Ragging on Ritchie

You whut?

The reality is that Independent SAGE, who are the body I trust the most on this issue, say that vaccination is not the way out of this crisis. Certainly it will help, but the logic of vaccination is that we achieve so called herd immunity. But as they suggest, developing that scale of tolerance carries all sorts of risk with it, and the real goal of policy should be suppression of the virus, which is something that we have not tried, but which others have.

Other than island states no one has been able to suppress the virus. So, umm, permanent lockdown? Well, as long as there are Zil lanes for P³s perhaps so:

The vaccine is not the whole answer

What people might clamour for is not wise

Brexit proves that

Sorta kills that democracy thing there.

Tee Hee

Richard Murphy says:
January 18 2021 at 4:34 pm
Your question was in itself unethical. It was rigged

But the choice you gave was also wrong – and mine, on the evidence was 100% right

And thankfully the NHS appears to prevent this choice for you as very clearly the set up you created was not one on which even you could have decided – you forget the third options

Why am I rude? Because you came her to abuse

You were unethical and showed yourself incompetent

And how do I know you’re not a doctor, but a troll. Because of the parentheses around Professor

I am a professor. I very, very much doubt you are a doctor.

You will not get on again

He really doesn’t like disagreement, does he?

Hmm, OK

A government source said that Mr Johnson was pushing for Britain to become a low-tax, low-regulation regime like Singapore.

OK. P³:

There is not a thing in it that is pro-business.

There is overwhelming evidence that business benefits most when there is both regulation, ensuring a level playing field on which to compete exists, and consistency in that regulation that ensures that costs of compliance are minimised.

So, err, why is Singapore richer than Britain?

Damned fool idiot

There is in Sumption’s claim, the essence of the Great Barrington Declaration. It too assumed that lives could be divided between those worth saving or not. Those not worth saving were to be removed from Covid infected society, to be locked away from view for the duration of the pandemic, so that those of pure form might continue life unhindered by those of lesser worth, even if they happened to be their parents, siblings or even offspring. The assumption was that the ‘pure’ would be happy with this, and would indifferently wait to see who if the impure might make it through to the end when the goal of herd immunity had been achieved, when the survivors amongst the impure might be welcomed back, like the survivors of The Hunger Games.

If lives aren’t to be assigned different values then why do we have a £30k a year per Qualy limit on NHS treatments?


We know QE can control debt. We know interest rates can be controlled. We know that deficits do not deliver inflation. In other words, we know the rules of government funding have been rewritten.

Just to remind

Richard Murphy, one of the founders of the UK’s Tax Justice Network and author of The Joy of Tax, explains that “taxpayers’ money” is the money left in our pockets after we have paid taxes that are legally due.


The main areas of focus are on ending the 48-hour working week, tweaking the rules around rest breaks at work

OK, so, hours are monitored and recorded for these reasons.

The idea that £1 billion will be saved for this reason is, of course, completely ludicrous. Time recording dies not happen in most businesses. When it does it is required for other purposes, and will not end with any change of regulation. So that is not the reason for this change.

Instead the reason for the change is to gut minimum wage rules.

Apparently the Kartoffel can’t read his own quotes.

Since you ask, P³, no…..

This is so confused. Start with the claim that ‘QE is justified by low inflation and not high deficits.’ Surely, even the most elementary thinking might suggest that maybe low inflation was the result of low demand as a consequence of which high deficits are required to promote economic recovery? In other words, such analysis would note that in the situation we are in (and the FT has contextualised this argument in this way) the claims made here are the same?

Once answer is this:

There’s been a change in the velocity of money.

Another possible answer is that perhaps we’re not actually in a recession where we’ve a shortage of demand. That’s not the only possible reason for a recession of course. Could be we’ve had a shock to hte supply side, something that isn’t solved by an increase in demand.

But, you know, that would require a knowledge of macroeconomics to work through…..

No, he’s still missing it, isn’t he?

As is the denial to be perpetuated that what has happened gives control to the government of interest rates – precisely because of the power of QE and the existence of central bank reserve account balances of about £800 billion.

In order to control interest rates – as with being able to control inflation – you’ve got to vary the money supply.


But that means that sometimes you’ve got to reduce the money supply as well a at times increase it. That is, at times you want to be able to sell those QE bonds back to the market…..

How in buggery does he manage this?

Longer-term, we cannot discount the possibility that trends, including demography, may exert upward pressure on inflation. But government itself can influence the impact of those trends, for example by enabling greater female participation in the labour market through improved childcare and by engaging in other more active labour market policies, thus reducing the ratio of retired to employed people.

That’s pretty scary. Labour’s anti-inflation policy is based on getting more working-age women to work and on increasing the pensionable retirement age.

The initial claim is that if more non-working women become working women then the ratio of working to retired changes. Which seems obvious enough really.

Ritchie’s started complaining about raising the retirement age.


There will also be those with long memories who recall his authorship of the TUC budget submission one year. Where he made the insistence that top end income tax rates should rise so as to force more non-working women in upper income households to go out to work…..

Wonder why they bothered to do QE then?

The last decade has proved that governments do not operate at the behest of bond markets, as was once thought. Instead, bond markets operate with the consent of government, which can and will provide them with more or less debt to trade entirely at the will of government. This is a massive change in relationship. Fiscal rules pretend that this change has not happened.

Fiscal rules also pretend that government interest costs are set by the whim of markets. Again, over the last decade it has become absolutely apparent that this is not the case. So a fiscal rules is, again, misguided.

If all that’s true then why does the BoE own £800 billion of gilts? Why would anyone bother if there’s no problem selling bonds at an interest rate controlled by government?

Lordy Be

Pilgrim Slight Return says:
January 13 2021 at 12:30 pm
In terms of Trump, he most certainly did not behave as graciously as Obama did in defeat.

Even though (as Brittany Kaiser and Carole Cadwaladr might advise) Obama and his supporters had every right to call ‘bullshit’ on the 2016 election result, they did not.

Anyone actually recall who did run in 2016?

This is why comments moderation

Arendt was also right about Trump. All that was required for his messaging to succeed was a mass of indifference to fascist communication.


How would you feel if Congress and the President passed a law making it illegal to think in a fascist way? And then a power of Attainder to deal with Mr Trump.

Richard Murphy says:
January 13 2021 at 10:47 am
I would think such a law crass

You can’t stop people thinking

You can seek to stop the dissemination of such thought in ways that are harmful to society

It’s all anti-fascism, d’ye see?


Richard Murphy says:
January 11 2021 at 1:13 pm
I think he is wrong on that

More important, he was wrong to give up on freedom of movement

When capital can roam and labour cannot the return to labour will always fall

That’s the same mechanism by which some of the burden of corporation tax falls upon labour, not capital. But of course the P³ insistence is that the burden of corporation tax never does fall upon labour.

Odd that how the same thing differs in effect according to which hole in the stump is being looked out of.

People shouldn’t have what they want

That is because what large party politics is now very largely about is the re-amplification of the messages received from those groups, many of which are deeply selfish and insensitive to community need precisely because of the way in which they focus upon the individuals wants and desires.
This is not the moment to go back to the dogmatic politics of the pre-Thatcher era, but it is the moment to rediscover principles and the merits of political leadership that takes people to a better place that they had not previously imagined.

Or, as the P³ really means, you can’t have what you want you’re going to get what I allow.

This might not be the correct answer

As Murph (no relation) says:

Why is it that politics now apparently demands that vast numbers of people must not be represented by the two mainstream political parties?

The correct answer might be something more along the lines of, well, there aren’t vast numbers of people who think that way……


Third, they really don’t care. All they care about is being in office. And whilst opinion polls suggest it’s likely they’ll be re-elected they’ll carry on not caring that people might die. Call it ‘the Generals at the Somme’ attitude, if you like, because that is what it is.

Yes, true, but this is the problem with the Curajus State, is it not?

The game of politics is to get elected. Thus politics attracts those who wish to be elected. Things that are run by politics become things run by those whose only aim is to get, and stay, elected.

The reason things are run better when they’re not run by politics is that things that aren’t run by politics are run by those with other motivations and incentives than merely remaining elected.

Which is where Kartoffel goes so wrong. This is not specific to one flavour of, one colour, politicians. It’s innate in the very allocation of responsibility. His Curajus State, where politics determines more of life, would just have this problem spread over more areas of life.

The Kartoshka is always looking for sponsors

Beijing funds British YouTubers to further its propaganda war

It’s real money too:

Critics have claimed that pro-China YouTubers are benefiting from ad-revenues in part driven by an alleged Chinese Communist Party network of bots that promote videos supporting the state.

The Barretts have nearly 200,000 subscribers, and have produced 255 videos since the start of last year, gaining a combined 16.5 million views. Their videos are thought to earn them about £53,000 a year through advertising alone, according to analysis by Social Blade, a website that monitors social media channels such as YouTube.

And if you are in favour of that Curajus State then why wouldn’t you be willing to advertise for a very Curajus State indeed?


Unlike other economic decision-making systems, modern monetary theory recognises that there is a limit to the potential within any economy, and beyond that any attempt to create more economic activity will always result in inflation.

So, not only does modern monetary theory have a built-in inflation control mechanism,

What is that unlike doing there?

Perhaps, more to the point, since when has a promise by politicians not to spend more money been a control mechanism?