More is Less

Plod, plod, plod.

At least I have some medicines which seem to be successfully combatting most of my current minor health woes*.
Four more houses to see tomorrow, instead of going to Picocon 20. But at least we should get to take tea with good friends afterward, before the drive back to our current home :-)

And my G should be home by about 17:00, which is three hours earlier than usual at the end of every working week, always away.

I've been awake for an hour - can I go back to bed until G gets here, please?

* TMI department: outer ear low-grade eczema, opportunistic infestation thereof by some combination of bacteria and fungi. Feel like I've got something viral, too, by the aching of my joints.**
** FTMI No, I'll not mention the rest.

Local multipliers

Say you are worried about the strength of your local economy. You wonder what impact your spending patterns, and those of your neighbours, are having. So, you try to work out, on average, what percentage of your money you each spend locally. Maybe it is 80% - for every 10 pounds, dollars, euros or whatever, you spend 8 in local businesses, and 2 on imported goods. Or maybe it is 20% - 8 out of every 10 pounds you earn goes straight out of the local area.

So, what's the overall impact? Well, mathematically, the trick is to sum an infinite geometric series. Economically, it's a bit like compound interest. In any case, every time the person you buy from, spends locally, the local economy benefits. So, what fraction of your money do you spend locally?

If it's about 20%, and you are typical, then the overall benefit to your local economy of your income is about 1.25 times the money you spend.

If it's about 80%, the benefit jumps to about a factor of 5 times what you start of spending.

If it's about 90%, we're screaming up to a factor of 10.

Isn't maths good? Aren't local economies wonderful?

(Thoughts inspired by the New Economics Foundation's recent Local Multiplier 3 paper, which you can download in full for free (PDF format).)

Simple direct statement

"Your moral argument for war asserts that the long-term benefits for the people of Iraq will outweigh the short-term costs of war. This is far from certain".

Have Bush or Blair given direct, simple responses to this statement? Not pious hopes, or blind assertions, but engaging with the direct question of how their decisions as world leaders will directly affect the balance of costs and benefits to the people of Iraq and surrounding regions. Supplemental: What personal costs are Bush and Blair going to pay?