He doesn’t even understand what ad hominem means

Richard Murphy
logged in via Twitter
In reply to Martin Audley
Of course I undertasnd the basis for sale

And the massive uncertainties within it which will require a considerable discount because this is not about risk; I stress it is about uncertainty

Since that discount does not appear to be in the government’s accounts now that is a real loss, like it or not, especially when the government clearly can afford to bear the uncertainty

I note you totally ignore the rate differential. Why sell debt that has a positive rate when you have a negative rate? I note your silence

3 hours ago
Report
Reply
Recommend
Martin Audley
In reply to Richard Murphy
Why would you note my silence at the moment you posted your own comment, which by definition must predate my reply?You have a bizarre way of debating – which on your own blog enables you always to have the last word or delete dissenters. You’ll sadly find that does not work here.

Uncertainty (e.g. in the unmeasurable possibility that an asteroid wipes out all these students tonight) applies to the debt whoever owns it. But the downside-uncertainty is removed from the Government by the sale.

The Government is selling debt with a positive rate to free that money now, so that it can be put to immediate use – either to reduce national debt or to initiate new projects. I would have thought someone who’s always calling for new national infrastructure could see that.

2 hours ago
Report
Reply
Recommend
Richard Murphy
logged in via Twitter
In reply to Martin Audley
It would seem you are here to offer ad hominem attacks

I have no time for these and do not engage with those offering them here or anywhere else

2 hours ago
Report
Reply
Recommend
Paul Rowntree
In reply to Richard Murphy
You don’t understand the argumentum ad hominem fallacy. Martin Audley is not questioning your character or motives. He is making a perfectly reasonable point, which you are refusing to answer.

9 comments on “He doesn’t even understand what ad hominem means

  1. A predictable result of a fat thin-skinned ignoramus venturing into a public forum over which he doesn’t have Stalinist powers of crushing dissenters.

    Sad but also very funny.

  2. Agammamon and Emil

    I suspect that the cretin is trying to make a point based on the difference between risk and uncertainty. He clearly does not understand uncertainty itself, he just appears to be trotting it out.

    In reaiity the government sells the debt at the market price, which reduces it liabilities and allowing it to borrow for other purposes.

    Difference between risk and uncertainty is this:

    http://news.mit.edu/2010/explained-knightian-0602

    The cretin has probably read about it and thinks he can use it to justify his stupid ideas.

  3. “You have a bizarre way of debating – which on your own blog enables you always to have the last word or delete dissenters. ”

    This bit could – just about could – be construed as ad hom.
    However, it is:
    – true
    – only a passing comment before his real argument.

    Telling that the LHTD reverts to type though…

  4. (The) “Difference between risk and uncertainty is this:”

    And from what I could make of it, sounds like nonsense on stilts.
    Yes, you can asses “risk” with a fair degree of certainty from historical precedent. But the further you move in time from your database, the more opportunity there is for “things we don’t know we don’t know” to appear & undermine the basis on which that historical data rests. To take his example: There’s no more chance of predicting airline accident rates 30 years out than of predicting airline profitability. Airliners could be flying in an entirely different operating environment.
    So “risk” & uncertainty are exactly the same thing, only differentiated by the time frame you’re looking at. One merges seamlessly into the other.

  5. Tim

    I see that you explained to Spud what an ad hominem was in your debate with him on Jolyon Maugham’s blog in 2014. Spud does not learn from experience.

  6. BiS

    In thirty years time if airliners are flying in a different environment, that we do not know today, that would count as Knightian uncertainty. The problem in academic terms is that distinguishing between Knightian uncertainty and risk is difficult. In most cases we tend not to be able to do so. My personal suspicion is that Murphy read about uncertainty – and how it is being claimed as one of the factors that caused the financial crisis and latched on to it, without really understanding it. OTOH I find it difficult to think of anything that he does understand so perhaps the last item is not surprising.

Leave a Reply

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