Quite masterly from the Murphmeister

RBS is looking for a new chief executive. And it seems, according to the FT, that no one outside RBS wants the job.

Which then begs the question why the person who will take it – who will probably be promoted internally – needs to be paid many millions a year for a job that there’s no competition to fill.

But I am sure the remuneration committee will overlook that fact and it will be triples all round whatever the outcome.

What excellent logic.

We\’re finding it very difficult to find someone to do this job. Therefore we\’d better lower the pay we\’re offering to attract someone.

35 thoughts on “Quite masterly from the Murphmeister”

  1. Offshore Observer

    Why doesn’t Richard Murphy send in a CV?

    Obviously markets work differently in Murphyland. Of course it is a pretty tough job to fill. For example if you paid enough to get someone credible then the political furore from the likes of hodge, the guardian et.al. is likely to be difficult to endure. So anyone good enough for the job (like Stephen Hester for example) is unlikely to want to take the job as they can make enough elsewhere without all the political bullshit that they would otherwise have to endure.

    So that probably means you have to pay an eye watering amount to get someone probably who not capable of doing the job.

    In the words of that great philosopher B.A. Baracus: ” I pity the fool” who takes that job.

  2. They also make the perennial mistake of “kilowatts per year”, Which is constantly-repeated nonsense in all mainstream media articles about energy. Just kilowatts will do, or if you really have to be circular about it, kilowatt-hours per year.

  3. FUCKING HELL

    I’m trying to think of something profound to say, something not fatuous….

    No, I can’t. FUCKING HELL!!!

  4. The problem of RBS is familiar to those of us who remember the old state-run institutions of the past, prior to the Thatcherite revolution of the 1980’s.

    Similar to British Leyland, being CEO of RBS is such a thankless task subject to the whims and daydreams of the political elite that is anybody surprised nobody from outside of RBS wants to “drink deeply of the poisoned chalice”.

    The only reason that there are candidates from within RBS is that they are already tainted by its near collapse and they won’t get a chance anywhere else to earn decent wonga.

    The £1.2million that Stephen Hester was paid is utterly meagre by comparison to most equivalent city packages, even after the bust. This includes the £1.6 million leaving package.

    You pay peanuts, you get monkeys and RBS has enough of them already.

  5. also, you know fine that when the time comes for you to leave, the wankers will dispute your leaving package, even though it was part of your remuneration in the first place.

    Which is why I think anyone capable of doing the job should be asking for really quite a lot up front.

  6. I do think it is impossible to overstate just how atunningly stupid this post from Murphy actually is.

    Just so we are all in no doubt, it shows he doesn’t know the moast basic economic theory. This is important because he is paid by Unite, PCS and JRF to lead the national debate.

    Last week in debate with parliamentarians he denounced ‘microeconomists’, tax professionals and accountants. He has declared that statisticians know nothing, including our own John77, this morning he posted that current GDP growth is just ‘a return to boom and bust’ and informed a contributor who dared challenge his analysis of the RBS pay rate that he was dealing with economics; not accounting, so they wouldn’t of course understand.

    My own current hobby-horse is his idiotic ‘critique’ of the OECD.

    And at the heart of all this: HE KNOWS NOTHING.

    What a chancer, what a con-man. He is the C21st Titus Oats.

  7. @ Ironman
    He was not so polite as to declare that statisticians know nothing – he claimed that all statistics are biased and that I demonstrated ignorance when I disputed that lie.
    Yeah Murphy: sue me if you dare for calling that a lie.

  8. you know, I think there’s a glimmer of sense to this. You have to pay $$$ to recruit from the pool of global titans of industry. The value of these individuals is debatable, However, if you turned to various internal senior managers and said “fancy having a crack at running the show for £500,000?” you might get some takers, and you might not end up with a worse job done by them

  9. Just absolutely priceless..!!

    He is becoming an expert at self parody – not even Murphy Richard could better his response to Ivor at 3.55..:)

  10. PF, “Worstall’s problem is a simple one. He may know a great deal of theory but he consistently proves he lacks any understanding in its application” is a fantastic line.

    Another Worstall fallacy in the making I see – seeing your own faults and failings in someone else and due to your own faults and failings feeling compelled to publicise them as some sort of psychological method of excusing your faults and failings.

  11. “He is becoming an expert at self parody – not even Murphy Richard could better his response to Ivor at 3.55..:)”

    Many here have been barred / black-listed / don’t go there.

    If it’s funny, repost. If it’s the usual Ritchie-bollocks, don’t bother.

  12. @John Galt:
    If you don’t want to click the link – here it is:

    Ivor says: July 25 2013 at 2:46 pm

    Thanks – most enjoyable watching you reveal to your readership your almost total cluelessness.

    I imagine Worstall is in hysterics.

    to which Murphy responds:

    Richard Murphy says: July 25 2013 at 3:55 pm

    Ivor

    What you do not apparently realise is that 97% of thinking people accept that if Worstall says someone is wrong they are bound to be right

    Worstall’s problem is a simple one. He may know a great deal of theory but he consistently proves he lacks any understanding in its application

    So if, as usual, Worstall says I am wrong on this one I can promise you I will not be worried. It will just prove that yet again he has applied the wrong assumptions that result in an inappropriate model to analyse data to which it is not suited to come up with an answer of no real world use.

    That may explain why he appears to have no real world impact and why he’s so annoyed that I appear to have some.

    Personally, I am not convinced Murphy Richard could better that!

  13. Thanks PF, you’ve managed to tick both boxes.

    It is on both points “the usual Ritchie bollocks” and at the same time “quite funny” for all the wrong reasons.

    Ritchie is approaching the point where he is beyond parody.

  14. For once, Murph makes a reasonable point.

    What we seem to be seeing here is the curious “neoliberal” mantra that jobs are a cost, not a benefit… except when it’s ruling class jobs, in which case suddenly you always need to raise wages to “attract talent”.

    And then we wonder why the Gini Index is worsening. It basiclally seems to come down to this mental model of Smithian “commodity labour” as an homogenous spodge, which is divided up and organised by a small elite of wise owls who are seen, unlike “labour” as individuals with talent.

    And this is why the “right” will never win the argument. Because that commodity labour knows its being done up like a kipper, and thus turns to the Left in the hope of some sort of rebalancing.

    5 or so years ago, effectively the entire banking industry demonstrated that it was staffed by people so grotesquely incompetent as to be unfit to run a whelk stall. And yet, they are still with us, rolling in taxpayers’ money and awarding each other massive incomes and bonuses. And yet their supporters cannot figure out why people might object to that. Which is pretty astonishing.

  15. Ian B,

    What we seem to be seeing here is the curious “neoliberal” mantra that jobs are a cost, not a benefit… except when it’s ruling class jobs, in which case suddenly you always need to raise wages to “attract talent”.

    Yep. Nurses for example don’t deserve more money because there is a surfeit of candidates and it’s a self-sacrifice vocation, but MPs deserve more money despite a surfeit of candidates because we need to attract the right sort of person…

  16. It also comes down to perceived value.

    We value nurses higher than MP’s, but because MP’s have control of the levers of power they are paid t2-3 times what we pay a nurse.

    For myself, I’d allow the exception and pay MP’s peanuts to get monkey’s. Sure they might throw faeces around Pugin’s chamber, but at least they would interfere with the lives of the electorate less…

  17. I think we just need a rule by which MPs have to pay to vote for new laws, like say £1000 a time. And get an extra £1000 on their wage every time they repeal one. Something like that.

  18. My dearest wish is that Murphy has some Internet stupidity named after him, in the same way that Robert Fisk had the filleting of a crap article named after him.

  19. And every economics teacher or student who has ever drawn the most rudimentary supply and demand diagram; they’re all applying the wrong assumptions and inappropriate models.

  20. I love Murohy’s 97% stat. What a remarkably precise figure. The result of research? Or another of his, ahem, estimates?

  21. UKLiberty>

    Whether or not nurses are actually pretty well paid for what they do can be argued one way or the other. That politicians are very underpaid is much more clear-cut. The man who runs the McDonalds on Oxford Street gets paid more than the man who runs the country. Sure, there are all kinds of benefits to be had afterwards, but that’s not exactly an incentive to please the voters and win re-election, is it?

  22. @Ironman… I think that the 97% figure may actually be a bit of humour from Mr M – it’s the same percentage as that concluded in the truly dismal Cook and Nuccitelli “analysis” of the percentage of climate scientists who support the concensus that we’re all going to boil as a result of CAGW. It was trotted out by the even more dismal Ed Davey whilst under pressure from Andrew Neil on the “Sunday Politics Show” last week. 🙂

  23. Dave,

    That politicians are very underpaid is much more clear-cut. The man who runs the McDonalds on Oxford Street gets paid more than the man who runs the country.

    Why isn’t the PM’s low pay considered a noble sacrifice?

  24. @Dave

    so MPs run the country? They get paid a lot of money to act as glorified social workers, answering letters from constituents. Every so often they sit in a comfortable room, make braying noises and then dutifully troupe through a doorway as the Party Whip tells them. Some of them do end up in the Executive, where they get paid even more for enacting the dictates of Brussels. Some of them end up on Select Committees where they might make headlines for parading their stupidity.

    I suggest that people should pay to become MPs. Ministers should get paid but not MPs.

  25. I know Murphy Richards has taken me to task for ‘arguing with that spoof blog’ – The exchange with Ivor on this post leads me to think that Murphy may have a point!

  26. Murphy

    I take back any prior references and going forward will ignore the spoof account @RichardJMurphy, as you have often urged me to do…

Leave a Reply

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