The real news is that grimy, squalid, poverty-stricken old Macau last year also posted a higher GDP per capita than Hong Kong did. It's true. The numbers say that GDP per head in Hong Kong last year was HK$213,000 and in Macau it was the equivalent of HK$217,000 at the official Macau pataca exchange rate of 1.0248.

Now it isn't often that a commentator who relies as much on statistics as I do will quote the old line that there are two kinds of lies, the common and the statistical, or tell you that the statistical is the more common of the two.

But the fact is that I see no reason to change my description of Macau as 'grimy, squalid, poverty-stricken and old'.

Don't get me wrong. I have a taste for grimy old places. I acquired it from 'doing' Europe on US$5 a day many years ago and Macau fits the bill beautifully, which is why I go there quite often. I like the vinho verde, too.

If you think it an unfair description, however, then go for a walk along an ordinary Macau residential street and you will quickly see what I mean. In terms of where and how ordinary people live, Macau is still 20 years behind Hong Kong for all the flash and glitter that the Macau government likes to show you in places where people do not live.

In my view, what we have here is a good example of a fascist economy. The first chart shows you one of the classic hallmarks of such a thing. It compares GDP per capita with workers' earnings per capita, taking December 1999, the month of the handover to Chinese sovereignty, as the base date.

Thus, using an index figure of 100 for that date, Macau's GDP per capita by the end of last year had more than doubled to 202.

Wage growth was far from as good, however. The median monthly earnings of all workers rose from 100 only to 135 over that period and for unskilled workers only to 113.

What this tells you is not only that the average Macau citizen has participated very little in the fruits of his town's economic boom but that income disparity is growing. The lower paid workers are falling steadily further behind.

You may say, of course, that this does not really present an accurate picture because what we actually have here is a town in the middle of an enormous building boom with the opening up of the casino trade in recent years. Macau is building now and will collect later. The workers will participate at that time.

Could be, could be. I certainly don't doubt the evidence of the building boom. As the second chart shows, expenditure on gross fixed capital formation has grown almost eightfold since 2001 in Macau. By contrast, in Hong Kong over that period it actually declined.

But who really stands to reap the earnings from all this investment in casino building? The last time I looked it seemed to be predominantly foreigners and those who were not foreign were perhaps more easily described as Hong Kong residents than as Macanese.

What is more, much as the Macau government prides itself on having enriched Macau with these new casino licences, I think there is growing evidence that it has given the licences away much too cheaply.

Putting on the investment analyst's hat of my previous stockbroking career, I would say that a price that gives the Macau government the full value of a casino licence would be one that gives the licensee no more than about a 3 per cent annual return over that licensee's weighted average cost of capital.

But given what some of the licensees have said or announced about their earnings so far, their return at present is as much as 50 times as great. This suggests that the Macau government has woefully underpriced these licences.

It does not really surprise me. I never really thought that the average Macanese would get more than hard work and a harsher living environment from a casino boom. What surprises me, however, is that it seems some people may actually take these Macau GDP per capita figures at face value.