Twitter activity of Professor Blanchflower

Obermann said:
I would like to add that I agree that no one should attack Professor Blanchflower—or anyone else—on a personal level. One should definitely not try to portray him as incompetent in his field. I think that few of us have the competence to evaluate his merits as an economist—at least I do not.

However, I do think that satire has its place, especially against people like Blanchflower. The “100% wrong” headline comes from an episode in 2009, when Blanchflower said that the unemployment would rise to 4 million, perhaps even 5 million, if his political opponents (Tory party) came to power and implemented their policies. It turned out to be 2.53 million and falling in 2012. Guido Fawkes, a right-wing blog, pointed out that he was nearly 100% off target. Hence 100% wrong. I think that such a polemical remark is justified in a political debate—no matter what your political preferences are.

I used the same theme to polemically question his statements about ME/CFS. Although I say that he makes “categorical and ill-conceives statements” in hos own field, I think it is clear from the context that it is satire. I didn’t intend to question his academic credentials as an economist. Quite frankly I don’t see how my post can be interpreted that way, but I hope that I don’t trigger other people to make ad hominem attacks on Blanchflower or ridicule his political views—that was definitely not my intention.

Link to article about Blanchflower’s prediction in 2009:
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/po...uts-could-push-unemployment-to-5-million.html

Guido Fawkes blog post in 2012 about Blanchflower’s prediction in 2009:
https://order-order.com/2012/10/18/david-blanchflowers-terrible-tips/#:UqvUbFEszwRXBA
Click to expand...
You have to compare like with like to have any argument. There have been numerous redefinitions of " employment" which enable figures to be massaged. It is an apples and pears argument.

There has always been a difference in unemployed and " in work" , and the latter seems to have undergone various changes. Note that a lot of soundbites relate to being " in work" , not unemployed. People infer a simple relationship that is far more complex.

Sorry to take thread tangentially elsewhere but you are not considered unemployed if you do 1 hr/ fortnight ' s work and those that are not paid are still " employed" .

Zero hours contracts are particularly insidious as you can have zilch job security, no work.for periods of time( and no pay) yet your contract retains you as an employee .

Successive governments use redefinitions of terms to suit their agendas

An example of figure massaging

https://www.theguardian.com/news/datablog/2013/jan/15/employment-figures-how-unpaid-get-counted

It is a bit like the definition of poverty - it has been tweaked to the extent that it cannot be compared to past figures either
 
Amw66 said:
You have to compare like with like to have any argument. There have been numerous redefinitions of " employment" which enable figures to be massaged.
Click to expand...

I appreciate that figures such as unemployment can be defined in different ways, and that both Blanchflower’s and Guido Fawkes’s statements must be put in a political context. However, I think that we are way off topic now. I didn’t intend to make any political statement, neither left-wing nor right-wing. The question is whether a picture with the headline “100% wrong” can be used for satire.
 
Obermann said:
I appreciate that figures such as unemployment can be defined in different ways, and that both Blanchflower’s and Guido Fawkes’s statements must be put in a political context. However, I think that we are way off topic now. I didn’t intend to make any political statement, neither left-wing nor right-wing. The question is whether a picture with the headline “100% wrong” can be used for satire.
Click to expand...
Sorry - i' not a morning person ! Context not fully appreciated
 
JaimeS said:
Yeah. I'm personally aware and other people on #MEAction are, too. I feel the same about Chapman -- he seems to have been badly burned in some kind of advocacy snafu, but he omits details and it appears to have been before #MEAction's time.
Click to expand...

Whoooboy someone with the #MEAction logo as their icon on Twitter engaged with Chapman and got "please don't contact me ever again, MEAction!"

We contacted the original user and asked them not to use the logo (it was a well-meaning person) but too late.

More fuel for the harassment meme. :banghead::banghead::banghead:
 
I don't feel able to reread all the posts about Blanchflower. Was it ever mentioned that his work seems to be mentioned approvingly by Richard Layard. (I presume that all know of Layard's connection to the IAPT project.)

In 2005 Layard published the book Happiness: Lessons from a New Science, in which he emphasised the importance of non-income variables on aggregate happiness. His book summarises the prior empirical findings produced by economists such as Richard Easterlin, David G Blanchflower, Andrew E Clark, Rafael Di Tella, Robert MacCulloch, and Andrew Oswald. In particular he stressed the role of mental health and argued that psychological treatments ought to be much more widely available.

from Wikipedia

and in this
eprints.lse.ac.uk/47440/1/Big%20ideas%20wellbeing%20and%20public%20policy%20%28lsero%29.pdf

Big Ideas: wellbeing and public policy. (2012)

It would seem that he has a dog in the fight.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom