Re: At least you declared an interest this time
No, abusive means exactly what I meant it to "using hurtful language".
Will 28,
You're really going to have to go and find some of this hurtful language that you see, because I really don't. I even went off and read that Morozov article you linked to. I see no vitriol there.
Worstall spends both that and this article debating the issues. So he explains the technical points that he believes are important and then talks about the things that he believes they've got wrong.
He might make the odd comment about how he doesn't know what Morozov is banging on about, but that's by no means abuse. And to have a go at Murphy for having failed economics is perfectly legitimate if Murphy is trying to claim expertise in economics. Particularly as I've now had Murphy's arguments pointed out to me three times, and each one of those times he's made a basic error in understanting how accounting or economics actually work - and then refused to accept it when his error is pointed out to him.
He then uses these misunderstandings to build startlingly huge figures like the supposedly £190 billion tax gap, which he then uses to get publicity, in a sort of Daily Mail headline writing method writ large. Those figures then get into the mainstream political debate, and need to be challenged - otherwise we may end up with people making policy based on them.
Even if there was 7% of GDP of tax avoidance, you can't just magically grab all that cash for government with no effect on the economy.
There's plenty of legitimate economists, who do understant what they're talking about, to make the left wing argument. Such as Wren-Lewis or Krugman.
Biting the hand that feeds IT
