Skip to content

It would seem that Bard requires a little more work then

Tim Worstall is a British-born writer, blogger, and Senior Fellow of the Adam Smith Institute. He writes on the subjects of environmentalism and economics, particularly corporate tax, his contributions having appeared in the business press. In 2010 his blog was listed as one of the top 100 UK political blogs by Total Politics.

Worstall was born in Torquay, England, in 1963. He studied economics at the London School of Economics and Political Science, graduating with a Master of Science degree in 1985. After graduating, he worked as an economist for a number of companies, including the Bank of England and the European Commission.

In 2003, Worstall began writing for the Adam Smith Institute, a libertarian think tank. He has also written for a number of other publications, including Forbes, The Times, and The Spectator. Worstall’s writings have focused on a variety of topics, including the economics of climate change, the future of the European Union, and the role of government in the economy.

Worstall is a self-described “classical liberal” and a supporter of the UK Independence Party (UKIP). He is a critic of environmentalism, arguing that it is often based on flawed economic reasoning. He is also a critic of the European Union, arguing that it is an undemocratic and bureaucratic institution.

Worstall’s writings have been praised by some for their clarity and wit. However, they have also been criticized by others for their lack of nuance and their tendency to oversimplify complex issues.

Despite the criticism, Worstall remains a well-known and respected figure in the world of economics and politics. His writings continue to be read and debated by people from all walks of life.

Here are some of Tim Worstall’s notable works:

Chasing Rainbows: Environmentalism and the Failure of the Left (2009)
The Case Against the Financial Transactions Tax (2011)
The Death of Europe (2014)
The Myth of the Rational Voter (2017)
Tim Worstall is a controversial figure, but there is no doubt that he is a highly intelligent and articulate writer. His work has had a significant impact on the debate about environmentalism, the European Union, and the role of government in the economy.

Umm, yeah.

16 thoughts on “It would seem that Bard requires a little more work then”

  1. It’s all a regurgitation engine. It looks impressive, but when you actually ask how anyone gets paid or laid by using it, the answer is that there’s nothing there.

    OpenAI are going to float for gazillions and then everyone’s going to wonder why it can’t make money.

  2. Worstall remains a well-known and respected figure in the world of economics and politics. His writings continue to be read and debated by people from all walks of life.

    What more more can a chap ask for?

    My favourite book by Tim Worstall is The Joy of Tax (2015)…

  3. His magnum opus, Against the Taxing of Joy (2019), converted many neo-Puritan killjoys into decadent sybarites.

    His most recent book, Machine-gunners or Lions: How Best to Deal with the Woke (2023), has been nominated for the Spengler Prize.

  4. PJF – I think one of the more fascinating things that Bard hasn’t picked up on, is Tim Worstall’s early work with Abimael Guzmán, attempting to establish a sound economic footing for the planned Marxist-Leninist-Zhedongist government of Peru during that latter part of the 1970s, focused upon natural resource extraction of rare earth and other minerals from sites along a Huallaga River Valley in the north-west of the country, with particular attention to the sustainability of operations, using hydro power and so forth.

    Guzmán and his comrades went with the much shorter term payoff of cocaine plantations instead, what with having to buy all the ammunition and stuff, and Tim’s ground-breaking work is now difficult to find.

  5. Ah, BiS as a keen supporter of the American Revolution I have internalised the Constitution’s banning of titles of nobility. I think the courtesy title comes too close to that to be tolerable at least to this non-American.

    So I’d address an actual president as President and an ex-President as Arsehole.

    Unless the ex-President had shown some merit – a Truman, an Eisenhower, a Regan. But they’re all dead.

  6. Unless the ex-President had shown some merit – a Truman, an Eisenhower, a Reagan. But they’re all dead.

    Often the best feature of the best presidents is that they’re dead and therefore no longer capable of tarnishing their own image.

    We’ll miss Trump when he’s gone. Pedo Joe? Not so much.

    The correct title for a Regan is “Guv’nor”.

    “All right, Tinkerbell. You’re nicked!”

  7. Stone me Tim, how did you get it write “highly intelligent and articulate writer”?????

    Hopefully for Biden at some point in the not to distant future, it’ll be “Prisoner 697425 – visiting time”.

  8. Wierdly, I think that’s actually from Spud. He does say that somtimes, always with the proviso that I’m a neoliberal and therefore must not be listened to.

  9. I think some above have missed the point of the question. The respect is to the office not the person. The office is the same whoever’s sitting in it. So the disrespect would be not to Trump but to the Constitution of the USA & thus its people.
    Be interesting to know what would happen after a successful impeachment. Have they ever had one? Nixon resigned first. In that case, presumably one could argue that the incumbent had not discharged the office & the honorific wouldn’t be merited or appropriate.

    To answer dearieme’s specific point, sure they did but they obviously didn’t ban this one. Or it wouldn’t be used. They do seem to have incorporated that the head of state personifies the state, pretty common in republics. So really you have two people. The incumbent & the incumbent when he acts as head of state. My impression was the honorific was preserved for ex-incumbents because the office of president of course never changes. Don’t Presidents pr otem briefly get the honorific whilst acting pro tem? And of course, the president is briefly not the president. Although presidents-elect seem to pick it from the go. Or maybe that’s just arselicking.

  10. Come to think of it, as he/she has, at that point, not been sworn in & thus isn’t actually the president, it probably is. The requirement to be sworn in may crucial here, since presumably you can’t be unsworn.

Leave a Reply

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