Rilly? Blimey!

Richard Murphy says:
January 18 2018 at 7:05 pm
Are you aware that prima facie banking is not in GDP because it dos not add value?

Considerable effort had to be made to add it in, using appropriximations which may, or may not, be right?

Given that he’s already said this:

Richard Murphy says:
January 18 2018 at 3:12 pm
GDP is calculated in three ways

The three ways being income, consumption and production. The incomes of bankers very definitely appear in income – as do the profits. So, how can it be that banking isn’t included in GDP?

21 comments on “Rilly? Blimey!

  1. Fair enough. If banks don’t add value then government spending doesn’t add value. So shouldn’t be counted in GDP.

  2. Murphy confusing remarks reminds me of Dick Puddlecote blogger who has campaigned for years on smoking from his bedroom , strictly anonymous of course under a false name, infact he will only show pictures of his back on his blog but other peoples faces at conventions are deemed ok.

    Dick used this catchphrase for the last 10 years…”its nothing to do with health” in smoking quitting advice.

    Dick now champions “vapers” and styles himself a crusading lobbyist for vaping and posts often about how vaping is fantastic for harm reduction caused by real fags.

    Quitting smoking is about health isnt it Dick?…..only when it suits you of course.

  3. It’s breathtaking to contemplate just how much of a fool he makes himself appear when he states an opinion on anything whatsoever

  4. And it’s not just that there are demented fuckwits and socialists (somewhat of a tautology) out there who lap up the cat-sick mess of economotaxorama bollocks that he spouts but there are media outlets prepared to give the pompous buffoon a platform.

    As an actual tax professional it irritates me like fingernails on a blackboard every time I hear or read him described as a ‘tax expert’. He has OPINIONS on tax the same way Japanese knotweed has leaves but he has fuck all actual knowledge. The general outlines that any accountant has to learn but even then 20 years out of date.

  5. I admit that English and Latin are not my strong points, but am I the only one that thinks that his use of “prima facie” is completely out of context?

  6. “It’s breathtaking to contemplate just how much of a fool he makes himself appear when he states an opinion on anything whatsoever.”

    Unfortunately, he also says what more than a few desperately want to believe.

  7. B in ND –

    I was wondering about that as well. I googled the term and got zero returns. I’m assuming he got it from one of the little voices in his head.

  8. Take a step back.

    The logic, for what it’s worth, is this.

    “I, Richard Murphy, personally don’t believe [or understand – ed] that banking adds value. GDP is a measure of value. Therefore since Banking does not add value, it must not be included in GDP calculations”.

    It’s as simple as that.

  9. “using appropriximations which may, or may not, be right”

    Isn’t this true of all approprixinations?

  10. @ Diogenes
    Approximations are (virtually) never precise but they should be accurate to within (enter here choice of approximation). So it depends on what you mean by “right”.

  11. John77, it is Murph who made that statement. He condemns Gers because it contains estimates, seemingly unaware that most official economic data contains some level of estimation, simply because of materiality concerns amongst other things

  12. @ Diogenes
    Ah, thank you for that explanation. What Murphy means by “right” seems to be “what suits the Professor of Political Economy at this moment”

Leave a Reply

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