So, Ritchie on Maya Forstater:
I could spend some time questioning the motivation for this report and the fact that if Maya was really serious about getting comment she might have actually consulted those in the NGO community who have been involved with the estimates with which she seeks to engage, but that is not my intention. I will stick to the issues,
Odious git is odious.
Maya, in the comments:
This is a consultation draft, released for comments by the NGO community and other experts, after which it will be revised.
This is a request for comment on the issue.
If you have not got as far as realising that it says a) that your research is pretty poor when all you had to do was read my comments policy, which may well be much more liberal than that at CGD, and b) that you appear to be willing to subscribe to sort of myths that the likes of Tim Worstall are happy to promote. If you want to engage in serious debate I suggest you up your game.
Because issuing an open and public version of a draft for comment is neoliberal sophistry.
This is also pretty cool:
Second, I think you would be wise to note what Alex Cobham had to say on your willingness to hear comments. He was not impressed, and has now said so. Indeed, he says that he thinks your research had a pre-ordained outcome.
Alex Cobham’s comments about Maya might need to be taken with just a soupcon, a pretension possibly, of salt. Given that Maya’s work, very carefully, very accurately and very elegantly, nailed his scrotal sack to the wall over the nonsense about Zambia, Switzerland and copper prices. And I’m absolutely certain that there was no connection at all between my bringing Maya’s work to the attention of Owen Barder at CDG and Alex Cobham leaving CDG to go to the TJN, with CDG now working with Maya on this paper. No connection at all: couldn’t possibly be.
Third, I think your comments on NGOs are dangerously close to libelous. I think you need to be very careful about suggesting any NGFO misrepresents the truth and be very clear about your evidence. I have not seen any to sup[ort your claim in your paper.
Umm, Zambia,, Switzerland and copper prices anyone?
Odious git is odious
I could go on. But what is glaringly obvious is that you have reduced a major question of ethical and macroeconomic significance impacting on the lives of hundreds of millions and maybe billions of people to a simple question of the Laffer curve and the microeconomics of setting individual tax rates.
Yes you bloody fool. Because whether the taxation of corporate profit leads to less corporate investment is the central and important question of the entire debate. The incidence of corporate taxation is also a pretty important consideration. Which is why people who know their economics tend to argue for high resource taxes and low corporate and capital ones: an argument that’s been outlined to you many a time and which you still refuse to engage with.
Cretinous git is cretinous.