Yah, Ritchie again

So, he’s found out that most of the world doesn’t have a secure job. There’s an awful lot of people out there self employed. So, therefore:

But third, and perhaps most significantly, this perception changes the whole rhetoric about wealth creation. How can the wealth creators be those working on very highly paid employed contracts with guaranteed bonuses when they are the most removed from risk? Surely they are the furthest removed from being described as business people in this world view? Where is their down side? For all practical purposes there is none: even their futures are guaranteed through pensions that provide security to them and their families, come what may.

Don’t get me wrong: I am not saying these people do not have abilities: they do. But so too does the person who has to provide for a family with no security at all where all their ingenuity has to be brought into play precisely because there is no guaranteed outcome, whatsoever.

If business is characterised by risk taking (and by and large it is) who are the real business people? And who are the wealth extractors? The question is genuine because the answer is so important to our economies, our politics and our tax systems, where the taxation of rents has traditionally been accepted at higher rates. And I think we have that answer wrong. It is the self employed and the temporary workers who are the real wealth creators almost precisely because they are the main repository of risk within the world economy.

And guess what he’s missed? Yah, the distribution of those self employed. it’s the poor countries that have the majority of the population as self employed. It’s the rich countries that have a majority of the population as employed. Whgat is the definition of the difference between being a rich country and a poor one? That lots of value is being added in a rich country.

So, who adds value? Sure, could be those who go and create employment but at the level Ritchie’s talking about it’s obviously employment that does, not self-employment.

And if that’s right then when someone wants to talk to business people the self employed have to be at the table.

Who in buggery is he pitching for a job from now? Federation of Small Businesses or summat?

Is that JRF grant about to run out?

21 comments on “Yah, Ritchie again

  1. Word on the street is that his £35,000 annual stipend wasn’t renewed and he’s been desperately (and mostly unsuccessfully) whoring himself to anyone with a chequebook. It’s most uncouth.

  2. Funnily enough, Iwas one of the few who disagreed with creating the situation where highly paid people earned massive bonuses without risk.

    But then a one-eyed Scotch git decided to “save the world” using other peoples’ money.

    But then I suppose Gord was really a blue rinse and not a true brave socialist like the porridge wogs.

  3. His point that many self-described “businessmen” are nothing of the sort is spot on. Which only goes to show that even old shit-for-brains will happen on a truth occasionally.

  4. Isn’t he completely missing the point, anyway? He’s looking at security of the current job as the only risk involved, but of course any sensible business will tie it’s key people down with nice salaries. And stock options, to make sure they’re not entirely detached from reality.

    But if the business implodes, those key people should have some awkward questions to answer at their next job interview, while the front line staff can just shrug and move on.

    This is not to say there’s no nepotism, jobs-for-mates, flanneling your way out a car crash etc generating chancers, PHBs and empty suits, of course. But those should be hounded out through competition, not ham-fisted state intervention.

  5. Christie/ Tim

    He is not in the best of health and apparently his wife has been off long term sick from her job in the Health service. The Rowntree foundation has been caught funding ISIS sympathisers with a resultant fall in donations and need to ‘tone down’ any controversial positions – given Murphy’s entire output consists of ill-informed, often profoundly offensive comments, he may indeed have lost his stipend. Additionally, the election result means his analysis has proven to be fundamentally flawed at every level, so people might be asking what the point of paying him to provide his ‘insight’ is. A number of posts since May 8th have a greater than usual air of desperation – could he need to remortgage the house? Will we see the immortal lines:

    ‘I worry about the potential UKIP future my children will inherit’

    come out once more (maybe not those given the UKIP internecine strife but something similar) Happy times for most of us – tough times for the LHTD…..

  6. @Christie Malry:

    That is interesting news.

    Explains his sudden fanatical devotion to the SNP.

    He doesn’t realise that Scotland is awash with ignorant lefties who’ll do the job for nothing.

  7. @”Word on the street is that his £35,000 annual stipend wasn’t renewed and he’s been desperately (and mostly unsuccessfully) whoring himself to anyone with a chequebook. It’s most uncouth.”
    Good
    About people having to be self employed I also think that this is often a bad thing.
    So why not a) get rid of employers NI to make employing people more attractive b) get rid of VAT on services to make it more cost effective for companies to directly employ builders etc rather than have them as separate companies.
    I am sure Richie agrees with me.

  8. Can’t help thinking that a key reason for the low UK unemployment and high number of zero hours or freelance workers is that you get a lot more benefits that way. Probably also explains productivity data. In fact I expect if you ran the European unemployment numbers adjusted for benefit incentives (I.e why not be unemployed in Spain, but actually working in a bar in London, whereas in London be on minimum wage and get working tax credits) the the disparity across Europe might be a lot lower than we think

  9. Friends,
    Murphy himself is self-employed.
    Who do you imagine will be nominated to reporesent the self-employed at the table?

  10. The worst thing about Ritchie is that more than half my relatives think as he does.

  11. If he’s pitching for work from these guys he’ll need to swallow a lot of his fucking huge ego as they spend a lot of time protecting the self employed and independent professionals who use limited companies from HMRC IR35 harassment.

  12. There’s a danger of aver-analysing this. Most Murphybollocks doesn’t rise to the point where any reasonable critique has a point of purchase. Take, for example, this: “If business is characterised by risk taking (and by and large it is)[…]”. That is petitio principii of the first water. Who said that business is characterised by risk taking? Sure, there are elements of risk involved in running a business, but that is not its fundamental essence. So we have a straw man. Facts assumed not in evidence! As Wolfgang Pauli would say, this is nicht einmal falsch. He is incapable of writing in any other fashion than the grossly tendentious. One of his biggest problems is that, whereas some people are smart enough to pull off this level of question-begging and prevarication, he is not. His combination of stupidity, truculence, ignorance, high-handedness, hubris and narcissism mean that if his star is waning, it is long overdue.

  13. Richard Quigley: The worst thing about Ritchie is that more than half my relatives think as he does.

    There’s no way of breaking this to you nicely: the worst thing about half your relatives is that they think like Ritchie.

    As a matter of interest, is one side of your family Scottish?

  14. Aren’t wealth creators people who create wealth? Does it matter how their employment is structured?

  15. …those working on very highly paid employed contracts with guaranteed bonuses when they are the most removed from risk? Surely they are the furthest removed from being described as business people in this world view? Where is their down side? For all practical purposes there is none: even their futures are guaranteed through pensions that provide security to them and their families, come what may.

    What, you mean like senior civil servants? Or union bosses?

  16. It is business owners who run the biggest risks. If they don’t keep up with the competition, the customers and innovation they stand to lose not only their income but their entire investment. Hiring talented employees on fixed salary plus profit-related bonus often will be a good way to go. Overpay and any profit dries up very quickly.

    Meamwhile in the Public Sector, it is only the employees who have anything at stake. If they are overpaid things still continue just the same. No-one will go out of business -and thereby be removed from business decision-making.

  17. He’s banging on again today about finding the right way to tax the world’s self-employed and temporary workers, the second day running he’s pushed this line.

    This is his attempt to find a new ‘research’ project. He wants and needs that £35k from the JRF, otherwise he might need to go and work for a living!

  18. “…he might need to go and work for a living!”

    Would any sane employer take him on? He’s done his best to piss off the entire accountancy profession, he’s demonstrated that he is incapable of accepting criticism or engaging in debate and he’s regularly shown as being ignorant.

    Also, it’s clear he views his future as being in campaigning so long-term loyalty is unlikely.

  19. According to the JRCT website, Ritchie received a grant of £70,000 in July 2013 for 2 years, so that is clearly about to run out. There is no reference to any new funding.

    No small business organisation will ever fund Ritchie. He thinks small businesses (and big businesses for that matter) should be subject to more tax and regulation, and no small business will pay for him to lobby for that.

    Look out for more Ritchie puffs for the EU/OECD/UN – they are probably his best bets for funding now.

  20. ‘According to the JRCT website, Ritchie received a grant of £70,000 in July 2013 for 2 years’

    Everything he writes has been destroyed for nothing.

Leave a Reply

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