By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions. We in turn value your personal details in accordance with our Privacy Policy.
Please log in or register. Registered visitors get fewer ads.
Sorry, thought it would get lost in the last thread on Gary but have gone over to have another look at what Dickie has to say, as maybe I've been too hasrh;
His latest video above telling us, once again, the end is nigh - comments section is very illuminating, lots of people saying you keep telling us there's a crash, last summer you promised us a crash, you've predicted a 50 of the last 3 crashes etc etc
This type of scaremongering is really dangerous because impressionable people will pull their money from the markets and the opportunity cost of missing the best years for a long term saver/retirement investor is catastrophic.
At the end he does get round to saying, have a more diversified portfolio but there is 15 mins of scaremongering before that and most people won't watch too the end. Also, he speaks as though he's swallowed a word salad - I'm still unclear on most of the key points he's trying to get across.
It's unfortunately clickbait that can have some fairly profound real world impacts if people actually listen to him - which I hope they don't.
Shouldn't be allowed - discuss economics and MMT by all means, don't start telling impressionable, often inexperienced, investors that they should be timing the market.
Absolutely outrageous he's allowed to spout this. At some point there will be a crash and no doubt Dickie will be there to say I told you so but that rather goes with the territory if you predict one every year...
[Post edited 9 Jul 12:47]
1
Economist: Richard J Murphy on 13:03 - Jul 9 with 2061 views
When you say shouldn't be allowed, there is people giving 100x worse advice all over YouTube and Social Media on a daily basis.
This is the information environment we live in - we have access to more and more of the answers to everything in the world, but more and more people are following highly awful sources, and can't see the wood through the trees.
Out of interest, what do you think the true inflation rate is? Broadly, for someone to maintain their current level of spending and saving, inflation adjusted.
0
Economist: Richard J Murphy on 13:36 - Jul 9 with 1935 views
Economist: Richard J Murphy on 13:03 - Jul 9 by itfcjoe
When you say shouldn't be allowed, there is people giving 100x worse advice all over YouTube and Social Media on a daily basis.
This is the information environment we live in - we have access to more and more of the answers to everything in the world, but more and more people are following highly awful sources, and can't see the wood through the trees.
I agree but he’s a professor at a highly reputable university. That carries an incredible amount of weight and rightly so. He should be above needing to generate clicks with scaremongering.
He knows better than anybody that long term savers need to stay invested - trying to take your money out and time when to go back in is disastrous advice and he knows that.
At the very end he gets round to saying take advice but after a 15 minute diatribe about how everyone is getting very concerned about a crash - which is balls because analysts are currently raising their year end stock market targets because the environment is reasonably good atm.
Really feels very irresponsible.
0
Economist: Richard J Murphy on 13:43 - Jul 9 with 1889 views
Economist: Richard J Murphy on 13:36 - Jul 9 by J2BLUE
Out of interest, what do you think the true inflation rate is? Broadly, for someone to maintain their current level of spending and saving, inflation adjusted.
Really good question and very topical given the change in the US from Powell to Warsh - central banks around the world (inlcuding ours) are having to look at this very closely now given we've been way above 2% now for many years.
I still think CPI gives you the best measure rather than core (which excludes food and energy) or this weird trimmed median estimate that Warsh seems to favour.
As for the true inflation rate, if I step back, and see that we are heading for less globalisation not more, then I would place fairly large bet that we aren't going back to 2% anytime soon - hence people now looking at other measures and whether they better reflect what's happening.
0
Economist: Richard J Murphy on 14:35 - Jul 9 with 1782 views
Economist: Richard J Murphy on 13:36 - Jul 9 by nrb1985
I agree but he’s a professor at a highly reputable university. That carries an incredible amount of weight and rightly so. He should be above needing to generate clicks with scaremongering.
He knows better than anybody that long term savers need to stay invested - trying to take your money out and time when to go back in is disastrous advice and he knows that.
At the very end he gets round to saying take advice but after a 15 minute diatribe about how everyone is getting very concerned about a crash - which is balls because analysts are currently raising their year end stock market targets because the environment is reasonably good atm.
Really feels very irresponsible.
He and his wife cause significant issues where he lives in Ely.
He is widely discredited in his field too, mainly over this apocalyptic approach he takes to everything.
[Post edited 9 Jul 14:36]
0
Economist: Richard J Murphy on 14:37 - Jul 9 with 1765 views
Economist: Richard J Murphy on 14:35 - Jul 9 by ElderGrizzly
He and his wife cause significant issues where he lives in Ely.
He is widely discredited in his field too, mainly over this apocalyptic approach he takes to everything.
[Post edited 9 Jul 14:36]
If he’d started at the end and called the video something like “the importance of diversification” then no issue - albeit some of his take on the US stock market is pretty off but whatevs.
This is nothing but unadulterated click bait.
An appalling way for a professor to conduct themselves.
0
Economist: Richard J Murphy on 16:31 - Jul 9 with 1661 views
Economist: Richard J Murphy on 16:31 - Jul 9 by DJR
Richard Murphy isn't an economist.
Wikipedia describes him as an academic, accountant, journalist and activist. It says he has a degree in accountancy from Southampton University.
He was Professor of Accounting Practice at the University of Sheffield Management School but is now Professor Emeritus i.e. retired.
Maybe being retired gives him greater freedom but with his background, I think I'd be sceptical about any economic forecasts that he makes.
And as I've said on here many times before, I never look to some bloke on YouTube to keep me informed on serious matters.
[Post edited 9 Jul 16:35]
I just find it so egregious that he’s dishing out this advice, which is frankly appalling and not the only example I found, while leveraging his academic background to give it authority.
In one video he’s actively telling people not to invest but to keep money in cash because the stock market is basically rigged against the average investor.
Wish I hadn’t watched them now, makes my pss boil to know that, in a worst case outcome, somebody innocent watching this and following his advice is going to end up with the mother of all short falls in their retirement income because they’re just sat in cash.
What a cnt.
Rant over.
0
Economist: Richard J Murphy on 09:38 - Jul 24 with 1135 views
Apparently we should expect a crash of 50% in the stock market.
For context, that would be akin to 2008 when people were genuinely worried about cash not coming out of ATMs and western economies turning into the Weimar republic.
This guy is so utterly shameless - really unedifying way for a (retired) academic to conduct themselves.
0
Economist: Richard J Murphy on 10:25 - Jul 24 with 996 views
Economist: Richard J Murphy on 13:36 - Jul 9 by J2BLUE
Out of interest, what do you think the true inflation rate is? Broadly, for someone to maintain their current level of spending and saving, inflation adjusted.
how do you mean "true"?
interestingly ons produces inflation rates by income decile (reflecting the different consumption patterns people have depending on income) and there isn't a great deal of variation in the last few years. they all come out at about cpi.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
0
Economist: Richard J Murphy on 10:27 - Jul 24 with 991 views
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
0
Economist: Richard J Murphy on 10:28 - Jul 24 with 991 views
Economist: Richard J Murphy on 09:38 - Jul 24 by nrb1985
Here we go again...
Apparently we should expect a crash of 50% in the stock market.
For context, that would be akin to 2008 when people were genuinely worried about cash not coming out of ATMs and western economies turning into the Weimar republic.
This guy is so utterly shameless - really unedifying way for a (retired) academic to conduct themselves.
The FTSE100 has gone up around 50% since 2022 (and 2018). So a fall of 33% would take the market back to where it was at the beginning of 2018 and 2022.
The SP500 has tripled since 2018. Tripled.
He might well be a charlatan, but as ever, there is a grain of something. I have never seen a video of his.
Do I think current valuations make sense? No.
Does a fall of a third in the UK and possibly more in the US seem possible. Based on fundamentals of worsening global and Uk trade, russia, israel. It seems a plausible possibility. Even if it isnt the central case.
Economist: Richard J Murphy on 10:28 - Jul 24 by commuterblue
The FTSE100 has gone up around 50% since 2022 (and 2018). So a fall of 33% would take the market back to where it was at the beginning of 2018 and 2022.
The SP500 has tripled since 2018. Tripled.
He might well be a charlatan, but as ever, there is a grain of something. I have never seen a video of his.
Do I think current valuations make sense? No.
Does a fall of a third in the UK and possibly more in the US seem possible. Based on fundamentals of worsening global and Uk trade, russia, israel. It seems a plausible possibility. Even if it isnt the central case.
Don't agree.
Current S&P500 valuations on a simple PE have actually declined a lot in the last 6-12 months and that's because earnings have been growing greater than share prices. Hardly a sign of irrational exuberance or stress in the system...
And valuations are naturally going to be much higher now than historically because of the concentration of tech, which is 45% of the index. Tech has a much higher ROI than any of the prior largest cohorts - i.e. banks, oil, manufacturing etc which are all extremely capex intensive. Naturally therefore, at an aggregate index level, you will have higher multiples.
The rest of the market, ex tech, basically trades right in the middle of it's long term average.
And in any case, since when did high valuations cause a 50% correction?
0
Economist: Richard J Murphy on 11:11 - Jul 24 with 851 views
Economist: Richard J Murphy on 10:28 - Jul 24 by commuterblue
The FTSE100 has gone up around 50% since 2022 (and 2018). So a fall of 33% would take the market back to where it was at the beginning of 2018 and 2022.
The SP500 has tripled since 2018. Tripled.
He might well be a charlatan, but as ever, there is a grain of something. I have never seen a video of his.
Do I think current valuations make sense? No.
Does a fall of a third in the UK and possibly more in the US seem possible. Based on fundamentals of worsening global and Uk trade, russia, israel. It seems a plausible possibility. Even if it isnt the central case.
the usual metrics by which valuations are assessed aren't screaming out that current valuations make no sense.
diversification is always a wonderful thing, and a market correction will come along at some point and will doubtless surprise most people including me, but i'm not convinced there are currently clear signs of great market fragility.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
0
Economist: Richard J Murphy on 11:18 - Jul 24 with 816 views
Economist: Richard J Murphy on 11:11 - Jul 24 by lowhouseblue
the usual metrics by which valuations are assessed aren't screaming out that current valuations make no sense.
diversification is always a wonderful thing, and a market correction will come along at some point and will doubtless surprise most people including me, but i'm not convinced there are currently clear signs of great market fragility.
There are clear uncertainties in the macro outlook (iran, inflation etc) but nothing that could cause a 50% correction in markets, which has happened once in history ever.
If you'd listen to him when he first started spouting this nonsense in spring 2025, your opportunity cost was missing a +30% rally in global equities. Which would be disastrous for a long term saver/investor.
I despise this guy - clickbait, uninformed nonsense, fed to the less financially experience.
An appalling way for an academic to conduct themselves.
0
Economist: Richard J Murphy on 11:52 - Jul 24 with 742 views
I thought I would add my experience here -- I used to have an account on TWTD over a decade ago, lost it, and set up a new one. Since then, I completed a PhD in Economics from Oxford, and have debated Richard Murphy live.
Beyond the details and mis-reading of MMT, I found that Richard did not come close to having an understanding of modern/frontier macroeconomics. He is incredibly dismissive of Economics as a subject, is at least 30 years behind theoretical advances in the subject and maybe even entirely aloof: his final remark included devising a theory of 'Quantum Economics'. The deeper problem is methodological. Murphy builds his arguments on accounting identities: sectoral balances, loans creating deposits. These are true by construction, which is exactly why they can't tell you what causes what. Every term in the identity holds simultaneously. Reverse causality and endogenous feedback are invisible to it. You can't derive a causal claim about policy from a bookkeeping constraint, and treating the constraint as though it settles the argument is where most of it goes wrong. This is besides his work on the tax system, which as an accountant and professor, I believe he may be well versed in speaking about. But as for macroeconomics, I would be incredibly cautious.
I could rabbit on about Stevenson too -- a great communicator, but also suffers from identification problems, and potentially a disregard for what is termed 'general equilibrium'...
1
Economist: Richard J Murphy on 12:14 - Jul 24 with 621 views
Economist: Richard J Murphy on 11:52 - Jul 24 by JapanBlue1
I thought I would add my experience here -- I used to have an account on TWTD over a decade ago, lost it, and set up a new one. Since then, I completed a PhD in Economics from Oxford, and have debated Richard Murphy live.
Beyond the details and mis-reading of MMT, I found that Richard did not come close to having an understanding of modern/frontier macroeconomics. He is incredibly dismissive of Economics as a subject, is at least 30 years behind theoretical advances in the subject and maybe even entirely aloof: his final remark included devising a theory of 'Quantum Economics'. The deeper problem is methodological. Murphy builds his arguments on accounting identities: sectoral balances, loans creating deposits. These are true by construction, which is exactly why they can't tell you what causes what. Every term in the identity holds simultaneously. Reverse causality and endogenous feedback are invisible to it. You can't derive a causal claim about policy from a bookkeeping constraint, and treating the constraint as though it settles the argument is where most of it goes wrong. This is besides his work on the tax system, which as an accountant and professor, I believe he may be well versed in speaking about. But as for macroeconomics, I would be incredibly cautious.
I could rabbit on about Stevenson too -- a great communicator, but also suffers from identification problems, and potentially a disregard for what is termed 'general equilibrium'...
Thanks for this.
I’m a client advisor in a family office, definitely not an economist, so am not particularly qualified to scrutinise his views on economics, MMT, etc etc.
I do know a little bit about markets and investments though and judging from his grasp of how those work I’m not surprised to hear he’s not particularly credible on ecomomics either.
My problem with Gary is that he wants you to believe that stagnating living standards are being caused by inequality, which I don’t think there is a credible link for anywhere. But does nevertheless give him so fame and notoriety which is I suspect is what he actually wants from this whole exercise.
[Post edited 24 Jul 12:16]
0
Economist: Richard J Murphy on 12:24 - Jul 24 with 579 views
Economist: Richard J Murphy on 11:18 - Jul 24 by nrb1985
There are clear uncertainties in the macro outlook (iran, inflation etc) but nothing that could cause a 50% correction in markets, which has happened once in history ever.
If you'd listen to him when he first started spouting this nonsense in spring 2025, your opportunity cost was missing a +30% rally in global equities. Which would be disastrous for a long term saver/investor.
I despise this guy - clickbait, uninformed nonsense, fed to the less financially experience.
An appalling way for an academic to conduct themselves.
"If you'd listen to him when he first started spouting this nonsense in spring 2025, your opportunity cost was missing a +30% rally in global equities."
Remind me of the website housepricecrash from way back - I imagine people lost out big time from paying attention to it.
Has anyone ever looked at their own postings for last day or so? Oh my... so sorry. Was Ullaa
Economist: Richard J Murphy on 12:24 - Jul 24 by giant_stow
"If you'd listen to him when he first started spouting this nonsense in spring 2025, your opportunity cost was missing a +30% rally in global equities."
Remind me of the website housepricecrash from way back - I imagine people lost out big time from paying attention to it.
Hadn’t seen that previous, will check it out.
As I said though earlier in the thread - as Joe correctly says, the internet is full of gobshtes.
But what I find it so egregious here is that this is a former academic leveraging his background for clicks and resorting to wildly sensationalist claims, all for what? To get some attention and a bit of dough.
Bloke is absolute pond life.
0
Economist: Richard J Murphy on 12:30 - Jul 24 with 537 views
Economist: Richard J Murphy on 11:52 - Jul 24 by JapanBlue1
I thought I would add my experience here -- I used to have an account on TWTD over a decade ago, lost it, and set up a new one. Since then, I completed a PhD in Economics from Oxford, and have debated Richard Murphy live.
Beyond the details and mis-reading of MMT, I found that Richard did not come close to having an understanding of modern/frontier macroeconomics. He is incredibly dismissive of Economics as a subject, is at least 30 years behind theoretical advances in the subject and maybe even entirely aloof: his final remark included devising a theory of 'Quantum Economics'. The deeper problem is methodological. Murphy builds his arguments on accounting identities: sectoral balances, loans creating deposits. These are true by construction, which is exactly why they can't tell you what causes what. Every term in the identity holds simultaneously. Reverse causality and endogenous feedback are invisible to it. You can't derive a causal claim about policy from a bookkeeping constraint, and treating the constraint as though it settles the argument is where most of it goes wrong. This is besides his work on the tax system, which as an accountant and professor, I believe he may be well versed in speaking about. But as for macroeconomics, I would be incredibly cautious.
I could rabbit on about Stevenson too -- a great communicator, but also suffers from identification problems, and potentially a disregard for what is termed 'general equilibrium'...
he's an accountant. in macro he applies a methodology he's familiar with and he has no training as an economist. he knows about tax reform, and tax avoidance, but he isn't an economist.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
0
Economist: Richard J Murphy on 12:51 - Jul 24 with 458 views
Economist: Richard J Murphy on 11:11 - Jul 24 by lowhouseblue
the usual metrics by which valuations are assessed aren't screaming out that current valuations make no sense.
diversification is always a wonderful thing, and a market correction will come along at some point and will doubtless surprise most people including me, but i'm not convinced there are currently clear signs of great market fragility.
My PhD is in microeconomics, not corporate finance, nor macroeconomics.
So, please take this as a genuine question. What macroeconomic indicators justify a tripling of the value of predominantly non tech US companies.
Economist: Richard J Murphy on 12:51 - Jul 24 by commuterblue
My PhD is in microeconomics, not corporate finance, nor macroeconomics.
So, please take this as a genuine question. What macroeconomic indicators justify a tripling of the value of predominantly non tech US companies.
the main thing driving valuations is earnings projections. to a good degree those projections reflect rapid earnings growth in recent periods. clearly projections for tech firms involve something of a leap into the dark, but even outside of that bit of the market earnings have been pretty buoyant.
And so as the loose-bowelled pigeon of time swoops low over the unsuspecting tourist of destiny, and the flatulent skunk of fate wanders into the air-conditioning system of eternity, I notice it's the end of the show
1
Economist: Richard J Murphy on 13:30 - Jul 24 with 338 views
Economist: Richard J Murphy on 12:14 - Jul 24 by nrb1985
Thanks for this.
I’m a client advisor in a family office, definitely not an economist, so am not particularly qualified to scrutinise his views on economics, MMT, etc etc.
I do know a little bit about markets and investments though and judging from his grasp of how those work I’m not surprised to hear he’s not particularly credible on ecomomics either.
My problem with Gary is that he wants you to believe that stagnating living standards are being caused by inequality, which I don’t think there is a credible link for anywhere. But does nevertheless give him so fame and notoriety which is I suspect is what he actually wants from this whole exercise.
[Post edited 24 Jul 12:16]
It not often I find myself defending Gary. But I can give you a link between unequality and
Let's start with a statistic from the House of Commons library.
"The share poorer households spend on housing has been increasing over time: in 1968, housing costs were 9% of average disposable incomes for the poorest quarter of the population, and this rose to 26% in 2015 before falling to 21% by 2024/25."
Some of this increase may be due to higher quality of housing. But, given the vast real increases in properry prices over the time period, it is fair to say that most of it comes from increasing property prices.
Property is of course a form of wealth. Wealth is much more unevenly distributed in the UK than income (Gini of 0.59 vs 0.33 for income [0.37 for income after housing costs]). Property wealth is 0.66.
So, increasing property prices benefits holders of property wealth. Which is very unequally distributedš. They also increase the share of income spent on property, particularly for the lowest income.
So policies that by objective effect increase property prices will both increase inequality and reduce living standards.
Now, thats not to say policies to aolve this are difficult, or that it meeds solving. But imo to say there is ni link between inequality and stagnating living standards is a stretch.
By continuing to use the site, you agree to our use of cookies and to abide by our Terms and Conditions.
