S
spursfan1234
Guest
what do you find so bad about her purple
She is very arrogant, inappropriately crude and clearly has little understanding of her brief.what do you find so bad about her purple
Why?If the tanaiste has to come out against an article in a newspaper there must be some truth in it!!
You don't see the contradiction in your post?
"Why do they say we are so bad?"
"The UK and US are much worse"
"We're small and will recover more quickly"
"We rely on the UK and US for recovery"
We are not going to recover quickly if the markets that we depend on for recovery do not recover. So we are at the bottom of the recovery chain. No?
Why?
.
She is, in my opinion, far and away the worst member of the government.
you Yoga may be right that we're at the bottom of the recovery chain
I agree, but I am sure.there are some very serious contenders there!
Just a feeling I have!
I think Mary Hanafin sounded very like the Tanaiste last evening while onRTE radio. She questioned Fine Gael person about how they would deal with the deficit. He began i think with reducing the state agencies and she shouted DONE DONE and repeated this mantra to some other steps he mentioned. Did not sound well
Mary Hanafin is an irritating fool who should have stayed in the classroom. If anyone can point me to a single concrete achievement she has made in Government, I will eat my Stetson.
She is however called Mary which is the prime qualification for lovely girls to get to the top in Dail Eireann.
In fairness there are a few Irish ecomonists turned pundit who dine off the same sort of thing.A little bit of the Princeton Back Step Shuffle (ambiguous style) by Paul Krugman at the recent Merrion talk. Five to ten years recovery/extremely painful/really terrible punishment to which he added 'the adjustment is working' and a few other tentative pieces of good news. Ireland will not default etc. Paul baby, a bunch of baboons could have done this talk. You merely rehashed your earlier musings, added a few adjectives, changed the old chronograph a little and tossed in a few optimistic phrases to a fawning audience. You sure you've not got TP Barnum's DNA?
Yup! But this guy is allocated more kudos than most. In his recent book he extolled the idea of the government printing (money) it's way out of trouble. The Keynesian cycle is often a busted flush. Sophistry and ad hoc simplification are the buttresses of Krugman's reasoning. He is the Eamon Dempsey of financial talking heads. You've got to remember that he has become unstuck a lot of times - going back to the Asian crisis over a decade ago. His spats with Alan Greenspan, Robert Rubin and others are coffee house fodder in NY. Again, his blog is popular - some people just like to witness the cut and thrust of debate, especially when one side has a chip on it's shoulder and will criticise virtually anything that the other side comes out with. Back to your statement Purple, the more noise made or controversy caused the bigger the payoff.In fairness there are a few Irish ecomonists turned pundit who dine off the same sort of thing.
The basic point is that the recession of 2001 wasn't a typical postwar slump, brought on when an inflation-fighting Fed raises interest rates and easily ended by a snapback in housing and consumer spending when the Fed brings rates back down again. This was a prewar-style recession, a morning after brought on by irrational exuberance. To fight this recession the Fed needs more than a snapback; it needs soaring household spending to offset moribund business investment. And to do that, as Paul McCulley of Pimco put it, Alan Greenspan needs to create a housing bubble to replace the Nasdaq bubble.
Judging by Mr. Greenspan's remarkably cheerful recent testimony, he still thinks he can pull that off. But the Fed chairman's crystal ball has been cloudy lately; remember how he urged Congress to cut taxes to head off the risk of excessive budget surpluses?
...
The administration needs a recovery because, with deficits exploding, the only way it can justify that tax cut is by pretending that it was just what the economy needed. Mr. Greenspan needs one to avoid awkward questions about his own role in creating the stock market bubble.
Here's my nightmare: America's recovery from its current slump, whenever it comes, is tentative and short-lived, because the business investment that drove our boom in the 1990's remains stagnant. Eventually the housing bubble bursts and we have another slump; then we have another weak recovery, this time driven by deficit spending, but that, too, fades out. Eventually we look around and realize that it's 2009, and the economy still hasn't fully recovered from the slowdown that began at the end of the previous decade.
And we also realize that while the government's subsequent attempts to sustain the economy, mainly through tax cuts and subsidies to energy companies, have arguably staved off depression -- the unemployment rate has risen, but only to 8 percent -- they have also devastated the environment and left a huge government debt. The fiscal 2010 budget deficit is projected at $800 billion, and nobody has any idea how we will manage in a couple of years, when millions of baby boomers start collecting their Social Security checks.
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?