• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Bizarre IT article about how peachy everything is


H.R. Haldeman

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
4,444
In my opinion, some seriously bizarre stuff coming from Stephen Collins in the IT this morning.

Former taoiseach John Bruton, in an interesting blog during the week, attempted to give some context to the “austerity” policies that have seen Irish people suffer a fall in incomes through pay cuts and tax increases and a big reduction in the value of their assets.

He pointed out that while real gross national product is now back to the 2004 level, it is still 90 per cent higher than it was in 1997, and while consumer spending is back to its 2006 level, it is still 80 per cent higher than it was in 1997.

Adjusting ourselves to living on the level of income we had six or seven years ago is not easy, but even when the adjustment has been made we will still be among the wealthiest countries in the world with some of the highest paid public servants and relatively generous welfare payments.
Budget must show wealthy elite are not untouchable - The Irish Times - Sat, Dec 01, 2012


"Six or seven years ago" was 2006. The very height of the economic bubble. And the suggestion seems to be that it's a sufferance that we've only got the same income today as then? What? What? I simply don't get that on any level.

Collins also says:

If Michael Noonan meets his targets for 2013, then 85 per cent of the painful measures required since 2008 to save the State from bankruptcy will have been implemented. Getting to the finishing line will not be easy, but the end is now in sight as long as the Government keeps its nerve.
Again, I'm lost here. In 2008 we still had almost full employment. And yet we're 85% of the way there despite, in that time, unemployment going up to 15% (25% if you include underemployment), the income/economic activity from the property bubble being almost totally gone, several billions having come out of the economy in several successive budgets and negative multipliers continuing apace.

Either I need a lot more education (very possible) or this is bizarro world stuff.
 

southwestkerry

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 20, 2008
Messages
4,230
Point one. Step Collins
Point two. The IT.
nuff said methinks. :eek:
SWK
soon to be on my hollies so a full month off pie lurking around the corner.
 

Ribeye

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
26,306
Toilet Paper of Record,

John Bruton,

I rest my case:)
 

Hewson

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
8,338
There was a time when you'd read the Irish Times and learn something new.

Today that pleasure is confined to the Crossaire.
 

Ribeye

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
26,306
There was a time when you'd read the Irish Times and learn something new.

Today that pleasure is confined to the Crossaire.
In fairness, that cartoon fella is pretty good!
 

Hewson

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
8,338
In fairness, that cartoon fella is pretty good!
Doonesbury or Tom Matthews?

Or Stephen Collins.

He's real, you know. Kind of . . .
 

Paddy Sarkozy

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 19, 2010
Messages
1,859
Collins said:
...but even when the adjustment has been made we will still be among the wealthiest countries in the world with some of the highest paid public servants and relatively generous welfare payments.
Scratching me head here. When did having the highest paid public servants become a a measure of "success"?
Really scratching me head here.
 
R

Ramps

"Six or seven years ago" was 2006. The very height of the economic bubble. And the suggestion seems to be that it's a sufferance that we've only got the same income today as then? What? What? I simply don't get that on any level.
Sorry, could you put that another way, please; I'm not fully sure what you're saying you're not sure about. I'm a bit dozy today. :(
 

Ribeye

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
26,306
Doonesbury or Tom Matthews?

Or Stephen Collins.

He's real, you know. Kind of . . .
Nooooooo, the guy who draws the satirical cartoons,
 

Hewson

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
8,338
Sorry, could you put that another way, please; I'm not fully sure what you're saying you're not sure about. I'm a bit dozy today. :(
We're back to having the highest income in our history, apparently.

I'm glad someone knows it anyway.
 

Hewson

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 29, 2009
Messages
8,338

Con Gallagher

Well-known member
Joined
May 25, 2010
Messages
2,413
If you read this forum for economic analysis you would think that this country is a poor one, or bankrupt or one the most corrupt in the world (when its GDP per capita figures, the continuation of paying debt repayments as they fall due and transparency international league table are evidence to the contrary).

Not that things are well. A deficit of 8.2-8.9% after give years shows that the political system is failing the economy and society.
 

H.R. Haldeman

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
4,444
Scratching me head here. When did having the highest paid public servants become a a measure of "success"?
Really scratching me head here.

Yeah, good catch - that was another thing I meant to mention in OP but forgot. How in the name of God is this any kind of metric for measuring success? Weird beyond words.


Sorry, could you put that another way, please; I'm not fully sure what you're saying you're not sure about. I'm a bit dozy today. :(
It's Collins line: "Adjusting ourselves to living on the level of income we had six or seven years ago is not easy"

That makes absolutely no sense - the income we had "6 or 7 years ago" was the highest it's ever been in the history of the State and was, we now know, entirely unsustainable. And yet Collins is saying it's not easy to live on that level of income in 2013. To which I say...What?
 
R

Ramps

Yeah, good catch - that was another thing I meant to mention in OP but forgot. How in the name of God is this any kind of metric for measuring success? Weird beyond words.




It's Collins line: "Adjusting ourselves to living on the level of income we had six or seven years ago is not easy"

That makes absolutely no sense - the income we had "6 or 7 years ago" was the highest it's ever been in the history of the State and was, we now know, entirely unsustainable. And yet Collins is saying it's not easy to live on that level of income in 2013. To which I say...What?
Oh, right, sorry. As I said, I'm a bit dozy today. :)
 

Ribeye

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
26,306

Ribeye

Well-known member
Joined
Jul 12, 2011
Messages
26,306

H.R. Haldeman

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2008
Messages
4,444
If you read this forum for economic analysis you would think that this country is a poor one, or bankrupt or one the most corrupt in the world (when its GDP per capita figures, the continuation of paying debt repayments as they fall due and transparency international league table are evidence to the contrary).

Fair enough, but notice in the article they - Bruton and Collins - refer to GNP, not GDP.

But it's not so much whether we are doing well or badly in a vacuum that has me stumped here. It is the assertion that we are going back to the mid-2000's, and that this represents a hardship.

I'd really love to hear one of the economists here explain that to me - what has replaced the income lost since 2006? The property bubble income is gone, there are 300k more people out of work, income taxes haven't gone up, core welfare hasn't been cut and interest payments on a massively increased national debt have ballooned...and yet we are somehow where we were at the height of the bubble?

Forgetting about the rhetoric, I just don't understand that in plain mathematical or economic terms.
 
R

Ramps

Fair enough, but notice in the article they - Bruton and Collins - refer to GNP, not GDP.

But it's not so much whether we are doing well or badly in a vacuum that has me stumped here. It is the assertion that we are going back to the mid-2000's, and that this represents a hardship.

I'd really love to hear one of the economists here explain that to me - what has replaced the income lost since 2006? The property bubble income is gone, there are 300k more people out of work, income taxes haven't gone up, core welfare hasn't been cut and interest payments on a massively increased national debt have ballooned...and yet we are somehow where we were at the height of the bubble?

Forgetting about the rhetoric, I just don't understand that in plain mathematical or economic terms.
I think he is referring to the GNP of 2004 (in relation to 'the level of income'). He should have have said 8 years ago rather than '6 or 7'. I think it's just a simple, but sloppy, error.
 

Hooch

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 6, 2010
Messages
1,891
Collins' writing is execrable, he really is the biggest Kool Aid drinker at the IT.

The sooner Harry McGee gets his job the better.
 
Top