Er. Suppose, just for a second, that Ritchie has just proposed something butt-clenchingly stupid. Such as nationalising all the banks, or any of the myriad of other suggestions he has made over the years.

You might sigh patiently, and say that that's not such a great idea. And Ritchie, being Ritchie, will say "Saying you're wrong isn't debate. You need to provide some evidence." So you provide that evidence. In the case of nationalising all the banks, that evidence could be a bank such as HSBC, which didn't need to be bailed out by the government then and still doesn't now.

Aha! But that's no longer good enough. Because, far from proving that Ritchie knows nothing about economics and has got it terribly wrong again, your counter-example in fact proves that he was right all along!

//Facepalm.

There really is no end to his chutzpah, is there?

People who read this post also read:

• Ritchie’s grand plan to nationalise all the banks
• HSBC retreats on chief’s pay award
• Tax Journal on “government approved tax avoidance”
• In which Ritchie claims a voluntary disclosure scheme proves that voluntary schemes don’t work
• Is this Chris Dillow dissing Ritchie?

Filed under: Other blogs with tags banks, fail, hsbc, idiots, logic, richard murphy