Bad numbers; bad reporting

Apparently, most of the US Congress are millionaires. The Guardian reports this with glee as a sign they are out of touch, ranting on out about how governments should be representative.

Toss.

There are two major problems with this analysis. Firstly, the philosophy behind it is flawed - I don't want a representative elected chamber, having a lot of stupid people doesn't make government better. But the second point is more important. The logic of the numbers are misleading.

How so, well:

• Firstly, they are dollar millionaires, so £650k in net worth. Still a lot, but less than reported
• Secondly, they are paid quite well. The salary of a congressman is $174k p.a.
• And taxes in the US are low, about an average of 33% (somewhere here), which means actually $115k p.a. post tax, so almost immediately on election, they won't be poor
• They have been around a while - average length of term 10 years, rising to 12 years in the senate
• And they are quite old, average age 57

So, suddenly this all seems stunningly uninteresting. After 10 years on $115k, which we might assume they put aside $40k on mortgage or savings, so paying $400k over the period + a bit of appreciation takes you to $500k on average. Given this solely refers to the half that are millionaires, probably a bit more than that.

Plus, we're not talking about slackers here. They've been working for say 25 years before then, so an average of $20k per annum payments into property or savings, or $1,500 per month is hardly the stuff of which legends are made, though not poor.

Actually, I am pretty sure that money does have too much of a role in congress; I just don't this stat illuminates it very well. In fact, it illuminates successful people in well paid jobs are pretty wealthy. That's not a story. Quite frankly I'm surprised that more of them aren't millionaires.

The rhetoric ends by saying we don't want poor people who made good. By definition, if they're in congress, they have. Thus, the author is a moron. Anathema.

And we're 0-1. Fucking hell. OK, no 10-1. Still rubbish.

We were wrong

One of the many reasons why I could never be a politician, apart from my lack of interest in people and general unlikeability, is that I could never do the evasions that are necessary.  For years I thought that successful politicians simply lied about their past beliefs out of opportunism. Recently having seen it first hand, it seems to me that they simply don't believe they held those positions for those reasons in the past at all.

Now we all do that to a degree, but I think it's important to recant when you're wrong. I've been wrong about many things in my time, and this won't be the last, but it's pretty spectacular: I spent much of the late 90s and 2000s on the wrong side of the single currency debate. At the outset of monetary union most of the fears seemed unjustified, and there is still some overblown rhetoric around - like this.

But, some of the issues were real, and poor judgement and lack of discipline about entry and membership has had the inevitable effect, as Ireland has shown and I suspect more will. There's a longer set of thinking about what it shows though. It doesn't mean that this was automatically doomed. Remember Benelux was yoked to the Mark for years before the Euro, and we've had currency union with Ireland in the past. Rather the experiment was too big, too soon, and with too little structure. I believe in the European project, but it needs discipline, and caution - things lacking in this construct and which I was too quick to overlook.

I don't think we're owed an apology from those who held a view that has turned out to be right, but I do think we should recognise we were wrong. For once, we were better off out.

Tough choices

I'm told we have to make these now, on account of the no money left.

However, few can be harder than this. On the same weekend next August:

• The fourth and final England - India test match, at the Oval
• The 22nd International Congress of Byzantine Studies, in Bulgaria

I don't think I can go to both - a crisis.

Bibliography, October 2010

Read (14)
BOTM: W. Faulkner, Go down, Moses

Anon, tr. R. Davis, The Lives of the Ninth-Century Popes S.C. Barton, Holiness
S.C. Barton, Holiness (partial)
J. Conrad, Twixt Land and Sea
A. C. Doyle, The adventures of Sherlock Holmes (K)
U. Eco, How to travel with a Salmon
R. Fletcher, Bloodfeud
R.H. Haggard, The Wanderer's necklace
Ignatius the Deacon, Letters
Leo of Synada, Letters
Marco Polo, Travels
Sebeos, Armenian History
Usamah, An Arab Gentleman during the crusades
Villehardiun, A history of the Crusades

Remaining - 20

Sometimes, when you read, I find that it can take a long time for the key to turn. I've read several of Faulkner's before, always feeling that there are snatches of genius amidst some fairly heavy going. In some cases, the ratio was worse. And somewhere along the line in Go down, Moses, the key turned. In fact, it turned about half way through the second story, and it opened it all up. I'm keen to reread all the others that I've never quite got, and go and buy the remaining books in his extensive series. There's always been something about the rhythms of the language he uses that insistently first lulls then hammers at you, but until now, I've tended to get bored during the more extensive passages. I suspect the interlinked story format works well for it in any case, and am delighted I found it. Well worth perservering with.

Nearly there now, and I've bought a Kindle as a reward for getting below the 1% unread level - I obviously had to buy a book to read on it, and that's the (K) in the list. Looking good for new books in December now. That's very exciting.