Odious git is odious

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.

Odious git:

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.

17 thoughts on “Odious git is odious”

  1. Hard to overstate the very thinly veiled undercurrent of threatening in his original response to Forstater, never mind the blog post which verges perilously close to libel. As Ironman said on one of the entries yesterday, I think even fellow members of ‘civil society’ have been told to treat the man with kid gloves. His blogging is evidence of a hair trigger temper and an odiousness bordering on the psychopathic. A genuinely nasty piece of work, and needless to say, one of the most dangerous men in Britain, if not the world.

  2. “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.”

    Jesus Christ. How often does this man get punched in the face, I wonder. Daily?

    “my comments policy, which may well be much more liberal than that at CGD”

    LOL. Does CGD shoot adverse commenters?

    “If you want to engage in serious debate I suggest you up your game.”

    Unbelievable.

  3. The number of calories in various items of food was a subject of significant discussion in my household a few years ago, and still comes up every now and then.

    It was mentioned that the rule of thumb is that I should be on around 2,500 calories a day and my wife on around 2,000 (although these figures were later tweaked based on actual height & weight measurements, and adjusted for exercise taken and so forth).

    As we’re both liable to get distracted, the discussions included reference to things like Army ration packs of various eras, estimates of the calorific intake of mediaeval peasants, the diet of prisoners of war in various wars, humanitarian relief efforts, and so on.

    However, I now realise it is glaringly obvious is that we had reduced a major question of ethical and nutritional significance impacting on the lives of hundreds of millions and maybe billions of people to a simple question of the RDA and the microeconomics of setting individual dietary requirements.

    It is completely inappropriate to reduce the question of “are you getting enough to eat?” to mere numbers! I trust for example that Oxfam and the like pay no attention to simplistic things like “making sure people get enough calories”, and concentrate on more important ethical issues.

  4. “How often does this man get punched in the face, I wonder. Daily?”

    I assume this is why he blogs from home and doesn’t go out much.

  5. “Third, I think your comments on NGOs are dangerously close to libelous. I think you need to be very careful…”

    Leaving aside the the menace in this response (although we could major on the menace), this is a man who spent most of yesterday comparing modern day Germans with the Nazis and is today accusing others of libelling groups.

  6. “How often does this man get punched in the face, I wonder. Daily?”

    Is it not rumoured he can no longer go in his local pub because so many people want to?? Sure I read that on here once.

  7. “menace”

    A bloke that you all regard as asinine and who has no influence on government policy or anywhere.

  8. Philip Scott Thomas

    What would be really super neato-keen would be if an MP took up the cause of criticising Ritchie and made it into a personal crusade. He could name and shame Murphy relentlessly under the cover of parliamentary privilege. He could work it in to any and every discussion, sort of a ‘Ricardo delenda est’ type of thing.

    “The honourable member will, I pray, forgive me for damning with faint praise, but I am pleased to be able to say that he is at least more competent than that buffoon at the Tax Justice Network, Richard Murphy.” That sort of thing.

    If he kept up long enough the media would eventually notice the campaign and start asking questions. Huzzah! The oxygen of publicity and a whole new audience to be educated about Murphy’s bollocks.

    Just imagine the hours of merriment to be had. Sigh…

  9. Ironman

    I am reminded of the ‘Dad’s Army’ episode with the German U Boat captain:

    ‘Your name will also go on the list’

    Besides which he is such a careless typist that Forstater has to be wary of ‘libelling any NGFO’ – I think given his record for him to accuse anyone of libel is the height of hypocrisy……

  10. A bloke that you all regard as asinine

    Yup.

    and who has no influence on government policy or anywhere

    No, that’s the problem. He indeed has influence. Not much on this UK government, thankfully*, and less so now that even the leftists that getting speaking heads on to the BBC and other media are beginning to realise that he is, before everything else, an utterly narcissistic moron.

    But still far too much for comfort.

    * given the then presumed likely Milliblandian victory, we could have been criticising the ex cathedra pronouncements of Lord Murphy of Downham Market**, special assistant to Ed Ballsup and Minister for Taxation Reform.

    ** Blazon: gules, a boot sable stamping on a face proper.

  11. Iron-o (Thundercats HO!)

    I’m not sure firing off a few lines of text constitutes “so much tine”, but my fork does multi-task.

    And Lord, Vanpy is referencing Dad’s Army! It’s a culture-shock!

    For the record I’m not actually defending anyone, I’m just pointing out an objective intellectual discrepancy; narcissistic commentators reviling a perceived narcissistic blogger.

    Squander elsewhere

    Musicians are necessarily self-regarding otherwise what’s the fucking point.

  12. Arnald

    I thought the Dad’s Army reference appropriate given your man’s comparison of the EU’s actions re: Greece with the invasion of the Sudetenland yesterday…..

  13. @Rob

    “Jesus Christ. How often does this man get punched in the face, I wonder. Daily?”

    Ha ha – sitting here on a railway platform chuckling at that.

Leave a Reply

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