Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

David McWilliams Podcast

12346»

Comments

  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 643 ✭✭✭sportsfan90


    I don’t mind the podcast, I just wish he’d go an episode without some reference to Joyce or Ulysses!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,407 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    pays who to do what gigs, wtf are you talking about?

    oh ffs! again, hes right, the only way out of our current situation is in fact creating more new money, but to not do what we have been doing with newly created money, i.e. not using it to (re)inflate pre existing asset prices, but to use it to create new assets, and to use already known methods such as sovereign wealth funds, to try make sure that the new wealth created by such, is better distributed!

    ...once again! our current inflationary pressures have virtually nothing to do with our money supplies, but are more related to supply and energy shocks, all businesses are currently experiencing a rapid rise in their energy costs, some as much as 4-5 times normal rates, theres your inflation!

    again, yes, government bonds could be used to help create these new assets, and then by using sovereign wealth funds, this would in turn help us to provide ourselves with our needs....



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,785 ✭✭✭gypsy79


    Please state your credentials to make the ridiculous statements like above

    Print more money and put it on Man U to win the EPL.....great idea



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,785 ✭✭✭gypsy79


    All his guests get paid gigs from him. Whether it be the podcast that he pays them for or one of his cult like "festivals" which are the worlds largest echo chambers



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,407 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    ...where does one start! many respected commentators have been talking about this, for years now, including many respected media outlets, including irish ones!

    again, what are you talking about, man u and epl, seriously, where are you going with this! its clearly obvious whats been going on, this can be clearly seen in data, and its associate analysis!

    yes, most contributors do indeed receive payment, as this is how they make a living!

    again, yes, it is common for humans to congregate over similar interests, such as attending football games etc!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,785 ✭✭✭gypsy79


    Hahaha

    There is no talking to you!

    I listen this as a comedy to see what this joker is teaching the plebs

    You were probably infatuated by Davies takeaways from Spain....reading facts off google

    Some of the worst segways ever in this show. It is comically bad



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,785 ✭✭✭gypsy79


    Very recently McWilliams said that our government should borrow and put it in the stock market (thats were the gambling comes from)



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,407 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    why are you listening, seriously? why would a person do so, lifes truly too short spending your time on things you have no interest in!

    what? do you actually listen to what hes says at all?? he regularly says, along with many other respected sources, that the government should borrow to help provide us with our most critical of needs, i.e. property, major infrastructure, including energy infrastructure etc etc, and also to utilise the use of sovereign wealth funds, in order to share the wealth created from such investments. he, along with others, believe that a proportion of corporate tax revenue should be accepted as stocks and shares, and these holdings also held in such wealth funds. stocks markets are well known to give good returns over a long period, yes its a gamble, but all investments are, a significant amount of wealth is simply extracted from such investments, but is not very well shared amongst the general population, but by using such investment funds, this could be rectified.... many respected sources have confirmed that this would work very well in doing so....



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,785 ✭✭✭gypsy79


    Answer the question

    Do you think the nation of Ireland should borrow money using sovereign bonds and bet it on the stock market?

    Stop pussy footing round that!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,407 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    hahaha, wtf are you talking about?

    the state should borrow in order to help provide us with our most critical of needs, and to place these newly created state assets in sovereign wealth funds, to help provide us with our future needs, and to help spread this wealth more evenly, and the fact that all of this can be currently done at 2.5% fixed to......

    talking about pussy footing about......



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 852 ✭✭✭Underpaid Mike


    As someone who works with a number of his peers thats simply not true. He is seen as a journalist who focuses on economic issues rather than someone credible in the field.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,407 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    would those peers be largely neoclassically based?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 852 ✭✭✭Underpaid Mike


    "He along with others think we should take payment of corp revenues in shares". Who are these others ? Do you realise that means diluting existing shareholders - who would obviously revolt at the prospect. If it was ever enacted that would mean any listed firms effected would have zero choice but to leave Ireland as a revenue generating juristiction. Plus it would also be illegal under ECJ rules, so theres also that.

    This is junior cert stuff and nothing but clickbait. Like his nonsense call 18 months ago telling buyers to hold off on buying in the Irish market as prices are too high - despite the cause of the price increases being constrained supply at the time.

    What respected sources suggest Ireland - who has no natural resources - should start a soverign wealth fund and invest in the stock market ? The same Ireland who hasnt enough money to build houses for its citizens and has record homeless levels ?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,407 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    ...again many of his peers think this would work, and it certainly makes a lot of sense, as its clearly obvious, large corporations have little or no interest in spreading this wealth globally, if we maintain this approach, its very likely we ll eventually have complete social and economic collapse, as wealth inequality will simply be too much to maintain any level of functionality in both...

    i know mark blyth, eric lonergan, stephen kinsella etc, have mentioned simiarlish ideas, all of which are good mates of mcwilliams, each well respected in their own right, and as far as im aware, they have also backed mcwilliams in his idea of share ownership

    share holders can do all the revolting they like, if such an idea was indeed enforced, theyd have no choice but to do so, as they are in regards the oecd agreement in regards overall corporate profit tax rates, baring in mind, regions such as germany also enforce other corporate rules such as mandatory employee board membership, which should also be enforced here to, for obvious reasons, so rules can actually be changed!

    ...the last i heard, no corporation has decided to leave ireland, due to this rise in tax rates, i suspect they probably also wouldnt do so, if a small amount of these revenues were also accepted as stocks and shares

    i know blyth has mentioned an idea of swopping equity for bonds also, particularly in times of economic downturns, i.e. right now, i.e. when corporations come looking for sovereign bonds, tell them yup, but we ll take them as shares, and thank you very much, hes right to!

    again, mcwilliams and co. also know, neoclassical economics keeps overly simplifying markets down to their usual supply and demand nonsense, and keep conveniently excluding reality in the mean time, i.e. critical aspects such as the overall money supply, in particular the private sector money supply, i.e. the credit supply, and how it interacts with these markets, in particular in regards pricing, hence why he and others foreseen the 08 crash, i.e. neoclassical economics still has an absolute refusal to accept, increasing credit into markets, causes prices to rise!

    again, stock markets are known to give a very good rate of return over long periods, again, this is agreed by commentators such as blyth and lonergan etc, as it can be clearly seen, if theres no interventions now, more and more simply wont be able to provide themselves with some of their most critical of needs, property, health care etc etc, we ve tried the whole free market thing, it hasnt worked! we clearly need state interventions, and quickly, such approaches could very well work, as this is a method how smaller more wealthier entities in society accumulate wealth, yes it is indeed increased state risk, but by not trying such risky approaches, we re clearly going to end up in deep sh1t!

    the free market libertarian's had their chance, and it hasnt worked, it has resulted in a rapid rise in wealth inequality, and more and more, simply unable to meet their most critical of needs, its over!

    oh and they dont give these lads professorships for nothing!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,785 ✭✭✭gypsy79


    Answer the question

    Should the government borrow to bet on stock market?

    Last time



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 14,831 ✭✭✭✭Arghus


    I guess this is why they call it the dismal science.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,407 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    jesus christ, again! yes our governments should be utilising their abilities to obtain stocks and shares, from revenue receipts and via the use of bonds, i.e. equity swoops etc, as its clearly obvious, the market is never going try share this form of wealth without such actions! similar types of state actions have already been enacted globally, including during economic downturns, i.e. when investors have come running looking for further state protections during these moments, requiring bailouts etc, strict conditions have been attached, so yes, such actions can be done, to truly benefit all!

    such actions would not reduce the overall availability of shares, as the state would also become apart of the global shareholders....

    ...again, your wording is all arse ways, you re trying to make it seem like the government is borrowing, when its not, under such conditions, its effectively swooping what is already agreed, i.e. revenue agreements etc, investors regularly run for the safety of sovereign bond markets during downturns, but we dont truly benefit as much as they do, under normal conditions, i.e. we d be better off doing equity swoops under these conditions, therefore when markets return after downturns, we would gain from the returning of markets after the fall! i.e. we would be gaining by gaining access to the equities at a low price, and when the market prices return after the downturn, we would gain from the rising prices, both the state and other shareholders would equally gain!

    ffs!



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,785 ✭✭✭gypsy79


    Wow simply wow

    Please tell me you don't have any education in economics



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,407 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    thankfully no, as neoclassical economics is the predominant school of thought in academia, and its routinely and still is, largely debunked! this can be clearly seen in this school of thoughts approach to our current inflationary issues, i.e. according to this school of thought, inflation is nearly always caused by monetary policy, i.e. too much money creation, but reality routinely tells us, inflation can be caused by many factors such as supply and energy shocks, etc, as is the current case. i.e. raising rates will not resolve this, but will further worsen the situation, as debts, in both the public and private domains, become more difficult to service, possibly leading to the likelihood of increased defaults and non performing loans, i.e. potentially leading to a financial crisis! so i guess, watch this space!



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 852 ✭✭✭Underpaid Mike


    Wish you had said this earlier so I wouldnt have wasted my time replying to you. David McWilliams is not and I repeat NOT widely respected by economists, he is ridiculed by them and he is taken as seriously as Eamonn Dunphy is as a football analyst. There for soundbites and nothing more.

    Any government on earth who borrows money to invest in the stock market is running a banana republic. Thats not what soverign wealth funds are. The fact that you dont understand the difference says all we need to know.

    Your final point on inflation simply proves you havent the first clue what you are talking about. Given that quantum mechanics DEBUNKS the theory of relatively should we simply discard the work of Newton and Einstein? All their findings must obviously be nonsense acording to your comment



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,785 ✭✭✭gypsy79


    QED

    You did realise that David McWilliams teaches "neoclassical economics"?



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,785 ✭✭✭gypsy79


    My work is done...neoclassical economics from someone who doesnt understand what economics is



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 457 ✭✭Obrieski


    On today's podcast, it appears DMcW was saying bad investment decisions will be shown up now as interest rates rise, by people who borrowed with the low interest rates of recent times.

    Was he not saying the Irish government should do exactly that during the pandemic when interest rates were nil?

    Maybe I misinterpreted but seems a complete 180 turn on what he was saying only 2 years ago!!



  • Posts: 0 [Deleted User]


    Hopefully what he saying about the housing market comes true. The idea of housing being a global asset needs to be smashed.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 131 ✭✭MercuryBoy


    During the pandemic he was advocating to increase the printing of money X10 to invest in infrastructure etc, saying inflation wouldn't be a problem, then he repeatedly claimed inflation was due to supply chain issues, and then that it was transitory, he kept with that line up until a few months ago, now as you say he has done a total U turn. He never gets pulled up on his bullshit predictions by his podcast sidekick which is a shame....



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,407 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    the type of investments mcwilliams was referring to are in the private domain by using credit from private sector financial institutions, these type of investments are based upon certain preferred conditions, such as continual rising prices, and relatively stable, low interest rates, but with rates slowly rising now, this now throws the whole property investment approach completely up in the air, this could get very hairy....

    yes, he and others were advocating for governments to do such during the pandemic, and they were right, as interest rates were at record low levels, some at negative rates, baring in mind, some of these rates were at fixed rates, i.e. if our governments acted on this during covid, rates would have remained unaffected, due to the fixed terms...

    .....as above.....



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 767 ✭✭✭dontmindme




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,407 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78




  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,989 ✭✭✭Economics101


    Of course inflation can be caused by exceptional supply-side effects like oil shocks, covid, etc. However these are hopefully transitory events, and if macroeconomic policy is conducted appropriately inflation should subside. Unfortunately for inflation there was a lot of demand-side stimulus arising from the pandemic, and this full effects of this have been felt in the past year. You can't expect standard neoclassical or for that matter any other economic model to explain what has happened in such a unique few years.

    By the way neoclassical economics is not the same as monetarism (looking to money supply as the sole cause of inflation). Central Bank economists have had a much more nuanced approach to inflation in recent years, which is important given that they have the main responsibility of controlling inflation. High inflation in the 70s was arguably due to a primitive Keynesian view that demand management was all about fiscal policy and inflation was to be tackled by incomes policies and price controls. All with disastrous results until the Fed showed the was under Paul Volker.

    Economic models are simplified representations of the real world, and when that world changes, so too should the models. As Keynes himself is supposed to have said "When the facts change, I change my mind. What do you do?". Keynes was far more sophisticated on monetary matters than many of his post-war "Keynesian" followers



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 131 ✭✭MercuryBoy


    But wouldn't this have been injecting yet more cheap money into the economy , making inflation even worse?



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,785 ✭✭✭gypsy79


    He contradicts himself all the time. He is basically a rabble rousing leftie at heart. Its kind of mad that this who educates the uneducated



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,977 ✭✭✭mikemac2


    Looking back over the thread I complained about the podcast in 2020

    I like it a lot these days and listen to 90% or so of the episodes.

    I love the historical stories like what happened in New York 200 years ago or others speils. He has a wide range of knowledge. Some of it I knew already like Alexander Hamilton and consolidating national debt. He comes up with some very random and interesting stuff from history and I like it. And for stories these days the trip to Ukraine explaining the security checks and the comedy club in Kiev was funny too, super episode

    As for the current affairs takes it is interesting but I have no idea if his predictions from 12 months ago came true or not. He has so many different views it is hard to keep up. I saw a post here calling it "light entertainment". Well I am happy for some light entertainment and I classify myself among the non experts so I will keep listening.

    I did consider subscribing to Patreon and I do have some subscriptions there but for David McWilliams, meh maybe someday in the future I will subscribe.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,018 ✭✭✭I see sheep


    Nice hefty brown envelope for the lads from the Nuclear Energy lobby. Times must to tough for them.

    Vote for another 100 years of FFG - Everything is great here.

    "Mentally stabbed…."



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,594 ✭✭✭jaykay74


    If there is a nuclear lobby in Ireland they are pretty **** at their job.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,407 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    ...if you think fossil fuels and renewables alone will solve our future energy needs, you d be living in lala land! oh btw, we already use a very small amount of nuclear energy here, and more coming on stream very very soon, so.....



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,214 ✭✭✭bren2001


    If you think nuclear energy is the solution for Ireland, you'd be living in lala land. Makes zero sense in this country.

    I'm pro nuclear but anti Ireland building nuclear. Money better invested elsewhere. Just for clarity.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,694 ✭✭✭✭El_Duderino 09


    I keep hearing that nuclear power production will get smaller and cheaper in time. That might be a good choice.

    I'd favour it if its state run for Ireland. Absolutely no point if its just going to be added to the global energy market it would be a huge cost to add a drop to the global energy supply and to enrich Eon or whoever would own the energy.

    If we could have a source of cheap energy in Ireland to bring down production costs and household bills, I'd support it. Buy there's zero point in spending billions on building a facility for Eon to come in and run and run and make all the profit while not even making energy cheap for the locals.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,214 ✭✭✭bren2001


    A massive power plant run by a private company or the state makes no sense. We're just too small.

    SMRs are interesting and may suit Ireland. I wouldn't have a strong opinion either way on them but I'd agree they should be state run.



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,407 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    theres research from respected sources stating, there simply may not be enough resources on the planet to create 100% renewable energy on a global scale, if this does turn out to be true, and we dont include nuclear in our plans, we ll simply end up screwed, as you can be damn sure others are already commandeering the resources for their own nuclear needs. this leaves us extremely exposed to meeting our future energy needs, it exposes us deeply to major fluctuations in global energy markets, such as what we re currently experiencing, resulting in serious economic problems, again, as we re currently experiencing, i.e. significant rise in inflation, as is currently our major problem....

    ...i wouldnt overly worry about this though, as its highly unlikely we ll ever seen a reactor operating here, so we re more than likely gonna stick with the current approach of, lets remain exposed to these major vulnerabilities....

    ...noting we re already receiving a small percentage of our energy from nuclear means, and this is set to slowly increase, i.e. we ve outsourced the risks to other countries that are currently willing and able to....



  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,214 ✭✭✭bren2001


    I'm not anti nuclear. Countries like France, the USA, the UK which have a much bigger energy market should invest in nuclear imo. I think we should buy off these countries instead of building our own.

    SMR's may change the game for a country like Ireland but I think we are better placed to invest in wind, solar, and hydro.



  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 30,407 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    good to see fg out in force over the weekend at kilkenomics!



Advertisement