Softening Us Up: July 16th The Recession Diaries

In case you had any inclination, no matter how vague, of expressing concerns that the whole thrust of Colm McCarthy’s cuts committee is somehow mistaken – stop it. Get real. Grow up. Wrap yourself in the flag and sing scripted patriotic anthems to national deflation. Feel the pain – deeply and willingly:

'As Mr McCarthy’s proposals become clearer over the next while it is likely that many of us will need another kind of courage. The kind of courage needed to face unpleasant, uncomfortable realities. If the report (is) to have the kind of impact required then every sector will feel pain. . . It’s time to bite the bullet, make the recovery plan and stick to it no matter what.'

And:

'Let first snip be the deepest: The country is spending almost €50bn a year to struggle along, with just €30bn coming in from taxes, so radical measures are inevitable. The social welfare budget of €21.5bn is the elephant in the phone booth that can no longer be ignored.'

Yes, this is going to be an orgy with esteemed economists and commentators feasting on our economic innards. Cut employment, cut pay, cut programmes and living standards: you know it has to be done so shut up and let us get back to our food. Is there any release?

Fortunately, over at Progressive-economy, they will be commenting on the proposals today – so I strongly suggest you drop in on them later today, if only for much needed tonic. I will be posting later today on the subject as well – and over the next few days.

If progressives let the deflationists and real devaluationists run this agenda, it’s going to be ugly. It’s well past time that we draw the proverbial line in the ground. It’s well past time we took the fight (and fright) to them. Such as SIPTU’s Jack O’Connor, commenting on the ESRI’s broken record proposals to cut pay, welfare and spending:

‘. . . the ESRI has unanimously become nothing more than an intellectual mouth piece for the policies of the establishment. This is the institution which either failed to foresee the collapse of the credit led property boom or saw it and stayed mute about it, like all the other instruments of the establishment, such as the financial regulatory bodies. One would imagine that a good place to start addressing the economic catastrophe, which has been caused by pandering to speculators and bankers, would be to abandon that policy; but no, while virtually every other country in the developed world has embarked with evidently increasing success on such a path, we are condemned to the same old economics, pandering to the wealthy and imposing the burden of adjustment on working people.’

Now that’s what I’m talking about.  See you later today.

Comments

[CMK]

Report suggests cutting - entirely - the next round of research at third level, ca. 300 million (p.67-68, Volume 2. Say "bye,bye" to the smart economy!

[James Conran]

I'm surprised Michael to see you - usually a supporter of open debate -endorsing Jack O'Connor's ad hominem attack on the ESRI as an "instrument" and "intellectual mouth piece" of "the establishment". Criticising the ESRI's record, analysis and prescriptions is fine but I think an attack on its integrity is unnecessary. It's also unlikely to win the left any arguments or end its marginalisation in the current crisis.

If the term "establishment" has any meaning then the ESRI is surely part of it - it is a quasi-official body. But then to hear Jack O'Connor you would think SIPTU had spent the past 12 years fighting the government in the streets, rather than being in "partnership" with them. (David Begg is, naturally, a member of the ESRI's governing council).

And it's not like SIPTU "fores[aw] the collapse of the credit led property boom", did it?

[Michael Taft]

James, apologies for the delay in getting back on this. As always, you hit several nails - and, of course, I wouldn't go in for attacking the player. However, there is more than a bit of frustration with the ESRI in particular. Of course, the ESRI is made up of a number of differing voices but it is incumbent upon them to canvas analysis regarding all aspects of the debate. This they haven't done. They (or should I properly say, many of their researchers) have presented policy prescriptions without empirical foundation (e.g. real devaluation). They have neglected to analyse alternative courses to the current economic crisis (e.g. investment stimulus, etc.). I don't expect the individuals to agree with such alternative options - but they have the tools to, at least, present the data. Then we can all have a good debate over the interpretation. That they haven't presented all the data means that the debate is rather one-sided. I think that's what may have added to Jack's frustration (and mine). Still, if Jack's comments provoke some questions regarding the nature of the debate - and the ESRI's contribution to it - maybe it might have some benefit. But don't worry - I do try to play the ball and from now on I will content myself to tackle very, very, Vinnie Jones-style hard (but so as not to give away any frees).