Madam, – I was pleasantly surprised to note that Morgan Kelly’s prescription for the Irish economy was received favourably by most of the 12 economists quoted (Business This Week, May 13th). By my reckoning, only three did not agree with him; the others seemed to be in what might be termed provisional agreement.
Two – Moore McDowell and John McHale – seemed to think he was criticising Patrick Honohan for the bank guarantee. In fact, Morgan Kelly’s criticism was that because Prof Honohan told the country that it needed billions of euro for a bank bailout on that infamous Morning Ireland radio programme, he seriously weakened what little negotiating leverage Brian Lenihan had with the EU-ECB. Granted, Mr Cowen and Mr Lenihan were playing their cards very poorly, especially regarding informing the Irish public.
Still, it’s a hopeful sign that some notable Irish economists are thinking along the same lines. Now if we could only get the EU politicians to draw up a bailout programme that the markets would accept as sensible, then the PIIGS would be happy and the rest of the farm content. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – You chose 12 economists to comment on Morgan Kelly’s article and you couldn’t find one woman? – Yours, etc,
Madam, – The Cambridge economist AC Pigou, writing in 1920, is worth quoting in the context of Morgan Kelly’s doom-laden economic prognosis and solutions. “The error of optimism dies in the crisis but in dying it gives birth to an error of pessimism. This new error is born, not an infant, but a giant.” Our leading economists appear to be afflicted with giant doses of this condition. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Is it not interesting that neither Prof Honohan nor his many supporters have, to date, refuted one of Prof Kelly’s key points: that Ireland’s unseemly rush to the IMF-EU bailout facility last November was forced upon the government by forces high up within the EU with the primary purpose of sending a warning shot across Spain’s bow? Spain’s economy is just too critical to be allowed to fall.
The many opinion pieces and disagreements by professional economists to date vividly demonstrate that the so-called science of economics is undeserving of the title. – Yours, etc,