I have lost count of the number of times over the last twelve years that I have been told that if only I was more reasonable I would be so much more successful.
Big firms of accountants have told me that.
So have accounting and other institutes.
As have tax havens and their governments.
Let alone big businesses.
And countless commentators, all, it seems to me, of a right-wing persuasion, have said the same.
It happened again yesterday.
Despite which I'll continue to take the risk of being unreasonable. As George Bernard Shaw said (and I apologise for the gender specific language):
The reasonable man adapts himself to the world; the unreasonable one persists in trying to adapt the world to himself. Therefore all progress depends on the unreasonable man.
Which is precisely why I will continue to be unreasonable. Seeking to change the world to make it a more just place for those with little requires nothing less.
And that is also why, of course, those who would rather I did not progress beseech me to change my ways with the suggestion that I really should be a reasonble chap. That's not going to happen precisely because nothing would have happened if I was. And so those who do not like what I am seeking to do will continue to be upset. So be it.
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:
“To be well adjusted to a profoundly sick society is no measure of good health” – Krishnamurti. Keep being unreasonable, Richard.
Not being reasonable is one thing. Trying to smear someone is another.
Judith Freedman is an academic, whose faculty happens to be funded by a variety of businesses. She says she has full academic freedom and her work is peer reviewed. Yet you say this means she must be biased.
You are funded by a series of organisations with their own agendas. Indeed, you are trying to heavily promote the Fair Tax Mark, which you have a financial interest in. Yet you are saying that everything you say is the truth?
Everythign I say is biased
Everything every huiman being says is biased
Only fools argue otherwise
OK – everything everyone says is biased.
But you consistently say you speak truth to power. Now you say you are also biased. Not sure what to make of that.
What I do know, though, is that you seem very unwilling to admit mistakes in your work, which is not properly peer reviewed. The blind peer review process is how science tries to remove bias – so you are certainly failing at that step. Getting people who agree with you, and are biased in the same direction as you doesn’t lend itself to good research or particularly believable results.
I speak what I belieev to be the truth to power
Of course I may be wrong. I have to accept that possibility. And I have on occassion changed my mind. That’s a strength, not a weakness
As to istakes in my work – which ones? Or do you merely mean you disagree. That is not the same thing, of course, but invariably the mistake referred to is actuially a different opinion.
As for peer review – it exists to reinforce the existing status quo. You sewriosuly mistake its purpose, especially in economics
But no doubt we will disagree on that
In the meantime I note that people like the OECD have adoipted my non-peer reviewed work whilst the EU regualrly quotes it despire all your reservations
I do therefore remain unperturbed
You have a financial stake in your work. Your tax justice activism is paid work. The FTM charges, and as part of that business I assume you also have financial interest there.
Judging from Tax Research UK’s accounts you are making a tidy sum from this work. It’s fair to say, as your main source of income, you have a significant financial interest in being biased. I’m not sure Judith Freedman has nearly the same financial motivation you do – she is certainly not directly funded by the parties you claim she represents, whereas you are.
I wholly disagree with your view on peer review. It is not there to preserve the status quo. It is there to remove bias and manage the reporting of obvious errors. I get the feeling that your dislike of peer review exists simply because the many errors in your work would get pointed out by experts in the field, and you would find this problematic when making the grand claims you are prone to making.
I’m therefore not surprised you remain unperturbed. Much like the twitter conversation with Jolyon Maughn that was the cause of this post, nothing, let alone the facts, seem able to do that to you.
I am unperturbed precisely because what you are saying is so utterly predictable
It is very true that people are biased.
The problem arises when one bias is enabled to dominate another – as has been the case with neo-lib mythology masquerading as economic science.
There has been a political failure to balance bias in our political and economic system since 1979 which has been catastrophic for this country and many others.
One of the institutions that have reinforced bias are our Universities.
Anyone looking at the way in which economics has been taught in University’s in the the UK or the States (let alone South America) will have come across ‘peer review’ when they have questioned moneterist/Chicago School orthodoxy in their academic work. I know I did in the late 1990’s as a mature student.
You cannot simply hide bias behind the concept of ‘peer review’. Why have economics students been rebelling against neo-lib orthodoxy in their curricula? It’s because so-called ‘peer-reviews’ have been used to reinforce lies as economic facts.
The concept of peer-review is also a little like the so-called ‘wisdom of markets’ – that lots of people being active in a market will deliver the best result because rationality will be maximised. In academia, if a number of academics review a paper, it can be validated or improved in some way before being published.
Actually, it hasn’t worked like that in markets has it because we’ve had bubbles, crashes etc. So in fact, bias has been reinforced by the so-called ‘wisdom’ rather than reduced. So bias behaviours – like wishful thinking, panic , the herd mentality, greed – have all been turbo charged instead.
And this is exactly what can happen in academic faculties who pay lip service to dodgy ideas who peer-review. It’s not the peer-review process itself; it’s the bias behaviours the academics bring to peer review that undermines it.
To the point where peer review actually ends up meaning nothing at all.
Indeed
It took two years to have a paper I write for the World Bank peer reviewed
There were massive attempts to neuter it
I refused the changes
Eventually it got out
By then it was irrelevant
on the other hand, paradigm shift usually occurs when the ‘old Guard’ retires or dies off. Thomas Kuhn the Structure of Scientific Revolutions.
When we look back at the 1930s we can see that the consensus view was probably wrong. In fact, it is similar to the way the present ‘Great Recession” is being handled by the powers that be. Many of the ‘alternative commentators did forecast the ‘credit crunch’ and Osborne’s predictions of eliminating the deficit have not been born out. Often the minority see more clearly and can break out of ‘group think’. There are certainly incentives not to break ranks-Richard Murphy could probably have earn a lot more if he had not embarked on a rather lonely and unpopular road.
First rule of successful management… Cherish the awkward squad! They will always spot the flaws in your bright ideas so you can re-think and improve without being embarassed (another reason for a good Union. Saves face and Money!
You are biased because that is what pays your wage. Being a tax activist pays your wage. No tax controversy means no income for you. Let’s be honest, tax justice is a money making industry now. Your seeking to change the world is not done out of the goodness of your heart. It is income earning. Plain and simple
Judith Freedman is paid solely by the university and is bound by policies on conflicts of interest. That is the diffrence between you and her
, you have to be biased to earn income,Nashe doesn’t.
I’ve read some nonsense before but that takes soime considerable beating
If I was solely seeking to take money I’d be back in accountancy
And to suggest that because a person is an academic they are free of influence is so crass it is beyond beleif
Hugh
Are you Ayn Rand in disguise?
Tories always think anyone who does not agree with them is wicked. Projection, perhaps?
I think it is the Establishment always think that
It is, of course, the way of defining an ‘outsider’
Richard
I consider you to be an ‘inside outsider’ – that is to say (and it is a compliment) that it is a real pleasure (and too rare a thing) for someone with your expertise to decide to put right what you see as wrong from your perspective of being inside your profession.
Too many people who are very good at their jobs never stop and look up and out from where they are to assess the impact they are having on those who share the planet with them.
You and few others are obvious exceptions. Thank goodness!
Thanks
Perhaps this is easier money, maybe you can’t really hack it as a tax accountant. I don’t know but let’s stop pretending that you are simply a crusader. You are a crusader with a keen appreciation of what puts money in your pocket.
Produce your accounts and tax returns, let the public judge for themselves.
I choose to put my accounts on record
I do not argue for tax returns on public record, so won’t
“As to istakes in my work — which ones? Or do you merely mean you disagree. That is not the same thing, of course, but invariably the mistake referred to is actuially a different opinion.”
Everyone knows the mistakes. For example, claiming capital allowances are part of the “tax gap”, which you did in your first well publicised report. You have never rectified that to my knowledge.
There are many other mistakes too.
I never claimed they were
I said I ignired deferred tax for reasons given
Others said what you are claiming
There’s the corker about not understanding the difference between profits and sales when talking about the VAT gap – leading you to estimate that the tax gap was the size of the entire grey economy….
Only someone who has no comprehension of accounting, GDP and national income could say that
I am sure the small world view suits you well
Referencing your report “In The Shade”
“The consequence is that it is, for extrapolation purposes, reasonable to assume that the whole sales figure on which VAT is lost in this example should be subject to tax as income, whether to corporation tax or PAYE.”
Your words not mine. You make a lengthy argument as to why this is the case. Problem is, that “sales” do not equal “profits” and taxes are paid on profit.
You then take the VAT gap, multiply it up to give you a number for missing sales, then apply an overall tax rate to it to give you a number dramatically in excess of HMRC (or OECD) numbers. After all that lengthy calculation all you are really doing is multiply HMRCs numbers. Not sure if you realise that.
Your overall tax gap is 120bn. The UK’s grey economy is estimated at around 150bn (2012).
http://www.theguardian.com/business/2013/jun/04/uk-shadow-economy
What marginal tax rate do you think the shadow economy should be paying?
As an aside, I’m pretty sure I have a better comprehension of accounting, GDP and national income. The basic mistake you make in your paper proves it.
First, I stand by the economic reasoning – which is sound and has to be correct
Second the tax gap is by a very long way not all from the shadow economy
But why bother with checking facts?
“First, I stand by the economic reasoning — which is sound and has to be correct”
It has to be correct because you say it has to be? Others would differ.
“Second the tax gap is by a very long way not all from the shadow economy. But why bother with checking facts?”
I’m not sure you realise how ludicrous this statement is. Tax is levied as a percentage of value added – GDP if you like. The UK economy as a whole consists of recorded GDP and unrecorded GDP (the shadow economy). By it’s very definition the tax gap cannot be larger than the shadow economy – if it was, it would imply that total GDP (recorded + unrecorded) was larger than the base case you are using to calculate the size of the shadow economy. In short, your equations won’t balance.
You are saying that the tax gap is 120bn. The shadow economy is 150bn. You are already approaching that zero bound.
By the way, this is easiest to formulate using the income approach for GDP, but is also equally valid using the expenditure approach.
But I’m sure you knew that.
Tax avoidance is in the tax gap and U.S. not in the UK shadow economy
offshore abuse is not in the UK shadow economy
You really are clueless
Please don’t call again
I think you should have a long look at how GDP, size of shadow economy and tax gaps are properly calculated. By definition, tax evasion becomes statistically part of the shadow economy.
For example. Using an income based GDP calculation we can work out what expected GDP is. Knowing what tax rates are (and allowing for avoidance/tax breaks – which as you will remember is legal), and a distribution of incomes, we can then calculate an expectation for tax receipts. We can then compare that to the observed tax receipts.
If, as they usually are, observed tax is lower than expected, we can surmise one of two things (or a combination). Either there is a shadow economy, or GDP was lower than the original expected value. Either way, doing this mathematically gives a proof that the tax gap can never be larger than the shadow economy as a whole.
That all being said, you seem to have gone down the typical Richard Murphy line of argument. Make your incorrect statement, say that you know better and that anyone who disagrees with you knows nothing, insult them a few times and then shut down the conversation. Truly pitiful.
Under no definition of the shadow economy is tax avoidance part of the shadow economy
Nor is all evasion by a long way, as I have pointed out
I stand by my work
And I am sorry, but you are wrong in my opinion, but I accept not in yours
OK fair enough – we disagree.
In econometric terms, we do define the shadow economy as:
“market based production of goods and services, legal or illegal, that escapes detection in the official estimates of GDP”
or
“those economic activities and the income derived from them that circumvent or otherwise avoid government regulation, taxation or observation”
By these definitions tax avoidance is not key – as it is legal and observed. People are changing their behaviour (legally) to minimise their tax bill, and we can build approximations of this behaviour into our models given a set of tax laws. There will likely be a difference between the expected (modelled) tax receipts after avoidance and the outcome, but if you look through tax office statistics it tends to be fairly small – a function of good but imperfect models.
Tax evasion, however, falls squarely within the econometric definition of the shadow economy as the activity is designed to avoid regulation, observation and ultimately taxation.
But you are criticising my estimates that include tax avoidance as part of the tax gap
I have never said all the tax gap is tax evasion
I have never said it is all in the shadow economy
And evasion need not impact GDP
I am sorry – stop barking up wrong trees and go and read my work. Properly
If you did, by the way you’d note that my projection of tax evasion based on VAT is good
Real GDP is £1698 billion https://www.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/398839/PDB_Web-_January.pdf
The shadow economy is 11 or 12% of that (oddly similar to the VAT loss, but we will ignore that)
But the shadow economy is not in GDP data
So gross up and GDP would be £1918 bn
Loss = £220bn
At 38% tax
£83.6 bn
Then add avoidance
And unpaid tax and you get to my £120 billion
Your problem is??????
I don’t think you grasp what I am saying.
Avoidance will on the whole be a very small % of any tax gap. It is essentially the difference between the expected tax outcome and the observed. Given a tax authority has powers to regulate, observe and tax, this is always likely to be the case.
This means that the bulk of a tax gap will come from the shadow economy in general.
Indeed, of HMRCs 35bn tax gap estimate, 30bn comes from the generalised (VAT, excise, incomes taxes) shadow economy, and only 4bn from avoidance.
Nor did I ever say that the shadow economy “impacts” GDP. What I did say that the shadow economy sits on top of observed GDP, but the vast bulk of a tax gap sits in the shadow economy. Therefore, the tax gap can’t exceed the size of the shadow economy – if it did it, the sums simply wouldn’t add up.
It would be saying that the marginal tax rate on the shadow economy is 100% or greater – which is a very important point.
When you did your work, you based your numbers on 2012. I see you are now making your point using 2015 data. By your methodology the tax gap should have significantly increased, purely as GDP has done so. You also seem to have simply assumed a 38% tax rate – which is fairly heroic. Corporation taxes aren’t that high, and only the top rate of income tax beats it.
And then you add avoidance and unpaid tax – double counting given that avoidance is already accounted for and unpaid tax sits is treated in the same way as the shadow economy in modelling terms.
I’ve read your work through several times now. I can see a myriad of problems with it. It’s just an assumption based multiplier to generate very large numbers. Even with your enlarged GDP figures, the tax gap you are suggesting is 60% of the shadow economy – which is unheard of.
HMRC, the EU and the OECD don’t seem to agree with your numbers – though they do roughly agree with each other. The only people who do agree with you seem to be people you have written reports for. Isn’t there the slightest chance that you are wrong and they are right?
What are we to take away from this?
When you still cannot see that there is no way on earth that I am claiming the tax gap is 60% of the shadow economy there is no point at all discussing with you
You are simply wasting my time
Further comments will be deleted
Shadow economy 2012 = approx. 150bn
Tax gap 2012 = 120bn
Do the math.
I have already, for you, to show you you’re wrong
Now stop wasting my time
In quoting George Bernard Shaw, I am afraid you have confused yourself.
It may well be that in order to make progress you have to be unreasonable but that does not mean that if you are unreasonable you must be making progress.
I am Certain that Shaw would not have approved of the boorish, insulting manner in which you conducted yourself yesterday on Twitter, nor would he have said that the way to win an argument is to ignore what the other person says and instead throw unproven accusations at them.
You claim to act on your conscience so it is as well to remind you of another Shaw quote.
“There is nothing more dangerous than the conscience of a bigot.”
Please feel free to protect the status quo
Especially since none of what you say about yesterday has the slightest relationship with the truth
All that took place was the linking of a comment made with the funding of the Centre the commentator helps direct – an action according with wholly appropriate academic ethical practice – which all who made objection have ignored
And of course I am a bigot if you do not like what I say: that is obvious, so you only prove your own position as a person wishing to maintain the status quo by saying so
Where in my post do I mention the status quo? Or wanting to maintain it?
You don’t
But your context does
No0w stop being a pedant or I will delete you from now on
I followed up on a ‘Twitterstorm’ to take task with you for being rude, something that does nothing to further your cause.
You accuse me of saying something I did not say then accuse me of being ‘pedantic’ for pointing out that I did not say it.
There is no need to delete me ‘from now on’ as it is clealrly an exercise in futility to attempt to engage you in anything resembling rational debate. As Shaw also said. “Do not bother to fight with a pig, you will only end up getting dirty”.
My friend Jack Blum has often reminded me of this when relating his tales of arguments with the Rac profession and economists before the Senate and elsewhere
I should have listened to him
I have heard Judith Freeman speak. She does not speak for workers – not many accountants do.
Why an earth would you want to be reasonable, when faced with an endless barrage of ignorance, stupidty and narrow mindedness?
Keep up the good work Richard…
I hope I can join in this dialogue too. Those accusing others of being biased or unbalanced rarely acknowledge their own position which must always prioritise something. We do not have access to language which can describe things in a value free way. Those accusing others never show how they know that something is unbalanced. Is the world is such a perfect harmony that they can so easily discern what being unbalanced is. Perhaps, they can share some evidence about that. Placing critics in negative spaces is an age-old practices. Support for status-quo is so naturalised that it rarely calls for any evidence whereas the arguments/evidence advanced by critics is always found to be wanting. Ironically, so many of the things taken for granted today arose because someone somewhere was willing to raise their head above the parapet.
I am sure that all academics enjoy freedom of thought and expression and I will not accuse anyone of compromising that. But as Noam Chomsky has reminded us, academics (and others) have to engage in self-censorship in case the sponsors are upset and withdraw their support. That would attract institutional inquiries and search for scapegoats. Academics (and others) be disciplined by lack of promotion, salary increments, early retirement and other devices. The so-called freedom is always bounded and the challenge is to find ways of negotiating that. It is hard to think of any corporate sponsored research that has exposed corporate malpractices.
You are doing a great service to society Richard and long may you continue.
Thanks Prem
I spoke to another academic yesterday
He said he wished he said he could say what I do
But he can’t or his institution would lose funding and with it jobs
The idea that an academic is free to speak whatever the funding of their institution was to him a hollow joke
My goodness Richard, you must have really have rattled a few gilded cages. Well done!
Prem, speaking as a fellow academic, well said. Had I been not tied up all day with other work and navigating my way up and down the M1 (and not being a Twitter user, thank goodness), and thus not able to keep up with this blog, I’d have said the same myself. I should add also that I’m aware that over the past few years many universities have added clauses about not bringing a university into disrepute or in any way acting against its interest – however, and by whomever, they may be defined – to academics’ term of employment. As far as I’m aware there have already been several cases where clauses such as this have been used against academics who are seen to have “transgressed” in some way or another. Combine that with the situation you describe and it won’t come as any surprise that I’m always extremely careful with the comments I add to Richard’s blogs – and thus admit to regularly self censoring myself.
I am well aware most academics do this
‘Peer review’ of economics…..dearie me.
Talk about trying to put lipstick on a pig.
At least someone like Steve Keen has the honesty to admit its got a long long way to go to achieve the rigour and independence of the hard sciences.
The ‘scientific principles’ of neo-lib economics are more closely related to science fiction than real science, so Mr Keen is quite right!
Instead of trying to argue against Freedmans view on Fair Tax Mark, you sought to discredit her solely as an individual which is a tactic you constantly use. Playing the man not the ball. People disagreeing with your views get the same treatment. You seem unable to defend your hypotheses without resorting to ad hominem attacks on people.
What you could learn is respecting contrary views while not agreeing with them. You are not as great a gift to taxation as you and your acolytes think – if you were you would have been snapped up by one countless organisations. Maybe even be the head of the UN Committee of Experts, maybe just a mere committee member.
See here’s the issue, some call you an expert, but to be truthful, nobody really knows if you are because you either only peddle your own version (and then using yourself as source reference),, or you insult people you disagree with. Your comment in yesterday’s Times was more that of a court jester than that of an expert. No justification, no argument and as usual no substance.
I suppose we should be grateful that Marks and Spencer didn’t donate to Oxford.
I did not write the tweet in question
That’s your first mistake: you assume I did and I did not. I do not even have access to the FTM twitter account
Second, we were pointing out Judith Freedman’s conflicts of interest
People like to say I am union funded, and it is true
Judith Freedman is on the management committee and is a former director of a Centre where she works which is heavily backed by big business, some of whom avoid tax
She opposed a measure seeking to enhance tax transparency
We sought to put her view in context, wholly appropriately
I have nothing to apologise for
But what is really funny are your follow on comments
Recall I was told country-by-country reporting and automatic information exchange would never happen
They have – and I created country-by-country reporting, as an outsider
Which I will always be
And that’s why I am not on those committees
In other words, you are asking me to be a reasonable man
I am not
Speaking as Proud Acolyte:
Wow – amazing – an ad hominem attack accusing you Richard of an ad hominem attack!!
Some of these people like Hugh are really scraping the bottom of the barrel to make a point. They must be running out of excuses for their view of the world.
It also seems that people engage with your blog expecting you to go through the arguments all over again (the same ones since 2006) for their sake when all they have to do is read past blogs or read your book…….or just read. Or even look around them to see what has been happening.
Mark C. You’ve started the ball rolling now. So, speaking as a person who is undoubtedly regarded as a Richard Murphy acolyte, and as someone who’s been reading this blog for a few years now, I can remember at least one previous occasion when a bit of a set to arose from Richard commenting on Judith Freeman’s potential conflict of interest and the question of academic freedom.
I can’t comment on the specifics of what has or hasn’t occurred on this occasion because I avoid Twitter like the plague. And haven’t read whatever article (in The Times?) the alleged twitter storm relates to. On a general point, however, it should be noted that it’s become commonplace for many people – politicians, including those in the Lords; spokespersons and “experts” from think tanks, consultancies, PR and lobbying organisations; business people and “captains of industry”; and, yes, academics and many more who appear in the media and elsewhere NOT to disclose that they speak from a position where a conflict of interest is possible or highly likely.
Whether this is done out of ignorance/naivety, or knowingly is a moot point. Examples from politicians, Lords, and other sectors are legion, with a selection of the most egregious often published in Private Eye. The fact that when these come from the mouths of right wing commentators and those who support the “status quo” they are seldom if ever highlighted elsewhere, but when they are allegedly detected in the case of anyone on the left or classed as progressive the mainstream media jump on them, tells you all you need to know about the bias that sits at the heart of the polity of the UK and many others.
Exactly
“and I created country-by-country reporting”
I’ve been always been rather both amused and bemused by your claim to have invented country-by-country reporting (as if the idea that a profit and loss account for each country a company operates in is some kind of amazing concept which no one thought of before).
Except no one had
And no one had codified it
Or argued for it
And been ridiculed for it
And got civil society to campaign for it
And won it
But there you go: you live in an evidence free zone
Firstly I have long regarded Shaw’s dictum as very sound guidance! And the best of the many companies I’ve worked with (both as a senior manager and management consultant) always nurtured their awkward squad as sources of innovation and ‘canaries in the coal mine’. The worst being found the City in the last 20 years or so, including the so-called professional firms – and yes, I too passed through KPMG.
Your points on the weakness of peer reviews (and academic conformity) also rings true from experience. I’ve worked in the development sector for the last 10-15 years and completed a Masters in development studies. In their way, the development academics and their disciples in the large NGO’s can be just as conformist and in-bred as the neo-liberal brigade. Woe betide if your essays and dissertations did not fit with their world view. All those papers I’ve read that merely recycle and recite others material as the best way of gaining acceptance from those peer reviewers. Its a rare and brave academic who challenges the accepted way of thinking
So keep up the fantastic work please Richard
I agree on development too!
Thanks
Keep up the great work Richard. We need this debate. Your opponents don’t actually want the debate at all.
I’ve come a bit late to this after taking a couple of days off. It seems to me that there’s some sort of concerted attack on you, Richard, and that suggests that someone knows you’re heading in the right direction and would very much like you to misdirect you. I don’t doubt for a second that you won’t let that happen.
Just keep doing what you do exactly as you do it; keep rattling those cages!
That’s what I intend to do
The neo-lib mindset ALWAYS arrogates to itself the implicit claim that it speaks from a ‘state of nature’ as if all its arguments had a metaphysical basis. I’m not sure you want to be compared with him, Richard but Marx, in Capital repeatedly points out this tendency amongst 19th Century economists.
I’m not sure I like the word ‘acolyte’ (not very Quakerly!) but I, for one, appreciate this site which has furnished me with much of my recent autodidactic, still piecemeal , understanding of economics – anyone standing out to oppose the present trends is courageously holding a candle (lit!) in a hurricane -thanks for that, it gives all hope!
Thanks Simon
I think you have a good point about being unreasonable. And despite not agreeing you on a minority of points, I would never question your motives.
My main criticisms or rather observations are that you have too much faith in the in the State as an effective owner/ manager of industry, and that you tend (I think) to hang around with the same of old Left Wing armchair cronies rather than people who actually run things. It’s amazing how supposedly intelligent people on this blog cannot grasp the bigger picture and criticise on minutia like- disputing how many angels could reside on the head of a pin!
I am not sure who you think this old left wing is
Almost everyone I talk to is very good indeed at running thingfs – often quite big things
Your confusion is in thinking that running anything but a company does not count
I assure you, it does