I wrote a blog in about 7 minutes yesterday which included a minor error inconsequential to the argument I presented ( although you would not think that from the reaction of those who had clearly never actually read or understood what I was saying) and over 100 comments followed, most dismissive of my position, if I put the kindest spin on what was said.
I found it all rather bemusing. For one reason, I certainly never expect such reactions. But more intriguingly because those reactions show just how little most commentators here understand the process of change.
My argument, if I précis it, is that most patents and trademarks serve no real pupose in protecting property law. That, I suggested was the case with regard to the Apple trademark to which the blog referred. Instead I suggested that those intellectual property rights are created for at least three quite different reasons.
The first is to create an artificial 'asset' whose ownership is then very often located in a low tax jurisdiction for the use of which a charge is then made and a deduction claimed in a high tax jurisdiction. I would have thought I hardly need have presented evidence in support of this claim since it is one of the key issues of concern in the OECD BEPS process and the EU Competition Commission enquiry into IT and other companies, but apparently such common knowledge was a complete revelation to many commentators who claimed considerable expertise for themselves.
The second is that this intellectual property can be used to prevent powerful barriers to entry to new competitors into a market and so preserve monopoly profits. This is hardly a radical suggestion, it being a widely shared concern (I thought) but again it was apparently shocking news to many commentators.
And third, this intellectual property can be used to warn off innovation. Because of the imbalance in many markets IP once granted to a company commanding significant resources (and I think there is agreement that this might describe Apple) can be used to threaten legal action that purely pragmatically a smaller company could not challenge, and so will not take risk upon. Now, as a matter of fact it is obvious that Apple does pursue IP litigation, as is its legal right, but which I think could result in real risk that developments on its thinking ( which is how all innovation happens) can only occur within its metaphorical four walls. Since large companies have generally poor records of major innovation, usually relying instead on incremental change or government subsidy (in which case their claim to ownership of the resulting IP should be questionable) this is likely, in my opinion, to be harmful to the overall rate of innovation, although others clearly disagree.
Now I offered these three, connected, ideas in a deliberately disruptive way, I admit; setting them in the economic environment of what I think can fairly be called rentier capitalism, whose risks I described in an audio blog. The reason for the disruptive presentation - by which I mean a deliberately provocative whilst nonetheless wholly genuine approach is used - was that without disruption change does not occur and so the status quo - which almost every commentator on the issue clearly sought to uphold - is preserved.
Change is then predicated on the existence of disruptive thinking and, as Schopenhauer suggested, it usually provokes a three or four fold response. At first it can be ignored. That clearly did not happen in this case. Second it is ridiculed, which most certainly occurred. Then it is violently opposed. It may be fair to say that happened, although I mean in terms of the argument, and no more. Last it is accepted as being glaringly obviously appropriate and the right thing to do, with the idea then being adopted by those who usually have no idea how it might have emerged.
So, the blog I wrote demonstrated how a process of change might begin. I would like to see a change in IP law. I do think much of it deeply abusive of society at large. And predictably that suggestion was rejected out of hand by most who responded.
But so have other changes i have proposed been rejected in that way and yet change has happened or is underway as a result of them. So, I can assure you, I am not deterred. Indeed, the immediate vehemence of the reaction suggests how important change in this area might be. It was a worthwhile day.
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:
Keep it up Richard. The reason that you received so much flak, is because you dropped a bomb right on the target, the snake pit.
The multi-nationals are out of control or rather the amoral reptiles (I use that figuratively rather than literally ;-)) that run these companies or provide legal and accountancy services to them want to shut you up.
You have highlighted the totally anti-democratic and corrupt way in which TTIP and TPP are being established. Any chance the “reptiles” have to jump on you to try and discredit you they will take.
I’m afraid that I’m fighting very hard not to feel contempt for those that claim ignorance. I can’t help but believe they are feigning it and thus being thoroughly dishonest, I simply can’t believe that they can be that daft and gullible!!
Thanks
You weren’t the only one who was taken aback by the response to your blog about Apple’s trademark escapade, and the error you made – and quickly admitted to – Richard. When the comments hit 56 I thought that was a bit OTT, but I see they peaked at nearly three times that!!!
Anyway, this blog is suitably detailed and measured and thus explains the situation very well. And incidentally, I agree, not because I’m a natural supporter of your work (although I am), but because I’ve spent the best part of the past few months reviewing a swathe of research on innovation and various related topics in preparation for some writing I’m now doing, and I can say the material I’ve seen clearly supports your line of argument. In short, the original intent of patents, trademarks and such like is now frequently distorted to achieve other (primary)ends, though a secondary objective remains protection of a brand, invention, and so on, because that’s integral to the patent or trademark process.
That’s all on that. Hope all goes well at the hospital today.
In recovery room now. Not sure I am meant to be responding when still sedated, but what the heck?
Thanks for your, as ever, sensible and sound commentary
I remain astonished so few apparent experts appear quite unaware of the reality of the IP ‘industry’ and what it is being used to achieve. Or maybe they are and like so many turn a blind eye to protect their incomes
Best
Richard
I thought it interesting that most of the objection to your comments was that Apple needs this protection because of fraudsters in China and Eastern Europe setting up fake Apple stores. And I did find myself asking how, if the rule of law in these places is such that you cannot prevent someone selling counterfeit goods, then how exactly is a patent preventing people selling stuff on wooden tables going to be of any help?
I recall Krugman and Ha-Joon Change make the point repeatedly that while some IP must be protected, if the laws allow too much to be protected then it stifles innovation and becomes a form of protectionism. And Apple really need to watch out – they are a fashion business and thus entirely dependent on goodwill from a public willing to buy the season’s new item, even though nobody needs it and there are lots of competitors. And they seem to be doing whatever they can to destroy any goodwill attached to the brand.
Well said
Thanks
Don’t they make phones and computers?
I don’t think people were necessarily agreeing or disagreeing with what you call your “three quite different reasons” for the creation of IP rights (actually you only gave two reasons: the second and third are essentially identical). After all, the application for a patent, trademark or copyright is always made with the intention of ensuring that any income deriving from its value accrues to its creator – that’s clearly the purpose of applying for it. What you call your second or third reasons are in fact not reasons for applying for IP but outcomes of applying. The extent of these outcomes is debatable, and IP law seeks to balance those outcomes with the need to protect the creator. For example, whether the trademarking of a store layout has any effect whatsoever on whether the next Steve Jobs decides to be innovative and entrepreneurial, I sincerely doubt. I have never heard anyone claim that their entrepreneurial flair failed because some cheeky beggar had protected the layout of a store.
Rather, what your readers appeared to be questioning was your principal assertion that the layout of a store cannot have value. It seems to me clear that that the layout of a store can be recognised. If you put me into a McDonalds store but removed all the logos from the building and all the logos from the burger wrappers, I would think it very likely that I would be able to identify it as a McDonalds store from the lay out of the tables, the bins, those wooden hard surfaces between the tables etc. So the layout of the store is clearly something that can be recognised. How one attributes value to that is not my sphere, but it certainly exists and has at least some value.
“Since large companies have generally poor records of major innovation”
What is your basis for that assertion? Have you done a study? Where is the evidence that innovation among large companies is no better than that of small companies? Your statement is all the more extraordinary given the types of companies mentioned (i.e. Microsoft and Apple, probably two of the most innovative companies in the world in the last 40 years). On the other hand, there are of course examples of large companies with very poor records of major innovations (think British Telecom before it was privatised in 1984).
The problem is you make these bald assertions and never back them up. Then you appear to be surprised when people challenge you on them
Lots of things have value
They are not IP protected as stores layouts have not been to date
I have not argued against IP
I have argued against the artificial use of IP to ring fence monopoly profit and create barriers to entry
But you have ignored the argument and shown your ideological colours very clearly; this colours I am suggesting are harmful. Not surprising we disagree then
Respectfully, I’m not sure I agree.
That you are right about the position of Apple (and Samsung are hardly better) doesn’t alter the fact that I would want the sort of small inventor who comes along with a significant breakthrough to be able to profit from their insight and skill, rather than see it stolen by a multinational corporation.
And there is one sector where I’d want to see at least some protection afforded by IP even for multinationals. I would not want a live-saving drug not to be made available because the company decided that the cost of developing it could not be repaid: much less would I want the company to bring it to market in such circumstances by cutting corners on safety.
I think you could allow IP in those cases – but you’d need a regulated market and a Courageous State…
Indeed
Apologies for not having the time to get more involved in the debate over innovation, Richard, which, it has to be said, is one of the most overused and abused terms in common usage (as is entrepreneur).
But anyway, some of your readers may be interested in this piece ‘Profit and PR are the real enemies of innovation’. I came across it when researching for some writing I did on innovation management.
http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2012/aug/10/profit-pr-enemies-innovation
Ivan
I recall that piece
And of course the work of Marianna Mazzucato is now key in this area
Best
Richard
“The second is that this intellectual property can be used to prevent powerful barriers to entry to new competitors into a market and so preserve monopoly profits.”
I really struggle with this argument. Yes, IP does provide an advantage to the party in questions, but I believe it would stifle business if you gave complete free reign for other companies to take ideas that you have developed.
Companies invest heavily in R&D in the hope that their new product can be exploited. There is little incentive for them to invest this money if they can simply wait for someone else to do it first and then just steal it.
On the specific issue of store layouts, I feel that it is all part of the wider brand and, again, this is something that time and money is invested into. A company should therefore be able to benefit from that investment.
Go read Marianna Mazzucato
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mariana_Mazzucato
And her Entrepreneurial State
The state generates most IP – including in IT
I assume ‘generates’ was meant to be ‘funds’, as per her commentary.
Undoubtedly the State will invest significantly in innovative products, primarily because of military and healthcare innovations.
Care needs to be taken in your argument though as to whether the State is investing directly or simply buying a product developed by a private sector company.
In the case of the former, the IP would (I assume) belong to the funding party.
In the case of the latter (whose intention was probably to sell the product to the State), that company should have every right to benefit from the gamble they took in developing the IP; if it failed, it was their research time on the line.
Even if the State were ‘generating most IP’, why does that preclude private companies benefitting from the IP that they develop?
I have never said a company should bit benefit from IP
But when IP is used to constrain society – and I think it is now opinion a variety of ways – then IP law has been abused and reform is needed
Why not address the issue that I am arguing about instead if the one you are repetitively and boringly making?
“Why not address the issue that I am arguing about instead if the one you are repetitively and boringly making?”
OK.
The entire *purpose* of IP law is to create a temporary monopoly and barriers to trade. The problem is that intellectual property tends to be non-rivalrous and non-excludable: one person using it doesn’t stop anybody else using it at the same time, and you can’t put fences round it to stop other people using it. The only way you can protect it physically is by keeping it secret, and that’s what people did until the creation of the IP laws.
This causes two problems. The first is that products that would take a huge amount of money to develop but cannot then be protected would be commercially unviable. This includes things like pharmaceuticals and computer programs, so would be a great loss to the world’s welfare. The second is that by keeping methods secret, the progress of innovation is stifled. You cannot build on what others have already built because they won’t tell you how it works. Every inventor works alone. It slows progress down enormously, (and also has adverse implications for safety and so on).
So the IP laws are a compromise with the principles of the free market, that grant a temporary monopoly in exchange for revealing the method publicly, thus allowing others to build on them more quickly. Free marketeers often regard IP laws as controversial; the purists don’t like it and think there ought to be a better way.
However, given all this, to *complain* that IP laws enforce monopoly powers and create barriers to trade like they were unanticipated problems seems odd, almost as if one didn’t understand what they were for.
Trademarks are to solve a slightly different problem, which is maintaining the quality of goods. If goods are anonymous and generic, then competitive forces push the quality to the minimum. There’s no point in a manufacturer raising their costs providing better quality if they go into the same pool of goods with all the rubbish. It’s a form of ‘tragedy of the commons’ – because the costs to manufacturers are individual but the benefits are held in common, it’s in nobody’s interests to sacrifice individually if the benefit to them is diluted by sharing. It needs fences.
So producers mark their goods with a brand, which connects the quality of their goods to themselves individually. Now money invested in quality is not wasted. The consumers learn which marks are associated with the highest quality, and shop accordingly. This is good for both sides. Producers can make more money making generic goods, and consumers can get better quality when they want to pay for it, (and cheaper goods when they are not worried about quality). The brand/trademark represents the investment the producer has made in raising standards, which is often expensive, and it enables the consumer getting accurate information about quality, and not being deceived. A ‘brand’ is an expensive thing to produce, but generally beneficial.
And the same goes for international franchises. A shopkeeper can benefit from joining a franchise, but they then get the brand representatives breathing down their neck making sure they keep the standards high, so they don’t damage the brand. *This* is what you’re paying extra for, not some stupid shop layout, logo, or colour scheme. You’re paying for them to be audited for quality.
Such auditing costs money, and building the public reputation to back it costs a lot more. It is a direct transfer of wealth and expertise from one nation to another, and needs to be paid for. And that part of the operation needs to be taxed in the jurisdiction where the brand owners operate, even if that’s not where the goods are being sold, because that’s where the value of the brand is being created. Thus the rules.
Thank you for your comment
I am aware that I,min haste and from memory, described the wrong IP in my original post but as a person who has registered trade marks, claimed copyright and almost a parent (once) the above is familiar.
What you entirely miss is the fact that a great deal of IP ins seems to have as it’s primary purpose profit shifting fur tax purposes. It is hardly novel to say so: so do the OECD.
I also argue it is used to suppress innovation. Again, I am not alone in saying so.
Your tale is like an economics text book – a tale partially related to what actually happens; true in as far as it goes but failing to relate the whole story I am afraid. I tried to tackle that bigger picture.
“Thank you for your comment”
You are welcome.
“I am aware that I, [in] haste and from memory, described the wrong IP in my original post but as a person who has registered trade marks, claimed copyright and almost a pa[t]ent (once) the above is familiar.”
I thought that was probably the case. I’ve got no particular beef with the earlier error. I covered both patents and trademarks separately because they have different rationales, and some arguments are therefore applicable to one and not the other. In particular, the arguments concerning innovation apply primarily to patents, rather than trademarks.
“What you entirely miss is the fact that a great deal of IP ins seems to have as it’s primary purpose profit shifting f[o]r tax purposes. It is hardly novel to say so: so do the OECD.”
Well, that’s a claim that not everybody finds obvious, and could bear some evidence being provided. However, I decided not to argue with that one as it seems like a sensitive subject around here, liable to cause misunderstanding of motives and conflict. So I suggest we pass over that for the time being.
The part I found more interesting was where you said: “My argument, if I précis it, is that most patents and trademarks serve no real pu[r]pose in protecting property law.” (I presume you mean ‘legally-defined property’.) That seemed like a more ‘provocative’ statement, that I wanted to hear more about, because so far as I understand it most patents and trademarks do serve real economic purposes such as I described. Further, the patent and copyright laws are *specifically* designed to foster innovation, so again the viewpoint “I also argue it is used to suppress innovation. Again, I am not alone in saying so.” was something I found somewhat counterintuitive and non-obvious.
Now when somebody says something unobvious like that, contrary to how I understand the world, I’m interested in learning about their reasoning. Sometimes they may have some deeper insight. Sometimes they may have a plausible argument that has convinced them, and that makes a good exercise in logic to check. Sometimes they have just misunderstood something, and I can return the favour they do me by sharing their thoughts by discussing it. Since you apparently wanted to be ‘provocative’ I assumed it was OK to be ‘provoked’ and to discuss it.
So to enquire about your reasons for thinking “most patents and trademarks serve no real pu[r]pose in protecting property law”, I set out my reasons for thinking that most of them did, in the expectation that you would say where and why you disagreed with my reasoning. Perhaps I should have been a bit clearer about what I was after.
If I am to gather from your answer that you agree with me that most patents and trademarks do have real, justifiable economic value, and that patents do generally foster innovation, then I must have misunderstood your earlier remarks. Can you clarify? Do you perhaps mean a majority of some narrower category?
I have never denied some IP registration serves genuine economic purpose. Of course it does.
But I am bemused as to your further arguments. You apparently dismiss the discussion at the OECD on the harm caused by the abuse of IP and then suggest as a result I agree with all your arguments. That’s a massive and incorrect leap on your part.
And of course I am arguing that it is a subset of all IP that is harmful for the reasons I have noted. It would appear it is you who should be agreeing with me, if only you would bother to consider the evidence, which you have declined to do.
“I have never denied some IP registration serves genuine economic purpose. Of course it does.”
‘Some’ or ‘most’?
Because I’m only arguing about ‘most’. Walk into any supermarket, and you will see hundreds of brands, trademarks, copyrighted and patented items. Is it the case that “most patents and trademarks serve no real pu[r]pose in protecting property law”? On what basis should we think this?
“You apparently dismiss the discussion at the OECD on the harm caused by the abuse of IP and then suggest as a result I agree with all your arguments.”
I haven’t done either of those.
I haven’t read the discussion at the OECD, so I don’t know why they would think such a thing.
I was neither agreeing nor disagreeing with it – I just noted that not everyone found it obvious and some evidence would be useful. But I was very explicitly *not* discussing the conclusions themselves.
And I only suggested that you seemed to agree now on the general value of patents and innovation, not ‘all’ my arguments – not that I offered any argument about the OECD’s views anyway.
“And of course I am arguing that it is a subset of all IP that is harmful for the reasons I have noted.”
Thanks. What subset? How big is it – ‘some’ or ‘most’? According to what surveys or datasets?
“It would appear it is you who should be agreeing with me, if only you would bother to consider the evidence, which you have declined to do.”
What evidence would you like me to consider?
Try reading the evidence of tax abuse e.g. the OECD material
It is rather odd to have to say it three times
Which OECD material are you referring to?
And as I said, my query wasn’t about tax abuse part. It was about the claims: “most patents and trademarks serve no real pu[r]pose in protecting property law” and “I also argue it is used to suppress innovation”. Of all the thousands of trademarks and patents we see in the shops, are “most” of these really created to (abuse tax/maintain monopolies/stifle innovation), as opposed to the more economically positive purposes of enabling innovation and raising quality?
Does the OECD really say that? Do you have a quote?
http://www.oecd.org/ctp/transfer-pricing/revised-discussion-draft-intangibles.pdf
But I do not act as a personal search engine
Thanks. But I can’t find in that document it says that “a great deal of IP ins[?] seems to have as it’s primary purpose profit shifting f[o]r tax purposes” or where it discusses “harm caused by the abuse of IP”.
Indeed, it’s discussion in paragraphs 53-57 appears to accept IP as primarily a legitimate economic asset that is created and maintained by expenditure or effort, as I suggested. And they seem to be saying that only such activities as actually do so are considered chargeable as royalties or licenses under transfer pricing rules – any others count as locally taxable income.
I realise you’re not a search engine, but “discussions by the OECD” is not a detailed enough specification for any search engine to find what you’re referring to. There are lots of discussions by the OECD. You had might as well say “it’s somewhere out there on the internet!”
It’s fair enough to expect people to do their own research on common terms and definitions, but when expressing little-known or novel ideas claiming them to be backed by specific evidence, it is usual to provide it or a link to it when asked. People will only devote so much of their own time to listening to your ideas, and if the effort required exceeds it, they will generally not bother and will dismiss them as unsupported. And they’ll judge you and your ideas accordingly.
I don’t suppose you’re bothered by that, and in this case neither am I, since the question of tax abuse was one I’d specifically excluded from consideration. Don’t feel any pressure to find the actual OECD discussions you were referring to if you don’t know where they are. But I am still interested in the other questions I asked. Is it really the case that “most patents and trademarks serve no real pu[r]pose in protecting property law”? On what basis should we think this? If we’re talking abou a subset, what subset? How big is it — ‘some’ or ‘most’? According to what surveys or datasets?
The OECD document clearly describes the abuse resulting from profit shifting
And their debate – which I present less diplomatically than the OECD do – makes clear IP is a major mechanism for profit shifting.
Maybe you don’t read between lines of ask questions about the real motive for structures but I do.
I have presented an argument I am entirely comfortable with and which many share – that IP is used to abuse tax systems.
I have never denied it had other purposes in some cases. But I suspect most is now created for tax abuse purposes. I can’t prove it of course. Those who create it deny it. But then accountants have always denied the accusation I made that they sold tax abuse as tax havens denied they were involved in the same activity. But we know they did nit tell the truth. So I will stick with my hunches.
Feel free to stick to yours. You are clearly not inclined to change your mind and nor am I so further debate is fruitless and I have answered all your questions, even if you are not persuaded.
looked a lot like more time wasting tactics by vested interests to me.
you announce your going to be using the delete button more, so they tone down the aggression of their initial engagements but at the same time increase the number of posts (mostly the same points made over and over and over…..). OR the king rat himself (Worstall) puts his head above the parapet and pulls you into a bit of one-on-one.
you said a few days ago that your an unreasonable man. i’d disagree; your arguments are clearly well reasoned, your just uncompromising. reasoning is your strength so they turn it into a weakness by engaging you in with a never ending barrage of unreasoned opinion which they know you can’t resist unpicking. and every minute you spend batting away morons is one minute less for your research or your family.
they might be wrong but they’re certainly not stupid.
Agreed
And thanks
Hello.
I’m not a regular reader here, and I confess up-front that I’m only here because of links from Tim Worstall’s sites.
Having said that, I’m a practicing chartered management accountant and have a passing interest in economics, although not much knowledge of tax or IP.
So, now that I’ve tried to establish my bona fides, what’s my point?
It’s a simple one. I read the thread on your blog about Apple’s IP and one thing above struck me… you were not willing to engage on point. Your main response was to claim that the respondent had “missed the point” and then refer back to previous comments/articles. I can understand a reluctance to repeat yourself to trolls but unless you have some kind of ID tracking you don’t know who the trolls are. When someone who works in the IP issue takes issue on a point of technicality it really isn’t good enough to baldly state that “it makes no difference” – that person thinks that it does and someone who wishes to influence opinion is clearly obligated to explain themselves a bit more than that.
Please bear in mind, I have no knowledge of IP. But I do have a logical mind and can appreciate an argument when laid out properly – which you did not do. Folks raised contrary points and you did nothing to dispel them. Saying that such points are not relevant does not make them so. You need to explain yourself.
I am sure that it is because of a lack of time and willingness to engage with trolls rather than a lack of innate ability, but your debating skills as evidenced on comments threads are appalling. They really are very bad indeed and I fail to see how any disinterested observer could conclude otherwise.
This is a shame, because I am no economist and no tax expert. I am an interested layman who wants to see the arguments tested, but you are not demonstrating a robust intellectual defence of the assertions you make.
In short, if you allow comments you should either engage with them properly or not at all.
Thank you for your comment but I hope you don’t mind me saying that you have missed the point.
First you arrive about 11,040 posts into a conversation and think you can accurately assess a situation. I think that is a little presumptuous of you.
Second I suspect, very strongly, that you did not listen to the audio blog to which my comments on Apple referred. If you had you would have realised that it was entirely appropriate to say that it made no difference at all whether Apple had a patent or trade mark. The whole point I was making was that, in my view and that of a great many others, IP is created for the purposes of in turn creating royalty flows for the purposes of profit shifting. Of course it may not be the sole reason for the IP but if it wasn’t a major one, at the very least, then the OECD would not have made the issue of IP abuse for tax purposes a priority issue for the BEPS process. What IP is used for this purpose is irrelevant if a royalty flow is created. My argument was, therefore, completely correct: the substitution of one IP for another made not an iota of difference to my argument. You had, as a result, seemingly not done enough reading (or listening) to form a view, like so many others who commented.
Thirdly I think it rather odd that you think I do not note who the trolls here are. Do you seriously think after blogging for eight years I might not have some idea of who and who may not be trolling here? It really is a little presumptuous of you, don’t you think to assume such little awareness on my part?
Next, and importantly, why do you think I should presume anyone not giving their name, an email address that provides no clue to their real identity and an IP that is similarly untraceable has the qualifications they claim? Those who comment here whose opinions I trust seem to think it wholly unnecessary to hide their credentials in this way. Now, why the difference, do you think?
And I assure you, those whose opinions I trust, and a great many others, have said my arguments are logical and consistent, as indeed they are when all the facts are considered – and this blog has to be considered a narrative, not a series of isolated articles, which you appear to presume it to be.
Despite that I note you suggest my skills in presenting an argument are appalling. I think many would differ because the fact is I do bother to assemble my evidence, make my case and set out my conclusions. If I did not then many thousands of people a day would not read this blog and it would not have had the impact it has. So respectfully, I suggest you are wrong.
In that case might I ask a question? Why expend so much effort to get so much wrong? Especially when I can find new reference anywhere to a CMA of your name and the URL you give may be real, but looks the sort you can buy with an attached email address for about 99p. Do you wonder why I sometimes doubt the credibility of those who comment here when their apparently reasonable comments lack so much actual credibility?
I understand from previous comments that you don’t like to use Google, but searching on “Geoff Taylor Management Accountant” gave me a management accountant of that name as the top hit.
As for the rest of your comment: I think you’ve just proved Mr Taylor’s point 🙂 Rather than engage with the question, you simply assert he is wrong and then go on to imply that he is a fraud and has only ulterior motives. You could hardly have written a comment better calculated to support his case if you’d tried!
I searched several times under various headings and found no such entry – because I checked chartered management accountant, as was claimed
That’s Google for you
I also searched his domain and found nothing
But if a person claims credentials then why not prove them?
However, as usual, this proves nothing of what you claim, precisely because you suggest I engaged with none of the questions – when I actually have answered all the points raised, comprehensively and completely
Why do you persist in not telling the truth? You are now very close to joining the barred list on this site precisely because I am so bored of you making false claims
I think it’s a problem of peception. You’ve said things in response to his questions, which you consider are answers to them. To me, however, they seem to be flat denials rather than reasoned answers: “you’re wrong”, rather than “you’re wrong, because X, Y, Z”.
This seems to have been an attempt by Taylor at constructive criticism: he has said he can’t follow your logic, therefore he is less convinced by your arguments than he could be, and so giving fuller explanations would be helpful to your cause.
You’ve not only flatly rejected his suggestions, you seem to have taken it as a personal attack which you have followed up with an ad hominem attack yourself.
Your sole argument in rejecting his views is that some other people agree with you so your style must be good. But there is little point in preaching to the choir – would you not be better off trying to convince new people, like Taylor?
Sadly, I suspect that you will take this attempt of mine at constructive criticism as a personal attack too 🙁 Which is a shame: you have a lot of good things to say (among many things I disagree with, of course), but your presentation style does not endear you to people, and so you are listened to less than you might be.
Andrew
I am one of the very few people who tries to engage with people in blogging these days
Most have, perhaps wisely, given up
But I categorically deny I have not answered the questions: I have, completely. Yes, I was cynical as to motive: I ma cynical of anyone who comes from Tim Worstall’s site. Any sane person would be. So I ma wholly entitled to exercise appropriate doubt.
As for your comments: I think them meaningless. You have proved time and again that you are here to deliver ad hominems and not contribute to debate
I’d take a break from it if I was you
Normally I like it when I make predictions which come true; but not today, alas 🙁