Tim Worstall is a very strange man. As far as I can see he’s written 13 blogs about me — in the past fortnight. I call that an unhealthy obsession.
And despite his clearly being my biggest fan and #1 cheerleader he also gets me quite wildly wrong.
Take this on the Washington consensus about which I wrote earlier today, about which he says:
So, let’s see what the Washington Consensus actually says, shall we?
The consensus included ten broad sets of recommendations:
* Fiscal policy discipline;
* Redirection of public spending from subsidies (“especially indiscriminate subsidies”) toward broad-based provision of key pro-growth, pro-poor services like primary education, primary health care and infrastructure investment;
* Tax reform — broadening the tax base and adopting moderate marginal tax rates;
* Interest rates that are market determined and positive (but moderate) in real terms;
* Competitive exchange rates;
* Trade liberalization — liberalization of imports, with particular emphasis on elimination of quantitative restrictions (licensing, etc.); any trade protection to be provided by low and relatively uniform tariffs;
* Liberalization of inward foreign direct investment;
* Privatization of state enterprises;
* Deregulation — abolition of regulations that impede market entry or restrict competition, except for those justified on safety, environmental and consumer protection grounds, and prudent oversight of financial institutions;
* Legal security for property rights.Now I cannot see there any policy proposal that I would argue against. In fact, I cannot see any policy proposals there that Ritchie would want to argue against.
Wrong Tim. I do. Look what it’s done to Africa and you’ll know why.
It’s not done a lot better here, has it?
Why? Because the reality is it’s been about destroying the state, opening up markets to unfair competition, moving to regressive indirect tax bases, denying resources to industries that need them, denying labour rights whilst enhancing capital rights, allowing the free flow of capital and denying that right to labour, undermining the property rights of onshore states and enhancing those of offshore, allowing unfettered finance rights over all else and so much more.
I hope Tim knew he was being absurd writing what he did, but all he wrote after the above suggested he did not. It’s unsurprising that throughout the entire left he is treated as a buffoon. Oh, a buffoon who knows economic theory quite well. But a buffoon because of his complete inability to exercise any wisdom when it comes to interpreting it, as this latest blog shows.
But if blogging about me keeps you happy Tim, keep going. It does amuse us that you waste so much time and effort getting things so spectacularly wrong time, after time, after time.
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:
Buy me a coffee!
“It’s unsurprising that throughout the entire left he is treated as a buffoon”
Untrue. If you’re going to make a gross generalisation, make sure it’s not disprovable by the presence of one person who disagrees with it.
I have a lot of time and respect for Tim; I disagree with him on more issues than I agree with him on, but he’s one of the few people that, if we disagree, I’ll go check why I think what I do.
Sorry Richard, but Tim is not a buffoon.
Now, how about interpreting what the consensus has supposed to have done, why not tell us which individual specific part you actually disagree with? Unless you can do that, then it’s very easy to argue that the problems in Africa you point to were due to a failure to implement the proposals, and without a counterpoint, that would be a fair argument.
Not necessarily one I agree with, but…
IT can definitely be very easily argued that the consensus has not been implemented within the UK; we definitely don’t have moderate marginal tax rates, for example, especially for those of us who’re at the bottom end of the income scale.
So, which parts do you disagree with? Play the ball, not the man.
Tim Worstall is like a guy who’s had a couple of guitar lessons and then goes out on stage thinking he’s Jimi Hendrix. I feel a bit sorry for the guy, in a strange way.
@MatGB
What a strange idea of yours that my hypothesis is disproven by a comment from an anonymous and unknown commentator
What is more, one who |i discover berates me on Worstall’s site because I took a few hours out with my family on a Sunday afternoon
What a very sad man you are MatGB (you can’t be a woman, I’m sure)
And how poorly you hide your cover, whoever you are
In fact. I’ll take it that you prove the case – after all no one from the Left I know has ever found reason to doubt themselves after reading Worstall. Oh, I know a couple of Lib De,s from the Manchester school have – but to consider Orange Book Lib Dems as left wing, progressive or radical is an insult to the description (as is also becoming widely acknowledged as well)
The fact is, there is no common ground between the Left and UKIP
And Worstall may know his economics – but let’s be clear – he does not know how to apply it – as his comments on the Washington Consensus show
And anyone from the Left really doesn’t need the failure of the Washington Consensus to be explained, which is another failure on our part Mat. It’s already been far too well catalogued
Richard
@Richard Murphy
I am not on the Left, so can I please have those failures explained.
Is there any recent, credible, scientific and evidence-based research that establishes a causal relationship between economic and social developmental failures and the policy recommendations of the Washington Consensus?
[…] have been challenged to say why I have problems with what is known as the Washington Consensus. As it happens to suit my […]