What this does imply to me is that, as one person who wrote to me about your post said, you are “not arguing in good faith”.
I have, of course, held this view before: for a long time you happily joined in trolling abuse with the likes of Tim Worstall and I broke off any engagement with you precisely because it appeared you wished to play in that gutter. Your pulled yourself out of it, I thought, and so I tried again. I now see that was a waste of time.
I extended the courtesy of a fully developed argument in response to your abuse: you have just replied with more offence. I long ago realised that argument on this basis is a complete distraction. As I said: I have no desire to do personal, and since it seems you won’t debate I draw matters to a halt here, happy that you have had your chance to comment and have had nothing to say.
That thing that we must all remember being that SuperMurph wears his underpants outside his tights. He’s saving the world here, not getting bogged down in anything so trivial as logic or consistency.
Roger Morbeck says:
August 29 2015 at 7:52 pm
Are you saying, Richard, (a) that PQE is a tool for dealing with the next economic crisis (if it arrives before interest rates rise) OR (b) that PQE is a means of maximising funds for public expenditure in any economic conditions OR (c) both (a) and(b)? I am genuinely puzzled.
Richard Murphy says:
August 29 2015 at 8:07 pm
I have answered those questions many times
Please read what I have written