Talk at 8pm tonight - David McWilliams, Alexander Hotel, "Ireland's Economic Woes"

robindch

This evening at eight, in the Aston Suite, Alexander Hotel, Merrion Square, Dublin 2 (around the corner from the Davenport), the ISS is delighted to welcome David McWilliams who will discuss "A skeptical appraisal of Ireland’s economic woes."

David is already well-known, but prior to his public work, he worked in the Central Bank of Ireland, UBS Bank and Banque Nationale de Paris. He is a popular journalist, broadcaster and documentary maker and has published two books, “The pope’s children” and “The generation game”. His third book, “Follow the money” is published last week (October 30th). His latest documentary “Addicted to money” has just finished its run on RTE and will be shown in Australia next month. More information is available on his website at www.davidmcwilliams.ie.

Given David’s popularity, we advise you arrive early on the night.

Admission as usual is €3 for members and concessions; €6 for non-members of the Irish Skeptics Society.

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote: »

This evening at eight, in the Aston Suite, Alexander Hotel, Merrion Square, Dublin 2 (around the corner from the Davenport), the ISS is delighted to welcome David McWilliams who will discuss "A skeptical appraisal of Ireland’s economic woes."

David is already well-known, but prior to his public work, he worked in the Central Bank of Ireland, UBS Bank and Banque Nationale de Paris. He is a popular journalist, broadcaster and documentary maker and has published two books, “The pope’s children” and “The generation game”. His third book, “Follow the money” is published last week (October 30th). His latest documentary “Addicted to money” has just finished its run on RTE and will be shown in Australia next month. More information is available on his website at www.davidmcwilliams.ie.

Given David’s popularity, we advise you arrive early on the night.

Admission as usual is €3 for members and concessions; €6 for non-members of the Irish Skeptics Society.

If you don't mind me saying so, Robindch I am a little bit disappointed the skeptics society - a group that is supposed to promote critical thinking and logic - is hosting McWilliams. Is he really someone who promotes skepticism?

He's always using tacky analogies and coming up with sloppy cause and effect arguments. If he has nothing intellectual to say, he just starts inventing names for things he perceives. This is fine if you are a comedian but it's very difficult to take him seriously intellectually.

They are much better economists (for example Dr. Constantin Gurdgiev who always makes his points without any silly sensationalism or comparing complicated geo-politicis to a football match or someone's new bra) who could give a talk that wouldn't be riddled with sloppy logic.

The skeptics society should be against sensationalism journalism where logic just goes out the window.

By supporting McWilliams, someone who may like to think he's a skeptic just because he's a iconoclastic or contrarian (which is not what skepticism means) the society is dragging the intellectual value out of skepticism and putting in a debased position.

Sorry, that's just my two cent...

Aidric

If you think McWilliams being comprises solely of the sensationalist, toned down stuff he puts out for RTE or The Irish Independent then you're well wide of the mark. That output is designed to appeal to those with only a basic grasp of economics, hence the dumbing down and analogies. Did you expect him to go in to complex economic theory and thus alienate the average viewer?
Btw I agree with your sentiment on Gurdgiev, an outstanding speaker and thinker.

ei.sdraob

Aidric wrote: »

If you think McWilliams being comprises solely of the sensationalist, toned down stuff he puts out for RTE or The Irish Independent then you're well wide of the mark. That output is designed to appeal to those with only a basic grasp of economics, hence the dumbing down and analogies. Did you expect him to go in to complex economic theory and thus alienate the average viewer?
Btw I agree with your sentiment on Gurdgiev, an outstanding speaker and thinker.

last i checked he only has a bachelors degree in economics?

professors are academically a few grades above...

and yes he is a publicity whore, hes more of a journalist than an economist

robindch

Tim Robbins wrote: »

If you don't mind me saying so, Robindch I am a little bit disappointed the skeptics society - a group that is supposed to promote critical thinking and logic - is hosting McWilliams. Is he really someone who promotes skepticism?

Why not go along and find out?

Tim Robbins wrote: »

They are much better economists (for example Dr. Constantin Gurdgiev who always makes his points without any silly sensationalism or comparing complicated geo-politicis to a football match

If Gurdgiev is the chap I'm thinking of -- isn't based in Trinity? -- then I think I'll stick with McWilliams!

O'Morris

ei.sdraob wrote: »

last i checked he only has a bachelors degree in economics?

professors are academically a few grades above...

An economist should be judged on the accuracy of his predictions, not on his academic achievements. David McWilliams deserves credit for being proved right about the consequences of the housing boom. If the government had listened to the warnings of people like him over the last few years we might not be in the mess we're in today.

ei.sdraob

O'Morris wrote: »

An economist should be judged on the accuracy of his predictions, not on his academic achievements. David McWilliams deserves credit for being proved right about the consequences of the housing boom. If the government had listened to the warnings of people like him over the last few years we might not be in the mess we're in today.

your right to a point but,

the guy has made so many predictions... some even contradictory.... one of them is bound to come true

and he wasnt the only economist now was he? other Irish economists were telling us for years and they were told to commit suicide

dmcw certainly made a name for himself by ingraining into peoples heads that "he and only he, told us so"

hell i could forse the mess and didnt get involved in housing or debt, i want my Gold Star too

Tim Robbins

O'Morris wrote: »

An economist should be judged on the accuracy of his predictions, not on his academic achievements. David McWilliams deserves credit for being proved right about the consequences of the housing boom. If the government had listened to the warnings of people like him over the last few years we might not be in the mess we're in today.

He was wrong seven years in a row about the propety boom as he began his tirades about the property around 2000. Eventually he had to be right as we all knew it had to end sometime.

The property boom is only one reason why our economy is cr*p. There are many others from having the highest paid public service in the world, to not being able to get broadband in many places to excessive cronyism and corruption.

It's very facile to blame it all on the property boom and it's just the kind of thing McWilliam would do.

Half the commentary McWilliams comes out with has nothing with economics but is more social commentary on what people who are from different classes do in their free time. All of that is nonsense.

Tim Robbins

Aidric wrote: »

If you think McWilliams being comprises solely of the sensationalist, toned down stuff he puts out for RTE or The Irish Independent then you're well wide of the mark. That output is designed to appeal to those with only a basic grasp of economics, hence the dumbing down and analogies. Did you expect him to go in to complex economic theory and thus alienate the average viewer?

He can dumb things down and widen his audience all he wants. But I thought the objectives of the skeptics society was to try to get society to use their brains a bit more not less and to provide a forum in Dublin for some intellectual discourse and thinking.

Zynks

Tim Robbins wrote: »

He can dumb things down and widen his audience all he wants. But I thought the objectives of the skeptics society was to try to get society to use their brains a bit more not less and to provide a forum in Dublin for some intellectual discourse and thinking.

There is value in dumbing down explanations to make the argument more understandable instead of ostracizing the wider public through jargon and technical comments.

Is your problem with his arguments/views or with his style?

ei.sdraob

Zynks wrote: »

Is your problem with his arguments/views or with his style?

it wasnt aimed at me but anyways

my problem is with him plagarising other economists

and also arrogantly proclaiming that:
* he coined term Celtic Tiger
* he was first to predict a downturn

oh and he used to be a banker (central one too), i dont like bankers

Louisc

Although I have a degree in economics, I'm no expert on the economy or on McWilliams.
I didn't like when in his book he sensationilised how our finance minister asked him for advice on the banking crisis in a unconventional manner (arriving late at night, a little tired and stressed, and eating a garlic clove to stay awake).
Our finance minister was tired for a reason, and he was being clever enough to enlist the advice of people who may be an expert in their field. As Woodrow Wilson once said "I use not only the brains I have, but all the brains I can borrow"

It said a lot about McWilliams desire for publicity. I'd have more respect for him if he had more humble unassuming acedemic dignity.

He may be a fine thinker on a par with Galbraith and Friedman, or he may not be, I just dont know. He may even have the same intellectual ability as Einstein, sounds unlikely though.
But I think his ego may consume a lot of his thinking time.

Tim Robbins

Zynks wrote: »

There is value in dumbing down explanations to make the argument more understandable instead of ostracizing the wider public through jargon and technical comments.

Is your problem with his arguments/views or with his style?

I disagree with that. A real intellectual can take something complicated and explain it in terms that most people can understand. That's why someone like Simon Singh is genuis. Ditto Dawkins, De Botton, Carl Sagan etc.

McWilliams, dumbs things down to the point that he isn't really explaining anything. Or, he sensationalises something out of proportion. These are propaganda techniques and he is very good at them. So is Michael Moore who was also correct about the Gulf War and a lot of Bush's foreign policy!!!!

But neither are skeptics in the class philosophical meaning of the word.
Skepticism means something very different in layman's venacular than it does in philosophy / critical sense. By hosting McWilliams, the Skeptics society are enforcing the common misunderstanding of skepticism. Unfortunately.

ei.sdraob

speaking of Moore

the irony of his bellowed socialist Obama led by ex Goldman banker Tim Gardner
handing trillion to the banks, is delicious

I hear hes making a new movie about the bankers, I wonder would he blame Obama like he blamed Bush?

Louisc wrote:

I didn't like when in his book he sensationilised how our finance minister asked him for advice on the banking crisis in a unconventional manner

yeh that was publicity whoring at its worst, felt sorry for Brian, he was right not to hire that knob

Louisc

ei.sdraob wrote: »

speaking of Moore

the irony of his bellowed socialist Obama led by ex Goldman banker Tim Gardner
handing trillion to the banks, is delicious

I hear hes making a new movie about the bankers, I wonder would he blame Obama like he blamed Bush?


yeh that was publicity whoring at its worst, felt sorry for Brian, he was right not to hire that knob

Yeah it brought his book to the level of a tabloid newspaper

Tim Robbins

Louisc wrote: »

Yeah it brought his book to the level of a tabloid newspaper, I say that without being disparaging to tabloid newspapers and the millions of people who read them.

Exactly. And now the skeptics are turning to the dark side. See my point?

MrMicra

Tim Robbins wrote: »

He was wrong seven years in a row about the propety boom as he began his tirades about the property around 2000. Eventually he had to be right as we all knew it had to end sometime.

The department of Finance didn't know it would end and neither did the PR Men with higher degrees in economics that the banks had on the radio. Didn't like the way he got all the other participants in the 'Diaspora Conference' to work for free then charged 6 grand.

Tim Robbins

MrMicra wrote: »

The department of Finance didn't know it would end and neither did the PR Men with higher degrees in economics that the banks had on the radio.

That's a bit of a sweeping statement.

There's always political pressure in all these things. Do you expect a government to admit they F8cked it all up?

The ERSI suggested several times prices were going to go down. So did several people. The don't have the media power and savy of McWilliams.

Didn't like the way he got all the other participants in the 'Diaspora Conference' to work for free then charged 6 grand.

Apparently he charged 100K but was only paid 10K.

robindch

Tim Robbins wrote: »

And now the skeptics are turning to the dark side.

<cough>

Go along and see for yourself!

If he's as bad as you seem to think, then he's a mighty brave man indeed to present himself to a bunch of Skeptics

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote: »

<cough>

Go along and see for yourself!

If he's as bad as you seem to think, then he's a mighty brave man indeed to present himself to a bunch of Skeptics

Ha!

Surely you mean ... to a bunch of "pyschologists" :-)?

Tipp Man

Damn it would love to go but can't make it tonight

Can we have a little report tomorrow on how the night went??

robindch

Tim Robbins wrote: »

Surely you mean ... to a bunch of "pyschologists"?

Thanks for the compliment, but I'm an engineer

Zynks

Funny how there is always a lot of people who dislike DMcW. I personally appreciate his work. Whether it is dumbed down or not, he always stuck his neck out with views that were mostly right and made a decent effort to help the common people to understand what was going on, unlike most 'experts'.

As for charging for his work (he was a facilitator in one of the workgroups), I see nothing wrong. Most of the attendees were either wealthy or highly paid people who can afford to take a few days off.

Is he arrogant? Maybe, but that doesn't bother me a bit.

OK, let's start the stone throwing, I have my helmet on

Dannyboy83

Zynks wrote: »

Funny how there is always a lot of people who dislike DMcW. I personally appreciate his work. Whether it is dumbed down or not, he always stuck his neck out with views that were mostly right and made a decent effort to help the common people to understand what was going on, unlike most 'experts'.

As for charging for his work (he was a facilitator in one of the workgroups), I see nothing wrong. Most of the attendees were either wealthy or highly paid people who can afford to take a few days off.

Is he arrogant? Maybe, but that doesn't bother me a bit.

OK, let's start the stone throwing, I have my helmet on

People are not giving him any credibility now, but in future years when you read the history books, he will be seen as one of the people who helped to educate the public, resulting in the destruction of Fianna Failure.

David McWilliams has single handedly had a bigger impact on Fianna Failure's reputation and Brian Cowen's hatred meter than anything the opposition parties have done.
And hes done it by telling the truth.
In a way thats easier to understand

Tim Robbins

robindch wrote: »

Thanks for the compliment, but I'm an engineer

I know that as you pointed that out in a debate with one of the Christians before. The skeptics have a large number of pyschologists so I think you know what I meant.

As for Zynks, Dannyboy83 they are the kind of points that you equally apply to Michael Moore. So I wonder would you have equal respect for him?

Zynks

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I know that as you pointed that out in a debate with one of the Christians before. The skeptics have a large number of pyschologists so I think you know what I meant.

As for Zynks, Dannyboy83 they are the kind of points that you equally apply to Michael Moore. So I wonder would you have equal respect for him?

I don't see the connection, nor the value of the question as an argument, sorry.

Tipp Man

Anybody go last night?? Was it any good??

Tim Robbins

Zynks wrote: »

I don't see the connection, nor the value of the question as an argument, sorry.

You don't see the connection?

Here's your argument for McWilliams:

"he always stuck his neck out with views that were mostly right and made a decent effort to help the common people to understand what was going on, unlike most 'experts'."

People in favour of Michael Moore would say the same who a lot of people would also cringe at. So I am wondering would you cringe at Moore? Or would you be consistent and have a positive view of him also?

The value of question of the argument is that it might show that your argument in favour of McWilliams wasn't a good argument or it might show that your standards of what's good include Michael Moore.

Dannyboy83

Tim Robbins wrote: »

I know that as you pointed that out in a debate with one of the Christians before. The skeptics have a large number of pyschologists so I think you know what I meant.

As for Zynks, Dannyboy83 they are the kind of points that you equally apply to Michael Moore. So I wonder would you have equal respect for him?

I watched Farenheit 9/11 and came away thinking that Michael Moore has a personal grudge against George Bush. He also pointed out some stuff about the Bush Administration which I couldn't really verify, but seemed shocking nonetheless.
I've never lived there and don't have enough exposure to the US system to formulate my own opinions on what American people think of their government, not to mind what Americans thought of Farenheit 9/11 or Michael Moore.
Its a foreign country to me, its all Hollywood.

On the other hand, I do live in Ireland. I do have an opinion on Irish politics and I do see the impact McWilliams is having on the local JoeSoap who doesn't know the first thing about politics.
I had a guy out fixing my windscreen recently, his wife had been laid off & he was down because he had a pay cut and was worried about his mortgage.
Really nice guy but admitted he hadn't had a clue about politics. He'd sooner be down the pub than on a politics forum. He was voting for Fianna Fail/Sinn Fein in the past because he thought it was the right thing to do.


He told me now that he'd never give either of them a vote again.
When I asked him what influenced him, he said it was a number of things such as the lack of leadership by Fianna Fail, the lack of visibility by Sinn Fein, and one of the biggest factors was David McWilliam's and his articles, explaining the whole mess in a clear and simple manner that even he could understand.

From my own point of view, I've been reading reports by various 'respected'/'intellectual' figures since around the time I joined this board.

There was one Morgan Kelly report I read recently which was very informative, and there was a lot of specific facts that stood out and really shocked me (e.g. Anglo had avg profits of 34% for 8 out of 9 years, no alarm bell was ever rung - that genuinely shocked me).

I bought "Follow The Money" on Monday, I'm nearly finished it now, can't put it down. I would say the biggest thing about McWilliams is that he writes like a cross between and a crime detective and a historian, while dealing specifically with the story, rather than the person, unlike Michael Moore.

Reading the Morgan Kelly report, I got lots of interesting close up shots of information that McWilliams never supplied me with.
Reading David McWilliams new book, I got the bigger picture, in ways that hadn't even occurred to me before and started to understand what those various assertions MK had made actually impacted etc., then starting coming to my own conclusions.

From the MK view, you have to try to understand it like a banker or a financial analyst - something I'm not yet accustomed to.
From the DMCW view, you just need to understand it like a member of society, something you're accustomed to doing all your life and which heavily influences , not necessarily how you WILL vote, but certainly how you will NOT vote.

So I got the best of both worlds, but the vast majority of people out there will never read a bigshot economist's report, will they? They'll be scared away by the graphs and think hey have to fellate a dictionary first.
Someone who has a college education in economics or business might get a lot more from the Morgan Kelly report.
I don't have that, I did comp sci in college, I'm trying to educate myself where possible about economics.

Lastly of course, I'd never heard of any of the big shot economics before I started using this board. They may be great economists, but they don't have a clue how to use the media.

David McWilliams mightn't be a bigshot economist, but he understands enough and he knows how to use the media.

Zynks

Tim Robbins wrote: »

You don't see the connection?

Here's your argument for McWilliams:

"he always stuck his neck out with views that were mostly right and made a decent effort to help the common people to understand what was going on, unlike most 'experts'."

People in favour of Michael Moore would say the same who a lot of people would also cringe at. So I am wondering would you cringe at Moore? Or would you be consistent and have a positive view of him also?

The value of question of the argument is that it might show that your argument in favour of McWilliams wasn't a good argument or it might show that your standards of what's good include Michael Moore.

My views of Michael Moore are totally irrelevant to this thread. I understand that this association may have value for you, but not for me, so I see no point in entertaining this diversion.

If you have specifics arguments on DMcW's views I would be happy to participate. However, if your issues are with his style and personality, or if you need to resort to irrelevant parallels, then this is more likely to be a monologue.

I already said it before, I have no issues with his style Furthermore, I see no value in comparing him to your choice of "same type-ism"

herya

David McWilliams is to economy what Myth Busters show is to science. None of them is unique but they happened to get popular, mostly because they do a good job. They show the direction and people can continue on to more in depth works if they take interest and have time for it.

He chooses a story and wraps it around his argument when he challenges prevailing attitudes or cliches. That's how "ordinary" people think and remember - in narratives. His delivery is colourful and he is borderline too full of himself, true, but he does more good than anything else.