I was having an email exchange with a friend this morning who mentioned his distaste for Tim Worstall's blog and was surprised when I said whether he liked it or not Worstall is well read. Anyway, it sent me off looking for some data. The following is my ranking from the ebuzzing web site:
And this is Tim's:
Enough said, I think.
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
You can subscribe to this blog's daily email here.
And if you would like to support this blog you can, here:
Cracking result, Richard. Consistently No.1 for economics and well placed for general. I’m sure that makes all the time and effort you put into this endevour worthwhile. Trebles all round 🙂
So you’re now stooping to the argumentum ad populum, Richard?
No
I was just noting what others were saying
Anything wrong with that?
It does not prove me right – I never said it did
But such things as rankings do matter – and it would be foolish to say otherwise
Are you?
Why do they matter, Richard?
Why does anything matter?
Could it just be curiosity?
Even, dare and it it, just a little amusement?
Isn’t that sometimes enough?
Bit harsh Tom.
Richard was merely pointing out that he’s up near the top on “read blogs” in his field.
Just like he pointed out elswhere on this site how well his book about tax-avoiding international big business was selling on Amazon, the….er…tax-avoiding international big business.
Richard, I regularly read both you and Tim’s blogs. It is good to get a different view of each subject, although Tim is normally ‘slagging’ someone off – sometimes rather offensively. I actually find your blog entertaining and informative and always look for comment numbers larger than 15. This means that you have actually engaged in the debate – which I think is important for you to defend your point – whether I think you’re right or not.
Naughty.
You’ve “deliberately” chosen a ranking methodology that includes Twitter activity, because you know Worstall largely eschews it?
Boo on you sir.
Boo.
I have a question about tax havens.
If the population of (say) Sark democratically voted to remain a tax haven, would you support their democratic right to do so, while presumably campaigning to change their minds?
Or would you be willing to support a change to the way the island is governed to enable the democratic will of other parties to take precedence, for the greater good?
Hey – that’s choice you’re knocking. I thought you right wingers espoused it and decried us lefties and our level playing fields?
Re Sark – they can decide what thy like so long as they do not seek to undermine the tax sovereignty of another state. If they do they deserve sanctions.
Ivor,
I think you would find that if they were unable to siphon off tax revenues arising from other nations (i.e. they could only low or zero tax economic activity that occurred on sark), sark would quickly collapse into anarchy if it kept those low/zero rates, as the Island would be unable to support the essential functions of government. It is only by redirecting tax revenues from other nations that they can currently afford to have those low/no rates.
Thus it does not really matter what the tax havens or their citizens want. The decision on whether they exist as tax havens lies in the hands of other nations, or conglomerations of nations, such as the OECD or Eurozone. The tax havens would have no choice but to raise tax rates, if they could nolonger feed on the tax streams of other nations.
This is taking us into the really hard territory of interdependence in what seems to be a global economy. Are we looking at just tax sovereignty? What about economic sovereignty? What does country B (and C and D) do if country A decides to subsidise its export industries, say through ‘soft’ loans, paying for infrastructure, or sponsoring R&D it passes over for nothing? Or gives tax holidays to firms in a particular Zone? What if country A were the economic size of the USA or China – how do we sanction them?
Iain
I don’t think anyone knows the answer. It is a bit like “rock, paper, scissors”. Every business would like to pay low tax but, equally, every business would like to be in a country that has excellent infrastructure, low crime, no bribery & an educated workforce.
By definition, those requirements don’t easily balance.
Richard’s concern, as I understand it, is the Corporations (& indeed individuals), who seek to “freeload” on the higher tax state by taking advantage of their infrastructure, low crime, lack of bribery & educated workforce while making no contribution to the maintenance of those qualities.
This is why the “Tax havens” do such damage, they actively distort the market.
If you can’t trade into China through Singapore, into the US through Panama, into the EU through the Crown Dependencies, into Russia through Cyprus then everything is out in the open & we all have to say “what is a fair rate for what the state does?”
Masterminding Does this prosecute release contravene taking place your copyright? It accurately is a violation of our terms and conditions for writers to accept substance which they did not enter and aver it as their same own.
I am sorry – I have no real understanding of what you are saying