Erin Go Broke

spursfan1234 said:
what do you find so bad about her purple
Click to expand...
She is very arrogant, inappropriately crude and clearly has little understanding of her brief.
I was at function in Europe with German, French, Swiss and Austrian businesspeople attending her performance was utterly cringe-worthy.
When I hear her talk on TV she said really stupid and illogical things and counters arguments and criticisms about the government’s economic policies with vague worn-out sound bites.
She is, in my opinion, far and away the worst member of the government.
 
yoganmahew said:
You don't see the contradiction in your post?
"Why do they say we are so bad?"
"The UK and US are much worse"
"We're small and will recover more quickly"
"We rely on the UK and US for recovery"

We are not going to recover quickly if the markets that we depend on for recovery do not recover. So we are at the bottom of the recovery chain. No?
Click to expand...

Of course it's contradictory, I'm not an economist, but I wouldn't rely on any of those experts either for state of the economy advice. But one day one of the economists will be right just as you Yoga may be right that we're at the bottom of the recovery chain but only time will tell and we don't have cristal balls so newspapers can write what they want. Who knew we'd have a celtic tiger?
 
Totally reliant is pushing it. There is a highly succesful SME sector in this Country whose owners don't get the credit they deserve for the jobs they create and are often neglected in discussions because everyone is focused on the Intels of this world. Not saying the multi-national sector isn't important but I sometimes wish the Government spend as much time worrying about indiginous businesses as they do about attracting inward investment because we are unlikely to be able to attract these companies anymore and will have to rely on ourselves.
 
I agree with you Sunny, and that is one way we could move up the recovery chain. I just don't see it happening. There is too much embedded in FDI - FAS (building stuff for them), IDA and EI (incentivising them) and the all too familiar junkets on the government jets...
 
A little bit of the Princeton Back Step Shuffle (ambiguous style) by Paul Krugman at the recent Merrion talk. Five to ten years recovery/extremely painful/really terrible punishment to which he added 'the adjustment is working' and a few other tentative pieces of good news. Ireland will not default etc. Paul baby, a bunch of baboons could have done this talk. You merely rehashed your earlier musings, added a few adjectives, changed the old chronograph a little and tossed in a few optimistic phrases to a fawning audience. You sure you've not got TP Barnum's DNA?
 
I think Mary Hanafin sounded very like the Tanaiste last evening while onRTE radio. She questioned Fine Gael person about how they would deal with the deficit. He began i think with reducing the state agencies and she shouted DONE DONE and repeated this mantra to some other steps he mentioned. Did not sound well
 
dewdrop said:
I think Mary Hanafin sounded very like the Tanaiste last evening while onRTE radio. She questioned Fine Gael person about how they would deal with the deficit. He began i think with reducing the state agencies and she shouted DONE DONE and repeated this mantra to some other steps he mentioned. Did not sound well
Click to expand...

Mary Hanafin is an irritating fool who should have stayed in the classroom. If anyone can point me to a single concrete achievement she has made in Government, I will eat my Stetson.

She is however called Mary which is the prime qualification for lovely girls to get to the top in Dail Eireann.
 
Kemo_Sabe said:
Mary Hanafin is an irritating fool who should have stayed in the classroom. If anyone can point me to a single concrete achievement she has made in Government, I will eat my Stetson.

She is however called Mary which is the prime qualification for lovely girls to get to the top in Dail Eireann.
Click to expand...

Or the Aras!
 
I will declare my vested interest up front, I am the moderator on the SpiritofIreland forum.

But I ask the question, could the S of I project stop Ireland going broke and maybe contribute in the opposite direction.
 
Chocks away said:
A little bit of the Princeton Back Step Shuffle (ambiguous style) by Paul Krugman at the recent Merrion talk. Five to ten years recovery/extremely painful/really terrible punishment to which he added 'the adjustment is working' and a few other tentative pieces of good news. Ireland will not default etc. Paul baby, a bunch of baboons could have done this talk. You merely rehashed your earlier musings, added a few adjectives, changed the old chronograph a little and tossed in a few optimistic phrases to a fawning audience. You sure you've not got TP Barnum's DNA?
Click to expand...
In fairness there are a few Irish ecomonists turned pundit who dine off the same sort of thing.
 
Purple said:
In fairness there are a few Irish ecomonists turned pundit who dine off the same sort of thing.
Click to expand...
Yup! But this guy is allocated more kudos than most. In his recent book he extolled the idea of the government printing (money) it's way out of trouble. The Keynesian cycle is often a busted flush. Sophistry and ad hoc simplification are the buttresses of Krugman's reasoning. He is the Eamon Dempsey of financial talking heads. You've got to remember that he has become unstuck a lot of times - going back to the Asian crisis over a decade ago. His spats with Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin and others are coffee house fodder in NY. Again, his blog is popular - some people just like to witness the cut and thrust of debate, especially when one side has a chip on it's shoulder and will criticise virtually anything that the other side comes out with. Back to your statement Purple, the more noise made or controversy caused the bigger the payoff.
 
Mr Krugman is a little more than a common or garden conference-speaker for hire. He did predict what was happening with the Greenspan (*spit*) low interest rates. This in 2002:
http://www.nytimes.com/2002/08/02/opinion/dubya-s-double-dip.html
The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.
Judging by Mr. Greenspan's remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off. But the Fed chairman's crystal ball has been cloudy lately; remember how he urged Congress to cut taxes to head off the risk of excessive budget surpluses?

...

The administration needs a recovery because, with deficits exploding, the only way it can justify that tax cut is by pretending that it was just what the economy needed. Mr. Greenspan needs one to avoid awkward questions about his own role in creating the stock market bubble.
Click to expand...

and this in 2001:
http://www.nytimes.com/2001/09/30/m...aul krugman fear itself&st=cse&pagewanted=all
Here's my nightmare: America's recovery from its current slump, whenever it comes, is tentative and short-lived, because the business investment that drove our boom in the 1990's remains stagnant. Eventually the housing bubble bursts and we have another slump; then we have another weak recovery, this time driven by deficit spending, but that, too, fades out. Eventually we look around and realize that it's 2009, and the economy still hasn't fully recovered from the slowdown that began at the end of the previous decade.


And we also realize that while the government's subsequent attempts to sustain the economy, mainly through tax cuts and subsidies to energy companies, have arguably staved off depression -- the unemployment rate has risen, but only to 8 percent -- they have also devastated the environment and left a huge government debt. The fiscal 2010 budget deficit is projected at $800 billion, and nobody has any idea how we will manage in a couple of years, when millions of baby boomers start collecting their Social Security checks.
Click to expand...
 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top