From The Annals Of Ritchie

Richard Murphy ?@RichardJMurphy 30m

@worstall Cost benefit analysis allows faux economists to make up numbers for externalities and then claim the results are science
View conversation

Oh aye?

Tim Worstall ?@worstall 10m

@RichardJMurphy That\’s rich coming from someone whose entire corpus of work is estimation from incomplete information.
View conversation

A question for the audience: is a faux economist one who did an accounting and economics degree and then proudly states that they paid no attention to the economics lectures because they were obviously wrong?

Please note that Tim Worstall is not an economist and has never claimed to be one. For while he did an accounting and economics degree and did pay attention that\’s still not enough to make the claim.

15 comments on “From The Annals Of Ritchie

  1. Of course, a badly done (or deliberately skimped) cost benefit analysis would allow a charlatan to make up numbers and insist that the result has been properly derived.

    I don’t see how this differentiates the technique from any other valid complex methodology, in almost any field. Generates meaningful results if done in an accurate and comprehensive manner. Generates gibberish if not done carefully or with dodgy inputs.

    Of course, remember Ritchie is certain of the accuracy and credibility of all of his input numbers – he made them up himself, admittedly under various guises, for previous reports.

  2. Tim’s been published in the economics literature, which gives him a far better claim than most on the title.

  3. Tim, is that a typo in the title?

    Anyway, apparently intuition is the way forward.

    Richard Murphy
    @willbungay @TomHarrisMP Heard of intuition? It’s what we actually use for all big decisions in life. Read some modern decision theory

  4. The effect of his combined posts over the past 24 months or so is a complete denial of just about all learning from the 300 years. He is a complete cretin and so, yes, we really should be frustrated by the attention and plaudits he garners. However, they all come from the left. In the not too distance future commentators will be lining up to deny all links with him.

  5. Ironman

    He’s a complete cretin who’s on speed-dial at the BBC, Guardian, the Labour Party and the TUC.

  6. “Tim Worstall is not an economist and has never claimed to be one”: what mad credentialist doctrine is this?

    Oh, I see – you’ve never tried to pass off a counterfeit Nobel Prize so you’re not really an economist. Fair do.

  7. I do think though that Tim Worstall is being a bit precious here. Ritchie is only passing himself off as an economist, common or garden. By contrast, he styles himself a tax EXPERT. The sort of expert who only yesterday equated gambling duty with a charge to CT on a company’s trading profits.
    So sod off Tim, tax professionals have far more right to be offended.

  8. @ Ironman
    Murphy did not understand it the first time I explained to him the hassle I had to file honest tax returns to Gordon Brown. He is NOT a tax expert.
    I suspect that he would like all tax professionals (and me, although I am not one, I point out some of his worst errors) to be burnt at the stake.

  9. uk liberty, “modern decision theory”, interesting that ritchie is referring to somethign closely related to game theory, which I am pretty sure he doesn’t agree with. After all game theory says that any complex system will be gamed by individuals to thier advantage, you know like minimising your tax for example

Leave a Reply

Name and email are required. Your email address will not be published.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.