Glorious Ritchie!

A pair for today:

The New Economics Foundation challenges one of the most fundamental tenets of conventional economics today – that the price of something can be equated to its worth.

And if we are not to price things by the worth that people put on them, what then?


I think neo-liberal economics is a lie. It does not seek to maximise well being. It seeks to shift resources from many to a few.

Gosh, so that\’s why we neo-liberals argue for lower taxation on the poor, for globalisation so that the global poor might grow rich, against tariffs which are a subsidy to domestic capitalists and why we continually argue that as everyone has a different definition of their own wellbeing that everyone should (excepting those things which must be provided both collectively and with the monopoly of coercion of the State) disperse of their own resources as they wish so as to maximise their wellbeing as they see it.

I\’d never realised that what we were actually arguing for was to shift resources from the many to a few.

I think much right wing and libertarian philosophy is a lie seeking subjugation for a majority.

\”Let it all hang out\”, \”Do as you would be done by\”, \”Navigate your own path from cradle to perdition, as you see fit\”. Yes, I can see the intent to subjugate in those.

I think many say we can live without limits now, and that is a lie: we live in a finite world.

Given that the first principle of neo-liberal economics is that resources are scarce this is pretty difficult to combine with lie 1) really.

I, for some reason, seem to be made of grit.

He thinks he\’s John Wayne now?

Fascinating to see someone arguing for more State control, higher taxes and the ever expanding reach of the bureaucracy thinking he\’s swimming against the tide as well…..

9 thoughts on “Glorious Ritchie!”

  1. Brian, follower of Deornoth

    Got the last two letters right, though. Which is a better strike rate than most of his oeuvre.

  2. classic Murph —

    first job I ever did was cleaning
    By the time I was eighteen I was contracting others to work for me cleaning church halls
    It was crap, smelly, hard and utterly monotonous work
    It was all the incentive I needed to do something more interesting

    so he quickly became an exploitative capitalist !
    then after a brief sojourn @ university where he dismissed a few hundred years of learned economic thought, became a tax accountant , selling his business to become a smug self righteous guardianista.
    he is beyond parody

  3. it surely must be worth trying to track down some poor peon who served articles in Murphy’s firm – I presume he took his duty to society strongly enough to train people to become accountants….

  4. If Richie’s view of liberal economics was right, then only rich people would ever support it. As there is not enough rich people in the world to make a majority, it would never happen in a democracy.

    There is a system designed to shift resources from many to a few, its called protectionism.

    There is another system ostensibly designed to do the opposite, but with the same result. Its called socialism.

  5. Didja spot the exchange with “Juliet” on the NEF post? Juliet asks two sensible questions: first, isn’t just a bit silly to assume that government spending is always good and private spending always bad; and second, aren’t employers better placed than ivory tower think-tankers to judge the value of labour? (Co-incidentally, precisely the two objections I raised to the NEF report.)

    Murphy’s response: “What a profoundly nasty person you must be”

    Takes one to know one, eh?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *