Timmy\’s evidence to the House of Lords Committee

Is available here.

Start on page 149.

First time I\’ve ever given such evidence: and despite the way that the committee\’s findings seem to have been heavily influenced by it (or possibly a great deal more acurately, we\’ve both managed to read and understand the underlying evidence) it might well be the last.

For I just couldn\’t help getting the occasional dig in here and there. And that\’s quite possibly not what you\’re supposed to do in such cases….

12 thoughts on “Timmy\’s evidence to the House of Lords Committee”

  1. Good stuff. Why do right-thinkers always suffer the “lunchtime conversation problem”?

    The lunchtime conversation problem is thus – someone says something like “the Robin Hood tax is great – we can stuff the bankers, get them to pay for their crisis – we pay less – great stuff – up the workers etc.”. The counter-argument is difficult (maybe just for me) to sum up in a rousing soundbite. You might manage it at a dinner party with better-educated opposition, but not with your work colleagues in a lunch break.

  2. you fucking peacock, eh.

    Tim Worstall of Forbes! Mr Forbes!


    Tim adds: Of Forbes indeed. And well I remember when Ritchie was enlisted there. Several comments went around showing how this showed how important he was, how outstanding, to be so picked. Such calls about the importance of being picked by Forbes somewhat died out when I was also so picked: and amazingly they seem to have stopped altogether now that I am still there and Ritchie is not……

  3. Ah, yes, Arnald.

    When you finally drag yourself away from your busy busking career to deal with the real world, perhaps you might reconsider how actual adults deal with the people you seem incapable of understanding.

  4. Tim

    as an example: ‘The study of incidence is the study of whose wallet gets picked.’

    Your choice of vocabulary I like. That they might not, I understand.

  5. Arnald

    I have read the opinion presented by Tim. I recognise that I am not capable of arguing for it or agin it.

    However, it was clear and made sense. I tend to believe it.

    Could you give me your opinion as to why Tim has got it all wrong?

    I would love to reconcile the two views.


  6. @ bilbaoboy
    Arnald does not even attempt to say that Tim got it wrong. He is merely being offensive.

  7. I have always been sceptical that macroeconomics is worth much. But I can see that the study of tax incidence is well worth doing. It is classified as part of macroeconomics, is it?

  8. Arnold, that has nothing to do with Tim being a peacock. That’s the written evidence from The Alternate Investment Management Association Limited (AIMA) who have done a cock up in their writing up.

    “Tim Worstall of Forbes has drawn attention… Mr. Forbes argues that…”

    Just shows your prejudices that you use it as an attack on Tim when in reality it is nothing to do with him. It also shows our prejudices towards you that the moment you pop up we automatically defend Tim against you – possibly something to do with your continual factless attacks on him.

  9. Yeah but SodBotModLod

    He’s ever so proud about his little thing what he did! All chuffed, isn’t he?

    you fucking dunce, of course i knew it was a cock up, i was merely highlighting it because it was a funny.

    Your “we” being an auto-cock-defender is very sweet. Nearly endearing.

Leave a Reply

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