"The Irish Credit Bubble" by Morgan Kelly

Sand

I stopped reading here.

So did I. Your reply to my post has no value if its not based on what I have said.

Flamed Diving

Now you know how I feel, Sand. I am satisfied by your response.

ashleey

My earlier post about corruption and banana republics was deliberately controversial and I wasn't trying to offend.
The point is until everything is out in the open there will always be a suspicion of corruption and a restriction of credit to the banks here. Not zero but just less and at higher cost. That will ultimately be passed to the customer. That is an economic cost.
Argentina gets finance but given it's history not at the same price as Germany. Should we aim to be somewhere inbetween or close to best practice?

nesf

Sand wrote: »

@nesf


Agreed: the government is doing better than Greece in looking repentful, but there will be a constant argument within the ECB between those who consider Ireland worth saving at the expense of the ECBs credibility, and those who consider the need to maintain credibility and provide examples of the punishment of fiscal fecklessness more important. If and when Greece get shoved to the wolves, whose next in line to walk the plank?

There are limits to what the ECB and the EU can do for us. We cant assume the state has limitless backing from them. The ECB has already made negative comments regarding open ended support of the banking system round about the time Fianna Fail TDs were proclaiming that the whole NAMA deal was a secret deal with the ECB for free money from the EU.

FF TDs are just dressing it up. Yes there's money from the EU in there but it's loans not a bailout etc. What happens to Greece is whether its Government decides to play ball with the rest of the EU or not. Ireland has already done the fiscal austerity trick to get debt under control in recent memory, that alone is something that will give external parties some confidence in us (this was noted at the very beginning of the crisis by The Economist magazine where they pointed out that we'd already done this kind of hard fiscal labour in the 80s whereas many of the Mediterranean countries like Spain and Greece which got out of their debt problems through a boom caused by joining the EU and who haven't had to take hard medicine. We as a people accept that sometimes you need to take harsh medicine for the good of the country, something that few other European peoples are willing to recognise).

Sand wrote: »

We need a banking system and we need to protect depositors as much as is possible. I do not dispute this.

However, the current government policy is not aimed at preserving a banking system. It is aimed at preserving AIB and BoI stakeholders. There is a difference. How much does the average Irish person have in AIB or BoI as savings? 10K? More? Less? There are roughly 2 million "people at work" in Ireland, about half of whom pay taxes. Given the cost of NAMA alone (ignoring any recapitalisation) the govt is borrowing 32K per person at work, 64K per taxpayer to do what? Protected deposits of 10K for the average depositor? Cure is worse than the disease if you ask me.

Completely wrong way of looking at it. First the average person works for a company who have far in excess of 10K lodged with an Irish bank and who depend on that money to get paid next week! It's not just your deposit you can lose when a bank fails but your job! This is the key problem and this is why even those of us with minimal savings are still very exposed to a banking collapse! You're also calculating the cost of NAMA wrong because we didn't just give the money away for nothing, we will get some income back from these loans and sales of assets secured on these loans so the total cost to the taxpayer will be less than the headline 50 billion figure. I sincerely doubt that NAMA will even make a nominal profit but arguing that NAMA will cost the taxpayer 50 billion is disingenuous.

TJJP

ei.sdraob wrote: »

it will take about 50 years for real prices to return to their
2006 peaks.

Utter nonsense though, it is ultimately impractical at best to project out 50 years, never mind five.

silverharp

It would seem the best case for Ireland is a Japanese style lost decade where on the back of a global/european recovery GDP stays positive but asset prices decline and somehow the economy lives with all the excess debt.
On the gloomy side there is still a world of pain ahead where soverign and currency risk become a reality in Eastern Europe (which will effect European banks badly) interest rates will rise out the curve. Rising interest rates and falling asset prices will be a nasty combination.

nesf

silverharp wrote: »

It would seem the best case for Ireland is a Japanese style lost decade where on the back of a global/european recovery GDP stays positive but asset prices decline and somehow the economy lives with all the excess debt.

Be careful with such analogies. Ireland is a very different economy to Japan's with a much smaller internal market, they're going to behave quite differently to one another. We also are addressing our banking problems immediately compared to Japan which waited several years before intervening in their banking sector (most economists including Krugman mark this point as when Japan started to climb out of it's malaise).

silverharp

nesf wrote: »

Be careful with such analogies. Ireland is a very different economy to Japan's with a much smaller internal market, they're going to behave quite differently to one another. We also are addressing our banking problems immediately compared to Japan which waited several years before intervening in their banking sector (most economists including Krugman mark this point as when Japan started to climb out of it's malaise).

yes very different economies but Japan as a trading economy grew however including asset prices it had a deflation from the best part of a decade. Ireland will have an asset deflation for the decade, I cant see that there wont be a downward step stair effect with property rents. In the narrow comparison I'm making Japan was able to fund its own borrowing whereas Ireland will have to accept international market rates which I'm guessing will be higher over the next 10 years.

Sand

@Nesf

FF TDs are just dressing it up. Yes there's money from the EU in there but it's loans not a bailout etc.

I know - but we are getting lenient treatment as it stands. There is no ECB bailout, just a belief that the EU and the ECB would not let a Eurozone member default, which implies a bailout.

There is murmuring about the possibility of sovereign defaults, not just in basket case economies but in the developed world. If and when that begins to build into pressure on Greece's ability to refinance its debt in 2010, that may require the EU and the ECB to jump in or not. Depending on what they do it will have implications for Ireland and the credibility of its fiscal policy, and by extension the credibility of the bank guarantee.

The point is the Irish state does not have limitless reserves. The only thing keeping us going in terms of borrowing as it stands is the assumption that we will be bailed out if things get too bad. Thats yet to be tested, and bar a few off the cuff remarks, the official EU response has been to discourage that view for perfectly understandable reasons. The Greek case will be interesting.

Completely wrong way of looking at it. First the average person works for a company who have far in excess of 10K lodged with an Irish bank and who depend on that money to get paid next week! It's not just your deposit you can lose when a bank fails but your job! This is the key problem and this is why even those of us with minimal savings are still very exposed to a banking collapse!

A bank failure would not be costless but youre assuming that the government and regulators do not attempt to manage it effectively or introduce any policies to help businesses get over the adjustment. Again, I understand we need a banking system, I understand we need to protect depositors. Policy should be focused on this, not on protecting shareholders, executives and protecting bondholders. Govt policy is not focused on protecting depositors, it is focused on protecting shareholders, executives and bondholders.

Id ask if anyone has actually done a cost-benefit analysis, to demonstrate that on average we get a far higher return for our 30-60K investment from cuurrent govt policy as opposed to one which forces stakeholders to accept their losses and protects depositors but I think its safe to say no one in the Dept of Finance has.

And again, we come back to the main conclusion of Kellys paper - regardless of if it is right or wrong for the state to bail out the banks, its far from assured that the Irish state has the fiscal resources to bail them out whilst also rescuing itself. Even if we should or shouldnt, we might not be to do it.

We have seen heavy job losses, cuts in social welfare and cuts in public sector pay: all of this is going to hit peoples ability to pay their mortgages. We are going to have to hit social welfare more, we are going to have to hit public sector pay more. Thats further going to hit peoples ability to pay their mortgages, especially when interest rates begin to rise in line with Franco-German economic growth: increasing the prospects of defaults. There is an assumption that Irish people will never, ever, ever in a million years default on their mortgages...maybe, but if ever they were going to a time of mass unemployment, cuts in pay, increasing interest rates ( both the ECB and banks seeking premiums to rebuild their balance sheets) would be the time. You cant get blood from a stone.

The question is, if and when that hits - will the Irish state have the resources to carry out further recapitalisations? Its doubtful given we are already seeing backsliding on forcing through cuts. And thats even before Labour get into power.

You're also calculating the cost of NAMA wrong because we didn't just give the money away for nothing, we will get some income back from these loans and sales of assets secured on these loans so the total cost to the taxpayer will be less than the headline 50 billion figure. I sincerely doubt that NAMA will even make a nominal profit but arguing that NAMA will cost the taxpayer 50 billion is disingenuous.

As above, its not the important aspect. However Id argue its fair to write off the entire NAMA investment given the quality of the portfolio is so disastrous that it threatens the entire Irish banking sector and I have ignored the capital sunk into the Irish banks to date, the further recapitalisation efforts that will be needed in 2010 after NAMA begins, and further recapitalisations that will be needed when mortgage defaults begin to hit the banks assets. Sure, the NAMA portfolio is worth something...but it will be less than the recapitalisation requirements which I didnt count.

nesf

I don't really want to continue debating this as neither of us are going to convince the other I think. I'm just to pick out a few points where we mostly agree.

Sand wrote: »

The Greek case will be interesting.

Definitely.

Sand wrote: »

A bank failure would not be costless but youre assuming that the government and regulators do not attempt to manage it effectively or introduce any policies to help businesses get over the adjustment. Again, I understand we need a banking system, I understand we need to protect depositors. Policy should be focused on this, not on protecting shareholders, executives and protecting bondholders. Govt policy is not focused on protecting depositors, it is focused on protecting shareholders, executives and bondholders.

Shareholders are being left to twist in the wind. People with savings invested in banks have gotten decimated.

Bondholders are arguably necessary to protect since it's these same bondholders that we'll be looking to invest money in the banks and more importantly the State finances. I don't think it's at all reasonable to not protect them because basically they have us over a barrel.

Executives should not be protected. No disagreement with you there.

nesf

silverharp wrote: »

yes very different economies but Japan as a trading economy grew however including asset prices it had a deflation from the best part of a decade. Ireland will have an asset deflation for the decade, I cant see that there wont be a downward step stair effect with property rents. In the narrow comparison I'm making Japan was able to fund its own borrowing whereas Ireland will have to accept international market rates which I'm guessing will be higher over the next 10 years.

Asset prices aren't really the problem though as much as they are a symptom of an economies problems. As is, asset prices here have fallen extremely quickly over the past year. It's hard to see why prices would continue to fall in nominal terms for a decade tbh, at the current rate we could hit mid-late 90s prices in 3 or so years* (though inevitably the rate of decline will slow after the initial blind panic fades). Asset prices will only recover when economic confidence returns.

Paul Krugman had an interesting analysis of Japan's problems in his The Return of Depression Economics book, Japan effectively ignored its banking system completely for several years before bothering to actually go in and look at their balance sheets and whether they were lending or not. Once they went in and recapitalised the banks then the overall situation improved despite the asset price deflation.

*As is we're talking 2003 ish levels for the official prices and these figures aren't sale prices but guide prices. The real market is probably quite a bit lower again. We've knocked roughly 4.5 years of growth off the price of a house in 12 months at least. What's actually left for next 9 years of price falls you're talking about to lose? In real terms sure we could see house prices stay flat or even fall slightly for an extended period but can you really see us falling much below 2000 prices? 1998/97 perhaps?

I'd personally put money on a bankruptcy law change at some point in the coming few years to get households out of debt but how it would be structured and how generous it would be is an open question (it could be as tight as a change to wipe out the remaining debt after a house sale when a person is in a legal sense unable to fulfill their mortgage repayments rather than a US style system where anyone could send the keys back to the bank and owe no more money.

Count Dooku

Flamed Diving wrote: »

So, one may argue that the Irish financial system may not recover to normal functioning for several years, as Morgan seems to suggest. But this is not an argument for the global financial system, and by association, the Eurozone financial system. Ireland's economy, held in isolation, may not be expected to recover for several years. But this is not an argument against the recovery of the global economy, or the EU economy, by association. Now, given that Ireland is a SMOE, and the high level of MNCs in this country, a global economic recovery will be a positive determinant in a Irish recovery. (Some are moving East, you say? Never! :eek:) Global demand for Irish goods should increase with a global recovery.

I'm sure you get the idea by now. We are sufficiently tied to the global economy to be shifted by its movements. Whether you like it or not, the mere talk of GDP growth in the news and fewer/no layoffs at MNCs will shift consumer confidence.

Do you mean that people will start to borrow more only because MNC’s are not in bad shape?
Global recovery will mostly change only repatriated profits of MNC’s, but will not bring much to Irish economy. Don’t forget that MNC’s are contributing only 18Bn to GNP.
I don’t think that many people will be blinded by big GDP figures anymore.

Flamed Diving

Count Dooku wrote: »

Do you mean that people will start to borrow more only because MNC’s are not in bad shape?
Global recovery will mostly change only repatriated profits of MNC’s, but will not bring much to Irish economy. Don’t forget that MNC’s are contributing only 18Bn to GNP.
I don’t think that many people will be blinded by big GDP figures anymore.

I'm not going through this argument with you again. You just don't get it.

silverharp

nesf wrote: »

Asset prices aren't really the problem though as much as they are a symptom of an economies problems. As is, asset prices here have fallen extremely quickly over the past year. It's hard to see why prices would continue to fall in nominal terms for a decade tbh, at the current rate we could hit mid-late 90s prices in 3 or so years* (though inevitably the rate of decline will slow after the initial blind panic fades). Asset prices will only recover when economic confidence returns.

Over the longer term one would expect a deleveraging to more sustainable levels, ultimately if one cannot bet on capital growth then yield becomes important. I also assume there is an over supply of commercial space etc.so that will force prices down. the rate of decline will reduce no doubt but I cant see why prices would not go back to late 90's levels and then go no where for some years after that.

nesf wrote: »

Paul Krugman had an interesting analysis of Japan's problems in his The Return of Depression Economics book, Japan effectively ignored its banking system completely for several years before bothering to actually go in and look at their balance sheets and whether they were lending or not. Once they went in and recapitalised the banks then the overall situation improved despite the asset price deflation.

That still doesnt deal with "pushing on a string". Assuming that credit standards revert to "sensible" and credit is available business will need to find profitable opportunities and households will need to rebuild their balance sheets. So I'd expect household to be repaying credit on a net basis going forward

nesf wrote: »

*As is we're talking 2003 ish levels for the official prices and these figures aren't sale prices but guide prices. The real market is probably quite a bit lower again. We've knocked roughly 4.5 years of growth off the price of a house in 12 months at least. What's actually left for next 9 years of price falls you're talking about to lose? In real terms sure we could see house prices stay flat or even fall slightly for an extended period but can you really see us falling much below 2000 prices? 1998/97 perhaps?

98/99 seems reasonable, anything after 2000 was bubble era for sure and unwinding of bubbles tend to create undershoots.

nesf wrote: »

I'd personally put money on a bankruptcy law change at some point in the coming few years to get households out of debt but how it would be structured and how generous it would be is an open question (it could be as tight as a change to wipe out the remaining debt after a house sale when a person is in a legal sense unable to fulfill their mortgage repayments rather than a US style system where anyone could send the keys back to the bank and owe no more money.

it could be part of the mix, either the negetive equity will get absorbed by the individuals concerned or socialised by the general public but either way it will be drag on Ireland inc via higer taxes and lower disposable income.

ei.sdraob

TJJP wrote: »

Utter nonsense though, it is ultimately impractical at best to project out 50 years, never mind five.

while yes it is a long timespan

but if you read his paper
you will see that there was a precedent in the history of this state, the boom at independence took 50 years to be matched by normal growth

his reasoning goes, that prices will halve from here before slowly rising with inflation for decades
the guy was spot on before about things, at least his reasoning is based on researched economics and history not sticking finger into the wind like FF are doing with NAMA and pulling figures out of arse (Long Term Value )

SkepticOne

More light reading from Kelly here in the Irish Times (Via the Irish Economy blog).

While things are hard to predict, the future, especially the situation of the Irish economy, is so stark that even an economist can make some predictions that stand a chance of being right.

Two ghosts of Christmas will haunt Ireland in 2015: jobs and debt.

For 20 years, the Irish economy experienced extraordinary growth. Unfortunately, this growth came from two separate booms that merged imperceptibly into each other. First we had real growth in the 1990s, driven by rising competitiveness and exports. However, after 2000 competitiveness collapsed, and growth came to be driven by a lending bubble without equal in the euro zone.

Makes a lot of sense.

nesf

silverharp wrote: »

Over the longer term one would expect a deleveraging to more sustainable levels, ultimately if one cannot bet on capital growth then yield becomes important. I also assume there is an over supply of commercial space etc.so that will force prices down. the rate of decline will reduce no doubt but I cant see why prices would not go back to late 90's levels and then go no where for some years after that.

I'm disputing "ten years of falling prices" rather than late 90s as being realistic for the "undershoot".

silverharp wrote: »

it could be part of the mix, either the negetive equity will get absorbed by the individuals concerned or socialised by the general public but either way it will be drag on Ireland inc via higer taxes and lower disposable income.

Households will need to repair their balance sheets, the only way this can happen is through job creation in the broader economy and inflation over the medium term. Unemployment lags behind GDP recovery usually, so one can expect to see a few years of growth of some kind before a substantial dent is put in the unemployment numbers. Inflation is going to be far more problematic, deflation will bottom out but inflation isn't going to get high enough to quickly "clean the balance sheets" anytime soon in Ireland I think.

nesf

SkepticOne wrote: »

More light reading from Kelly here in the Irish Times (Via the Irish Economy blog).Makes a lot of sense.

Well, there were two sides to the post 2001 boom. One was construction and this has gone the way of the dodo. The second was services based and may prove more resilient. Though how much of that services growth was based on easy credit access for consumers is an open question and a casual glance at the SME sector (or even a walk around any city centre over the past year) shows that the services industry is under a lot of pressure right now.

silverharp

nesf wrote: »

I'm disputing "ten years of falling prices" rather than late 90s as being realistic for the "undershoot".

it depends on policy to a certain extent. As NAMA etc is also a price support mechanism it can aslo drag out the period to find the ultimate low point, prices could fall 30% (guess) over the next 3 years in a free market scenario or 3% on average over the next 10 years. As long as property or any asset price is artifically supported real buyers will stay away until the supports run their course

nesf wrote: »

Households will need to repair their balance sheets, the only way this can happen is through job creation in the broader economy and inflation over the medium term. Unemployment lags behind GDP recovery usually, so one can expect to see a few years of growth of some kind before a substantial dent is put in the unemployment numbers. Inflation is going to be far more problematic, deflation will bottom out but inflation isn't going to get high enough to quickly "clean the balance sheets" anytime soon in Ireland I think.

If you expect inflation or currency weakness in the Euro area then for Ireland that could still mean wage stagnation as other countries rise and higher interest rates.
People will repair their balance sheets by reducing consumption and reducing personal borrowing. One would have to assume that people who will stay employed over the next decade will be stuck with their negetive equity and on the commercial side the primary goal might be debt reduction and not profit maximisation, again more deleveraging.

Flamed Diving

I saw this post on the IrishEconomy blog, and simply had to post it here:

JohnTheOptimist said:

Is there any reason why other academic economists in Ireland do not enjoy the same access to the Irish Times as Kelly does? In that thread last week about blogs, some of them were complaining that they frequently submitted articles to the Irish Times, but were never published. I think Kevin O’Rourke was one. Yet, Kelly gets stuff published every few weeks, even though he’s just re-gurgitating the same old stuff time every time.

Its not as if his forecasting record made him more worthy of publication than others. This time last year he was forecasting that GDP in Ireland would fall by 20 per cent in 2009. As I would never be published in the Irish Times in a million years, I had to make do with this humble site for posting my counter-forecast to Kelly’s. Shortly after Kelly published his forecast of a 20 per cent fall in Ireland’s GDP in 2009, I posted on this site that Ireland’s GDP would actually fall by only 5.9 per cent in 2009. In the event, my forecast has proved much more accurate. It now looks as if Ireland’s GDP will fall by between 6 per cent and 7 per cent in 2009.

Dispite the abysmal accuracy of his forecast for Ireland’s GDP fall in 2009, Kelly is now back predicting that Ireland’s GDP is going to grow much less than Iceland’s up to 2015. This he attributes to Iceland devaluing its currency and different treatment of banks. As 2015 is a long way off, all one can say at this stage is that his forecast has got off to a very bad start. The quarterly changes in GDP in Ireland and Iceland respectively in 2009 are as follows:

Q1 2009: Ireland GDP: -2.1% - Iceland GDP: -5.1%
Q2 2009: Ireland GDP: -0.6% - Iceland GDP: -0.4%
Q3 2009: Ireland GDP: +0.3% - Iceland GDP: -5.4%

cumulative change in GDP in first 3 quarters of 2009:

Ireland: -2.4% - Iceland: -10.9%

Oh dear! Not looking too good, Morgan.

Kelly attributes the poor outlook for Ireland to a lack of competitiveness that has caused exports to slump. His exact words in today’s Irish Times article are: “after 2000, competitiveness collapsed” and further down: “The Irish economy has been faking it for a decade”. By that he means that there has been no growth in exports, only from property speculation. Very well, explain these figures, Morgan.

changes in VOLUME of exports in EU15 countries between 2000 and 2009:

Luxembourg +47.9%
Ireland +43.3%
Germany +43.0%
Austria +34.5%
Netherlands +27.6%
Sweden +26.9%
Denmark +21.3%
EU15 +20.4%
Belgium +17.4%
Portugal +17.3%
U. Kingdom +16.2%
Spain +15.0%
Finland +14.7%
France +4.9%
Greece +3.8%
Italy -10.4%

If you are in the habit of logging onto this site, Morgan, as I’m sure you are, why don’t you come on and post your explanation as to why, if ‘competitiveness collapsed after 2000′ and ‘the Irish economy has been faking it for a decade’, Ireland’s export VOLUME growth between 2000 and 2009 was the second highest in the EU15 and twice the EU15 average? If you don’t, your silence will speak volumes.

From past experience, I’m pretty certain that my detailed rebuttal of Kelly’s wild claims will have no effect on his fans here. If Kelly published an article in the Irish Times saying that Dublin was about to be submerged in a tidal wave, half the posters on this site would be living in tents in the Wicklow mountains by lunchtime. I, on the other hand, can spot a fraud a mile away.

http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2009/12/29/morgan-kelly-on-the-irish-economy/#comment-29752

ardmacha

Q1 2009: Ireland GDP: -2.1% - Iceland GDP: -5.1%
Q2 2009: Ireland GDP: -0.6% - Iceland GDP: -0.4%
Q3 2009: Ireland GDP: +0.3% - Iceland GDP: -5.4%

cumulative change in GDP in first 3 quarters of 2009:

Ireland: -2.4% - Iceland: -10.9%

This is a bit odd, how does this add up to a 6-7% decline overall in 2009? Surely the Q1 figure is wrong?

changes in VOLUME of exports in EU15 countries between 2000 and 2009:

Luxembourg +47.9%
Ireland +43.3%

What is sometimes overlooked by the Jeremiah faction in this forum is that there has been some real economic activity in Ireland, and if international trade grows we will get our share, the only problem is the limited multiplier of some of these exports in the domestic economy.

Count Dooku

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I saw this post on the IrishEconomy blog, and simply had to post it here:

Q1 2009: Ireland GDP: -2.1% - Iceland GDP: -5.1%
Q2 2009: Ireland GDP: -0.6% - Iceland GDP: -0.4%
Q3 2009: Ireland GDP: +0.3% - Iceland GDP: -5.4%

Because Iceland is not banana republic and GDP of Iceland is similar to GNP, I think we should look more closely on Irish GNP

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&plugin=0&language=en&pcode=teina080

2007q01* 41186.40
2007q02* 40391.50 -1.97%
2007q03* 40631.70 0.59%
2007q04* 40160.60 -1.17%
2008q01* 40137.90 -0.06%
2008q02* 39508.20 -1.59%
2008q03* 38652.10 -2.21%
2008q04* 37597.90 -2.80%
2009q01* 34089.00 -10.29%
2009q02* 33854.60 -0.69%
2009q03* 32831.7 -3.12%


cumulative change in GNP in first 3 quarters of 2009 -14.10%, comparing to Iceland -10.9%

Flamed Diving

ardmacha wrote: »

This is a bit odd, how does this add up to a 6-7% decline overall in 2009? Surely the Q1 figure is wrong?



What is sometimes overlooked by the Jeremiah faction in this forum is that there has been some real economic activity in Ireland, and if international trade grows we will get our share, the only problem is the limited multiplier of some of these exports in the domestic economy.

Yeah, that seems off, alright. Too lazy to pull up Q1 figures.

Flamed Diving

Count Dooku wrote: »

Because Iceland is not banana republic and GDP of Iceland is similar to GNP, I think we should look more closely on Irish GNP

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/tgm/table.do?tab=table&plugin=0&language=en&pcode=teina080

2007q01* 41186.40
2007q02* 40391.50 -1.97%
2007q03* 40631.70 0.59%
2007q04* 40160.60 -1.17%
2008q01* 40137.90 -0.06%
2008q02* 39508.20 -1.59%
2008q03* 38652.10 -2.21%
2008q04* 37597.90 -2.80%
2009q01* 34089.00 -10.29%
2009q02* 33854.60 -0.69%
2009q03* 32831.7 -3.12%


cumulative change in GNP in first 3 quarters of 2009 -14.10%, comparing to Iceland -10.9%

Personally, I think GNI would be a much fairer measure for Ireland. But, don't let that get in the way of your agenda.

P.S. Where do you find the Banana Republic index?

Diarmuid

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Personally, I think GNI would be a much fairer measure for Ireland. But, don't let that get in the way of your agenda.

P.S. Where do you find the Banana Republic index?

I take it you didn't click his link. Your agenda and his agenda are closer than you think

[teina080] - Gross national income - Million EUR (current prices)

Short Description: Gross national income (at market prices) (ESA 1995, 8.94) represents total primary income receivable by resident institutional units: compensation of employees, taxes on production and imports less subsidies, property income (receivable less payable), gross operating surplus and gross mixed income. It is equal to: GDP (Gross Domestic Product) + primary incomes receivable from the rest of the world - primary incomes payable to the rest of the world. Values are seasonally adjusted (SA). The ESA 95 (European System of Accounts) regulation may be referred to for more specific explanations on methodology.

Flamed Diving

Diarmuid wrote: »

I take it you didn't click his link. Your agenda and his agenda are closer than you think

I take it you didn't read my "too lazy" remark, just moments earlier. But thanks.

Dooku, don't be misleading people by saying GNP when you report GNI figures.

They are not the same thing and this isn't the first time you have gotten things confused and caused chaos.