And Ritchie is Ritchie

It seems to me that Maya has laid her cards on the table: the difference of view on display is about whether you think the interests of big business or ordinary people are more important. I know what I think. It seems pretty clear what Maya thinks.

Alex and I wrote entirely independently. We come to similar conclusions, wondering in the first instance what this research is supposed to show, sharing serious doubts about its methodologies, evidence and claims, and finally wondering what the supposed actions that should flow from it are meant to be. If the aim is to undermine the work of NGOs on illicit financial flows the timing of the release could not be more cynical as the Financing for Development conference is now taking place in Addis. If that was not the aim, then what is desired is not clear.

The impression is that this is either a well aimed, but very poorly executed piece of corporate propaganda or a poorly done and badly timed piece of research that has fails in almost every respect. I’d rather hope it was the latter. But I am ever the optimist.

Cuntti di Tutti Cuntti really, isn’t it?

And it comes from Ritchie’s absolute insistence that he shouldn’t have to consider the incidence of corporation tax. Which is, as we all know, in some measure upon shareholders and all of the workers in the economy where that corporation tax is charged. It is not, can never be, upon the company. And, we also know what influences that split: the mobility of capital and the size of the taxing economy in relation to the global economy. The more mobile is capital, the smaller the economy, the more the incidence is upon the workers. And we even know (Atkinson and Stiglitz) that the incidence can be over 100%.

So, when we’re discussing the appropriate corporate tax rate on multinationals (ie, 100% mobile capital) in developing economies (ie, tiny compared to the world economy) we know (and yes, this is something we know and have done for a century, this isn’t one of those things that is arguable) that the burden will lie heavily upon those poor workers in that poor economy: perhaps even totally, or even a greater burden than the revenue raised.

Thus a consideration for the interests of ordinary people would see such corporate activity untaxed, wouldn’t it? As I recommend: precisely because I have the interests of the ordinary people at heart. Ritchie’s argument to tax the hell out of them just makes poor people poorer.

The Murphmonster recommends that the poorest of the world be made poorer.

Cunty is cunty, eh?

15 thoughts on “And Ritchie is Ritchie”

  1. I find it baffling that so many people fall for this shit. Doesn’t even matter what the subject matter is: you can spot the vicious self-absorbed narcissism a mile off from the writing. To me it screams “DO NOT APPROACH.” And yet such people always end up with enthusiastic hangers-on, who don’t just agree with them or look up to them but also somehow think they’re nice. Is it just that they haven’t met enough cunts to recognise the type?

  2. SQ2: “I find it baffling that so many people fall for this shit.”

    You’re surprised that people like being told what they, personally, want to hear?

  3. Maya Forstater is a woman. Can’t we just accuse Ritchie of sexism and unleash a horde of SJWs upon him?

  4. S2

    It surprises too. Jolyon Maugham calls him ‘the Murph’ and defends him to the hilt. This is after he needed to ask Murphy on Twitter to stop telling lies about him.

  5. Julia,

    > You’re surprised that people like being told what they, personally, want to hear?

    Not at all. I did say “Doesn’t even matter what the subject matter is”. When I run into someone like that on the Web — even if they wholeheartedly agree with me about everything — I keep the hell away from them, because they invariably end up being just as poisonous to their friends as to their enemies. That sort of writing is a huge red flag. I am not surprised that some people are inexperienced enough not to know that, but I am quite surprised that a lot of people are.

  6. SQ2, I’d hate to think that vicious, self-absorbed narcissists make up a sizeable majority of blogger and blog readers, but…

  7. Well, I can be vicious, and I’m obviously narcissistic because I’m a musician and self-absorbed because I’m a human, but I try to avoid combining all three at once.

  8. JuliaM

    I’m glad I don’t come into your mind, Julie, my cock is bigger than your self-consciousness. (did I just say that? I blame feminazi puritan abortions)(and teh leftard gayers).

    Nice background though. Better than here, though text is boringly copycat.

  9. And he is of course continuing that fine New Labour tradition of being a vicious, catty little bastard but on first name terms.

  10. Rob: I have this sort of fantasy that the man has a small brainfart in a crucial area & wakes up as Gordon Gekko…

  11. I thought (and was taught) that corporate tax incidence could fall on shareholders, employees or customers, depending on relative elasticities of capital, labour, and demand, respectively. It appears that you include customers in “all workers” – which is fair; as the saying goes, “only people who eat and drink bear tax” – or am I missing something?

Leave a Reply

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