Several comments have come in of late suggesting I need to spend more time checking my typos and grammar in blogs because sometimes both can go a little awry.
I have to agree that they can. I accept that typos have always been an issue. And some of my sentences have always had an ability to run away with themselves. Convolution inevitably follows.
So, given that readership is quite high at present and it does appear that it evolves, and even revolves, over time I thought it with explaining why I put up with both issues.
The first reason why is that the odd error does not seem to put people off. Over five years now the average annual readership of the blog exceeds 2 million per annum. 2017 was an exceptional year, but no one is more surprised than me that people keep coming here.
Second, these errors do not seem to stop others wanting to republish my material. This morning The National newspaper in Scotland and the German-based Brave New Europe blog carry article that first saw life here in recent days. Naked Capitalism does so fairly regularly in the USA. I am grateful.
Third, the blog exists as a stream of consciousness. Understanding this is important. No one entry is in itself ever expected to be the final comment on an issue. The blog is instead an ongoing attempt to find meaning in a deeply confusing world. I might well do this for myself even if I did not publish. I was persuaded as long ago as 2006 to publish the ideas as a blog by Den Howlett. From that time on I have done so most days and on average more than three times a day. This will be the 16,602nd blog post here.
What that says is that there is a lot to think about. And given that this has never been my day job (most especially so in the last three or so years) it has had to be crammed in around work and other commitments such as being the effective sole parent to my teenage sons due to my wife's ongoing ill health, as well as multiple other tasks.
What that also means is that blogging is always in a hurry. Often it starts well before breakfast in the morning. Moderation happens when I get time in the day. And I do look at everything: this is not a place where I will tolerate abuse of those who comment.
Given all that, I place an emphasis on getting stuff out, and accepting a slight compromise on quality as a result. Hence the errors and occasional opacity (or worse, incomprehensibility). I hope I can be forgiven for two reasons. The first is that I have remarkably limited resource to do anything about it. The second is that I intend to keep doing this.
Few blogs have survived as long as this one, or with as much output, and maybe impact (again, much to my surprise). I also suspect few have also had as much useful comment: more than 170,000 of which have now been made. That's usually because the blogger gets ground down by the experience, and I am well aware that on occasion my irritation with those who come here to be fatuous does show. My only defence is that it would take someone considerably more saintly than me (and I am not saintly, at all) to not get irritated by the sheer negativity that some wish to bring to social media debate. The willingness to get rid of those who come to attack is the sole reason this blog has survived, but also provides what I hope feels like a fairly safe space for others to contribute. That's always been a goal.
But the real reason for continuing is that the core issues that fascinate, intrigue and infuriate me remain as relevant as ever. It's true that I do less now on tax than I did: that's because there are now so many other competent people in this field. But I still keep an interest in some aspects of that issue, and am working on proposals for new tax work right now.
Accounting is now much more important to me, which is hardly surprising given I have been a chartered accountant since 1982.
The Green New Deal virtually survived here and here alone for a number of years: it's unlikely to go away now, bit still requires regular comment.
MMT is better known than it might have been in the UK because of this blog.
There remains the whole field of political economy for the common good to debate.
And the reason for debating is that in my experience good things follow from doing so. Significant changes in tax law have happened, at least in part because of what has been debated here.
As noted, Colin Hines and I largely kept the Green New Deal alive for a number of years, mainly through blogs and reports that appeared mainly through this blog, until the time that it suddenly sprang into life again.
The Fair Tax Mark began as an idea promoted on this blog in 2012.
Country-by-country reporting got more coverage here for many years (almost a decade) than anywhere else before it went centre stage.
Green QE, or People's QE, pretty much started here. And that certainly shaped Corbynomics.
The Corporate Accountability Network is now growing out of ideas started here.
And the GERS debate in Scotland has been fuelled by commentary that I've pushed from here.
The point I am, I hope, making, is that all this writing is not for nothing, even if many right wing commentators like to suggest it is time I got a ‘proper job'.
Actually, what I discovered over the last three or so years of having a full time role was that this was most definitely not helpful. I enjoyed the work, teaching and research at City but being at a university does not help productive thinking. And my experience of academic research writing (and I have had six papers out in the last year) is that this is most definitely not the way to promote new ideas, unless you are very lucky indeed with your editor (as Andrew Baker and I were with Global Policy when it came to tax spillovers).
Where does all this rumination lead? It's to the question I am now asking myself as to what I do next. I leave City this summer. I am in discussion with two other universities. And the Corporate Accountability Network is both pursuing research agendas with vigour, and seeking new funding, but needs more people involved than just me if it is to succeed.
So, has the time come after all these years to consider monetising this blog? I have no intention of ever putting it behind a firewall. That would make no sense. Rather, I am considering following the route that Steve Keen has gone down (and which he has urged me to replicate) of seeking financial support for original thinking which is very hard indeed to secure from any academic linked funder, and from most foundations too.
I stress, I am not knocking those funders, but they look for tangible and predictable outcomes in the main. So they want a specific publication, or an event, or whatever. In effect, you have to know what you're going to do before you apply for the funding. And that means their funding is not really suitable for those simply exploring new ideas, where the outcomes are unpredictable.
An exception to this funding rule is the Jospeh Rowntree Charitable Trust. They did fund me from 2010 to 2015, but that's as long as they will do for anyone. And I know of no one else who, in effect, pays for a thinker to look out of the window and wonder what would happen if their thoughts were let rip, which is what I do best.
And that is why I now wonder whether this is the time to appeal for funding, via this blog, for at least part of my time, to make sure that whatever innovations come next can have the effort dedicated to them to make sure they can see the light of day.
I am interested in three things now. One is general feedback. The second is specific views on funding platforms. And the third is suggested pitfalls (including the risk I find out that I am valued at £7.56, less expenses). Comments are welcome here or by email via richard.murphy[at]taxresearch.org.uk.
And if it's a really bad idea, I'd like to know why too.
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:
Considering the speed, length and sometimes complexity of your posts I am amazed at the accuracy you achieve. The odd spelling mistake is usually decipherable and can bring a smile to ones face.
🙂
Richard I don’t know why people complain about the odd typos. One of the beauties of the English Language is it’s redundancy. Meaning and sense can always be discerned from the context. I have no trouble following what you write. I may not agree always, but that is a different matter altogether.
On the subject of funding, I will be able to spare the odd copper or two. happy New Year.
Thanks John
Typos do not matter one iota to me, even though I do not understand all you write about, I do understand it is important that your blog (and others) have a public platform and so I for one would be happy to contribute.
Keep up the good work,
Desp
Thanks
Richard, I consider the free flow of ideas – in both directions – very important to progressing radical and even ‘progressive’ thinking.
So that emphasis has, I fear, to be on ‘free’.
Meanwhile I think you would certainly be justified in putting the more technical pieces- perhaps with links on your blog – into Patreon where people could access more scholarly and professional information and perhaps contribute to a more in depth analysis of specialist ideas they were particularly interested in…
If I am honest I was not considering withholding any pieces
It would be helpful if you could clarify what you are looking for funding for. Is it just to cover the costs of this blog? Or are you looking for funding to pay for third party research?
It is to keep me going doing this….
That’s the aim
Especially when there is much reduced other income
So you are planning to ask for donations to fund what is basically your hobby?
I would question the appropriateness of this. You are now over 60, you have had a very successful career in which you must have enjoyed a decent professional income since you qualified as an accountant nearly 40 years ago. You presumably have a good pension and substantial savings.
Many 60 year old accountants are going on cruises and playing golf. They do not ask for donations to fund their hobbies. Why are you any different?
Where to start with that?
Perhaps, firstly, to note that it has a decided whiff of Tim Worstall about it. I am not quite convinced that this is your own comment, albeit you appear to be a new commentator here. The presumption that I am an accountant first and foremost Is the giveaway.
But let me presume you ask with honest intent.
First, if you know anything of my career you will know I am not an accountant first and foremost: that was last the case in 2000. And since then my income has not been that which many an accountant enjoys. I am not complaining: I made my choices, but your presumptions are wrong.
And whilst many an accountant may be playing golf or cruising on the gains of selling tax abuse I am not. Nor do I ever expect to do so either. I choose to work. Do you have a problem with people working?
Do you also have a problem with people wanting to work until retirement age, at least, which for me is at least five years off? And if so, why?
Likewise, what is the problem with people being paid to do something they enjoy doing? Is enjoyment payment enough? Have you tried to live on it? Have you fed teenage sons with it?
And do you think that people who have saved (and yes, I have some pension provision) should be forced to retire early? Again, why if so? And for what reason?
As an over-arching question, what is your massive problem with the operation of the market?
And why are you so sure that it should not apply in some cases?
Indeed, what is this profound interventionist creed you pursue that dictates who might, and might not, work in older age and which requires that accountants, most especially, retire early and cease all useful engagement with society? Does this creed have a name? Or theoretical explanation? Please tell.
I look forward to your explanations.
You have read a lot into my post which wasn’t there. I did not say there was anything wrong with working up to retirement age or beyond if that is what you want to do. I simply queried the appropriateness of someone with sizeable resources of their own asking for donations.
Your LLP accounts before your appointment at City University showed net annual income of £50-70k and presumably you earned at least that amount as a salaried academic. This may be less than you could have earned in the private sector but it still puts you in the top 5-10% of people by income. It is difficult to believe that you have not built up good savings and pension provision given your level of income.
Why not answer my questions?
What is wrong with me making a living still?
Why do you think it wrong for me to do so?
Well, first off, I’ve never found your typos to be irritating enough to stop reading, and I can be a bit pedantic about it (ugh, why DO you keep hitting that 0 key?!), people moaning about your typos and grammar are just trolling. Keeping the flow going is far more important, and the fact that you can produce such a fascinating range of articles at the crack of dawn is remarkable, and a welcome read for the mornings.
What I think is important is that you give independent thought an airing – it may be mainly your opinions, but they are not influenced by editors, private industry, state influencers – and you have a great deal of specialist knowledge and work to draw from. I am used to seeing Indy blogs ask for subscriptions and donations, and it is a price we pay just to get a different view from the mainstream, which is important particularly now. You should ask for funding, your contributions are worthwhile and interesting, and it keeps your thoughts independent.
The work you do moderating is much appreciated – it really does give peace of mind to know you won’t automatically publish any old comment, and I mean there that I like my comments to be moderated! You certainly get an interesting variety of trolling here – your Amazon tax article was a fascinating study in attempted trolling, when everyone knows that no sane person would voice support for a large corporation and question your credentials for some minor criticism of it. I dread to think the comments you don’t let through. But, the main thing is your willingness to engage in debate on a variety of subjects – I think this makes your blog a fairly unique and engaging place to be.
I don’t know anything about funding platforms – I know some people refuse to pay via PayPal though – and pitfalls will likely only be those people that insist you perform for them now they are paying you (I think you’d be able to deal with that). You could do a yearly fundraiser and a subscription system – that seems to work for most people. Go for it, your blog is a valuable resource.
Many thanks
“I enjoyed the work, teaching and research at City but being at a university does not help productive thinking.”
I find that’s a fairly damning indictment of where our universities are at, and what they think they are for. 🙁
Whatever Keen himself is doing may be worth considering if at all appropriate. He generally seems to do quite well for himself and I don’t mean that as a slight. Its just that he may represent a good example.
Re: typos. No problem at all. Please don’t waste your valuable time on them. Glad to hear you are being widely read and published. Your views are a much-needed antidote to much of the stuff put out by the media. Re: funding. Can you register as a charity? You’re more valuable than many charitable trusts.
Not possible…
I pay a voluntary contribution to a small number of blogs of £2 a month. Yours is as good and I would be willing to do the same for your high quality analysis. I regularly share your articles and I’ve drawn on the material when moving motions in my local constituency Labour Party and I know they then get shared by others.
I’ve stopped buying newspapers.
I can live with the typos.
Keep up the good work.
Thanks!
This comment from Chris echoes my thinking.
Although it’s been a fantastic and free run for those of us who follow your informative and thought provoking posts, If you need to find funds for this work to continue then I’d be happy to contribute.
£2/month seems to be the level of subscription most charge.
Many thanks
I’m on the same page. Don’t mind the typos – add to the entertainment! And at the rate you produce Richard, entirely understandable.
If you feel the need to move to say a Patreon model to generate some income, that would be found by me. I already support Steve Keen there.
Thanks Robin
Ditto with regard to a small voluntary subscription, but small is the operative word. I do so and have done so elsewhere.
Thanks
Typos? Syntax? Yes, they’d have to be checked for academic publication, but a blog? One you write between other responsibilities…nah.
Don’t worry, we get what you say…or not.
When we don’t, it’s nothing to do with syntax, even less with easily understood typos. In my case it’s either because I don’t have the necessary background knowledge, or because I’m too lazy or busy to think things through.
As for funding, some of your more specialised pieces might find a home in good publications somewhere. Patreon was mentioned, its a very good one.
Would I contribute to have my curiosity satisfied? I would, but how many would do the same…tbc.
Thanks
As I would happily pay to go to hear you speak, equally I would contribute a small monthly sum. All that is needed is your bank transfer details. How you get the energy to do all you do is a source of great wonder to me! All the best.
Thanks Eric
I would happily contribute monthly to support this blog, it’s the blog I’ve read most consistently in the last five years and already make donations to others.
Being aware of your other commitments I have been amazed at the quality and quantity of your output, occasional typos are irrelevant.
Thank you for improving my understanding of economics and social policy.
Thanks
Hi Richard. Hope you do keep this blog going. I would certainly pay for it via Patreon or whatever platform you opt for, as I already do for Steve Keen. My only worry with Patreon is the various levels of membership it encourages, with different levels of access for different subscription levels. I think this might threaten the real sense of community I feel you have managed to create around your blog.
I agree with you about the thinking time vs university teaching. I do still find that my teaching throws up new ideas, although usually with not enough time to follow them up!
Best wishes and good luck with your future plans
Nick
Thanks Nick
Most definitely. Please find a platform that you fully control. I feel this change, if you go in that direction, should be to keep the seminar feel to the blog. Take care not to lose that.
I do not intend to change the blog at all….
I’m in with the don’t worry about the typos crowd :). It’s actually fun sometimes to have to decipher what you wanted to write — that is in no way meant as a criticism.
Re: funding. I think Chris O’Donovan et al.’s comments about a couple of quid a month is not far off the mark :). I’d be more than willing to set up a small monthly donation like that to keep you thinking and writing. I think I’ve gained considerably more than the equivalent back-dated cost for myself up to this point in new ideas and pleasure from reading your blog.
Re: “I enjoyed the work, teaching and research at City but being at a university does not help productive thinking.” (@ Andy Crow)
I suspect this might be different between departments. I work in materials/engineering and find it a highly intellectually stimulating environment.
If the complaints RM has made regarding the orthodox mode of economic teaching within universities is even part way true (not that I doubt RM’s claims, I hasten to add) I can see how that would be intellectually stifling, which is a damning indictment of the state of university economics departments.
Thanks….
And in both economics and accountancy orthodoxy is required, and most papers ever written add not an iota to the net sum of human wellbeing
Sorry to be cynical, but I think that true
I think I might have mis-phrased there, sorry.
I should probably have said if subject matter and further thinking is limited to only (currently) orthodox material.
It’s a bit of a difficult one really. I thought physics might provide a counter example, but courses are of course restricted to orthodox material here as well. By the course material argument both departments should be bad for intellectual curiosity. My guess is the difference revolves around how the taught knowledge is later applied and, possibly more fundamentally, whether “poking about” thinking is encouraged.
Am I correct to think poking about thinking is less encouraged within economics(?)
I’m not trying to have a dig at your profession btw, it’s interesting to hear how things work elsewhere 🙂
Poking about thinking is not at all encouraged
The aim is merely to iterate, very slightly, existing thinking
Essentially, to question that thinking is not permitted
Yep addictive reading.
And a big thank you for the sheer metal energy you have and continue to apply here.
M
“The Green New Deal virtually survived here and here alone for a number of years: it’s unlikely to go away now, bit still requires regular comment.
MMT is better known than it might have been in the UK because of this blog.
There remains the whole field of political economy for the common good to debate.
And the reason for debating is that in my experience good things follow from doing so. Significant changes in tax law have happened, at least in part because of what has been debated here.
As noted, Colin Hines and I largely kept the Green New Deal alive for a number of years, mainly through blogs and reports that appeared mainly through this blog, until the time that it suddenly sprang into life again.
The Fair Tax Mark began as an idea promoted on this blog in 2012.
Country-by-country reporting got more coverage here for many years (almost a decade) than anywhere else before it went centre stage.
Green QE, or People’s QE, pretty much started here. And that certainly shaped Corbynomics.
The Corporate Accountability Network is now growing out of ideas started here.
And the GERS debate in Scotland has been fuelled by commentary that I’ve pushed from here.”
Thanks
Agreed – there’s a high proportion of original ideas in your blogs Richard, but expressed in pithy (mostly) readable form, so people can take them on board. And spread them.
Hello
I don’t consider typos in your blog to be an issue. Yours is an ideas based blog. That’s why I read it. The sheer number of posts and the depth of your thinking, is quite remarkable. Anyone concentrating on typos is missing the point, or trolling.
I would be happy to contribute a monthly amount. The mentioned figure of £2/month should not be a fixed amount. Maybe everyone who wishes to contribute would be happy with this but maybe others will be happy to pay a bit more. I don’t mind how I pay, as long as it’s secure (obviously) and that as much of my payment as possible is going directly to yourself.
It would be…
When business and assorted billionaires and plutocrats donate to the Tory party it’s because they know they will get something good in return: lower taxes, knighthoods, influence. Would I pay good money to be insulted if I write something the blogger disagrees with? Not if I can be insulted for free. Although I have learned a lot from some of your blogs I feel sometimes it’s a case of “never mind the quality, feel the width”. I also think that sometimes you don’t really want to debate issues. (and I don’t mean the trolls) Anyone who comes on and questions your assertions is given short shrift and frequently disparaged, such as the commentator who occasionally pops up to argue the case for nuclear power. The result is that too often it’s an echo chamber/fan club because dissenters are quickly closed down and sent away with a flea in their ear. That’s not healthy when we’re trying to find a way through the hideous mess we’re in with extreme right-wing populist strong-men now in power in the US and UK.
Craig Murray has a huge following covering the spectrum, including obvious “nutters”. He too solicits contributions but doesn’t feel compelled to put down everyone who disagrees with him. In fact he rarely responds. I contribute to several Scottish Indy bloggers whom I feel are saying important things, often critical of the SNP, which is a highly contentious strategy, including Common Weal, (who are doing very valuable work as you know) whose director is extremely critical of the SNP leadership and their (non) strategy for independence. Although they don’t have a forum I have emailed him, and others there, taking to task some of their opinions and they have always replied courteously.
Anyway, as you frequently say, it’s your blog to do with as you wish even if it means driving away those who contest your opinions. So although I admire your thinking on tax, transparency, fairness and equity, social responsibility, the GND and have bought a couple of your books I don’t feel I can contribute to funding your blog at the moment.
Noted
Thanks!
I am late to this blog having been away, but wish to say the following. This blog has helped to transform my view of the political and economic spheres. As a recent retiree with no background in economics I was simply interested to use my spare time to understand money. I came across MMT on the internet and by one route or another discovered this blog. The articles posted here, and the discussion of them have proven very informative. Even the disagreements are things I have learned from. I read, am often out of my depth, and I slowly develop my understanding. Like some others here, I have become something of a pub bore with my “It’s spend and tax not tax and spend”. (At least I think that’s why I am considered a bore. The responses are usually the sort of amused condescension you might expect towards someone declaring the earth was flat). From my visits here I am still learning. The effort this blog entails is quite staggering and no-one who visits here can doubt the passion and compassion that must drive that effort. Typos are a triviality that really do not bear a moments concern. If you wish funding to continue that seems perfectly reasonable. I will say though, that for myself, if I had had to pay to access this blog, I would not have done. My loss, but there it is. There is so much that is free. I am not saying you should not seek funding. Whatever you decide you have my thanks. I hope I am not too late to wish a Happy New Year to you Richard and to all who visit here.
I stress, I am not suggesting a fee for reading
I would ask for donations
This is The Guardian model, not The Times
And thanks for your comment
Seems quite clear to me – if your blog has any (commercial or otherwise) value whatsoever you will find a political party or company willing to pay you the market rate.
Otherwise you’ll have to resort to begging for your loyal members to ay you a few £ a month!
You clearly have not the slightest idea how these things work
I was about to say the same but Richard beat me to it.
The world is about rather more than political lobbyists (IEA) and corporate shills.
Fortunately
Steven Rolands says:
“….willing to pay you the market rate.”
The problem with the ‘invisible hand of the market’ is that not only is it invisible, it is also blind.
And deeply stupid.
I would like to add to this thread that I think it would be of help to Richard ( and therefore to us) if from time to time he was able to pay a researcher. Where he finds the time to do all that he does continually amazes me! BTW if you want to donate, don’t use a funding platform which takes around 10%. Just get his bank details and use the bacs system. That way Richard will get 100% of your donation.
I’ll second what just about everybody on here has said. The typos? Given your workload, it’s incredible how few there are. Knowing this, who in their right mind would care about them?
As for donations/funding, you mention the Guardian model. I decided 2 or 3 years ago that since I got much of my information from the Guardian online, and the newspaper didn’t want to erect a paywall like the The Times, and was losing money, I should be prepared to pay an annual subscription.
We shouldn’t expect quality journalism to be free, and the effect of the internet has been very damaging in that respect.
Since your site, and The Guardian are two of the sites I use the most, I’d be prepared to make donations to enable you to keep going. And those donations would be a fraction of the money I spend on booze……!
Thanks
I too pay the Guardian
And some other sites
Could ask Dom for a job?
I am not being entirely sarcastic – I think there is scope for a group of thinkers to be paid by HMG to come up with, argue and debate govt policy using an evidence based approach. They would make their deliberations public and open to scrutiny. There are many gifted and knowledgeable people who do not want full time civil service employment, but who could be incredibly useful in moving ideas forward.
Richard, I would count you as one of these thinkers.
I think he’s looking for 21 year olds with no time for relationships
I’m not sure I meet those criteria!