90% of Irish economists 'back a Yes vote'

meglome

90% of Irish economists 'back a Yes vote'

Survey claims nine out of ten economists back Yes vote

Nine out of ten of "Ireland’s leading economists" say a yes vote in the Fiscal Treaty is in Ireland’s best interest, according to a new survey,

The Indecon International Economic Consultants survey of the views of 44 economists in Ireland also claims that one of the most significant impacts of the Treaty vote arises from the inability to access EMS Funds if Ireland voted ‘No’.

More than eight out of ten economists surveyed (84%) believe that even if funding "could be secured from other sources", Ireland would be likely to face a higher cost of borrowing.

They also said that the fiscal clauses in the Treaty would not impact on austerity in Ireland, or impose additional cuts in public expenditure.

According to the survey, 81 per cent of economists believe that a ‘Yes’ vote would not necessitate additional cuts in policy expenditure in the period to end 2013 and over 71 per cent believe it would not result in additional cuts after 2013.

http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/Politics/90%25+of+Irish+economists+%27back+a+Yes+vote%27/id/19410615-5218-4fbf-93e6-390982093312

I posted it in another thread but I think it's important enough to have one of it's own.

Very positive news for the Yes campaign.

Ozymandius2011

The consultants who carried out this poll, Indecon, have been in receipt of contracts from the Irish govt for several years.

Merrionstreet.ie wrote:

Minister Coveney announces Indecon consultants to carry out review of the Irish Horse Racing industry

Simon Coveney TD, Minister for Agriculture, Food and the Marine today announced the awarding of a contract to carry out a review of certain aspects of the Horse Racing Industry had been awarded to Indecon.

The Minister said “The Review is intended to provide the basis for a renewed impetus to the development of the horse racing industry. It will cover a number of crucial aspects of the industry – legislation, governance structures, the size, structure and nomination process for appointments to the Board of Horse Racing Ireland, streamlining of functions and the funding model for the industry.”

Minister Coveney confirmed that the contract had been awarded to Indecon following the conclusion of a competitive tendering process which was published on the Government’s etenders procurement website.

Referring to the stakeholder consultation process facilitated by his Department as part of the Review, Minister Coveney said “I am delighted with the level of interest and enthusiasm demonstrated by stakeholders in the Review. My Department received in excess of 40 submissions which have been passed to Indecon for consideration.”

The Minister repeated his belief in the potential of the thoroughbred sector to make an even greater contribution to the country’s economic recovery in the future and said he looked forward to receiving the report of the review. He stated “the report will be important in providing the basis for actions to underpin the development of the horse racing and breeding sector into the future.”

Note for Editors

The Terms and Reference for this review are as follows:

1. Review the legislation governing the Irish horse racing industry, in particular the Irish Horseracing Industry Act 1994, the Horse and Greyhound Racing (Betting Charges and Levies) Act, 1999, Horse and Greyhound Racing Act 2001 and the Horse Racing Ireland (Membership) Act 2001, and assess whether they provide the most appropriate governance structures for the horseracing industry.

2. Evaluate whether the Horse Racing Ireland Board structure, size and nomination process is appropriate and effective. Make recommendations for change, if necessary.

3. Consider the scope for streamlining all of the functions assigned under the legislation having regard to efficiency, effectiveness, economy and independence of regulatory decisions and make recommendations accordingly.

4. Review the current funding arrangements for the industry having regard to funding systems in place in other major racing competitor countries and recommend an appropriate funding structure for the long term development of the sector.

Also under the FF govt:

(Then) Taoiseach Brian Cowen wrote:

The Taoiseach: In September 2010, following a public tender process, Indecon International Economic Consultants were awarded the contract to provide technical economic assistance to officials in Government Departments conducting Regulatory Impact Analyses (RIAs) and other technical exercises relating to the Better Regulation agenda. The aim is to help Departments improve the quality of the quantitative assessment of legislative proposals.


In the OECD Report on Better Regulation in Ireland (November 2010), the OECD recognised the need to improve the quality of quantitative analysis conducted in this context and to make greater use of this support. An earlier independent Review of the Operation of RIA, which was published in 2008, also recommended maintaining this support for Departments. The contract with Indecon International Economic Consultants is for a period of 2 years. Departments must first seek the prior approval of the Department of the Taoiseach to avail of this support and the number of consultancy days is agreed based on a needs assessment. To date, €13,929.70 has been spent under this contract.

[174]

In January 2007, following a tender process, Indecon International Economic Consultants were commissioned to conduct a review of the Irish Annuities Market. The Review was undertaken under the auspices of the Partnership Pensions Review Group comprising of representatives of Government Departments, the Pensions Board, IBEC and ICTU, and established under the terms of Towards 2016. The report of this review was published in October 2007. The cost of this review was €133,100.

rasper

Wonder how many of this 90% pretended that we'd have a soft landing , people will vote no because their is a total lack of trust and that the Irish people have been sold already

PopeBuckfastXVI

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The consultants who carried out this poll, Indecon, have been in receipt of contracts from the Irish govt for several years.Also under the FF govt:

Why don't you come out and say what you are implying here?

Ozymandius2011

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Why don't you come out and say what you are implying here?

I would have found this more credible coming from a consultancy not so tied to the political Establishment. The govt is giving them contracts, and that same govt is desperate for this referendum to pass.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I would have found this more credible coming from a consultancy not so tied to the political Establishment. The govt is giving them contracts, and that same govt is desperate for this referendum to pass.

And you think that this has caused them to...

Ozymandius2011

I'm not accusing them on impropriety but I think the press are giving too much weight to this poll, having regard to what I've said. It doesn't help in the impartiality stakes if only in perception terms that they are in receipt of govt contracts.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I'm not accusing them on impropriety but I think the press are giving too much weight to this poll, having regard to what I've said. It doesn't help in the impartiality stakes if only in perception terms that they are in receipt of govt contracts.

So you're not accusing them of impropriety, just that everyone should probably think that there was impropriety involved. More than a little dastardly, in my opinion.

Ozymandius2011

Irish economy to grow in 2010, economist tells packed crowd at Paddy Ryan Memorial Lecture.

Vita nova

It's not just these economists that believe a yes is better for the economy, they are supported in this believe by the multinationals, SMEs, and leading business organizations, for example:

-Small Firms Association of Ireland
-Irish Exports Association
-Irish Business and Employers Confederation
-Chambers [of commerce] Ireland. (member survey: 75% yes, 85% yes excl. UDs)

Ozymandius2011

Vita nova wrote: »

It's not just these economists that believe a yes is better for the economy, they are supported in this believe by the multinationals, SMEs, and leading business organizations, for example:

-Small Firms Association of Ireland
-Irish Exports Association
-Irish Business and Employers Confederation
-Chambers [of commerce] Ireland. (member survey: 75% yes, 85% yes excl. UDs)

I think the Partnership process has led to business organisations becoming co-opted with govt positions to an disturbing degree.

I would like Indecon to release the names of all 44 economists so we can scrutinise the accuracy of previous predictions from them, and draw appropriate conclusions for their credibility now.

beeftotheheels

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I think the Partnership process has led to business organisations becoming co-opted with govt positions to an disturbing degree.

Except for Libertas?

Ozymandius2011

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Except for Libertas?

Since when are they are a business organisation?

beeftotheheels

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Since when are they are a business organisation?

I'm sorry, St Columbanas A-G, so difficult to distinguish.

guinnessdrinker

Normally on seeing a statistic like that one would come to the opinion that "90% of economists can't be wrong". However on this occasion, I would be very interested in what the 10% that do not back a "Yes" vote have to say.

Ozymandius2011

David McWilliams has just come out on Marian Finucane as "leaning towards a no" (his words). He is one of the few Irish economists to predict the property-bubble which he did in a mini-series on RTE a few yrs back. I think the Irish people would do well to remember whose predictions came true in the past. Jim Power wants a yes vote and he predicted a "soft landing".

oscarBravo

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

I think the Partnership process has led to business organisations becoming co-opted with govt positions to an disturbing degree.

Yes, I think everyone would agree that for-profit commercial businesses will align themselves with a government position that is, in fact, not in their own best interests.


You couldn't make it up.

swampgas

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

David McWilliams has just come out on Marian Finucane as "leaning towards a no" (his words). He is one of the few Irish economists to predict the property-bubble which he did in a mini-series on RTE a few yrs back. I think the Irish people would do well to remember whose predictions came true in the past. Jim Power wants a yes vote and he predicted a "soft landing".

IMO McWilliams has a slight problem here: as a celebrity economist a lot of his reputation is tied up with his image as a contrarian, goes-against-the-mainstream, calls-it-as-it-really-is kind of guy.

He may well consider a "yes" vote to be the best option, but I reckon he is afraid of being accused of selling out if he does anything as silly as go along with the government opinion.

meglome

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

The consultants who carried out this poll, Indecon, have been in receipt of contracts from the Irish govt for several years.Also under the FF govt:

What is it with you no guys that when people disagree with you get straight to the suggestions they're paid off (amongst all the other tactics).

meglome wrote: »

Actually I'm going to add another one.

No side tactics…
1. Pull on the heart strings.
2. Try to drum up nationalistic fervour.
3. Claim the person is a sheep, an idiot or whatever other name they fancy.
4. Scaremongering. But they *are* stealing our babies.
5. Blame anyone else, especially the Germans. (Often included with xenophobic mentions of Nazis, Fascists etc).
6. Claim the person is being paid for their opinions.
7. Claim bias at every possible opportunity.

No 7. is interesting as especially SF are great at claiming bias but their default position on every treaty with Europe is a no.

I have said Declan Ganley is a liar... well... because he is. He has consistently said things that are not true.

rasper wrote: »

Wonder how many of this 90% pretended that we'd have a soft landing , people will vote no because their is a total lack of trust and that the Irish people have been sold already

90% of that list is around 40 of our top economists so why don't you find out how many said we'd have a soft landing? I can't help but notice that the handful of economists supporting a no don't get the same scrutiny though.

And sorry but if people are foolish enough to vote no because it's raining that day or whatever other nonsense reason then there's nothing anyone can do about that.

steelcityblues

swampgas wrote: »

IMO McWilliams has a slight problem here: as a celebrity economist a lot of his reputation is tied up with his image as a contrarian, goes-against-the-mainstream, calls-it-as-it-really-is kind of guy.

He may well consider a "yes" vote to be the best option, but I reckon he is afraid of being accused of selling out if he does anything as silly as go along with the government opinion.

You do realise in 'respectable' official Ireland it is much easier to say publicly that you're a yes person on matters European?

Yet, hear you are patronisingly saying that one economist did not come to his decision of a no vote on his own volition, it must be due to fear of 'selling out'. Even if we are talking about the same guy who went against mainstream economic opinion, years ago. This is a new level of biased opinion.

meglome

steelcityblues wrote: »

You do realise in 'respectable' official Ireland it is much easier to say publicly that you're a yes person on matters European?

Yet, hear you are patronisingly saying that one economist did not come to his decision of a no vote on his own volition, it must be due to fear of 'selling out'. Even if we are talking about the same guy who went against mainstream economic opinion, years ago. This is a new level of biased opinion.

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/seamus-coffey-david-mcwilliams-analysis-of-private-debt-is-stark-but-it-also-100pc-wrong-3000117.html

Seamus Coffey: David McWilliams’ analysis of private debt is stark ... but it also 100pc wrong

DAVID McWilliams wrote an article for Wednesday’s Irish Independent under the heading "Private debt so enormous that default is only option". The conclusion is stark: In Ireland, given the magnitude of the debt, it is very clear to me that only a fraction of this household and corporate debt will be actually paid off. The figures scream default.

The figures in the piece do indeed scream default, but the figures are wrong. 100pc wrong.

Studies have shown that an appropriate maximum ratio of mortgage debt to gross household income is around four. The data provided in the McWilliams article indicate that total debt in Ireland is more than eight times Gross National Product, a widely used measure of national income. For countries it has been argued that they should not have a debt greater than three times national income.

If Irish debt were eight times national income, Ireland would indeed be bust and there would be no way the debt could even be carried, never mind paid off. With such a debt burden default would indeed be an inevitable outcome.

However, Irish debt is actually around four times national income and using figures 100pc greater than this is misleading. The data come from the Bank of International Settlements (BIS) who try to use gross and unconsolidated data as a measure of overall indebtedness. This can lead to unusual results.

KindOfIrish

Vita nova wrote: »

It's not just these economists that believe a yes is better for the economy, they are supported in this believe by the multinationals, SMEs, and leading business organizations, for example:

-Small Firms Association of Ireland
-Irish Exports Association
-Irish Business and Employers Confederation
-Chambers [of commerce] Ireland. (member survey: 75% yes, 85% yes excl. UDs)

All the above supported property bubble as well :rolleyes:

meglome

KindOfIrish wrote: »

All the above supported property bubble as well :rolleyes:

Did they? In what way?

swampgas

steelcityblues wrote: »

You do realise in 'respectable' official Ireland it is much easier to say publicly that you're a yes person on matters European?

Yet, hear you are patronisingly saying that one economist did not come to his decision of a no vote on his own volition, it must be due to fear of 'selling out'. Even if we are talking about the same guy who went against mainstream economic opinion, years ago. This is a new level of biased opinion.

My point is that McWilliams has made a name for himself by going against mainstream opinion - and he may feel under pressure to maintain his anti-mainstream position, thus limiting his ability to fully support a Yes vote, if that's what he really thought was right.

To me, "leaning towards a No" is a strange position for him to take. Surely he has figured out at this stage whether he is for or against the treaty? Why the fence-sitting weasel words, unless he wants to allow himself room to manoeuvre in the event of a Yes vote?

Monty Burnz

I'm not sure whether I'm a 'yes' person or a 'no' person on this issue, but I'd ask the 'no' voters to ask themselves whether they would be making the same arguments they are here if the poll found that 90% of the economists agreed with them.

christmas2012

irish economists have been wrong before,remember the recession?

anyway,i think i might hazard a yes vote simply because it could be dangerous for us not to,ie having to borrow money at a higher interest.

Monty Burnz

christmas2012 wrote: »

irish economists have been wrong before,remember the recession?

anyway,i think i might hazard a yes vote simply because it could be dangerous for us not to,ie having to borrow money at a higher interest.

On the other hand, the longer we keep going with the current plan (borrow, borrow, borrow), the longer we persist with an unreformed civil service and professional elite (lawyers, doctors etc.) who have been creaming off vast amounts of money and continue to do so from a now bankrupt state. Add on all of the thousands of people continuing to live in properties that they are not paying for (at the expense of the taxpayer) - I don't know, perhaps it is time to hit the reset button?

Sure, it would be carnage for a few years, but in the long run - if any proper reforms take place - we'll be better off.

swampgas

Monty Burnz wrote: »

On the other hand, the longer we keep going with the current plan (borrow, borrow, borrow), the longer we persist with an unreformed civil service and professional elite (lawyers, doctors etc.) who have been creaming off vast amounts of money and continue to do so from a now bankrupt state. Add on all of the thousands of people continuing to live in properties that they are not paying for (at the expense of the taxpayer) - I don't know, perhaps it is time to hit the reset button?

Sure, it would be carnage for a few years, but in the long run - if any proper reforms take place - we'll be better off.

The prospect appeals to me at one level - I'm impatient by nature. However the carnage really would be pretty bad, and you are making some brave assumptions to assume that (1) it only be for a few years, and (2) that the carnage wouldn't permanently damage the long term growth of the country.

Also, my worry would be that many of the vested interests you mention would escape any real reform even if we did "hit the reset button".

Monty Burnz

swampgas wrote: »

The prospect appeals to me at one level - I'm impatient by nature. However the carnage really would be pretty bad, and you are making some brave assumptions to assume that (1) it only be for a few years, and (2) that the carnage wouldn't permanently damage the long term growth of the country.

Yes, fair points.

swampgas wrote: »

Also, my worry would be that many of the vested interests you mention would escape any real reform even if we did "hit the reset button".

Yeah, I totally agree. The country seems to be run largely for the benefit of these people, and it is an act of faith to expect that to change, bar some disastrous (and comical) socialist revolution.

Ozymandius2011

Monty Burnz wrote: »

On the other hand, the longer we keep going with the current plan (borrow, borrow, borrow), the longer we persist with an unreformed civil service and professional elite (lawyers, doctors etc.) who have been creaming off vast amounts of money and continue to do so from a now bankrupt state. Add on all of the thousands of people continuing to live in properties that they are not paying for (at the expense of the taxpayer) - I don't know, perhaps it is time to hit the reset button?

Sure, it would be carnage for a few years, but in the long run - if any proper reforms take place - we'll be better off.

The Croke Park agreement shields the public sector from cuts in their sometimes exorbitant pay. The axe will fall elsewhere, except in terms of public sector job losses, which will be minimised by powerful unions. Labour will see to that.

shanered

Its an absolute disaster because nobody is able to take the bull by the horns and tackle the issues head on.
The whole economist label is not one that should lie with the same level of knowledge of certainty as an engineer or a doctor.
It is more a faith led with a few rules and broad complex systems at play that cannot be predicted due to factors and uncertainties that would be at play.
In other words, they don't really have a clue how to operate in the modern present day and would be able to tell you in hindsight how things turned out in the past and their take on the past events.
The problem is uncertainty, and economists just cannot get it right, they can guess and be right but its only a prediction.
Its easy for them to be "anti-whats happening" as they can say it when the opposite is happening and use the arguement "if you did it may way it would have been different...."
But I really believe this Referendum is much more about the politics rather then the economy, even though there are some serious blackmail type scenarios being put to us so as to vote yes in this referendum.
As it stands from the economy's point of view is that we are darned if we do and we're darned if we don't.
We need to get things in order one way or the other and the main thing we need to decide is if we can do it ourselves, or we do we need somebody to do it for us.
Signing this treaty is signing up to an indefinte contract with our money suppliers (ECB), whereby we are currently seriously in debt as it stands and spend more money running our household than we earn on a day to day basis,
and what the main part of this contract is that we will be fined if we produce a defecit.
that they will lend for day to day spending to a certain degree but will not allow us indebt ourselves for the sake of our future.
As it stands we need money so as to get this place up and running again, we have taken on huge banking debts that we shouldn't have but carrying what we have at the moment, which realistically is an country that is in huge debt and falling deeper into debt as we continue......
We have now to decide if we in our current state want to sign up in perpertuity that we can never spend more than the set amount for money to run our day-to-day services so everything seems tickedy boo for the next little while?
It really annoys me when people think this a good idea as it seems to me that people really dont see the bigger picture that slowly but surely we are handing power away from our country and that is eventually going to have serious implications for the younger generations of Ireland.

swampgas

shanered wrote: »

[...]
Signing this treaty is signing up to an indefinite contract with our money suppliers (ECB), whereby we are currently seriously in debt as it stands and spend more money running our household than we earn on a day to day basis, and what the main part of this contract is that we will be fined if we produce a deficit. That they will lend for day to day spending to a certain degree but will not allow us indebt ourselves for the sake of our future.

As it stands we need money so as to get this place up and running again, we have taken on huge banking debts that we shouldn't have but carrying what we have at the moment, which realistically is an country that is in huge debt and falling deeper into debt as we continue......

The banking debts are a one off, they have been dealt with, and there isn't much else we can do about them. The bigger issue is the deficit - we are borrowing to run the country while we sort out our finances and re-balance our budget.

The predictions are that our debt will peak then start reducing, not that it will keep on increasing forever.

As far as I see it, the current plan is to adjust the budget as fast as possible, but not too fast - if we try to adjust to quickly we do more harm than good. To tide us over while we make the adjustments, we have borrowed from the troika.

It's looking like we will need to borrow extra funds in the next few years to complete the process - that's where the ESM comes in.

If we want access, we sign up to the treaty. Otherwise we have to find alternative funding elsewhere, and that might not be possible, or it might be very expensive, slowing down our recovery. That's it in a nutshell.

Vita nova

KindOfIrish wrote: »

It's not just these economists that believe a yes is better for the economy, they are supported in this believe by the multinationals, SMEs, and leading business organizations, for example:
-Small Firms Association of Ireland
-Irish Exports Association
-Irish Business and Employers Confederation
-Chambers [of commerce] Ireland. (member survey: 75% yes, 85% yes excl. UDs)

All the above supported property bubble as well :rolleyes:

Definitely not all! Some members of some of those organisations helped create the property bubble but the majority of members are not in the property business.

What about the multinationals, the Irish Export Association and IBEC, they represent the industries that have kept this country going through the crisis and the ones that are creating jobs and tax income at the moment. They want stability and certainty, and are advocating a yes vote.

AVN_1

meglome wrote: »

http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/Politics/90%25+of+Irish+economists+%27back+a+Yes+vote%27/id/19410615-5218-4fbf-93e6-390982093312

I posted it in another thread but I think it's important enough to have one of it's own.

Very positive news for the Yes campaign.

on payroll from the state?

meglome

AVN_1 wrote: »

on payroll from the state?

Yes let's see now. They wanted to ask economists what way they'd vote on the Fiscal compact. So they ruled out those who work for banks and buildings societies etc in case there would be any bias or accusations of bias. Then they asked the rest. Unsurprisingly if you rule out economists from these large commercial entities you're going to be left with a large number who work in education.

Must be great in your world when anyone disagrees with you just assume they are being paid off and dishonest. Who should I believe now... 40 of our 'top economists' who want a Yes vote or a stranger on the internet who obviously has no clue about economics. Gosh how will I ever decide.

AVN_1

meglome wrote: »

Yes let's see now. They wanted to ask economists what way they'd vote on the Fiscal compact. So they ruled out those who work for banks and buildings societies etc in case there would be any bias or accusations of bias. Then they asked the rest. Unsurprisingly if you rule out economists from these large commercial entities you're going to be left with a large number who work in education.

Must be great in your world when anyone disagrees with you just assume they are being paid off and dishonest. Who should I believe now... 40 of our 'top economists' who want a Yes vote or a stranger on the internet who obviously has no clue about economics. Gosh how will I ever decide.

Those "top economists" have vested interests and have no clue about economics.

Ozymandius2011

Irish economists are often employed by financial institutions of the kind that got us into this mess. Remember Friends First economist Jim Power predicted a "soft landing" for the economy, as did Pat McArdle. Morgan Kelly and David McWilliams were amongst the very few that predicted disaster. McWilliams is leaning to a no vote according to his appearance on Marian Finucane. My personal opinion is that we should trust those economists who have proven correct in the past.

PopeBuckfastXVI

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Irish economists are often employed by financial institutions of the kind that got us into this mess. Remember Friends First economist Jim Power predicted a "soft landing" for the economy, as did Pat McArdle. Morgan Kelly and David McWilliams were amongst the very few that predicted disaster. McWilliams is leaning to a no vote according to his appearance on Marian Finucane. My personal opinion is that we should trust those economists who have proven correct in the past.

Hypothetically, if McWilliams came out and said that despite leaning toward no, he felt that yes was the lesser of two evils and was going to vote yes, would you change your mind on the treaty?

Ozymandius2011

PopeBuckfastXVI wrote: »

Hypothetically, if McWilliams came out and said that despite leaning toward no, he felt that yes was the lesser of two evils and was going to vote yes, would you change your mind on the treaty?

Not by itself but I would take it into account. No one person has a monopoly on my mental decisionmaking processes. I don't think it's responsible economics to sent oer a billion of Irish taxpayer's money into an ESM fund that doesn't yet exist, and that many say will not be sufficient to bail out Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland and Greece. It could turn into a Ponzi scheme in that respect.

Scofflaw

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Not by itself but I would take it into account. No one person has a monopoly on my mental decisionmaking processes. I don't think it's responsible economics to sent oer a billion of Irish taxpayer's money into an ESM fund that doesn't yet exist, and that many say will not be sufficient to bail out Spain, Italy, Portugal, Ireland and Greece. It could turn into a Ponzi scheme in that respect.

How on earth could it turn into a Ponzi scheme?

A Ponzi scheme is a fraudulent investment operation that pays returns to its investors from their own money or the money paid by subsequent investors, rather than from profit earned by the individual or organization running the operation.

Unless by "Ponzi scheme" you just mean "bad financial thing"?

puzzled,
Scofflaw

meglome

AVN_1 wrote: »

Those "top economists" have vested interests and have no clue about economics.

I'm off to have my tea leaves read. I mean what the hell as it seems we can only listen to a handful of economists who are looking for a no vote, as everyone else is biased or paid off.

I really worry that you actually believe that we should ignore at least 40 of our top economists looking for a Yes vote.

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Irish economists are often employed by financial institutions of the kind that got us into this mess. Remember Friends First economist Jim Power predicted a "soft landing" for the economy, as did Pat McArdle. Morgan Kelly and David McWilliams were amongst the very few that predicted disaster. McWilliams is leaning to a no vote according to his appearance on Marian Finucane. My personal opinion is that we should trust those economists who have proven correct in the past.

Don't know if you read the article but they didn't include economists from banks and building societies etc. I assume to stop people like you claiming the very things you have above. Yet you just claimed them anyway. Do you not wonder when so many actual experts are saying the opposite to you. When the evidence posted in here repeatedly shows you're incorrect. Do you not wonder that perhaps you wrong?

C14N

AVN_1 wrote: »

Those "top economists" have vested interests

Of course they do, we all do. This is our country's future we're voting on here.

AVN_1 wrote: »

and have no clue about economics.

Although I would have to ask how you came to the irrefutable conclusion that none of them have a clue about economics? You don't know who they are, it's anonymous, all we know is that they're the "top" economists. I'm sure it includes more than a few with PhDs on the subject, yet you seem to think they have "no clue"?

Godge

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

Irish economists are often employed by financial institutions of the kind that got us into this mess. Remember Friends First economist Jim Power predicted a "soft landing" for the economy, as did Pat McArdle. Morgan Kelly and David McWilliams were amongst the very few that predicted disaster. McWilliams is leaning to a no vote according to his appearance on Marian Finucane. My personal opinion is that we should trust those economists who have proven correct in the past.

In that case, seeing as McWilliams was wrong on the bank guarantee, his idea that turned into the worst disaster ever, has been wrong on us defaulting by the end of 2010, has been wrong on the size the national debt will reach, well then seeing as he is leaning towards a "no", I can take it that you are leaning towards a "yes".

Godge

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

David McWilliams has just come out on Marian Finucane as "leaning towards a no" (his words). He is one of the few Irish economists to predict the property-bubble which he did in a mini-series on RTE a few yrs back. I think the Irish people would do well to remember whose predictions came true in the past. Jim Power wants a yes vote and he predicted a "soft landing".

Here is another article on David mcwilliams I came across


http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/seamus-coffey-david-mcwilliams-analysis-of-private-debt-is-stark-but-it-also-100pc-wrong-3000117.html

Scofflaw

Godge wrote: »

Here is another article on David mcwilliams I came across


http://www.independent.ie/opinion/analysis/seamus-coffey-david-mcwilliams-analysis-of-private-debt-is-stark-but-it-also-100pc-wrong-3000117.html

McWilliams doesn't do facts as such - he prefers narratives, and picks figures that go with them. Easy to see why some people prefer him.

cordially,
Scofflaw

View

Godge wrote: »

In that case, seeing as McWilliams was wrong on the bank guarantee, his idea that turned into the worst disaster ever, has been wrong on us defaulting by the end of 2010, has been wrong on the size the national debt will reach, well then seeing as he is leaning towards a "no",

Is this a bit like Jens-Peter Bonde "supporting" the EU (while neglecting to mention his EU would be solely confined to just holding "Tea'n'Biccies" summits once every 5 years or so)?

Atlantis50

meglome wrote: »

http://www.businesspost.ie/#!story/Home/Politics/90%25+of+Irish+economists+%27back+a+Yes+vote%27/id/19410615-5218-4fbf-93e6-390982093312

I posted it in another thread but I think it's important enough to have one of it's own.

Very positive news for the Yes campaign.

While very few economists will always be right, it's at least more credible than what Sinn Fein, ULA, Occupy crowd, Eirigi, Nigel Farrage et al. have been going on about.

meglome

Atlantis50 wrote: »

While very few economists will always be right, it's at least more credible than what Sinn Fein, ULA, Occupy crowd, Eirigi, Nigel Farrage et al. have been going on about.

Sure agreed. I think the main point here is that it isn't 5 of our 'top economists' or 10 it's 40 looking for a Yes.

Of course from online discussions I've had they are all either 'vested interests' or all called the property bubble wrongly and therefore don't need to be listened to. (No evidence for this is forthcoming of course, usual muck throwing exercise). Oh and wait the organisation that surveyed them once did a job for the Irish government and can't be trusted. Such is the level of dishonest debate form the no camp. Everyone who disagrees is a sheep, an idiot, paid, a vested interest, biased or the establishment. It never seems to come into any of their minds that they might even be slightly wrong. I actually find that amazing.

Ozymandius2011

David McWilliams yesterday argues the Treaty "will only make things worse".

beeftotheheels

Ozymandius2011 wrote: »

David McWilliams yesterday argues the Treaty "will only make things worse".

Goodwin? Bank debt (taken on by our Government including partly at his proposal) as reparations?

David loves looking for historical analogies for our situation. Are we Argentina in 2000 or Germany in 1931? Of course he likes to simplify things to make his point, and ignore any pesky details that don't actually fit.

What I did notice however, was that David thinks that if we vote No we don't get ESM access which then justifies us negotiating the default he's been pushing.

Do Declan and David and co acknowledge a No vote means no ESM, SF pretend that a No vote still ensures ESM access, has to be said that the No side is a delightfully broad church.

the_syco

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Sure, it would be carnage for a few years, but in the long run - if any proper reforms take place - we'll be better off.

How is 1980's Ireland with no "Celtic Boom" saving us "better off"? Esp as so many jobs are from foreign companies, and a very large amount of our energy is imported.

And as this is Ireland, there's no way in hell any reforms will take place.