I don’t agree.
Could it just be that the Department of Finance is shit at forecasting?
And how about come back when you have learned the difference been the monetary system and the fiscal system. Or why the Fed buying $1T in T Bills to shape the yield curve is different from the Fed buying $1T in T Bills to finance the government deficit…
Remember some of us have already seen one international monetary system run into the ground to complete destruction. Back in the '70’s. That was a fun time too. People like you back then, who had not a real clue what they were talking about - just repeating what they read in the press, also threw around in a show of faux expertise terms they had little understanding of. So I’ve seen one set of macro shibboleths parroted by the clueless replaced by another. The macro shibboleths of the 1960’s anchored in Bretton Woods were little more than quaint echos of a long lost time by the mid 80’s. Your opinions seem to be as relevant to what is currently going on now as Sterling Area balance of payments theory. You probably dont remember that either.
And so the cycle continues. The monetary framework of the last 30 years has collapsed. It died in 2008. So your (mostly garbled) macro world is gone. The fact that Japan got there first after the crash in the early '90’s should give you pause. Come to think of it I remember people with opinions like yours back in the early days of the Japanese crash go on and on about how the BOJ and MOF were going to control and negate the crash and everything was going to be hunky dory again by the mid 90’s. Using old style monetary policy. Ignoring the fact that world of the post war economic miracle was over. And as we have seen in the following decades post crash Japan has worked out real well. The term an economic exquisite corpse comes to mind.
But I suppose you’ll be telling me next that this time is different. It never is.
The current CB’s monetary / fiscal strategy is becoming less and less like post crash BOJ and more and more like the utter desperation of the Reichbank under Haverstein. But without the actual physical wheelbarrows of paper money. When you do finally understand the difference between monetary and fiscal then maybe you’ll be scared shitless too.
We might get lucky. Like we did in the late 1970’s. But I would not bet on it. There are no soft landings in these situations. It just a matter of how hard the hurtling wreck finally hits the ground.
In the meanwhile the politicians will continue building cargo cult airports for this purported soft landing. And, it seems, people like you will continue to wait obediently at the cargo cult airports check in counter as more and more outlandish excuses for the late arrival of the soft landing are given over the PA…
And me? I’m heading for that slit trench over by the side of the runway.
My gut feeling is that no multi-national will come to Ireland with a view to paying more than 3 to 5% effective corp tax maximum on anything they channel through the Country and if they end up paying a higher % than that they’ll feel like they have been sold a pup and that is why I can’t believe the corporation tax figure increases are coming predominantly from the multi-nationals. They’ve been sold Ireland on the basis that it is a Tax Haven and that is what they expect to get.
He mentions 2.3 billion extra in corporate tax but the author in my opinion makes a leap that this came mostly from multi-nationals…still he is an economist and I’m not.
local business economy seems to be standing still the way he approaches the topic even though it is obvious that local economy is much more buoyant than in previous years and must be adding to gdp/gnp
BTW he talks about extra depreciation being worked through the collective books which seems interesting as he speculates who is doing the depreciating on what type of assets.
European commission comments on the “upward revision” of GDP:
Not sure what he is speculating on and he doesn’t explain why it increased E30bn in one year alone and this is the single most increase he set himself up to explain.
According to the CSO Methodology …
NIE 2014 Provision on depreciation increased from E28.4bn in NIE 2013 to E30.8bn in NIE 2014 but to E61.5bn in NIE 2015. Do we only see the increase in NIE 2015 in relation to the above. In effect all aircraft leasing moved from operating leases and to the Balance Sheet as capital formation and hence the higher depreciation charge
Moving to a Transfer of Economic Ownership Basis for Trade in Aircraft
Can this explain the increase of $30bn?
I guess there are three possible sources of the shift - the major inversions (Covdien for example) working its way thru the figures, the aircraft leasing balance sheet moves or their flotation suddenly making the market cap a part of the numbers or finally the vulture funds crystallising in some way. My money is on the tax Inversion.
It is probably beneficial to the extent we actually receive increased corporation tax. 30 Bn in depreciation is suggestive of a large tax inversion. It would be quite interesting if they could not manage such a large depreciation charge indefinitely - that would approximately double the tax take.
For those who complain about this its interesting that Eurostat approves of the CSO work and thinks this will also enhance EU GDP in due course. So they at least think there is some substance to it.
And the double Irish was abolished in budget 2015. I don’t remember knowing this happened, but intellectual assets are apparently being onshored and corporation tax receipts are booming as a result.
No, the end of the double Irish is how the CSO are explaining it according to David Murphy at RTE:
rte.ie/news/business/2016/07 … cs-fiasco/
No. according to the report the CSO isn’t “saying” that. I’m not sure who is “saying” that. Is it David Murphy saying that or David Murphy using reported speech saying that Michael Noonan and his office are “saying” that. In German there is a proper reported speech tense which makes things a bit more understandable.
I have a fair amount of trust in the CSO so I might believe them if they said it. I don’t trust anything I hear from Revenue or Noonan who just tell you what they need you to hear and present it as truth.
Helicopters all over the Galway Races yesterday
two really rich men there – JP and MIchael O’Leary – (though obviously JP is multiple times wealthier than MOL) and they fund, directly & indirectly, probably 90% of everything else that goes on at the Galway Races.
Did JP bring Bertie along with him, Bertie could give JP some horse tips and JP could give Bertie currency trading advice
Or something like that, the opposite could work too I suppose
Well, the Governor isn’t saying it either…
irishtimes.com/business/econ … -1.2719555
But it seems to be widely accepted that assets residing in Ireland have increased by a large amount. I agree that it’s nonsense, but then so are GDP and GNP if they count transferred assets as “national product” or worse, “domestic product”
Oh oh…another big boost for our GDP on the way?
lets hope that the greenhouse gas fines which the four stomachs of the cattle produce are recognized where they are produced rather than where the company is domiciled.
Eurostat is sending a mission to investigate “Leprechaun Economics” GDP numbers.
Are they bringing any sweeties?
NTMA have released a technical note on Understanding Ireland’s Corporate Tax Revenue
Is this the NTMAs way of saying that it’s time to start getting a plan B, C & D underway?