<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><!-- generator="wordpress/2.2.1" -->
<rss version="2.0" 
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/">
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Garrett the Singer, When he Should be a Slugger</title>
	<link>http://dublinopinion.com/2008/02/04/garrett-the-singer-when-he-should-be-a-slugger/</link>
	<description>It's a group blog. What more do you need to know?</description>
	<pubDate>Thu, 09 Feb 2012 13:47:47 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.2.1</generator>

	<item>
		<title>By: 11 Sixty Nine And Counting&#8230;.. :: THE IRA / RESISTANCE ON ALL FRONTS/ THE UNDAUNTED WOMEN IN ARMAGH. :: September :: 2008</title>
		<link>http://dublinopinion.com/2008/02/04/garrett-the-singer-when-he-should-be-a-slugger/#comment-68441</link>
		<author>11 Sixty Nine And Counting&#8230;.. :: THE IRA / RESISTANCE ON ALL FRONTS/ THE UNDAUNTED WOMEN IN ARMAGH. :: September :: 2008</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 17 Sep 2008 05:49:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://dublinopinion.com/2008/02/04/garrett-the-singer-when-he-should-be-a-slugger/#comment-68441</guid>
		<description>[...] : &#8221; Garret Fitzgerald recently talked about the desirability of some form of joint border security force , and generally [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] : &#8221; Garret Fitzgerald recently talked about the desirability of some form of joint border security force , and generally [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: the chancer &#187; Blog Archive &#187; On The Blog: Clash Of The Ash Wednesday!</title>
		<link>http://dublinopinion.com/2008/02/04/garrett-the-singer-when-he-should-be-a-slugger/#comment-60850</link>
		<author>the chancer &#187; Blog Archive &#187; On The Blog: Clash Of The Ash Wednesday!</author>
		<pubDate>Wed, 06 Feb 2008 11:20:32 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://dublinopinion.com/2008/02/04/garrett-the-singer-when-he-should-be-a-slugger/#comment-60850</guid>
		<description>[...] The sublime Dublin Opinion asks: Does anyone care about Garrett Fitzgerald? What do you mean &#8216;Who&#8217;s Garrett Fitzgerald?&#8217; Poor [...]</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>[&#8230;] The sublime Dublin Opinion asks: Does anyone care about Garrett Fitzgerald? What do you mean &#8216;Who&#8217;s Garrett Fitzgerald?&#8217; Poor [&#8230;]</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Donagh</title>
		<link>http://dublinopinion.com/2008/02/04/garrett-the-singer-when-he-should-be-a-slugger/#comment-60728</link>
		<author>Donagh</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2008 17:25:00 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://dublinopinion.com/2008/02/04/garrett-the-singer-when-he-should-be-a-slugger/#comment-60728</guid>
		<description>&lt;i&gt;95% of the reportage on science in the media is utter bilge written by dullards and vested interests&lt;/i&gt;
Actually, yes, that's very true.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><i>95% of the reportage on science in the media is utter bilge written by dullards and vested interests</i><br />
Actually, yes, that&#8217;s very true.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Mr Tagomi</title>
		<link>http://dublinopinion.com/2008/02/04/garrett-the-singer-when-he-should-be-a-slugger/#comment-60721</link>
		<author>Mr Tagomi</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2008 16:37:47 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://dublinopinion.com/2008/02/04/garrett-the-singer-when-he-should-be-a-slugger/#comment-60721</guid>
		<description>I love Garret Fitzgerald's Saturday column in the IT. It's usually the best thing in the paper. He predicted our current state of affairs very accurately a couple of years ago, though he expressed optimism that by implementing a capital investment-heavy deficit budget, the govt could sustain us through the painful correction of the imbalances in the economy. I'm not so sure this is going to be the case.

I desperately wanted FG-Lab to win the last election, but their craven and stupid ceding of the economic management ground to FF - a party clearly managing the economy very poorly - smacks of broad incompetence. All the same, I still want to see them in government. FF have ballsed up the boom, and thry mist go. FF off, FF.

As regards the notion of "genetic commentators", it's actually the case that just like in economics, 95% of the reportage on science in the media is utter bilge written by dullards and vested interests.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I love Garret Fitzgerald&#8217;s Saturday column in the IT. It&#8217;s usually the best thing in the paper. He predicted our current state of affairs very accurately a couple of years ago, though he expressed optimism that by implementing a capital investment-heavy deficit budget, the govt could sustain us through the painful correction of the imbalances in the economy. I&#8217;m not so sure this is going to be the case.</p>
<p>I desperately wanted FG-Lab to win the last election, but their craven and stupid ceding of the economic management ground to FF - a party clearly managing the economy very poorly - smacks of broad incompetence. All the same, I still want to see them in government. FF have ballsed up the boom, and thry mist go. FF off, FF.</p>
<p>As regards the notion of &#8220;genetic commentators&#8221;, it&#8217;s actually the case that just like in economics, 95% of the reportage on science in the media is utter bilge written by dullards and vested interests.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Donagh</title>
		<link>http://dublinopinion.com/2008/02/04/garrett-the-singer-when-he-should-be-a-slugger/#comment-60708</link>
		<author>Donagh</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2008 14:17:58 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://dublinopinion.com/2008/02/04/garrett-the-singer-when-he-should-be-a-slugger/#comment-60708</guid>
		<description>Nah, you'd be hard pressed to find someone who doesn't talk about money. The Dalai Lama perhaps. Although considering the high flying circles he moves in I wouldn't be surprised if he strays into the odd discussion about pension stock at those Hollywood cocktail parties held in his honour.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Nah, you&#8217;d be hard pressed to find someone who doesn&#8217;t talk about money. The Dalai Lama perhaps. Although considering the high flying circles he moves in I wouldn&#8217;t be surprised if he strays into the odd discussion about pension stock at those Hollywood cocktail parties held in his honour.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tomaltach</title>
		<link>http://dublinopinion.com/2008/02/04/garrett-the-singer-when-he-should-be-a-slugger/#comment-60698</link>
		<author>Tomaltach</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2008 13:23:08 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://dublinopinion.com/2008/02/04/garrett-the-singer-when-he-should-be-a-slugger/#comment-60698</guid>
		<description>Perhaps Oscar Wilde was wrong. He said "&lt;i&gt;There is only one class in the community that thinks more about money than the rich, and that is the poor&lt;/I&gt;  :-)</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Perhaps Oscar Wilde was wrong. He said &#8220;<i>There is only one class in the community that thinks more about money than the rich, and that is the poor</i>  <img src='http://dublinopinion.com/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' /></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Donagh</title>
		<link>http://dublinopinion.com/2008/02/04/garrett-the-singer-when-he-should-be-a-slugger/#comment-60689</link>
		<author>Donagh</author>
		<pubDate>Tue, 05 Feb 2008 12:10:10 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://dublinopinion.com/2008/02/04/garrett-the-singer-when-he-should-be-a-slugger/#comment-60689</guid>
		<description>I think that it can be argued that economic is not a science in the sense that you can’t test a hypothesis to see if it is true and then once you have verified the evidence provide the means for others to reproduce the experiment full in the confidence that they’ll get the same result. Perhaps that’s not the best definition of what is and what isn’t a science, but because so much of it is based on speculation – what should happen based on past trends – there is perhaps a tendency to dismiss it as less concrete than other empirical sciences. 

However, it seems from my limited knowledge that it provides the means to understand a very complex system, one that although it can often go beyond everyday understanding still has such a significant effect on the quality of everyday life. It’s also rigorous enough to be considered as much more than codswallop. 

I agree that every seems interested in money, and are watching and discussing the latest trends, Fed interest rate cuts etc with a usurers’ keen eye. They imagine that such news will automatically have an effect on their own pocket. I find it is usually people who have a little money to spare – maybe not a huge amount but enough – who take the most interest in this. But it is almost superstitious. 

What interests me most is how economics informs you about power relations, not if the latest fluctuations will force the ECB to shave a half percent off the interest rate and reduce your mortgage by 50 euros a month.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I think that it can be argued that economic is not a science in the sense that you can’t test a hypothesis to see if it is true and then once you have verified the evidence provide the means for others to reproduce the experiment full in the confidence that they’ll get the same result. Perhaps that’s not the best definition of what is and what isn’t a science, but because so much of it is based on speculation – what should happen based on past trends – there is perhaps a tendency to dismiss it as less concrete than other empirical sciences. </p>
<p>However, it seems from my limited knowledge that it provides the means to understand a very complex system, one that although it can often go beyond everyday understanding still has such a significant effect on the quality of everyday life. It’s also rigorous enough to be considered as much more than codswallop. </p>
<p>I agree that every seems interested in money, and are watching and discussing the latest trends, Fed interest rate cuts etc with a usurers’ keen eye. They imagine that such news will automatically have an effect on their own pocket. I find it is usually people who have a little money to spare – maybe not a huge amount but enough – who take the most interest in this. But it is almost superstitious. </p>
<p>What interests me most is how economics informs you about power relations, not if the latest fluctuations will force the ECB to shave a half percent off the interest rate and reduce your mortgage by 50 euros a month.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tomaltach</title>
		<link>http://dublinopinion.com/2008/02/04/garrett-the-singer-when-he-should-be-a-slugger/#comment-60578</link>
		<author>Tomaltach</author>
		<pubDate>Mon, 04 Feb 2008 18:52:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid>http://dublinopinion.com/2008/02/04/garrett-the-singer-when-he-should-be-a-slugger/#comment-60578</guid>
		<description>Part of the problem is that the media and us as consumers of news give far to much credibility to these so called &lt;i&gt;economists&lt;/i&gt; and &lt;i&gt;economic commentators&lt;/i&gt;. I had a discussion with a student in Smurfits MSQF the other day. He took the course, because he says, he  wants to be a trader. Very well. But he argued that the entire field of economics is pure codswallop. Economics isn't a science. There is nothing in it only mouthing about what might or might not happen.

I robustly disagreed. Economics, or my favourite flavour of it, political economy is broad and deep. And it has intellectual rigour and great brains behind it. I cited the work of great nobel laureates such as Sen or the work of Galbraith, Phelps, Keynes, or even going back the that much misconstrued master, Smith. No, economics is solid enough. The trouble is this: what we hear 99% of the time (to steal the percentage) is not economics but is either an interest peddling an agenda (banks or estate agents) or so-called  commentators who know how to say "GDP" or "stamp duty" but haven't a fucking clue about economics and have no intention of learning. Their commentry is bereft of any rigour or intellectual effort. They are simply talking shite. The other view of economics we get is the best seller stuff. More horseshit. 

All disciplines from physics to genetics have their disagreements, their weaknesses, their u-turns, and their brilliant thinkers. Economics too. But because our culture is so obsessed with money we are always talking about it and all consider ourselves experts. People at work talk about house prices all the time, about the latest fed move, about rogue traders, about inflation. Basically money has seeped into our capitalist bones and we are obsessed by it. In order to feed our apetite for more money talk we are bombarded by all this media poppycock which passes for economics.

We don't come to work and talk about the latest particle accelerator or speculate about the lastest twist in genome theory. If we did, our media would be overrun by &lt;i&gt;genetics commentators&lt;/i&gt; or pseudo scientists. But our favourite subject isn't physics or genetics: it's money. It's all we want to hear about.  And all we get is an unbelievably big load of bullshit - every fucking day.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Part of the problem is that the media and us as consumers of news give far to much credibility to these so called <i>economists</i> and <i>economic commentators</i>. I had a discussion with a student in Smurfits MSQF the other day. He took the course, because he says, he  wants to be a trader. Very well. But he argued that the entire field of economics is pure codswallop. Economics isn&#8217;t a science. There is nothing in it only mouthing about what might or might not happen.</p>
<p>I robustly disagreed. Economics, or my favourite flavour of it, political economy is broad and deep. And it has intellectual rigour and great brains behind it. I cited the work of great nobel laureates such as Sen or the work of Galbraith, Phelps, Keynes, or even going back the that much misconstrued master, Smith. No, economics is solid enough. The trouble is this: what we hear 99% of the time (to steal the percentage) is not economics but is either an interest peddling an agenda (banks or estate agents) or so-called  commentators who know how to say &#8220;GDP&#8221; or &#8220;stamp duty&#8221; but haven&#8217;t a fucking clue about economics and have no intention of learning. Their commentry is bereft of any rigour or intellectual effort. They are simply talking shite. The other view of economics we get is the best seller stuff. More horseshit. </p>
<p>All disciplines from physics to genetics have their disagreements, their weaknesses, their u-turns, and their brilliant thinkers. Economics too. But because our culture is so obsessed with money we are always talking about it and all consider ourselves experts. People at work talk about house prices all the time, about the latest fed move, about rogue traders, about inflation. Basically money has seeped into our capitalist bones and we are obsessed by it. In order to feed our apetite for more money talk we are bombarded by all this media poppycock which passes for economics.</p>
<p>We don&#8217;t come to work and talk about the latest particle accelerator or speculate about the lastest twist in genome theory. If we did, our media would be overrun by <i>genetics commentators</i> or pseudo scientists. But our favourite subject isn&#8217;t physics or genetics: it&#8217;s money. It&#8217;s all we want to hear about.  And all we get is an unbelievably big load of bullshit - every fucking day.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

