I have to make the point every now and today is one such day: there is a moderation policy on this blog. Amongst the things it says are:
The comment offered must be intended to develop the themes I am discussing. There are ample opportunities in a wide range of media for opposing the opinion I offer and you are welcome to use them. This blog is not one of those places. This blog is focussed on providing creative solutions to the tax and economic issues we face in the interests of all rather than a few. If your comment is not a constructive contribution to that process it may well be deleted.
Ignoring for a moment the people who write every day to say what a vile man I am (and there are some), there is also a regular stream of people (or a persistent stream of renamed individuals) who think they have the stunning insight that neoliberal economics works, the world works in accordance with its prescriptions (it does not describe, so the word description cannot be used) and that this is the place to say so.
It isn't.
And it's school holiday time and I have other and better demands on my time.
So zero tolerance is being applied to those who wish to boringly and repetitively point this out.
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 -sometimes (and you do this occasionally) it is worth letting them voice their absurdities (i.e like ‘Alan’ in an earlier blog who thought that CEO’s get what they are worth because market forces are a metaphysical truth) so that these absurdities can be seen for what they are and that there are many people that hold them. Though I understand that it must get tedious especially the ad hominem ones. Given that you must already be having to delete a certain amount of nasty stuff you show remarkable restraint and fairness.
I have been away for a while so have not been able to read your blog but can only assume your comment relates to the lengthy exchanges on ‘rent seeking’, Lionel Messi at al.
I agree it went on a bit but have to say, with all due respect, that your definition of rent seeking is unique among economic commentators.
It is true that one of the traits of rent seeking that the activity tends to add no value but that does not mean anything that (in your opinion) adds less value than the sum of money paid is therefor rent seeking.
If I offered you £1m to write a few lines on the finances of FC Barcelona it is hard to imagine I would be getting full economic value for my £1m but you would not be a rent seeker. Just someone very lucky to be freely operating in a skewed market.
Just because all trout are fish does not mean all fish are trout.
But since this is your blog, you are indeed free to ignore people pointing out that you have misapplied yourself. I just wonder what good it does to do so.
KRs
Tim
Precisely what has your comment added to the discussion apart from more pedantry as an excuse for completely missing the point Richard was making?
If it was possible, I’d delete this rubbish to save Richard the effort.
I decided to publish some drivel to show what comes my way
I won’t be doing so tomorrow
Tim,
You are missing the point of why progressive minded individuals flock to Richard’s bog. This is a site which looks anew at out dated concepts and dogmas and allows a new look at these age old concepts.
We are redefining terms, from a social contextual vantage point. There is a reason that common people are now thinking about and using terms such as ‘rent seeking’, ‘neoliberal dogma’, ‘evasion = avoidance’, ‘ Venn diagrams’, ‘secrecy jurisdictions’, etc. in everyday discussions. It is because these concepts have been updated from a modern perspective to address modern issues. This is the primary work of Richard and which we can all rally around.
The day of simple black and white, and single Hegelian dialectics is over. The service provided by Richard is vital to revitalising civil society!
Thank you
Smug drivel. I mean I can cope with the lack of imagination – I’d expect that from Tim – but the smugness of it and the all too obvious pleasure in being so certain – that’s just too much.
Leave Tim to his text books Richard.
But please NMT – No More Tim.
OK
Happy Easter and I look forward to hearing what you thought about the debate last night.
Well said Richard! What I like about this blog is that voices dissenting from the neoliberal mainstream can be heard uninterrupted. That to me is true free speech, and long may it continue.
Haha, nice one richie you vile man.
Pot…kettle…black?
Why don’t you just be honest and confirm that you only want comments from people who will tell you how wonderful you are and who don’t have the knowledge or experience to point out your (numerous) errors?
There are plenty of commenters here who have a great deal of knowledge and experience. Richard sometimes makes errors which get picked up by them. Sometimes they even disagree on a few points. But they and all of us recognise the value which Richard adds to the economic debate. He’s not the messiah – but he isn’t a naughty boy either.
Amused, and appreciated
Richard,
Will you be commenting, either here or elsewhere, on the televised debate?
in this in election period, i think there will be a number of people trying to clog up your blog, undermine your points and waste your time because your comments refute a lot of neo-liberal nonsense and give your followers well reasoned and researched arguments. In your place, i would just post my comments and not replies until the election was over. But then I don’t have your energy, just allocate your energy to what is most useful-which is not trying to answer the likes of “the inconvenient truth”.
Best use of my time is a key issue here
To ‘Incovenient Twit’ (sorry Richard)
I’ve read a lot of posts like yours over the past year as a relative newcomer and they are always hostile to any new idea or viewpoint from people like Richard who wants to challenge economic recieved wisdom. Most people who come here are looking for new ways to do things OK because we have nothing but rampant neo-lib failure around us.
Many routes have led me to come here, not because I want to get in on Richards ‘act’ but because there is mounting evidence that capitalism is beginning to breakdown as a system. In other words if any of Richard’s detractors got their noses out of the neo-lib text books or Tory newspapers and did a bit more reading, they would see mountains of separate information streams that essentially triangulates with each other about how we got where we are today.
This means that new thinking is needed and this is where Richard is a leading light along with others of course.
Money is worshipped religiously like a god these days and anyone who challenges anything that makes money is treated like a heretic. When it comes to exposing the vested interests that are undermining our lives then I’ll follow Richard’s economic heresy anyday rather that fall into an orderly line and enter the neo-lib economic abbatoir that you and the other faithful blindly and unquestionaly follow.
If Richard’s output upsets you so much, go somewhere else like Conservative Home and let him (and us) get on with it.
Now please bugger off and go and check on your shares (sorry Richard).
From a fellow social media campaigner I agree 100% Richard, managing responses to those that argue for the sake of it is so time consuming and to be honest boring. Do what yu have to keep the real debate going
After 3 years of post-grad academic study for a paper I am writing, I have found 33 variants of self declared Libertarianism and probably in excess of 20 more quasi-variants. Most are mutually exclusive to each other as philosophy or hypotheses. Most can be dismissed as lacking rational, intellectual substance. They all share a common methodology in any debate. They take isolated elements that can be made to seem logical only if context and consequence are ignored, they dismiss these as ‘externalities’. These ‘truths’ are then repeated over and over and over again. From Thomas Jefferson’s letter to Governor William Harrison describing in detail how economics can be used to steal native American lands through Murray Rothbard’s vitriolic bile to modern corporate business plans that entail extremes such as child labour the motive is the same, greed, self aggrandisement of the few at the expense of the many.
I know from experience how debilitating the sustained attacks of Libertarians can be and it is tempting to give up what seems an endless battle. Those opposed to them need to remember the tactics that the Libertarians use are not new as a quote from 1925 might demonstrate.
“The most brilliant propagandist technique will yield no success unless one fundamental principle is borne in mind constantly and with unflagging attention. It must confine itself to a few points and repeat them over and over. Here, as so often in this world, persistence is the first and most important requirement for success.” Adolf Hitler, Mein Kampf
We ignored that particular ideologue as an amusing irrelevance and he went on to sway a nation to follow him.
Only transparent debate will prevent the new empire builders. As an economic commentator you are in the front line. The public demolition of the bogus philosophy of Libertarianism you present can be taken up by those of us without the technical abilities you possess. Take a temporary step back Richard by all means but we do need the ammunition you supply.
Thanks Bill
Well observed Bill – the excessive reductionism of the neo-lib credo is a force to be reckoned with. I look forward to reading your paper.
There is a huge difference between sterile, narrow political philosophies, and more open approaches, which connect with our everyday lives, and are capable of leading to constructive new ideas.
Your comment reminded me of a recent review by Raymond Geuss of Russell Brand’s book, “Revolution” – https://www.radicalphilosophy.com/commentary/russell-brand-lady-t-pisher-bob-and-preacher-john – which compares the book favourably with the relatively sterile views of three interlocutors, “Lady T”, “Pisher Bob”, and “Preacher John” (the latter two being references to political philosophers, Robert Nozick and John Rawls).
Richard’s work on this blog is also full of constructive new ideas.
We have had differences in the past, and likely in the future, but I see no reason to be excessively argumentative over them. Insults should always be avoided, little comes from them other than the feeling of personal satisfaction which some seem to seek.
I put my viewpoint, and then move-on….
But there is an election looming…..so trolling-in-force can be expected!
Constructive disagreement is good
Most fails the constructive test
Best
R
it was a good Friday after all and now what with the lovely weather settling in and the Tories looking more despicable by the day it really is making for a pleasant Easter…
Or Graham, is it that the Conservatives are looking more desperate by the day………
I don’t want, for 1 minute, to be complacent about the election, but it looks as though they’re not going to get enough support to win a majority, despite all the bribes like Help to Buy, and the hysterical anti Ed Milliband drivel spewed out by their friends in the press.
What a shame. Perhaps the truth is that enough people have realised, as Neil Hamilton said in an article I was reading at the weekend, that David Cameron is, and I quote, ” a complete shyster”.