We can’t even start economics with real world likely decent assumptions such as our planet burning and pollution and instead continue groaf-oaf sloganising. New theories should contain a survival strategy and need to understand the old theories are no such thing. There is some decent work about that lays waste to such homilies as comparative advantage and economic assumptions on the rational actor. Haldane himself has looked at models of biological modularity to contain systemic collapse. The problem is that we don’t get, as we theorise, that the positive engines we create to view the world from are “micro” by focus and exclusion, like trying to view a landscape through a bomb-sight. There are already new ideas Mr Haldane. We need new ways to prevent them being suppressed by instruments of torture and threats the sky will fall if we try them. Why can an institution like the BoE not do something small-scale with MMT-based and green projects?

Richard Murphy says:
August 26 2018 at 8:58 am
A killer last question


Comparative advantage is old hat now? Been disproved? Anyone care to supply the necessary citation?

8 thoughts on “Eh?”

  1. Fun with Richard, episode 6:


    “We will only be able to process requests made with photo I.D.”

    OK, let’s try that out as GDPR says otherwise. So I make a subject access request to TRUK. Yep, asks for ID.

    Complain to the ICO on the basis that photo ID isn’t necessary as he only knows me by email address (photo ID won’t prove more and he’s proved he can’t be trusted with personal data after the FCAblog stuff). The ICO responds…

    “The ICO has since been in contact with TRL trying to obtain further information about this case. Having received the relevant information from TRL we have advised that the information they hold about you should be provided to you without the need for further proof of identification.”

    The data is finally supplied by TRUK, addressed to “Dear Unknown Person Who Cannot Be Identified”, he can’t accept he’s ever wrong.

    Obviously this has taken a lot of time so please don’t waste Richard’s time by making subject access requests of your own for any email addresses you may have posted from.

  2. You are correct Rob.

    It is the implications of that that are the most terrible. We know the score–at what point must that reality inspire the needed actions?

  3. Such nonsense exasperates me, and is all too prevalent amongst my lefty friends. It is ludicrous to reject economic theory which fits the facts, just because someone else has chosen a different objective. The same theory will apply (if it is true) whether you are chasing higher GDP or lower green-house gas emissions. Grrr!

  4. OOOHHH! the worlds about to end – who are we going to call – Ghostbusters? Nah, International Rescue (thunderbirds not milibands lot)? , Nah, The UN ? nah – let’s call Professor Potato with his magic money tree, country by country reporting and MOAR! tax – that will save us!

    All hail the pudgy one whose face glows in the dark and arrives in his flaming steed Berlingo.

Leave a Reply

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