Can we get a “Sigh” here for Ritchie?

John Christensen of the Tax Justice Network has just drawn my attention to this extraordinary article:

The article is extraordinary for four reasons. The first is when it was written: 1946. It was way out of its time.

The second is who wrote it: Beardsley Ruml was chair of the New York Fed.

Third, it was extraordinary for what it said on the nature of taxation (see below).

And last, although I will not deal with it, it’s extraordinary for arguing corporate taxation was not needed for reasons now wholly outmoded.

This article.

The major point of which is that in an MMT world the corporate profits tax is a really, really, bad idea.

Which is, of course, why Ritchie doesn’t want to deal with that part of the argument.

Sigh.

And yes, the argument is the same one I’ve been using all along: the incidence of corporation tax.

18 thoughts on “Can we get a “Sigh” here for Ritchie?”

  1. You’re missing the point Tim.

    Anything which even vaguely supports one of Ritchie’s arguments, even if has been taken wholly out of context, is RIGHT and GOOD and therefore must be correct.

    Anything which damns his ideas, no matter how well researched and no matter who reviewed and endorsed by, is automatically WRONG and BAD and the product of a NEOLIBERAL conspiracy and must therefore be ignored.

    It’s really quite easy to follow.

    Remember, facts are pedantry if they work against the Murphmeister.

  2. I’m tired of this sort of Ritchiebollocks. “I have unearthed a mythical text, from which I have cherrypicked those elements which agree with me, which prove I am right. I have ignored those elements which disagree with me, because they were only inserted by neoliberal trolls to waste my time.”

    To be honest, it’s exacly how fundamentalist Christians alight on sections of Leviticus to harangue the relatives of dead gays, while ignoring all the “God is love” bits of the New Testament.

  3. I’m tempted to look at the succeeding article in the journal linked, entitled – ‘Banking structure of the USSR’ as it might provide a blueprint for how banking will work under the auspices of the Courageous State……

  4. If Tim had been announced by say, Boris, as the source of his economic ideas, then being pointy-fingeredly pendantic would be just and righteous and possibly even necessary. Instead of just being the fun that it is.

    Tim, however, if you exclude spelling and grammar, is rarely as hideously and mendaciously wrong as Murphy almost always is. And, when Tim is wrong, anybody can pop up here, or on Forbes, and correct him. Without being deleted and blocked.

  5. To be honest, it’s exacly how fundamentalist Christians alight on sections of Leviticus to harangue the relatives of dead gays

    Hmm, they probably don’t know it but they might have stumbled upon Noa(c)hide Law. Which is actually Genesis and Jeremiah rather than Leviticus (which also contains prohibitions against gayery but these are generally considered to be applicable to Jews not to the “righteous among the gentiles” – Islam and Christianity. Although probably less of both of those in their modern forms.)

  6. SE:

    Actually, the thing I enjoy most about this blog is the comments. Tim may light the touch paper on a topic but there are enough experts on different subjects that we can be enlightened through a debate, or at the very least learn that a debate exists (I know I certainly have).

    Murphy just insults then blocks any real experts who pop up, leaving the ignorant to drink from what they think is his font of wisdom.

  7. Arnald

    I’m sure Tim does cherry-pick. And if you replied to one of his posts and accused him of doing so he’d probably reply.

    He wouldn’t denounce you as a neoliberal troll and/or delete you and/or ban you from his site.

    Nor does Tim require a ‘sneak’ to go running to him to point out how people are taking the piss out of him. Probably because Tim isn’t so dense he doesn’t notice.

    Are you still acting as Ritchie’s “teacher’s pet”? God knows he needs all the help he can get.

  8. AndrewC

    Apparently – the resident Stasi wannabe or Ostalgie collector has already opined on this on another thread:

    ‘And at risk of boring myself, Murphy’s comment policy on Murphy’s published content is no concern of yours. You can do your 100% correct expert critiques here and elsewhere, as Worstall does. Obsessively. If that’s not good enough for you then hire someone to beat the shit out of Murphy’s gob and be done with it.

    Stop fucking complaining.’

    I think that is all of us told eloquently and authoritatively – He will add a Corbyn or Benn video as ‘definitive proof’ later on……

  9. Glen/SE

    Frankly – you’re wrong.

    Wise people agree with me. Yet you ignore that – I wonder why?

  10. @ GlenDorran
    That’s one from a decent university (UCL) one from the Open University and 33 no-hopers.
    If SOAS had decent economists, would Africa be such an economic basket-case?

  11. 35 ‘economists’, eh? Wow. So if 36 economists signed a letter saying Corbyn was wrong would that refute the 35 who said he is right? Who cares anyway?

  12. Golly, there really was a Beardsley Ruml – I wondered if this was another ridiculous name to fool Murphy.

    His father was called Wentzle Ruml. Odd bunch, the Yanks.

    Anyway, I did find this, which is presumably what is being discussed:

    In 1945, Ruml made a famous speech to the American Bar Association, asserting that since the end of the gold standard, “Taxes for Revenue are Obsolete”.

    The real purposes of taxes were:
    to “stabilize the purchasing power of the dollar”,
    to “express public policy in the distribution of wealth and of income”,
    “in subsidizing or in penalizing various industries and economic groups”
    and to “isolate and assess directly the costs of certain national benefits, such as highways and social security”.

Leave a Reply

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