A most fun critique of the Murphmonster


Let me emphasise that the concern about PQE is that it would be used excessively, and in doing so would contribute to inflation. The whole issue is whether we can trust that PQE will not be abused. Murphy attempts to downplay this fear by claiming that he wants “modest” PQE, and that it’s a good idea because inflation is under target. But if Murphy’s reasons for advocating PQE circa 2015 are sincere, this implies that he did not think there was a case for PQE in 2011. My recollection is that he has been advocating PQE throughout this time period, even when inflation was above target. So this is a question I posed to him, on his blog, and our subsequent exchange.

You can guess how that exchange went.

13 thoughts on “A most fun critique of the Murphmonster”

  1. This has always been Murph’s problem: he pisses off everybody, even those who should be his natural allies. It wouldn’t do him any harm to piss of the likes of our host and us lot, but he seems to rub absolutely everyone up the wrong way, even those who share his goals and opinions. Even the most unprincipled politician realizes you need some people on your side.

  2. Note the difference in tone between the Kaleidic blog and Murphy’s blog. Kaleidic’s presentation is calm and measured in language which someone, like me, with little understanding of economics can understand. Whereas Murphy comes across like the Queen of Hearts when you dare challenge his contentions.

  3. Actually I suspect that he knows that his arguments are weak and his insult and blocking technique is the equivalent of a 4 year old sticking his fingers in his ears and screaming ” I can’t hear you”.

    It’s especially distressing to him, because he is able to initially attract a number of people who are naturally attracted to the siren song of the Magic Money Tree. When someone challenges its existence with logic and facts, this is his only remaining weapon to try and keep a few followers. The only ones remaining are the true believers who can’t deal with the cognitive dissonance of having their prophet exposed.

  4. “Every question is a challenge and every question to which he has no answer is an affront.”

    Yes, the instinctive reactions of the deeply insecure.

  5. The blog entry is superb – however it, and all the comments (also excellent) that follow proceed under the assumption that he is blocking replies because he has no answer. I would argue he has no interest in debate outside of his terms of reference – in the main Murphyite stAte there is no open debate, and someone as self-evidently vicious and evil is as interested in fostering it as his contributors Lavrenti Beria, Manurl Pineiro and Erich Honecker were. Rib’s observations are all correct – He is arrogant, ignorant and intolerant – he is also power hungry and evil – which makes him a dangerous man. Fortunately the first three traits have made him currently a figure of comedy but lest we forget, Hitler was a similarly derided figure I am sure in mid twenties Germany and look how that turned out…..

  6. I think Kaleidic Economics is too gullible. Would anyone sensible trust a single thing about accounting or tax from the wazzock? As far as I can see Murphy has nothing useful to contribute on any topic. An empty vessel, loud, but with no content.

  7. His stock response whenever Venezuela or Zimbabwe or 1930s Germany are raised is annoutraged “that’s ridiculous”. A handy answer when it’s your blog and your rules; not so helpful to your cause in open debate where further challenge is inevitable.
    It begs the question though: what exactly were the causes of the hyperinflations in those examples then, if not letting the money supply run away like a steam train?

  8. I agree Murphy is an arrogant tit but to be fair, I don’t think his interview with Andrew Neil was *car crash* I actually think he came across reasonably well.

  9. Iron man, a variety of factors but mostly land seizures in Zimbabwe. It is was mainly based on agriculture:

    “The problems came after 2000 when Mugabe introduced land reforms to speed up the process of equality. It is a vexed issue really – the reaction to the stark inequality was understandable but not very sensible in terms of maintaining an economy that could continue to grow and produce at reasonably high levels of output and employment.”

    “So the land reforms represented the first big contraction in potential output. A rapid demand contraction was required but impossible to implement politically given that 45 per cent of the food output capacity was destroyed.

    The situation then compounded as other other infrastructure was trashed and the constraints flowed through the supply-chain. For example, the National Railways of Zimbabwe (NRZ) has decayed to the point the capacity to transport its mining export output has fallen substantially. In 2007, there was a 57 percent decline in export mineral shipments (see Financial Gazette for various reports etc).”

    I don’t think such developments are likely in the UK. Take a look at the price of Cauliflower in Canada for a worst case scenario 🙂

Leave a Reply

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