Algorithms are increasingly used to shape a whole range of social policy issues in the States. This podcast looks at some of the risks attached to their use. Much has been made of their application to stock market and derivatives trading notably in Michael Lewis’s book “Flash Boys”. Cathy O’Neil does talk about that but also looks at how algorithms have been constructed to predict recidivism rates as an aid to sentencing and as ways of assessing teacher competence to manage performance and ultimately to dismiss those that the algorithms show are failing.

What Cathy does, is show how the structure of these algorithms relies on assumptions which replicate racist practice in relation to sentencing and provide virtually useless information about the performance of teachers. It addresses the distinction between prediction and causation which in the age of big data is in danger of being lost, at some cost.

If you have never heard a Econ Talk podcast I recommend them generally. The host, Russ Roberts is unfailingly courteous to his guests but takes a very orthodox liberal view of economics and the wonder of markets. For example he thinks that the state has played a bad role in relation to education in the United States and it would be better provided by the private sector. You might occasionally get irritated but it is good to try to avoid confirmation bias and he does get some fascinating speakers on issues economic. Having said that it is a wide definition of economics that is adopted.

Source: Cathy O’Neil on Weapons of Math Destruction | EconTalk | Library of Economics and Liberty

Imagine Dublin promised Apple €220,000 in cash annually for every job located in Ireland. At 6,000 or so jobs, this totals about €13bn over 10 years. This would clearly equate to an instance of state aid, and coincidentally a bad trade for Ireland. The commission in essence concluded that this is the deal Ireland agreed — but, instead of collecting tax at the Irish 12.5 per cent tax rate and writing cheques to Apple, Ireland forgave substantially all of Apple’s Irish statutory tax liability.In tax policy we understand the economic equivalence between government cash subsidy schemes and “spending through the tax law”, where targeted spending programmes are couched as highly selective tax breaks, usually to hide their true nature. The commission’s decision makes clear it does too. It does not quarrel with Ireland’s 12.5 per cent tax rate.

Source: The myths behind Apple’s manufactured tax crisis — FT.com

This is a really terrific article on the issue of Apple’s Irish tax liability dealing with two myths being propagated by US Treasury.

The first is covered above, the second is that any tax which should be paid belongs to the US government. This flies in the face of the US’s own tax law. This, for more than 100 years has followed the “source principle” which means “that the jurisdiction in which income arises (the “source jurisdiction”) has priority in taxing cross-border income. To prevent double taxation, a US company can claim a credit against its US tax bill for levies already paid to source countries.”

The article is written by Edward Kleinbard who is Professor of Law and Business at the University of Southern California and sets out in crystal clear terms the essential issues.

What is difficult to understand is why the US Government is leaping to the defence of a company that is doing everything it can to avoid paying tax in its “home” county, even to the extent of borrowing at home to fund dividend payments rather than repatriating foreign profits and getting taxed on them. The fact that the US also passed the Foreign Accounts Tax Compliance Act (FATCA’T’) (Ed. adds final T) to chase US nationals attempting to avoid tax seems to stand in contradiction to the position in relation to Apple. If anyone knows why the US appears to face tow ways on this I would love to know.

But if you are interested in the Apple Ireland tax story this is a great starting point.

Britain’s biggest companies paid their shareholders five times more than they spent tackling their pension deficits last year, according to a new analysis that is set to reignite the debate over dividend payouts.Sample the FT’s top stories for a weekYou select the topic, we deliver the news.Select topicEnter email addressInvalid emailSign up By signing up you confirm that you have read and agree to the terms and conditions, cookie policy and privacy policy.As pension shortfalls rise to new highs, research published on Tuesday showed that FTSE 100 companies with “defined benefit” schemes, which offer a guaranteed income in retirement, paid £71bn in dividends last year compared with £13.3bn in pension contributions.The survey, by Lane Clark & Peacock, the actuarial consultants, calculated that nearly a third of FTSE 100 companies could have wiped out their pension deficits in 2015 with the cash they handed to shareholders.

Source: UK companies paid five times more in dividends than pensions — FT.com

The constant shifting of wealth from the vast majority of working people is proceeding apace. It is not good for social cohesion, it is not good for the economy and it is not good for the future of the country. Mrs May needs to get a grip and heed Baroness Altmann’s call for an inquiry into company pensions. That inquiry should have trade unions as part of its membership.

One of the most memorable moments of this week’s Democratic National Convention came during Bernie Sanders’ speech, when young delegates wept as the former presidential candidate endorsed Hillary Clinton. No wonder they were crying. Mr Sanders brought America’s $1.2tn student debt bubble into the spotlight, arguing for free college tuition so that young people entering a lacklustre US labour market would not be hamstrung by debts they could never repay.

Source: The US student debt bubble is a study in financial dysfunction — FT.com

Really excellent article about the negative practices and impacts of student debt in the US. The same issues are also very much in play in this country. Education should be structured as public investment not private debt. Given the impact that it has on the spending capacity of the young and therefore demand in the economy it is set to reinforce a spiral of decline that undermines the life opportunities of young people and ultimately the writing off of the debt.