My impression is that Murphy does do plenty of thinking; he just finds it too much like hard work to acquire the knowledge necessary for thinking usefully.
rhoda klapp
15 days ago
Hard? I do it without thinking.
Van_Patten
15 days ago
The reason is simple: thinking is an act of resistance.
Resistance to what – your incessant fantasies of nascent fascism?
Thinking resists our biology. The brain is designed to conserve effort. Genuine analysis takes energy. It requires us to hold competing ideas in our minds, to test evidence, to admit doubt.
So when people challenge the notions on which MMT rests and your absurd contention that banks (for example) don’t need deposits and provide ample evidence to prove this you ‘admit doubt’??
That is tiring. So we fall back on habits and stories. We reach for metaphors like the household budget myth I have referred to in this morning’s video because they are easy. They require no effort. They feel true. But they are wrong. A currency-issuing government is not a household, and pretending it is has done immense damage to the UK by justifying cuts to public services that people rely upon. This claim is thoughtless.
The point being that these public services can’t necessarily be afforded. That was true in 1978 and despite a couple of decades where we have consistently kicked the can down the road eventually you run out of road. That is where we are now
Thinking also resists identity. When we think seriously, we risk discovering that we are mistaken. Worse, we risk discovering that our tribe is mistaken, or that our favourite newspaper has misled us, and that “our” party told us what turned out to be comforting lies. It could also be that we discover that our own interests may conflict with fairness. That is painful. So we avoid it. We defend what we already believe.
Actually much of this is true but you are self-describing here. You are mistaken profoundly, and yet when people point this out you ban them from speaking (25,000 on Twitter, c. 100K on the blog) and call them ‘trolls’, ‘fascists’ or ‘neoliberals’.
This is why bad economic ideas persist. It is easier to blame migrants, or claim that public servants are lazy, or insist that growth will fix everything, than to confront the reality that inequality is structural and that policy choices created it.
The reality is that migrants are a massive drain on the economy before we even talk about the social cost. That is a painful admission for the Left to make. Hence the endless cries of ‘wacism’. As for public sector workers being lazy. How many private sector employees are working full time from home post COVID six years on?
It is easier to believe that public spending must be cut than to accept that the real issue is who benefits from our economy and who does not.
Yes – A similar theory to a German theorist in the 1930s who seemed to think people of a certain religion were ‘benefitting from the economy’ as it was structured.
Thinking also resists certainty, and humans crave certainty. We want the world to be simple. We want clear answers. We want reassurance that everything will be fine if only we do whatever we are told. Reality does not oblige. Reality is messy. It is uncertain. It demands judgement in conditions of incomplete knowledge.
Actually statements which are fair enough but they apply to you above all. Especially your obsession with MMT – which is manifestly false
That is why people reach for slogans. “There is no money left.” “We must live within our means.” “Growth will solve all our problems.” Those phrases shut down thought. They offer emotional closure. They remove doubt. But they also remove truth.
Aha – here we come to the nub. What you believe is the truth? Anyone who opposes that is misguided and just plan wrong?
Thinking resists power. That is because institutions very rarely reward those who question their assumptions. Media rewards outrage and simplicity. Politics rewards confidence over honesty. Neoliberaleconomics thrived not because it described reality but because it offered convenient stories for those who benefited from them. It told us markets are always efficient, governments are always wasteful, and inequality is the price of progress. Those ideas were repeated until they felt natural. And when people tried to question them, they were dismissed as unrealistic.
If you even bothered to actually practice what you preach you’d realise that what you describe as ‘neoliberalism’ wasn’t the creation of an evil cabal of Bankers/ Jews. It arose in response to the myriad disaster of the 60s and 70s and the failure of the ‘Social Democratic model’ in which the economy was held to ransom by militant communists
Thinking also demands moral courage. To think seriously about political economy is to ask who benefits and who pays. It is to ask whether we care about people we do not know. It is to recognise that economies exist to sustain life, not the other way round.
Do we care about people we do know? Calling everyone who disagrees a fascist would suggest you may need to look yourself in the mirror. As for this fantasy of a ‘rewilded world’ and a return to the stone age – good luck with that.
That means maintaining the capital that really matters: human, social, environmental and physical. It means accepting that social security is not charity but a collective guarantee that none of us is abandoned. Those are moral choices. And they are uncomfortable.
It’s like having Ken Livingstone back in his pre dementia state (Albeit that may be harsh on him)
Thinking is slow as well. It requires time, reflection, and revision. But we live in a culture that rewards instant reaction. Social media demands opinions before facts. News cycles last hours. Politicians talk in slogans. So careful thought is crowded out by noise.
Yes – after all your output is characterised by quality rather than quantity
And yet thinking is essential. Without it, we drift into the politics of hate, where easy answers replace honest analysis, and blame replaces care. Without it, we accept the myth that public services must decline because “there is no money”, even while wealth accumulates in the accounts of the wealthy. Without it, we accept stagnation as inevitable when it is the product of policy.
Again – physician, heal thyself – when you call 30% of the population fascistic explain how that is ‘the politics of care’? I don’t thik I have ever seen a post from you which could be characterised as honest in the slightest. And as for not blaming anyone, am guessing neoliberalism gets a pass…
Ed P
15 days ago
Chipping away at the detail, he’s mashed his brain
How would Spud know?
My impression is that Murphy does do plenty of thinking; he just finds it too much like hard work to acquire the knowledge necessary for thinking usefully.
Hard? I do it without thinking.
The reason is simple: thinking is an act of resistance.
Resistance to what – your incessant fantasies of nascent fascism?
Thinking resists our biology. The brain is designed to conserve effort. Genuine analysis takes energy. It requires us to hold competing ideas in our minds, to test evidence, to admit doubt.
So when people challenge the notions on which MMT rests and your absurd contention that banks (for example) don’t need deposits and provide ample evidence to prove this you ‘admit doubt’??
That is tiring. So we fall back on habits and stories. We reach for metaphors like the household budget myth I have referred to in this morning’s video because they are easy. They require no effort. They feel true. But they are wrong. A currency-issuing government is not a household, and pretending it is has done immense damage to the UK by justifying cuts to public services that people rely upon. This claim is thoughtless.
The point being that these public services can’t necessarily be afforded. That was true in 1978 and despite a couple of decades where we have consistently kicked the can down the road eventually you run out of road. That is where we are now
Thinking also resists identity. When we think seriously, we risk discovering that we are mistaken. Worse, we risk discovering that our tribe is mistaken, or that our favourite newspaper has misled us, and that “our” party told us what turned out to be comforting lies. It could also be that we discover that our own interests may conflict with fairness. That is painful. So we avoid it. We defend what we already believe.
Actually much of this is true but you are self-describing here. You are mistaken profoundly, and yet when people point this out you ban them from speaking (25,000 on Twitter, c. 100K on the blog) and call them ‘trolls’, ‘fascists’ or ‘neoliberals’.
This is why bad economic ideas persist. It is easier to blame migrants, or claim that public servants are lazy, or insist that growth will fix everything, than to confront the reality that inequality is structural and that policy choices created it.
The reality is that migrants are a massive drain on the economy before we even talk about the social cost. That is a painful admission for the Left to make. Hence the endless cries of ‘wacism’. As for public sector workers being lazy. How many private sector employees are working full time from home post COVID six years on?
It is easier to believe that public spending must be cut than to accept that the real issue is who benefits from our economy and who does not.
Yes – A similar theory to a German theorist in the 1930s who seemed to think people of a certain religion were ‘benefitting from the economy’ as it was structured.
Thinking also resists certainty, and humans crave certainty. We want the world to be simple. We want clear answers. We want reassurance that everything will be fine if only we do whatever we are told. Reality does not oblige. Reality is messy. It is uncertain. It demands judgement in conditions of incomplete knowledge.
Actually statements which are fair enough but they apply to you above all. Especially your obsession with MMT – which is manifestly false
That is why people reach for slogans. “There is no money left.” “We must live within our means.” “Growth will solve all our problems.” Those phrases shut down thought. They offer emotional closure. They remove doubt. But they also remove truth.
Aha – here we come to the nub. What you believe is the truth? Anyone who opposes that is misguided and just plan wrong?
Thinking resists power. That is because institutions very rarely reward those who question their assumptions. Media rewards outrage and simplicity. Politics rewards confidence over honesty. Neoliberal economics thrived not because it described reality but because it offered convenient stories for those who benefited from them. It told us markets are always efficient, governments are always wasteful, and inequality is the price of progress. Those ideas were repeated until they felt natural. And when people tried to question them, they were dismissed as unrealistic.
If you even bothered to actually practice what you preach you’d realise that what you describe as ‘neoliberalism’ wasn’t the creation of an evil cabal of Bankers/ Jews. It arose in response to the myriad disaster of the 60s and 70s and the failure of the ‘Social Democratic model’ in which the economy was held to ransom by militant communists
Thinking also demands moral courage. To think seriously about political economy is to ask who benefits and who pays. It is to ask whether we care about people we do not know. It is to recognise that economies exist to sustain life, not the other way round.
Do we care about people we do know? Calling everyone who disagrees a fascist would suggest you may need to look yourself in the mirror. As for this fantasy of a ‘rewilded world’ and a return to the stone age – good luck with that.
That means maintaining the capital that really matters: human, social, environmental and physical. It means accepting that social security is not charity but a collective guarantee that none of us is abandoned. Those are moral choices. And they are uncomfortable.
It’s like having Ken Livingstone back in his pre dementia state (Albeit that may be harsh on him)
Thinking is slow as well. It requires time, reflection, and revision. But we live in a culture that rewards instant reaction. Social media demands opinions before facts. News cycles last hours. Politicians talk in slogans. So careful thought is crowded out by noise.
Yes – after all your output is characterised by quality rather than quantity
And yet thinking is essential. Without it, we drift into the politics of hate, where easy answers replace honest analysis, and blame replaces care. Without it, we accept the myth that public services must decline because “there is no money”, even while wealth accumulates in the accounts of the wealthy. Without it, we accept stagnation as inevitable when it is the product of policy.
Again – physician, heal thyself – when you call 30% of the population fascistic explain how that is ‘the politics of care’? I don’t thik I have ever seen a post from you which could be characterised as honest in the slightest. And as for not blaming anyone, am guessing neoliberalism gets a pass…
Chipping away at the detail, he’s mashed his brain