I have seen comments of late, most especially on YouTube, that imply that videos of the type that I have posted this morning are created solely because my only interest in life is in winning arguments. It is claimed that whether I am right or wrong does not matter to me: my apparent persistence is supposedly motivated by the desire to be shown to be correct, come what may.
Nothing could be further from the truth. All I am interested in is finding out what might work best to solve the problems that we face. Given the finite time and resources we all have, that is the task that I have chosen to take on. Because of that, what I am interested in are outcomes that might work to best effect for all the communities of which I am a part, however widely or narrowly they are defined.
The argument, as such, is never a priority for me. The outcome always is.
Winning the campaign is not the issue. I am solution-focused. That is all that matters.
Point-scoring does not matter if those in need are better off.
Personal advantage is inconsequential: if I had wished to pursue that, I most definitely chose the wrong career when deciding to undertake this activity in the way that I do.
So, if I challenge someone, my reason for doing so is that I believe that what they are proposing will either harm those people who need help within the society in which we live, or will not effect change in the way that is possible, meaning that an opportunity will be lost, which would always be a matter for regret.
That is it. After 45 or more years of professional experience in economics, accounting, taxation, business, finance, and life, and having been gifted the curiosity to find solutions that work, with a proven track record of doing so, all I am interested in doing is finding out what we can do best within those spheres to help people in the societies in which we all live.
Sometimes, I admit, that requires that I be robust. When you put forward ideas that are new, or initially unpopular, or which challenge the status quo, or which conflict with those that others are presenting, opposition is not only likely, but inevitable. It takes a thick skin, persistence, and a willingness to argue your corner in that situation. I am willing to endure the unpopularity that comes from doing what I think is right, but that's not for the sake of advancing my personal interests. That is because I want the best outcomes.
It is irritating when people appear to vexatiously misrepresent my motivations. In that case, I have reiterated them for the sole point of making clear that nothing I am doing is about taking credit, winning arguments for the sake of it, or advancing my personal interest. I would just like to think that before I quit this place, I might have done a little bit more to make it better for those with whom I am sharing it, and for those who will be in it after I've gone. And if there is something wrong with that, please might you explain what it is?
Thanks for reading this post.
You can share this post on social media of your choice by clicking these icons:
There are links to this blog's glossary in the above post that explain technical terms used in it. Follow them for more explanations.
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!
The thing is Richard, thinking is not ‘in’ at the moment; grabbing what you can for yourself is, unfortunately. The success of ego, drive whatever is measured these days only in narrow financial terms, not wider societal ones.
I would not worry about it and anyhow, I bet we don’t see a lot of the really nasty and personal messages you get when you challenge things – it’s a nasty world out there on line as Jaron Lanier has pointed out. As he goes onto say at the end of his book ‘Ten Arguments for Deleting Your Social Media Accounts Right Now’ (2018) the way the world is portrayed is that everyone is being sold this idea that they have the same options as everyone else.
But the truth is they don’t. In other words, it is only dreams that have been democratised – not reality. That’s all you are pointing out.
Keep pointing it out Richard.
Thanks
This is a common trolling technique. It happens all the time. On a different forum I have long argued that tax does not fund spending, government borrowing is government borrowing from itself, that the deficit is our surplus etc, and there is an instinctive response against me. It is noticeable how Arguments of substance quickly turn into ad hominem arguments which follow a familiar pattern to the one you describe about being argumentative for the sake of it, of having fixed ideas, and when that is challenged it turns into name calling.
I think there must either be a troll club somewhere where trolls share ideas, or the unwillingness to challenge orthodox thinking is innate in rather too many people.
Something about preferring comfortable lies to uncomfortable truths is at play maybe?
I wonder how many of those attempting to discredit your proposals fear that implementation of them might impact their own income or wealth.
I suspect that most of us who regularly follow this blog are in awe of your dedication, output, intelligence and compelling self-expression.
You inspire me day after day. Thank you.
Thanks, Joe.
And I am sure your explanation has some merit.
I’m concerned that a lot of it is in fact an emotional reaction.
People who see themselves as competent adults who achieved in a meritocracy get uncomfortable when faced with systemic inequality.
People who see themselves as independent get uncomfortable when faced with the idea of us all being closely linked.
People who are trusting in authority get uncomfortable when faced with the idea that we’re about to drive off a cliff and they’ve been helping it along.
I could go on but these are all huge areas of cognitive dissonance that tend to take an individual quite a bit of time and consideration to work through.
In school we were raised to see the adults as in charge and that we should trust in that system. I think those ideas are a core belief for many.
So, what is your argument? I can see observations. What has that to do with what I wrote?
What Joe said.
🙂
my observation of social media, and quite a lot is American, is that there is a large group of people who disagree not so much with the argument but who said it. Thus we get ‘libtard’ and ‘liebour’. More or less whatever is said by someone ‘on the left’ is dismissed- and would be even if they said the opposite.
It is not restricted to the ‘Right’ of course, but seems more prevalent there.
The Republican party in office run larger deficits than the Democrats but out of office regard deficits like “sin against he Holy Spirit’-unforgivable. The Trump party seems dedicated to power for its own sake.
So there are a significant number of people who just want to be right and win. I used to argue with them but there is little point.
Team work often provides better solutions than one person’s solution. The ability to listen and put ego aside is fundamental to better outcomes-in my experience.
I also learn from some of those who contribute to this blog, even if I don’t agree with them.
As many say here-keep up the good work
As a philosophy of life that “might is always right” even though it leads to sociocidal and ecocidal outcomes is about as dumb for a life form as it gets!
https://ankara.lti.cs.cmu.edu/11780/sites/default/files/BacterialLinguisticsandSocialIntelligence.pdf
Indeed Schofield
Looks a three pipe read.
Sounds like a colony of MRSA (MMT Resistant Supporters of Austerity) took over the Treasury a long time ago, after colonising Oxford PPE and LSE.
(Much nastier than Multile Resistant Staphylococcus Aureus)
[…] commentator here this morning […]
Richard, I just ignore those types of comment. They are posted by those who know that they have already lost the argument and they also are coming to realise that the agendas that they have been pursuing are false so they increasingly fear a backlash. Look at the gentle backtracking by the MSM over Gaza. The public are starting to realise that blind support for the actions of the current Israeli “government” is wholly wrong and so the MSM, fearing losing readers/viewers are beginning to question the actions of the political class and the obstinate refusal to properly condemn the actions of the IDF. I think we might start seeing a similar backtracking in the US where some of the MAGA groupies are attacking Trump over the Epstein files and the disastrous effects of his tariffs. As Shakespeare put it in Hamlet: methinks they do protest too much.
Keep up the good work. It is very much appreciated. You are speaking out on behalf of many more of us than you can imagine.
Thanks
“But what’s in it for YOU?”
I’ve come to realise that there is a growing number of people, now occupying positions of influence and power, who genuinely lack the moral awareness to see past that question.
They do not understand morality, altruism, or the sense of personal satisfaction, even joy, that comes from making the world a slightly better place or helping a fellow (equal) human being.
I nearly wrote “moral capacity” but I corrected myself. They DO have the moral CAPACITY, but it’s been stifled, become flabby, paralysed by lack of moral exercise, a bad moral diet and poor moral company.
Unchecked, this unhealthy moral lifestyle eventually results in irreversible moral decline, where they cross the moral frontier and become evil.
Early on, these morally disabled people need robust tough love (opposition, argument, persuasion, a hope that they might change).
Later, the goal has to be their total defeat, and, if necessary, their metaphorical moral destruction, but without losing our own moral sense.
Sometimes we have to fight both ways simultaneously. It’s tough to know which choice to make.
Your heart is in the right place. But the attacks will grow in volume and severity, especially against your internet influence. See to your defences, especially your cyber defences, and get those “media platform” eggs into several social media baskets
KUTGW!
I think the backups are good
And thanks
When you recount the important success of having your proposal of country by country reporting for tax purposes, a decision of global significance now implemented, it reinforces your credibility with regard to the subject of taxation and economics. Your collaborative pioneering work on devising the ‘Green Green New Deal’ to tackle the Climate Crisis, is another major success of global impact.
This credibility is vital if your core message on tax justice and economic policy is to have any chance of becoming widely accepted by the public and taken seriously by skeptical politicians. So yes; trumpet your successes! They say that a message must be repeated numerous times before it is thoroughly understood and accepted. This presents a formidable challenge for you to take on. However, all of us who read your blog must do our part to try to relay this same message, to convince as many people as possible, if we are to have any hope of affecting genuine change. Keep up your impressive momentum.
Thanks
I’m certain you have no problem whatsoever with genuine challenges, based on some fundamental understanding of the subject. I fail to understand how anyone can talk about your motivation when they don’t know you personally. Having followed you blog for several years all I see is a genuine desire to inform, educate and challenge the perceived wisdom of the last few decades. There are some very sad folks out there.
Thanks
I’ve read your blog for less than a year and have many times seen you write that you are going to look into something or reflect further before you form an opinion, you have also said your thinking has changed, you’ve revised your opinion. You also have a set of moral values that you live by.
This is how we must encounter life; thinking, adapting, looking for solutions which satisfy our moral compass. We must change our minds when new information warrants it.
To speak of changing our minds is rare and inspiring.
Thank you for all your work. I don’t have to agree with every post (although I often do) to appreciate your intelligence, integrity and care for the future of humanity and our world. And I enjoy the photographs!
Thanks Anne. And of course I change my mind. Only fools and neclassical and neoliberal economists do not.
Richard. Much earlier today I wrote a comment to this blog. The counter on the page told me I was 40 words under. The submit counter told me I was about 20 words over. I went back and deleted stuff, but then comment button wouldn’t even work. I copied my comment, left the blog completely, and then came back, and still the submit button didn’t work (It highlight’s now, I see so obviously working). Unfortunately, in the meantime I shut my laptop down so lost the text I’d saved. Anyway, I just wanted to add that it looks to me like the ‘submit comment’ count includes any edits that include deleting words as if they’re still there, hence showing I’m over 400 when actually I’m not.
Sorry….I will see if we can change that.
Same here a few days ago.
Same here today on another post.
To the meat of your post, I would say ignore commenters who do not engage in facts and ideas, and resort to personal attacks and empty-headed memes. While it is natural to question the motives of any writer, the right wing engages in frivolous and spurious accusations all the time, whilst being guilty of same said accusations themselves.
It is a casual and careless form of psychological warfare to make thinkers feel isolated, irritated, and harassed. So it’s nonsense, and not worth a lick of time. Keep up the good work.
Agreed
Thanks