Will you look at this casuistry?

Second we have the perpetuation of an economic creed that says that money is made by individuals as result of their own effort, when this is palpably untrue. Money is made available by government and the income it is used to measure and distribute is without exception ( even if the degree varies) result of communal effort.


Second, it is promoted to encourage the belief that it is the genius of the owner of capital that makes money, when in fact government does.

Money, the physical cash stuff, is made by government. Fair enough, although do note that societies without such government created money have also had methods of keeping account, of working out who owes what, who commands which resources. Try taking part in a round in a pub without standing one for too long and you’ll fin out we’ve very effective social methods of enforcing such too.

But money is made by government. Therefore, people who accumulate it do not do so by their own effort?

Rilly? ‘Coz the Mint makes the money, JK Rowling didn’t write nor sell all those books?

27 comments on “Will you look at this casuistry?

  1. Second we have the perpetuation of an economic creed that says that money is made by individuals as result of their own effort

    He’s just deliberately being a trolling cunt now.

  2. Imagine being Richard Murphy.

    You’ve pissed off everyone you have ever worked with, or married. You come home from that drag of a commute into London each day to an empty end of terrace house, thinking how you really could have been something once.

    You’d go mad too, surely.

  3. Cretinous cvnt and a vexacious blogger.

    By the way, this point

    “Try taking part in a round in a pub without standing one for too long and you’ll fin out we’ve very effective social methods of enforcing such too.”

    Brits who’ve not lived in Germany will be astounded that when the bill arrives there for a group meal etc everyone pays their own share individually. Takes an age and was a real eye opener to me.

  4. ” Try taking part in a round in a pub without standing one for too long and you’ll fin out we’ve very effective social methods of enforcing such too.” this supposes that you have friends. Difficult (nay impossible) to imagine for the potato.

  5. It’s easy to get confused about money and value when you’ve never created anything of any worth to anyone.

  6. Money is a trusted and transferable record and measure of value owed.
    When people confuse the production of the actual IOU with the value that’s actually owed, that’s when they make this confusion.
    States are great at being the trusted recorder of this stuff, and produce transferable and trustworthy IOUs.
    These IOUs aren’t what is actually owed; they’re just the record and measure of it. That’s the confusion Murphy et al have with it all.

  7. OT: one for the excellent inquisitor Noel perhaps. Around June 6th to coincide with Fair Tax fortnight, FairTaxMark are scheduled to announce a new company accreditation, one with about 2000 outlets in the UK.
    ( Costa, Dixons Carphone have about that many; it might be NISA as they are part of the Coop, but that’s speculation ).
    Do you know who it might be, as if they are a listed company on past performance you need to divest.

  8. Staines is busy handing out diet advice from Tom Watson. If its possible for one fat git then the Seaman might still have hope.

  9. someone on richies thread was asking what entities he actually audited – comments are surprisingly closed but here is a selection:

    GYRE & GIMBLE LIMITED
    ALPHABET SET LIMITED
    SJP CONSULTANCY LIMITED
    HELAFIELD LIMITED
    LONDON BASKETBALL CLUB LIMITED
    DUKEGATE LIMITED
    DRAGON FILMS LIMITED
    THE COMPONENT LABORATORY LIMITED

    all sadly liquidated – the accounts were not signed by an individual but in the name of his firm murphy deeks nolan

  10. He is literally conflating money with wealth. And then, once having done that, saying that wealth is only created by the government.

    As for ‘you didn’t make that’ – *of course* wealth creation is communal. But ‘communal’ doesn’t mean ‘everyone in society participated and so everyone deserves an equal share’ (or even a share at all).

    Well, whatever, either its moronic or its deliberately deceitful.

  11. What’s even more pernicious about this is that the real truth is that when Government does make more money, it actually _reduces_ the value of the stuff everyone already has…

  12. Money is *earned* by individuals by their own efforts.
    Murphy isn’t quite as stupid as he looks – by substituting one word he can fool some people into accepting pernicious rubbish.

  13. Andy Cooke said:
    “When people confuse the production of the IOU with the value that’s actually owed, that’s when they make this confusion.”

    Excellent summary.

    Odd that the left are so fixated on money, when they keep telling us that money isn’t important and it’s value that matters.

  14. “Murphy isn’t quite as stupid as he looks”. Well, he couldn’t be, could he?

  15. Dear Mr Potato Blight,
    No individual creates money, they create something of value – or not in the case of the Guardian and the BBC – for which other people voluntarily give them bits of paper called money. These can be exchanged for stuff that people might like to have – water, food, shelter, clothes etc.

  16. Yesterday: private banks create money out of thin air.
    Today: Government creates money.

    Different days, different holes in his stump…

  17. The second point about the owner of capital is incomprehensible to me – don’t people generally think that it is the capital earning its return, indeed its fair price having been the discounted present value of those future returns, rather than the owner being a genius or (the straw man he seems to be trying to attack) that the capital is somehow printing currency?

    The first point is actually sensical, though capable of being exaggerated in importance – “the income it is used to measure and distribute is without exception ( even if the degree varies) result of communal effort” is at least making a sensible claim about the origins of the value a person can add, even if the intention is to undermine their individual claim to its rewards.

    If the benefits system meant that JK Rowling had to spend her life working twelve hour days at minimum wage, she wouldn’t have had time to write her first book; if the government didn’t run an education system that promoted mass literacy then her book sales would have been far lower; if the state didn’t institute a legal system that protected intellectual property then she would have earned pitiful royalties. But that is to ignore the fact that of the tens of thousands of writers taking advantage of Britain’s healthy environment for writers, very few get anywhere near Harry Potter levels of fame and fortune. Few can even purchase a house or pay the rent on the back of their efforts. It also ignores how society might have been reorganised in the counterfactual, eg there were schools and literacy in this country before the “national schools” came along, and there were writers before copyright enforcement though it may have forced a different business model.

  18. @ MBE
    “National Schools” were not provided by the state – 200 years ago education was provided by churches and charities; “board schools” came more than half a century later.
    They were called “national schools” because the ambition was to have one in every parish in the country.

  19. “If the benefits system meant that JK Rowling had to spend her life working twelve hour days at minimum wage, she wouldn’t have had time to write her first book; if the government didn’t run an education system that promoted mass literacy then her book sales would have been far lower; if the state didn’t institute a legal system that protected intellectual property then she would have earned pitiful royalties”

    Shakespeare managed when –what–99% were illiterate.

    And Charles Dickens managed it even more handily because of the explosion of literacy –70% plus–that took place before the scummy state started squeezing the private sector out of mass education.

  20. @ MBE
    Also “Communal effort”, not government. Often, albeit not always, the community gets something back.

  21. @john77

    You’re absolutely right, I’ve mixed up the national schools with the board schools. Good spot.

    And yes, the conflation of “communal” with “state” can be part of the sleight of hand the “you didn’t build” argument deploys. Though if you see taxes as a way of paying back society in general rather than the state in particular there’s still some logic to it.

    @Ecksy

    Indeed – your quoted bit is my rehash of the traditional argument, and I think it is exaggerated for the same reasons you do.

  22. @ MBE
    There are better ways of paying back to the community than paying tax to the central government – e.g. I’ve been asked to marshall our club’s 10km home race rather than jog/scout’s pace it (a sad comment on my current performance by a guy a few years older than I who will run it).

Leave a Reply

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