# Morgan Kelly for NAMA



## canicemcavoy (9 Sep 2009)

Shane Ross doesn't pull any punches here about Mulcahy's unsuitabilty and the NAMA is going to be staffed by people who have been proven to be wrong:





> Two years ago, [Morgan] Kelly was vilified by the establishment as a head-banger for predicting that property prices would fall by 50 per cent. Today Kelly has more credibility on property valuations than the combined wisdom of all the flawed auctioneers, bankers and compromised economists in the entire nation. Kelly compounded his heresy in early 2008 by brilliantly predicting a banking collapse.
> 
> [..]
> 
> ...


----------



## TarfHead (9 Sep 2009)

As someone wittier than me once wrote ..

"_Sure haven't economists successfully predicted nine out of the last five recessions ?_"


----------



## Brendan Burgess (9 Sep 2009)

He suggested burning €500 million in St Stephen's Green instead of investing it in Anglo. Such headline grabbing spin suggests to me that he is just not worth listening to. 

Our problems are serious and need serious analysis and serious solutions, not sound bites.

brendan


----------



## canicemcavoy (9 Sep 2009)

So, Brendan, you would rather have "serious" analysis that was wrong, rather than seemingly "headline-grabbing" analysis which is right? 

Rather than trying to dismiss Kelly based on a single quote, would you not agree he has been more correct than most economic commentators?


----------



## canicemcavoy (9 Sep 2009)

TarfHead said:


> As someone wittier than me once wrote ..
> 
> "_Sure haven't economists successfully predicted nine out of the last five recessions ?_"


 
I seem to recall plenty of Irish economists predicting 3 out of the next zero booms as well. One will remain nameless; I'll just mention his book on Amazon has a single 1-star review. Another famously thought that the average Dublin houses would be over half-a-million quid. The fact still remains that NAMA should be taking more seriously the opinions of those who were right, not those who were wrong.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (9 Sep 2009)

I haven't read that much by him so I can't assess the basis on which he made forecasts, when he made them.. But what I have written has not been analysis, it has been spin and hype.

Contrast it with Alan Ahearne who shares similar views but expresses them more analytically and more professionally. 

One of the big problems we have with the current discussion is that it is a lot of people shouting at each other. This is not conducive to advancing the argument. When someone like Patrick Honohan comes up with a well argued view counter to the establishment view, it is listened to and might even influence the establishment view. 

Brendan


----------



## Ed054 (9 Sep 2009)

I agree with you.

At least Alan Ahearne has stuck his neck out and said what needs to be done.
It would appear that the likes of Morgan Kelly is happy to say what is wrong but is not prepared to suggest the answer.


----------



## canicemcavoy (9 Sep 2009)

Brendan said:


> I haven't read that much by him so I can't assess the basis on which he made forecasts, when he made them.. But what I have written has not been analysis, it has been spin and hype.


 
You dismiss him, despite the fact he has been shown to be more right than most, based on a single quote and despite the fact you admit you haven't read much by him. (It's impossible to deal with your contention that the little of him you admit you have read is "spin" - one wonders who an economist employed by a university is spinning _for_, exactly; it's not like he gets paid more or less depending on which point of view he has about the market compared to, say, oh, an economist for an estate agent).

You claim to take Ahearne more seriously ; does this mean you agreed with him back in 2005 when he said that the ratio of house prices to rents indicated a bubble about to burst?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (9 Sep 2009)

Canice

I have listened to both of them. 

Morgan Kelly rants and raves. I don't listen much to ranters and ravers. 

Alan Ahearne puts forward a point of view in a well reasoned and moderate manner. I listen to his point of view. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's expressed in such a way that one can disagree with it.

Most of the discussion on the current crisis is ranting and raving and pointless.  I just don't bother listening to it. There is a huge amount of noise to wade through to find some signal.

Brendan


----------



## tiger (9 Sep 2009)

In general with the NAMA debate I find there is too much "playing the man, not the ball".


----------



## canicemcavoy (9 Sep 2009)

> Morgan Kelly rants and raves. I don't listen much to ranters and ravers.
> 
> Alan Ahearne puts forward a point of view in a well reasoned and moderate manner. I listen to his point of view. I don't necessarily agree with it, but it's expressed in such a way that one can disagree with it.


 
First, I think there's a vast gulf between hyperbole for effect (something you yourself do) and "ranting".

If you disagree with them both on the bubble, no matter how their argument is phrased (reasoned or "ranting), then you're probably not their target audience; you have already made up your mind. 

As for "playing the man" , I think the concept of trust does play a huge part in the NAMA debate and so it should. Do we trust the developer-funded Fianna Fail to treat taxpayers fairly when their own self-interest is at stake? It's something that one has to consider; it would be foolish to treat a FF-instituted NAMA in the same way as one implemented by a committee led by Martin Luther King and Ghandi.


----------

