Comments on: ESRI IS FULL OF SHIT: OFFICIAL

By: Sean Baite

Sean Baite — Sat, 24 Jul 2010 09:24:09 +0000

it will be like the 80s all over again

Only with no Jackie Jameson this time

By: sonofstan

sonofstan — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 22:39:38 +0000

BTW WTF happened to Bohs the other night ??? Footballing austerity ?

Oh, God…..and to pile the misery on, Rovers get one past the Israelis tonight to line up a lucrative tie with Juve. LoI football has been premised for most of this decade on the sort of financial ‘thinking’ that makes the banks look like, er, banks, but the dream is over at Dalymount: back to part-time from next season - or next week….like much else in this country, it will be like the 80s all over again.

By: Conor McCabe

Conor McCabe — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 22:15:09 +0000

Yep. It certainly has. Especially as you’ve now merged spending less to reduce the deficit with spending less to decrease the amount you have to borrow. you’ve moved from not reading other people, to not reading yourself. and that is amusing to me.

By: Tim Johnston

Tim Johnston — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:52:44 +0000

Oh, you’ve removed it again. In that case:
“they’re claiming they saw it all back in 2001. What. bullshit.”
I think we are in complete agreement on that.

By: Tim Johnston

Tim Johnston — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:51:21 +0000

Oh, I see you’ve just added that last sentence. Feeling confrontational?
Actually, if you look closely, I was quite clear that I don’t think the ESRI are any more or less right than Krugman, they’re both clutching at straws where evidence is concerned.
But, economics is not a hard science. Which is ironic because the one statement that is actually factual, namely that if you spend less money it decreases the amount you have to borrow, seemed to cause you some slight amusement.

By: Conor McCabe

Conor McCabe — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:26:27 +0000

“One doesn’t need evidence to back up the statement that spending less reduces the deficit”

Haha! you don’t need evidence! Oh fuck me. Is this how you live your life? In an evidence-free bubble of assumptions?

Well thanks for the laugh anyway.

There is a very interesting footnote in the ESRI’s report, though, to an article written by John fitzgerald in 2001. The 2010 report suggests that he criticised the government’s fiscal policy in 2001. He did, but not in the way the ESRI is suggesting today. There is no mention of deflating a property bubble in 2001 - rather Fitzgerald states that government fiscal policy will lead to wage inflation, and that THIS is what will undermine the country’s finances.

no mention of any property bubble. no mention of any bank credit worries. Just the threat to the economy posed by wages. That’s all.

now, of course, they’re claiming they saw it all back in 2001. What. bullshit.

By: Tim Johnston

Tim Johnston — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 21:10:46 +0000

Well I’m not hailing Paul Krugman as the “official” adjudicator on the ESRI, so I don’t think I’m the one in danger of not being taken seriously -
Krugman’s point, Conor, is that the conclusion is not derived from the analysis; It is. (in the sense that reasons are given for future projections made). One doesn’t need evidence to back up the statement that spending less reduces the deficit - unless one believes in “aggregate demand”.

It isn’t the same conclusion he would recommend. He doesn’t mention that his policy recommendations are no more or less pulled from thin air as those he decries.
My point is this, and I have to repeat it because you’ve read a LOT into my comments: He accuses the authors of making assertions; they aren’t. At least no more than Krugman does.
The thing is, he has said that Ireland’s “austerity” would plunge us into ever greater recession. It hasn’t.

By: Conor McCabe

Conor McCabe — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:20:20 +0000

Again, you’re not dealing with Krugman’s point. now, you don’t have to, but if you want to be taken seriously, you need to deal with the actual points he makes, not the assumptions you’re carrying.

As for your two line summary of the ESRI’s report. Again, it’s not what they say, it’s not the arguments they are making - I mean, you’re not really trying here, are you Tim? As you said, it’s not like economics is a hard topic, and, by the same token, actually reading what you want to talk about is not THAT difficult.

You should try it sometime. you might find people taking you a bit more seriously.

That’s of course if you WANT to be taken serious. That’s an assumption on my part. Maybe you want people to giggle at your inability to read what you are commentating on, and your inability to understand the bits you read.

By: Tim Johnston

Tim Johnston — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 20:12:44 +0000

ESRI analysis: Ireland has no money. Recommendation: Stop spending it.
The analysis largely consists the construction of two growth models which are necessarily hypothetical.
Krugman has predicted doom and gloom for Ireland in the form of long term recession, but Ireland has been pulling out of it since the start of this year.

By: Conor McCabe

Conor McCabe — Thu, 22 Jul 2010 17:46:32 +0000

“Now I didn’t read the whole thing, merely the Conclusion”

Yeah you really need to read what Krugman is actually saying, Tim, especially this part:

“What the careless reader might miss, however, is the fact that the policy conclusions are not, in fact, derived from the analysis — they come out of thin air.”