It might be overstating it to say that the DoF comprises people with no economic background. There are people there with qualifications in economics, although I don't know how many. In addition, many of the generalists are quite bright people who might not have formal credentials in economics, but have the intellectual capacity and the motivation to become well-versed in economics.
It might be overstating it to say that the DoF comprises people with no economic background. There are people there with qualifications in economics, although I don't know how many. In addition, many of the generalists are quite bright people who might not have formal credentials in economics, but have the intellectual capacity and the motivation to become well-versed in economics.
...The dogma that no one told them, is looking a bit thin now...
I never said the civil servants weren't doing their jobs. The report specifically said that the budgety process was overwhelmed by social partnership and government programmes to increase spending and cut taxes. Blaming big bad developers is nice and populist but the construction industry werent the ones calling for huge increases in things like social welfare. The construction industry was part of social partnership as was IBEC and these bodies are just as guilty as politicians and trade unions for short sighted leadership.
Hi Pdraigb, what I didn't mean to say was that you have to have an economic education background in order to be a credible economist; quite the opposite actually, so appologies if I wasn't clear about that. I think that the less formal mainstream Keynesian education has polluted a person head, the better. The less a person is motivated by winning government contracts, the less that person will say what governments want to hear. And it is precisely these economists, i.e. those that expose problems with government policies, that should be listened to most. Instead what generally happens, and has been now exposed through recent report, is that governments pay for "economic consultants" to tell them what they want to hear, which is that they can steer the economy by pushing buttons, pulling levers and pressing pedals, while ignoring and ridiculing those that oppose them.It might be overstating it to say that the DoF comprises people with no economic background. There are people there with qualifications in economics, although I don't know how many. In addition, many of the generalists are quite bright people who might not have formal credentials in economics, but have the intellectual capacity and the motivation to become well-versed in economics.
Hi Chris, Do you have any links to this? I'd be interested in learning more.. Thanks, F.
Indeed - this is a huge issue.This report has apparently been sitting on Brian Lenihan's desk for weeks. How on earth can he get away with keeping it from public knowledge until after he has been safely re elected? I think he should resign.
This report has apparently been sitting on Brian Lenihan's desk for weeks. How on earth can he get away with keeping it from public knowledge until after he has been safely re elected? I think he should resign.
Technically true - but I'd bet a fiver that he wouldn't have held his seat if this had come out before the election.The report wasn't critical of Brian Lenihan. No skin off his nose if it was critical about the department over the past 10 years. He has only been in there for a couple of them and by then it was too late.
The report wasn't critical of Brian Lenihan. No skin off his nose if it was critical about the department over the past 10 years. He has only been in there for a couple of them and by then it was too late.
This is a scurrilous allegation, made on absolutely no evidence whatsoever. The authors are two international former heads of Dept Finance in their own countries, and one Irish former Sec Gen, not of Finance. They are smart people, and even in anyone tried to pull the wool over their eyes, they would have seen it. You should really withdraw this allegation.This report by a civil servant on civil servants was based on what exactly? On all or selective documents made available to that civil servant by the civil servants whose advise is being checked. Wonder how much went into the shredders.
This report by a civil servant on civil servants was based on what exactly? On all or selective documents made available to that civil servant by the civil servants whose advise is being checked. Wonder how much went into the shredders.
Would those civil servants hell bent on managing finances correctly be the same ones who managed to overturn the cuts to their own salaries recently?
Because they have signed the Official Secrets Act, and probably didn't fancy 6 months in Mountjoywhy had none of the bright and intelligent civil servants during that time put that information in the public domain.
It was not an 'observation', it was a nasty little statement with no basis whatsoever. You are deliberately implying that civil servants witheld files and documents from the investigators. Are you also saying that the investigators made up the statement that civil servants had warned the Govt repeatedly about the dangers of their policies? How would withholding documents facilitate that??
I am not saying that the conclusions are incorrect, and so far I've only heard what the media has chosen to highlight.
My point is that after the fact it's easier to change the emphasis on certain things. I don't know if the Minister for Finance was told for example here is 10 ways to go ranked in order of danger to the economy. Or was the Minister given one document that says don't do this because it will damage the economy and then the Minister ignored that advice.
It wouldn't be beyond the realms of possibility that as civil servants are in the hot seat now to justify what they did advise at the time that they show only that which they want to show. But you all seem to think it's a fantastic report that vindicates the civil servants and that's it end of story.
To the post about the official secrets act. Surely one of those top intelligent guys in the civil service would have found a way to get out the information that the government was ruining the economy. A person loyal to their country could have released the documents and resigned etc. Or leaked the documents to a newspaper.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?