Ganley, Gurdgiev, McWilliams and a Swiss fund

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The effect extends a good way above the "man on the street". There are plenty of people in reasonably high and influential positions who will ruefully confess themselves baffled by the whole mess.

And journalists seem as baffled as everyone else, with the result that they're generally adding to the confusion. In those circumstances, it seems to me that we're more heavily reliant on "celebrity economists" than is desirable, and that there's a corresponding onus on celebrity economists to be truthful, accurate, and not engaged in ventures that would be likely to give them a vested interest in a particular narrative!

cordially,
Scofflaw

danbohan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

funny that as a country we really got totally deep in the pooh when our highly educated current generations got themselves stuck in financial quagmire .i think you underestimate the ''common man '' . i have seen a lot more financial acuteness in the cattle marts than we have seen in our banks or parliament .

fred252

Scofflaw wrote: »

The effect extends a good way above the "man on the street". There are plenty of people in reasonably high and influential positions who will ruefully confess themselves baffled by the whole mess.

And journalists seem as baffled as everyone else, with the result that they're generally adding to the confusion. In those circumstances, it seems to me that we're more heavily reliant on "celebrity economists" than is desirable, and that there's a corresponding onus on celebrity economists to be truthful, accurate, and not engaged in ventures that would be likely to give them a vested interest in a particular narrative!
cordially,
Scofflaw

that goes for all economists not just "celebrity economists", as you like to refer to them. of course there can be cases where they are truthful and accurate about something they have a vested interest in. which is fine as long as that vested interest is in the public domain.

conflicts of interest seem to be pretty rife in the profession, celebrity or otherwise - "inside job" made this point quite well i thought.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

wiseguy

later10 wrote: »

In fact, Anglo never went near the 36 billion that McWilliams proposed

Not defending McWilliams but Anglo is going to cost us well over that.
Few days ago we paid the first 3 billion yearly installment, 9 more to go, thats 30 billion right there + how many billions already put in?

later12

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yes, for him it often worked out super. My own Dad was one of those FF voting, cattle dealing, site selling farmers. For the first time in his life, he made a mint! Capitalising on another's stupidity or irrational behaviour (which so much consumer spending is anyway) is not only legitimate, it's entirely smart.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So are thousands of financial analysts, strategists, executives and entrepreneurs. However, examining the fundamentals underpinning the system (or not underpinning it...) is well within their capacity, and so it is for ordinary punters if they desire the knowledge. I think you are confusing intellectual capability with giving a damn: there is a significant number of individuals who do not give a damn why their dole, or their salary, or their financial flexbility has been curtailed, simply that it has. However - we live in a time when regular Joes driving lorries and working down the post office do understand far more about economic matters than non-financial professionals ever did before in western Europe, because that information is freely available if and when they wish to access it.

This is not rocket science, it should not be masqueraded as such.

I have a master's in economics and am a chartered financial analyst. So it's easy for us to presume what should be evident to others

I am always extremely wary of people who present an education in economics as evidence that they know what they are talking about.

I share a canteen table with people with M.Phils and MSc's coming out with the most staggeringly inaccurate observations about the crisis, world leaders and their economies, and basic market components - the basic nuts and bolts, in other words. I would take financial advice from very few of them; I myself would pretend to offer financial advice to none of them.

The simple fact is that much of what is happening was not taught at university nor at graduate school. Worse again, theoretical models that were taught have, sometimes, been shown to be wrong, inaccurate, or irrelevant. Much of this material still fills the archived literature, I often find myself leafing through academic journals or an old graduate textbook with a raised eyebrow.

Most financial professionals, apart from those working in senior banking positions, will admit that the only reason they know anything about international macroeconomic policy, Eurozone stability mechanisms, and budgetary processes is because they access the facts in the popular or semi-professional media publications, from Companies & Markets (available at your nearest Spar) to The Economist (available, also, at your nearest Spar)

The idea that this is all shrouded in technical language beyond the reach of your average, interested, individual is nonsense. All it takes is an average level of intelligence and a basic interest. It is the latter that many people lack, not the former.

Scofflaw

wiseguy wrote: »

Not defending McWilliams but Anglo is going to cost us well over that.
Few days ago we paid the first 3 billion yearly installment, 9 more to go, thats 30 billion right there + how many billions already put in?

That €3bn is 10% of the €30bn "already put in" to the banks via promissory notes, not an additional payment. Anglo has cost €29.354bn, and at this stage isn't going to cost more- it's a corpse, rather than a zombie - but may yet yield a few billion in burnables and assets.

cordially,
Scofflaw

later12

wiseguy wrote: »

Not defending McWilliams but Anglo is going to cost us well over that.
Few days ago we paid the first 3 billion yearly installment, 9 more to go, thats 30 billion right there + how many billions already put in?

That also includes the money to INBS, which from the top of my head makes up around 5 billion. The Anglo bailout cost is huge, but the figure has not changed, and it is not 36 billion.

The reason the annual charge is paid is because the bailout was committed in promissory notes, this is how the 25 billion or so will be poured into Anglo.

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

Anglo has cost €29.354bn

As far as I know this figure represents both INBS and Anglo.

Scofflaw

later10 wrote: »

As far as I know this figure represents both INBS and Anglo.

In terms of the promissory notes, it does indeed, but not in terms of all the money injected:

So far, €46,279 million has been poured into the banks. This is made up of

* €4,675 million via the Exchequer with
o €4,000 million going into Anglo Irish Bank
o €575 million into EBS and
o €100 million into INBS;
* €10,700 million via the NPRF with
o €3,500 million in AIB preference shares and
o €3,700 million in AIB ordinary shares
o €3,500 million in BOI preference shares; and
* €30,904 million through Promissory Notes with
o €25,354 million going to Anglo Irish Bank
o €5,300 million to INBS and
o €250 million to EBS.

Of this €46.3 billion, €35.6 billion is with borrowed money, with the remainder coming from the savings built up in the National Pension Reserve Fund (though it is possible to argue that the €4.7 billion contributed to the fund since 2008 was also borrowed).

Source: http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2011/03/what-is-sustainable.html

cordially,
Scofflaw

wiseguy

later10 you are both forgetting to add in the 4 billion in summer of 2009 put in by Brian and visible on the budget documents. These where not promissory notes but direct capital injection.

edit: Scofflaw posted at same time with the 4 billion figure.

wiseguy

Oh don't forget about NAMA. How much was put in indirectly via NAMA for which the taxpayers are liable.

later12

Indeed; I was only including the promissory notes. Always leaves you a bit awe-inspired when you forget to consider a seemingly tedious 4 billion here or there.

Scofflaw

wiseguy wrote: »

You are both forgetting to add in the 4 billion in summer of 2009 put in by Brian and visible on the budget documents. These where not promissory notes but direct capital injection.

Nope - that's why my figure for Anglo is €29.354bn - €25.354bn in promissory notes and €4bn cash injection. See the breakdown above.

later10 is correct in respect of the promissory notes, which include €5.3bn in INBS and €300m to EBS. See the breakdown above.

Overall for Anglo, though, the figure is as I've stated.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wiseguy

Scofflaw wrote: »

Nope - that's why my figure for Anglo is €29.354bn - €25.354bn in promissory notes and €4bn cash injection. See the breakdown above.

later10 is correct in respect of the promissory notes, which include €5.3bn in INBS and €300m to EBS. See the breakdown above.

Overall for Anglo, though, the figure is as I've stated.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I know we posted at same time I edited my post.

Including NAMA, promissory notes, and direct injections we are not too far from McWilliams figure.

And now that I think of it, didn't the central bank put in 10 billion into Anglo as well.

Scofflaw

wiseguy wrote: »

Oh don't forget about NAMA. How much was put in indirectly via NAMA for which the taxpayers are liable.

We can't really tell. NAMA has paid out, or will pay out, €54bn, but it has paid it for assets which are of uncertain value. Short of calling all the NAMA assets as being worth zero, how much NAMA will eventually cost is guesswork - it remains theoretically possible for it to make a profit.

Mind you, that's completely irrelevant to McWilliams' estimate of €36bn for Anglo - and as you've drawn attention to yourself, one shouldn't go forgetting the odd few billion!

And now that I think of it, didn't the central bank put in 10 billion into Anglo as well.

Not as far as anybody has ever said.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wiseguy

September 30, 2010: The Central Bank says the Anglo bail-out could ultimately cost citizens 34 billion euro (£29.1 billion).

Speaking of the central bank


34 billion is not too far from what David said, unless the central bank is pulling figures out of its rear too.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

wiseguy wrote: »

Speaking of the central bank


34 billion is not too far from what David said, unless the central bank is pulling figures out of its rear too.

We don't need to go back to a prediction at this point, though. McWilliams' figure was out by about €6-7bn whatever the Central Bank may have predicted 6 months ago. I'm sure we can find even less accurate estimates from other sources, but that doesn't particularly change whether McWilliams was accurate or not. What might be interesting would be to see whether he always errs in the same direction.

cordially,
Scofflaw

wiseguy

Scofflaw wrote: »

We don't need to go back to a prediction at this point, though. McWilliams' figure was out by about €6-7bn whatever the Central Bank may have predicted 6 months ago. I'm sure we can find even less accurate estimates from other sources, but that doesn't particularly change whether McWilliams was accurate or not. What might be interesting would be to see whether he always errs in the same direction.

cordially,
Scofflaw

I am just pointing out that while his prediction is 36 billion, our very own central bank predicted 34 billion.
@Later10 is quick to slate David, who is no saint nor prophet, but no criticism of the central bank who had an active part in Ireland's free-fall.

If you include the direct injection, the promissory notes and NAMA we are not too far from the figure. Oh and Anglo/NAMAed "assets" are worthless for most part, is the Glass Bottle Site worth the 300 million Anglo put it into it? How about the 390 million Spencer Dock development?? Or the 150 million Gallery Quay apartments? And lets not forget the 200 million for Anglo HQ part of larger 1.5 billion development of the area. These "assets" are worth a tiny fraction of what was put in.

later12

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well this is the point I have been responding to
http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showpost.php?p=71578968&postcount=49

Permabear wrote:

Only a small percentage of the Irish population have the ability to analyze complex financial and economic data

I don't consider it hair-splitting, there is an enormous gulf between simply not caring and being incapable of understanding a thing.

My point is that average individuals of no particular shade nor specialist education, who possess a mere interest, are perfectly capable of understanding the crisis.

I am equally skeptical of those who claim that lorry drivers and postmen understand more than educated professionals.

Who claimed that? I am saying they generally possess the same potential to understand the situation in its totality.

I share a canteen table with people with M.Phils and MSc's coming out with the most staggeringly inaccurate observations about the crisis, world leaders and their economies, and basic market components - the basic nuts and bolts, in other words.

And yet the "common man" should be expected to understand all of the above without difficulty?

The point is not that these MPhils cannot understand the crisis. These individuals, generally, were more likely to have been instructed in some completely different field of financial education, and typically would not possess an extracurricular interest in politics and topical macroeconomics... e.g. the European sovereign debt crisis.

Would this be the same Economist that declared Ireland the best place in the world to live a few years ago? Woe betide anyone who acted on those "facts" and moved here.

Yes... not that this is remotely relevant. The point is that there are a whole host of popular and semi-professional publications as well as online resources viz. the economic crisis easily available to Joe Public. I know it massages many egos to assume a position of superior intellectual capacity, but in my experience the egos that require such glorification rarely merit much intellectual praise.

later12

wiseguy wrote: »

I
@Later10 is quick to slate David, who is no saint nor prophet, but no criticism of the central bank who had an active part in Ireland's free-fall.

We all have criticisms of the central bank, be they ongoing criticisms or those relating to its previous existence.

But David McWilliams merely came up in the thread. I don't think pointing out the mistakes of others in any way detracts from McWilliams's own mistakes, both of which ought to be recorded fairly but neither of which cancel out the other.

beeftotheheels

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not sure the relevance to this thread but I think it makes a difference. If people cannot understand then they will blindly follow the economist du jour and lord help us. If people can understand, but haven't previously had the impetus then they now do and I think we are seeing that.

At our Christmas dinner table discussions on politics were had by all, debates on economic policy took place between those in our early thirties. This is no longer the case, the parents now give a damn and want to understand. My father now compares the property bubble to agricultural land prices way back whenever that bubble was (which as a farmer he can relate to).

He no longer accepts what McWilliams and co say, but tries to make sense of it and seek out explanations of what is happening. None of us know the answer to this, those who understand the problems are split based on ideologies, but at least we don't blindly buy into what SF or whoever say.

I suspect that if this is happening in our family it is happening elsewhere and may result in a more economically savvy and questioning electorate going forward - which can only be a good thing.

So it matters a lot, in real terms, whether people were disinterested (as many are not now) or were too thick to understand it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Not sure the relevance to this thread but I think it makes a difference. If people cannot understand then they will blindly follow the economist du jour and lord help us. If people can understand, but haven't previously had the impetus then they now do and I think we are seeing that.

At our Christmas dinner table discussions on politics were had by all, debates on economic policy took place between those in our early thirties. This is no longer the case, the parents now give a damn and want to understand. My father now compares the property bubble to agricultural land prices way back whenever that bubble was (which as a farmer he can relate to).

He no longer accepts what McWilliams and co say, but tries to make sense of it and seek out explanations of what is happening. None of us know the answer to this, those who understand the problems are split based on ideologies, but at least we don't blindly buy into what SF or whoever say.

I suspect that if this is happening in our family it is happening elsewhere and may result in a more economically savvy and questioning electorate going forward - which can only be a good thing.

So it matters a lot, in real terms, whether people were disinterested (as many are not now) or were too thick to understand it.

That's why I consider the attitudes and interests of the public commentators on the economy to be of interest. For a lot of people, they are the filter through which the economic crisis is perceived.

cordially,
Scofflaw

theofficepest2

This story stinks to high heavens

But lets all jump aboard anyway

:pac: ourp

Scofflaw

theofficepest2 wrote: »

This story stinks to high heavens

But lets all jump aboard anyway

:pac: ourp

Perhaps you could explain what you find problematic about it. As far as I can see, the stories have been removed at Ganley's request, but there's no retraction, nor any suggestion that either B&F or the Journal had got hold of false information - nor can I see why either outlet should publish such an article if it weren't true.

It doesn't strike me as an unlikely venture by Ganley - indeed, it seems right up his street, and not in itself discreditable - and he's historically good at persuading well-known people onto the boards of his ventures. Having a couple of economic commentators who are well-known 'hawks' on the crisis would offer a level of comfort to potential investors.

cordially,
Scofflaw

theofficepest2

I can't see why they would pull the article at the behest of Ganley for no reason, especially if they have their facts straight, can you?


:pac: Ourp

Scofflaw

theofficepest2 wrote:

I can't see why they would pull the article at the behest of Ganley for no reason, especially if they have their facts straight, can you?

It's quite easy to get a story pulled. Ganley has said that the B&F story "is wrong" and that they're being "respectfully asked to remove it", but doesn't say in what way the story is wrong. Columbanus AG certainly exists, and B&F has either seen documents or not - but there are plenty of other ways in which the story can be wrong. The article may have some facts wrong, and from Ganley's point of view they may be important facts, but that's not the same as the story being made up, which is what I took "stinks to high heaven" to mean. After all, what's the motive?

cordially,
Scofflaw

theofficepest2

Now the critical point here is we don't know why the story was pulled exactly, so the rest is speculation. It may or may not be true

Thus currently the story stinks. If the story is correct why pull it, if it's in error alter it, look at the article, it's hardly contentious now is it. If they have documents to prove the content why pull it? They list board members, quote a press release and contemplate on it's role.

If facts show the story to be true then it may no longer stink.

:pac: ourp

theofficepest2

later10 wrote: »

Most high net worth individuals would consider leaving their wealth in a deposit account about the same as you or I leaving our life savings in a current account. The potential returns from hedged or safe investments far outstrips anything one could ever hope to earn from a deposit account (which is itself invested as a fund and which itself makes a far bigger profit for banks than for the individual depositors)

The fund affiliate which Ganley has established, or is in the process of establishing, would diversify its investments into a series of highly dependable triple-A rated ventures, not unlike our old friend the pension reserve fund which did the same thing.

Is that really why you move their money to swizzzerland? In the article it refers to a swiss bank. I wasn't of the belief that Swiss banks were much on giving a nice return and medium risk, any fund can do that, its about the safety of the currency surely, about it not being in the euro etc.

Now the details are scarce so who knows, but..

Triple A has been shown to not be worth the paper its printed on.

:pac: ourp

Scofflaw

theofficepest2 wrote: »

Now the critical point here is we don't know why the story was pulled exactly, so the rest is speculation. It may or may not be true

Thus currently the story stinks. If the story is correct why pull it, if it's in error alter it, look at the article, it's hardly contentious now is it. If they have documents to prove the content why pull it? They list board members, quote a press release and contemplate on it's role.

If facts show the story to be true then it may no longer stink.

:pac: ourp

Fair enough - we'll see how things pan out. Mind you, I don't imagine that it will necessarily be easy to get hold of the board members list in a Swiss fund.

cordially,
Scofflaw

danbohan

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

apparently you took advantage of the farmers voting to sell sites yourself permabear , indeed what you say is true , but those auctioneers and builders were selling in a lot of cases vastly overpriced houses to highly educated individuals who by your reckoning should know a lot more about economics than the ''common man'' . ? . seems they did not .

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

later12

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I have a number of responses. Most pressing, perhaps, is that this 1995 survey does not take account of anyone born from 1980 onwards. This means there are men in their thirties today with wives, kids, and mortgages in negative equity who are not included in this survey.
These individuals are part of a substantial group, the median age in Ireland being just 34. Interestingly, the survey notes that most of the people scoring in the lower ranges were in the older age group.
Therefore, considering that Ireland now has by far the youngest population in the EU, one might reasonably expect quite a different result sixteen years on.

Secondly, even if that survey were commissioned last week as opposed to 1995, it still would not represent the average Irish adult, which is what is being discussed.

Thirdly, I would just point out that there is a substantial difference between literacy skills and numerical skills as well as the capacity to understand economic concepts or assimilate figures.
Many of the farmers referred to earlier may not have very advanced reading skills (in which case facts can be accessed via other news media) nor be inclinced toward grammatical exactitude, but they might certainly understand the detail surrounding concepts like sustainable capital, the use of finance, and fluctuations between supply and demand. To illustrate the rather feeble link between literacy skills and economic and numerical skills, just take those individuals who suffer from dyslexia. Nobody would suggest for a moment that literacy skills must impact negatively upon such an individual's capacity to understand concepts.

So you haven't really established a link, nor advanced a very convincing argument that "only a small percentage of the Irish population have the ability to analyze complex financial and economic data". There is no evidence to support that.

Can I just clarify what exactly it was that you meant by this statement?

Permabear wrote: »

The financially astute farmer was first in line to vote Fianna Fáil in 2002 and 2007 so that he could sell off sites at €150,000+ per half acre.

Mainstream economics does not do a particularly good job of explaining bubbles, we should note. It is the marginalized Austrian School, [...] to which we must turn for a more cogently economic explanation [...] And those economists are not much studied in university economics courses today.

I'm not quite sure it requires nor deserves the same attention as mainstream economic schools; being as it is, if not a lot more crude, then certainly an altogether less complex and by far less scientific approach in its methodology than what would be considered 'mainstream'. Nevertheless, I'm not quite convinced the Austrians are any financially better off than the Keynesians, but then, quite ironically, the Austrian school is one that only really gets popular after a catastrophic event so perhaps we shall never know.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

later12

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Firstly, as was often pointed out at the time, and as is mentioned in the article

The Department of Education has had experts from Statistics Canada and an educational research center study the results.
“Both teams of experts have concluded that some, but not all, of the lower scores in reading and maths are explained by changes in the demographics of the group of 15-year-olds taking the test,” she said.
Greater numbers of students whose first language is not Irish or English are now in classrooms, as are greater numbers of students with special educational needs.”

I feel I should also point out that while Ireland was below the mathematical average, students were in fact above average in science and reading.
http://www.educationmatters.ie/2010/12/14/pisa-study-results-an-urgent-call-to-action/
I'm not endorsing the Irish educational system nor its methods, but this sort of research does not help to dismiss the average person's ability to understand in terms of the economy what is happening around him.

Most importantly, as I mentioned before, this figure does not represent the average individual, which is what is being discussed.
Nor does it substantiate your claim that "only a small percentage of the Irish population have the ability to analyze complex financial and economic data". No doubt you will now substantiate that.

a very significant percentage of Irish adults won't be settling in with The Economist anytime soon, because they don't have the literacy skills. And among young people, literacy skills are getting worse, not better.

Again - literacy skills and the ability to assimilate and interpret concepts and values are not necessarily mutually inclusive of one another. There are numerous ways of acquiring and interpreting factual information that do not include that magazine - these include informed discussions, television and radio news media, and at times, the internet.

I'm not quite sure it requires nor deserves the same attention as mainstream economic schools; being as it is, if not a lot more crude, then certainly an altogether less complex and by far less scientific approach in its methodology than what would be considered 'mainstream'.

Oh, right. I thought you were arguing that economics doesn't have to be complex and scientific, when you wrote: "That doesn't always suit the egos of those of us who work in an economic or financial position, who like to think of economics as some wonderful, complex, transcendent discipline, a mysterious specialty which only we can master."

First of all, I went on to say that economics is some wonderful, complex, transcendent discipline.
My point is that, despite what many vaguely "economic professionals" like to think, the latter part is the aspect that is untrue - i.e. that it is a mysterious specialty that only [financial professionals] can master. That belief is nothing more than en ego rub.

By the way, the criticism of Austrian economics is not that it is simple in itself, my point is that in terms of undergraduate education, its Mathematical or econometric reluctance, as well as its limited life span spent mainly on the fringes, doesn't give students and teachers very much to work with.

later12

I'm still wondering about this by the way

Originally Posted by Permabear
The financially astute farmer was first in line to vote Fianna Fáil in 2002 and 2007 so that he could sell off sites at €150,000+ per half acre.

beeftotheheels

While I'm really enjoying the argument on the relative thickness of "Paddy" should this not be split into another thread entitled "The problem with Paddy - thick or bone lazy?". Perhaps a Mod could do it?

later12

Does the question of whether people of average intelligence without specialist training can understand topical economic concepts really merit a whole thread? Do people really doubt this?

Some of the most balanced and informed posts I read on here are by individuals which as far as i can ascertain, are not formally educated economists nor banking specialists. But who knows, maybe they are just geniuses.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

beeftotheheels

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Not sure I understand your point, if the average Irish person is too thick/ illiterate to understand basic economics on their own, and needs to have the likes of McWilliams to spoon feed him, how is he going to understand the conflict of interest and its impact? Quis custodiet ipsos custodes? as Sam Vimes might put it.

Since I think the average Irish person was disinterested and is no longer so, and is capable of reading the business pages of the Irish Times, Robert Peston's blog on BBC, watching the telly etc etc and forming their own opinions, I agree that any conflict should be questioned.

later12

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Average
adj. 1. Mathematics Of, relating to, or constituting an average.
2. Being intermediate between extremes, as on a scale: a player of average ability.
3. Usual or ordinary in kind or character: a poll of average people; average eyesight.

You have not supplied a shred of evidence to back up the suggestion that those of intermediate levels of intelligence, individuals who may be described as usual or ordinary, do not possess the basic aptitude (or rather, as you might consider, intellectual might) to get through that magazine, itself usually aimed at garden variety non-financial professionals.

You merely link to falling standards in education generally, and a sixteen year old report demonstrating a significant minority who had literacy issues. Do you see the difference between those references and the average individual?

Originally Posted by Permabear
The financially astute farmer was first in line to vote Fianna Fáil in 2002 and 2007 so that he could sell off sites at €150,000+ per half acre.

I'm still wondering if that even has an explanation.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

later12

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You appear to be missing the point. In pointing to the extremes of illiteracy as it was in 1995, i.e. IALS level 1 (regardless of the fact that the study is long out of date), you are not dealing with people of average intelligence.
There was indeed a significant minority, particularly among the older age groups, with most severe literacy difficulties but it was not the typical situation, and the incidence of difficulty fell directly proportional to age. For example, in the then 16-24 age group (now aged anywhere from about 32 - 40) the IALS level 1 contingent was lowest, at 13.4%. Many of the top two age groups, who had high incidence of literacy problems, would, sixteen years on, be too old to form part of this study if still alive.

It should be clear here that 56 percent of Irish adults were at IALS levels 1 or 2, implying that they had the ability to process (at most) simple texts and straightforward pieces of information. They did not have the ability to integrate multiple sources of information and solve complex problems.

Or, interpreted another way, in 1995, 75.73% of respondents were at levels 2 - 5.
Leaving aside for a moment the fact that these are literacy figures, not specifically measurements of capacity to understand concepts, I am not convinced that those on level 2, for example, would be incapable of interpreting clear, concise statistics such as rising yields, simple values and magnitudes (e.g. in relation to debt vs revenue), and inflationary fluctuations.

But getting back to the points that I keep repeating, (a) a measure of the ability to understand a concept, be that verbally presented on radio, television or in graphic form, perhaps on the internet, is not necessarily equated with a measurement of literacy. (b) This study is inescapably and quite hopelessly outdated, even if the previous point were to be somehow invalidated. It does not take account of anyone presently under the age of 30.

The projection is that by 2020, 47 percent of adults will be at these levels (National Adult Literacy Report, 2009).

Well if we must work on projected figures in the absence of a new literacy assessment, it is worth pointing out that just over half of adults in range were projected to be in IALS 3, 4 or 5 for 2010. Even that is an unreliable (probably understated) figure, given that it works off of 1995 bases, and as the report says the ALS budget increased by a factor of 30 to 2009 and student numbers increased from 5,000 to about 50,000 since 1997.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

theofficepest2

Lads,

firstly what in gawds name are the two of you twittering on about, also, are you public sector workers or private or are you guys unemployable or what? If you are either of the first two, would ye do some gawd damn work

I mean grand, a post during lunch or on a break is fine, but come on, do some gawd damn work gawd dammit, if you are self employed, that's no excuse either

Going back on topic

David Macs website is down, I smell a conspiracy a foot, we live in dangerous times here people



:pac: ourp

later12

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Indeed, 16 years ago the youngest age group had a majority in IALS3, 4 and 5. One would reasonably expect that trend as referred to earlier to have continued.
Particularly in light of this comment in the report

Although there has been no national study of adult literacy since 1995, surveys of school children indicate that in general literacy levels of young people compare well internationally

And there is significant evidence that literacy among young Irish people is still at troublingly low levels, as evidenced by the findings of the 2009 PISA survey, which shows that 17 percent of Irish 15-year-olds are low achievers in reading.

17%?! We're talking about the average level of intelligence in this thread, not the lesser extreme. The same report placed Ireland above average in reading and science overall.

They are figures for prose, document, and quantitative literacy. So, yes, they do measure ability to integrate information and understand concepts.

No, it is the measurement of the ability to identify concepts framed in written communication - this is not a measure of cognitive ability. There is a massive difference, and hopefully you can see it.

For example, many of the financially astute farmers you referred to earlier would presumably often perform poorly in assessments such as this one. Yet, many would be keen on managing their own business affairs and would do so rather successfully. By the way, I will again ask you to explain your previous comment on the matter of selling sites, as per the previous requests.

Unless you can show that there has been an amazing upsurge in literacy over the past 16 years, it's quite reasonable to extrapolate from this study.

Is it? Okay lets extrapolate on this study and disregard the huge level of funding that went into adult literacy subsequently during the boom years, and would have been unforeseen by its authors. By 1995 standards, they extrapolated that in 2010, the majority of adults would be IALS level 3, 4 or 5.

Furthermore, you ask for evidence of an amazing upsurge in literacy. I'm not really of the opinion that this is necessary, since, inevitably, we are talking about significant minorities at the extreme and I am interested in the average level of intelligence, however, there are two points:

(1) On the period after the IALS Study in the 1990s

2.9 The findings had a stimulatory impact on adult education, somewhat similar to the impact on secondary education of the Investment in Education report in the 1960s. Allocations for adult literacy education rose to £7.8 million by 2000 with an additional £0.96 million for programme development. The result was an increase in the numbers in training from 5,000 to 17,000 and development of a variety of methods of delivery and other complementary actions in the field of promotion and research.

In recent years, the ALS budget ballooned even further to 30 million euro, and its student cohort expanded to 50,000.

(2)You say yourself that that 17% of Irish 15-year-olds are now found to be low achievers in reading. If IALS2 is as bad as you appear to believe, then this 17% would presumably be comprised of those on IALS1 and IALS2.

However, in 1995, 46% of the lowest age category were in IALS 1 and IALS 2.

To get back to the point.

You keep ignoring the fact that this does not deal with an averagely intelligent individual with no specialist training, which is, after all, what is under discussion. Pointing to a significant minority with severe literacy problems does not in any way substantiate your claim that "Only a small percentage of the Irish population have the ability to analyze complex financial and economic data".

Can you substantiate that, or not?