Ok so McWilliams

meglome

I was linked to an article of his today. I'm not always his biggest fan but honestly I would expect better from the worst kind of tabloid journalist.

Germany doesn’t want a United States of Europe; it wants a Federal Republic of Europe, based on the model of the Federal Republic of Germany.

Constitutionally, it doesn’t want an American-style republic, but something much more like Germany. It also wants this with the minimum of fuss.

The reasons are simple. It wants to do with banks what it couldn’t – historically – do with tanks. It wants a Europe that looks and feels democratic, but in which Germany really rules the roost and makes the final decision in all the big calls. This it will achieve by financial dominance.

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2012/05/07/lets-talk-about-germany

Not that I'm an expert but this kind of talk is no good for anything. Perhaps people with the expertise would give a view on the article.

superluck

The people with expertise in Ireland dismissed the idea of IMF intervention 6 months before Ireland started negotiating T&C of an IMF bailout.

The same experts dismissed any notion of Ireland having to privatise state assets in return for Euros, which is now Ireland's currency.

If Ireland's money comes from the ECB and the ECB is essentially a German bank, doesn't that mean Germany owns Ireland?

Maybe I should wait for the experts to clear up any misunderstanding.

Dirk Gently

meglome wrote: »

I was linked to an article of his today.

Why does he have to use silly metaphors for everything when simple language can do. He'd make a mythological story out of crossing the road. Germany wants europe to buy some lawn fertiliser from lidl.

meglome

Dirk Gently wrote: »

Why does he have to use silly metaphors for everything when simple language can do. He'd make a mythological story out of crossing the road. Germany wants europe to buy some lawn fertiliser from lidl.

He does love his metaphors. But "It wants to do with banks what it couldn’t – historically – do with tanks." is a new low imo.

Dannyboy83

Dirk Gently wrote: »

Why does he have to use silly metaphors for everything when simple language can do. He'd make a mythological story out of crossing the road. Germany wants europe to buy some lawn fertiliser from lidl.

It's very rare to see him use a formula or some kind of hard science
"I analysed x using my economic skills; I input the data into the following algorithim and concluded that x,y,z etc. etc."

Instead, it's always along the lines of:
"Johnny was pulling at himself unmercifully last night, which explains on one level how Ireland is pulling away from Europe, and ultimately how we are all going to pull away from this crisis..."

Lay off the drugs, pal.

paddy0090

I'm not his biggest fan but it was a good article. It was originally in the Sunday Business Post. The piece by Cormac Lucey on the page beside it was even more inflammatory. He argued we should vote no to stop the govt getting access to the ESM otherwise....they'll have access to the ESM and we'll be stuck in this mess for longer.

Back to McWilliams. Europes German problem is as old as the hills. That was the whole point of the EU. But without someone to stand up to them like the French they really are calling the shots. The Commission seems to have been completely sidelined and policy seems to be developed in mini conferences.

Newsnight did a series on this theme. While taking over Europe doesn't really appeal to the average German the elites seem to be leading them in that direction. Maybe they're opnly doing it for our own good and because they have to, whatever but it is happening.

carveone

paddy0090 wrote: »

Back to McWilliams. Europes German problem is as old as the hills. That was the whole point of the EU.

Uhhhh. Wat? If you want to do history, then do it properly. You can replace German with French (a lot - remember some guy called Napolean? Not to mention their involvement in horrors like Rwanda), British (don't go down that road), Russia, Turkey, Serbia, Spain (they've been busy), Albania, Italy, Bulgaria, Belgium (every African colony that was ever Belgian is a recurrent nightmare not to mention WWI), Macedonia, the Balkans, Poland, Ukraine, Austria, Greece, and since 1945 the US and Soviets brought the world close to complete nuclear armageddeon. The US has featured in so many wars, illegal actions, arms shipments, convert operations and assassinations in the last 50 years, assuming it wasn't busy trying to profit from suffering degradation and war, that it would be more apt to talk about the worlds "US problem". The Canadians and Irish seem to keep to themselves (ignoring internal conflicts) - Canada because there's beer and hockey on and the Irish, well, it rains a lot and we couldn't be arsed.

That's me quickly skipping down the "list of conflict in Europe" wikipedia page. And that's only since 1800. (I'm gonna get flamed aren't I)

Climber

But without someone to stand up to them like the French they really are calling the shots

For Crying out loud! The Germans are only making people pay their way and holding Governements to account for bad policy.

The Horror of it all! The injustice!

If we thought we could do better without them, we would. We'd leave the EU and be a brave independent country such as Norway & Switzerland.

The truth is we need to be lead whether it be the Catholic Church, The British Empire or The ECB. We are Cattle, devoid of any independent thought.

Put up and Shut up.

creedp

Climber wrote: »

For Crying out loud! The Germans are only making people pay their way and holding Governements to account for bad policy.

The Horror of it all! The injustice!

If we thought we could do better without them, we would. We'd leave the EU and be a brave independent country such as Norway & Switzerland.

The truth is we need to be lead whether it be the Catholic Church, The British Empire or The ECB. We are Cattle, devoid of any independent thought.

Put up and Shut up.

Of course the point is they didn't worry too much about paying your way when things were going well and the ECB/German banks were sloshing euros out to the peripheral States like there was no tomorrow. Of course at that point German banks were making a killing and German shareholders were doing nicely. It was during that time that Germany also breached the fiscal targets currently in place. However, now that there is nothing to gain for Germany its time to tighten the noose ..

andrew

He gave a talk recently, in which he used Argentina as a good example regarding defaults. Combined with OP's quote, I think it's clear that the man's an utter ****ehawk. It's an incredibly facile argument to make, that Germany's trying to invade Europe again. It's Something you'd expect to see from a fear-mongering nutter posting on the conspiracy forum. It's devoid of any analysis as to why the situation is even mildly comparable to WWII in any operative sense. Instead, he just throws the statements out there as though it's totally cool to imply that Germans have an innate desire to subjugate entire nations, cos, well they're Germans of course that's what they do! Because nothing they're doing could possibly be in the EU's interests, nope! They're just going for a European invasion mark III. And the extended analogy is just bizarre, it's like he thinks his readers have the mental age of seven, and could only understand something fully if it was explained by sock puppets. ****e-hawk. /rant

paddy0090

carveone wrote: »

Uhhhh. Wat? If you want to do history, then do it properly. You can replace German with French (a lot - remember some guy called Napolean? Not to mention their involvement in horrors like Rwanda), British (don't go down that road), Russia, Turkey, Serbia, Spain (they've been busy), Albania, Italy, Bulgaria, Belgium (every African colony that was ever Belgian is a recurrent nightmare not to mention WWI), Macedonia, the Balkans, Poland, Ukraine, Austria, Greece, and since 1945 the US and Soviets brought the world close to complete nuclear armageddeon. The US has featured in so many wars, illegal actions, arms shipments, convert operations and assassinations in the last 50 years, assuming it wasn't busy trying to profit from suffering degradation and war, that it would be more apt to talk about the worlds "US problem". The Canadians and Irish seem to keep to themselves (ignoring internal conflicts) - Canada because there's beer and hockey on and the Irish, well, it rains a lot and we couldn't be arsed.

That's me quickly skipping down the "list of conflict in Europe" wikipedia page. And that's only since 1800. (I'm gonna get flamed aren't I)

I was trying to keep it short and modern.

Actually we did plenty of empire building for the brits. The contribution of the Irish and the Scots to the empire far out stripped there size in the then UK.

Climber

he contribution of the Irish and the Scots to the empire far out stripped there size in the then UK

Sure there was a bit of cash in it for us, why wouldn't we take part?

Going Forward

meglome wrote: »

I was linked to an article of his today. I'm not always his biggest fan but honestly I would expect better from the worst kind of tabloid journalist.


http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2012/05/07/lets-talk-about-germany

Not that I'm an expert but this kind of talk is no good for anything. Perhaps people with the expertise would give a view on the article.

Not much expertise spilling forth yet, so I feel obliged to wade in and say McWilliams is spot on.

Yes he's starting to sound like a lot like a NWO conspiracy enthusiast, but a little scepticism of the German agenda would not go astray.

Maybe the thoughts of Merkle independently drafting treaties might wake people up.

superluck

Going Forward wrote:

Maybe the thoughts of Merkle independently drafting treaties might wake people up.

Doubtful anything would if events of the last 4 years haven't already.

Some people spend years in college and consider themselves experts over everyone else. They demand reverence for their opinions yet always appear ill-informed.

Let's come back to this discussion in 4 years shall we?
Maybe by then the penny will have dropped.

BTW: Not a fan of McWilliams, but even less of expert analysis from boards.ie

Farmer Pudsey

Metaphors aside I reckon that he is spot on and Helemut Kohl reckons the same about Merkel as well

Going Forward

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

Metaphors aside I reckon that he is spot on and Helemut Kohl reckons the same about Merkel as well

Wait and see how long it takes them to install a "technocrat" in Greece.

K-9

superluck wrote: »

BTW: Not a fan of McWilliams, but even less of expert analysis from boards.ie

I can only think he has been reading AH a bit too much!

djpbarry

Going Forward wrote: »

Not much expertise spilling forth yet...

Why? Because you disagree with the conclusions drawn?

Going Forward wrote: »

Yes he's starting to sound like a lot like a NWO conspiracy enthusiast, but a little scepticism of the German agenda would not go astray.

There’s a vast expanse of difference between being sceptical and accusing the entire German nation of secretly hatching a plan to build the Fourth Reich.

McWilliams has some ****ing cheek calling himself an economist.

rgmmg

I am not sure where the confusion is here. This dictatorship status was clearly a key driver behind Germany's intent for a united Europe.

Germany is the biggest economy in Europe by far and is only ever looking after it's own interests, or those that safeguard the status quo. Similarly with France et al. They enjoy record exports in stark contrast to the rest of Europe. Sure we even refund their investors because they invested in our banks. "Sorry lads, we didn't realise our banks were so poorly run, here's some money back" despite the fact the small print tells you you can lose all.

djpbarry

rgmmg wrote: »

This dictatorship status...

What dictatorship status? Germany is a federal republic?

rgmmg wrote: »

Germany is the biggest economy in Europe by far and is only ever looking after it's own interests...

The economy of the entire EU is FIVE TIMES larger than Germany’s alone – what’s good for the EU is good for Germany.

rgmmg wrote: »

They enjoy record exports in stark contrast to the rest of Europe.

Ireland is currently enjoying record exports?

rgmmg wrote: »

Sure we even refund their investors because they invested in our banks.

Not to any significant extent, but feel free to demonstrate otherwise (preferably using a source other than Fintan O’Toole or Vincent Browne).

rgmmg

djpbarry wrote: »

What dictatorship status? Germany is a federal republic?
The economy of the entire EU is FIVE TIMES larger than Germany’s alone – what’s good for the EU is good for Germany.
Ireland is currently enjoying record exports?
Not to any significant extent, but feel free to demonstrate otherwise (preferably using a source other than Fintan O’Toole or Vincent Browne).

Sure, it's a Federal Republic in the confines of it's own border. I referred to it's dictator status in the context of it's relationship with the rest of Europe. Germany abused monetary and fiscal European policy to suit it's own ends, simplifying re-unification and tailoring EU economic policay to it's own needs amongst other things. In contrast, the causality of Ireland "enjoying" record exports is by default, not design. German investors were not refunded ".. to any signifcant extent"? Eh, they shouldn't have been refunded to any extent, Browne or otherwise.

The Corinthian

In part the Germans are looking after national interests naturally. Nothing wrong with that.

However, you also have to understand German mentality; they're not interested in 'taking over', but they are genuinely convinced that the German way of doing things is the best way and sometimes you have to control to be kind as it were; "vertrauen ist gut, kontrolle ist besser" as the expression goes.

So while I'd agree that they're presently attempting to impose their way of doing things, it's their bizarre way (diplomacy not being a Germanic forte) of being altruistic and not some master plan to take over - they're still dealing with the after effects of reunification so trust me when I say they're not looking for any more Lebensraum.

And in fairness, they do have a point where it comes to good economic governance too.

djpbarry

rgmmg wrote: »

Sure, it's a Federal Republic in the confines of it's own border. I referred to it's dictator status in the context of it's relationship with the rest of Europe.

And I’ll ask again – what dictator status? You really think France and the UK (for example) see Germany as a dictator? Because France + UK > Germany.

rgmmg wrote: »

In contrast, the causality of Ireland "enjoying" record exports is by default, not design.

Ireland’s “default” position, based on a cursory glance of the history books, is economic basket case. Current export levels are anything but default.

rgmmg wrote: »

German investors were not refunded ".. to any signifcant extent"?

I meant that, despite popular belief, German banks have not invested in Irish banks to any significant extent.

rgmmg

djpbarry wrote: »

And I’ll ask again – what dictator status? You really think France and the UK (for example) see Germany as a dictator? Because France + UK > Germany.
Ireland’s “default” position, based on a cursory glance of the history books, is economic basket case. Current export levels are anything but default.
I meant that, despite popular belief, German banks have not invested in Irish banks to any significant extent.

There haven't been too many laws passed that Germany didn't back last I checked. Ireland exports are up not as a result of Europe wanting to boost them. Whether the Germans are heavily invested in Irish banks or not, they should have got nout, but they dictated otherwise but let's not let the facts get in the way of a good argument

minotour

At the bar in Abu Dhabi airport recently the well turned out german lady beside me was asked what currency she would like to pay in, she replied "Euro" followed by a shouted correction "German Euro", i laughed and asked her if something dramatic had happened while i was away, needless to say she failed to see the humour.

rgmmg

minotour wrote: »

At the bar in Abu Dhabi airport recently the well turned out german lady beside me was asked what currency she would like to pay in, she replied "Euro" followed by a shouted correction "German Euro", i laughed and asked her if something dramatic had happened while i was away, needless to say she failed to see the humour.

Some Germans actually believe Euros printed in Germany are worth more than those printed elsewhere in the Eurozone

djpbarry

rgmmg wrote: »

There haven't been too many laws passed that Germany didn't back last I checked.

That statement is literally meaningless. What laws are you referring to and where were they passed?

rgmmg wrote: »

Ireland exports are up not as a result of Europe wanting to boost them.

Again, I have no idea what you’re on about.

You said that Germany enjoys “record exports in stark contrast to the rest of Europe”, suggesting that the rest of the EU is in the doldrums while Germany is thriving. This is nonsense – the reality is far less black and white.

rgmmg wrote: »

Whether the Germans are heavily invested in Irish banks or not, they should have got nout, but they dictated otherwise but let's not let the facts get in the way of a good argument

Facts are something that are distinctly lacking from your posts. There is a popular belief that a bailout was forced on Ireland by Germany to bail out German investment in Irish banks – I have yet to see any evidence to support that. Until I do, I will consider it nonsense.

Going Forward

djpbarry wrote: »

Why? Because you disagree with the conclusions drawn?
There’s a vast expanse of difference between being sceptical and accusing the entire German nation of secretly hatching a plan to build the Fourth Reich.

McWilliams has some ****ing cheek calling himself an economist.

Show me some expertise in the replies I referred to, its a bit thin on the ground, more like school teachers commenting on an English essay I'd say.

As far as I remember he was one of the celebrity economists filling the vacuum who called things quite well.

washman3

rgmmg wrote: »

Some Germans actually believe Euros printed in Germany are worth more than those printed elsewhere in the Eurozone

Dont laugh,! might be sooner than we all think

djpbarry

Going Forward wrote: »

Show me some expertise in the replies I referred to...

Show me evidence of expertise in what McWilliams has said? It's clearly his own prejudiced opinion, with absolutely no basis in reality.

Going Forward wrote: »

As far as I remember he was one of the celebrity economists filling the vacuum who called things quite well.

Did he? He called the bank guarantee a good idea - how's that call looking now?

Going Forward

djpbarry wrote: »

Show me evidence of expertise in what McWilliams has said? It's clearly his own prejudiced opinion, with absolutely no basis in reality.

There are valid reasons why there are "prejudiced opinions" about Germany given it's history.

Just seriously consider what Europe could be like in 20 or 30 years from now, if the power/authority/control which Germany currently has over the European Union continues to grow.

This must be discussed, McWilliams may have done it bluntly, but it needs to be discussed instead of being brushed aside.

djpbarry wrote: »

Did he? He called the bank guarantee a good idea - how's that call looking now?

He would say its not as was originally intended:

http://www.aaronmccormack.com/2011/02/the-truth-about-david-mcwilliams-the-irish-bank-guarantee/

http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/2011/11/15/recent-inaccuracies-re-the-bank-guarantee

djpbarry

Going Forward wrote: »

There are valid reasons why there are "prejudiced opinions" about Germany given it's history.

As opposed to virtually every other country in Europe?

Going Forward wrote: »

Just seriously consider what Europe could be like in 20 or 30 years from now, if the power/authority/control which Germany currently has over the European Union continues to grow.

Fiscally prudent?

Going Forward wrote: »

He would say its not as was originally intended...

Bollocks it isn’t. He spells it out here in an article from 2008, stating unequivocally that a blanket bank guarantee would be a great idea:

...a full guarantee would have meant full protection for all creditors, all our own deposits and those of the foreign institutions who have lent to the Irish banks. The government could do this for a limited period – let’s say two years.

Straight away all uncertainty would disappear. The deposits, of which there are close to €300 billion, would become sovereign. Peoples’ fears would be assuaged and, if done properly, it would not cost a penny.

The Irish government would be using its well-earned reputation as a sovereign entity, not its hard-earned cash, to solve this crisis. People will not bet against it. This would guarantee the deposit side of the banks’ balance sheets, where there is no problem but uncertainty. Therefore, we would solve the confidence side of the dilemma.
Furthermore, with the return of confidence, the banks would have time to sort out their asset problems. These loans on property will never be paid back in full, and the banks will need to negotiate with debtors.

I think the bit in bold is my favourite.

Farmer Pudsey

djpbarry wrote: »

Bollocks it isn’t. He spells it out here in an article from 2008, stating unequivocally that a blanket bank guarantee would be a great idea:
.

If you read the article he refers to a depoait guarantee not a blanket bank guarantee. This is where all the confusion is if we had guaranteed all deposits and new bonds we would only be in half the sh##e. Also he refered to acting quickly the guarantee was to give time, it did. However there was no follow up and no heads began to roll for nearly a year.

K-9

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

If you read the article he refers to a depoait guarantee not a blanket bank guarantee. This is where all the confusion is if we had guaranteed all deposits and new bonds we would only be in half the sh##e. Also he refered to acting quickly the guarantee was to give time, it did. However there was no follow up and no heads began to roll for nearly a year.

While that is true, that's the problem with an economist with no experience of politics, law etc. giving advice.

In contrast, a full guarantee would have meant full protection for all creditors, all our own deposits and those of the foreign institutions who have lent to the Irish banks.

All creditors, all our deposits and lending from foreign institutions.

As time goes on it seems to me that the Department of Finance was giving safe, prudent and reasonable advice while Lenihan just wanted to make a name for himself, latching onto pop economics from McWilliams because he was the in thing.

The Corinthian

McWilliams is a media economist. That means that he is a journalist with an economics background, and that background is that he has been a journalist since 2002 - almost as long as he worked professionally within the financial sector.

So while he has a greater background in understanding economic matters than most, he's ultimately a journalist now and much of his background is effectively out of date and if he's kept up, he's done so as a journalist and not as someone working as an economist.

Which is irrelevant to the article in question, because it is principally a political piece. Indeed, one could accuse him of having acted in the tradition of an agent provocateur as many journalists do, such as Kevin Myers.

Doing so sells books and newspapers and ends up being debated on the Internet. But don't make the mistake that he is some sort of prophesying expert. None of these media economists are; they get things right and they get things wrong and if they're lucky people like their style of writing enough that they ignore the latter.

All they are, is people who can write and know slightly more than your average bloke on the street - in the land of the blind, the one-eyed man is king.

So the article being cited is interesting, makes a few good points, but it also makes a few silly sensational ones for the semi-illiterate who like to get excited about these things. But there's nothing new in any of it, nor should it be taken any more seriously simply because he's written it.

_Kaiser_

Well according to Breaking News this morning, Frau Merkel is insisting that we all continue on the austerity train despite the increasing levels of dissent from her European subjects citizens

No doubt Attaboy Enda will back her to the hilt of course, but she seems to be increasingly isolated on this one.

djpbarry

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

If you read the article he refers to a depoait guarantee not a blanket bank guarantee.

The point is that I've frequently seen McWilliams cited as an example of an "economist" who is/was fundamentally opposed to the guarantee - the reality is obviously a bit greyer.

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Well according to Breaking News this morning, Frau Merkel is insisting that we all continue on the austerity train despite the increasing levels of dissent from her European subjects citizens

No doubt Attaboy Enda will back her to the hilt of course, but she seems to be increasingly isolated on this one.

You say this like there’s a reasonable alternative to Ireland not spending billions more than it has on day-to-day spending?

meglome

Kaiser2000 wrote: »

Well according to Breaking News this morning, Frau Merkel is insisting that we all continue on the austerity train despite the increasing levels of dissent from her European subjects citizens

No doubt Attaboy Enda will back her to the hilt of course, but she seems to be increasingly isolated on this one.

I can't help but laugh at this. Our lack of money is what is driving austerity, or rather spending way more then we take in. Merkel stating the reality has no bearing on it.

meglome

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

If you read the article he refers to a depoait guarantee not a blanket bank guarantee. This is where all the confusion is if we had guaranteed all deposits and new bonds we would only be in half the sh##e. Also he refered to acting quickly the guarantee was to give time, it did. However there was no follow up and no heads began to roll for nearly a year.

Don't a lot of the bondholders have the exact same status as depositors? So how can what he says work?

paddy0090

meglome wrote: »

Don't a lot of the bondholders have the exact same status as depositors? So how can what he says work?

I'll take a stab at this...
In the normal context of things yes they do. If you throw in some extra stabilizers like a guarantee you can decide who specifically who that guarantee applies to, irrespective of what status they are afforded under normal circumstances. i.e. it only applies to people/institutions with money on deposit in the bank x, y, ... not people who have lent money to the bank in the form of a bond.

There is the possibility that the central bank probably had no idea what kind of instruments or contracts the banks had used and panicked deciding they were all equals. Though I think if this played out in court the commmon case would have seen most bondholders seperable from depositors(it would have only cost a few extra billion.

The other thing is that a partial guarantee isn't much of a guarantee. That is for the guarantee to work at all they needed to guarantee everything. So you're right for the wrong reason. The UKs bank resolution mechanism was able to write 50% of senior bondholders so I assume making the distinction is possibile just not really worth while in the context of a blanket guarantee. Even loaded with deposits they would have required access to the bond markets which wouldn't have looked favourably on them following Darlings decsion in the UK.

Drumpot

andrew wrote: »

He gave a talk recently, in which he used Argentina as a good example regarding defaults. Combined with OP's quote, I think it's clear that the man's an utter ****ehawk. It's an incredibly facile argument to make, that Germany's trying to invade Europe again. It's Something you'd expect to see from a fear-mongering nutter posting on the conspiracy forum. It's devoid of any analysis as to why the situation is even mildly comparable to WWII in any operative sense. Instead, he just throws the statements out there as though it's totally cool to imply that Germans have an innate desire to subjugate entire nations, cos, well they're Germans of course that's what they do! Because nothing they're doing could possibly be in the EU's interests, nope! They're just going for a European invasion mark III. And the extended analogy is just bizarre, it's like he thinks his readers have the mental age of seven, and could only understand something fully if it was explained by sock puppets. ****e-hawk. /rant

I agree with pretty much all of what you posted, but must pull you up on one fatal flaw that I read regularly. Specifically, to suggest that the Germans do not have an innate desire to subjegate Europe.

I agree with the statement but I think if history has shown us anything, its that with great power usually, eventually comes great corruption and its very difficult to stop the wrong people getting into high positions.

The Americans rape the sh*t out of any country that is financially viable for them (or pisses them off) and the world looks on and shrugs its shoulders. Do you think most Americans want to think that their country is doing this or are do they allow themselves to be convinced that whatever war is going on is to defend the U.S. ? In 2003 the washington post did a poll in which 70% (3% error margin) of Americans believed Sadaam Hussein was involved in Sep 11 (which was why they had to invade Iraq).

Propaganda, that old chestnut, still being used to fool the masses. The Germans, despite being stereotypically assumed to be an intelligent race, are no less susceptible to being duped or conformed then any other country.

To presume that Germanys intentions are all for the greater good is just as naieve as assuming they are intentionally bad (I am not suggesting that you are saying either btw). The above U.S. example was just to show that you dont have to have bad intentions as a nation to do bad things. Indeed in many regards the German people mightnt give two sh*ts whats going on in Europe (or what austerity is being forced on others), once they benefit from it in someway.

I always prefer to see people question conventional wisdom , then to defend it by comparing it to a worse alternative. McWilliams uses metaphors because the average person likes to hear information relayed to them in a manner that they understand and relate to.

Economic language is boring and difficult to understand. I enjoy listening to constantine Gurdgiev but know the average Joe would be scratching their head listening to his very well put together points (that are backed up usually with statistics). You only need look at whenever there is your average TD sitting beside the likes of Stephen Donnelly or indeed Constantine (on Vinnie Brown) to see how much real information and intelligence can intimidate the masses.

I find Mc Williams annoying so much and so often its not funny, but I find his techniques (while cringeworthy) are better communicators with the masses then statistics and facts. Its sad, but just a fact in itself . .

Scofflaw

Drumpot wrote:

I always prefer to see people question conventional wisdom , then to defend it by comparing it to a worse alternative. McWilliams uses metaphors because the average person likes to hear information relayed to them in a manner that they understand and relate to.

Economic language is boring and difficult to understand. I enjoy listening to constantine Gurdgiev but know the average Joe would be scratching their head listening to his very well put together points (that are backed up usually with statistics). You only need look at whenever there is your average TD sitting beside the likes of Stephen Donnelly or indeed Constantine (on Vinnie Brown) to see how much real information and intelligence can intimidate the masses.

I find Mc Williams annoying so much and so often its not funny, but I find his techniques (while cringeworthy) are better communicators with the masses then statistics and facts. Its sad, but just a fact in itself . .

There's a lot to be said for the ability to communicate a complex topic in a way that's understood, but it's only difficult if you're genuinely communicating the complex topic, and I don't see that that's what McWiliams does. He puts himself forward as an economist, but his articles aren't economics - they're journalism, and increasingly red-top journalism. He thinks of a story, he writes the story, and never mind the economics.

Gurdgiev is an economist, John McHale is an economist - neither communicate in McWilliams style, but then neither of them put out fact-free stories posing as being the work of an economist who just happens to have an incredible facility for communication. Their work is far less readable because it really is economics, with all the shadings, complexities, and nuance that involves.

McWilliams, on the contrary, is able to 'communicate economics' at the level of journalism because he's not actually communicating economics at all. He's communicating his opinion, in the same way as Kevin Myers, while pretending to be demystifying economics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Drumpot

Scofflaw wrote: »

There's a lot to be said for the ability to communicate a complex topic in a way that's understood, but it's only difficult if you're genuinely communicating the complex topic, and I don't see that that's what McWiliams does. He puts himself forward as an economist, but his articles aren't economics - they're journalism, and increasingly red-top journalism. He thinks of a story, he writes the story, and never mind the economics.

Gurdgiev is an economist, John McHale is an economist - neither communicate in McWilliams style, but then neither of them put out fact-free stories posing as being the work of an economist who just happens to have an incredible facility for communication. Their work is far less readable because it really is economics, with all the shadings, complexities, and nuance that involves.

McWilliams, on the contrary, is able to 'communicate economics' at the level of journalism because he's not actually communicating economics at all. He's communicating his opinion, in the same way as Kevin Myers, while pretending to be demystifying economics.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I am not usually one to disagree with you and will bow to your better wisdom but isnt the slogan "Find me a one armed economist" such that economics isnt an exact science from an interpretation point of view ? That is, that even many economists cant make their own minds up on certain aspects of economics (austerity v stimulus), let alone the disagreements they might have with one another!.

I wont pretend to have an extensive understanding of economics, but do think there is merit to the techniques that McWilliams uses. The messages and content can indeed be very limited (if at all relevant), but there was at time when he did have a credible column.

I dont like defending McWilliams because I think hes the Jordan of economics (media wh*re) and find some of his stuff annoying (some offencive), but he is probably informing more people in an "economics for dummies" manner then other more credible economists who might talk sense but have 0 impact on the larger audience.

Im not saying its all accurate or even relevant (metaphor overload!) to the point he is making, but it creates debate which I think is good. Kind of like the way people take Eddie Hobbs at face and sometimes he is talking sh*te and pandering to the masses at the expense of prudent advice. I still get to put people straight (including the fact that his financial advice hasnt always gone right for investors!).

Scofflaw

Drumpot wrote: »

I am not usually one to disagree with you and will bow to your better wisdom but isnt the slogan "Find me a one armed economist" such that economics isnt an exact science from an interpretation point of view ? That is, that even many economists cant make their own minds up on certain aspects of economics (austerity v stimulus), let alone the disagreements they might have with one another!.

I wont pretend to have an extensive understanding of economics, but do think there is merit to the techniques that McWilliams uses. The messages and content can indeed be very limited (if at all relevant), but there was at time when he did have a credible column.

I think you can take someone like McHale, and someone like Gurdgiev, and throw in, say, Michael Taft, and they'll all disagree with each other, certainly. They'll do so armed with models, equations, and even occasionally facts, because they're economists. And, impolite of me as it is to say so, they'll probably all be fairly wrong and a little bit right - again, because they're economists.

That's not in any sense a reflection on the mental calibre of those mentioned - economics is trying to do a very much harder job than rocket science, armed with only the same tools.

But they are at least economists.

Drumpot wrote: »

I dont like defending McWilliams because I think hes the Jordan of economics (media wh*re) and find some of his stuff annoying (some offencive), but he is probably informing more people in an "economics for dummies" manner then other more credible economists who might talk sense but have 0 impact on the larger audience.

Im not saying its all accurate or even relevant (metaphor overload!) to the point he is making, but it creates debate which I think is good. Kind of like the way people take Eddie Hobbs at face and sometimes he is talking sh*te and pandering to the masses at the expense of prudent advice. I still get to put people straight (including the fact that his financial advice hasnt always gone right for investors!).

I wouldn't mind if McWilliams rested his credibility on his ability to write an engaging piece of narrative - but he doesn't. People think he's an economist, which he isn't, and he does trade on that - he styles himself "economist, author, broadcaster", or something like that.

That's not unlike someone getting publicly involved in a debate over, say, vaccination, posing as a public health expert, when they worked in a pharmaceutical company for a few years after their degree, and then went to work in journalism. It may add an angle to the debate, but the angle is presented as something it's not, which is an expert and critically reasoned contribution to the debate. As far as I can see, he simply packages his personal opinions as attractive narratives and bills those as economic analysis.

There's no sign that McWilliams produces his output by looking deeply into a problem, comparing and contrasting the various economic theories and reviewing the relevant facts, and then being incredibly good at digesting the resulting expert vision and communicating it to a lay audience. To be honest, that's not a big surprise, because people who can really do that are rarer than hen's teeth, even on a global level. And McWilliams is not one of those highly valuable few - he just poses as one.

cordially,
Scofflaw

K-9

Garret was a fine economist, as was O'Donoghue.

Tbh, I'd have far more comfort in their type of economics than Gurdgiev vs. Krugman.