Man’s amazing

Appeasing audiences has, however, never been my aim. I tell it how it is. For us to have a better, sustainable and fairer economy, which is the pre-requisite of a new economic and political order, two things have to be consigned to history.

One is the fallacy of globalisation, supposedly based on entrepreneurial business when in fact it was based on rent seeking activity that has denied capital to those who need it to innovate to meet the needs of a growing and fast changing world population.

The system which has produced the biggest reduction in absolute poverty in the history of our species is wrong and not working.

Because…..well, because what?

30 thoughts on “Man’s amazing”

  1. Because it didn’t do *enough*. So it should be torn down and replaced with something that will do even less.


  2. I wonder he gives any examples of this rent-seeking, or lack of innovation, or denial of capital. The spirit of innovation seems alive and well in many parts of Africa, India, Indonesia etc

  3. Probably living in comparative isolation in an unimpressive end-terrace in Ely after a long spell in what I imagine to be the parochial Norfolk town of Downham Market does not prepare one well for any understanding of this diverse planet in general or globalisation.

  4. Bloke in North Dorset

    “I wonder if he is alluding subtly to ……”

    He wouldn’t know how to if he had the manual in front of him.

  5. Typical bloke doesn’t read the manual.
    Ritchie would throw away the manual and write a better one without of course trying the item or understanding what its supposed to do.

  6. because brown people are setting up their own industries and getting richer (boo chiz) thus ensuring that brave noble fearless unionised British labour (hurra!) is in decline. Oh and foreigners don’t pay UK tax. MOAR TAXES! MOAR AND MOAR TAXES

  7. It’s clearly some form of tax evasion. The nerve of some people, being born in other countries just to get out of paying tax!

  8. Is today the day of the week when he is in favour of overseas investment or the day he wants capital controls, or maybe even the day he wants both?

  9. “Johnathan Pearce

    based on rent-seeking? How does this man justify that statement?”

    He has already explained that elsewhere. He does not have to tell you where. Nor does he have to repeat the explanation.

    Now, candidly. stop wasting his time.

  10. Andrew C/ Johnathan Pearce

    Wise people agree with me

    Yet you choose to ignore that

    That is your last contribution here

  11. The mere fact that some people voluntarily listen to Dick and George Osborne reveals the true evils in society today.

  12. On the subject of agreeing or disagreeing with Trump’s polices (it’s disagreeing of course): he wrote a very interesting piece on his blog only yesterday. Now we must bear in mind that yesterday is a very long time ago. However, yesterday he seemed to be all in favour of globalisation. He seemed remakably in favour of globalisation. Because it seems that any protectionist measures proposed by Donald Trump are really really really bad. And they do bad things like bugger up Walmart’s business model, from which it seems poor American people derive no end of benefit.

    But as I say, that was yesterday and so much changes in 24 hours; although not his cretinism.

  13. Appeasing audiences has, however, never been my aim. I tell it how it is.

    Dressing his appalling rudeness and ignorance up in the unconvincing robes of virtue. Rather like wrapping a turd in a summer dress.

  14. Rob, he has been using the term increasingly i9n the last few weeks. He must have heard someone use it in that eminent intellectual circle in which he circulates like a tiurd in the swimming-pool

  15. His Walmart example does also of course offer us a classic case of ‘tax incidence’. He shows us here that he gets it, he truly does. Which makes his insistence that CT is borne by shareholders and only shareholders all the more baffling; almost as if he’s been paid to take a position on it….

  16. Unlike Richie the plain-speaking polymath I’m not an expert but I would have thought rent-seeking in a globalised economy would be really quite difficult.

  17. Johnathan Pearce said:
    “Based on rent-seeking? How does this man justify that statement?”

    I really don’t think he knows what it means, but he’s heard it as a thing that free market people are against (probably from one of us using it in his comments), so he uses it to try to get free market people to hate the things that he hates.

  18. “Diogenes
    January 31, 2017 at 3:20 pm

    I wonder he gives any examples of this rent-seeking, or lack of innovation, or denial of capital. The spirit of innovation seems alive and well in many parts of Africa, India, Indonesia etc”

    I’m sure he could give you tons of examples – and every single one would actually be an example of what happens when people *interfere* in free-market capitalism.

    And he would be totally oblivious to that.

    But he’d proudly point to the one time a targeted government intervention solved a problem – that was created by earlier government intervention.

  19. Just looked at the definition on wiki at it reads like government is the biggest rent-seeker of all.
    Headline example is stamp duty and financial transaction taxes which meet the definition of “results in reduced economic efficiency through poor allocation of resources, reduced actual wealth creation, lost government revenue, increased income inequality,[1] and (potentially) national decline.”
    Another is the way we pay winter fuel allowance where the rent seeking is by government employees, or council tax being billed to tenants to pay out of after-tax income rather than to landlords to pay out of pre-tax income – another process which has been captured by government employees.

  20. Interesting conversation on TRUK which surely blows a hole in the Fair Tax Mark……

    Stevie G “Did I get that but right though? That FTM doesn’t count Guernsey and Luxembourg as tax havens due to them having a [TJN] secrecy score below 65?”

    Richard Murphy “We use 65 as a guide. FTM has a true and fair ore-ride [sic]”

    SG “It’s good to know that FTM has subjective as well as objective criteria. I can see some crafty accountants arranging company affairs just to meet the FTM criteria without being the sort of company you’d want to give the FTM to. Having over-rides keeps you in control.”

    RM “I can tel, [sic] you they have proved to be necessary”

    In other words, Murphy is admitting that the FTM is a SUBJECTIVE award. Even if you meet all the criteria, the FTM people can just decide they don’t want to give you a FTM!

    Tim – this surely deserves wider audience?

Leave a Reply

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