Comments on: Today’s Ritchie

By: Sigivald

Sigivald — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 18:05:42 +0000

The best and most shut-up-inducing response to the “advertising controls the consumers” trope is…

New Coke.

By: guy herbert

guy herbert — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 06:57:06 +0000

Hugo,

It isn’t he doesn’t care. It is what he wants. Banking is categorically BAD, therefore the less of it there is the better, to punish the wicked people that do it.

By: Hugo

Hugo — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:31:33 +0000

Murphy’s response is bonkers. He bites the bullet: he accepts it would destroy overnight lending, but doesn’t seem to care.

By: Hugo

Hugo — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 21:27:17 +0000

Matthew,

Here’s an example someone once used on me. You take a box of Mars Bars into a room full of people, and say you’re selling them on the condition that each buyer eats them themselves.

You say, how many do people want to buy at £1 each? Three people want one each. (You don’t actually sell them.) You then say, what about at 90p each. A few more people join in. What about 80p? Etc.

You plot this on a graph. Hurrah! Demand curve.

Now the Austrians tell us only a transaction is good enough evidence of someone’s preferences. But assuming these people are not lying or insane, surely what they tell us about how many Mars Bars they would buy at various prices is somewhat trustworthy, somewhat accurate evidence of their preferences?

By: Matthew

Matthew — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 12:58:10 +0000

I’ve not read his article, but he is kindof right, isn’t he? If they exist they are very hard to gauge – show me a proper demand curve for any good, even a basic commodity, even at any one point in time.

By: Chris

Chris — Sun, 15 Nov 2009 08:37:08 +0000

But, Pat, this twat believes, at jihadi levels, that he IS furthering the interests of mankind. ‘Everyone has a right to earn a living?’ Not from being a twat, still less from trying to maximise the amount of twattishness in public policy.

By: Pat

Pat — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 23:34:21 +0000

Calm down, its only a commercial.
Please remember that Mr. Murphy makes his living serving the purposes of the TUC. everyone has a right to earn a living, and nobody has a duty to further the interests of mankind (well OK those who believe in Christianity might differ on that, as well as believers in other religions in which I am poorly versed).
He’s simply making a crust- give him a break.

By: diogenes1960

diogenes1960 — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 22:29:38 +0000

any public funding received by Murphyand the orgasisations he belongs to such as TJN must be claimed back and the spokesmen subjected to what I would term a “wankers’ tax”

By: JohnW

JohnW — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 21:07:18 +0000

tantalum bell-end

By: Dennis the Peasant

Dennis the Peasant — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 19:17:32 +0000

WGCE.

By: Jim

Jim — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:37:22 +0000

Richard Murphy is one of those dangerous people who understand a little, but are unaware that what they do understand is vastly outweighed by what they don’t.

By: Georges

Georges — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 18:18:48 +0000

advertising for example doesn’t destroy demand curves, although it might change them (indeed, the point of it is to shift them….meaning that the existence of advertising rather proves the existence of demand curves which is something of a blow to Murphy’s thesis)

Isn’t Murphy always yammering on about how advertising and marketing induce “everyone” to go out and buy X in a robotic fashion, regardless of the need/want?

Does the Murphyism regarding adverts/marketing not also blow his “no curves” routine?

Being a firm homo economicus myself, I know that Murphyism to be untrue ….. first-hand.

By: Brian, follower of Deornoth

Brian, follower of Deornoth — Sat, 14 Nov 2009 17:43:54 +0000

“There are no supply and demand curves

Firstly – they don;t slope consistently, if they exist”

Of course they don’t, arsewipe. That’s why they are called ‘curves’.