# "Addicted to Money" TV Show - Appalling



## The_Banker

Last night's programme was dreadful. In a triumph of style over substance it was like the director had been let loose in an edit suite for the first time.
And McWilliams jetted all round the world to do a series of long walking shots before stating the bleedin' obvious.
The programme took so long to make that by now it looked horribly outdated.
Christ knows what they spent but McWilliams must have a lot of air miles racked up.


----------



## Kine

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*

I'm so happy I didn't watch it....after reading what the show was about I knew it would be like the above.


----------



## TarfHead

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*

The fault was in the editing rather than the content. He seemed to be flitting forwards and back in that irritating style that, I reckon, programme makers feel they have to copy to combat short attention spans.

There was a thread going on boards while the programme was being screened and someone listed off the countries visited in the first 30 minutes and commented 'Who does he think he is, the Ceann Comhairle ?' 

And as for the assertion, referred to in the introduction, that our future could be as one giant wind farm ?


----------



## Staples

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*

I watched bits of it.

If I understood it correctly, his assertion is that we all got greedy because we wanted houses similar to those seen on the Australian soap "Neighbours" which apparantly improved its set significantly several years ago.

To prove the point, McWilliams travelled to Australia, visted the set of Neighbours and, with the help of one the actors, confirmed indeed that the world's soap-watching population had been unreasonably influenced by the popular drama, to go out and spend exhorbitant amounts of money, that they didn't have, on dong up their houses to a "Neighbours" standard.  

The financial meltdown we're now experiening can thus be attributed to the lavish set design in Neighbours.

Did I miss something?


----------



## Purple

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*



Staples said:


> Did I miss something?


Yes, his hair looked appalling in some of the shots but the quif was there as good as new in others.


----------



## VOR

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*

I noticed at the end that the production (tiger productions I think) was in partnership with S4C and some Australian network (ABC I believe). Unfortunately I didn't catch the name of the other producer as the credits were gone too quickly. 
The principal investor was the Aussie gov. Good to see we are globalising our tripe.
Will this programme be shown globally I wonder?


----------



## demoivre

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*

McWilliams is the Katie Price of Economics - fair play to him if he can make money out of his doom and gloom programmes / books - he won't be getting any of mine though.


----------



## mathepac

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*



VOR said:


> ... Will this programme be shown globally I wonder?


Only in those countries most likely to influence Irish economics - Australia, Papua New Guinea, Tasmania and Coronation St.


----------



## Sue Ellen

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*

He is an extremely depressing know-all to listen to.


----------



## DrMoriarty

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*

I haven't watched any of it myself, but surely anything that takes the Ginger Whinger out of the country for a while can't be all bad?


----------



## lightswitch

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*

Surprised at the comments so far.  I watched it expecting more of the popes children and decklander rubbish but was quite surprised by the show.

I used to like McWilliams back in his Newstalk and TV3 days.  Lost interest in him after the above two shows but will give this one a few weeks to see how it pans out.

In fairness to him he was actually right as to what was coming with the economy when a whole lot of others were expecting a soft landing.  Am in complete agreement with him where NAMA is concerned too!  LS.


----------



## RMCF

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*

I just watched the show this morning after Sky+'ing it.

Have to agree with all the sentiments on here.

Jez, it makes for hard watching. 

I like McWilliams style and there was a lot of sense talked in the show, but it could all have been said in 15mins instead of an hour, if it wasn't for all the padding. Every point that was made (in perhaps 10 or 15secs) had to be accompanied by 2mins of slo-mo clips of people looking moody, taking money out of ATMs, Berlin walls coming down etc. Its lazy TV of the highest order and we see it all the time these days.

I think its aimed at the new breed of TV watcher who will switch over if the shows are edited to look all fancy and arty. Some of the best points made were by the woman from Harvard University, yet her total airtime was about 45secs and we had about 40mins of 'action' shots, aircraft taking off, Neighbours tour buses etc. 

And I'll not even mention the airmiles he racked up making the show!!!


----------



## bb12

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*



lightswitch said:


> Surprised at the comments so far.  I watched it expecting more of the popes children and decklander rubbish but was quite surprised by the show.
> 
> I used to like McWilliams back in his Newstalk and TV3 days.  Lost interest in him after the above two shows but will give this one a few weeks to see how it pans out.
> 
> In fairness to him he was actually right as to what was coming with the economy when a whole lot of others were expecting a soft landing.  Am in complete agreement with him where NAMA is concerned too!  LS.




+1. Actually enjoyed it and everything he was saying was exactly right. I like him because I listened to what he was saying in his other programmes about the house of cards about to fall and held off building my house as a result..Now i'm getting quotes 30% cheaper than if I had built back then so he's saved me a lot of money.


----------



## Guest116

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*

I only saw about 20 seconds of this. It was a clip of Mr McWilliams walking down a dusty village street looking back behind him as a camel walks by. I just thought it was self indulgent.


----------



## RMCF

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*

Thought the bit when he received a big envelope with 'David McWilliams' written on it, and it contained a spool of tape was tragic. He was trying to be all 'Watergate'.

He emptied it out and tried his best attempt at looking shocked/interested/curious - and showed that he will never be an actor.


----------



## Vanilla

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*



RMCF said:


> Some of the best points made were by the woman from Harvard University, yet her total airtime was about 45secs


 
She is Elizabeth Warren, Harvard Law Professor. She's interesting. You can google a youtube video of her lecture on the 'Coming Collapse of the Middle Classes'. Maybe a bit dated now but still relevant. I first read about her on the PropertyPin and watched the video one lunchtime.


----------



## lightswitch

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*



aristotle25 said:


> I only saw about 20 seconds of this. It was a clip of Mr McWilliams walking down a dusty village street looking back behind him as a camel walks by. I just thought it was self indulgent.


 
Yea, he can come across as quite pompous.  Noticed this particularly when he was on the Late Late along with Alan Joyce of Qantas.  

Not sure whether McWilliams was surprised that a guy from Tallaght was running Qantas, or that the guy running Qantas was happy to discuss being from Tallaght.  Either way he looked bemused by it.


----------



## fobs

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*



aristotle25 said:


> I only saw about 20 seconds of this. It was a clip of Mr McWilliams walking down a dusty village street looking back behind him as a camel walks by. I just thought it was self indulgent.


 
Well if you only watch 20 second clips of a programme it is very hard to judge it overall. I thought it explained where we got her in plain english to a lot of people who may not frequent financial websites.


----------



## VOR

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*

The "forensic evidence" (RTE's words not mine) is online here for any one who wants to watch it http://www.rte.ie/player/#v=1057039


----------



## Complainer

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*

I can't watch him on TV, but his writing is reasonably good, and his track record is fairly sound.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*



Complainer said:


> I can't watch him on TV, but his writing is reasonably good, and his track record is fairly sound.



This is a serious problem. 

People ask now why did we not listen to the economists who warned of the housing bubble and the economic crash? And I think that this is part of the reason. Their warnings were dressed up in such stupid, sensationalist language, that it would have been like taking the economic forecasts of the Sunday World seriously.

In today's Sunday Business Post Mc William's headline is "NAMA is Highway Robbery".  I am just not going to read a sensationalist article like this, so I might be missing some valid points.


----------



## RMCF

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*

To be fair to McWilliams, I have always enjoyed his writing and his appearances on the likes of Prime Time/Q&A. I do think he speaks a lot of sense.

Its only these type of programmes that he does badly, but perhaps he hasn't too much input into the 'look' of them?

I emailed his website about the way the programme was presented and to be fair to him, he emailed me back and was very understanding of my slaggin!! But he believed that the format and look of the show is important to attract as many people from a wide audience base as possible - and I'm sure it works.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*



Brendan said:


> People ask now why did we not listen to the economists who warned of the housing bubble and the economic crash?


Many people did listen. I did and I took action to minimise the impact it would have on me. I really don't understand how anybody didn't see it coming. 
McWilliams was an important prophet but I agree with you completely that his delivery was rubbish. Maybe that was his mistake; in appealing to the masses he was appealing to the people who couldn't do anything about it rather than the few who could? Most of us are just passengers, the most we can do is make sure we are close to the lifeboats when we see the iceberg coming and the captain(s) are asleep at the wheel.


----------



## z109

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*

I agree with you Purple, I listened and got my lifevest on under my shirt...

I think the problem is that many (most?) people won't watch a dry Prime Time style program. The ones that do already know a lot about what has happened and why it happened. But people who have great financial debates are not the audience that TV appeals to. It is those that turn over to Spin103 when the talky-talky jaw-jaw comes on TodayFM that are the target. They are the ones it is most important to target, as they are the ones least likely to search out the information.

The program irritated me in the way that X-factor irritates me. So by that metric, it has probably reached its target in spades!

I did learn a couple of interesting things in it. I was aware of the meeting that took place between the SEC and the investment bankers where they abandoned leverage limits, but not aware of the tone of it. That was shocking. The other thing that was mind-boggling was Depfa bank. I looked at its annual report and couldn't understand how it had gone so badly bust - lending to school boards and municipalities - it seemed safe enough. But, what was to me a bombshell, that they were lending for pension speculation! My goodness. Shades of 1929.


----------



## tyoung

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*



Brendan said:


> This is a serious problem.
> 
> People ask now why did we not listen to the economists who warned of the housing bubble and the economic crash? And I think that this is part of the reason. Their warnings were dressed up in such stupid, sensationalist language, that it would have been like taking the economic forecasts of the Sunday World seriously.
> 
> In today's Sunday Business Post Mc William's headline is "NAMA is Highway Robbery".  I am just not going to read a sensationalist article like this, so I might be missing some valid points.



McWilliams was quoting Joseph Stigliz who got an impressive CV.

"When asked whether he would implement a Nama-style bailout for the banks, he responded: ‘‘No, this is the kind of highway robbery which we see happening all over the world, with guns pointing at the heads of the political leaders and the bankers claiming the sky will fall down and the economy will be devastated unless they get this money."


----------



## canicemcavoy

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*



Brendan said:


> This is a serious problem.
> 
> People ask now why did we not listen to the economists who warned of the housing bubble and the economic crash? And I think that this is part of the reason. Their warnings were dressed up in such stupid, sensationalist language


 
Isn't it the nature of warnings that they tend to sound more sensationalistic than people advocating the status quo?

"Don't cross that bridge over the Malahide estuary, it's going to collapse!"


----------



## Barabas

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*

This program is total rubbish. Some poor guys in China save $2 a week and it's his money that the US is using to fund the US bank rescue fund TARP.This like the Monty Python sketch where a guy is told "the bank was robbed and unfortunately they took your shoebox!" (Forgets to tell us that most US bank are clammering to pay this money back). 

How can a qualified ecconomist talk emotive nonsense like this.

I would like to know the names of these "Rich Bankers" we are bailing out. 
Rothschild ? Rockerfeller? Is there an evil banking family that owns the Irish Banks. Soime character from a Batman Movie like the Penguin or the Joker.

As far as I know AIB/Bank of Ireland is owned by a load of shareholders Retired people whose savings have been wiped, pension funds, other companies with their own shareholders and yes some overseas investors. None of these were particularly evil people. In truth they were the ones who suffered most when a handful of eegits on their boards went on a gambling binge.

Toss the eegits in jail and leave them pennyless but don't advocate destroying the financial system. They don't care if you do. Ain't gonna bother them. A Few years in Mountjoy would bother them.

McWilliams has lost the plot here. Doing his best to put on a big budget drama. The first thing to go are the facts. Too complicated for gobbies like us to understand. 

What you get is him zooming all over the world to make some simple points and in the last 5 minutes he pretends to reach some conclusions from the previous 50 mins ruminations. In fact the conclusions have nothing to do with the rambling drivel that he engages in while getting some great footage from Australia, Vegas, China, Iceland etc.,. 

I really hope none of my TV licence money gets spent producing this trash.


----------



## Guest116

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*

Amazing the amount of different places he went to for the programme. In one very short scene of about 40 seconds the location changed with nearly every sentance. One second he was on a bus full of people with livestock (looked like something from Chile), then in what looked like the snow planes of the Artic, then walking with his jacket over his shoulder in a desert etc etc.

The emphasis was on style over substance. I think he assumed his viewers had an attention span and intelligence level of a 10 year old (no disprespect to all you great 10 years olds!).


----------



## sfag

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*

I think he takes too long to say a small amount but after watching last nights program I was trying to work out what I had learnt that I hadn't known before. 

I didn't know that China was recessing. We were told at the start of the year that China would continue to boom - I think the figure quoted was 8% growth. So thats news to me.

He also predicts the US will default on its loans. That is a big prediction. they probably will - they are a super power and can do what they want at then end of the day. 

I didnt know that China were bailing out the US with more money - I had thought the US were just making up printed money to withdraw at a later date. 

His opinion that life goes on in defaulting countries is also interesting - I was wondering how Icelanders were coping.

Its hard to come up with original takes on things and brave to make predictions. Most economists dont - or thye stick to safe predictions based on historical behaviour, qualified with so many get out variables that they dont beome a prediciton at all. 

Catchy headlines might be his trait but so what. 
I'd say theres stuff in there that makes it worth watching and I bet most of you will continue to do so.

ps I would like to add that I predict the programme will be adapted for use in other countries by replacing the small Irish related bits with bits relating to the countries that buy the programme.


----------



## sfag

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*



yoganmahew said:


> I think the problem is that many (most?) people won't watch a dry Prime Time style program. .


 
Personally I allways thought Prime Time was sensationalist rubbish pushing small stories through a bias agenda. I never got it.


----------



## Guest116

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*



sfag said:


> ps I would like to add that I predict the programme will be adapted for use in other countries by replacing the small Irish related bits with bits relating to the countries that buy the programme.


 
Really? What is there to buy? It has no "format" as such unlike other programmes such as Dragons Den, Who wants to be a Millionaire etc.


----------



## canicemcavoy

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*



sfag said:


> Personally I allways thought Prime Time was sensationalist rubbish pushing small stories through a bias agenda. I never got it.


 
Is there an economics program/documentary that you would recommend?


----------



## sfag

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*

I listen to SBS, Sunday Supp, & matt cooper (today fm). Lots theres. AAM, Sunday Bus post, Tribune and Sunday Times. 
The few times I watched Prime Time they 'bigged up' very small issues and tended to be a bit pios in their stake. I gave up pretty quickly. 

The ascent of money was educational, interesting but historical. 
I've watched loads of others. 
In fact I'm addicted to them. 

But you rarely get the bottom line on the most simplest of questions that interest me. - eg who got all the 'lost' trillions. I still dont know. Does America have to pay up its debts?. What will really happen if they dont, and so on. 

Mostly they're all round up programmes. McWilliams is - but then it is aimed at everyone. If you wait long enough he'll provoke discussion with some original thinking (not neccessarily too wild) and that to me is worth something. 


Predictions of the future are essential for the times we live on and historical behaviour may have relevance providing we are not now creating new economic science.


----------



## sfag

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*



aristotle25 said:


> Really? What is there to buy? It has no "format" as such unlike other programmes such as Dragons Den, Who wants to be a Millionaire etc.


 
A - because it is big budget with foriegn money involved. That has to be recouped. 
B - Cos its structured to allow that. The Irish content is failry small. Its a world round up. 

btw - even the popes children was aired on the BBC.


----------



## crabbybear

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*

David Mcwilliams is a thorn in the side of the vested interests that have ruined this country, many just don't like the opposition and will use whatever excuse to discredit. I'm glad I read his articles over the last few years which have been spot on, I believe he is passionate about what he is saying and is out for the good of the country unlike alot of the greedy scoundrel vested interests. This enthusiasm can come across as sensationalism but 'Nama is highway robbery'.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*



crabbybear said:


> David Mcwilliams is a thorn in the side of the vested interests that have ruined this country, many just don't like the opposition and will use whatever excuse to discredit. I'm glad I read his articles over the last few years which have been spot on, I believe he is passionate about what he is saying and is out for the good of the country unlike alot of the greedy scoundrel vested interests. This enthusiasm can come across as sensationalism but 'Nama is highway robbery'.



Is that you David?


----------



## sfag

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*



crabbybear said:


> This enthusiasm can come across as sensationalism but 'Nama is highway robbery'.


 
Thats another of the big questions that I have not yet seen addressed. What is the real reason we choose Nama?
It is a deal where the investors citizens pay for the losses of the investors and creditors who gambled & lost but wont be out a penny. 
Sorry, I know its been discussed before but I cant understand why Irelands creditors arn't asked to take a hit on their gamble. If Irish banks were reckless then those who lent money to them were too?. 

It does look like highway robbery. Mc Williams is not alone in thinking that. Surely thats not sensationalist.


----------



## lightswitch

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*



sfag said:


> thats another of the big questions that i have not yet seen addressed. What is the real reason we choose nama?
> It is a deal where the investors citizens pay for the losses of the investors and creditors who gambled & lost but wont be out a penny.
> Sorry, i know its been discussed before but i cant understand why irelands creditors arn't asked to take a hit on their gamble. If irish banks were reckless then those who lent money to them were too?.
> 
> It does look like highway robbery. Mc williams is not alone in thinking that. Surely thats not sensationalist.


 
+1


----------



## Rockahoola

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*



Brendan said:


> This is a serious problem.
> 
> People ask now why did we not listen to the economists who warned of the housing bubble and the economic crash? And I think that this is part of the reason. Their warnings were dressed up in such stupid, sensationalist language, that it would have been like taking the economic forecasts of the Sunday World seriously.
> 
> In today's Sunday Business Post Mc William's headline is "NAMA is Highway Robbery". I am just not going to read a sensationalist article like this, so I might be missing some valid points.


 
Is the issue not that a calm opposing voice is just not heard (and certainly not listened to) when the crowd and their chosen prophets are all shouting in the other direction?  So, the 'drama' level is upped to get people listening.  But then the opposers just become 'cranks' and 'non-believers'.  I'm sure there were plenty of calm voices during the bubble that forecast the crash but no-one wanted to listen.


----------



## z109

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*



Rockahoola said:


> Is the issue not that a calm opposing voice is just not heard (and certainly not listened to) when the crowd and their chosen prophets are all shouting in the other direction?  So, the 'drama' level is upped to get people listening.  But then the opposers just become 'cranks' and 'non-believers'.  I'm sure there were plenty of calm voices during the bubble that forecast the crash but no-one wanted to listen.


Follow the gourd....


----------



## aidank

The_Banker said:


> Last night's programme was dreadful. In a triumph of style over substance it was like the director had been let loose in an edit suite for the first time.
> And McWilliams jetted all round the world to do a series of long walking shots before stating the bleedin' obvious.
> The programme took so long to make that by now it looked horribly outdated.
> Christ knows what they spent but McWilliams must have a lot of air miles racked up.


 
perfect description of the show, impossible to follow


----------



## Rockahoola

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*



yoganmahew said:


> Follow the gourd....


 
A lot of people gathered in Knock last week on the expectation that a woman called Mary who died more than 2000 years ago would re-appear in front of their eyes.  Amazingly she didn't, but more amazingly, in her absence, many of those gathered reported a 'dancing' sun.  By coincidence, in 1917, many thousands of people gathered in Fatima in the heat of anticipation of an almost guaranteed appearance by the well- travelled Mary but instead witnessed an even more excited 'dancing' sun.  

Moral of the story, don't gather in places where people are very certain about unbeliveable things, and above all stick to your guns when you're told the sun is dancing but you can't see it.


----------



## Barabas

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*

This enthusiasm can come across as sensationalism but 'Nama is highway robbery'.[/quote]

Fine but what alternative do you propose to sort out the banking mess. Bear in mind none of the four main parties in the Dail favour letting the Banks go Bust.


----------



## sfag

I used to be a programmer. 

People would say to me what do you do. I'd say I write software. 
They say "I've just done the EDCL test" have you?". - I say no. cue confused look. 

They'd say "my laptop has stop working can you fix it?". I'll look but probably not. cue look of distain. 

They'd say "what exactly is it that you do you do again". I'd try to explain, but found it difficult. How you to explain something to someone that has no reference points to aid their comprehension. 
Well that is how it is with the Financial crisis. Where do you start. 

Now imagine if you are McWilliams. He comes across as likeable and approachable - the Gay Byrne of the Business media maybe. 
He's gonna get asked questions by everyone he meets. How on earth is he gonna answer simple questions like who has all the money. 

My 9yr old phrased this one. "If the world loses a lot of money then someone else must have it - so who has it?". Noddy Holder asked the same question on Have I got news for you. No one had the answer - not even a jokey one. 

McWilliams seems to have decided to make a program to illustrate some of these issues. Gawd knows there is a need. He appears to be trying to present some answers at least in simple terms with a lot of visualizations. 

Take his question "Where does America get its money from?" - simple but very important question. McWilliams tells us it is China. 
So where does China get its money from?
McWilliams makes another call (disputed on this thread) he says its from a Waong in a factory - at 2 dollars a week or something, and he interviews Waong. 

It may not be the whole picture but if it is someway true then I think that'l do for the purpose of his illustration - no?

I dont know where big countries get their money. Does anyone know the full details?. Perhaps China just makes the stuff up out of thin air. America has being doing that. 

Imagine trying to explain that to anyone who doesent have an understanding of high finance. 
Dad - what does printing money mean - er it just making up money from nothing.
What - you mean just printing money on a printer - er, no, its even eaiser that that, It means adding a lot of zeroes to a field on a computer screen and then pressing the send button - then the banks get it. 
Wow - great - why doesent everyone do it - er, I dunno, David - can you help here. 
Maybe episode three will tell us.


----------



## Protocol

sfag said:


> My 9yr old phrased this one. "If the world loses a lot of money then someone else must have it - so who has it?". Noddy Holder asked the same question on Have I got news for you. No one had the answer - not even a jokey one.
> 
> *The previous owner of the asset, i.e. the seller of the asset, has the money you paid them for the asset that subsequently drops in value.*
> 
> 
> Take his question "Where does America get its money from?" - simple but very important question. McWilliams tells us it is China.
> So where does China get its money from?
> 
> *More precisely, the US nation is a net borrower from the savers of the world, mainly Asian savings, incl China.*
> 
> McWilliams makes another call (disputed on this thread) he says its from a Waong in a factory - at 2 dollars a week or something, and he interviews Waong.
> 
> *Don't think in terms of "money", think in terms of "savings" and "borrowings", or surpluses and deficits. The Chinese nation is a net saver as it produces more output than it consumes.*
> 
> 
> I dont know where big countries get their money. Does anyone know the full details?
> 
> *I think you mean where do borrowing nations like the USA and UK, Spain, etc. borrow from??*
> 
> *Answer: the world's savers, i.e. other countries that run surpluses, e.g. Gulf states, Norway, oil producers, Asian saving nations, etc.*


----------



## sfag

"*The previous owner of the asset, i.e. the seller of the asset, has the money you paid them for the asset that subsequently drops in value" *

Isn’t that a theoretical answer.
Who has it exactly. Where is it stored. If the banks have it on deposit then why does America think it needs to add made up money to the system to get money moving when it’s already there – somewhere – not moving?.

If it was a simple as that then Ireland would be a rich country – didn’t we sell the assets to ourselves. Where’s the cash.


----------



## Brendan Burgess

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*



sfag said:


> ps I would like to add that I predict the programme will be adapted for use in other countries by replacing the small Irish related bits with bits relating to the countries that buy the programme.



from last Sunday's Business Post - I can't find a link:


> The first episode had few Irish references, which is not surprising as the series is produced in association with S4C and RTE, but developed and produced with the Australian BC, producedd and developed in association with Screenwest and Lotterywest(that's Western Australia..")


----------



## Protocol

sfag said:


> "*The previous owner of the asset, i.e. the seller of the asset, has the money you paid them for the asset that subsequently drops in value" *
> 
> Isn’t that a theoretical answer.
> Who has it exactly. Where is it stored. If the banks have it on deposit then why does America think it needs to add made up money to the system to get money moving when it’s already there – somewhere – not moving?.
> 
> If it was a simple as that then Ireland would be a rich country – didn’t we sell the assets to ourselves. Where’s the cash.


 
Can you be more specific with your question: _"If the world loses a lot of money then someone else must have it - so who has it?"_

When assets like houses, property, etc. fall in value there is *NOT* any "loss of money", there is still the same amount of money around.

Money is defined as all cash in circulation plus all current a/c balances plus all deposit a/c balances.

A massive fall in property and share values is a *fall in wealth*, not a loss of money.

If a farmer's land is zoned, and he then sells it for 10m, and the property developer borrows another 20m to build houses, but subsequently goes bust, then the farmer still has the original 10m on deposit.


----------



## Protocol

sfag said:


> Who has it exactly. Where is it stored. If the banks have it on deposit then why does America think it needs to add made up money to the system to get money moving when it’s already there – somewhere – not moving?.
> 
> If it was a simple as that then Ireland would be a rich country – didn’t we sell the assets to ourselves. Where’s the cash.


 
In the case of central banks increasing the money supply, they feel that a recession is so bad, and that the stock of money may be stagnant or falling, so there are enough reasons for them to actually increase the stock of money.

NB: this does not increase wealth, as the CB's increase of the stock of money will be matched by an increase in liabilities.

So there will be more money, but not more wealth.


----------



## Protocol

sfag said:


> If it was a simple as that then Ireland would be a rich country – didn’t we sell the assets to ourselves. Where’s the cash.


 
Ireland is a rich country, with huge wealth.

Our national annual income has fallen by 10-15%, but we are still wealthy.

In terms of cash deposits, households own 90bn.

If we include all financial assets and financial liabilites, we arrive at 100 bn + household wealth.

See page 73 below:

[broken link removed]


----------



## sfag

Thanks for the replies Protocol. I'll need to digest them slowly to comprehend fully.


Re:
"When assets like houses, property, etc. fall in value there is *NOT* any "loss of money", there is still the same amount of money around"

That’s the bit that confuses me. It’s what I reckoned initially. The money pile stays the same. Someone does make a loss though. A property has to sell for less for a drop in value to be realised. The original seller when the price is high has the money. 

I can only think of one high profile seller who didn't buy on (in Ireland at least) and that’s the doyle/jury's hotel group so presumably they're still sitting on the 1 billion cash pile. 

We hear about all those who owe billions - why don’t we see the list of the people that have the billions made from selling while the boom was on. And lets borrow it back from them - no? 

I'm pretty sure I heard or read that one of the justifications for printing money was that if x amount of trillions has disappeared from the worlds banks then lets just fill the hole with cumulative easing. It may have been an over simplistic metaphor of things but it did plant in my mind that the money had disappeared. 

If liquidity is the problem (and not shortage of cash) then why cant the worlds governments just force the banks to release the cash - no bail out needed. 
And why is America borrowing from China when the boom made wealth is presumably sitting there in Western Banks.? 

Who has the power. Banks or Governments. Maybe thats the issue here. Governments ultimately have less real power than banks ?.

The answers may be in your replies so apologies if I am slow to cotton on here. I gotta think it out.


----------



## sfag

Protocol said:


> Ireland is a rich country, with huge wealth.
> 
> Our national annual income has fallen by 10-15%, but we are still wealthy.
> 
> In terms of cash deposits, households own 90bn.
> 
> If we incluse all financial assets and financial liabilites, we arrive at 100 bn + household wealth.
> 
> See page 73 below:
> 
> [broken link removed]


 

Interesting.
Presumably the 'financial liabilites' are not based on worst case valuations or the picture changes.
I seem to remember a time not long ago when Bill gates could have bought all the property in Ireland. (i know over simplistic and sensational but catchy). 
I think he had 50 billion at the time. 
Is 100 and something billion, and depreciating, really wealthy for a soverign european state of 4 billion people in this day and age?.


----------



## Chris

sfag said:


> We hear about all those who owe billions - why don’t we see the list of the people that have the billions made from selling while the boom was on. And lets borrow it back from them - no?


You are assuming that they just took the money and put it on deposit, rather than invest it or spend it. 




sfag said:


> I'm pretty sure I heard or read that one of the justifications for printing money was that if x amount of trillions has disappeared from the worlds banks then lets just fill the hole with cumulative easing. It may have been an over simplistic metaphor of things but it did plant in my mind that the money had disappeared.
> 
> If liquidity is the problem (and not shortage of cash) then why cant the worlds governments just force the banks to release the cash - no bail out needed.



The problem lies in fractional reserve banking, the increase in money supply and artificailly low interest rates. Basically, low interest rates increased the demand for credit (private and corporate); to keep up with the demand for creadit, banks reduced the amount of reserves they held (in some cases as little as 2%) and central banks increased the money supply. When people can get money more or less for free, they will borrow to spend more now, which increased demand for everything from houses to biscuits causing the high inflation numbers we saw in the past 10 years. When this strategy crumbles, credit losses have to be written off by banks against their assets, which were VERY little.
You can't force a bank to release cash/assets when those assets are barely covering losses.




sfag said:


> And why is America borrowing from China when the boom made wealth is presumably sitting there in Western Banks.?


It was paper wealth, not real wealth, i.e. America has been increasing it's asset prices by making cheap credit available to its citizens, with money borrowed from China. You are confusing wealth (percieved) with actual hard assets. If you buy an asset for €100 and then sell it for €150 you have increased your actual wealth by 50%. If you buy an asset for €100 and someone else sells a similar product for €150 that does NOT increase your actual wealth by 50%, only your perceived/theoretical wealth.




sfag said:


> Who has the power. Banks or Governments. Maybe thats the issue here. Governments ultimately have less real power than banks ?.


In a true free-market economy neither the banks nor the government would have the power, it would be the market participants, i.e. consumers, who make the decisions on what products deserve their custom. As it stands now, governments have ultimate power over everyone in the economy; they can raise taxes, nationalise a company or industries, restrict competition, etc. But politicians are influenced on decision making by voters and industry lobby groups, where the lobby groups often have most influence.

The whole banking and money system is a very confusing and obscure topic. If you want to learn more about I would recommend "The Mystery of Banking" by Murray Rothbard; it's a very well written book which makes the topic a lot easier to digest.


----------



## UFC

sfag said:


> "If the world loses a lot of money then someone else must have it - so who has it?". Noddy Holder asked the same question on Have I got news for you. No one had the answer - not even a jokey one.


 
The money didn't exist in the first place. Banks create money when they issue loans, and nearly all of the money in the world is money (debt) created by loans.

I agree with the rest of your post - McWilliams is aiming his show at people who know nothing about finance.


----------



## z109

sfag said:


> I'm pretty sure I heard or read that one of the justifications for printing money was that if x amount of trillions has disappeared from the worlds banks then lets just fill the hole with cumulative easing. It may have been an over simplistic metaphor of things but it did plant in my mind that the money had disappeared.


Quantative easing, though I like your malap. better.

Some of it did disappear, in that it wasn't ever there in the first place. This would, for example, be the value of your pension fund - you put money in, others did too. Stocks rose. But the levels they reached made everyone 'wealthier' without that money actually being spent on them.

Put it this way:
Brian buys 1 stock in NAMA at 1 euro
Mary buys 1 stock in NAMA at 10 euro
The total 2 stocks in NAMA are now worth 20 euro
Only 11 euro has changed hands
NAMA makes a big loss
The price of NAMA stock drops to 25 cent
The 2 NAMA stocks are now worth 50 cent
19.50 has been lost
or 
10.50 if you count the money that actually changed hands...

So notional wealth drops don't equal real wealth drops, but real wealth drops do happen too without anyone benefitting from them - there is no transfer of wealth.


----------



## sfag

Fellas. thanks for the patience. Serious amount to digest and will have to piece the bits together. 
Will need to read the entire post a few times. Am gonna check out "The Mystery of Banking" too.


----------



## Protocol

sfag said:


> Thanks for the replies Protocol. I'll need to digest them slowly to comprehend fully.
> 
> Re:
> "When assets like houses, property, etc. fall in value there is *NOT* any "loss of money", there is still the same amount of money around"
> 
> That’s the bit that confuses me. It’s what I reckoned initially. The money pile stays the same. Someone does make a loss though. A property has to sell for less for a drop in value to be realised. The original seller when the price is high has the money.
> 
> *Yes, (notional) wealth falls, but the stock of money stays the same.*
> 
> 
> I can only think of one high profile seller who didn't buy on (in Ireland at least) and that’s the doyle/jury's hotel group so presumably they're still sitting on the 1 billion cash pile.
> 
> *Good example, I use it as well.*
> 
> We hear about all those who owe billions - why don’t we see the list of the people that have the billions made from selling while the boom was on. And lets borrow it back from them - no?
> 
> *Here's an example: the Ennis bypass land acquisition costs were 37m alone. It made millionaires of several landowners, mostly farmers. They now have millions on deposit, unless they bought shares or property!!*
> 
> 
> I'm pretty sure I heard or read that one of the justifications for printing money was that if x amount of trillions has disappeared from the worlds banks then lets just fill the hole with cumulative easing. It may have been an over simplistic metaphor of things but it did plant in my mind that the money had disappeared.
> 
> *If the stock of money falls, it may lead to or be a symptom of deflation, so the CB intervene to boost the money stock. They buy assets from the general public and pay for them by creating new money.*
> 
> *NB: no new wealth, just a change in the composition of assets - more money, less of other assets.*
> 
> If liquidity is the problem (and not shortage of cash) then why cant the worlds governments just force the banks to release the cash - no bail out needed.
> And why is America borrowing from China when the boom made wealth is presumably sitting there in Western Banks.?
> 
> *If the USA produces goods and services worth 100, and consumes/spends 110, they must borrow 10 from somewhere.*


----------



## serotoninsid

I don't understand how it all works but could we not just let the banks fail?? I can't fathom why its necessary to prop them up.  By the nature of things, if theres a void, someones going to fill it right??


----------



## Zorrow

Well, I'm feeling sorry for all you guys who are uncomfortable with "Addiction to Money".   You do not like being shown up as pushers of addiction. Well, I'd imagine I would as well if I'd been engaged at various street corners, right under the noses of the police, pushing this stuff on an unsuspection public......and once Brian Cowan had 'fessed up prior to last election it gave you extra confidence. 
You'll be in rehab for years.....enjoy..


----------



## phanteon

If a farmer's land is zoned, and he then sells it for 10m, and the property developer borrows another 20m to build houses, but subsequently goes bust, then the farmer still has the original 10m on deposit

If the farmer then buys bank shares. for 10 million and now these shares are only worth 2 million then where is the 8 million gone?


----------



## phanteon

> If a farmer's land is zoned, and he then sells it for 10m, and the property developer borrows another 20m to build houses, but subsequently goes bust, then the farmer still has the original 10m on deposit


If the farmer then buys bank shares. for 10 million and now these shares are only worth 2 million then where is the 8 million gone?


----------



## Chris

phanteon said:


> If the farmer then buys bank shares. for 10 million and now these shares are only worth 2 million then where is the 8 million gone?[/IMG][/URL]



The full €10 million went to the person who sold the shares to the farmer. Who is either then sitting on it or has invested it or has spent it. Money is a unique "commodity" in that consumption does not use it up.
The reason Central Banks believe they have to pump money into the system is because the system was built on miniscule fractional reserve banking and ever increasing asset prices to fuel credit expansion. So when banks increase their reserves less money makes it into the public's hands. When economy's like the US and UK are built on consumption rather than production this has dire consequences, which is why they are "printing" money like there is no tomorrow. The ECB on the other hand has been involved in far, far less quantitative easing, because its biggest member states (Germany, France) have economy's built on production and exports whith its citizens holding real savings.


----------



## Protocol

phanteon said:


> If a farmer's land is zoned, and he then sells it for 10m, and the property developer borrows another 20m to build houses, but subsequently goes bust, then the farmer still has the original 10m on deposit
> 
> If the farmer then buys bank shares. for 10 million and now these shares are only worth 2 million then where is the 8 million gone?


 

*The seller of the shares rec'd 10m in money.*


----------



## onq

The_Banker said:


> Last night's programme was dreadful. In a triumph of style over substance it was like the director had been let loose in an edit suite for the first time.
> And McWilliams jetted all round the world to do a series of long walking shots before stating the bleedin' obvious.
> The programme took so long to make that by now it looked horribly outdated.
> Christ knows what they spent but McWilliams must have a lot of air miles racked up.



Saw the last 15 minutes of it - totally, totally agree.

If I see him swanking around another airport I'll get sick all over the telly.

What a waste of air time.

ONQ.


----------



## onq

Loans are created by entering a balance into an account.

It is not even necessary to print the money.

It would use up a lot of trees to do so.

The amount a Bank can loan in this way is fixed by regulation in relation to its capital deposits, currently up from 6% to 8%.

The day that higher ratio was imposed by the BIS, many American banks became insolvent.

This is the reason for pumping money back into the banks.

PLease correct me if you understand differently to me.

FWIW

ONQ.


----------



## Carolina

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*



Brendan said:


> This is a serious problem.
> 
> People ask now why did we not listen to the economists who warned of the housing bubble and the economic crash? And I think that this is part of the reason. Their warnings were dressed up in such stupid, sensationalist language, that it would have been like taking the economic forecasts of the Sunday World seriously.
> 
> In today's Sunday Business Post Mc William's headline is "NAMA is Highway Robbery".  I am just not going to read a sensationalist article like this, so I might be missing some valid points.



But in 2005 he did predict the arrival and consequences of an Irish banking crisis cause by a credit crunch and predicted that NAMA would be set up to deal with it. He was spot on.


			
				DMcW August 3 said:
			
		

> Think about it. In the event of a crash, Irish banks would see their loan books decimated. This would affect their ratings, their share prices, and ultimately their ability to raise new funds.
> 
> We, the public, would be in negative equity territory, so would be both unwilling and unable to borrow.
> 
> Traditionally, in such cases, the central bank of the afflicted country would slash interest rates dramatically to kick start borrowing. But we could not do this, as our interest rates are set in Frankfurt and might actually be rising.
> 
> Do you think the ECB would cut rates to bail out Ireland -1 per cent of the EU’s population? No, I don’t think so either!
> 
> The only thing that we could do is let the state borrow enormously by issuing Irish banking bonds to international investors. This cash could then be given to the crippled banks in the form of a 30-year swap, on the condition that the increased liquidity be squeezed into the system, preventing a credit crunch from taking hold.
> 
> But who would pay for this? Well, we would, because a special tax would have to be levied initially to pay the repayments of the bonds until the banks’ balance sheets recovered. It is a scary prospect and one that the 100 per cent 35-year mortgage brokers or the guys involved in 'Irish pricing’ dare not contemplate.


[broken link removed]


----------



## Timbo

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*



Brendan said:


> This is a serious problem.
> 
> People ask now why did we not listen to the economists who warned of the housing bubble and the economic crash? And I think that this is part of the reason. Their warnings were dressed up in such stupid, sensationalist language, that it would have been like taking the economic forecasts of the Sunday World seriously.
> 
> In today's Sunday Business Post Mc William's headline is "NAMA is Highway Robbery".  I am just not going to read a sensationalist article like this, so I might be missing some valid points.



Funny, but I remember things differently. 

I remember people talking about suicide in their boosting of the bubble. 
I remember people vacuious argumentsbased on nothing but "trust me I know". 

Thanks yo the internet the quotes are still out there to be found if you want to challenge the way you think and to avoid being sucked into such group think again.


----------



## Timbo

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*



Carolina said:


> But in 2005 he did predict the arrival and consequences of an Irish banking crisis cause by a credit crunch and predicted that NAMA would be set up to deal with it. He was spot on.
> 
> [broken link removed]



Thanks carolina. 
I think that makes a strong point. No sensationalist language language there. Just well informed and logical analysis. 


Let, not fall into the trap of trying to exonerate ourselves for a lack of proper objective logical thinking on this. 

We need to use this as a learning experience to make sure in the future we employ for effective critical thinking. 

When I look back now at all the arguments employed by the bank and real estate economists who got so much press, not to mention the lay journalists who stuck their oar  in and tbrn compare with quotes like that from mcwilliams I just smack myself on the head and wonder how I could have been such a dolt. 
I am happy to let him have a little populist licence now. 

He has proven he is responsible enough to be granted it.


----------



## z109

"We all knew it couldn't last" "Nobody could have seen it coming"
These two statements are irreconcilable. You can take one position or another, you can't take both. Choose which sort of fool you were...


----------



## FAUGH45568

It is very easy to critize someone and look smart on a message board and there are no consequences..

But the facts of the matter is anyone that listened to McWilliams saved themselves a fortune and a lot of personal problems..

Anyone who didnt see this coming had rocks in their heads and they are the same people who will be quick to criticize and deviate people from the message to push their own agenda..

McWilliams message is simple

Be careful the Rules have changed..
Its a different World..

Those are facts that no-one can argue with..


----------



## Chris

yoganmahew said:


> "We all knew it couldn't last" "Nobody could have seen it coming"
> These two statements are irreconcilable. You can take one position or another, you can't take both. Choose which sort of fool you were...



This is a very good point, and something that our politicians are the biggest culprits of. 
What annoys me most is that when it comes to bailouts, not just in Ireland but all over the world, politicians are turning to the same economists that were saying "there is no bubble", "this time it's different", "the fundamentals of the economy are sound", "it will be a soft landing", "prices had to come back a bit", etc. Yet those economists that accurately predicted this mess are not being called in to help sort it out. 
How many phone calls would you think McWilliams has received from the government asking for advice? I would say exactly zero.


----------



## dtlyn

> In today's Sunday Business Post Mc William's headline is "NAMA is Highway Robbery". I am just not going to read a sensationalist article like this, so I might be missing some valid points.


You have to ask yourself if you would dismiss this article so out of hand if any picture other than David's was presented beside the copy under the said headline. The language is colorful but the copy is actually quite an interesting article from the point of view of a non-financial person reading the post for some insight.



			
				Brendan said:
			
		

> _ People ask now why did we not listen to the economists who warned of the housing bubble and the economic crash? And I think that this is part of the reason. Their warnings were dressed up in such stupid, sensationalist language, that it would have been like taking the economic forecasts of the Sunday World seriously.
> ​_


_
Those who spouted bubble propaganda of the time were unashamed in there misuse of the sensationalist route to appeal to the mass market. 

Yes, I think David McWilliams fancies himself ( the transiton of his image to a 3D george clooney in the last episode was ridiculous - I'm not entirely sure that it's all not done tongue in cheek.) However, I wouldn't blame McWilliams for dumbing down for his audience to get the message accross. I know that for all the fanfare in his articles and books, a lot of which vary in quality, he always manages to grab reader attention to thinking about a problem at hand. I think anything that gets us actually thinking en-mass can only be a positive thing. 

I think he is very much the Cristiano Ronaldo of media economists. People hate him for all the things he does which, in the grand
scheme of his contribution, are unimportant. 


_


> How many phone calls would you think McWilliams has received from the government asking for advice? I would say exactly zero.



Wasn't his work on the Global Economic Forum closely associated with not only government but some of Irelands biggest minds and leaders globally?


----------



## Carolina

Chris said:


> I would say exactly zero.


His advice was sought by government ministers including Lenihan and Gormley several times in the lead up to the blanket guarantee scheme.

re: highway robbery. This is not David McWilliams' phrase. This is the direct quote from Joseph Stiglitz





			
				Stiglitz said:
			
		

> ‘‘No, this is the kind of highway robbery which we see happening all over the world, with guns pointing at the heads of the political leaders and the bankers claiming the sky will fall down and the economy will be devastated unless they get this money.”


 You would know this if you read the article.


----------



## Chris

dtlyn said:


> Wasn't his work on the Global Economic Forum closely associated with not only government but some of Irelands biggest minds and leaders globally?



If you look at the final report of the Global Economic Forum you'll see that none of it is in relation to solving the Irish banking, budget or debt crisis. All the forum did was come with fancy sounding ideas like:
- "Create comprehensive database of influential Irish individuals and businesses across
the world."
- "Government to develop and implement revised Asia Strategy and establish similar
strategies for other emerging markets."
- "Establish Irish innovation centre in California."
- "Ensure more consistent branding of Ireland as a tourist destination."

All a bit wishy-washy to me and creating more expenditures in a time when there is no money to spare for such fancy sounding projects. Makes about as much sense as telling someone who has fallen behind in mortgage payments to take out a loan.

Here is another quote:
"We are establishing a National Asset Management Agency to remove both good and
bad property and development loans from the balance sheets of Irish banks. This will
allow the banks return to their normal business of lending for productive investment.
This too will help provide a stable basis for economic recovery."

I don't think that's something McWilliams would put his name to.


----------



## Chris

Carolina said:


> His advice was sought by government ministers including Lenihan and Gormley several times in the lead up to the blanket guarantee scheme.



I've never heard this mentioned before and doubt it very much. The Sunday before the bank guarantee scheme McWilliams published the idea of guaranteeing all bank deposits in the SBP. In a radio interview a few days later he made no indication that he had been consulted when asked how ironic it was that his idea was implemented very shortly after, almost as if the Brians had read the paper on Sunday on said "let's do that".


----------



## sfag

yoganmahew said:


> "We all knew it couldn't last" "Nobody could have seen it coming"
> These two statements are irreconcilable. You can take one position or another, you can't take both. Choose which sort of fool you were...


 
For the banks and others who gambled on the sub prime mortgages, sky high property prices, dodgy insurance products, it not really of a matter if they can see it coming or not - its a matter of timing. Ride the good times and bail before the crash.  They see that as fair game in the making money business. Its far removed from traditional banking. 

Even warrent buffet rode the wave for a whilst before selling his credit default swaps as he predicted they would be time bomb. 

If you were one of those bankers you probably will know that it is going to end badly but if you make more money on the way up then you do if you get caught short then its a gamble worth taking. To not have taken it would have cost you your job. Thats the sad reality. 

I remember those who predicted the dot com crash getting little praise as bailing out early (but correctly) would have meant missing out on the biggest stock boom in history. 

As it now appears  McWilliams was right as the scale of the disaster was to the degree that he warned out. Thats were most others got it wrong. The worse case scenario has come true.


----------



## Carolina

Chris said:


> I've never heard this mentioned before and doubt it very much. The Sunday before the bank guarantee scheme McWilliams published the idea of guaranteeing all bank deposits in the SBP. In a radio interview a few days later he made no indication that he had been consulted when asked how ironic it was that his idea was implemented very shortly after, almost as if the Brians had read the paper on Sunday on said "let's do that".


[broken link removed]
and 
http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article4882496.ece


----------



## gaius

Some impressive shooting of the messenger going on here.


----------



## onq

Allow me to direct you to the change in capital requirements foisted on American Banks by the B.I.S.

In my opinion this was a major factor in the current crisis, but seems to have been little discussed.

Is it that people don't know about it, or cannot comment on it - I would love to see some informed comment.

ONQ.


----------



## Chris

Carolina said:


> [broken link removed]
> and
> http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/ireland/article4882496.ece




I stand corrected, thanks for the links.

If only they would listen to him now.


----------



## Purple

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*



Carolina said:


> But in 2005 he did predict the arrival and consequences of an Irish banking crisis cause by a credit crunch and predicted that NAMA would be set up to deal with it. He was spot on.
> 
> [broken link removed]



Hard to argue with that.


----------



## sunrock

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*

Mr mcwilliams must be an avid reader ,if not a contributor of this forum....he has got inputs for his programme from a lot of contributors..myself included.
He may have predicted the credit crunch...but all bubbles burst.He is concerned about climate change...fair enough but Ireland isn`t going to be too badly effected by climate change.I mean he has trotted out the looming dangers of oil and water wars..he mustn`t have been here in july and august..probably making his programme.
And we are told it takes thousands of liters of water to make one kilo of beef....well we have plenty of heaven send water and of course cattle produce methane...well can`t we use the methane to fuel our power stations.
Some of his ideas are evolving.....last year he was suggesting we make use of the irish diaspora and was pictured with argentinians of irish descent.Of course most of the irish diaspora are quite poor and have nothing to offer us ..financially that is.
Now he suggests we tap influential people of irish descent...but isn`t our entire foreign affairs department and all our politicians constantly courting our rich and influential diaspora and others besides.
ANYWAY.enough with mr mcwilliams...lets get to the crux of our present economic difficulties.All the wests cheap manufacturing industries have gone to asia where workers are getting a few euros a day and glad of it,especially when the alternative is going hungry.The west like the U.S., the U.K. and ireland have consumption as a major part of the economy. But what you may ask does this mean? Well it is like this...LOW paid workers in asia do the work while high paid individuals in Ireland  and the U.S. do the consuming.Why are we high paid.?...simple really in that we set the exchange rate and dole out the money to our citizens thru`dole or salaries so they can consume!This happy relationship unfortunately broke down because everybody forgot the rules.Firstly the wests bankers and politicians got a dose of hubris and believed their own hype that they were invincible and basically turned a blind eye when they should have been stringent control of the whole banking apparatus.
The other thing is that asian workers believed they could have a western lifestyle with cars  and nice big houses and beef to name a few.....However as mr mcwillliams pointed out the worlds resources are limited and such aspirations by asian workers would price the worlds commodities especially oil at too high a level.
Unfortunately markets and recessions are a way of adjusting aspirations and giving everyone a dose of reality.
Who pays the expenses in making Mr mcwilliams programme? He certainly gets around.


----------



## onq

gaius said:


> Some impressive shooting of the messenger going on here.



There's possibly a differece between someone delivering a timely message that will help people and someone who delivers it garbled or late [i.e. its useless] and makes money from doing so.

FWIW

ONQ.


----------



## onq

*Re: Addicted to Money - Appalling*



Carolina said:


> But in 2005 he did predict the arrival and consequences of an Irish banking crisis cause by a credit crunch and predicted that NAMA would be set up to deal with it. He was spot on.
> 
> [broken link removed]



We all knew a crunch was coming, but the extent of if was definitely not reported as definitively as your post suggests.
McWilliams report states:

_"Awhile back I heard one of our most successful bankers musing about national plans, financial war cabinets and credit crunches. And if you know he is worried about the ramifications of Moonie economics, you should be too."_

Well isn't that swell - what happend then?


 Did McWilliams extrapolate this into the rampant disregard for regulation and total financial collapse we have experienced - No!
 Did the person in question say this in front of our then glorious Finance Minister and/or did he do anything about it - No!
  Please don't parade McWilliams as some sort of Oracle we should now turn to for the Get Out Clause.
We used to watch Heady Obbs for that and look at how he fared in the crunch - ouch!
Nobody saw the severity of it - nobody foresaw AIB's share collapse.

I am not an economic pundit but evne I have some clues that I didn't get from reading McWilliams Column.


 We need new products we can sell to recovering economies at the right price to get us out of this hole, not more borrowing.
 We need a functioning, capable civil service, not ISO 9000 clones who can't get the job done on time and for a price.
 And we need most of all, to become productive ourselves, to pay our own fair share of the tax burden that's coming and spend on goods and services in this country to keep the economy running on a day-to-day basis.
  As some wise poster noted in this thread, money is one commodity that isn't consumed by its use - it multiplies.
Right now as an open economy, we're prey to the negative multiplier effect.
But if we can even turn one economic sector/indicator into the black, the multiplier will start working for us again.

That's what we have to achieve.
And keep working on the other sectors/factors.
Lets put those well-educated Grade 1 Civil Servants to work on this.
Not attending back covering department meetings, but thinking outside the box to break this deadly cycle we're in.

What are we paying them for otherwise?

ONQ.


----------

