Noel Grealish

blanch152

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

How could that multiply the remittance home money by 10?

They'd have to be simultaneously work-shy and millionaires, meaning what, criminals and money-launderers on a massive scale?

A combination of money-laundering and the cash economy could explain it, allied to a higher savings rate through living with a lower standard of living.

The CSO data is based on an average standard of living in Ireland, many emigrants, including Irish who went to America, are happy to have a lower living standard than locals, in order to be able to send money back home. This is not factored into the CSO data, another factor which makes their statistics unreliable.

There are two issues at play here.

(1) Why are the World Bank figures generally by a factor of 2-3 greater than the CSO figures? Is this measurement difference, cash economy, etc? It is consistent across quite a few countries so there must be a systematic reason for it.

(2) Why are the figures for China and Nigeria so significantly different? Is it because of issues in China and Nigeria measuring and reporting to the World Bank? Is it something peculiar to the nature of Chinese and Nigerian abroad? Is it a factor peculiar to those communities in Ireland?

All of those questions are purely statistical and economic in nature. There are resulting questions that are of relevance to Ireland e.g. do we have adequate money-laundering arrangements in place? Is the cash economy bigger than we think or realise?

None of the questions and issues I raise have any racist undertone or overtone. They are all legitimate questions that deserve answers.

Faugheen

Roversfan1 wrote: »

Unreal, it's quite clear from the numbers that something is off and you can't get past your hatred for Noel Grealish.

Move past him as a person and look at the numbers.

It could be the WB, the Nigerian government, a criminal element in Ireland or Nigeria or criminal activity from people not even from Ireland or Nigeria or a whole number of other activities.....Once you muppets move past the race baiting crap surely you would agree numbers are not racist and must be looked into?

Yes let’s look at the numbers.

If you believe WB figures. The average Nigerian is sending home just under 50,000 a year

If you believe the CSO, it’s 1,700.

Which figures do you think are more believable?

riemann

riemann wrote: »

I find the Lithuanian figure the most interesting.

Plenty of them caught up in the drug trade here, and those android TV boxes to get sky TV.

Two different crimes, but profiting from criminal activity all the same.

What’s their two figures?

is_that_so

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

How do you mean?

A lot of tax authorities these days share data on financial assets.

Zubeneschamali

Roversfan1 wrote: »

It could be the WB, the Nigerian government,

The WB just use the Nigerian Governments figures. I linked upthread to a graph of the WB totals for Nigeria, and it is blatantly fake, going off the rails in 2005.

Here it is again as a % of GDP, where the jumps are equally silly, it jumps from 2% to 8% of GDP in a single year. Ridiculous.

https://data.worldbank.org/indicator/BX.TRF.PWKR.DT.GD.ZS?end=2015&locations=PL-NG&start=1974&view=chart

Faugheen

Faugheen wrote: »

Yes let’s look at the numbers.

If you believe WB figures. The average Nigerian is sending home just under 50,000 a year

If you believe the CSO, it’s 1,700.

Which figures do you think are more believable?

Do the CSO really say there’s between 1000 & 10000 Nigerians in Ireland?

Zubeneschamali

blanch152 wrote: »

None of the questions and issues I raise have any racist undertone or overtone. They are all legitimate questions that deserve answers.

They just happen to imply that Nigerians are tax-scamming black economy money-launderers.

Hey, it's not me, it's the numbers!

is_that_so

blanch152 wrote: »

A combination of money-laundering and the cash economy could explain it, allied to a higher savings rate through living with a lower standard of living.

The CSO data is based on an average standard of living in Ireland, many emigrants, including Irish who went to America, are happy to have a lower living standard than locals, in order to be able to send money back home. This is not factored into the CSO data, another factor which makes their statistics unreliable.

There are two issues at play here.

(1) Why are the World Bank figures generally by a factor of 2-3 greater than the CSO figures? Is this measurement difference, cash economy, etc? It is consistent across quite a few countries so there must be a systematic reason for it.

(2) Why are the figures for China and Nigeria so significantly different? Is it because of issues in China and Nigeria measuring and reporting to the World Bank? Is it something peculiar to the nature of Chinese and Nigerian abroad? Is it a factor peculiar to those communities in Ireland?

All of those questions are purely statistical and economic in nature. There are resulting questions that are of relevance to Ireland e.g. do we have adequate money-laundering arrangements in place? Is the cash economy bigger than we think or realise?

None of the questions and issues I raise have any racist undertone or overtone. They are all legitimate questions that deserve answers.

The WB figures outside of any remit. As for our cash economy well here's Dan O'Brien on it from a few years back but he makes very valid points.


https://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/dan-obrien/our-black-economy-is-small-but-it-should-shrink-even-further-31085003.html

And a piece from this year saying much the same thing.

https://www.irishexaminer.com/breakingnews/business/ireland-doeswell-on-shadow-economy-policy-910054.html

Snickers Man

Aegir wrote: »

didn't a certain Cavan family transfer a few billion in to their Russian bank account a few years back?

Badabing!!!

Roversfan1

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They just happen to imply that Nigerians are tax-scamming black economy money-launderers.

Hey, it's not me, it's the numbers!

It could be people from anywhere using Nigeria as a base to perform their activities?

It does not have to mean Nigerians are involved.

I assume some people are trolling by continuing to allude to racism as a reason for all of this.

If the figures from two reputable organisations like the CSO and WB don't match up why is this not the main thing people should be discussing.

It has to be trolling.....You got me

Roversfan1

Snickers Man wrote: »

Badabing!!!

Did they investigate it straight away or did they wait until it was clear no black people were involved before proceeding?

Riskymove

Roversfan1 wrote: »

It could be the WB, the Nigerian government, a criminal element in Ireland or Nigeria or criminal activity from people not even from Ireland or Nigeria or a whole number of other activities.....Once you muppets move past the race baiting crap surely you would agree numbers are not racist and must be looked into?

Neither the Nigerian figures or the CSO would include illegal transfers

Neither include actual financial transfers so neither would possibly reflect money laundering or other criminal activity

Both use a model based on other data like the number of people or GDP or average wage etc

Balf

The answer could relate to payments being routed through legal entities registered in Ireland for tax purposes. For instance

https://s21.q4cdn.com/100551446/files/doc_financials/2017/AR/2018-proxy-statement.pdf

The majority of our EU business is managed through our Irish payment institution subsidiary, which is regulated by the Central Bank of Ireland.

But the gap is too wide to be just left to guesswork.

blanch152

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

They just happen to imply that Nigerians are tax-scamming black economy money-launderers.

Hey, it's not me, it's the numbers!

blanch152 wrote: »

A combination of money-laundering and the cash economy could explain it, allied to a higher savings rate through living with a lower standard of living.

The CSO data is based on an average standard of living in Ireland, many emigrants, including Irish who went to America, are happy to have a lower living standard than locals, in order to be able to send money back home. This is not factored into the CSO data, another factor which makes their statistics unreliable.

There are two issues at play here.

(1) Why are the World Bank figures generally by a factor of 2-3 greater than the CSO figures? Is this measurement difference, cash economy, etc? It is consistent across quite a few countries so there must be a systematic reason for it.

(2) Why are the figures for China and Nigeria so significantly different? Is it because of issues in China and Nigeria measuring and reporting to the World Bank? Is it something peculiar to the nature of Chinese and Nigerian abroad? Is it a factor peculiar to those communities in Ireland?

All of those questions are purely statistical and economic in nature. There are resulting questions that are of relevance to Ireland e.g. do we have adequate money-laundering arrangements in place? Is the cash economy bigger than we think or realise?

None of the questions and issues I raise have any racist undertone or overtone. They are all legitimate questions that deserve answers.

Read my post again and take off the politically correct blinkers.

There are a number of suggestions there such as higher savings rates and measuring issues in Nigeria and China that have nothing to do with what Nigerians do or don't do.

I have put the full range of possibilities on the table.

Is it racist to say that Belarus might have a drink problem?

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

As well as a cigarette problem?

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

Or that the English have a cocaine problem?

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

Or that people in El Salvador don't value human life?

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


You need to climb down from your high horse on racism, and actually debate the facts and reasons in a reasonable manner rather than accusing every poster you disagree with of being a racist.

Strawberry Milkshake

Strawberry Milkshake wrote: »

Do the CSO really say there’s between 1000 & 10000 Nigerians in Ireland?

Found it. It does say this though.

In April 2016, there were 535,475 non-Irish nationals living in Ireland, a 1.6 per cent decrease on the 2011 figure (544,357). The proportion of the population who were non-Irish nationals has also fallen from 12.2 per cent in 2011 to 11.6 per cent in 2016. This fall in non-Irish nationals can in part be explained by the rise in the number of those with dual Irish nationality, who are classified as Irish in the census.

Persons with dual-Irish nationality increased by 87.4 per cent to 104,784 persons in 2016. The largest proportion was Irish-American, which accounted for 16.8 per cent of all dual nationalities, followed by Irish-UK (14.7%) and Irish-Polish (8.8%).

So 59.7% of other nationalities claim dual citizenship. The CSO classes them as Irish so is the figure they use for their remittances data omitting these people?

1641

Nigeria is a country rich in natural resources. It is also a country ranked towards the upper end of the scale for corruption in public administration. Backhanders have long been a big issue.
Any chance that the Government/public administration is attributing these unbelievable
transfers to emigrant remittances from around the world in order to conceal their real source in corporation backhanders?

Riskymove

blanch152 wrote: »

None of the questions and issues I raise have any racist undertone or overtone. They are all legitimate questions that deserve answers.

the Nigerian figure is based on

How many Nigerians they think are in Ireland
and Ireland's GDP


The CSO figure is based on an estimate of what an average non-national earns and therefore what is a reasonable amount they would have disposable to send home



both are just ESTIMATES


Neither actually included any real numbers on money sent to Nigeria from Ireland via banks or other institutions



Neither figure would give ANY information about the actual amount of money transferred or its source

Sir Oxman

weldoninhio wrote: »

I’m sure that there are other countries in Ireland that have comparable number to Nigeria in Ireland. How come their figures aren’t completely skewed by our false GDP??

May have something to do with if the calculations at the start are guesses the end result is a fudge. Figures and calculations (guesses) to WB are submitted by Nigeria for Nigeria.

Ireland's joke of a GDP per head figure will majorly skew any set of figures.
2017 Nigeria figures from Nigeria

Nigeria 22bn total inflows
Nigeria Ireland diaspora 20,000 approx

Nigeria inflow from Ireland p.a 480m (allocated using an Irish GDP of 75k!)



I'm not saying there shouldn't be an answer forthcoming or that the question shouldn't be asked at all.

US2

terrydel wrote: »

Its actually hilarious how thick bigots swallow the numbers he threw out.
Theyve gone very quiet tho.

Nothing got to do with numbers, the fact he's being racist for asking a question. This ****e is exactly why England and USA are laughing stock.

Keep calling everyone bigots/racists and they'll vote in the some loonatic who'll listen to them.

Someone asks a stupid question, educate them not attack

weldoninhio

Zubeneschamali wrote: »

The only reason you are interested is that the inaccurate information published is inaccurate. Why does that make you think the accurate data (if we had it) would be interesting?

If I invent some nonsensical numbers about custard exports, does that mean we must have an investigation to get to the bottom of the custard issue?

Nope.

And going after this as if there must be a real issue keeps alive the racist idea that Nigerians are simultaneously welfare spongers, black economy millionaires and involved in massive money laundering.

Based on nothing but this silly number.

All outward remissions should be investigated, not just Nigerian ones. However, if certain countries stand out they would warrant further investigation.

Zubeneschamali

blanch152 wrote: »

You need to climb down from your high horse on racism, and actually debate the facts and reasons in a reasonable manner rather than accusing every poster you disagree with of being a racist.

I have now linked the actual charts from the WB twice showing that the Nigerian numbers are baloney since 2005. Feel free to talk about the numbers.

The reason everyone instead wants to talk about money laundering, welfare scabbery and the black economy is because those things support their racist views, while Nigeria posting nonsensical numbers, well, OK, they'd probably be racist about that, too.

weldoninhio

is_that_so wrote: »

To have legitimate debate you need to have a basis and the Grealish figures are far from reliable and out and out guesswork. We do have the means to monitor what goes out under money laundering laws with Welfare, Revenue and CAB mopping up behind.

As are the CSO figures.

weldoninhio

is_that_so wrote: »

The discrepancy has been identified as a gap between the out and out wild guesswork model of Nigeria V the CSO here, who would have a more sophisticated method of guessing. Investigate away just as long as we're not on the hook financially for a report that finds nothing. Gotta say this one of those unintentional fake news stories where an individual can't even do their own basic research and trusts data they found as gospel.

FFS!! The shark has been well and truly jumped.

is_that_so

weldoninhio wrote: »

FFS!! The shark has been well and truly jumped.

You were well ahead of me on the shark jumping!

weldoninhio

Faugheen wrote: »

Yes let’s look at the numbers.

If you believe WB figures. The average Nigerian is sending home just under 50,000 a year

If you believe the CSO, it’s 1,700.

Which figures do you think are more believable?

Hows about we gather evidence and see what the factual amount is rather that seeing who's guesstimate is more believable??

is_that_so

weldoninhio wrote: »

As are the CSO figures.

I'm more inclined to find them credible. You're clearly not for reasons only known to yourself.

Faugheen

US2 wrote: »

Nothing got to do with numbers, the fact he's being racist for asking a question. This ****e is exactly why England and USA are laughing stock.

Keep calling everyone bigots/racists and they'll vote in the some loonatic who'll listen to them.

Someone asks a stupid question, educate them not attack

But the problem is it’s not the first time he’s done something like this.

Talking about asylum seekers sponging off the system with no basis, and then singling out Nigerians using figures by the World Bank while not acknowledging that the figures came from Nigeria and were complete guess work.

He knew full well what he was doing. He has a responsibility to explain or acknowledge how the World Bank got their figures but he didn’t do ****e and all it’s done is get the tails up of the ‘dey tuk er jerbs’ brigade who blame the fordiners for everything.

The fact this is not the first time he’s used foreigners to whip up fear he absolutely deserves to be called out for what he is.

I couldn’t give two flying f*cks if other people think he’s right. They’ll argue any facts you throw at them because it ruins their narrative that the fordiners don’t belong here.

Zubeneschamali

US2 wrote: »

Someone asks a stupid question, educate them not attack

He is not asking a stupid question, he is asking a malicious question.

He does not care about the answer, he cares about getting people like blanch, who are not at all racist, to discuss whether Nigerians are money-launderers or welfare cheats, or perhaps black economy millionaires.

And when those discussions fill forums and the less respectable media outlets, the "no smoke without fire" brigade will take these things as facts.

And then vote for Noel.

is_that_so

Here's that spongers story.

https://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/td-grealish-stands-over-remarks-about-african-migrants-38521277.html

Riskymove

weldoninhio wrote: »

Hows about we gather evidence and see what the factual amount is rather that seeing who's guesstimate is more believable??

the problem is if you could easily identify the actual figures then we wouldn't need the world bank or cso figures and we'd all be doing that

the whole crux of the problem is that it is almost impossible to get this actual data