‘...Ladies and Gentlemen
let me show you something else.
You know and I know that conjuring
is often about distraction.
We entice you to watch one thing
while we are doing something else altogether.
So if I say, I would like you to keep your eyes
on what I’ve got here, you’re going to be
suspicious, aren’t you?
Well, I’ll try it all the same.
It’s a deficit. I want you to watch the deficit.
I am going to do all I possibly can to make
it disappear.
Now to do this I’m going to have to
move some money around over here.
Some people have a lot.
Some people have hardly any.
Will I be able to change that?
So, now you’re confused.
Are you watching the deficit
or are you watching the money?
Remember, if I don’t make the deficit disappear
I will have failed.
It’s getting a bit smaller...
I promised I would...
but, Ladies and Gentlemen
it would be true to say
I haven’t made it disappear.
Oh dear...
But Ladies and Gentlemen
what if that was all a ploy?
While you were watching the deficit
hoping to catch me out,
look what I did with the money over here.
I took money from those with hardly any
and gave it to those who have a lot.
And you didn’t notice,
because you were watching the deficit.
Well, Ladies and Gentlemen
I may not have made the deficit disappear
but I certainly moved the money.
I call that a success.
What do you think?
Thank you very much.
You’ve been a lovely audience.’
Friday, 10 April 2015
Thursday, 9 April 2015
Found Prose Poem: Cameron and His Origins
[from wikipedia]
David Cameron is the younger son of stockbroker Ian Donald Cameron (12 October 1932 – 8 September 2010) and his wife Mary Fleur (née Mount, born 1934,[6] a retired Justice of the Peace, daughter of Sir William Mount, 2nd Baronet).[7]Cameron's parents were married on 20 October 1962.[6]
Cameron was born in London and brought up in Peasemore, Berkshire.[8] Cameron has a brother, Alexander Allan(born 1963, a barrister and QC)[9] and two sisters, Tania Rachel (born 1965) and Clare Louise (born 1971).[10][6] His father, Ian, was born at Blairmore House, a country house near Huntly, Aberdeenshire, and died near Toulon, in France, on 8 September 2010;[11] Ian was born with both legs deformed and underwent repeated operations to correct them. Blairmore was built by Cameron's great-great-grandfather, Alexander Geddes,[12] who had made a fortune in the graintrade in Chicago and returned to Scotland in the 1880s.[13]
Through his paternal grandmother, Enid Agnes Maud Levita, Cameron is a lineal descendant of King William IV by his mistress Dorothea Jordan. This illegitimate line consists of five generations of women starting with Elizabeth Hay, Countess of Erroll, née FitzClarence, William and Jordan's sixth child,[14] through to Cameron's grandmother (thereby making Cameron a 5th cousin twice removed of Queen Elizabeth II).[15]
In the 1830s Cameron's first cousin six times removed was compensated with £4,101 for 202 slaves when they were liberated by Parliament.[16] Cameron's paternal forebears also have a long history in finance. His father Ian was senior partner of the stockbrokers Panmure Gordon, in which firm partnerships had long been held by Cameron's ancestors, including David's grandfather and great-grandfather,[10] and was a Director of estate agent John D. Wood. David Cameron's great-great-grandfather Emile Levita was a German Jewish financier and a direct descendant of Renaissance scholar Elia Levita, the author of Bovo-Bukh, the first secular work ever published in Yiddish. Emile Levita obtained British citizenship in 1871 and was the director of the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China which became Standard Chartered Bank in 1969.[15] Through Levita, Cameron is a descendent of the Levites, who themselves claim to be descended fromMoses.[15] His wife, Cameron's great-great-grandmother, was a descendant of the wealthy Danish Jewish Rée family on her father's side.[17][18]
One of Emile's sons, Arthur Francis Levita (died 1910, brother of Sir Cecil Levita),[19] of Panmure Gordon stockbrokers, together with great-great-grandfather Sir Ewen Cameron,[20] London head of the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, played key roles in arranging loans supplied by the Rothschilds to the Japanese Central Banker (later Prime Minister) Takahashi Korekiyo for the financing of the Japanese Government in the Russo-Japanese war.[21]
Cameron's maternal grandfather was Sir William Mount, 2nd Baronet, an Army officer who served as High Sheriff of Berkshire, and Cameron's maternal great-grandfather was Sir William Mount, 1st Baronet, CBE, Conservative MP for Newbury 1918–1922. Cameron's great-great-grandmother was Lady Ida Matilda Alice Feilding. His great-great-great-grandfather was William Feilding, 7th Earl of Denbigh, GCH, PC, a courtier and Gentleman of the Bedchamber.[22] His mother's cousin, Sir Ferdinand Mount, was head of 10 Downing Street's Policy Unit in the early 1980s. Cameron is the nephew of Sir William Dugdale, brother-in-law of Katherine, Lady Dugdale (died 2004) Lady-in-Waiting to HM The Queen since 1955,[23][24] and former Chairman ofAston Villa Football Club. Birmingham-born documentary filmmaker Joshua Dugdale is his cousin.[25]
Cameron has said: "On my mother's side of the family, her mother was a Llewellyn, so Welsh. I'm a real mixture of Scottish, Welsh and English".[26]
David Cameron is the younger son of stockbroker Ian Donald Cameron (12 October 1932 – 8 September 2010) and his wife Mary Fleur (née Mount, born 1934,[6] a retired Justice of the Peace, daughter of Sir William Mount, 2nd Baronet).[7]Cameron's parents were married on 20 October 1962.[6]
Cameron was born in London and brought up in Peasemore, Berkshire.[8] Cameron has a brother, Alexander Allan(born 1963, a barrister and QC)[9] and two sisters, Tania Rachel (born 1965) and Clare Louise (born 1971).[10][6] His father, Ian, was born at Blairmore House, a country house near Huntly, Aberdeenshire, and died near Toulon, in France, on 8 September 2010;[11] Ian was born with both legs deformed and underwent repeated operations to correct them. Blairmore was built by Cameron's great-great-grandfather, Alexander Geddes,[12] who had made a fortune in the graintrade in Chicago and returned to Scotland in the 1880s.[13]
Through his paternal grandmother, Enid Agnes Maud Levita, Cameron is a lineal descendant of King William IV by his mistress Dorothea Jordan. This illegitimate line consists of five generations of women starting with Elizabeth Hay, Countess of Erroll, née FitzClarence, William and Jordan's sixth child,[14] through to Cameron's grandmother (thereby making Cameron a 5th cousin twice removed of Queen Elizabeth II).[15]
In the 1830s Cameron's first cousin six times removed was compensated with £4,101 for 202 slaves when they were liberated by Parliament.[16] Cameron's paternal forebears also have a long history in finance. His father Ian was senior partner of the stockbrokers Panmure Gordon, in which firm partnerships had long been held by Cameron's ancestors, including David's grandfather and great-grandfather,[10] and was a Director of estate agent John D. Wood. David Cameron's great-great-grandfather Emile Levita was a German Jewish financier and a direct descendant of Renaissance scholar Elia Levita, the author of Bovo-Bukh, the first secular work ever published in Yiddish. Emile Levita obtained British citizenship in 1871 and was the director of the Chartered Bank of India, Australia and China which became Standard Chartered Bank in 1969.[15] Through Levita, Cameron is a descendent of the Levites, who themselves claim to be descended fromMoses.[15] His wife, Cameron's great-great-grandmother, was a descendant of the wealthy Danish Jewish Rée family on her father's side.[17][18]
One of Emile's sons, Arthur Francis Levita (died 1910, brother of Sir Cecil Levita),[19] of Panmure Gordon stockbrokers, together with great-great-grandfather Sir Ewen Cameron,[20] London head of the Hongkong and Shanghai Bank, played key roles in arranging loans supplied by the Rothschilds to the Japanese Central Banker (later Prime Minister) Takahashi Korekiyo for the financing of the Japanese Government in the Russo-Japanese war.[21]
Cameron's maternal grandfather was Sir William Mount, 2nd Baronet, an Army officer who served as High Sheriff of Berkshire, and Cameron's maternal great-grandfather was Sir William Mount, 1st Baronet, CBE, Conservative MP for Newbury 1918–1922. Cameron's great-great-grandmother was Lady Ida Matilda Alice Feilding. His great-great-great-grandfather was William Feilding, 7th Earl of Denbigh, GCH, PC, a courtier and Gentleman of the Bedchamber.[22] His mother's cousin, Sir Ferdinand Mount, was head of 10 Downing Street's Policy Unit in the early 1980s. Cameron is the nephew of Sir William Dugdale, brother-in-law of Katherine, Lady Dugdale (died 2004) Lady-in-Waiting to HM The Queen since 1955,[23][24] and former Chairman ofAston Villa Football Club. Birmingham-born documentary filmmaker Joshua Dugdale is his cousin.[25]
Cameron has said: "On my mother's side of the family, her mother was a Llewellyn, so Welsh. I'm a real mixture of Scottish, Welsh and English".[26]
Statement from the Not-National Union of Non-Doms
Those of us in the NNUND
(the Not-National Union of Non-Doms)
utterly condemn the vicious and greedy threat
issued by the Labour Party, a threat that
will endanger our living standards.
We wish to express our solidarity with
the brave leadership of the Conservative Party
who have done all they can to maintain
our standard of living throughout these
difficult times. We would also like to thank
the Daily Mail, a paper owned by one of our
members who continue to highlight our hardship.
(the Not-National Union of Non-Doms)
utterly condemn the vicious and greedy threat
issued by the Labour Party, a threat that
will endanger our living standards.
We wish to express our solidarity with
the brave leadership of the Conservative Party
who have done all they can to maintain
our standard of living throughout these
difficult times. We would also like to thank
the Daily Mail, a paper owned by one of our
members who continue to highlight our hardship.
Guide to Education
You get education in schools.
To find out how much education you get,
the government gives you tests.
Before you do the tests
the government likes it if you are put on
different tables that show how well or badly
you are going to do in the tests.
The tests test whether they
have put you on the right table.
The tests test whether you know what you’re
supposed to know.
But
don’t try to get to know any old stuff like
‘What is earwax?’ or ‘how to make soup’.
The way to know things you’re supposed to know
is to do pretend tests.
When you do the pretend tests
you learn how to think in the way that tests
want you to think.
The more practice you do,
the more likely it is that you won’t make the mistake
of thinking in any other way other than in
the special test way of thinking.
Here’s an example:
The apples are growing on the tree.
What is growing on the tree?
If you say, ‘leaves’, you are wrong.
It’s no use you thinking that when apples are on a tree
there are usually leaves on the tree too.
There is only one answer. And that is ‘apples’.
All other answers are wrong.
If you are the kind of person that thinks ‘leaves’ is a
good answer, doing lots and lots and lots of practice tests
will get you to stop thinking that ‘leaves’ is a good answer.
Doing many, many practice tests will also make it
very likely that there won’t be time for you to go out
and have a look at an apple tree to see what else
grows on apple trees. Like ants. Or mistletoe.
Education is getting much better these days
because there is much more testing.
Remember, it’s ‘apples’ not ‘leaves’.
The Conjuror
...and the conjuror appeared
and said,
‘Ladies and Gentlemen, the art of conjuring
is to make things change before your very eyes
without you knowing how or why.
We show you things and in a flash
they disappear and reappear somewhere else
or reappear as something else altogether different.
Ladies and Gentlemen, watch closely, see
the fingers never leave the hand,
I want you to tell me what I have here:
Yes, it’s a banking crisis, a full-blooded
international banking crisis, thank you.
Now, watch closely, don’t take your eyes off it
and with no more than a moment of patter
look again and what do I have?
A crisis in government spending.
That, Ladies and Gentlemen
is what conjuring is all about.
Thank you very much.’
Friday, 3 April 2015
How the hell did they get away with it?
Call me naive or stupid but when the financial crash came I will admit here and now that I thought that because, for the first time in my lifetime, that
a) the workings of capitalism had been laid bare in a way that they had never been before,
b) as people found that their standard of living was being cut and c) as people found that their hard-won and precious public services and welfare was being cut too,
people would be outraged in ways that we had never seen before.
I confess I imagined that people would perhaps occupy their places of work, or their public services institutions - hospitals, schools, social services offices in order to defend them. I imagined that people across public and private industries would find that they had common interests in defending their standard of living. After all, I reasoned, as never before, the nakedness of capital (finance) screwing up all on its own, with no excuses that they had been driven into a corner by 'high wage demands' or 'trade unions holding them to ransom' and the like, would make it clear to us all that there is a difference between money and wealth - money being the stuff that rich people play with in order to keep themselves rich and wealth being the stuff that we need and make to keep ourselves safe and warm and productive.
But how wrong could I have been? And why or how has it turned out that I was so wrong?
1. It has been possible for very powerful people - politicians and news media - to repeat over and over again that the 'mess' or the 'crisis' was caused by one political party which happened to be in power at the time of the most severe point in that crisis - namely the Labour Party of GB, even though the crash was (and still is) global and was caused by financiers taking risks that were…er…too risky.
2. It has been possible to keep the illusion going that the 'remedies' put in place to put things back together, are fair and just - even though they are nothing but a simple system of redistributing wealth from the poor to the rich. The richest 1000 people increased their wealth last year by over £40 billion while the poorest have seen their income (or standard of living) cut. The proportion of money earned by waged people in relation to money acquired by owners of capital has shifted and is shifting in favour of capital.
3. Interventions like £350 billion of quantitative easing ('printing money') have enriched the rich with hardly a murmur from those with the megaphones whose social duty was to tell us about it.
4. A constant burble over the last five years about the 'deficit' and 'balancing the books' and 'paying our way' has been like a mass education force telling us that
a) the deficit must be reduced or we will all go to hell in a handcart
b) the people in power are dramatically reducing it and this is improving our lives
c) we must re-elect them so that they can go on doing what they've been doing to reduce it further.
It has made very little difference that some people to repeat that a deficit can be productive in any economic system if it is used to invest in producing things we need, that demolishing public services has had a double effect of harming thousands of people's lives whilst handing over what remains of the services to subsidiaries of the super-rich.
It has made very little difference that some people have pointed out that the deficit is at levels we were told at the outset were unsustainable or impossible.
It has made very little difference that some people have pointed out that low income (engineered by the government) has two results:
a) people don't earn enough to pay enough taxes to lower the deficit and
b) people will borrow money to supplement their income…which is part of why the whole thing unravelled last time.
5. The 'economy' will recover.
The nineteenth century bearded chap pointed out that in a recession prices will eventually fall to a level at which the people who own and control capital will think once again that it's a good time to invest and produce and distribute. In the meantime, their cycle of boom and bust involves making the lives of the mass of people worse. This period of worsening standards of living can never be given back. They happen, they endure. The damage is done to people's minds and bodies and to the ways in which we hang together. Rich people - even the few who take a small hit in a recession - don't experience this. They have a bit less than a lot. The poor have less than very little. Even though people know this and feel this, it is possible to keep them from despair and anger by constantly suggesting that
a) it would be even worse if you let back in those terrible people who 'caused it' last time,
b) it's going to be better for you next year…er…when we cut £12 billion from services that you need and rely on…(not!)
6. Another useful way to distract people from the core fact that money is being transferred from the poor to the rich in the name of 'balancing the books' is to encourage or allow a story to be told over and over again about 'immigrants'. The truth of the matter is that the great cycles of boom and bust are not caused by a few hundred thousand people swapping countries. More often than not, it's a symptom and not a cause. If politicians were honest, helpful people they would spend a great deal of time explaining to us the benefits and drawbacks of the system they believe in - capitalism.
They love gassing on about all the benefits of innovation, competition and the like but hardly ever explain what 'bust' is all about. An honest advocate of capitalism might spend time explaining to us that, yes, it's a system that does demand that at times the poorest have to be poorer so that capitalists can go on making profits, because that's how the system works. Hello, they would say, we compete with each other, we try to cut costs, even as we have to invest loads of dosh in order to stay modern.
But no, instead, they allow or encourage all sorts of half-truths and lies to circulate in order to 'explain' why times are tough for millions of people. So, in one bust you'll see the bust explained by the fact that the workers have all been greedy and lazy, their pay too high, their holidays too long, their pensions too big. Another time, this story will be modified by saying that the hospitals, schools, social services cost too much. And another time the story is that the problem is what's going on abroad somewhere so the only solution is to go and bomb and kill hundreds of thousands of 'foreigners'. And another time, it's because 'we' are being 'swamped' by 'foreigners'.
These are all very potent lies to cover up for the fact that what makes people poor is employers paying working people less. And if they were honest, they would say that, yes, that IS what they do, and it's what they need to do in order for them to stay rich (i.e. make profits). But they don't.
7. So, in some ways, a time of reflection. As I write this, I suppose there is every chance that the Tories will win a few more seats than Labour. This may well mean that there will be another coalition - though it might be one that does not have a full majority. This means that there are certain kinds of legislation that could be defeated by the rest - unless Labour do that classic thing of saying that they are being 'statesmanlike' and supporting legislation which they don't agree with and which damage the majority of the people's standards of living. This will happen if, in the case of a Labour defeat, Miliband is replaced by someone from the Blairite rump.
a) the workings of capitalism had been laid bare in a way that they had never been before,
b) as people found that their standard of living was being cut and c) as people found that their hard-won and precious public services and welfare was being cut too,
people would be outraged in ways that we had never seen before.
I confess I imagined that people would perhaps occupy their places of work, or their public services institutions - hospitals, schools, social services offices in order to defend them. I imagined that people across public and private industries would find that they had common interests in defending their standard of living. After all, I reasoned, as never before, the nakedness of capital (finance) screwing up all on its own, with no excuses that they had been driven into a corner by 'high wage demands' or 'trade unions holding them to ransom' and the like, would make it clear to us all that there is a difference between money and wealth - money being the stuff that rich people play with in order to keep themselves rich and wealth being the stuff that we need and make to keep ourselves safe and warm and productive.
But how wrong could I have been? And why or how has it turned out that I was so wrong?
1. It has been possible for very powerful people - politicians and news media - to repeat over and over again that the 'mess' or the 'crisis' was caused by one political party which happened to be in power at the time of the most severe point in that crisis - namely the Labour Party of GB, even though the crash was (and still is) global and was caused by financiers taking risks that were…er…too risky.
2. It has been possible to keep the illusion going that the 'remedies' put in place to put things back together, are fair and just - even though they are nothing but a simple system of redistributing wealth from the poor to the rich. The richest 1000 people increased their wealth last year by over £40 billion while the poorest have seen their income (or standard of living) cut. The proportion of money earned by waged people in relation to money acquired by owners of capital has shifted and is shifting in favour of capital.
3. Interventions like £350 billion of quantitative easing ('printing money') have enriched the rich with hardly a murmur from those with the megaphones whose social duty was to tell us about it.
4. A constant burble over the last five years about the 'deficit' and 'balancing the books' and 'paying our way' has been like a mass education force telling us that
a) the deficit must be reduced or we will all go to hell in a handcart
b) the people in power are dramatically reducing it and this is improving our lives
c) we must re-elect them so that they can go on doing what they've been doing to reduce it further.
It has made very little difference that some people to repeat that a deficit can be productive in any economic system if it is used to invest in producing things we need, that demolishing public services has had a double effect of harming thousands of people's lives whilst handing over what remains of the services to subsidiaries of the super-rich.
It has made very little difference that some people have pointed out that the deficit is at levels we were told at the outset were unsustainable or impossible.
It has made very little difference that some people have pointed out that low income (engineered by the government) has two results:
a) people don't earn enough to pay enough taxes to lower the deficit and
b) people will borrow money to supplement their income…which is part of why the whole thing unravelled last time.
5. The 'economy' will recover.
The nineteenth century bearded chap pointed out that in a recession prices will eventually fall to a level at which the people who own and control capital will think once again that it's a good time to invest and produce and distribute. In the meantime, their cycle of boom and bust involves making the lives of the mass of people worse. This period of worsening standards of living can never be given back. They happen, they endure. The damage is done to people's minds and bodies and to the ways in which we hang together. Rich people - even the few who take a small hit in a recession - don't experience this. They have a bit less than a lot. The poor have less than very little. Even though people know this and feel this, it is possible to keep them from despair and anger by constantly suggesting that
a) it would be even worse if you let back in those terrible people who 'caused it' last time,
b) it's going to be better for you next year…er…when we cut £12 billion from services that you need and rely on…(not!)
6. Another useful way to distract people from the core fact that money is being transferred from the poor to the rich in the name of 'balancing the books' is to encourage or allow a story to be told over and over again about 'immigrants'. The truth of the matter is that the great cycles of boom and bust are not caused by a few hundred thousand people swapping countries. More often than not, it's a symptom and not a cause. If politicians were honest, helpful people they would spend a great deal of time explaining to us the benefits and drawbacks of the system they believe in - capitalism.
They love gassing on about all the benefits of innovation, competition and the like but hardly ever explain what 'bust' is all about. An honest advocate of capitalism might spend time explaining to us that, yes, it's a system that does demand that at times the poorest have to be poorer so that capitalists can go on making profits, because that's how the system works. Hello, they would say, we compete with each other, we try to cut costs, even as we have to invest loads of dosh in order to stay modern.
But no, instead, they allow or encourage all sorts of half-truths and lies to circulate in order to 'explain' why times are tough for millions of people. So, in one bust you'll see the bust explained by the fact that the workers have all been greedy and lazy, their pay too high, their holidays too long, their pensions too big. Another time, this story will be modified by saying that the hospitals, schools, social services cost too much. And another time the story is that the problem is what's going on abroad somewhere so the only solution is to go and bomb and kill hundreds of thousands of 'foreigners'. And another time, it's because 'we' are being 'swamped' by 'foreigners'.
These are all very potent lies to cover up for the fact that what makes people poor is employers paying working people less. And if they were honest, they would say that, yes, that IS what they do, and it's what they need to do in order for them to stay rich (i.e. make profits). But they don't.
7. So, in some ways, a time of reflection. As I write this, I suppose there is every chance that the Tories will win a few more seats than Labour. This may well mean that there will be another coalition - though it might be one that does not have a full majority. This means that there are certain kinds of legislation that could be defeated by the rest - unless Labour do that classic thing of saying that they are being 'statesmanlike' and supporting legislation which they don't agree with and which damage the majority of the people's standards of living. This will happen if, in the case of a Labour defeat, Miliband is replaced by someone from the Blairite rump.
Grammar Schools (and Farage)
In the election debate, Farage said that grammar schools shouldn't have been abolished because they gave clever working class children a ladder up…or words to that effect.
The facts are this: in England and Wales, from 1947-1970 about 7 million children failed their 11 plus exam and went to Secondary Modern Schools. Very few of these children stayed on at school long enough to get any qualifications at all. This affected their rate of pay for the rest of their lives.
From 1947-1970 about 3.5 million children went to grammar school and about 1 million went to technical school.
About 15 per cent of all children attending all secondary schools in this period can be described as 'relatively disadvantaged' and gaining from having a grammar school education.
In numerical terms this is about 1.8 million.
For Farage to be correct, he would have to prove that the same number of pupils between, let's say 1970 and 1993, were prevented from receiving the equivalent of a grammar school education by being in comprehensive schools.
Can he? Or anyone else?
Meanwhile, he would have to balance whatever advantage was given to the 1.8 million 'relatively disadvantaged' pupils at grammar school with the effects of a secondary modern education on 7 million.
Data from:
The facts are this: in England and Wales, from 1947-1970 about 7 million children failed their 11 plus exam and went to Secondary Modern Schools. Very few of these children stayed on at school long enough to get any qualifications at all. This affected their rate of pay for the rest of their lives.
From 1947-1970 about 3.5 million children went to grammar school and about 1 million went to technical school.
About 15 per cent of all children attending all secondary schools in this period can be described as 'relatively disadvantaged' and gaining from having a grammar school education.
In numerical terms this is about 1.8 million.
For Farage to be correct, he would have to prove that the same number of pupils between, let's say 1970 and 1993, were prevented from receiving the equivalent of a grammar school education by being in comprehensive schools.
Can he? Or anyone else?
Meanwhile, he would have to balance whatever advantage was given to the 1.8 million 'relatively disadvantaged' pupils at grammar school with the effects of a secondary modern education on 7 million.
Data from:
Date of birth, family background, and the 11 plus exam:
short- and long-term consequences of the 1944 secondary
education reforms in England and Wales
Robert A. Hart
Mirko Moro
J. Elizabeth Roberts
Stirling Economics Discussion Paper 2012-10 May 2012
Online at
http://www.stir.ac.uk/media/schools/management/documents/workingpapers/SEDP-2012-10-Hart-Moro-Roberts.pdf
nb I've rounded some of the numbers and extended the data from 1964 to 1970 according to the graph given in the article. I'm happy to revise any of the figures above, if I've got them wrong.
Robert A. Hart
Mirko Moro
J. Elizabeth Roberts
Stirling Economics Discussion Paper 2012-10 May 2012
Online at
http://www.stir.ac.uk/media/schools/management/documents/workingpapers/SEDP-2012-10-Hart-Moro-Roberts.pdf
nb I've rounded some of the numbers and extended the data from 1964 to 1970 according to the graph given in the article. I'm happy to revise any of the figures above, if I've got them wrong.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)