I asked a question about what priorities readers thought I should have earlier this week. I did so for two reasons.
The first, very obvious reason is that I am considering them. I work across audit, accounting, economics, politics, tax and sustainability at present. The obvious question that I ask is whether this is too broad to be wholly effective.
The second reason for doing so is that I have learned that readers of this blog have opinions, many of which are worth noting.
One very obvious troll comment apart, the responses were interesting, and have been helpful. So, thank you.
I admit that there is no one conclusion. That said, some things did stand out. The first was that a couple of issues might require less attention from me. Green issues is one, unless they overlap with accounting and tax. There is ample expertise on green issues out there. There is not on green accounting and tax. So the focus need only be on those aspects of the issue.
The same is true of MMT. A few years ago this was unknown, and I think I assisted the promotion of the idea in the UK, albeit always with some caveats. Now debate on the issue is commonplace. It does not need the focus it had here. It is something that can now simply be taken as read. My interest in the issue can be reduced to where its thinking remains too limited, around tax, inequality and wealth consequences in particular.
On politics, the activity is limited, excepting the comments I make on here and on Twitter. They don't take a lot of time.
On political economy, my interest has always been in the power relationships that shape the allocation of resources in society, in which the role of tax and accounting have always played a major part that is far too little recognised. It's worth recalling in the context that I first got involved with Scottish issues because of an interest in the accounting for its national income, and the false claims that this accounting gave rise to. When tax and accounting are thought of as macroeconomic issues (which far too few are willing to do) political economic discussion is the outcome. So, once again, the issues are related.
Audit is a subset of accounting concern. Since audit is an expression of an opinion on accounts it can never be otherwise. I put the two in one box in that case.
So the reality is that tax and accounting are what I really do, even if they are necessarily wrapped up in other ways, some of the time.
Or rather what I really do is look at these issues as narratives within the context of the quest for social justice that motivates my work and find them wanting as a result.
What are the implications of recognising that? I would suggest that there are three.
The first is to realise that thinking of this sort on these issues is far too rare. It is also very strongly resisted by the entrenched professional interests that surround these issues. Those professions seek to do what professions have always done.
They seek to erect barriers to understanding around their professional interest to secure exclusiveness for their understanding, which in turns increases opportunity for fee income.
Then they support this by seeking to control entry to the profession of which they are a part, in the process determining the scope of the professional education of those involved.
Finally, they do not encourage critical thinking about what they do. There is good reason for that. They have no intention of questioning the social worth that they believe what they do might have, and would rather others did not do so either.
The result is that education in these areas is not just uncritical, but also intensely micro-focussed so that a mass of compliant thinking is required to secure access to the enhanced income streams acceptance into an inner sanctum of recognised detailed expertise affords, from which career pathway there is rarely much deviance because departure imposes a cost. In that case it is unsurprising that critical thinking is hard to find.
The second implication of this is to realise that to offer such alternative thinking is important, most especially when there is so little of it, most particularly from someone who has been within those professions.
Third, that suggests a renewed focus upon them with a combined theme of creating new ideas, offering education on alternatives and, hopefully, encouraging others to join in from within those professions, seems appropriate.
I stress, this does not mean that other issues will not be discussed. They will be. But, as I hope I have explained, the area where there is a shortage of expertise seems to be in applied thinking on the social and political economic aspects of tax and accounting. Given the importance of the latter in almost all decision making and the former in shaping many dimensions of society that is more than enough to build on. And it's been worthwhile working that through in my own mind, which is why I am sharing 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:
self indulgence of the highest order..dont you have real friends you discuss this stuff with?
You may not have noticed this is my blog
By definition that can be defined as self indulgent
All writing can in fact be considered to be so
What is particularly perverse is that you think exploring ideas is self indulgent
What are you frightened of? That your own hollow understanding of the world might be exposed as both baseless and worthless?
Hear, hear Richard.
It’s amazing how many of your posts are jumped on rapidly by a right wing troll, typically playing the man and not the issue, as is their wont.
The style is amazingly consistent, although the names vary. It’s almost like it’s being paid for by someone.
Mr Cluney,
Physician, heal thyself.
Henry – Richard asked for our views on prioritising his own work. That’s the opposite of self-indulgent. Then giving a progress report is simply courtesy and the opposite of the closed professional thinking he describes.
Thanks Richard, makes sense to me.
Thanks
I love the smell of flying blue monkey army falling out of the sky in the morning in choking smoke.
Prof I’m not sure I fully understand but I fully TRUST your evaluation. I’ll work on understanding it.
All I know is that you are only one of three independent blog specialist sites I TRUST to be honest and uncontrolled.
Please carry on showering knowledge and as to the likes of the troll above – DrDaDe!
Don’t Read, Don’t Acknowledge, Don’t Engage.
That’s what they want.
Noted….
Sadly we have a dearth of true polymaths, like yourself, at the present time but we are over supplied with shallow commentators who do not think through issues but respond to whatever is currently trending.
I read your posts daily and find them in most instances to be well reasoned and in true polymath tradition considerable thought has been brought to bear on the subject under discussion.
Please keep to the broader view as this is so necessary at the present time.
Very nicely written. Previous comments are base, unhelpful and soooooo way off the mark.
Keep enlightening.
I read this site every day, Richard. Every article you write is informative and the quality of most of the comments is very high.
Some of your work on the detail of tax and audit is quite rechnical, but your largely jargon free articles have made a lot of the issues much clearer to me. I studied economics back in the late 1970s, and my textbooks were Samuelson and Lipsey. So thank you for bringing me up to date.
The most important political/economic issue facing us just now is Scottish independence IMO. It is a massive game changer for the whole UK, although many do not like to admit it. You have exposed many of the lies and myths which the establishment rely on to deny my country its right to self determination, the principal one being that Scotland is too wee, too poor and too stupid. I’m sure that you will continue your work in this area. You have shown that you are an important ally to us freedom seeking Scots.
Take care, and thanks again for your insightful work.
Thanks
I will n ot be ignoring Scotland…although more might appear in The National now
Well I think your own priorities should be yours alone to decide; when I contemplated your last post on priorities what I felt was missing was you don’t state your overall goal – what aim you have – because that decides what could be the best priorities. Much can be inferred from your descriptions of what you do, but a first step is to set out what might be the ultimate goal – not just vague ‘a fairer society’ but how a fairer society would look to you. I like a holistic approach, so a broad range of interests is good – but how do they fit together to make a whole? And does it lead anywhere?
All the things you are doing, and have done, can lead to beneficial outcomes, for society as a whole. Your actual focus just now should really be led by what you’d ultimately ideally like to achieve, tempered then by what is achievable, and slotting in each area of interest into strategy to achieve that.
A bit vague and probably not much help there, but take a step back and look at it from an overarching position, and then drill down to the detail; you will know what’s needed.
Good advice
Will do
Richard,
Don’t give up on MMT just yet. I think there are still two areas which need a critical look with an accountant’s eye.
1) £s are IOUs, and if the Government writes too many IOUs, it has a problem. However, I think far more IOUs than we realise, can never be presented because they are lost, destroyed or inaccessible (https://sussexbylines.co.uk/the-mysterious-case-of-the-burnt-banknote/). I may be wrong on detail, but I think this needs a much closer look.
2) I suggest that MMT ideas on international trade are either loopy (Kelton/Mosler) or superficial. International trade should potentially be win/win, but there are a lot of subtleties that can make it lose/win or lose/lose.
Noted
The economics editorial in the Guardian today lends support to the view that MMT is filtering through:
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/apr/30/the-guardian-view-on-biden-100-days-going-big-but-not-big-enough
I agree
Really interesting comments about the lack of critical thinking related to training within the accounting profession. It reminded me that MMT professors developed an undergraduate textbook. Perhaps there are few lecturers at Universities who would be willing to introduce a module that takes into account a more critical perspective? If so then the development of a text book might be a worthwhile endeavour. Pretty major project though.
There is only one university now really doing critical accounting
That is Sheffield
“There is only one university now really doing critical accounting”
Statements like this confirm the fact you are a complete prick
No, it confirms you really do not know what critical accounting is
Wow, Jason!
“Statements like this confirm the fact you are a complete prick”
Statements like this confirm the fact you are a complete prick
You know I think you are right.
The areas you are talking about focusing on are extremely important. They are as I see it micro areas in one sense – easily over-looked but they are in the foundations of society, the architecture or DNA of much of everything else.
All I can add though is that accounting to me is on a par with economics in terms of the damage it can do to society if its left to its own misfiring devices.
However – and please don’t be too hard on me – I find accounting (erm) BORING. Your stuff on resource accounting excepted of course, which seems very interesting.
All I would say is to keep your accounting concerns lively , even humorous if you can but I will do my best to become more interested in it.
Thanks PSR
I am concerned that you reduce your input on MMT. I am not convinced the topic is out there yet, since I see few signs in the mainstream media or in the Labour Party or LibDems. I accept that prioritisation of time is essential, but the MMT case needs to be high profile in the virtually thinking media and those two parties or, at least, the first one.
I really wish the odd remaining moron who wants to troll would simply not bother here.
Noted
And I agree with the second
Given the Greensill sh#tshow, I agree that a focus on tax and audit/accounting is very helpful. We do need voices challenging all of these hollowed out companies, distorted markets and all the money that ends up in mysterious places.
Was it Denis Healey who said he didn’t understand derivatives* and is it not Warren Buffett who only invests in businesses he understands? Joe Public does need to know that these things are being called out with bite sized headlines for the masses and credible detail for those with the stamina to think through.
More tax please, we’re British.
(*before someone pipes up, I do understand derivatives, but I can also spot the BS that tries to validate endlessly processed financial crap purporting to have any useful purpose)
I like your last para, a lot
Good choice, tax and accounting.
You don’t need to entirely give up commenting on other things, the reason people like me come here is that you so frequently write interesting things which stimulate thought. (Though you are sometimes a little short with people who have honest differences). Just don’t let your main effort get distracted.
But for most things the devil is in the detail, and you are much better concentrating on those things where you have real expertise that is rarely found elsewhere. Plenty of people have broad brush opinions on tax (“tax the rich”, “eliminate loopholes”) but such opinions are meaningless without the serious understanding about how taxation could be structured to best effect. Similarly accountancy seems to be thought as a necessary evil to be left to practitioners, and there is a dearth of thinkers in the field capable of serious criticism of how well it meets its responsibility to the wider world – and how it might be improved.
I look forwards to future blogs. And my thanks for opening up my mind to things where I hadn’t even appreciated my own ignorance previously.
Thanks
Your comments are appreciated
“… [Richard] you are sometimes a little short with people who have honest differences”.
I have noticed this, but as someone who writes articles on another Blog, comments here and occasionally elsewhere, if you are writing and reading carefully, it often seems obvious that someone is trolling, or some anonymous commenter (who is not openly standing behind their opinions), will throw off some casual, gratuitous, self-indulgent evidence-free comment in the manner of a world authority, and it is difficult to resist seeking to ‘take them down a peg’; mea culpa. It is however pointless; but at the same time it is easy to over react and contemplate not debating “below the line” at all. I try to keep going, although on occasion probably with more querulous attrition where I write above the line, than Richard; mea culpa. Richard is unusual among Bloggers in commenting very freely below the line, and we should appreciate the effort this requires.
I intended this as offering an understanding of Richard occasionally being abrupt; and should add that while I write ‘above the line’ elsewhere, I do not run a Blog; a difficult and exhausting task I would not want, or wish on anyone. I think I have turned this comment on Richard into a confession, or to put it in simpler terms – cut him some slack!
Thanks John
I suggested to my wife recently that I was just a normal guy
Her suggestion was that no normal guy writes an average 3.35 blog posts a day every day for 15 years , which is what I have done
I accepted her accusation
I have also posted 62,000 + comments
And yes, that gets me used to trolls. There were several edited out here tonight
And sometimes I get it wrong – I know
I hope I apologise when I get it wrong, but overall I hope the boog’s a net contribution to debate
The regular commentators are, you included
To be a little more constructive than my previous comment:
I’m not sure how you would prioritise? As many have said up thread, your holistic approach is definitely one of your main strengths – along with the use of lay language to demystify otherwise fairly specialist subjects. Such a holistic view requires a broad lens, the result being that I don’t believe you can disentangle and overly prioritise themes without losing parts of the picture.
Maybe that’s not the answer you’re looking for, but I’m afraid it’s the answer I have to provide.
And of course, keep up the good work :), even though it means you have to deal with pedants from time to time… it is greatly appreciated
There may well be more prioritorising in my day job but a broad scope here, is the outcome I am developing
Hmmm.
After tapping out many different replies. I think my reply is refined to:
The day job should be prioritised towards whatever requires most conceptual development.
Open ended, yes. But it seems that the holistic view and the resulting work follows naturally.
Now, what requires most conceptual development?
Tax or accounting? Probably accounting?
Feels weird saying that…
Like money and tax, tax and accounting are intimately related
Both need radical rethinking
I think your blog and work is inspirational in a lot of different ways, and in ways that you might not necessarily appreciate. By looking at and connecting a range of different issues, you are bringing together different disciplines and different people. In my opinion, the Climate Emergency requires structural changes, and these structural changes aren’t apparent from a narrow and detailed examination of existing structures. Please keep being a generalist!
Noted
‘More tax please, we’re British.’
Love it.
Richard,
It looks like Welsh Independence is on the move
https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2021/may/01/plaid-cymru-welsh-independence-wales-nationalists
It refers to this report
https://www.independencecommission.wales/the_report#h_47178406841600948608106
So saying something about that is a start.
What is also interesting is this
https://www.irishtimes.com/news/recession-austerity-and-emigration-of-1920s-resonate-in-today-s-republic-1.440625
What it doesnt say of course is that after Independence & until the 1980’s (?) The Republic of Ireland used the pound – as did Australia & New Zealand – while even though part of The British Empire the Indian Rupee was, as far as I understand unlikned t Sterling.
It mighty be worth doing something about how the use of Sterling affected the economies of The Irish Republic, Australia & New Zealand.
But remember the pound was also pegged to the dollar, and so to gold.
That was the real problem.
We know that is no longer necessary and that floating rates are essential now.
1979, when Ireland joined the European Monetary System and the UK didn’t. Up to then the punt and sterling were exchangeable 1:1
Floating rates – I’m still not happy about these as I see them dictated by corrupt and under regulated markets – but worse, manipulated and used as a tool to retard State investment. For example when sovereign countries are accused of over spending so that the whole ‘Government as household’ bullshit kicks in which we know just kills any progressive argument.
For example, what might happen to a floating pound if a Government came in and started a proper course of MMT into specific areas of the economy – green energy, some sort of citizen’s income, infrastructure investment ? The floating mechanism can be used by markets to punish States by just devaluing their currency or other mayhem.
I could be wrong of course, and as a commentator I always have my green L plates on in these matters but those are the prejudices I have of floating rates. Who sets them and why? I need to reassured that they are in accordance with society’s needs and not the financial sectors of this world.
Three thoughts
There is no such thing as MMT politics – MMT describes what happens in the economy. The things you describe are actions needing doing. MMT shows how they can be funded by they are not MMT politics. They could exist without MMT, but would simply be harder to deliver because the necessary economic understanding would not exist.
Second then, MMT does not change exchange rates. Policy can. But we’ll chosen policy that creates demand, jobs and so prosperity never harms rates. It improves them because increased real economic activity always increases the value of a currency.
Third, exchange rate attacks only work if there is someone who will defend the exchange rate and so stands to lose as a result of the attack. When there is no defender there is no lint in attacking as there is no gain to be made. So it does not happen. So floating rates work, automatically.
At least, those are my opinions
Well – those are very useful thoughts to ponder and thank you Richard.
I get the de-politicising of MMT BTW.
Hi Richard,
I appreciate everything you work on, but I have been told that playing to one’s utmost strengths is usually the best way to go.
Have you considered setting up a rival accountancy body to ICAEW, the ACCA and CIMA? Maybe the Chartered Body for Sustainable Cost Accounting? You can’t do it all alone – what we need are many more of you and the majority of practising accountants to adopt SCA.
Why not just usurp the status quo by providing the only rational form of accounting, getting some big names on board and force them to change or lose their membership?
Robbie
Because it would not work
There is always an advantage of reforming within the tent