David McWilliams sprouting nonsense again

Poor_old_gill

CrankyHaus wrote: »

Losing his investor's money in Detroit real estate was above and beyond, even by the standards of Irish Financial Gurus.

I still don't understand where Eddie cam from or how he ended up being held in such high regard.

I was relatively young during the Celtic Tiger years and always just thought of him as a man getting lots of publicity so he must know what he is talking about.

Where did he derive perceived ability from?

BrianHal

ToxicPaddy wrote: »

Yes I know he's also a faculty member of at least 1 x university in Dublin, but I'm sure he also makes a tidy sum from the media outlets too.

What’s that old phrase “those who can do and those who can’t teach”

greenfield21

Does anyone else laugh when people say " he is our best finance minister" like wtf. What do Irish politicians actually do other than watch the money role in from these US companies. It's the poor sod who has to take over when there is a change in policy abroad or a downturn. Then we have to actually think for ourselves and maybe spend money wisely. I can't see a better time to be finance minister in Ireland. Even sinn fein probably couldn't mess this up, and probably alot of money moving in the background re IDA,loopholes sweet heart deals... So yeah Irish politicians are riding a bit of a wave to say the least.

Poor_old_gill

BrianHal wrote: »

What’s that old phrase “those who can do and those who can’t teach”

In fairness that phrase is only over ever really used by those who neither do nor teach. The kind of people who say 'foreign imports' - i.e. those trying to sound smart but never getting there.

Also most lecturers usually have a background in industry

blanch152

washman3 wrote: »

You need to go back and check the facts again.
McWilliams certainly did'nt 'dream up' the infamous bank bailout.
And he totally disagreed with NAMA.

When John Gormley was called on the night of the bailout, he asked “are we going with the David McWilliams option? “. “Yes” was the answer, and the rest is history.

McWilliams has spent the decade since trying to whitewash his involvement.

Poor_old_gill

blanch152 wrote: »

When John Gormley was called on the night of the bailout, he asked “are we going with the David McWilliams option? “. “Yes” was the answer, and the rest is history.

McWilliams has spent the decade since trying to whitewash his involvement.

I'm surprised that John Gormley didn't, at first, vociferously campaign on the back of not using said opinion and then once elected - go with that opinion almost immediately.

FVP3

blanch152 wrote: »

When John Gormley was called on the night of the bailout, he asked “are we going with the David McWilliams option? “. “Yes” was the answer, and the rest is history.

McWilliams has spent the decade since trying to whitewash his involvement.

That was a bank guarantee for depositors, not a bailout. And it itself it was just a statement designed to stop a run.

McWilliams did not support the bailout. Presumably you did. (By the way he was wrong on defaulting for sure, he is hit and miss for me as he is for everybody).

https://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-mcwilliams/david-mcwilliams-bailout-will-sink-ireland-before-we-can-even-swim-26704578.html

JohnnyFlash

A podcast for people who fall for cheap populism.

FVP3

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

A podcast for people who fall for cheap populism.

I mean its an economics podcast, so hardly "populist" in itself. Anyway isnt there a thread on sh1tting you need to get back to?

JohnnyFlash

FVP3 wrote: »

I mean its an economics podcast, so hardly "populist" in itself. Anyway isnt there a thread on sh1tting you need to get back to?

Attack the post, not the poster.

McWilliams is a man who spouts easy populist solutions to complex multifaceted problems. His audience is made up almost exclusively of people who fall for inane populist rhetoric. They wouldn’t be the sharpest knives in the block.

is_that_so

McWilliams is given to conceits and flights of fancy. He's also paid to write things. He has some ideas that could be worth considering but most of them are aimed at feeding his "outside the box" reputation. Bet he's delighted to be back in 2008 once more, the golden year to be an economist no matter what you said!:D

is_that_so

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Attack the post, not the poster.

McWilliams is a man who spouts easy populist solutions to complex multifaceted problems. His audience is made up almost exclusively of people who fall for inane populist rhetoric. They wouldn’t be the sharpest knives in the block.

It's not really an issue of intelligence because he does make compelling simplistic arguments for anyone who has their own ideas of what is wrong and who may well be largely uninformed.

FVP3

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Attack the post, not the poster.

McWilliams is a man who spouts easy populist solutions to complex multifaceted problems. His audience is made up almost exclusively of people who fall for inane populist rhetoric. They wouldn’t be the sharpest knives in the block.

Attack the person's arguments not his readership. I don't agree with everything McWilliams says, on the other hand I doubt if economics podcasts appeal to the lowest common denominator. Also you haven't given examples of his populist thinking.

CrankyHaus

Poor_old_gill wrote: »

I still don't understand where Eddie cam from or how he ended up being held in such high regard.

I was relatively young during the Celtic Tiger years and always just thought of him as a man getting lots of publicity so he must know what he is talking about.

Where did he derive perceived ability from?

He started as a pop financial advisor with the slogan "it's your money". Basically loads of people who weren't used to having more money than they needed suddenly did, as a result of soaring property prices and SSIAs maturing. At the same time Rip-off Ireland was in full swing, making spending that money appear hazardous. Cometh the hour, cometh the man and Eddie had an RTE show or two giving generally sensible advice. There's an ad for it based on the Trainspotting intro that's fairly cringe, with Eddie giving his "choose" monologue. You'll find it on YouTube.

This was followed by a magazine. As the money saving tips ran out the "good investment" tips filled their place, leading eventually to Detroit real estate.

FVP3

Theres a general opposition to what McWilliams says but no specifics. Since he writes a lot theres a lot I disagree with and some I agree with.

I don't follow his blog though, so its all from the papers. Plus he is clearly being mis-represented here on the bailout.

ILoveYourVibes

It's a good idea.

CrankyHaus

FVP3 wrote: »

Theres a general opposition to what McWilliams says but no specifics.

See my post, #60.

Shelga

I don’t mind McWilliams, find his podcast quite interesting- as someone else said, at least he’s offering up ideas, even if they’re pie in the sky sometimes.

But I cringe so hard when he starts impersonating a working class Dublin accent, says things like “the big northside head on him”- that’s when he comes off as unbearably obnoxious.

topmanamillion

I've listened to McWilliams podcasts and hes made this point a few times.
He believes the multinationals will have to pay a full rate of tax eventually.
The way he sees it is they may be more open to giving equity than handing over billions in cash.
Equity/shares would give the state a yearly return and a stake in these companies or "skin in the game" as he likes to call it.
It would tie the state and multinationals together and give the state, as a large shareholder, a say in some of the largest employers in the country.

May not be feasible for a few reasons but it just seems to be an alternative view and a bit of outside the box thinking. I don't see the reason for outrage.

take everything

Sprouting nonsense.
Sounds painful.

is_that_so

topmanamillion wrote: »

I've listened to McWilliams podcasts and hes made this point a few times.
He believes the multinationals will have to pay a full rate of tax eventually.
The way he sees it is they may be more open to giving equity than handing over billions in cash.
Equity/shares would give the state a yearly return and a stake in these companies or "skin in the game" as he likes to call it.
It would tie the state and multinationals together and give the state, as a large shareholder, a say in some of the largest employers in the country.

May not be feasible for a few reasons but it just seems to be an alternative view and a bit of outside the box thinking. I don't see the reason for outrage.

It's usually good to make sure the box has no ideas to offer first. MNCs pay 21% of our income tax anyway. I don't see any outrage but his first port of call is almost always outside the box.

coolshannagh28

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Paschal Donohoe is from a traditional Northside working class family (unlike some of our most vocal ‘working class’ socialists). One of the first in his extended family to go to university, and graduated from Trinity with a 1st in economics and finance. Moved to the UK and became a director of P&G. It’s not an exaggeration to say he would be CEO of a multinational by now. A man of extraordinary intellect and integrity. Even his most vocal opposition critics like the lad

Well said ... Paschal.

completedit

People hating on Mcwilliams remind me of the same people who call Jordan Peterson "the idiots intellectual" The man literally has hour and hours of material where he covers profoundly complex issues and themes but someone gets to decide that he's the stupid man's smart person.

I can see why Mcwilliams is annoying but is good for helping people engage in topics that they otherwise wouldn't.

BrianHal

BrianHal wrote: »

What’s that old phrase “those who can do and those who can’t teach”

A lecturer in the best college in Ireland no less

Sky King

D Mc W is first and foremost an entertainer.

He also needs to sell his books and tickets to his events.

People forget this.

Poor_old_gill

JohnnyFlash wrote: »

Attack the post, not the poster.

McWilliams is a man who spouts easy populist solutions to complex multifaceted problems. His audience is made up almost exclusively of people who fall for inane populist rhetoric. They wouldn’t be the sharpest knives in the block.

Criticises a man for outlining solutions in an easy & digestible format without putting in too much complex detail - then follows up this argument by generalising everyone who listens to DMcW podcast as being dim without going into any detail.

Serious irony in here fella.

Also I’d love to hear you outline why your intellect is so vastly superior to his listeners- you can start by outlining your economics qualifications

coolshannagh28

Mc Williams and Morgan Kelly were the only two to make accurate predictions about the crash , now Mc Williams has had a more scattergun approach since that but his views are entertaining and do lead the average man into some understanding and appreciation of economics .
As for Paschal , he made his name on the Vincent Browne show when nobody from FG else would put their head in the Lions mouth and Vincent allowed a respect to build for him which has greatly enhanced his career , however he is more of a safe pair of hands than the lateral thinking finance minister required in challenging times.

Chicoso

It's like reading the cover of Men's Health Magazine

Some new fad or best ever workout with every issue

Bob the Builder

coolshannagh28 wrote: »

Mc Williams and Morgan Kelly were the only two to make accurate predictions about the crash , now Mc Williams has had a more scattergun approach since that but his views are entertaining and do lead the average man into some understanding and appreciation of economics .
As for Paschal , he made his name on the Vincent Browne show when nobody from FG else would put their head in the Lions mouth and Vincent allowed a respect to build for him which has greatly enhanced his career , however he is more of a safe pair of hands than the lateral thinking finance minister required in challenging times.

Totally agree with both your points. Paschal has been an extremely safe pair of hands and led a very stable finance strategy.

However, I think we need some chaotic good to shake up the outcomes of this pandemic and the suggestions David McWilliams is putting forward may be bonkers, but we should consider them in the context that we need radical reform from this, not "more of the same". We need to open the door to opportunities and part of that is giving the Department of Finance, and ICB more remit to explore.

P.S. DmcW podcast was the first time I heard about possibility of SF "winning" the election and the first mention I heard of them not running enough candidates. Both of which turned out to be true. Even if his podcast and his ideas are bonkers, I'm happy to keep listening to hear the contrarian views. You can always take them or leave them.

Jizique

Bob the Builder wrote: »

Totally agree with both your points. Paschal has been an extremely safe pair of hands and led a very stable finance strategy.

However, I think we need some chaotic good to shake up the outcomes of this pandemic and the suggestions David McWilliams is putting forward may be bonkers, but we should consider them in the context that we need radical reform from this, not "more of the same". We need to open the door to opportunities and part of that is giving the Department of Finance, and ICB more remit to explore.

P.S. DmcW podcast was the first time I heard about possibility of SF "winning" the election and the first mention I heard of them not running enough candidates. Both of which turned out to be true. Even if his podcast and his ideas are bonkers, I'm happy to keep listening to hear the contrarian views. You can always take them or leave them.

I would love to hear his take on what the Fed and Jake Powell are currently up to?
Does he approve of Central Banks buying corporate bonds? Does he see the fed's actions as a bailout to private equity and over-leveraged companies with struggling business models?
Who gets to decide which restaurants and retail outlets are saved?
What is the "right" level of pandemic payment? Should it vary depending on what the worker was previously doing?