David McWilliams Podcast

Obrieski wrote: »

Latest podcast is very interesting. They discuss the possibility of moving Dublin port and using the land to create new housing. Very interesting discussion

First time listening today. Found it fascinating. Although I really question that 50 year projection in terms of housing. I wish they went into detail of how that data was gathered. Felt like an impossible doomsday prediction.

completedit wrote: »

Find it a bit too try hard in its attempts to bar stool chatter dumbing topics down to “make economics relevant” McWilliams is a complete nerd who tries to seem cool by talking about going to wezz and getting sloshed when he was 14

It’s not bad but it’s just idle chat really.

Yeah the "banter" can be a bit annoying

completedit wrote: »

In defense of him though, I like his enthusiasm, his analogies and the historical, cultural and sociological stuff he brings in and he has had an interesting life...I jjust don’t think it’s an economics podcast...which is a good thing because would be boring as hell

Yes absolutely. Definitely more positives than negatives.

has anyone gone patron on this - is the extra stuff worth it?

completedit wrote: »

To me the 5 stages of grief analogy was just rambling. He’s amazing at piecing things together just don’t see much value in it, except for helping ya have a chat about brexit

yes - entertaining to listen to but not much depth. he creates cello-taped-together narratives and goes with them

still entertaining.

check out planet money for a similar vibe but with with better research.

this is a good starter episode

https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2018/09/19/649273647/episode-657-the-tale-of-the-onion-king

Thelonious wrote: »

He's overly philosophical and not factual enough.



I really wasn't impressed with some of his analysis. I actually think he's quite idealogical.



For example, he asserted that the reason Australia hasn't had a recession in 30 years is that Australia is open to immigration from Asia. He made no mention of Australia's resource economy which boomed spectacularly during the last global financial crisis. It was largely the mining sector that saved Australia that time.

in fairness China was buying pretty much everything that they dug out of the ground as well as other stuff (e.g. food) so he's right.

e.g. 2009 - height of the crisis year.

In 2009 China was Australia's largest export market, with total merchandise exports to China valued at A$42.4 billion, an increase of 31.2 per cent over the previous year. Resources continue to underpin Australia’s exports to China. Australia exported 266.2 million tonnes of iron ore to China in 2009 (A$21.7 billion in value terms), an increase of 45.2 per cent over the same period in 2008. Australia's coal exports to China grew by 1000 per cent last year to become our second largest export commodity, behind iron ore. Over the last 12 months, two further LNG contracts have been signed for the supply of Australian gas to Chinese terminals. The future prospects for continued growth in our resources exports to China are good.

Australia exported A$3.4 billion in agricultural goods to China in 2009 representing a fall of 2.2 per cent over 2008. Wool was our largest agricultural export to China (266,141 tonnes worth A$1.38 billion in 2009 – 66 per cent of China's total wool imports). However, wool exports to China fell 3.9 per cent in 2009, reflecting partly China's deteriorating export performance. Strong export growth in agricultural goods was recorded in canola, live animals, fish, edible products, wine and meat.

Obrieski wrote: »

Anyone listen to his most recent pod where DMcW suggested that Ireland should take up the shortfall in tax owed by the major multinationals in stock options rather than in actual cash, and use this as a Fund so everybody gets a slice of the pie essentially for their own start-ups etc.

An interesting idea but I cannot see the EU allowing something like that. It would mean far too much vested interest on the part of the Irish government, for one, which presumably would have implications on competition etc.
Also, when he says everyone gets their own small slice of the Fund, how is this calculated per person in an ever changing population number?
For example, if on inception everyone gets €100,000. I go to the bank with my portion and use it as collateral and it's now tied up in that.
As population changes, and more companies pay further taxes, do I get a further slice down the road in say 2 years time?
Interesting idea, but would need to be teased out a lot further.

Sorta hate the way the podcast kind of ends abruptly too.
He makes a sweeping statement and then it's over.

Not gonna lie, I don't understand his idea

Spit balling nonsense: what if they made it illegal for a person or an entity to own more than three houses? Would that stop massive american corporations buying up all the property?