Tee hee

I wonder what Murphy sees when he looks in the mirror.

It’s like Dunning Kruger, Poe’s Law, Asperger’s and the infallible self-belief of a dictator, all rolled up in to one.

You’re all a big bunch of meanies.

Oh, ok, gonna let it all out, now….

It’s more likely anosognosia than just Dunning Kruger: DK states that people will recognise their own incompetence after being exposed to training or competent experts.

Anosognosia is a syndrome whereby the sufferer has a clinical inability to develop or demonstrate awareness of an disability. There is no long term treatment, but apparently squirting ice cold water into the left ear (I joke not) provides temporary relief

“Ben Squirrell” gets in a nice dig at Moonbat at the same time. Well played, sir.

Adrian, yes, I’d heard word of the film, but I didn’t know it was being shot in Liverpool.

Another comparison with Murphy might, of course, be the inimitable William McGonagall, who arguably is to poetry what Murphy is to economics:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_McGonagall

Morning, Reedy,

“This thread is all ad hominem bullshit.”

Very possibly- perhaps because:

A) his ideas are so easily demolished, it’s nice to have a gentle pop at the man himself as a kind of palate cleanser every now and again
Or
B) he’s so rude to everyone, there’s no particular incentive to spare the rod when the opportunity to take the mickey arises.

Do unto others and all that…

John Square:

I’d never heard of anosognosia before. The wiki article is fascinating. Murph could have some variant of it.

Syphilis would explain a lot.

I saw somewhere an article by an historian which suggested that Lenin failed to produce a coherent economic policy because after the October revolution all he had to advise him were accountants and bookkeepers. History may not repeat itself, but it certainly rhymes.

People’s QE has been done already: see the interesting movie Mister 880 for an example.

I call Poe’s Law on that comment and Murph is too thick to see it.
If indeed it is real, I am not sure that I want to engage a world where such sycophantic brown nosing is genuine. Come in guys; which one of you spoofed your IP address, got a new email and submitted it? Kudos.

OT but peripheral:
Does anyone remember him ever posting he’d been on holiday? Great Yarmouth for the day, or something? Does he ever come out of that garage, apart from in his Tax Crusader role? I can sort of remember some paean to the Norfolk autobahn network & the Courageous State’s part in its construction, but I didn’t get the impression the stretch impressed him was actually outside the parish boundary.
His hospital appointments, I suppose. Or does he see that as an opportunity to harangue the waiting room on tax havens?
Can’t be much of a life for that kid of his.

What TW should be doing is justifying an unreformed money creation system but insisting …

Why? If you think it is so important, donut yourself.

” call Poe’s Law on that comment and Murph is too thick to see it.
If indeed it is real, I am not sure that I want to engage a world where such sycophantic brown nosing is genuine. Come in guys; which one of you spoofed your IP address, got a new email and submitted it? Kudos.”

Don’t need to go to those lengths if you have an appropriate squirrel costume. Which I believe many round these parts have.

” Danth’s Law (also known as Parker’s Law)
States: “If you have to insist that you’ve won an internet argument, you’ve probably lost badly.” Named after a user on the role-playing gamers’ forum RPG.net.
Danth’s Law was most famously declared in “The Lenski Affair”, between microbiologist Richard Lenski and the editor of Conservapedia.com, Andrew Schlafly, who cast doubt upon Prof Lenski’s elegant experimental demonstration of evolution.
After what is widely held to be one of the greatest and most comprehensive put-downs in scientific argument from Prof Lenski, Mr Schlafly declared himself the winner.”

Hadn’t heard of this one- suspect it will become common currency under a new name shortly (Coppola’s Law, p’haps)

God, he sounds more like Roderick Spode with each passing day. I’ll just bet he marches around his house in black shorts.

“The trouble with you, Spode, is that just because you have succeeded in inducing a handful of half-wits to disfigure the London scene by going about in black shorts, you think you’re someone. You hear them shouting “Heil, Spode!” and you imagine it is the Voice of the People.”

Ritchie to a “t”.

Corbyn as well.

Perhaps ad hominem against Murphy is a trifle unfair, but the inability to stand mockery and laughter has always been the Achilles’ Heel (or perhaps the Achilles’ Knee in this case) of fascists and other genera of totalitarian shitbag.

His photo always reminds of Peter Glaze of Crackerjack (Crackerjack!!) fame. Maybe Tim can be his Lesley Crowther and keep him in check with the help of the audience.

DBC: Let this be a lesson to mud pie and potty slingers on here to pay some attention to the significance of words which are not loosely attached to arguments as decoration or colouring but comprise meaning which has legal standing.

You’re a little spark of goodness in a naughty world. Good of you to give of yourself.

DBC Reed.
You might need to read not just the blog but all the twitter traffic. The author of the article was Paddy Carter, not FC. He said the title meant to indicate that a belief in PQE was equal to believing in snake oil.
RM then demanded an apology on the basis that such a title meant FC had libelled him. He now seems to take the view he doesn’t do personal or legal.

DBC Reed

It would help if you actually bothered to read the post in question. Here it is – I do hope you WILL read it:

http://www.coppolacomment.com/2015/08/monetary-snake-oil.html

You will note that this is a guest post by Paddy Carter, who is better known in these circles as Luis Enrique.

So, I did not write the post and I did not choose the title. Unfortunately RM decided that I did and refused to back down even when both Paddy and I told him the source.

I will admit to choosing the picture. But this was simply to illustrate the title.

You may ask why I did not change the title. My view was that the post was about Corbyn’s PQE, not about Richard Murphy. It is perfectly reasonable to describe a politician’s pet scheme as “snake oil” if he is standing for office, is it not?

Neither Paddy nor I described RM as a “snake oil salesman”. That was merely RM’s interpretation and has no substance. As no aspersions have been cast at RM, no libel has been committed.

You may also ask why I posted this. I did so because I thought Paddy’s argument, which was essentially that the Bank of England would neutralise the monetary expansion effects of PQE in order to meet its inflation target, was important and (so far) neglected.

Frances

I wouldn’t try to hard to engage Murphy in any sort of debate. He is in his won mind right about everything (probably having invented most of what is being debated anyway). Anyone spoiling this picture with those troublesome things such as facts is dismissed as pedantic or a neoliberal.

He’s like the fat kid at school who would claim he was great at chess despite never having played the game. Come the day you finally play against him and calmly take all his pieces for fun leaving him with just his king and in a hopelessly lost position he will knock the board over and run off crying. Next day he will come back in to school and claim he won.

@Frances Coppola
You have departed from your own high standards in associating yourself with this ad hominem attack , especially as Murphy had every reason to think you were a friend or, at least, supporter in the matter of the State creating money instead of raising it by taxation.
It is also not on to associate yourself with personal abuse just because Corbyn is a politician so has it coming in your view: Corbyn is very careful to eschew personal abuse and to concentrate on ideas impersonally in his political arguments, so you look bad by comparison I’m afraid, as though you’re kicking a sitting duck or punching a pacifist. So bad you are being bracketed with Smearing Tim Worstall, who is capable of debating ideas impersonally but deliberately chooses not to.
If Carter’s point is so significant, why not apply your mind to it with a reasoned commentary instead of relaying it ad hominem warts and all?
Apropos Carter’s point, I would have thought that the State creating money instead of the banks is neutral inflationwise and because it increases general demand, rather than the banks pumping it into assets like shares and house prices, more likely to increase production in a virtuous circle.

Frances

I certainly wouldn’t waste a lovely stroll through Bloomsbury by indulging his delusions. But then, you’re very nice; it’s seems to be a fault.

“Ironman

Murphy claims to be a tax expert; he is not.”

+1

I see a Yefim Yevdokimov has slipped through the Tax Research troll filter.

It’s quite a history lesson looking up all these names.

“Apropos Carter’s point, I would have thought that the State creating money instead of the banks is neutral inflationwise and because it increases general demand, rather than the banks pumping it into assets like shares and house prices, more likely to increase production in a virtuous circle.”

1. Money is simply a promise to pay at a later date. Anyone can do it. But everyone has eventually to offer something of genuine value in payment for it. In what sense are you proposing that the State will repay this money? Where will it get it from?

2. Is it not the case that Murphy/Corbyn proposes raising taxes to avoid the inflationary consequences, and therefore this is, in effect, simply a proposal to pay for the spending with higher taxes, and all the PQE stuff just a sleight of hand to disguise what they’re doing?

3. Pumping money into asset prices encourages manufacturers to produce more of those assets to sell. Raising house prices should lead builders to build more houses – or it would, if the government wasn’t deliberately blocking them. So wouldn’t it make more sense to drop the planning permission rationing if you want to stimulate the economy?

@DBC Reed
“1) Money cannot be entirely defined as a promise to pay at a later date.” On every B of E note it says “I promise to pay the Bearer . . .” Most cash is after all in the form of notes, and they clearly should be defined as a promise
“2).NO Corbyn/Murphy propose that the State creation of money will obviate the need for some taxation” Which means they intend to create money with no procedure for recall. Isn’t this inflationary?
“You cannot tell me that the Financial- Crisis-producing crash in the American property market was due to rationing of planning permissions.” The rationing created the housing Bubble, the crash was that Bubble unwinding.

i) yes but that promise is all there is. What is money apart from that promise? You have not offered any other definition.
ii) I quite appreciate this point, though there is a risk of inflationary pressure if there is no B of E type recall mechanism. And Ford also discovered the benefits of labor retention and increased skills base, as his workers didn’t drift off.
“There was no rationing of new housing in the US, Spain and Ireland.” Sorry, I thought your argument was that limited building land increased the cost of the asset without increasing the number of houses. ” How does pumping money into the limited amount of building land increase the number of houses?”