We must debate this

We are told by our favourite retired accountant.

Seriously, maturely, think through what we are to do about banking and finance.

Two important  conditions are noted therein: first that we have an adult debate, and secondly that the banks’ self-interest, and the noisy protests of their trolls who populate much of the internet and media, be excluded from this conversation so that the interests of the people of this country be considered above all else.

But we\’ll have to exclude everyone who disagrees with me, naturally.

38 thoughts on “We must debate this”

  1. That would exclude me, then. I’m now officially a troll. I made some carefully considered and well-researched remarks on on his silly blog advocating nationalising all the banks. He didn’t know what he meant by “all” the banks, so I clarified it for him. He wasn’t too happy….

    I am honoured to be included in the august list of all the people that Richard Murphy has insulted, blocked and accused of trolling. Perhaps we trolls should have our own mature, serious and thoughtful debate on what to do about banking and finance? Excluding Richard Murphy, of course.

  2. The arrogance of the man never ceases to amaze me. I keep thinking he can’t surpass this, then he overtakes himself on the outside and zooms away into his fantasy zone.

    It all comes down to the fact that those of us who do not agree with his (extremely self-serving, it has to be said) views do not care and are only interested in getting rich and on the way deliberately and maliciously pi**ing on the working class.

    We neither think, nor are capable of thinking. We are morally corrupt and everything we say, think or do is interpreted from the point of view of our scummy intentions.

    I want a working, safe and fair society at least as much as he does. (Maybe our definitions vary). I consider myself a moral person. Superficial lefties, liberals and ‘progressives’ have hijacked the moral high ground to such an extent that they pardon themselves, when they are wrong, liars, ignorant, morally corrupt or thieves (Mr. Murphy, UKuncut, Hari?, the Grauniad, MPs just for starters).

    I am not a troll, I am not noisy and I demand respect from a jumped up, not very successful ‘professional’ whose ability to take criticism is even less developed than mine. (Had to put that in or my wife (oops! partner) might start blogging and let out the truth.

  3. The last thing he actually wants is a debate.

    His claim to be acting for ‘ the interests of the people of this country’, and his inability to brook any criticism of his idelas, is all you need to know about this Statist lunatic.

    The rest of us can just carry on dealing with reality, paying our way, and enabling fantasists with no experience of working within the industry to suggest unworkable solutions.

  4. Arnald,

    Can’t you read ? We are trolls so of no interest to your masters debate. Why would you suddenly be interested ?

  5. Oh, and by Ritchie’s definition, you are a troll as well, so in your master’s words, we should all ensure that you be ‘excluded from this conversation’

  6. Worzel
    So no new ideas then?

    Considering there are no new ideas on this blog, only verbatim nonsense from failed economic theory, I’m not surprised.

    But yeah, it’s no wonder why some of you guys get blocked. It doesn’t do much looking to see the vitriol and personal attacks.

    I don’t know why you’re complaining.

  7. Arnald, for the record: one does not have to have new ideas to be able to participate in the debate. The fact that an idea is new is of little value if it is bollocks. Therefore people who pick apart other peoples arguments for their new ideas are doing the world a service if they can avoid these ideas causing damage.

    You know this is sort of the whole scientific process. Someone comes up with a new theory that they think can explain things better than the existing theories but it is only accepted as such if it 1) can explain the world better than the previous theories and 2) cannot be proven to be false

  8. Arnald, there is a debate about the death penalty going on. That debate does not involve any new ideas.

    Debate is the process of trying to persude the other side that your point of view is better/more correct/right. Naturually because there is a debate there will never be a common consensus becasue there will always be two sides to the debate, though you might get the odd person to change sides.

    Now the scientific process might look like a debate in that there could be two opposing points of view (FTL is possible, FTL is not possible), but facts are used rather than opinions. And because a fact can only have one state, eventually through scientific analysis one fact comes to the fore.

    Tim is more the scientist in that he uses evidence to back up his claims. @RichardJMurphy uses opinion and belief to back up his claims.

  9. Arnald, the point on ‘new ideas’ is quite simple

    The economic theory that any deem to have caused the 2008 crash is sound. The problem arises when governments interfere, or worse still make up their own ‘economic’ theory that doesn’t actually work. So, you are not going to get many new ground breaking ideas here. Instead you will get much the same arguments as before. For instance, it would be fair to say that Mr Worstall has not exactly been in favour of the formation of the euro or Britain joining it. From the evidence observed over the last 18 months it seems that he was correct. Hence you won’t get a ‘new’ idea for this. Unless you class the same argument followed by ‘I told you so’

    Furthermore, if you look at the 2008 crisis and distill

  10. (continued)

    it to its main cause, you can see that really it wasn’t the economics that was the problem. It was government intervention in the mortgage market in the USA that sparked the sub prime crisis

    http://www.cityam.com/news-and-analysis/allister-heath/how-washington-created-sub-prime

    So, once again, you won’t get many new ideas here. You will generally just get ideas that were, are and will be correct. It just takes time, and perhaps a few more recessions, for politicians and people like yourself and Murphy to understand this. Then perhaps we can generate some new ideas here. Perhaps along the lines of, ‘ now we have created much ore wealth than we can imagine and 99% of the world is out of poverty, what stupid 4th rate degree courses can we set up that add no value to the economy or people living standards, as we can now afford to do this’

  11. Nationalisation ? A new idea ? Brilliant.

    Lets invent a new currency called ‘Arnalds’ and distribute 1 Million of them to every person in the World, so they can spend them and everything will be better.

    There’s a new idea. It’s shit, naive, badly thought out, and has no hope of working, but if all you are after is new ideas, it has as much merit as Ritchie’s suggestion. Now don’t you dare criticise it.

  12. Arnald I have some ideas – The Enlightenment, free speach and liberty.

    Maybe not new ideas to some, but certainly new to the most anti-liberty, censorious, “evidence is pedantry” bully in the blogosphere.

  13. I like the idea that there’s someone reading Murphy’s blog, flicking through the comments and thinking, “It’s astonishing. No one ever disagrees with the guy!”

  14. Some thoughts for Arnald on the value of debate – even with those who don’t agree with you.

    The world runs on consensus. The folk who pay the taxes that provide the wealth redistribution, the welfare state, the ‘fairness’ that you’re so keen on have to believe those taxes are reasonable. If they don’t they won’t pay them. Simple as that. The only way the government can collect taxes is with the consent of the taxed. It can’t force us to pay them. If the taxpayer doesn’t pay the taxes the government can’t pay the people it would need to enforce the taxes. The tax collectors, the courts, the police, the army. The system breaks down.

    The other side of this breakdown the world will split into two halves. There’s the people who will be able to carry on their lives quite well without government. The self sufficient. The industrious. By & large the people who put more into the system than they take out.
    The other half will be the weak, the sick, the people with inadequate life skills. By & large the people who take more out of the system than they they put in. They’ll starve.
    Now, you could choose to argue about definitions about who puts what in & who takes what out. But it wouldn’t be worth your bother. Because no-one will be listening to you. The strong will define the argument because they will have the power to do so.
    Do you want that sort of world?

  15. When thinking about ‘new ideas’ it should be remembered that most of the commenters to Tim Worstalls blog are of a libertarian viewpoint and many of us are still trying to drill Adam Smith’s fundamentals into the thick skulls of collectivists 235 after his works were published.

    Fuck the new ideas, when will this idiots understand the old ideas upon which the real world is founded rather than their imaginary collectivist utopia.

  16. You know, I hadn’t really paid attention to Righteous’ tweets before Peter’s link above.

    Then I go to his website, and the first thing I read on his tweet feed is this:
    “RT @guardiannews: Nasa satellite could hit North America http://t.co/JnwdtMWh I guess there would be justice in that – but pls duck”

    I offer you no comment, no interpretation. Just the quote.

  17. Arnald,

    I have never resorted to personal attacks. All I have done is POLITELY expose the flaws in Murphy’s arguments. For that he insulted me, blocked me and accused me of trollling. It is very apparent that debate is not what he wants – what he wants is a chorus of “oh Richard, what marvellous ideas!” Well, his ideas aren’t marvellous. They are full of logic errors, misinformation and plain ignorance. I cannot in all honesty withhold comment, since I know considerably more about banking than he does. I feel I owe it to everyone to expose his errors. Stupid and dangerous ideas such as his desperately need debunking. He blocked me to try to prevent me from doing this, not because of personal attacks.

  18. Oh, and thanks to Peter Risdon – again!

    I’m sure those of you who’ve followed Peter’s link have realised that the “usual right-wing suspects” Murphy talks about on the current blog include me…..I have commented, of course. But he might delete the comment.

    Tim adds: what really, really, annoys me about Murph (and many others) describing me as right wing is that I regard myself as a leftie. No, really, I’ve said it many times and it still doesn’t seem to get through. I really do want a cleaner, greener, world, where the currently poor are rich, where the currently rich cannot keep the poor in poverty so as to exploit them.

    All I disagree with is the method by which we attain this desirable goal.

    Me, I’m taking the empirical evidence we’ve got, stating that markets produce this desirable goal, planning does not. Contrast and compare W Germany and E Germany, QED. I’m saying that there’s this cool and cute method of getting to what we want: and for that I am insulted.

    I will admit, I’m getting very close to the “no more Mr. Nice Guy” moment.

  19. Already there, Tim. Gloves are definitely off. In addition to attacking me on his blog and on twitter, he’s sent me three really poisonous emails. I’ve had enough.

  20. Sorry, as of 8 pm today, that’s now four poisonous emails. I’ve just picked up the latest. Lovely stuff.

  21. Tim said-

    “what really, really, annoys me about Murph (and many others) describing me as right wing is that I regard myself as a leftie. No, really, I’ve said it many times and it still doesn’t seem to get through. I really do want a cleaner, greener, world, where the currently poor are rich, where the currently rich cannot keep the poor in poverty so as to exploit them.”

    I think this is why we need to move beyond “left” and “right”. Neither of them mean any more what they meant in the French Assembly, and nobody really knows what they mean now.

    I think many hardocore libertarians like myself are libertarians precisely because we believe that to achieve a better world, we need to get the State out of the way, and idiots like Murphy are actively pushing us away from the more equal society he supposedly wants.

    But I don’t believe he does want a more equal society. He wants a society of little people, narrowly confined to a “good” life, with the good life defined by an oligarchy consisting of people like Richard Murphy. Ultimately his kind despise liberty and markets because they are a mechanism by which poor folk like me can better ourselves, rather than being bettered by him, and having to be eternally grateful for what niggardly betterment the oligarchs have awarded us.

    I do not believe I am on the left or on the right. Nor, like Paddy Ashdown, does that mean that I am in the middle. I am somewhere else entirely.

  22. I think the other point to remember is that in my experience a major difference between those on the “left” and those of us dismissed as on the “right” economically- classical liberals, libertarians- is that we understand them much better than they understand us.

    Most economic liberals are knowledgable about and have read the likes of Marx, Keynes, Neo-Ricardians the mercantilists, and so on, and have a good grasp of that form of economics at a theoretical level. The “other side” just don’t read our stuff. They simply haven’t read, or studied the theories of, Menger, Mises, Bastiat, Rothbard, Friedman etc, and have as such a simple cartoony understanding of them. They are rather like those atheists whose only knowledge of the Bible is those bits you can poke fun at or pick holes in, rather than actually understanding Christian theology or having properly read the Bible as a whole.

    The result is that when Murph dimisses people as “fundamentalist libertarians” he literally does not know what they are talking about, and as such doesn’t know what he is talking about either.

    Forgive him Lord, he knows not what he does.

  23. Tim, I’m not sure that I agree with your presentation of the left as it by exclusion would mean that the right are evil bastards. I think it is important that we stop the left from monopolising the good intentions

  24. Pure fantasists.
    The evidence is very clear and present.

    Worstall, there is nothing in your dialogue that suggests you desire what you claim. All of your drivel points to a more unequal society, less opportunity for the poor and greater riches for the top fractions of percent.

    Coppola,

    Thew problem is you just say what’s been said before and its been proved wrong time and time again. You knowing about banking does not make you know what banking has done.

    I don’t understand the defence of positions that have failed. Everyone accuses Murphy of hubris, maybe fairly so, but it is in no way in the league of the current twats that rule our economies and our world.

    That’s mainly the bankers, love.

    So by taking positions against the thrust of Murphy’s campaigning, you are taking apologist positions for criminals and of social destruction.

    Not once have I seen anything from this blog that promotes equality, true and honest markets or the capture of criminals.

    It’s always “the state is always wrong, give the workings to a well known schyster”.

    That ain’t an argument for humanity, it’s a blackboard recipe for dysfunction.

    As proved, over and over again.

    So pull your necks in, your no good for ordinary people, you just help your mates.

  25. “Not once have I seen anything from this blog that promotes equality, true and honest markets or the capture of criminals.

    It’s always “the state is always wrong, give the workings to a well known schyster”.”

    Those two statements are mutually exclusive

  26. Arnald… The odd thing is that while your rants, such as the above, appear on Mr Worstall’s blog, their inverse would never see the light of day on Mr Murphy’s.

    Some can take criticism… Some obviously can’t.

  27. Which of ‘our’ ideas (our meaning economically-classical libertarians) have ever even been tried? It’s necessary to try something first before you can say it failed.

  28. [email protected],

    “Not once have I seen anything from this blog that promotes equality, true and honest markets or the capture of criminals.”

    I’ll take up your challenge with a specific example that bugs me. Tax. Or rather tax structures. Tim, Mirlees, OECD, IFS and others have long argued for a tax structure along Nordic lines. You know, some of the most famously equal and Social Democratic countries in the world.

    The voices *against* a Nordic-style tax structure include Righteous, TUC and the british Labour Party.

    Now – either you are going to argue that the Nordics are not equal and Social Democratic societies and we don’t want ot be more like them (surely you wont do that), of you are going to have to explain why TUC/Labour etc actively and openly oppose it.

    ‘Cos see what normally happens is that the British Left can see what works in Social Democracies (high consumption taxes, low CGT and CT, highly localised taxes) yet makes a logical wrong turn and campaigns *against* those exact specific measures that would help it towards its stated goal. Then classical liberals argue *for* Nordic-style models, but get slated by you for advocating measure consistent with Social Democracies!

    Why wont you (as Arnald and the british left) argue for the policies that are proven in the real world to get you what you say you want?

  29. oops. Forgot the third option; you are not aware of the characteristics of different tax structures, don’t know its done in the countries you seek to emulate, but just argue against whatever Tim/Mirlees/OECD/IFS/Washington Consensus says, and asume they must be evil baby-eaters simply because they are Tim/Mirlees/OECD/IFS/Washington Consensus.

  30. “Why wont you (as Arnald and the british left) argue for the policies that are proven in the real world to get you what you say you want?”

    The answer Gary, is that they don’t actually want to help the poor, the needy and the afflicted. They ‘say’ they do, but their real aim is to attack the sections of society above – the wealthy and the middle classes. They are the ones they wish to destroy. Hence the implementation of policies more motivated by a hatred of success than a desire to help the bottom sections to succeed themselves. Helping people out of poverty via education and a welfare system designed to encourage self-sufficiency would never do. People who succeeded might consider that they had done it by their own efforts, and not vote for the Left. Therefore the lumpen masses must be kept in a constant state of not quite actual poverty, but with little chance of escape, thereby maximising the Leftist vote.

    This is the only explanation of the huge gap between what the Left say they want, and what they actually achieve when in government.

  31. Arnald, you claim we are all fantasists – share with us please your firm grasp of reality. Why is there a Tax Gap between the tax structures the british left supports and the tax structures that deliver sucessful Social Democratic societies?

Leave a Reply

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