The new book from Smurf:
In that case, let me start with some suggestions as to the arguments that are wrong. There could be a long list of these. I am not convinced that will help anyone, so I am working on the idea of there being just three that I wish to tackle.
When it comes to microeconomics my bête noire is that markets deliver optimal outcomes for society and that, as a result, government interference must be minimised at all times.
On macroeconomics, the argument needing to be addressed might be the household analogy, which is the mechanism used to ensure that impoverished microeconomic thinking dominates macroeconomic analysis as well, wholly inappropriately.
Then there is the question of human motivation, the understanding of which is necessary if we are to suggest how the economy should work. The current assumption that pervades society is that greed ultimately motivates all human actions. I disagree.
One and three are wrong, not believed by any economist. That is, what Smurf believes economists believe is not what they do. On two the household analogy doesn;t lead to micro- impositions on macro-. So that’s wrong too.
Gonna be a joy this next one, no?
Looks like ‘Delighted to be here’ is prepared to challenge Spud on his lies.
yep, “delighted to be here” is having a bash..once he’s got murph tied up in knots he’ll be banned.. won’t take long
Oh dear, I think I (oh, I mean ‘Delighted to be here’) might already have been banned.
😉
I have awarded myself a thinking week, officially starting today,
Anyone who could write a sentence like that requires sectioning. Delusions of grandeur don’t quite cover it, do they? Adolf in his more manic episodes? Nah. Even he knew when he was overdoing it
Surely we should be pleased that Spud has started thinking?
I have awarded myself a thinking week, officially starting today,…
60+ years late on that, bud.
Surely we should be pleased that Spud has started thinking?
We only have his word on it, you know.
Groucho Marx already got there: “From the moment I picked up your book until I put it down, I was convulsed with laughter. Some day I intend reading it.”
“This is how physics should work”, and candidly, any demand to examine reality is neoliberal fascism.
“When it comes to microeconomics my bête noire is that markets deliver optimal outcomes for society and that, as a result, government interference must be minimised at all times”.
For goodness sake. He can’t even read Wikipedia. First fundamental theorem of welfare economics: “Competitive markets ensure an efficient allocation of resources. However, there is no guarantee that the Pareto optimal market outcome is socially desirable…”. This is why you need the second welfare theorem – “any desired Pareto optimal outcome can be supported; Pareto efficiency can be achieved with any redistribution of initial wealth”.
Markets efficiently use capital. Governments fairly redistribute it (yes, yes, I know, in theory). This is the whole problem with the ESG business agenda. It confuses businesses role from being one of wealth generation to being instead an agency of government. Governments should legislate (including on businesses) and firms should go all-out to make money within the confines of the law. If ESG makes profit, then fine, otherwise wait for parliament to tighten up the law. Friedman told us all this in the NY Times all the way back in 1970 . If you have never read this – please do.
https://www.nytimes.com/1970/09/13/archives/a-friedman-doctrine-the-social-responsibility-of-business-is-to.html.
Looks like “Delighted to be here” has been banned for providing some inconvenient facts, although not before Pilgrim retard bloke steps up to support Spud.
Looks like I’ll have to create another alias to try and waste Murphy’s time…
@stuart caldwell. – pilgrim slight retard is spuds “fluffer”
I thought anyone commenting was going to have to prove their bona fides and be signed off by him before contributing. That lasted all of a week (if that)
This sums him up:
Richard Murphy says:
March 11 2024 at 9:41 pm
Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences is my most recent recognition of status
So F$%^ all to do with economics, and an appeal to authority which anyone with half a brain would recognize as non-existent.
Richard Murphy says:
March 12 2024 at 9:05 am
I so agree with the last….
In his twenties he is happy to hurl utterly ill informed abuse but not using his own name
I think the term coward was created for people like him
Says a man who has blocked twenty thousand people on Twitter and even more in the comments on his blog and who manages to get venues to cancel Tim or indeed numerous other ‘hostile’ bloggers because they would utterly expose him for the complete ignoramus he is.
Hard to credit that it’s 13 years since I first received one of his books in fairness. Well, based on his latest paper around the £190 billion of revenue that the government can apparently lay its hands on annually it looks like this will be another one which sets a new standard in gibberish.
Well done Stuart and, for those who have not read the blog in question, an excerpt below. We are not worthy!
Delighted to be here says:
March 11 2024 at 9:14 pm
What is your economic qualification Richard, and how long ago was it obtained? Isn’t it highly likely that things have moved on a bit in the 40 years or whatever since you graduated?
+2
Reply
Richard Murphy says:
March 11 2024 at 9:41 pm
Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences is my most recent recognition of status
Oh FFS, VP beat me to it
“Fellow of the Academy of Social Sciences”.
As if being an ASS is a new thing for him.
On the ‘Rentier’ thread, we’ve now had this gem:
“ And most patents are created for tax transfer pricing purposes anyway”
(Obviously no supporting evidence for this amazing ‘fact’ is available).
So Spud is now an expert in patents alongside everything else he claims to be an expert in.
I’m wondering if we could reverse troll spud. He’s convinced some right wingers are paid to go to his place and make criticisms they don’t genuinely believe in. So the plan is the excellence of Stuart and Andrew and others post absolutely nothing over there until say Easter, and see if he notes a reduction in trolling and puts it down to budget cuts for us.
In fairness Stuart the ‘Rentierism’ thread is an old hobby horse – when challenged over the NHS and Public Sector pensions being the ultimate expression of ‘rentierism’ he’s oddly silent or quick to call the commentator names or otherwise hurl ‘ill Informed abuse’ their way
His ‘thinking week’ is clearly yielding results
My suggestion is that the goal of a left-of-centre political economy is to create a state where anyone, whoever they might be, and whatever their origin, gender or orientation, or whatever their wealth or income, or age or education; should be able to live in a country and affirmatively answer the question ‘is this place fair to me?’ If a reasonable person could always do so then political economic justice would have been delivered. If they could not then that would not be the case.
I have read Mein Kampf albeit not for some time – I do recall it being a good deal more coherent than this…
How can an (apparently) adult male in his 60s not have noticed that life is not always and everywhere ‘fair’? Most toddlers manage to work this out for themselves.