA is good news, not bad news, because it signals that tens of thousands of people in developing countries have been and will continue to be lifted out of poverty by being competitive in the global market.

If people on the hard left are really true to the Marxist conception of fairness that they so frequently espouse - "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need" - then they should be pleased and optimistic about this, because increased in-country inequality amounts to increased well being of the ones with the greatest need - the poorest and least well off people in the world.

You may assert that in-county inequality is a lot due to the increased wealth of the very richest in society, so there is every reason to moan. But it's the richest in society who are doing the most to engender a broader and more inclusive globalised market, so this is exactly what we would expect to see. It's true, of course, that people struggling in wealthy countries still need help, and their situations are not be trivialised, but it would take a pretty parochial, ethnocentric, even possibly xenophobic person to prefer the diminution of the UK and USA's pretty bad poverty situations over the diminution of the wider, more futile and life threatening poverty situations in the developing world (unlike the UK and USA, many of the world's poorer countries don't have a properly functioning welfare system).

I'd be wary of anyone who wants to make a reputation writing dissonant articles about the 'speck' of increasing UK or USA inequality while paying no regard for the 'plank' of increasing global equality that a globalised market is bringing to the world's neediest people. There's a long way to go yet though - but we're continuing to move in the right direction.

Inequality - 5 Myths Debunked: Myth 3

Continuing the series…

Myth 3: Inequality is all about income

Reality: Incomes aren't as much of a great indicator of people's well-being as is often assumed.

What's far more important is how people are able to live. That is to say, inequality of income isn't that important compared to inequality of consumption - i.e. having a home, food, drink, warmth, transport, access to education, health care, and so on. There is a bad tendency to frame the debate in terms of inequality income - but after tax, and after consideration of people's well-being in terms of consumption, inequality isn't a big issue at all, and post-tax, things aren't anything like as bad as the reactionaries suggest. According to the IEA, those in the richest quintile earn about 15 times more than those in the poorest quintile before the government intervenes with tax, and only about 4 times as much after tax, which isn't outrageous, and gives exhibition to an awful lot of redistribution already taking place. It's a lot easier to feel outraged if you measure inequality by capital and nothing else, but it's the wrong way to measure it.

In actual fact, society needn't dole out equality with fanciful measures. There are lots of ways that Rich Ron and Poor Pete are unequal besides money, and not all to the benefit of Rich Ron. Perhaps Rich Ron could complain he pays far more tax and gets penalised for his success; perhaps he has less leisure time; perhaps Poor Pete has less stress, less public pressure, and less on his conscience as he doesn't make the tough decisions Rich Ron makes; perhaps Poor Pete has a happier marriage because he spends more time with his wife and kids. There are many factors.

The upshot is, using disposable income as a measure of real poverty is a mistake. Most people in the lowest quintile for earnings are beneficiaries of a welfare system that pays for their education, health, housing, and gives vouchers or allowances for food, clothing and bills.

Here's an analogy. Suppose Tom is poor because his household income is only 40% of the national median, and Tim is not poor because his is 80%. Would this make Tim twice as well off as Tom? Certainly not. Tom and Tim could live on the same road, have the same size house, go to the same school, have more or less the same weekly food consumption, and so forth. Their lives would be almost identical, except perhaps Tim might go on slightly nicer holidays - to New York instead of Ibiza, perhaps. Yet Tom is adding to the 'poverty' statistics and Tim is adding to the rich statistics.

Suppose also that Tom gets £5 a week pocket money and Tim gets £10. If we only count this income, Tim is 100% richer than Tom. Tim is a prince and Tom is a pauper. But both Tim and Tom's parents spend money per week (let's say £150) on their clothes, their food, their sports equipment, their bus fares, and so on. Under this consideration, Tim's real spending capacity is £160 and Tom's is £155 - a mere difference of under 4%. Evidently it is ridiculous to call Tim well off and Tom in poverty just because Tim can buy an extra £5 worth of comics and sweets each week. This is the kind of mess you can get into when you talk about relative poverty only in terms of income.

Inequality - 5 Myths Debunked: Myth 2

Continuing the series…

Myth 2: High wages occur at the expense of low wages.

Reality: If high earners were on less, low earners wouldn't be on more.

People's income is linked to the job they have, and the pay of that job is linked to the set of skills required to command that salary. This is what motivates people to try to do well and improve their skills and knowledge. If everyone in the UK was suddenly given £1 million pounds the incentive to work would collapse, and unless there was a mass emigration exodus the country's goods and services industries would come to a virtual stand still.

The reason why people should not be indignant about a supposed 'unfairness' in people's vast wage differences is because labour value is dictated by supply and demand, not our personal whims. When shelf-stackers at Sainsbury's sign an employment contract they agree to terms commensurate with the skills they are offering - that is, the supply and demand for those skills. If they didn't sign the contract plenty of other people would. They would not earn more if the Chief Exec of Sainsbury's earned less, because the skills and labour of the shelf-stacker and the skills and labour of the Chief Exec are not conterminously affected by each other. The price of each of their labour is equal to the supply and demand of those skill sets in the labour market. Shelf-stackers who bemoan the Chief Exec's pay are suffering from envy, not injustice.

To understand the point, it's vital to understand the fundamentals attached to wages - they are not some arbitrary figure set by government, they are a signal of value, just as the price of petrol or apples are signals of value. Paying a price for something - labour, petrol, an apple, etc is a bit like voting in a democracy. When you fill your car up you are voting for quantities of fuel to be supplied in the market; when you buy 20 cigarettes you are voting for more tobacco to be produced to meet your future demand. The price of labour is just the same - how much you charge for it works under the same principle that determines how much you'd charge for 20 cigarettes or a tank of fuel.

As we saw above, it just isn't true that your pay is made less by those earning whopping amounts. As has often been observed in peer groups, low earners don't resent multi-millionaires quite like they resent those with similar skill sets earning a little bit more than them. In fact, people positively support millionaires by shopping in their supermarkets or watching them act in films at the cinema.

There is evolutionary sense in competing against those in your earning range compared with those at the top. Evolution is the struggle to pass on genes through the vehicle of the family unit - it is those competing in that similar struggle of whom we most need to be wary. If you're an out of work painter and decorator, you don't have to worry about Bill Gates or Brad Pitt putting in a rival tender for a small upcoming job.

Let me explain how even though the rich get exponentially richer, some of that wealth filtrates down to other less well-off people, including the poor. For simplicity, let’s put the top earners in the A category and bottom earners in the Z category. High earners A, B, C and D categories have spending patters that shift consumer demand slightly downwards to E, F, G and H goods and services. That is to say the high earners spend their wealth on expensive things made by other high but slightly lower earners. High earners choose the best architects, cars, health care, clothes, etc, which improves the wealth of the practitioners supplying those goods. Those practitioners in categories E, F, G and H make the people they patronise richer too (those in I, J, K and L), and so the filtration process goes, right down to W, X, Y and Z. This is what drives economic growth, and why even though the rich get richer, most other people's absolute well-being increases too.

That is a vast oversimplification of the whole economy, but not in any way that matters here, because the pattern is a confirmed one, explaining how prosperity is a contagious blessing that affects almost everyone for the better. That point, though, won’t be properly understood without paying attention to the essential corollary fact we touched on above – that wealth and prosperity is *not* simply measured in terms of capital – it is everything; employment levels, consumer goods, better services, more leisure time, less crime, more diverse restaurants and food shops, and so forth.

Inequality - 5 Myths Debunked: Myth 1

It's fast becoming clear to me that just about everyone you encounter (barring a few pleasing exceptions) has become convinced that inequality is one of the world's biggest problems that needs urgently addressing. Alas, it's one of the biggest myths that inequality is a massive problem. It is not. What matters primarily is absolute well-being, not relative well-being. If increased inequality was making poorer people poorer then it would be a problem - but that's not happening, because the economic pie is not fixed, and because wealth creation is not a zero sum game. As wealth is created, pretty much everyone's well-being increases in absolute terms.

There are many social commentators from the left misleading their readers with dodgy economics that on the surface can be made to sound reasonable - like, for example, when they tell us how unjust it is that the top 1% of the world’s population owns half the world’s wealth. It's easy to make such a fact sound outrageous, but only if you distort the reality of economics and make people believe that a terrible global injustice is occurring. Such views about inequality are mostly centred on 5 myths, which I will set about dispelling.

Myth 1: Inequality = injustice.

Reality: Inequality does not mean injustice.

Too often we hear that it's an 'injustice' that high earners can earn hundreds of thousands of pounds while other people in the same country are out of work and on benefits struggling to get by. In fact, that kind of redistributionist philosophy is at the heart of the socialist ethos. In the real world, though, while it's a nice aspiration, in economic analysis it doesn't make much sense. It's certainly a shame that unemployed people are out of work and on benefits, but when people call this an 'injustice' they misuse language, a bit like when someone says that an hour is fat or an obese person is sixty minutes. Out of work people claiming benefits are given money by the government and they have their rent paid. That's the right thing that should happen, but to call it an injustice is absurd.

When a guilty rapist gets an undeserved outcome by being found not-guilty in a court of law, there is an injustice; the injustice is commensurate with the extent to which the victims suffer, and the extent to which ordinary citizens are unsafe due to his being free. People's well-being is generally not of this nature. In a great many cases, even if you think X has received an undeserved outcome, it doesn't mean that you've suffered an injustice. Did we suffer an injustice (as some claimed) when lottery lout Michael Carroll won the jackpot? No. It’s true we might have wished it was us, and thought how much more we could have done with the money, but there was no injustice suffered by us in his winning the lottery.

What about when an auntie gives four of her nephews £10 for Christmas and her favourite nephew Tim £20 - have the four nephews suffered an injustice? No. Maybe their aunt's decision was unwise, or petulant, but perhaps in this case it wasn't. Either way, it was her money to do with it as she pleased - and surely she has reasons why she thinks Tim is more deserving. Perhaps he earns less; perhaps he helped her out in the summer; perhaps he's the kindest and most thoughtful - there are plenty of reasons.

Now when it comes to the market, there is inequality in wealth and earnings not because of systematic unfairness, but because people have different talents and they make different life choices. Wages and prices evoke lots of hostility largely in the people who have a curious sense of entitlement and not much understanding of price theory. In recent times since the financial crisis people have been keen to pontificate about the apparently 'excessive' pay of chief executives, politicians, bankers, top sports stars, and so on. Top sports stars probably are overpaid (for reasons you may not expect, which I talk about in this Blog post), but the rest aren't obviously so.

Pascal said famously "The heart has its reasons of which reason knows nothing". Of course, in this case reason knows why people think this way about perceived injustices and entitlements - it is down to this peculiar sensibility called 'fairness' on the one hand, and this disagreeable trait called 'envy' on the other hand. Envy can be good if it catalyses innovation: if Owen envies Bob's success in retail he might work extra hard to achieve similar successes. But envy is bad when it causes Owen to become resentful towards other people's fairly earned successes in a competitive market. Fairness is good but often hard to measure. If Tommy and Billy are told to share evenly a £5 gift from grandma then it is fair that they each get £2.50, and easy to see when fairness has not occurred. But if Paul earns £200,000 a year more than Chris that's not necessarily, and almost certainly isn't, a sign of unfairness. This will lead us nicely to the second myth in tomorrow's blog post.

One final point on this - the other thing that happens when people look for injustice in inequality, particularly in the UK and America, is that they start to become blind to the reasons poorer people are doing less well. The key factors in people's income are work and skills. Households in the top 20% usually have two people working in jobs that require higher skills. Households in the bottom 20% usually have either one person working, nobody working, and often only one adult in the house.

Research by David Henderson at the National Centre for Policy Analysis showed that 81% of families in the top income quintile had two or more people working, whereas in the bottom quintile only 12% of families had two or more people working, and nearly 40% of households had no one working. If you translate that into average number of earners per household, it works out that the top households are three times those at the bottom. Once you factor in education and skills as vital tools for increasing earnings, it is evident that where you are in society is not usually a matter of injustice, it is a matter of lifestyle decisions people have made. Don't misunderstand, many people fall on hard times, they are let down by others, and they have less than ideal family backgrounds. That certainly should elicit sympathy, and a concerted effort to be helped - but it's certainly a misuse of language to call it injustice.

Almost Everything You Need To Know About Competition

 

The one word that best summarises what drives economic improvement is 'competition'. It is competition that brings such significant progress shifts for people in society. If you have a monopoly on a good or service there is no selection pressure to improve and innovate, as consumers have nowhere else to go as an alternative. But with competition, providers are continually looking to improve products, innovate to offer something new, and retain competitive prices too.

It is competition that drives human progress; it is through competition that resources are most efficiently allocated; and it is competition that provides signals regarding which goods and services we want and need, and with whom co-operation will be most beneficial. The more it is realised that competition is the driving force of efficiency, innovation, improved material well-being, and the principal route by which people are lifted out of poverty, the more it is realised that we continually need more market and less government in our daily transactions.

EDIT TO ADD: When I said "we continually need more market and less government in our daily transactions.", a couple of people for some reason thought that was an endorsement for what they often like to call 'unbridled' or 'unfettered' capitalism. It was no such thing. And on that point, let me correct a popular misconception: almost no pro-market person I've ever met thinks that the market should be allowed to run with no government regulatory protocols. So, then, I do not mean that the government shouldn't regulate - here I am talking about the government as an agent in the economy in its own right, i.e. one that produces goods and services. When the government produces goods and services it is usually done so through an absence of, or too little, competition - in fact, when the government runs the service it usually has a monopoly on that service, which stultifies competitive forces.

In saying we need more market and less government, I was talking about their role in the economy as agents of manufacturing, and how competitive firms are more efficient at that. Governments need to regulate, where regulation should only mean forms of light intervention to direct for the common good the way providers and consumers behave. However, to do this it is imperative that the politicians that intervene understand the full range of costs and benefits associated with their actions - and alas they frequently demonstrate to me that they do not (in some cases, of course, they will understand but ignore that understanding because the right decision will be an unpopular one in terms of votes). A nigh-on perfectly reliable rule of thumb is that when politicians try to interfere in the natural mechanism of prices they are getting it wrong. But that doesn't mean there are not necessary government interventions - some light regulation is essential.

The Climate Change Alarmists May Be Putting The Cart Of Wrong Answers Before The Horse Of Right Questions

One of the climate change protestors in London got arrested for vandalising a government building, and had the following to say about it in her blog post (I saw this because my wife is friends with her):

 

"It seems the message of the urgency and importance of real cuts to greenhouse gas emissions is not getting through in conventional ways, and hence the need for a bit of drama. We’ve marched, we’ve petitioned, we’ve written to MPs, we’ve written to ministers, we’ve met our MPs and lobbied, we’ve campaigned and voted in the election, we’ve moved investments and supported businesses who are calling for progress… we’ve used all our democratic powers, and yet still those who are meant to represent us are doing the opposite of what we are calling for"

 

Every sinew of this blogger's being seems wedded to the conclusion that these politicians she is trying to galvanise are too supine to even bother addressing her obviously correct analysis of the climate change situation. Now I've no doubt that most of our politicians are hardly paragons of mental excellence, but I wonder if it ever occurred to her that, in actual fact, her questions may be wrong to begin with, so she is not likely to arrive at the right answers, let alone convince politicians to act on her every wish. Or to put it another way, she may not have realised yet that, in actual fact, the reason politicians are so inactive is because there isn't that much they can do.

 

You see, I'm with the climate change activists on pressing forth the notion that more needs to be done to help countries that have been negatively impacted by climate change - of course that's a good and noble cause. But it's their auxiliary narrative that I think sends them wayward - calling governments to be the ones to instil these game-changing alterations to our economic behaviour - that's where I think they are putting the cart of wrong answers before the horse of right questions. The right questions they should be asking, and seemingly are not, are:

 

a) What realistically can politicians do to change an economy that they have almost zero ability to manage or predict (apart from what they are already doing through green taxes)? 

 

b) Are the people supposedly in crisis because of climate change actually in crisis, primarily, for other more important reasons?

 

c) Are the drastic measures the climate change alarmists are looking to enforce subjected to a proper cost-benefit analysis?

 

Asking the right questions to begin with gives me a gut feeling that the answers to the questions are:

 

a) In all likelihood not much more than they are already doing

 

b) Almost certainly yes

 

c) Almost certainly no

 

Here's what I think needs to be realised in relation to the three answers. If you do a proper cost-benefit analysis of the situation to begin with you can more easily see why the answers are as they are. Just like nature’s physical laws, the natural flow of the economy tends towards the path of least effort (as I explain here in this blog), so although there are exceptional cases (cases already penalised with State-enforced Pigouvian taxes) there are already huge incentives in market transactions to be as parsimonious as possible with energy and resources (as I explain here in this blog).

 

That's the reason governments cannot do very much more (stress 'very much more') to 'tackle' climate change than they already doing. As the blog attached to the first hyperlink explains, the entire nexus of the global economy is a physical system which is all the time tending towards the principle of maximum efficiency, or it would be without all the government interference retarding it. Businesses are already looking for the most efficient means of supplying customers using as little energy as possible, because in a highly competitive market it is in their interest to do so to remain profitable.

 

The goal to reduce energy output can, and has, come in various ways: replacement of human energy for machines, replacement of metal-based technology for higher intensity resources or carbon-cased materials, replacement of paper for digital devices, and so forth – and these are improvements in production that naturally improve business’s cost-effectiveness.

 

The transition from the paper revolution to the digital one required lots of burning of fossil fuels, equivalent to energy being driven into the system from outside, but all the time that external energy is helping the global economy tend towards a path to least resistance very similar to how thermodynamics operates in the natural world. As the old saying goes, you can't make an omelette without breaking a few eggs - and the eggs we've cracked since the Industrial Revolution, while not without some externalities, have done more to improve global standards of living than anything else in human history (more in depth analyses of which you'll find in these blog posts here, here, here, here, and here).

 

On top of how vastly over-exaggerated the government's ability to 'tackle' climate change is, now the other issue needs addressing - the one where climate change alarmists peddle the narrative that the world's poorest people are being drastically hurt by what a thriving global economy is doing to our planet. As I said, where the world's poorest people are in any kind of crisis by climate change, we should be pulling out all the stops to help them.

 

However, the reality is deeper. The world's poorest people's main plights of life are not caused by climate change, they are caused by an inability to participate in a thriving global economy (for all sorts of complex reasons). What you have to realise is that most of the things negatively affecting the world's poorest people now - labour hardship, inadequate access to clean drinking water, low life expectancy, children having to be sent to work, subjugation of women, lack of literacy and numeracy, and conflict over hard to acquire resources - were affecting the vast majority of people before the progression-explosion that began about 200 hundred years ago, and has exponentiated ever since. Before the Industrial Revolution they were the natural state of most humans, and had been ever since the evolution of homo sapiens - they are not for the most part plights that have suddenly been caused by climate change.

 

In fact, if you take the overall picture into consideration, those human plights only began to be eradicated precisely when we started to break a few environmental eggs of industry to create the progression explosion that has brought about the diminution of most of those plights for over six eighths of the world's people.

 

There is still a long way to go, sure - but I hope that will at least offer a slightly broader perspective that factors in the benefits as well for a more balanced view, and gives some exhibition as to why the picture is much bigger than it simply being the case that politicians can 'tackle' climate change with some grand-slam panacea. 

 

 

 

 

 

Poverty & Sweatshops - All Is Not As It Seems

The paradox of sweatshops is this: they are pretty grim places, so lots of people want to see them discontinued. Yet discontinuing them frequently brings about an even grimmer situation for the people working in them, meaning that the people claiming the greatest consternation for the workers are actually the people doing them most harm. Actually, let’s not even refer to them with the misleading terms ‘sweatshops’ – let’s call them what they are: factories of low pay (FLP).

But isn't that where the State should get involved?

In most cases, probably not! They are highly likely to mess it up. You may have some idealistic fantasy about State powers intervening to rescue developing nations from the oppression of heartless corporate hounds, but you know as well as we do that no such thing can ever materialise - and that the only way for citizens of developing countries to climb the ladder of prosperity is for them to be able to trade more freely and openly in a global market.

Nevertheless, it is the case that big businesses go into developing countries because they know workers there will work for much lower wages than in the developed world, which is kind of immoral, right?

Ah, but lower wages than whom?

Lower than workers in the UK.

But why should you think the two nations' wages would be comparable? They both have different cultures and different prices. Comparing the wages of two very different countries with vastly different levels of wealth is pointless. £2 in Bangladesh goes a lot further than £2 in the UK.

It still pains us to see them working in less favourable conditions though.

Sure, but while it often elicits indignation and disgust, the resultant outcome of this is an outcome that benefits both parties. The workers in developing countries get the chance to enter the global market and earn enough to gradually improve their living standards, and the businesses that set up there are able to make a profit and often expand into other areas of the market.

But while it's evidently the case that the businesses are making a profit out of some of the world's lowest paid labour, the question of whether they are morally wrong or simply the first steps of progression for a developing country looms large.

A few points might make this easier. Firstly, as long as the labour is offered voluntarily then FLP workers are working in FLPs because they prefer that work to the alternatives. I recall a US senator in the nineties banning imports that came from FLPs, which resulted in about 50,000 workers being laid off - many of whom either died or went into prostitution. Secondly, the wages that people earn are determined by the marginal revenue productivity of a worker, which varies according to all sorts of factors - most notably, supply, demand and competition. If a Bangladeshi FLP worker creates £3 per hour worth of revenue for a firm, then accounting for the intervening point between profits and productivity, he (or she) will be paid somewhere between £0 and £3 per hour. Paying him more than £3 would be costly to the firm so they would lay him off. Paying him too little would affect productivity, which affects profits.

So is it actually immoral to pay people their marginal revenue productivity when A) doing so offers them hugely greater benefits than the alternatives, and B) if even more of these factories existed there would be more people getting out of their plight?

It is difficult to see how this is immoral - particularly once you realise that paying them more than the value of their labour only ends up hurting everybody else trying to get a foot on the first rung on the labour market. Price signals dictate value. Is that immoral? I don't see how it is, because price signals carry all the vital information about value, which is the very thing that underpins all the economic growth humans experience. It's true that politicians and campaigners could feel indignant and demand a rise in pay, but if such an action guarantees harm for millions of others looking to take advantage of the chance to sell their labour and feed their family, then intervention can just as easily be argued as being irresponsibly immoral. Politicians who lament the fact that Bangladesh has 500 factories fail to realise that an even more prosperous Bangladesh would be one that had 1000 factories. Rewind back time 150 years and we'd be saying the same about the UK.

It is in the employers' interest to help improve the working standards for their employees - things like improved health and safety, shorter days, more comfort, better facilities and regular breaks can only help with productivity and morale. The upshot is, things are tough for Bangladeshi workers, but they would be a lot tougher if protest groups got their way and we stopped buying the goods they produce. The result would be to artificially advantage better off workers by eliminating much of the competition. Saying this isn't denying that it's unfortunate that Bangladeshi workers have a much worse time of it than UK workers - but if solutions proffered are actually a misunderstanding of what helps people and what harms them, it is difficult to argue that anti-FLP campaigners are the moral ones and the rests of us are immoral.

I won't deny that many instances of protesting, boycotting and activism have proven to be valuable vehicles for improvement. But many have not been, as they end up interfering in a market they scarcely understand. As has happened in the past 150 years in the UK and USA, and as had happened more recently in about a fifth of the time in places like Japan, Taiwan, South Korea and Hong Kong, developing countries get a foot on the ladder of prosperity and begin to become more open to the vital market forces of globalisation that will bring them economic growth and increased prosperity.

But why are so many people still are poor?

Be careful! To understand why the answer lies elsewhere you first have to understand why that's the wrong question. The right question is why are so many people so prosperous? Prosperity is not the default state of human beings - poverty and hardship is. For most of our history we have been struggling through poverty and hardship. Then a couple of centuries ago we saw a progression-explosion brought about primarily by science and capitalism. Naturally there were always going to be countries that experienced these changes in fortune first.

So the poverty and hardship we lament now was once our natural state too?

Exactly! Once upon a time, the kind of hardships seen in India and Bangladesh now were seen in the UK then. We in the UK once used to be an underdeveloped country, having citizens who work painstakingly long hours in very poor working conditions for relatively little money. But as we saw the increased growth of capital, the advancements in technology, and the increased opportunity to trade and innovate, we gradually climbed out of poverty and hardship into greater wealth and prosperity.

What we're saying, then, is that developing nations haven't had their progression-explosion yet?

Sort of, and there's no reason to think every country will experience the same kind of progression-explosion. But what is happening is that people in FLPs now are experiencing something similar to what we did 200 years ago - they have improved their own living conditions by being able to earn money and avoid starving to death. Their standard of living is woefully short of ours - but it is only our increased standard of living that has enabled them to begin their climb to better prosperity. And as I pointed out in this blog, we need 600 million new jobs in the next decade to fully employ the world’s eligible workforce, and entrepreneurs and big businesses are the top creators of new jobs, providing 70% of all new jobs in the world, and up to 90% in some emerging economies. It is the world's biggest businesses that do most to drive economic growth in poorer countries.

How so?

Because the global economy is now a vast interconnectivity that has enabled the poorest countries to enter the market in a way that was nigh-on impossible decades ago. Just as the UK was able to bring about the eradication of its own dire labour conditions by becoming wealthier, the same is happening with today's poorer countries. The best way to ensure they continue to increase their prosperity is to keep opening up the market in which they can sell their goods and services.

EDIT TO ADD: One final thought. Habitually we tend to consider much of our moral thinking in binary terms - kindness and generosity are good things, murder and rape are bad things, and so on (yes there are exceptional circumstances, but generally this is true). Often, though, in economics, applying such binary considerations is misjudged, because economics deals primarily with positive statements, not normative ones. Usually when morality comes into economics it is not to do with good and bad, it is to do with better or worse. In other words, normative statements in economics are usually a matter of scale related to whether decisions make people better or worse off in terms of money to live on, well-being, and so on.

Sweatshops as a perfect example to illustrate this. By any standard we are used to in places like the UK and USA, sweatshops are pretty dire places. But given that countries across the world vary greatly in their developmental stages, it is misjudged to simply refer to them as 'bad' in absolute terms, particularly if by bad you mean wanting them discontinued. Because of the plight of countries like Bangladesh, Vietnam, Indonesia, and so forth, sweatshops must be judged not compared with other alternatives in the UK and USA, but instead in comparison to other alternatives in the countries in which sweatshops exist. You can guarantee that sweatshop workers are choosing the best of all the alternatives available to them - alternatives like agriculture, road-building, pulling rickshaws, construction work, hustling in the street, and even worse, prostitution. Those are just some of the alternatives that don't involve death through starvation - and they are all lower paid jobs and involve harder labour than sweatshops. In fact, comparably speaking, much of the work in sweatshops is more skilled labour than any of those jobs (as any dress-making seamstress will tell you).

So the moral situation that people face when talking about sweatshops is roughly this. Given that sweatshops are by far the least bad option for many people, successful campaigns to close them and boycotts against the goods they produce will make those people worse off. Yet speaking out in support of them will cause you grief, and bring accusations that you don't care, even though sweatshops make people better off, and in many cases rescue them from prostitution or death. In summary, then, quite often you either support sweatshops and do the right thing for the people, or you condemn them, get praise, but do the wrong thing for the people. And let's not forget, supporting people's opportunities to work in sweatshops does not mean we can't be a voice for them regarding better working conditions, improved employment protocols, better health and safety, and so forth.

On Religious Barbarism

If only the perpetrators themselves could see it, but the so-called 'sacrificial deaths' one sees in Islamic terrorism are, ironically, the opposite, because to engage in an act that causes death and suffering to innocents must, in the primary sense, be driven by self-interest (whether apparent or sub-conscious). To subvert one's own moral conscience as an act of genocidal appeasement involves an outrage on the conscience that one might suggest only really comes about in acts of extreme parochialism and selfishness, where the suffering of others is callously disregarded in favour of placating their own image of the their man-made war god.

It remains one the most interesting questions: would anything like the horrors of ISIS have occurred if Saddam Hussein hadn't been removed from Iraq's top position? Is it the case that, as Shakespeare suggested, Western politicians have untuned that string and witnessed the discord that follows, or are people overestimating the extent to which Saddam was a cork holding the prospective genie of Islamic jihad tightly in the bottle?

Evidently it is a little bit of both, plus a lot of other complex factors alongside, not least the gradual emergence of radical Islamic groups in Syria in response to Assad's Baathist dictatorship. I suppose while it cannot be denied that the war in Iraq left the nation in a real mess, and that the post-Saddam political quagmire that emerged created a vacuum from which forces like ISIS could gain more prominence, there are numerous other Islamic groups like al-Qaeda, Boko Haram and al-Shabaab unleashing similar horrors around the world, so it was probably only a matter of time before we ended up with something as disgusting and megalomaniacal as ISIS wreaking this much havoc in the Middle East.

Regarding the nature of ISIS members, I'll grant you, such horrific Islamism doesn't just come in a vacuum. I always think it's important to see the hurt in people and see what pain is behind people's dreadful acts, because there is pain and insecurity somewhere in people's terrible behaviour. To try to imagine what it must be like for a young man in ISIS, one can't fail to realise that in many cases there is a legacy of oppression, pain, dispossession and maltreatment.

Given how primed we are to tribalism, it is unsurprising how easily people find a group in which they can be manipulated to be the wickedest version of themselves - but these are people who've taken it upon themselves to become the most evil, inhumane people on a par with any evil behaviour the modern world has seen, and for that reason they deserve our contempt, irrespective of any precursory reasons they think they may have for joining ISIS.

It's a curious thing the most extreme, barbaric religious fundamentalism that grows roots in susceptible people's minds (it isn't new, it's been going on for centuries) - because what drives it is a peculiar cognitive state of opposites. On the one hand it involves the complete and utter self-abnegation of the agent in total deference to the unchallengeable supremacy of their man-made war god, yet on the other hand it involves a totalising self-righteousness whereby the certainty they place in their beliefs lacks even the basic crumbs of humility most people can call upon through their own moral conscience. Save for a few exceptions where people have seen the error of their ways, ISIS members' absolute unchallengeable confidence in their religious cause is not even able to be challenged by appeals to morality through the conscience, because their dyed in the wool feelings of certainty supersede even their own moral compunction. There really is no surrender to inhuman barbarism quite like a religious one.

It's Important To Understand The Difference Between Complements & Substitutes

To have a basic grasp of what is likely to be a good policy, it is important that politicians understand the vital economic distinction between substitutes and complements. The evidence for most of my life is that many do not. When it comes to substitutes and complements the clue is in the words themselves. For example, in a pub you might find you can get peanuts for free in a dish on the bar and tap water for free by asking for a glass of it. Tap water is a substitute for bought drinks, whereas peanuts are free items that go alongside the drinks you buy. Obviously if you eat a lot of peanuts you're more likely to buy a drink, whereas if you drink lots of tap water you're less likely to. That's a simple illustration of complements and substitutes.

 

Elasticity in the market means that substitutes and complements affect prices. When the price increases for one good, the demand for the substitute will be likely to increase; whereas with goods that complement each other if the price of one increases the demand for the other will be likely to decrease. That's only a simple summation - things get more involved when we start to look at the relationship between different goods, but that basic distinction will do here.

 

In the UK it has recently become a crime for shops to sell e-cigarettes or e-liquids to someone under 18. Now I don’t know how extensive the research has been in the UK, but we know from this recent well-publicised report that in America more than 40 states have banned the sale of e-cigarettes to under-age buyers, and in pretty much every state in which this happened they've seen increased usage of standard cigarettes from minors.

 

Now I'm not suggesting these studies are all that informative, given the complexity of society and numerous other concomitant factors, but it does seem at first glance that the question of whether e-cigarettes are a substitute for standard cigarettes is not really factored in much in our politicians' thinking. If there is a problem with under-age smoking in the UK, and e-cigarettes are a viable, less-unhealthy substitute for the much more harmful standard cigarettes, it might well be the case that allowing them to be sold to minors is a better alternative than banning them outright, particularly given that the American studies indicate that they could increase the usage of more harmful cigarettes.

 

Then again, it might be the case that there is a tangible stigma to smoking (not to mention the cost and bad teeth on top of health deterioration) that's gathering momentum all the time, meaning that the ban of standard cigarettes and e-cigarettes are merely precursors to a diminution in habit that will play out alongside this legislation (apparently, proportionally fewer people smoke now than ever before).

 

Either way, an important rule of thumb for any politician considering any type of legislation that looks to lessen the usage of a thing, is that they must first ensure they can develop a justified confidence that the thing in question is not a substitute for something else that's even more undesirable.

 

Ironically this might be a particularly pertinent distinction to bear in mind with the upcoming debate over the costly renewal of Trident. Those that claim it is an unnecessary expense that could be channelled elsewhere may like to consider that, actually, the prodigious nuclear capability of the world's leading nations is very probably a desirable substitute in place of the global carnage that could be wreaked by some of the less stable nations led by dangerous fundamentalists and megalomaniacal dictators were those deterrents not in place. Given how many centuries it has taken for the world's most developed countries to reach the stage they have in terms of stability and prosperity, it is quite understandable that they would want to guard against having all that undone by failing to invest properly in national security.

 

 

You Don't Expect This Kind Of Confusion In The Financial Times

I am quite baffled how a Financial Times writer can exclaim that as the technology industry is becoming a more prominent user of capital that this means it is (to use her term) "shrinking the economic pie". You'd expect to see this sort of claim in the Guardian or the New Statesman but not the Financial Times.

This is a quite bizarre confusion about the nature of economic growth. We use capital to consume. If we need to use less capital to consume then we can consume more with our supply of capital. This is the primary definition of economic growth. Given the foregoing, it's quite obvious that increased technological capacity is not going to shrink the pie. The more efficient our information technology becomes the less capital is needed, because the more efficient the technology becomes the lower the marginal cost of production, not to mention all the other ways that increased technology frees us up to do so many other things.

It seems the writer Izabella Kaminska, whose profile perhaps tellingly says "Everything she knows about economics stems from a childhood fascination with ancient economies like that of the Roman Empire", is thinking of the economic pie in terms of how improved technology affects GDP - where for example, some of our resources that used to be spent on computers, telephones, etc used to be costlier for us. For example, whereas once it would have been more costly to speak to your mum at the other side of the city, or cousin Betty in Australia, increased technology (text messaging, Facebook, Skype, email, instant messenger) means we don't spend as much. Yes, if you're going to measure calls to mother and cousin Betty in terms of GDP then of course lower sums show up on that part of the balance sheet.

But see how this plays out in terms of life enhancement more broadly. Just think of all the things we can do with our online capacity: Facebook, Skype, and perhaps best of all our Google access to all the world's knowledge. And just think of all the ways that those technological enhancements add to our GDP, both directly and indirectly. Given that our economic growth is based on consumption, the goods and services we can now consume are obviously not causing the economic pie to shrink - they are enhancing it, because they are increasing consumption (and if you don't know why consumption is the mother of all economic growth, I explain why here).

I emailed Izabella Kaminska to state that I just cannot understand why such a claim was made in a respected journal like the FT, when it's so obviously untrue. As yet I've had no reply, and I doubt I will - but if I do, I'll let you know with an 'Edit To Add' addendum.