My new report: Some Shady Research

As some of you will be aware, I have recently been the subject of cyber attack by a neoliberal conspiracy.

Unfortunately, it now appears that some of my current research has been stolen and plagiarised by that horrific parody of mine, Richard Murphy. Regrettably, it has been passed off to the UK’s media as legitimate research rather than the cruel joke that it is.

Of course, the report that he has released is supposed to be humorous and satirical but plainly it is not. Instead, it is full of tired in-jokes where he deliberately uses incorrect figures, displays a lack of understanding of sound statistical methodology, makes obviously dismissive and obnoxious remarks about others and their work, eclectically cherry picks data, neoliberally quotes people who are innocently repeating misunderstandings that he has deliberately created, mentions his rent-seeking books ad nauseam, of course, and displays a general disregard for logic and reason with his continual sophistry.

Which explains why so many serious experts on these issues have just ignored this ridiculous excuse for a report.

I have not yet had time to finalise my report, I am far too busy to do so. However, just from the draft report, you can see the strong logical argument that my lampoonerer has attempted to mock me for.

I am sure that my usual readers, who always display astute critical thought by agreeing with me, will be able to see the inherent sense and logic that I unerringly display in this, the roughest of rough works:

Some shady research


2 thoughts on “My new report: Some Shady Research

  1. Murphy, once again your characteristic modesty is misplaced.

    You say that your report is the roughest of rough works. Many of your followers, including me, consider reams of explanation and lots of computations to support your case to be counter-productive. Many of us do not have the intellect or inclination to follow them and more volume only gives ammunition to the pseudo-scientific neo-liberal economists to criticise. Much better to make a simple bald assertion about the size of the tax gap which civil society can tweet and publish repeatedly.

    If you like: a single sharp arrow of truth piercing the bloated heart of power is the most powerful approach that can be taken here. You say a tax gap of 40bn; I say why not 80 or 120 bn?

    Ivan Bollocks in particular thought your draft report was if anything too detailed and some words needed to be erased. He asked me to tell you that if you were free this evening, he could come round and help you to rub one or two out?

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s