Why we should all listen to David McWilliams.

I usually steer away from writing about politics and economics because some things are better left to people in the know and I don’t have enough background knowledge to make valid points. That said – once in a blue moon – those people in the know publish something extraordinary, that needs the attention it deserves.

So without further ado, let me guide you towards David McWilliams latest publication, entitled “If I was Taoiseach… what I would do to save Ireland“.

David McWilliams is, in my opinion, one of the brightest, most foreseeing and intelligent economists in Ireland. He was one of the first to recognize and warn about the trouble that lay ahead back in 2007. (I think it was 2007). His post here sums up what went wrong in Ireland and provides some outstanding solutions that might work. I’m afraid his message might be falling on deaf ears but I certainly recommend a proper read.

I fully agree with Step 9 – including Irish citizens abroad for voting rights. Me, carrying the Belgian identity, but an Irish citizen, still have voting duty in the homeland. (Required so by law even, with a potential fine or prison sentence for not voting!). If such measures were pushed through – I do believe that Irish abroad might feel more included and therefore more likely to return at some point.

I’m not in a position to comment on any of his suggested economic changes – by lack of knowledge on the subject. But, they do seem to make sense to me. Hopefully, the powers in charge, value David McWilliams in the same way I do, and are willing to take some of his suggestions on board. If not – if he were to start a political party before the March elections, he would get my vote.


4 thoughts on “Why we should all listen to David McWilliams.

  1. Tommy Kavanagh says:

    I like McWilliams ideas. The reason I like them are that they are blue sky ideas with no consequence. Everything can be ok. Yes. I need to hear this. Tell the bond holders to “flip off”. Yeah, sure. Sounds good to me. “We go to the ECB and say we don’t have the money and morally we can’t ask the people to pay for debts that are not their own.” – Yes. More of this please. Morally we can’t ask the people to pay. Love it. Morally I shouldn’t have to pay anything other than what I signed up to and if I signed up to anything that was outlandish such as a property that was vastly overinflated, then morally, I can’t be held responsible because the person who’s job to sell me the money didn’t tell me that in 2007/2008 that things would go pear shaped and I am now where I am. So the consequence of the ECB and me not being morally responsible is perhaps the ECB saying “sure guys, no problem, 97bn – don’t sweat it. Now we understand, that *morally* you can’t be responsible”. Yes, I like this. It sounds good to me.

    McWilliams has great points. I like em. He is a master at coming up with great points that people will like. Lots of people like them. When the government of Ireland gave us Celtic Tiger 1.0, 2.0, and 3.0 I liked that too. There was no consequence to that. We (mostly) all did a bit better for ourselves. Some of us sold a house, cleared our mortgage debt, and were still able to buy another house with what remained (and maybe had a holiday too). Yes, we may have complained that we now had to drive 40, 50, or 80 miles to get to work, but we built sterling major road infrastructures to ease that burden. There were no consequences to that either. Nope. None. (I wish I had a sarcasm smiley to insert). I like no consequences. I like McWilliams ideas.

    Assume that we were to implement McWilliams 10 points because I like the sound of them. Unfortunately, sure as apples are apples, we would then see that there actually are consequences. I don’t like the sound of that. But Something will kick back at us. That ECB perhaps. The Bondholders – boo. Foreign powers – we can always blame them. The diaspora who mightn’t like that perhaps they would be expected to pay a tax in order to keep the country running to have a say in its affairs. David, or one of the many other celebrity commentators who don’t actually have to worry about consequences – because I (we) don’t want him/them to consider consequences, would continue to be able to commentate on what will/would be done wrong in implementing the 10 steps — this would actually be the implication of the resulting consequences which weren’t considered, and i’m sure they’d be able to point out to us 10 new steps to get us out of the ensuing mess (which i’d like by the way because they most certainly would have no consequences).

    In the absence of anything else, I like McWilliams ideas. I like when there is no consequence to an action. I liked celtic tiger. Can we go back there without any consequences – hmnnnn…. sounds a bit McWilliams-esque here. I don’t like consequences.

    Roll on the next McWilliams ideas.

  2. sNarah says:

    Auwtsch Tommy! You make valid points – like I said I don’t actually know enough about economics to make a statement about what would work and what wouldn’t. I must admit I didn’t notice that many suggestions with no consequences… You don’t need sarcasm smileys neither by the way!

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s