Pyramid Comment

This journal takes an alternative view on current affairs and other subjects. The approach is likely to be contentious and is arguably speculative. The content of any article is also a reminder of the status of those affairs at that date. All comments have been disabled. Any and all unsolicited or unauthorised links are absolutely disavowed.

Tuesday, November 09, 2010

Average Salary

The Bank of England's monetary base (amount of coins and notes in circulation) is claimed to be £53.87bn. Two figures that must be challenged are the total workforce (61m) and average (annual) earnings (£26,000). The respective figures should be a workforce more like 48m since around 20% of the population is under 16 and should not be considered to contribute to the UK national income of £1,600bn if based on a high average annual income and a maximal total UK population (61m).

£1,600,000,000,000/61,000,000 =


If the population considered is that over 16, the average becomes:

£1,600,000,000,000/48,000,000 =


The 'official' average salary would be raised from around £26,000 to over £33,000. A difficult average salary figure to explain away. The 'trick' of deceit would quickly be uncovered. Consequently, the grossly misrepresented 'official' figures.

  • An obvious question that should be asked (must be asked - DA) is: if the average salary seems to be 'reasonably' high, then why are so many struggling to survive? Those actually in work. The answer is obvious: the average salary alleged is a lie. Truth being spun around to create the desired political illusion.
To attempt to untangle the illusion from the reality, consider the following argument:

The grotesquely massaged statistic of the average wage is reduced considerably from £26,000 to less than £17,000 by the clear inclusion of necessarily only a small number of high earners. To illustrate the distortion of reality, that creates the delusion/illusion take as the example 1000 workers (whatever the numbers the principle is the same):

1000 x £26,000 =


(50 x £200,000) + (950 x £16,842) =

Total = £26,000,000

A more awakening set of figures could be:

2 @ £1,000,000 = £2,000,000
2 @ £900,000 =    £1,800,000
2 @ £800,000 =    £1,600,000
2 @ £700,000 =    £1,400,000
2 @ £600,000 =    £1,200,000
2 @ £500,000 =    £1,000,000
2 @ £400,000 =      £800,000
2 @ £300,000 =      £600,000
2 @ £200,000 =      £400,000
2 @ £100,000 =      £200,000
Total for 20 =    £11,000,000

1000 x £26,000 =



£11,000,000 + (980 x £15,306)

Total = £26,000,000

This amounts to £11,000,000 and attributable to just 20 individuals and leaves the balance of £15,000,000 spread about 980 people. The average for 980/1000 = 98% of a workforce becomes £15,306 and 2% (20 in 1000) collect an average of £550,000 each. Imagine, someone on a salary of only £200,000 is being paid just 36% of the going rate for high earners.

That's precisely what happens

And sadly, Joe Public swallows it all. After all, official figures are always truthful, aren't they? This illustrates the truthful lie and it's politics and the art of disinformation (NB: misinformation). Regardless of the veracity of figures it is clear that the potential yield of earnings (before tax) is enormously greater than the Bank of England's monetary base. An electronic transfer into a bank account does not involve hard currency but only Virtual Money that, by definition, doesn't exist. Hard currency cannot be just 'created' - without consequences. Electronic transfer of credits (and debits) is done instantaneously. The electronic facility has ensured the 'invention' of theoretical money. And interest added to interest = Amortisation.

Monetary policy explicitly describes (Theory) the application of interest as a requirement for growth and relies on debt being increased. To ensure growth, the debt must grow at a greater rate than the interest returned to savers: Winners And Losers. But such a potential yield from the unpaid debt remains just that: potential. The debt does not need to be repaid to represent Virtual Money. And growth. It's a true bastard child. The Interest Merry-Go-Round continues to slice up the fixed-size cake. The manipulation by Quantitative Easing to meet the inflation target is explicit:

  • "...injection of money directly into the economy in order to meet the inflation target."
Devaluing currency is what fuels inflation

But rephrasing (spinning back) "...injection of money... to meet the inflation target", it becomes clear that it is designed to raise inflation to the designated target value.


It could easily have been interpreted to actually have the intention of lowering inflation.


Where's the growth potential in having negative inflation?

It's all going to nowhere. Round and round. But also upwards in a gradual (yet persistant) spiral. If Hell does exist, it's... upwards.

The target for growth is set and interest rates (small out to savers, and large in from borrowers) then follows. Diluting the monetary base with 'new' money can only devalue what is already in circulation. Adding 'real' money (base metal and fancy paper) to the circulation doesn't intrinsically cost much when compared to the yield from the devaluation. Consumers must borrow more (increasing their debt) to counter the inflationary manoeuvre (engineering). The illusion could even appear to be as designed. To simply appear stronger and more healthy.

What next?

  • £33,000 -> £26,000
  • £26,000 -> £16,842
  • £16,842 -> £15,306
  • £15,306 ->     ?    
Inflation 'creeps' up...

Everything is actually weaker
    Banking Panic