Richard Murphy Another Propagandist Galslighter deliberately playing Scots for complete Fools

Richard Murphy once again being exposed as a fool and deliberate deceiver of "Useful Idiot " Scots Nationalists  See the Thread here Richard Muphy gets Schooled on Truthful Economics

Here also we have Richard Murphy seen reading two completely different financial reports  produced in two different financial Years and doesn't even understand he is doing so or why he cannot get the numbers to match , he then goes and writes a conspiracy blog for Scottish Nationalists on why the numbers don't match and blames the UK Government for it instead of his own stupidity and  sloppy Schoolboy error in not understanding he was comparing different sets of data and from even two completely different years.

The Scottish Parliaments own Video clip with Murphy can be see on the links below , it clearly exposes him as a complete buffoon and Murphy is finally forced to admit at Holyrood himself that he did NOT do ANY proper research on Scotlands numbers at all and simply made up his own false propaganda instead.

https://www.scottishparliament.tv/meeting/economy-jobs-and-fair-work-committee-september-19-2017?clip_start=11:06:46&clip_end=11:16:13

The same clip also available on youtube here https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=9&v=Ni5dTPBgLKE

=====================================================================

Richard Murphy getting shown to be a fool on Scot Gov GERS figures, Nats will cling on to any clown who tells them a story they really want to hear ...gullible suckers.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lz2rmglHGFU&feature=youtu.be

Richard Murphy once again taken apart of financial facts yet still clings onto trying to hand onto his assertion "GERS massively flawed" by pointing to minor parts of data which make little difference to the GERs reports ...desperately clutching at straws
https://twitter.com/FraserWhyte81/status/904757673807286275

And more from the papers  http://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/politics/economic-facts-become-snps-enemy-11124265.amp


 Member of Sturgeon Fan club
http://www.taxresearch.org.uk/Blog/2017/03/17/the-two-most-powerful-politicians-in-the-uk/


Fraser of Allander (University of Strathclyde Economists)

All about GERS Part1 https://fraserofallander.org/2017/08/17/next-weeks-gers-numbers-part-1/
and Part 2 https://fraserofallander.org/2017/08/18/next-weeks-gers-numbers-part-2/

=====================================================================

GERS  Data was used to build the SNP's own 2014 White Paper for Indyref and other Scot Gov official documents.

=======================================================

Richard Murphy "Tax Advisor " (not an economist)  gets a drubbing here from Economics Professor Simon Wren Lewis  (Emeritus Professor of Economics and Fellow of Merton College, University of Oxford)

https://mainlymacro.blogspot.com/2018/08/labours-fiscal-rule-is-progressive.html?m=1

Which brings me to Richard Murphy’s post

. Richard says so many false things about this rule it is difficult to know where to start. It is not ‘neoclassical’, it does not ‘have its roots in microeconomics’. It does not assume ‘markets allocate resources efficiently’. It does not make any assumptions about how money is created. To say that Labour’s rule is based on a microeconomics perspective but MMT has a macro perspective is complete and utter nonsense. You can justify Labour’s rule on the basis of pretty well any macroeconomics you like, as long as you accept that interest rates are stabilising the economy rather than fiscal policy.

The bottom line is that Richard tries to suggest that you could have more public spending under an MMT type assignment compared to Labour’s fiscal rule. That is also completely wrong, and if anything the opposite would be true. Suppose Labour comes to power in 2022, and nominal interest rates by then are at 2%, and inflation is steady at target. Labour are pledged to substantially increase public investment spending (which is outside the rule), which will put upward pressure on demand, at least initially. That would mean under a conventional assignment interest rates would rise to prevent inflation. But in an MMT world that wouldn’t happen. So in an MMT world how do you stop inflation rising? Either current spending would have to be cut, or taxes increased.

There is only one way that public spending for given taxes could be higher in an MMT world compared to Labour’s fiscal rule, and that is if inflation was not controlled at all. That is not what serious MMT economists would recommend. So when Richard says Labour’s rule means a Labour government would be committed to austerity policies, by which I think he means low public spending, while his MMT alternative would allow more public spending without raising taxes, he is, once again, just wrong.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

#Richard Murphy

#Tax Research UK 


#Tax Research

#Professor Richard Murphy

#Professor Murphy

#The Joy of Tax