Soccer World Cup Final Places

Places 1-16 based on:

- Highest round

- Goal difference in highest round

- Goals for in highest round

- Time of the last goal (earlier goals count for more)

Places 17-32 based on:

- Place in group

- Points

- Goal difference

- Goals for

Teams in green can still win

Place	Team	Highest Round	Goal Difference	Goals For	Time of last goal for(+) against(-)	FIFA Ranking
1	Spain	Winner	+1	1	116"	2
2	Netherlands	Final	-1	0	-116"	4
3	Germany	Semi Finals	-1	0	-73"	6
4	Uruguay	Semi Finals	-1	2	+92"	16
5	Ghana	Quarter Finals	-0	1	P.S.O. (2-4)	32
6	Brazil	Quarter Finals	-1	1	-68"	1
7	Paraguay	Quarter Finals	-1	0	-83"	31
8	Argentina	Quarter Finals	-4	0	-89"	7
9	Japan	Round 2	-0	0	P.S.O. (3/4-5/5)	45
10	USA	Round 2	-1	1	-93"	14
11	Korea	Round 2	-1	1	-80"	47
12	Slovakia	Round 2	-1	1	+94"	34
13	Portugal	Round 2	-1	0	-63"	3
14	Mexico	Round 2	-2	1	+71"	17
15	England	Round 2	-3	1	-70"	8
16	Chile	Round 2	-3	0	-59"	18
Place	Team	Position	Points	Goal Difference	Goals For	FIFA Ranking
17	Côte d'Ivoire	3rd	4	+1	4	27
18	Slovenia	3rd	4	0	3	25
19	Switzerland	3rd	4	0	1	24
20	South Africa	3rd	4	-2	3	83
21	Australia	3rd	4	-3	3	20
22	New Zealand	3rd	3	0	2	78
23	Denmark	3rd	3	-3	3	36
24	Greece	3rd	3	-3	2	13
25	Serbia	4th	3	-1	2	15
26	Italy	4th	2	-1	4	5
27	Nigeria	4th	1	-2	3	21
28	Algeria	4th	1	-2	0	30
29	France	4th	1	-3	1	9
30	Honduras	4th	1	-3	0	38
31	Cameroon	4th	0	-3	2	19
32	Korea DPR	4th	0	-11	1	105

Who pays the price for taxes?

Go here, read this. This is something i have felt strongly for a while.

Alcohol laws, Drinking and Death - James Webster

James Webster has been all over the news lately in a way that only violent murderers and white middle class people are.

He was a goody good, went to Kings, had hardly drank alcohol before one particular party where he drank himself to death.

There are numerous things that jump out at me about this:

1) he had a low alcohol tolerance, because he had no experience of alcohol, because he wasn't allowed to drink.

2) he felt that on the very odd occasion that he did drink, he had to drink a lot to compensate for how he usually didn't drink, because he wasn't allowed to drink.

3) he had no idea of what his limit for alcohol was, because he never drank in moderation, because he wasn't allowed to drink.

4) he saw drinking as an attractive activity, because it was something he usually wasn't allowed to do.

5) he was drinking unsupervised, because he was not allowed to drink while supervised.

6) had he been allowed to drink under supervision, he would have had a higher alcohol tolerance, he would have had a more mature attitude towards alcohol, he would have known what his limit was, he would not have seen drinking to excess as an attractive activity.

7) Had none of this made a difference, people with more experience with drinking would have been around and identified the situation much earlier, preventing the damage going to the extreme that it did.

James Websters death was tragic and avoidable, but the lesson to learn is not that no one should drink ever, but that it is important that we think about what people know about alcohol, and that it is important that we don't exclude youth from our society, drinking included.

UK Conservatives missed opportunity with UKIP

http://www.actoncampus.org.nz/blog/why-the-conservatives-really-lost

From ACT on Campus Blog:

In November 2009, UKIP offered to not contest the UK general election at all if the Conservative party promised, in writing, a referendum on the EU Lisbon Treaty. The Conservatives ignored the offer.

They go on to make the case that, had UKIP not contested the election, David Cameron would have had a majority. By my reasoning, the results would have been like this:

Party	Seats	Majority	Seats w/o UKIP contesting	Majority w/o UKIP contesting
Conservatives	307	16 short	330	Majority of 15
Labour	258	65 short	242	81 short
Liberal Democrats	57	with Conservatives: Majority of 83 with Labour: 8 short	50	with Labour: 31 short
DUP	8	with Conservatives: 8 short	8	with Conservatives: Majority of 31
Others not including Sinn Fein	15		15

note: Majorities calculated assuming Sinn Fein do not take their seats, and assuming the Conservatives will win the one remaining constituency, Thirsk and Malton, which is a safe Tory seat. The speaker is included in the conservative tally.

Bottom line: The Conservatives lost because they refused to promise a referendum on the Lisbon Treaty.

This was done assuming all UKIP votes would have gone to the Conservatives if UKIP had not contested, which is nearly fair judging by how similar their other policies are. To be fair, i will also show a table of what would have happened if only half of the UKIP vote is given to the Conservatives: (assuming the other half vote evenly, vote for other 3rd parties, or stay at home):

Party	Seats	Majority	Seats w/o UKIP contesting	Majority w/o UKIP contesting
Conservatives	307	16 short	321	2 short
Labour	258	65 short	248	75 short
Liberal Democrats	57	with Conservatives: Majority of 83 with Labour: 8 short	53	with Conservatives: Majority of 103 with Labour: 22 short
DUP	8	with Conservatives: 8 short	8	with Conservatives: Majority of 13
Others not including Sinn Fein	15		15

So even in this case, they passed up an opportunity for an easy coalition with the DUP and a referendum, for an almost unworkable coalition with a centre left party.

Pick any number. Do these calculations. Your answer was 3, wasn't it?

http://raytomes.posterous.com/cycles-cycles-cycles-usuk-exchange-rate

step 1: get a noisy time series

the exchange rate between the US Dollar and UK Pound

step 2: filter out everything that doesn't come in 9 year cycles

UK/US exchange rate 1791-2007 less 9 yr. mov.avg

(emphasis added)

result: you got something with a 9 year cycle, didn't you?

an 8.25 year cycle

Just the same way wind instruments work. Make white noise, and pass it through a tube of a certain length, an it filters out all the frequencies that don't resonate, leaving just the frequency you want and some of its harmonics.

What people mean when they say "High effective marginal tax rates"

http://www.kiwiblog.co.nz/2010/03/earnign_less_by_being_in_work.html

Christchurch woman Cassey Quy, 29, quit her job in a flood of tears after three months.

As a single parent looking after her four-year-old son Riley, she gets $357 a week on the domestic purposes benefit (DPB), with some bills being paid by Work and Income.

Struggling to make ends meet, she took a part-time job as a laboratory assistant at Canterbury University in January.

After advice from a Work and Income case worker, Quy believed she would be better off by $100 per week.

However, her part-benefit, part-wage income left her $10 a week worse off.

After the Government changes were announced yesterday, Quy said she was scared she would fall back into debt.

“It doesn’t make sense, working but not earning money,” she said.

“It’s like the Government is punishing us.

This should be very high on peoples lists of things that are wrong with the world. Her work at the university was helping other people, even though she was doing it purely for her own reasons. That way, everyone wins. However, government has gotten in the way, and her incentives have been perversed so much, that she stopped producing her labour. Because of the government, she has had to take an action that benefited herself, to the detriment of everyone else.

Such extreme cases like this one should be the first thing to be fixed.

Don't listen to anyone who tells you producers will never stop producing.

Government gives Councils money, makes their balance sheet look better

http://www.stats.govt.nz/browse_for_stats/government_finance/local_government/LocalAuthorityStatistics_MRDec09qtr.aspx

The deficit this quarter is $45.4 million smaller than the September 2009 quarter deficit of $65.6 million

Oh good, Councils are being slightly less irresponsible and accumulating debt on our behalf slightly more slowly.

Local authorities recorded a seasonally adjusted operating deficit of $20.2 million in the December 2009 quarter

But there's still a little way to go.

The main contributions to the increase came from government grants and subsidies (up $26.7 million) [...]

Oh wait, that's not councils being more responsible, that's just government bailing them out so they can continue being irresponsible. Well that number is smaller, so they are still being $18.7 million more responsible, which is good.

and investment income (up $26.0 million). The rise in investment income was driven by an increase in revenue from dividends (up $27.9 million).

And the rest of their good fortune is down to things beyond their control (dividends). So the effect of their responsibility or otherwise on the operating deficit is $45.4m - $26.7m - 27.9m = -$9.2m, a further $9.2 million of debt per quarter, on top of what they were already doing. Of course this doesn't even include the increases in rates and their effect on society, which is what the problem really is.