I received a comment on the blog this morning from someone who has posted more than 500 other times. Responding to my thread posted yesterday on energy price reform he said:
And your comment is hogwash for reasons i've explained some weeks ago.
I guess he assumes that I can recall all the 160,000 odd comments on the blog over the years: I have to say that in that case he is very definitely mistaken, and nor do I have time to go and found out what he thought was so important.
He then added this:
But I am fed up with the way you gratuitously insult anyone with the temerity to disagree with the “world expert” on just about everything. Some might call it bullying.
I've followed you on here for quite a few years now, with a few “sabbaticals” when I tire of your tantrums, but this is the last time.
He obviously thinks this fair comment after all the times he has posted before, mainly (and I say this because he has survived as a commentator for so long) in broad sympathy with what the blog has to say, but let me add a few important comments in reply.
First, I have not the slightest idea who this person is. To me he is a name and an email address: I know nothing more.
Second, I have no clue what his qualifications to comment are or why he thinks he can discuss my ideas, into which some research has been put by me and rather more by others, by simply saying that they are ‘hogwash'.
Third, if there is arrogance and even tantrums on display I would think they are from the person who dismisses an argument with a single word and quite a lot of abuse.
Fourth, as to the suggestion of bullying, I suggest that the person in question try writing a daily blog promoting radical and often Cassandric comments for sixteen years and see how much abuse you get. I promise you, few blogs have survived for that long for the very obvious reason that doing so can grind almost anyone down.
So, if I am robust on occasion it is because I do not think those who dismiss complex arguments with a single word or brief comments and who provides no evidence whatsoever of their qualification to comment have earned the right to be respected in a world where I and everyone else knows trolling to be rife. Perhaps it would be nice to be generously kind to all who do so: long experience proves that with trolls that really does not pay, often leading me to wonder what motivates these sad people.
Finally, I note the claim that I think I am the world expert in everything. That's odd when this blog is decidedly restricted in its scope. It's also odd when very obviously I make, and admit to, mistakes. But, making stuff up, as has happened here, is always the first resort of the person without an argument, as I find quite often.
And that is why those who comment in this way are not welcome here. Disagreeing with me is fine, welcome and often appropriate. Presenting hogwash, without comment or explanation as to the qualification of the person doing so and then demanding I respect it is not.
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:
I think this tweet is apt and an adequate reply to the above commentator:
AndreaDudding @AndreaDudding:
People who seriously understand what is needed economically is missing from this list:
Stephanie Kelton
Kate Raworth
Mariana Mazzucato
Ann Pettifor
Frances Coppola
Richard Murphy
Danny Blanchflower
(All on Twitter)
Quote Tweet
Ashley James @ashleyljames · Aug 27
Who would be in your fantasy government cabinet?
I’ll go first:
Mick Lynch
Andy Burnham
Stella Creasy
Gary Neville
Jack Monroe
Marcus Rashford
Emily Maitlis
James O’Brien
Shaminder Nahal
Joeli Brearley
Jess Phillips
Who am I missing?
Long time lurker, though seldom commentor here.
Richard there must be many like me who seldom have anything insightful enough to be worth contributing, yet greatly value the efforts you put into exercising these important issues in public.
Today I will publicly leave this comment thanking you for your ongoing efforts.
We know you have been unwell and have demonstrated a prodigious work output.
Don’t let the complainers get you down, keep doing what you think is best (it seems to have been working!), but please, please don’t over do it
With respect.
a reader.
Thanks
I concur.
The internet can be a mixed blessing. For the likes of me, it gives easy access to satisfying my curiousity about economics by reading the thoughts of someone with considerable expertise, and whose opinion I respect even if I don’t agree on every detail.
For others it gives them an ability to hurl anonymous abuse, on the basis they seem to think that amounts to intelligent discussion. Very often what they write betrays their failure to have actually read what they purport to comment on.
I fear it can be unpleasant to be the target of intemperate comments, and sympathise. In my experience the only way to deal with it is to remain polite yourself, and if necessary use the “off switch”.
Agreed
And I accept that sometimes I should just let things pass by more often
But that’s not always easy
I must say, even after several weeks, I remain surprised at the severity of your remarks to me when I suggested that I was not in favour of Scottish separation. You assumed, I think, that I was a troll. But I always agree with much of what you say, and have never once doubted your integrity or scrupulousness with your research process, your clear-eyed approach to public policy, your learning, and your almost fanatical exposition of the results they have led you to.
Your energetic contributions to an increasingly relevant and frenetically debated area of economic policy are wholly desirable, valuable, and welcome. Long may they continue! Long may you continue!
Apologies then
I got it wrong
Initially I did not have this fellow down as at odds with your blog.
Maybe he’s just fed up with the pace of things and is all too ready to blame others who are trying? It’s very frustrating isn’t it and although you are gainfully employed at the sharp end, those of us who are more passive or just being supportive can feel useless at times.
I’ve followed you for a long time and I think that I’m a good judge of character and I think you are sound. One of the best things you did was to run those little videos and to hear you talk. You’re no ogre in my opinion and I’ve dealt with some bastards in my time I can tell you.
My emotional attachment to the site was that here was someone asking some searching questions and challenging supposed knowledge that I too was turning against in my own learning journey as to what was going on. I was only just beginning to acquire the vocabulary to describe it when I came here – that acquisition still continues.
And the morality your bring to it all is invigorating – that is what also marks you out in my opinion. A morality that is proportionate and appropriate than what passes for morality in so-called mass organised religion today that thinks that morality is only for the bedroom and who can marry and who cannot marry or be in the service of God and humanity.
And it comes down to basic facts as well. If there are those who are certain that you are talking crap – well, lets try your ideas out for real then and see for ourselves and compare?
No – oh – I wonder why not!
Detractors create doubt. And a bit of doubt is good Richard. It can sharpen us up, make us take stock, check and then re-commit. That’s how I hope you deal with it anyway – it’s all good.
Take care of yourself too!
I am exploring the video idea again…..
And thanks
I want to say thank you for all you do. I recently found your site when you were quoted by someone I have followed and respected highly for many years [Tim Watkins], and I have also seen your worked posted elsewhere since. You did me the courtesy of reading and responding to one of my emails. It is very easy to be critical of something, but one of the things I appreciate is that you not only analyze an issue, but you also come up with a potential way to help. I think it might be a case of “shooting the messenger.”
Bill
I only believe is solution focussed campaigning
Thanks
Richard is one of the few UK public commentators who understands how the national economic system really works, along with some commenters here. This is rare and difficult to find on any national news program. They usually produce on this subject only rubbish, with the exception of Rees-Smogg during the first five minutes or so of a recent speech, if that is what it was, after which he drifted off into la la land.
I’ve never seen you write anything that appears to be a “tantrum”. This commenter however appears to be getting rather cross and stamping his feet at the suggestion that the prosperous should pay their taxes! Almost certainly a Libertarian – they have a very young mental age ……
I would simply like to add my support for the work you tirelessly deliver and the massive contribution you make to public understanding of how money really works. I’m also a great admirer of your willingness to post critical comments – and to respond to them thoughtfully if the question is genuine, or to shoot them down when they are specious. It’s very often the comments discussion that helps to cement the central arguments for me and I’d also like to thank your regular “core” group of participants for their real contributions to the blog.
Incidentally, referring to larry’s comment above, is anyone still able to find the Rees-Mogg interview on-line? I’ve tried multiple searches and can’t seem to locate it. I often share your posts on a community facebook forum I administer and I’d like to share that interview, but it seems to have sunk without trace.
You’re very fair in your moderation of comments. Free speech allowed until people demonstrate they’re being abusive or not contributing in good faith. And you generally engage with people that disagree to give them a right of reply.
Many others wouldn’t be so accomodating, and the internet has way too many toxic gobshites. Don’t let them get you down, they can get stuffed.
Thanks
How do you know what comments Richard censors that never reach the blog?
How do you know where Richard deliberately edits a post to make it read something different than the original intention?
You don’t! And hence you can no judge how the blog is censored, appropriately or otherwise!
I only delete complete nonsense or is abusive or spam (done by a spam filter)
I have only ever edited a comment to say either a) why I will not post it at all or b) to correct spelling, usually for someone who comments regularly
Otherwise what you suggest never happens
Not that you will believe me of course
Now answer a question for me. Why do you hate the world so much?
If he was going to be deleting stuff like that then you wouldn’t have been allowed through the net
Trolls, in general, are people who join up to sites that they have fundamental disagreement with, then proceed to behave as your person did in this instance. “Hogwash,” followed by nothing very enlightening, is the way they engage.
The latest trolls on Facebook appear to join a political group that the trolls actually oppose (like anything having to do with Scotland’s independence.) Then they post hysterically laughing emojis in the ‘like’ part of every post, followed—if followed at all—by some personal attack on the original poster and more dismissive, laughing emojis. Check out their own FB site, and they’ll inevitably be pictured with a dog, against a Union Jack background.
These folks are trolls. So would you be, if you joined a right-wing Conservative blog or post, and acted the same way—(can you imagine a bigger waste of time?) Trolls are only interested in stirring the pot.
You can tell a troll from a person who simply disagrees with your point of view, from someone who just wants to be disruptive and dismissive and snarky. It’s the tone they use. You’re well shot of Mr/Ms Hogwash, I reckon.
[Very occasional commentor, more often a reader]
To quote Norman Stanley Fletcher, he’s a Nurk.
As a non-expert in finance/economics I appreciate all you write. Skeptical about some of it, but always appreciate it. Especially the Grauniad style spelling mistakes.
Typoes (sic) are the bonus
Thanks
To support his accusation of being a Cassandra he needs to give examples of where you’ve predicted something and been wrong. You can’t thow about accuses without evidence.
Thank you for your well written, comprehensive, very readable articles.
The UK is very fortunate to have someone who donates his time and brain to the economics of our existence
I would personally like you as chancellor or prime minister in order that we had a human with integrity managing the economy. We might then have a happier more equal life for all.
Still learning
Thank you
Belated agreement with (almost) all the above – especially Pilgrim’s point about morality, or maybe i mean humanity. Thanks again.