But fuck it, playing naked ape power games in Eastern Yurp and Raghead Land is far more exciting, fun and macho than this sort of namby-pamby pinko girly communist stuff. Chicks dig Cold War warriors.

Some days I just hate the world.

Nah, inequality is good for growth and social cohesion and redistribution are bad. It says it right here:

When using indicators of inequality of income distribution and the at-risk-of-poverty rate, the Czech Republic has one of the highest levels of social cohesion in the EU, comparable to that of the Nordic countries. Though social transfers play a significant role in reducing the Czech poverty rate, it is the country's relatively equal distribution of primary income that contributes most to the level of social cohesion overall. This can be explained by several factors, in particular by the quality of education, the homogeneity of society, regulation of rental housing, the gradual nature of the transition process and other historical reasons. Economic theory and empirical evidence are not clear-cut on what the impact of social cohesion is on economic efficiency and growth. Though social cohesion can have a positive economic impact on growth, the tax-transfer system, if badly designed, may have harmful consequences for labour supply and for the sustainability of public finances as seems to be the Czech case.

(guess which institution published the article)

A vivid image of what should exist acts as a surrogate for reality. Pursuit of the image then prevents pursuit of the reality -- John K. Galbraith

I am quite sure that the government will wring its hands in dismay at these findings. gordon will go on about lifting hard working families and children out of poverty.

and then he'll have another huge giveaway for the City and not for a second suspect there might be a connection.

keep to the Fen Causeway

In the US, this inequality is a peculiar institution and an integral part of our cherished way of life.  Just like chattel slavery and Manifest Destiny.

I think this is what is so culturally appealing about the "Kennedy-LBJ" saga. Of course the foreign policy stuff is all horrifying, but at least rather than declaring "War on Terror" they declared a "War on Poverty."

The language of militarism is not something I want to resurrect but how did we get to this point where we (once again - judging from the Victorian literature) decide that poverty was a matter of inevitability and moral failings? Why is it acceptable that some people are homeless and others live in government homes with leaking roofs and no money for heating?

And I've just returned to the office from a seminar on child poverty.

We talked about the iron triangle ie how child poverty, women's poverty and in work poverty are linked and the role of the trade union movement in putting pressure on government to put in the money that needs to go in to reach their target of halving child poverty by 2010.  Nobody disagrees about the social costs of poverty, about limited life chances or about health and educational attainment gaps, how poverty traps generation after generation... yet after 9 years of discussion in the Welsh Assembly there has still not been a coherent child poverty strategy.

UK government need to put in an extra £2.8billion to meet their target, but the money itself isn't enough, just going into child benefit and tax credits. The Surestart scheme is one of the best ways of lifting children out of poverty by encouraging mothers to be engaged with their child's education, as well as providing childcare. But the take up still isn't where it is needed most.

The cycle continues.

Ad astra per aspera

What's wrong with eating the weak?

Good protein makes the master race stronger.

I did not hear a single Democratic speaker at the convention going on now in Denver talk about inequality until Bill Clinton spoke, not that I am a fan of him. Income and wealth inequality started to increase at the end of Jimmy Carter's presidency, and continued to balloon through the Reagan, Clinton and GW Bush years. Bush actually outdid Reagan in feeding the wealthy and corporate types.

10 years ago 85% of the US stockmarket was owned by the top 10% of families. Today, I have no doubt that, at a 15% tax rate on capital gains and dividends, the ownership level is more like 90% for the exclusive top.

Now we hear that Obama wants to continue the trend Democratic style by raising the tax a meagre 5% to 20%. Keeping the rate low, it is believed, will bring in greater tax revenues, this logic based on the stockmarket bubble of the late 90s, which will never be seen again.

My thoughts are, foooweeeee. Poor folks will get cooked again.

There is really nothing dearer to me than this subject. To be honest, I read the article more with disgust than hope. Why disgust? Because, for two centuries, we made great strides in wiping out this most immoral of iniquities, in all but the most far flung and backwards part of the developed world read: USA).

But by an historical accident, now we witness the roll-back of all those gains, as out elite emulate the "efficiencies" of the Anglo-American model, wiping out equality and thereby liberty and brotherly and sisterly bonds.

It's two steps backward after three steps forward, and in the UK and in other parts, perhaps two more steps backwards on top of things, such as alternance there, as in the US, is not functional. Differentials in healthcare outcomes by race and class in the us are a thing to behold, I had no idea they could be as extreme in the UK...

But children die for the sins of their parents, the sin of idolatry of ideology; is has been this was forever in America; a grand export, via the UK, to the rest of us?

"C'est un scandale !"