Irish Ambassador to the States acts the clown!

Jim2007

RulesOfNature wrote: »

What an obvious diversion of a very salient point. ITS RAYCISSSSSS - now no one is talking about the mickey mouse leprechaun economics that’s about to pop like a bubble.

Nonsense! Don’t confuse actually economics with Paul Krugman‘s ramblings. Look at the net balance of trade for a start.

conorhal

Niner leprauchan wrote: »

The origin of the leprauchan is an insult and the leprauchan economics name was also designed as an insult.

On this occasion, I think it's right to take offence because it was meant.

I think it's perfectly apt, far too much of our economy is chasing the rainbow of globalism without taxing it in the belief that there's some pot of gold at the end of that rainbow and not a recession.

Also, username makes a mockery of users point... unless of course you would argue like a rapper that the L word is 'our word' and only we can use it.

conorhal

Timberrrrrrrr wrote: »

Would the Jewish person be ok with someone calling it Yid economics?

No, it would be akin to referring to the Israeli economy as a Golem economy or the Norwegian economy as a troll economy.

Happydays2020

conorhal wrote: »

I think it's perfectly apt, far too much of our economy is chasing the rainbow of globalism without taxing it in the belief that there's some pot of gold at the end of that rainbow and not a recession.

Also, username makes a mockery of users point... unless of course you would argue like a rapper that the L word is 'our word' and only we can use it.

But Krugman’s article would be far more effective if it lost its casually racist headlines. There are absolutely fair points in respect to our dependence for employment and corporate taxes on multi nationals - then again many of the people who work in such multi nationals including pharma, medical devices, semi conductors and so forth and the communities who depend on those good salaries might have a different take on things.

Shaunoc

Shaunoc wrote: »

That's got economic potential

That's stretching it a bit.

Deleted User

Deleted User wrote: »

People are getting sensitive over the word leprechaun. A ****ing mythical creature.

Mythical me arse! Descendents of the Fir Bolg. And a much maligned group. They have a lot to put up with... how would you feel if a movie like 'leprechaun in the hood' was made about your community?!



Reported.



:pac:

Donegal Overlanding

Donegal Overlanding wrote: »

Its amazing that people are so desperate to be offended.

I have seen loads of references to Leprechaun's all around Ireland from Irish people who use it to cash in on tourism and so on.

The point... whooosh over your head, are you an actual leprechaun?

The whole leprechaun thing is a joke, kitsch, particularly Irish silliness.

To then claim Irish business, economics as silly is an attack, in a global economy. The phenomenon the author was referring to was based on international norms. Ireland being a small open economy, punching way above its weight looked odd. Should we apologise for what works for us? Should the US apologise for the huge natural resources it has. No.

The guy probably wasn't trying to be derogatory, but neither would a disparaging economic term slagging the Jews be accepted, let's not kid ourselves.

I can understand officialdom taking a stance, and it's unlikely the ambassador went on a solo run.

listermint

I don't know many Irish that are easily offended but jaysus can you find alot that hate themselves,Irishness, their island and anything that's done for them.



They are a plenty.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Donald Trump wrote: »

Lets not be disingenuous here. It was an opinion piece by in influential individual which was printed in a major newspaper. Not some randomer saying crap on twitter.

Exactly - an "opinion" piece.

Doesn't matter who coins the phrase it's "opinion" and thus, protected by the right to free speech that people are so quick to defend when someone else is the victim.

The qualifications or influences held don't make a difference in terms of taking offence: people would be just as pissed off if it was some randomer on Twitter.

Cal4567

All Krugman has done is again highlight this issue. He first raised it years ago. It even has its own wikipedia page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprechaun_economics

Meanwhile, the sheep just lap it up as an affront to us, deflecting from the real issue that we are a tax haven, now viewed internationally as the Cayman Islands, Liechtenstein etc etc are, have been for decades.

A tax haven. Let that sink in.

Sounds like the Dept of Foreign Affairs have sent the memo out to ambassadors to challenge this perception. Mulhall can't contest the basic point because frankly, it's indefensible, but can use the wording around the comments to express our shock.

Paschal the Finance Minister argues that we basically have no other option and its just a small economy punching above its weight.

Did they just think this would carry on forever?

I guess now the 'strategy' will hope Ireland is let down gently to avoid a sharp shock to the nation's finances.

It's supposed to be a clever tactic. Just target the slight to our nationhood and have the masses lining up behind.

donaghs

Cal4567 wrote: »

All Krugman has done is again highlight this issue. He first raised it years ago. It even has its own wikipedia page.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprechaun_economics

Yeh, it seems to me the ambassador is deflecting from taxation issues Krugmann is raising.

Doing his bit for Ireland, "putting on the green jersey", or avoiding moral implication of our taxation policies? Bit of a non-story either way.

Donald Trump

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Exactly - an "opinion" piece.

Doesn't matter who coins the phrase it's "opinion" and thus, protected by the right to free speech that people are so quick to defend when someone else is the victim.

The qualifications or influences held don't make a difference in terms of taking offence: people would be just as pissed off if it was some randomer on Twitter.

Go away out of that with the feigned ignorance.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Donald Trump wrote: »

Go away out of that with the feigned ignorance.

Go away or if they with your feigned ego and debate the post, maybe?

Donald Trump

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

Go away or if they with your feigned ego and debate the post, maybe?

I already did. Pointed out that a large newspaper should not have printed a piece (by a regular contributor) with a derogatory slur directed at a nation and it's people and you go on about "freedom of speech".


Lets wait to see how in favour you would be if the Irish Times printed a piece from Justin Barrett or similar using racial and demeaning slurs and stereotypes against "new Irish". How about a piece by David Quinn using derogatory terms against gay people and attacking their rights?


What is your angle? Just in favour of "doffing the cap" to your betters? Some kind of inbuilt perma-guilt?


(BTW, freedom of speech in the US context does not mean what you appear to think it means.)

joseywhales

Is it worth it, to defend your identity against some boorish comment? If left unchallenged it can become an acceptable description of your group which could be damaging politically and culturally I suppose. But it's all such nonsense isn't it? Like who really cares what people think? We should focus on our economy, nothing else really matters, they are just bigoted opinions in the minds of those with no self confidence, even if they are celebrated economists or otherwise. Why else would they feel the need to take a cut at some foreign culture? Where does pride get anyone anyway? I'd rather have an extra 1% income and laugh at the newspaper column.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Donald Trump wrote: »

I already did. Pointed out that a large newspaper should not have printed a piece (by a regular contributor) with a derogatory slur directed at a nation and it's people and you go on about "freedom of speech".


Lets wait to see how in favour you would be if the Irish Times printed a piece from Justin Barrett or similar using racial and demeaning slurs and stereotypes against "new Irish". How about a piece by David Quinn using derogatory terms against gay people and attacking their rights?


What is your angle? Just in favour of "doffing the cap" to your betters? Some kind of inbuilt perma-guilt?


(BTW, freedom of speech in the US context does not mean what you appear to think it means.)

My angle is consistency. There are people who, if the people you mentored came out with what you said, the same people who claim offense here would be whinging that Barrett or Quin had a right to free speech (and I'm not taking about legal definitions here).

Not so long ago people were getting upset with the new hate-speech laws.

Donald Trump

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

My angle is consistency. There are people who, if the people you mentored came out with what you said, the same people who claim offense here would be whinging that Barrett or Quin had a right to free speech (and I'm not taking about legal definitions here).

Not so long ago people were getting upset with the new hate-speech laws.

So where is your own consistency? If you are consistent, that would surely mean that if you have no issue with the NYT publishing Krugman's article then you would have no problem with the Irish Times publishing that hypothetical Barrett article. Especially given that most people think Barrett is a gobshite whereas Krugman is considered a highly influential commentator - both economic and political. So Krugman's is a lot worse in my opinion.



My "angle" is that the NYT should not publish such a piece. It would also be my angle that the Irish Times should not publish the hypothetical piece by Barrett or Quinn. If you saw it in the metro or the daily mail then that's kind of expected. But it shouldn't be making it into a publication with supposedly serious journalistic standards. NYT could have printed the same article content albeit with the derogatory tinges removed.



What you are referring to as "ego" is merely having some self respect and sticking up for one's self or one's group.


BTW, the right to free speech in the US effectively just means that they government will not impinge upon your ability to say or write something. The NYT rejecting this piece would not impinge upon Krugman's "free speech". If the Federal government forced them not to publish anything by him ever gain, then that would.

Donald Trump

joseywhales wrote: »

Is it worth it, to defend your identity against some boorish comment? If left unchallenged it can become an acceptable description of your group which could be damaging politically and culturally I suppose. But it's all such nonsense isn't it? Like who really cares what people think? We should focus on our economy, nothing else really matters, they are just bigoted opinions in the minds of those with no self confidence, even if they are celebrated economists or otherwise. Why else would they feel the need to take a cut at some foreign culture? Where does pride get anyone anyway? I'd rather have an extra 1% income and laugh at the newspaper column.

Well, if the previous few years of US politics has taught us anything, it is that non-truths and half-truths can become relatively mainstream opinion fairly quickly.


John McCain labelled Ireland as a tax haven back a few years before he died. He had to be taken to task on that as well. Because once some idea gets planted, after a while, people don't remember how it started or whether there is actually any evidence for it being true. It becomes assumed as fact and policies are made based off of that.

valoren

Economicks.

I have a sneaking suspicion that the people who are offended by "leprechaun economics" are the same people who criticise "SJWs" for being snowflakes when they are offended by pronoun use, etc.

Donald Trump

Deleted User wrote: »

I have a sneaking suspicion that the people who are offended by "leprechaun economics" are the same people who criticise "SJWs" for being snowflakes when they are offended by pronoun use, etc.

I think you are mixing up having self respect and sticking up with one's self with being offended. They are not the same thing.

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

Donald Trump wrote: »

So where is your own consistency? If you are consistent, that would surely mean that if you have no issue with the NYT publishing Krugman's article then you would have no problem with the Irish Times publishing that hypothetical Barrett article. Especially given that most people think Barrett is a gobshite whereas Krugman is considered a highly influential commentator - both economic and political. So Krugman's is a lot worse in my opinion.



My "angle" is that the NYT should not publish such a piece. It would also be my angle that the Irish Times should not publish the hypothetical piece by Barrett or Quinn. If you saw it in the metro or the daily mail then that's kind of expected. But it shouldn't be making it into a publication with supposedly serious journalistic standards. NYT could have printed the same article content albeit with the derogatory tinges removed.



What you are referring to as "ego" is merely having some self respect and sticking up for one's self or one's group.


BTW, the right to free speech in the US effectively just means that they government will not impinge upon your ability to say or write something. The NYT rejecting this piece would not impinge upon Krugman's "free speech". If the Federal government forced them not to publish anything by him ever gain, then that would.

1 - Irrelevant.
2 - I never said you were - I was talking generally.
3 - "Ego" was directed specifically at the post where you never adressed the point I raisied.
4 - I never said it did. NYT are a private company and can publish what the ike.

What gets published is the editor's choice and different publications have different ediors, obviosuly, so that's not what I'm talking about, hence point one being irrelevant.

What I'm talking about is people who are offended when they're in the target group but crying "woke!" or "PC!" or "snowflake!" when they're not. THAT'S inconcistent. I don't know if this is you personally or not.

Donald Trump

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

1 - Irrelevant.
2 - I never said you were - I was talking generally.
3 - "Ego" was directed specifically at the post where you never adressed the point I raisied.
4 - I never said it did. NYT are a private company and can publish what the ike.

What gets published is the editor's choice and different publications have different ediors, obviosuly, so that's not what I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about is people who are offended when they're in the target group but crying "woke!" or "PC!" or "snowflake!" when they're not. THAT'S inconcistent. I don't know if this is you personally or not.

The Ambassador was correct to pull them up on it. That's the be all and end all as far as I am concerned. It's not about being offended or having ego

If it had been some backwater local paper, or some "alternative news" outlet then he can ignore it. Not when it is a publication as well known as the NYT.


And by the way, the "consistency" part is entirely relevant given that you brought it up!

Donald Trump

Donald Trump wrote: »

I think you are mixing up having self respect and sticking up with one's self with being offended. They are not the same thing.

I'm pointing out the obvious hypocrisy. I can't help you see it.

TomTomTim

Princess Consuela Bananahammock wrote: »

1 - Irrelevant.
2 - I never said you were - I was talking generally.
3 - "Ego" was directed specifically at the post where you never adressed the point I raisied.
4 - I never said it did. NYT are a private company and can publish what the ike.

What gets published is the editor's choice and different publications have different ediors, obviosuly, so that's not what I'm talking about.

What I'm talking about is people who are offended when they're in the target group but crying "woke!" or "PC!" or "snowflake!" when they're not. THAT'S inconcistent. I don't know if this is you personally or not.

While I'm not in the offended camp, they could just as easily be highlighting the stinking hypocrisy. There's great inconsistency about levels of "just offense", depending on the group it's applied to.

Donald Trump

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm pointing out the obvious hypocrisy. I can't help you see it.

No you're not. You haven't pointed out any hypocrisy. Did the Ambassador make a few "jew" jokes or something against Krugman?





Was the bigliest President ever correct in referring to some African nations as shitholes? Surely you wouldn't be so hypocritical as to say that was wrong but Kurgman's slurring Irish as leprechauns was ok?

Donald Trump

Donald Trump wrote: »

No you're not. You haven't pointed out any hypocrisy.





Was the bigliest President ever correct in referring to some African nations as shitholes? Surely you wouldn't be so hypocritical as to say that was wrong but Kurgman's slurring Irish as leprechauns was ok?

I'm not the sensitive, easily offended type. I have thick skin. I guess I'm a stronger person than you.

Gradius

If you act like a prick, then it's good to experience being treated like a prick.

Then, if you don't like being treated like a prick, you do something about not being a prick.

The great pyramids of Ireland deserve ridicule. If Ireland does not like being correctly identified as a pyramid scheme, then maybe it should do something about it.

Other than that, the ambassador is simply doing his job of defending the schemes he's hired to defend.

Donald Trump

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not the sensitive, easily offended type. I have thick skin. I guess I'm a stronger person than you.

Ah I don't think so. I have a bit of self respect and try to stick up my myself in general.



Some people are doormats and prefer to smile while being walked on and demeaned by others.



Your choice.

AndyWhite1

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm not the sensitive, easily offended type. I have thick skin. I guess I'm a stronger person than you.

anyone is stronger than Donald Trump, lol

*kidding*