P³ against carbon taxes

And it seems you think a tax – which would be massively regressive and impose no cost on business since all would be passed to the end consumer – would solve the [robnlem

I disagree

Well, closing down much of industry because it’s carbon bankrupt would also have the occasional effect upon end consumers…..

As was the assumption that externalities were of no consequence – and so therefore unpriced.

Well, yes, so if we price them with a carbon tax then we’re done, aren’t we?

16 thoughts on “P³ against carbon taxes”

  1. Diogenes the censor

    Tax incidence raises its head again! But he assumes that shoving a huge provision in the accounts will have the desired effect. I suppose that it will result in mass liquidations of business and cessation of most business activity. This is probably the result he desires. Also, for a “political economist” he is oddly averse to taking a holistic view. The whole impact of this “net zero emissions” twaddle is put on individual businesses rather than society as a whole. I’ve said it before but Spud delenda est

  2. The externalities (that favourite weapon of the amateur economist) are really positive. The pigou tax would therefore be a subsidy. Except we don’t only not need to do anything, we NEED to do nothing.

  3. Spud has the insight that Marx and Lenin missed – the ability of accounts to change the world through dictatorship of the balance sheet

  4. I’m not sure whether it’s the limitless ignorance, the spellbinding arrogance, the dismissive nature of his style of argument or the hectoring superciliousness giving the impression he has understanding when he evinces none on any topic in which he opines that grates more. If anything he is getting worse with age, to the point where it may be worth highlighting him as a genuine danger to the ordinary folk of Ely

  5. Dennis, He Who Refuses To Be A Whiny Bitch

    And it seems you think a tax – which would be massively regressive and impose no cost on business since all would be passed to the end consumer – would solve the [robnlem

    He only worries about tax incidence when taxation could be used in place of direct control.

  6. Spud only worries about tax incidence when he spots that it might be incident on him. TBF there are a lot of folk with similar views.

  7. I congratulate Julian Snape for absolutely slaughtering Murphy on the sustainable accounting thread. It is a classic and yes it ends with lots of bluster and Murphy throwing a tantrum. Then Nige comes along and finishes Murphy off but by then all the damage had been done. Even his most ardent followers must be doubting him after reading the thread.

  8. At least more and more people are getting to grips with the timeless stupidity of Richard Murphy (h/t Dennis). Here is Ralph Musgrave getting stuck into his ignorance of GDP computation http://ralphanomics.blogspot.com/2021/03/an-amusing-video-by-richard-murphy.html?m=1

    he claims (about 1 minute 45 seconds in) that government thinks the NHS “does not add value” to the economy because it does “not sell anything”: i.e. government just assumes that the output of the NHS equals the cost of running the NHS.

    Well assuming that by “government” he means the present Tory government as distinct from a government run by some other party, the problem there is that the Labour Party ever since the Labour Party was founded has employed exactly the same method of valuing the output of the NHS for the purposes of calculating the NHS contribution to GDP (and same goes for the rest of the public sector). Indeed, it’s a bit hard to see what other criterion CAN BE USED to measure the output of the public sector, defective as the latter measure is. And in fact every other government in the world does the same.

    To be fair to Spud, the UK have tried to improve this by deflating the output of the NHS to reflect the lack of productivity of a large proportion of its staff during the pandemic, which of course means that the assumed output has been less than input. But that has been done using a fairly arbitrary deflator factor. It must make his skin blister

  9. @stiv bators ” Even his most ardent followers must be doubting him after reading the thread.” highly unlikely as most seem as deranged as he is (if not more)- plus the odd sock puppet the great potato deploys to make himself feel good.

  10. Bloke in North Dorset

    @ Stiv Bators

    Thanks for the tip, I rarely go there but that’s a classic. Julian deserves a sainthood for the patience of that effort. All that effort just to get the classic Spud response when his arguments have been eviscerated.

  11. Maybe he thinks once companies have a large liability recorded then the govt can sell them ‘credits’ to reduce it, a new version of selling Indulgences for the new green religion

  12. Tim how about rationing yourself to one RoR a day? Are you pwned? Would you have nothing to write about but for him?

  13. Murphy sounds like he thinks accounting is the answer to all life’s problems because he only knows accounting. A bit like a software engineer seeing a problem that is down human behaviour and thinking an app can solve it because the software engineer doesn’t know anything about social interactions.

  14. Sadbutmadlad

    I have not seen any evidence that Murphy understands accounting even on a basic level. Concepts like ‘Depreciation’ which are 101 seem utterly alien to him – therefore I’d posit he sees the world through the medium of someone who literally knows nothing whatsoever – at the age of around 60. It’s an embarrassing spectacle fir sure.

Leave a Reply

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