I am convinced that Ireland is in Serious trouble

KomradeBishop

andrew wrote: »

I disagree. Criticisms of Economics, like that 'debunking economics' stuff are as far as I can tell bourne of complete and utter ignorance of what is actually taught and why it's taught. The "Students of trinity for economic pluralism" had an article in the University Times recently, which was crap and full of demonstrably false assertions. That it was written by current, ostibsubly smart, 4th year undergrads is just depressing. Saying they should be taught more empirics, yet ignoring there are modules in Econometrics and Quants and applied economics which do just that. Lamenting a lack of 'keynesian' economics when they're taught IS-LM in first or second year. Attacking the use of simplifying assumptions in models, but only the 'unrealistic' ones :rolleyes:. Claiming that the solution to all this is to start looking at already discredited, less scientific approaches whose only contributions have already been incorporated into the Economics canon. Asserting that the only economics taught it 'neoclassical' economics, even though modern economics takes a pluralistic approach and is as much a method as anything else. Completely ignoring microeconomics. I could go on. Jesus wept.

/rant.

And in response to your point that the prediction was 'piss easy' and private debt/GDP is all that matters, if that's the case and you only need that variable to predict when a massive recession is going to happen, then go collect your Nobel because you've just obviated the need for business cycle theory.

IS-LM is a perfect example of what's wrong with economics: It is not a true representation of Keyne's views, it was developed by John Hicks, and Hicks himself disowned IS-LM.

Have you read Debunking Economics? Modern economics courses do not take a pluralistic approach. There is little dispute that economics courses focus primarily on neoclassical views - and the economics 'canon' is largely neoclassical.

You extensively cover Austrian, Post-Keynesian, Marxist economics, throughout whole economics courses? I doubt it - they are usually a footnote at best.

Business cycle theory - if referencing RBCT - is itself debunked neoclassical nonsense; it is exactly models like that, which made economists incapable of predicting crises. Better ways of predicting/viewing crises, like debt-deflation theories, are far superior.
Remember again: Mainstream macroeconomic theories have largely gotten the functioning of Banks, Debt and Money wrong, going back 70-80 years; you know this yourself, from the Bank of England thread on Economics, where the true nature of bank lending is properly described. It's the most fundamental part of the macro-economy, and mainstream economics has been getting it wrong for most of a century.

Trying to build a macroeconomic theory, based on microeconomic foundations - as RBCT tries to - is a large part of what is wrong with economics today.

RecordStraight

KomradeBishop wrote: »

Trying to build a macroeconomic theory, based on microeconomic foundations - as RBCT tries to - is a large part of what is wrong with economics today.

So you understand macroeconomics WITHOUT any microeconomic foundation?

How does that work?

(I'm assuming you are ignoring my earlier post )

KomradeBishop

RecordStraight wrote: »

Yes, we went in big circles then where I asked you which basic principles are wrong, and you cited the law of marginal utility as being 'wrong' because there were exceptions. I pointed out that the exceptions are taught even in secondary school, as with all the other basic principles that have exceptions.

You then leaped from principles that have exceptions to 'neoclassical economics is all rubbish, and is the only thing taught'. I pointed out that, even in the Leaving Cert (never mind 3rd level) students are introduced to everything from Thomas Aquinas and Mercantilism all the way to Monetarism - at least 6 different schools of thought.

I'm still hoping to discover how you have a better understanding of Economics than that of even an LC student that does not rely on basic principles such as the Laws of Supply and Demand or the Law of Diminishing Marginal Utility.

You're avoiding the post I cited again, where I explain a massive/major flaw in current mainstream economic theory, only to again give a summary of my views from the other thread, that you tailor to be favourable to yourself.

RecordStraight

KomradeBishop wrote: »

You're avoiding the post I cited again, where I explain a massive/major flaw in current mainstream economic theory, only to again give a summary of my views from the other thread, that you tailor to be favourable to yourself.

You refuse to outline what you base your standing of economics on, seeing as you have rubbished the entirety of microeconomics.

Can you please explain?

Herb Powell

lol

Greece is in serious trouble.

Ukraine is in serious trouble.

Ireland is not in "serious trouble". Bitta perspective.

KomradeBishop

RecordStraight wrote: »

So you understand macroeconomics WITHOUT any microeconomic foundation?

How does that work?

(I'm assuming you are ignoring my earlier post )

If someone has only been taught macroeconomic theories, which rely on microfoundations, then there's a very high chance that they have an extremely poor understanding of macroeconomics.

There are tons of macroeconomic theories which don't rely on microfoundations: A big one, is Wynne Godleys 'sectoral balances', which is just basic accounting tracking money flows between the public, private and foreign sector.

That alone, upturns a ton of mainstream macroeconomics - and it's just basic maths/accounting.

Just a little Samba

Herb Powell wrote: »

lol

Greece is in serious trouble.

Ukraine is in serious trouble.

Ireland is not in "serious trouble". Bitta perspective.

Women in India are oppressed, women in Saudi are oppressed, that doesn't mean that gender, sexual and reproductive rights aren't a problem in Ireland.

You call it perspective, I call it whataboutery.

KomradeBishop

RecordStraight wrote: »

You refuse to outline what you base your standing of economics on, seeing as you have rubbished the entirety of microeconomics.

Can you please explain?

I don't have to outline a competing theory, to debunk neoclassical economics.

Herb Powell

Just a little Samba wrote: »

Women in India are oppressed, women in Saudi are oppressed, that doesn't mean that gender, sexual and reproductive rights aren't a problem in Ireland.

You call it perspective, I call it whataboutery.

But hold on like.

I never said we are a uptopian country. Calling it serious trouble and saying the country is headed for ruin though is just the usual doom porn shhite that people on this site (and in real life I suppose) seem to get off on.

Just a little Samba

Herb Powell wrote: »

But hold on like.

I never said we are a uptopian country. Calling it serious trouble and saying the country is headed for ruin though is just the usual doom porn shhite that people on this site (and in real life I suppose) seem to get off on.

Realistically, if QE doesn't work we ARE in serious trouble, there's no denying that.

I hope I'm wrong, but to be honest, it doesn't look good long term.

djburchgrove

yes there is an argument that Internet shopping is really harming local retail, but for whatever reason retailers continually charge 30% more than online prices.

these retailers have to get used to the idea of the new global economy we live in. My general rule is if the local shop can come within 10% of the price I get online (for electronics example) then Ill but local, but I like many others can't afford to just be nice and spend 30% more in a local shop because it might be the morally correct thing to do.

andrew

KomradeBishop wrote: »

IS-LM is a perfect example of what's wrong with economics: It is not a true representation of Keyne's views, it was developed by John Hicks, and Hicks himself disowned IS-LM.

Keynes was OK with it as a representation of his views, so that's good enough for me. I'm aware that there's considerable debate about what Keynes actually meant about a lot of stuff, it's too bad he didn't use more maths in order to make it clearer.

Have you read Debunking Economics? Modern economics courses do not take a pluralistic approach. There is little dispute that economics courses focus primarily on neoclassical views - and the economics 'canon' is largely neoclassical.

No, but I've got a degree in those Economics courses which 'Debunking Econonomics' presumably debunks, and I'm in the middle of an Economics post-grad right now, so I've got at decent idea of what modern economics courses focus on, and the 'canon' is a synthesis of a bunch of different ideas, converging on a methodology more than anything else. I've been studying behavioural economics for the last 5 weeks, specifically looking at explantions for why people don't act in accordance with standard assumptions - a course which 'debunking economics' no doubt assumes never exists in modern economics departments.

You extensively cover Austrian, Post-Keynesian, Marxist economics, throughout whole economics courses? I doubt it - they are usually a footnote at best.

No, we didn’t cover those particular schools of thought for the same reason that modern doctors aren’t taught about humours and the like. Anything useful which those schools have contributed (price theory, for example, from Austrian economics) has been subsumed into what we just call ‘economics,’ and the rest is…not economics. I’m sure the Austrian belief that Empirics aren’t a thing will yield much better Economic forecasts. Suggesting that those courses be taught in response to current failings of economic theory is like suggesting that doctors start taking homeopathy seriously because people keep dying of cancer.

Business cycle theory - if referencing RBCT - is itself debunked neoclassical nonsense; it is exactly models like that, which made economists incapable of predicting crises. Better ways of predicting/viewing crises, like debt-deflation theories, are far superior.

I wasn't referencing real business cycle theory, I was referencing the study of business cycles more generally.

I can't get my head around the fact that even after emigration of the last few years, people dropping off the stats, that unemployment is still over 10% and we are supposedly in the midst of a "booming" economy according to Enda.

If we ever lose the low corporate tax rate or if neighbouring countries also drop their corporate tax rate then I think we will be completely fecked.

Just a little Samba

Deleted User wrote: »

I can't get my head around the fact that even after emigration of the last few years, people dropping off the stats, that unemployment is still over 10% and we are supposedly in the midst of a "booming" economy according to Enda.

If we ever lose the low corporate tax rate or if neighbouring countries also drop their corporate tax rate then I think we will be completely fecked.

I actually think the corporation tax thing is massively over played in terms of importance. Other countries have functioning rates of similar if not lower %'s but we still attract business over them.

A young, educated and English speaking workforce on the edge of Europe, trading in Euro is more likely the attraction at present, although I'm sure the tax rate itself was the initial catalyst that attracted the big IT and Pharma companies back in the 90's.

Idbatterim

yes there is an argument that Internet shopping is really harming local retail, but for whatever reason retailers continually charge 30% more than online prices.

eh yeah, rates, higher vat here than in most other EU counties, public liability insurance and all the other business costs, are they meant to be able to compete with the buying power of amazon etc who ship from massive distribution centres with insane buying power?

harvey norman for years have posted significant losses, so the idea that they are creaming it off is wide of the mark, the competition is so intense, you have argos, xtravision, tesco etc whose core business isnt harvey norman, all getting in on the act to an extent, then the plethora of online sellers...

RecordStraight

KomradeBishop wrote: »

I don't have to outline a competing theory, to debunk neoclassical economics.

Ok, but that's a bit like the guy who rubbishes the theory of Gravity but has no other explanation for how things work. And, no offence, I'd be rather slow to take advice on Physics from the guy.

Just a little Samba

Just a little Samba wrote: »

I actually think the corporation tax thing is massively over played in terms of importance. Other countries have functioning rates of similar if not lower %'s but we still attract business over them.

A young, educated and English speaking workforce on the edge of Europe, trading in Euro is more likely the attraction at present, although I'm sure the tax rate itself was the initial catalyst that attracted the big IT and Pharma companies back in the 90's.

I think it is important, as all the experts were talking about our "export led recovery", and most of our exporting companies are foreign multinationals.

Anyway, a young, educated and English speaking workforce in India is far more lucrative nowadays given the proximity with the Emerging Markets of Asia. Europe is not a growth area for modern multinationals, with a declining, aging population and a high cost base and less flexibility than in Asia.

djburchgrove

Idbatterim wrote: »

eh yeah, rates, higher vat here than in most other EU counties, public liability insurance and all the other business costs, are they meant to be able to compete with the buying power of amazon etc who ship from massive distribution centres with insane buying power?

harvey norman for years have posted significant losses, so the idea that they are creaming it off is wide of the mark, the competition is so intense, you have argos, xtravision, tesco etc whose core business isnt harvey norman, all getting in on the act to an extent, then the plethora of online sellers...

15% Mark Up on Something sold is better than 40% Mark Up on nothing sold!

Tony EH

Just a little Samba wrote: »

My point is there are 10k odd jobs, many of which will be double postings, jobsbridge listings, "self employment opportunities" chugging jobs or just old listings which weren't taken down yet.

And there are 290,000 odd people on the register.

so even if they all applied for jobs in the morning, there'd still be a minimum 280,000 people on the register.

Loads of jobs sure, people are choosing to be on the dole, it's a disgrace joe!

Not only that, there are thousands who aren't on the live register and out of work.

The LR figures don't tell the whole story.

yipeeeee

80,000 back in employment in the last 18 months.

That tells me enough, although I await usual response.

Tony EH

DarkJager wrote: »

I think there is an element of people who choose to remain on the dole because they are waiting for some magic job listing to come along that will require their previous skills or put them on a salary level they were on before. Don't pretend there isn't. If I had a choice between being on the dole or working in topaz, I'd work in topaz because

A) it's more money
you look better to prospective employers if you're in a job (even one which you class as being beneath you)
C) taking a job in topaz doesn't disable your access to job sites to find a better position.

Odds are you wouldn't get a job in Topaz if you don't have recent experience in a job like Topaz.

"Oh you're an ex-programmer? Sorry no Topaz job for you."

The idea that people can just flip around any old job type in Ireland is a pure fantasy.

CruelCoin

6541 wrote: »

bang on the money mate! I was going to buy a house this year, but on mature reflection I think that anyone that invests in Irish property should get there head examined ! The place is Fooked. I might be looking to get out !

Wrong there.

I've bought a house for 105k that has a build cost of 140k. It's now worth 130k, 6 months later.

If you didn't save up, and didn't buy at the very lowest the prices are ever going to be, then you're the idiot really.

6541

CruelCoin wrote: »

Wrong there.

I've bought a house for 105k that has a build cost of 140k. It's now worth 130k, 6 months later.

If you didn't save up, and didn't buy at the very lowest the prices are ever going to be, then you're the idiot really.

House prices in Ireland will bottom out again, this is a bubble.

dd972

6541 wrote: »

I am of the opinion that Ireland is in serious trouble now.
I drove across the country at the weekend and it is shocking the state of some of the towns, street after street are lying derelict.
A whole generation have left.
There are zero jobs.
Where I live the soul has been ripped out of the town, go for a drink to be greeted with nobody in the pubs / clubs.
7 years of this and no sign of it ending !
The country is a basket case.

I don't know why these naysayers and doom and gloom merchants don't just jump off a bridge - B.Ahern ( multi-millionaire )

Just a little Samba

CruelCoin wrote: »

Wrong there.

I've bought a house for 105k that has a build cost of 140k. It's now worth 130k, 6 months later.

If you didn't save up, and didn't buy at the very lowest the prices are ever going to be, then you're the idiot really.

Sure prices will only rise, there's no way they can fall, safe as houses and all that!

I'd sell up in the next 18 months if I was you before the QE experiment kicks the bucket and deflation kicks in.

CruelCoin

djburchgrove wrote: »

15% Mark Up on Something sold is better than 40% Mark Up on nothing sold!

This exactly.

I now buy the vast majority of my stuff online.

Good example: Headphones €90 in pc world. €35 online (not on special offer either). No amount of "but we have to pay for bricks and heat" can account for a 150% price difference.

Dyr

yipeeeee wrote: »

80,000 back in employment in the last 18 months.

That tells me enough, although I await usual response.

is that 80,000 back in full time employment or 80,000 not being recorded as unemployed?

RecordStraight

Bambi wrote: »

is that 80,000 back in full time employment or 80,000 not being recorded as unemployed?

The statistics are public. If you really want to know, why not look it up.

CruelCoin

Just a little Samba wrote: »

Sure prices will only rise, there's no way they can fall, safe as houses and all that!

I'd sell up in the next 18 months if I was you before the QE experiment kicks the bucket and deflation kicks in.

I've considered that, but then again, by the time QE fails (if it does) the home value will be high enough that even a major crash will leave me with a home worth more than the 75k i'll have remaining on my mortgage at that point. Also, while new homes are being built in the city and surrounding suburbs, there is nothing being built in my area. When i bought we had 40 homes to choose from in my price bracket, and now there are only 4. With an improving economic outlook, you're not going to have many more repossesed homes (which most of those 40 were). All the QE failing in the world can't detract from the lack of supply holding prices up.

Again, idiots if you didn't buy at the lowest.

6541

Just a little Samba wrote: »

Sure prices will only rise, there's no way they can fall, safe as houses and all that!

I'd sell up in the next 18 months if I was you before the QE experiment kicks the bucket and deflation kicks in.

Here here, I actually get mad yes mad when people talk this property nonsense. Start looking at Visa options folks, last man out turn off the lights. This S**t just got real. When you hear the Taoiseach talking about been back on track and full employment by 2025 one has to go who the Fook is he kidding ! Just admit how bad it is.