Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

David McWilliams sprouting nonsense again

Options
124»

Comments

  • Options
    #92
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Fred Cryton wrote: »
    This time he wants the Irish state to somehow obtain Equity options in the multinationals, and use that to build a sovereign wealth fund


    He thinks because these companies pay less than a 12.5% effective corporation tax here, they would willingly give us the difference as equity.



    Let's pull this apart for a moment.


    Why would they do this? No-one gives away an equity stake in their business without a very compelling reason to do this. Is he seriously suggesting we can threaten these companies into giving us their wealth?



    Secondly, in very few places do companies actually pay the full headline corporation tax rate. Many big companies in France for example, pay an effective rate of only 6%, compared to a headline rate of 30%+.


    McWilliams showing himself up again as a populist charlaton and chancer. Just as Trump is what stupid people think a successful businessman looks like, McWilliams is what stupid people think an economist looks like.



    If the Irish State wants an ownership stake in these companies, it can go out and buy it like everyone else.


    And if these corporations want to operate as a business in Ireland they can pay their fair share of taxes LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.


  • Options
    #93
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    one world order wrote: »
    Trump is a successful businessman and a very good leader for a country. Ability to renegotiate trade agreements, stop manufacturing jobs offshoring abroad, reduce regulations on small businesses, tax incentives for startups, tax rebates for creating jobs, etc.

    McWilliams is a media guy and so talks nonsense. If a multinational had political interference taking a slice of equity ownership, they would leave Ireland, maybe head back to the US where their corporation tax was cut from 35% to 21% and so are more competitive on the international stage than before.




    Trump is a successful businessman :pac:


    Trump inherited a fortune and if you had given that same fortune to a chimpanzee the chimp would have done better.


    Trump University? :pac:


    Trump bankrupted a casino FFS. Which is almost impossible to do but he managed it.


  • Options
    #94
    dubrov
    Registered Users Posts: 3,582 ✭✭✭dubrov


    ShatterAlan wrote:
    And if these corporations want to operate as a business in Ireland they can pay their fair share of taxes LIKE EVERYONE ELSE.

    If they had to pay the topline rate, they would want to operate like a business outside of Ireland


  • Options
    #95
    ShatterAlan
    Registered Users Posts: 2,807 ✭✭✭ShatterAlan


    Fred Cryton wrote: »
    This time he wants the Irish state to somehow obtain Equity options in the multinationals, and use that to build a sovereign wealth fund


    He thinks because these companies pay less than a 12.5% effective corporation tax here, they would willingly give us the difference as equity.



    Let's pull this apart for a moment.


    Why would they do this? No-one gives away an equity stake in their business without a very compelling reason to do this. Is he seriously suggesting we can threaten these companies into giving us their wealth?



    Secondly, in very few places do companies actually pay the full headline corporation tax rate. Many big companies in France for example, pay an effective rate of only 6%, compared to a headline rate of 30%+.


    McWilliams showing himself up again as a populist charlaton and chancer. Just as Trump is what stupid people think a successful businessman looks like, McWilliams is what stupid people think an economist looks like.



    If the Irish State wants an ownership stake in these companies, it can go out and buy it like everyone else.


    And where is the nonsense "sprouting" from? Like a Brussels Sprout sprouts?


  • Options
    #96
    coolshannagh28
    Registered Users Posts: 1,478 ✭✭✭coolshannagh28


    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.

    Yes I like Mc Williams for that reason and I am also a fan of Paschal who seems to have an engaging personality and be a likeable individual ; a trait uncommon in politicians.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #97
    Poor_old_gill
    Registered Users Posts: 2,895 ✭✭✭Poor_old_gill


    ShatterAlan wrote: »
    Trump is a successful businessman :pac:


    Trump inherited a fortune and if you had given that same fortune to a chimpanzee the chimp would have done better.


    Trump University? :pac:


    Trump bankrupted a casino FFS. Which is almost impossible to do but he managed it.

    Bankrupting a casino does take a really special level of stupidity.

    What went on there was so ludicrous that I always have suspected that something shady was going on in terms of the construction, etc


  • Options
    #98
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,971 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    FVP3 wrote: »
    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.
    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.
    FVP3 wrote: »
    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


    Let us be clear. The most disastorous decision ever made in Ireland was the decision on the 30th September 2008 to guarantee the banks. We promised that day that we would bailout the banks in full if anything ever happened to them. It was monumentally insane and was subject to immediate criticism from the whole of Europe. Everything else that happened can be traced back to that one single idiotic decision. The idea to do it came from McWilliams. The following day, he was all over it as the greatest decision ever.

    https://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-mcwilliams/lenihans-masterstroke-has-bought-us-time-to-sort-out-our-own-problems-26481076.html

    "In time, Brian Lenihan's move yesterday will be seen as a masterstroke and a practical blueprint for the new financial architecture which will emerge from this global crisis."

    How wrong can one economist have been?

    In that article he doubles down on supporting Anglo.

    "The minister obviously thought that by guaranteeing some banks and not others -- as many of his advisers argued -- he would open up the prospects of the weaker banks undermining the stronger ones. He has put the system first and this can only be a good thing."

    The Department of Finance advice was to only guarantee some banks, not Nationwide, not Anglo, but McWilliams praises Lenihan for rejecting this.

    Yes, he changed his mind, but he and his supporters have refused to own his awful influence on crippling this country's economy.


  • Options
    #99
    saabsaab
    Registered Users Posts: 8,208 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Let us be clear. The most disastorous decision ever made in Ireland was the decision on the 30th September 2008 to guarantee the banks. We promised that day that we would bailout the banks in full if anything ever happened to them. It was monumentally insane and was subject to immediate criticism from the whole of Europe. Everything else that happened can be traced back to that one single idiotic decision. The idea to do it came from McWilliams. The following day, he was all over it as the greatest decision ever.

    https://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-mcwilliams/lenihans-masterstroke-has-bought-us-time-to-sort-out-our-own-problems-26481076.html

    "In time, Brian Lenihan's move yesterday will be seen as a masterstroke and a practical blueprint for the new financial architecture which will emerge from this global crisis."

    How wrong can one economist have been?

    In that article he doubles down on supporting Anglo.

    "The minister obviously thought that by guaranteeing some banks and not others -- as many of his advisers argued -- he would open up the prospects of the weaker banks undermining the stronger ones. He has put the system first and this can only be a good thing."

    The Department of Finance advice was to only guarantee some banks, not Nationwide, not Anglo, but McWilliams praises Lenihan for rejecting this.

    Yes, he changed his mind, but he and his supporters have refused to own his awful influence on crippling this country's economy.


    Hindsight is great for the 100%correct way to go and there would have been ways to do this better. At the time this looked to be the best option to avoid collapse.


  • Options
    #100
    Muscles Schultz
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 302 ✭✭Muscles Schultz


    saabsaab wrote: »
    Hindsight is great for the 100%correct way to go and there would have been ways to do this better. At the time this looked to be the best option to avoid collapse.

    No it didn’t


  • Options
    #101
    saabsaab
    Registered Users Posts: 8,208 ✭✭✭saabsaab


    Muscles Schultz wrote: »
    No it didn’t


    Oh, yes it did.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #102
    Tony EH
    Registered Users Posts: 19,341 ✭✭✭✭Tony EH


    He's behind you!


  • Options
    #103
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,971 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    saabsaab wrote: »
    Hindsight is great for the 100%correct way to go and there would have been ways to do this better. At the time this looked to be the best option to avoid collapse.
    saabsaab wrote: »
    Oh, yes it did.

    Joan Burton's adviser was horrified by it, Labour voted against it.

    It was all McWilliams' idea and he has distanced himself from it as much as he can, which is a disgrace. He should have slunk off into obscurity, having figured out how best to bankrupt the country.


  • Options
    #104
    TallyRand
    Registered Users Posts: 222 ✭✭TallyRand


    Sky King wrote: »
    D Mc W is first and foremost an entertainer.

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

    People forget this.

    Correct, he’s actually a spoofer. I’m not saying he isn’t a clever guy but mostly a spoofer who is more entertainment value rather than serious discussion.

    I was at speaker event where he had the stage, went from “I don’t drive” to “I was driving my daughter to school” in 5 mins 😂


  • Options
    #105
    Poor_old_gill
    Registered Users Posts: 2,895 ✭✭✭Poor_old_gill


    blanch152 wrote: »
    Joan Burton's adviser was horrified by it, Labour voted against it.

    It was all McWilliams' idea and he has distanced himself from it as much as he can, which is a disgrace. He should have slunk off into obscurity, having figured out how best to bankrupt the country.

    Joan Burton has/ever had an advisor?

    Now you are just bull shi**ing.

    Unless the advice was - single handily take down the oldest party in the state with your pathetic hubris.

    Don’t ever utter that name again or I’ll hack into boards server and disable it.


  • Options
    #106
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,971 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Poor_old_gill wrote: »
    Joan Burton has/ever had an advisor?

    Now you are just bull shi**ing.

    Unless the advice was - single handily take down the oldest party in the state with your pathetic hubris.

    Don’t ever utter that name again or I’ll hack into boards server and disable it.


    I have documented clearly McWilliams' role in the bank guarantee - the most disastorous decision ever in this country's history - where he dreamed up the idea, gave it to Brian Lenihan and cheerleaded for it the following day. I have provided links to back all of that up.

    You are now challenging my reference to Joan Burton and her adviser. Here is the full story


    https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/night-of-the-bank-guarantee-4258897-Sep2018/

    Labour, to their eternal credit, were the only party to vote against the bank guarantee. Even Sinn Fein, with their opposition to everything that moves, were found wanting in not opposing the guarantee.

    "It may be an easy call with the benefit of hindsight, but one must remember the intense political pressure to fall into line and ‘pull on the green jersey’. Writing a blank cheque bank bailout was being sold as the patriotic thing to do. Labour would ultimately become the only Party to oppose the guarantee when it first came before the Dáil later that evening. Sinn Féin were somewhat affronted, suggesting that they should have been given the courtesy of a heads up that Labour was actually serious about opposing the guarantee, not just posturing."

    "What became painfully clear over the coming weeks and months was just how right we were, and how deeply in over their heads were the government, both political and permanent. At briefings, senior public servants would nonchalantly reveal the spiraling cost of having the bank guarantee called: sometimes tens of billions greater than at the previous briefing."

    I will remind everyone about David McWilliams' words:

    http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/state-must-act-as-a-safeguard/

    http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/state-guarantees-can-avert-depression/

    "The only option is to guarantee 100 per cent of all depositors/creditors in the Irish banking system. This guarantee does not extend to shareholders who will have to live with the losses they have suffered. However, it applies to everyone else."

    That last sentence is crucial. Two days before the bank guarantee was put in place, McWilliams was cheerleading it, and he wanted the bondholders protected as well - that is the meaning of the last sentence.

    All of the evidence is there, just open your eyes.


  • Options
    #107
    Wanderer78
    Registered Users Posts: 29,559 ✭✭✭✭Wanderer78


    Fred Cryton wrote:
    This time he wants the Irish state to somehow obtain Equity options in the multinationals, and use that to build a sovereign wealth fund


    The folks at the ft said it's a great idea and is workable, swf's work successfully around the world including in some scandinavia countries. A large proportion of the wealth of some multinationals, in some cases the majority, is in the value of their stocks and shares, we need some of this wealth, and urgently, our current approach of continual wealth extraction by mnc's is unsustainable, because if they're not paying their way, you're paying it, and if you're not paying it, we end up with **** public services


  • Options
    #108
    Poor_old_gill
    Registered Users Posts: 2,895 ✭✭✭Poor_old_gill


    blanch152 wrote: »
    I have documented clearly McWilliams' role in the bank guarantee - the most disastorous decision ever in this country's history - where he dreamed up the idea, gave it to Brian Lenihan and cheerleaded for it the following day. I have provided links to back all of that up.

    You are now challenging my reference to Joan Burton and her adviser. Here is the full story


    https://www.thejournal.ie/readme/night-of-the-bank-guarantee-4258897-Sep2018/

    Labour, to their eternal credit, were the only party to vote against the bank guarantee. Even Sinn Fein, with their opposition to everything that moves, were found wanting in not opposing the guarantee.

    "It may be an easy call with the benefit of hindsight, but one must remember the intense political pressure to fall into line and ‘pull on the green jersey’. Writing a blank cheque bank bailout was being sold as the patriotic thing to do. Labour would ultimately become the only Party to oppose the guarantee when it first came before the Dáil later that evening. Sinn Féin were somewhat affronted, suggesting that they should have been given the courtesy of a heads up that Labour was actually serious about opposing the guarantee, not just posturing."

    "What became painfully clear over the coming weeks and months was just how right we were, and how deeply in over their heads were the government, both political and permanent. At briefings, senior public servants would nonchalantly reveal the spiraling cost of having the bank guarantee called: sometimes tens of billions greater than at the previous briefing."

    I will remind everyone about David McWilliams' words:

    http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/state-must-act-as-a-safeguard/

    http://www.davidmcwilliams.ie/state-guarantees-can-avert-depression/

    "The only option is to guarantee 100 per cent of all depositors/creditors in the Irish banking system. This guarantee does not extend to shareholders who will have to live with the losses they have suffered. However, it applies to everyone else."

    That last sentence is crucial. Two days before the bank guarantee was put in place, McWilliams was cheerleading it, and he wanted the bondholders protected as well - that is the meaning of the last sentence.

    All of the evidence is there, just open your eyes.

    Jeez man you are seriously on edge.

    I wasn't challenging you about Joan Burton at all - I was making a joke about the fact that she seems to have had an advisor when in reality her ineptitude as both a politician & a representative of the public managed to cause irreparable damage to the Labour party.

    Seems like she was regularly getting political advice on a level of the 'legal' advice given to Maria Bailey


  • Options
    #109
    blanch152
    Registered Users Posts: 27,971 ✭✭✭✭blanch152


    Poor_old_gill wrote: »
    Jeez man you are seriously on edge.

    I wasn't challenging you about Joan Burton at all - I was making a joke about the fact that she seems to have had an advisor when in reality her ineptitude as both a politician & a representative of the public managed to cause irreparable damage to the Labour party.

    Seems like she was regularly getting political advice on a level of the 'legal' advice given to Maria Bailey

    Apologies, misread your post, thought it was directed at me, not Joan!!

    As one of my local TDs, I have a lot of sympathy for her, a genuine person, met her a few times, got my number one a couple of times, and always a high preference.


  • Options
    #110
    Luxxis
    Registered Users Posts: 141 ✭✭Luxxis


    ShatterAlan wrote: »
    Trump is a successful businessman :pac:


    Trump inherited a fortune and if you had given that same fortune to a chimpanzee the chimp would have done better.


    Trump University? :pac:


    Trump bankrupted a casino FFS. Which is almost impossible to do but he managed it.

    Studies have shown about 70% of all lottery winners/people who unexpectedly inherit a large sum of money go broke quite quickly. Most people have no idea how to handle large sum's of money, so no, a chimp would not have done better, and give the odds neither would you/me :)


Advertisement