David McWilliams: Ditch the Euro

[mryoungdan]

I wish to bump this very interesting thread

[McDave]

I wish to bump this very interesting thread

BTW, whatever happened to Eurosceptic?

[FutureTaoiseach]

BTW, whatever happened to Eurosceptic?

He told me he was banned.

[hiding behind a poster]

He told me he was banned.

Well people deserve to be banned for repeatedly lying, so maybe it was for that.

[mryoungdan]

BTW, whatever happened to Eurosceptic?

Maybe he took his own advice and left Europe.

Have you noticed that the regular users are about 1950 whereas I saw it as high as 3600 about 6 weeks ago.

[meriwether]

The simple fact of the matter, that while I instinctively don't like this notion, David McWilliams has been consistently right with his analysis, for years and years.

He's even been so right for so long, it allows the usual idiot brigade to start waffling about 'predicting 13 of the last 1 recession' shtick.

He is the only mainstream economics commentator worth listening to, and respecting.

I have a number of problems with this suggestion, which I haven't seen addressed:

-A devaluation needs to be done quickly, and almost with the element of surprise (see 1993). We won't exactly have the element of surprise when we announce we are leaving the euro, reissuing a punt, and start to crank up the printing press, and swap punts for euros on the street.
Thats going to take weeks, at a minimum.
Exactly how much capital will be left in the country at this period?

-The Euro is not the reason we had a boom and bust. There are approx 11 members (I think) of the Eurozone. How many had property bubbles? 2. 2 of 11. What about the other 9? How come they didn't go daft on low interest rates like we did?
The sooner we realise that it is structural faults that lead us into the bust, structural issues that could have been addressed by fiscal policy, the better.

-Which leads me onto my next point. The same idiots in charge now will be in charge of PuntII. Expect similar idiot-induced boom and bust to be repeated in the future.

-Our debts, both personal and sovereign, are denominated in Euro. Our debts increase if our new currency is substantially weaker than the Euro.
I asked McWilliams about this at a talk he held, and he said that while he accepts that the point is correct, on the current route we are going, we won't be paying anything back anyway as we are on our way to default and bankruptcy.
Better to devalue and get the country moving again, and pay back a bigger debt than not pay back the smaller one.

[Middleaged]

The simple fact of the matter, that while I instinctively don't like this notion, David McWilliams has been consistently right with his analysis, for years and years.

He's even been so right for so long, it allows the usual idiot brigade to start waffling about 'predicting 13 of the last 1 recession' shtick.

He is the only mainstream economics commentator worth listening to, and respecting.

I have a number of problems with this suggestion, which I haven't seen addressed:

-A devaluation needs to be done quickly, and almost with the element of surprise (see 1993). We won't exactly have the element of surprise when we announce we are leaving the euro, reissuing a punt, and start to crank up the printing press, and swap punts for euros on the street.
Thats going to take weeks, at a minimum.
Exactly how much capital will be left in the country at this period?

-The Euro is not the reason we had a boom and bust. There are approx 11 members (I think) of the Eurozone. How many had property bubbles? 2. 2 of 11. What about the other 9? How come they didn't go daft on low interest rates like we did?
The sooner we realise that it is structural faults that lead us into the bust, structural issues that could have been addressed by fiscal policy, the better.

-Which leads me onto my next point. The same idiots in charge now will be in charge of PuntII. Expect similar idiot-induced boom and bust to be repeated in the future.

-Our debts, both personal and sovereign, are denominated in Euro. Our debts increase if our new currency is substantially weaker than the Euro.
I asked McWilliams about this at a talk he held, and he said that while he accepts that the point is correct, on the current route we are going, we won't be paying anything back anyway as we are on our way to default and bankruptcy.
Better to devalue and get the country moving again, and pay back a bigger debt than not pay back the smaller one.

Waffle... there is no "approx", unless your school of thought and education is at the bar... suppin pints there are 15 members.... facts are alien here...

Christ with observers like this we are screwed

[meriwether]

Waffle... there is no "approx", unless your school of thought and education is at the bar... suppin pints there are 15 members.... facts are alien here...

Christ with observers like this we are screwed

So I wasn't sure how many countries were in the Eurozone at the time of writing - big fukkin deal.

I would like to point out that your statement 'facts are alien here' is somewhat misplaced, as at no point did I assert it was a fact.
However I would like to assert one fact - you are a windbag tosspot, who offers nothing to any debate bar a two line contribution decrying the standard of the post, on some pedantic point, without ever once offering any contribution of merit to any debate.

Secondly, I'm not aware that someone died and made you king of the interent. So keep your ad hominem attacks and mindless pointscoring to yourself, you tiresome cockpocket.

(I accept there is an irony in engaging in an ad hominem attack while at the same time attacking someone for the same. I don't care. This guys a special case.)

[quicksilver]

Waffle... there is no "approx", unless your school of thought and education is at the bar... suppin pints there are 15 members.... facts are alien here...

Christ with observers like this we are screwed

what about the other points, you know, the important ones?

[meriwether]

The simple fact of the matter, that while I instinctively don't like this notion, David McWilliams has been consistently right with his analysis, for years and years.

He's even been so right for so long, it allows the usual idiot brigade to start waffling about 'predicting 13 of the last 1 recession' shtick.

He is the only mainstream economics commentator worth listening to, and respecting.

I have a number of problems with this suggestion, which I haven't seen addressed:

-A devaluation needs to be done quickly, and almost with the element of surprise (see 1993). We won't exactly have the element of surprise when we announce we are leaving the euro, reissuing a punt, and start to crank up the printing press, and swap punts for euros on the street.
Thats going to take weeks, at a minimum.
Exactly how much capital will be left in the country at this period?

-The Euro is not the reason we had a boom and bust. There are approx 11 members (I think) of the Eurozone. How many had property bubbles? 2. 2 of 11. What about the other 9? How come they didn't go daft on low interest rates like we did?
The sooner we realise that it is structural faults that lead us into the bust, structural issues that could have been addressed by fiscal policy, the better.

-Which leads me onto my next point. The same idiots in charge now will be in charge of PuntII. Expect similar idiot-induced boom and bust to be repeated in the future.

-Our debts, both personal and sovereign, are denominated in Euro. Our debts increase if our new currency is substantially weaker than the Euro.
I asked McWilliams about this at a talk he held, and he said that while he accepts that the point is correct, on the current route we are going, we won't be paying anything back anyway as we are on our way to default and bankruptcy.
Better to devalue and get the country moving again, and pay back a bigger debt than not pay back the smaller one.

By the way, can anyone address the points I raised?

I'd especially like to see something on point 1.