Irish Boxing

I know what country id prefer to bring my kids up in and it dosent begin with a B.

 

1. Neither GDP nor HDI have anything to do with markets. One is a measurement of productivity per worker and as such, a gauge of the size of the economy. The other is a composite index of standards of living(Health,Wealth,Education etc)
So bring up markets is irrelevant here.

2. McWilliams is simply a guy who managed to get on TV. There are plenty ofIrish economists whose opinions I would value far more.
If you want a good "Irish" economist whose frequently in the media, Id must rather Constantin Gurdgiev

3. If the likes of Pierce Doherty get into power, the countries screwed and then you'll see what true economic collapse looks like

4. My initial point stands. Why would you want Ireland to join Britain, when Ireland actually ranked ahead of Britain on all the major indicators of standard of living?

 

so what ur saying is the failed politics of FF and FG is a much better option of Sinn Fein policies atsch.... 32 county Ireland needs to break away from the right wing politics and policies of the past and embrace the politics of change and social justice for all not just for privileged few... thats why the new Ireland we build will radicalize the people never to go back to the past again and ultimately be for the betterment of our nation in the future:good

 

You are a ****ing clown mate

 

Nonsense.

FG and FF are awful, SF is a whole new level of terrible.

Their economic views are akin to what Chavez did in Venezuela.

You think Ireland is bad, take a trip to Caracas sometime.

Right wing economic party?? If only we had one!

 

...however can we get back to boxing now.

Does anyone know if Nevin has a fight lined up, or if his leg is 100%

 

Nevin returns on October 11, in USA, details about venue and opponent not available yet but told we'll hear something this week...

 

From bust to boom: Chavez's economic legacy
JULIA BUXTON 7 March 2013
Chavez leaves behind an inconsistent report card on 'pro-poor' policies that will only fuel a polarizing legacy as Venezuelans look to address future economic challenges.

Chavez’s detractors moved speedily to condemn the former president’s legacy to his country. Nowhere was the negative impact of his fourteen years in office seen more acutely than in the ‘disarray’ of the economy. Chavez bequeathed to his country an ‘economic muddle’, with a ‘withered’ private sector, ‘warped’ public sector and a $100 billion foreign debt. This, driven by the failed logic of socialist economics which resulted in a state rife with inefficiency, bureaucracy and corruption.

As a consequence of his perverse economic policies, critics claim Chavez damaged the constituency most important to him - the poor and economically marginalised. Although poverty has fallen from 42.8% of households to 26.7%, and extreme poverty has declined 57.8% from 16.6% of households to 7%, more could and should have been done given the high value of oil exports on which the government relies for 95% of foreign earnings. Not only did Chavez fail to help the poor, his economic model battered all social classes through price and exchange controls and resulting high inflation and shortages of goods. Or so the argument runs. And what better evidence is there of economic mismanagement than the long overdue 32% devaluation of the domestic currency carried out in February.

Those hostile to Chavez saw no redeeming feature in any aspect of his economic management. For the opposition Democratic Unity Alliance (MUD), oil export revenues that should have rightly been invested in the national infrastructure were frittered away through populist election campaigns, financial diversions to client states such as Cuba and into utopian regional integration projects such as the ALBA (Bolivarian Alliance for the Peoples of Our America) and Petrocaribe. Not only did Chavez abuse his country’s oil wealth for narrow ideological ends, he did so at the cost of alienating the US - Venezuela’s most important trading partner, to court likeminded authoritarian partners such as China, Iran and Russia.

Sitting uncomfortably next to this narrative of failure is one of prosperity as Venezuela recorded one of the region’s highest economic growth rates in 2012. Since the second quarter of 2010, Venezuela has enjoyed nine consecutive quarters of economic growth, with GDP growth over 5% last year. Countercyclical measures have enabled the country to turn around the crippling recession that marked the first years of Chavez’s third term (2006-2012) and the devastating impact of private sector stoppages that characterised his first and second administrations (1999-2006). There are questions around the sustainability of current economic growth, but the vibrancy of the economy has first to be acknowledged - as does the fact that there was no pre-Chavez golden period. On the contrary, Chavez’s predecessor’s bequeathed to him a 14% decline in per capita GDP accumulated over the period 1980-1998.

Hostile commentaries on Chavez most usually emanate from the US and western Europe, which is bewildering given the parlous state of economies in these regions. Venezuela’s total debt stands at $100 billion, as opposed to the $2.43 trillion debt of Spain, the $2.49 trillion debt of the Italian state and the thumping $16 trillion US debt. The ratio of government debt to GDP for Venezuela is a modest and manageable 45.5%, which contrasts with the 79% figure for Israel, 85% level of the UK and 211.7% in Japan. And while the February devaluation is read from one side as indicative of economic mismanagement, the move has increased the state’s net revenues by almost 4% of GDP ($13bn), reduced the domestic debt from $42.9bn to $29.3bn, increased the value of oil export earnings and eased the pressure of the fiscal deficit. And while the profits of foreign firms operating in Venezuela have been eroded by the devaluation, not all capitalist investors and speculators are reeling. Holders of dollar denominated Venezuelan bonds are enjoying boom times.

The benefit of comparative analysis and reflection when evaluating Chavez’s legacy should be extended to assessment of the progress made in addressing poverty. For example, Miami Republican Congressman Connie Mack welcomed the death of Chavez, a man he and others of neoconservative persuasion claim ‘stole the wealth of his countrymen’. But the energies spent by US politicians deriding the poverty reduction achievements in Venezuela might be better spent focusing on the domestic situation in their home country, where the Foundation for Child Development recently reported one in five children live below the poverty line. The impact of the US financial crisis has wiped out the income growth gains of the 1990s, with the percentage of children living in families below the poverty level increasing from 15.6% in 2001 to 21.4% in 2011. During the recent boom years of America’s growth, never was it asked if it was sustainable for the rich to continue increasing their wealth. It would seem sustainability is only questioned when initiatives are pro-poor.

While the US congress fiddled during the Bush years and Obama’s first term, its relations with Latin America burned. Looking at the economic position of the US, Venezuela’s strategy of diversifying commercial ties from its Northern neighbour appears inherently rational. And it is not only Venezuela that sees the US as an economic albatross. Chile, Brazil, Mexico and other Latin American states have forged ties with China, Iran and Russia over recent years. The difference is that Venezuela’s economic expansion is spuriously linked to political provocation of America. But like its regional counterparts, Venezuela is eager to exploit the trade and investment opportunities presented by emerging and emerged economies and by public rather than private sector partners.

Evaluating Chavez’s economic legacy thus requires consideration of broader historical and international factors. Moreover an economic model that does not seek to be judged by the opportunities for private sector growth or profit repatriation should not be evaluated on that basis. The logic of the government’s economic strategy is a factor of its end goal: Twenty First Century Socialism. Without doubt there are economic pressures that will have to be addressed by Chavez’s successor, but assessment of these should not override acknowledgement of the advances that have been made.








:good

 

He's a bit like yourself mate.
He hasn't got a leg to stand on! :rofl

 

Still ignoring that you wanted Ireland to rejoin a nation who it outranks in every major international economic/standard of living index?

 

Thats a lovely copy and paste job...but it still doesnt change the fact that in 15 years and trillions of dollars of oil money later, Venezuela is still a 3rd world country.

I dont even want to think what sort of hell hold it would be if it didnt have to pure good fortune of being on top of the 7th highest reserves of oil in the world.

Although due to nationalisation, production has dropped in recent years, because governments, as usual, cant run a **** up in a brewery.

 

Thought you wanted to get back to boxing?
So answer me this boxing-related question:


How can you continue to justify the US banning Martin Murray?
Fair enough if he was currently an active criminal. But as I've explained to you ( and I didn't use any big words , so you can't claim you didn't understand)...murray is not a criminal. He WAS one. He did the crime and he did the time. ( as did many past boxing greats...including American ones)
Now he is an upstanding citizen, family man , taxpayer etc
Why would you block his right to work today...In a supposedly friends country...with a" special relationship" with Britain??

Eg Brits get a 180-day visa waiver..we get 90!

As if that wasn't bad enough..he would be going there for only a few days..to fight. With a specified entry date and departure date on that work visa.

How can you continue with that nonsense?:huh

A mad right winger like yourself surely wouldn't want a healthy young man willing to work to be drawing Social Welfare, now would you? Your position is untenable. Please admit you're wrong here and get some credibility back...

 

I did until your childish little quip.

Whats your fascination with Murray?

The guys was a career, violent criminal who has managed to stay out of prison for a few years. Maybe if he goes 10-15 years without mugging,assaulting or breaking and entering, then maybe the American authorities may look kinder upon his application.

Do you at least admit not that Khan wasnt "banned" after saying it twice?

Also what has Murray got to do with you wanting Ireland to rejoin a country who we have a higher GDP than and a higher HDI ranking??

Im happy to go back to boxing, but Im sure you'll respond.