He makes three comments in the two vids that I find baffling (which admittedly might be my problem not his). On the fly transcriptions, essentially direct quotes:
1. "[Ireland is] extraordinarily rich...the average income is almost the same as in the US and on an objective measure is about 1/3 ahead of France, Britain and Germany...Even if you take off more than 10% [from those wages] they'll still be very well off".
2. "At the end of '07 the net debt of Ireland was negative, that is to say they had net assets...even if they now have to spend 25% of GDP bailing out the banks, which they might do, [they are still below the levels of debt per GDP of Britain at 35%, Germany and France 40%, USA 45%]".
3. "I don't think Ireland is going to stop growing or stop being a healthy economy".
I don't understand any of this.
1. Our wages are high because there has been a wage-price spiral caused by the consumer and property bubbles, which in turn were fuelled by cheap credit, which in turn was fuelled by flawed risk modelling in financial institutions for the last 10 years. How on earth could such "high wages" actually mean anything?
2. On our "net assets", well, that was all just property, right? Those are not assets, they are vehicles for debt accumulation. The chap is talking as though our assets were gold or oil. But all those billions in assets were just people's debts on their mortgages and loans to speculators that we now know are garbage. Again, how can these "assets" mean anything?
3. On the "stop growing" bit....huh??? How can something that wasn't growing in the first place stop growing? Don't the exchequer number clearly tell us there was no growth in the economy in the CT years? All there was was 10 years of a property bubble making government rich off the back of taxes borrowed by citizens for houses from Irish banks that in turn borrowed that money from abroad. For the third time, how in Christs name can this "growth" mean anything?



LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Reply With Quote
