Author Archives: Tim Worstall

There are several things to say. First, although I have reservations about electric cars, let’s be clear that this is a nascent Green New Deal in operation.

Second, let’s also be clear that this is the government picking winners and losers.

And third, quite unambiguously this is the government acting as a banker to the private sector.

And, fourth, the sum involved is far from insignificant.

So, fifth, let’s never again hear opponents of the Green New Deal and a National Investment Bank saying that it is not the government’s job to do any of these things: very clearly it is. A Tory government has just proved that.

What about those of us who think that government shouldn’t be trying to pick winners and also shouldn’t be guaranteeing loans in this manner? That we disagree with Tory policy doesn’t mean we have to accept it, surely?

But much more fun. Note what the Senior Lecturer’s argument actually is. A Tory Government is doing this, therefore by definition it is right to do this. An interesting idea that, isn’t it?

it was put to me over the weekend that this blog may not be as appropriately named now as it was when it was launched more than 13 years ago. Tax is not its sole focus by a long way now.

I thought about alternatives and the best I could come up with was TAPER – Tax, accounting and political economy research.

Any thoughts?

Here Be Drongoes?

In the light of large fines this week for data mishandling, is this a chance of this?

Think how that would change the world’s business models.

And then wonder whether this is part of the Green New Deal that we need.

Yep, to prevent Flipper steaming in the fumes of the last ice floe we must regulate data handling.

Is there nothing the Green New Deal can’t handle?

In the discussion at yesterday’s Corporate Accountability Network launch event I was asked how we could possibly effect change in accounting standards when it takes up to seven years for any change to a standard to take place.

My answer at the time was that this pace of change is, of course, quite ridiculous. There is no reasonable reason on earth why it should take seven years to change an accounting standard.

There must, then, be good reason why it does take this long for change to take place in accountancy. I think there is.

The reason being because they hate me etc.

The trick being missed? If it takes 7 years to gain a change that’s 7 years of funding to ask for, innit?

The result is a radically different approach to accounting standards. The objective is to make accounting and business responsible to all in society, which is appropriate given the enormous privilege of limited liability which most businesses enjoy, and which is granted at cost to everyone else in the communities that make it available.

If granting limited liability were a cost to everyone then we wouldn’t grant it, would we?

That limited liability makes large scale economic cooperation – which makes us richer – even possible is why we do. And that it makes us all richer is why it’s not a cost to us.