Ivan Horrocks asked about my blog ranking this morning, which spurred me to look at ebuzzing as I hadn't for ages. This is the December ranking for this blog:
58 overall.
Number one in economics - but not every month.
But don't worry - Worstall's always at least one behind.....
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:
Richard,
Not really on this subject, but I would be interested to hear your thoughts on bitcoin – perhaps as a separate blog post
And as yet I have not properly formulated them
I must do some more reading
I found and follow this blog precisely to be updated on economics and tax. TV news (except for the pleasurable ravings of the Keiser duo) is unwatchable with evidence based argument and “balanced” presentation largely absent, too frequently dominated by forceful neo-liberal opinion. Newspapers are not sufficiently and accurately informative, at a quantitative level, even though I read the Guardian, Financial Times and other resources. RMs links are informative and representative of the best data to be found in the public domain, and he does the searching. As a professional medical scientist of 40 years (in work), I seek quantitative evidence based argument. UK scientists are like many workers “on tap” and not “on top”, largely muted and in fear of falling out of favour (grant income) or being dismissed. The attraction to be a free market advocate was never so rewarding.
Thanks Tony
Only quantitative evidence, Tony?
As a reader of Richard’s blog I’d assume you have some time for the qualitative stuff as well 🙂
Your last sentence I agree with entirely.
Ivan, Of course both QUALITATIVE and QUANTITATIVE, however this blog helps slay my thirst for the latter. BTW as a scientist I’m trained to search for quantitative evidence, as well as qualitative. With quantitative data you can measure accuracy, precision and yes the significance of data and appropriateness of methods used. Wearing a statistician’s hat one can have all sorts of fun and games, consider using Benford’s Law to check whether data is made up. It’s a really simple test (a 6 year old can do this one!). Both wide in scope and applicable to all sorts of data; to check if data is “fiction”. Tax returns are an ideal usage!
I encourage to be “quantitative” where possible. The recent 2013 report on Global Climate Change prompted PM Cameron to warn-off his party climate change skeptics, because of the report’s thoroughness. It carefully translated the quantitative effects that “indicate the assessed likelihood” of changes into language understandable to the lay person. It’s not just warming we need to consider the acidity changes of the oceans is important for the survival of ocean life. [Note: Our oceans are salt solutions and chemists describe these as “buffered solutions”, resistant to pH changes, but not for ever]. The interplay of economic policy and taxation with climate change is vital to pursue — requiring adult supervision, unfortunately lacking in parts of Government.
This following website illustrates Benford’s law on NASDAQ daily volume of share trading over the last 10 years where “something is going on here”.
Benford’s Law try for example: http://www.datagenetics.com/blog/march52012/
http://www.climatechange2013.org/
Tony, I hope you realise that my comment was made more in jest than anything else. I’m sure you recall the so called “paradigm wars” in the 1980s and 1990s, between the supporters of quants and quals, which when I became an academic in the mid 1990s I always found unhelpful. There’s value in both, though as a social scientist I have a tendency to qualitative. Nevertheless, Richard’s blog has been very good at making me much more comfortable with quants. And of course, I agree on climate change, where a quantitative approach is undoubtedly the most appropriate way to make the case.
Thanks for mention of Benford’s Law and the link. Not something I’ve come across. I’ll have a look later.
I think it’s my traffic that’s keeping you there Richard. You are assured of my continuing support.
The difference being, Tim is not sucking on the grant machine teat?
Not to mention that Tim is based in reality, not the cmte/seminar table mileau….
Tim has as much relationship to reality as you have to Kate Perry
As always with Richard, playing the (wo)man not the ball……
The last time I saw his picture Tim looked male to me
Speaking to your comments on the comment from KP
Mr Worstall’s ranking must really tickle you. It would me.
Maybe, just a little 🙂
I am human
Who is Worstall?
Go search
Richard, I started reading your blog over a year ago and have to say it’s been an amazing education, not only in tax but economics and numerous other social issues. I value your insight and opinion and do my best to promote your site to as many of my fellow citizens as possible. Thanks for your great work.
Thanks
And thanks for your comments
Well done Richard.
I think you gain readers who are interested – and probably rather surprised – that economics and tax can be made to work for ordinary people rather than the interests of a very tiny rich clique.
I’m afraid one only gets the very opposite impression from Tim Worstall’s outpourings.
BenM, one of the greatest things I’ve learned from this blog, is the shattering of this myth that “there’s not enough money”. Now I know how to respond when I hear this comment from people.