Talk:Leprechaun economics/Archive 1

Archive 1

Proposed deletion of article

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

• How does a tweet by Paul Krugman deserve an entire article? How is it encyclopaedic? The article doesn't even focus on the point of the tweet but covers a whole slew of related subjects. At best this deserves a mention in Economy of the Republic of Ireland article (which covers the unusual features of Irish GDP calculation). I'm calling for deletion here. Jimg (talk)

• Keep Leprechaun economics is the largest yearly normalised GDP growth rate of any OECD economy in modern times, which was finally proven three years later to be largely artificial growth; it was labeled by a noble prize-winning economist who has gone on to use the term many times himself in other guises, and has been used by the Irish media in other guises (per the article); it led to a three-year search on the origin of the growth that was only proved in 2018 as being Apple, concluding that it is the largest BEPS action in history (per the article); it led to Ireland paying over 380m in additional EU levies (per the article); it led to the Irish central bank replacing GDP/GNI with GNI* (the first time any OECD economy has had to state that its metrics are unsound); it led to further EU investigations into Apple in Ireland; and has led economists to now question the accuracy of aggregate EU economic data. Creating a long section in the Economy of Ireland wikipedia article on these connected events would not be helpful. If the financial reports are correct, we are going to see LE II and LE III in the next 18 months, so this article might get even longer (or, else maybe Krugman will add a new separate label that could justify a new article).Britishfinance (talk) 09:53, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• The distortions in Irish GDP calculations can/should, of course, be covered in wikipedia. The entire subject of GDP calculation - which is controversal - can/should be convered - in the article about GDP. All the subsequent events/actions/etc. that you list are products of this GDP calculculation/miscalculation and not the result of Krugman using/inventing a colourful phrase in a tweet. The phrase is also somewhat derogatory (and was intended to be so by Krugman) and so will always be contentious. I recognise that you've put a lot of work into this but you've also made it very difficult to NOT suspect that you have an agenda given the pattern of "salami slicing" edits, the duplication of references, images, quotes and claims across many articles. I don't want to get into a flame war but I do believe that you've made it difficult for someone who has an interest in this area to get any useful knowledge from wikipedia. My suggestion is - since this article is mostly about transfer pricing - to remove the duplicated text (which you've already covered in other wikipedia articles) and roll the remainder into the Irish economy article.Jimg (talk) 15:15, 14 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep. This article should not be deleted or rolled into something else. A scan for the term gives over a hundred references, and the event has had large consequences for Ireland.31.187.2.74 (talk) 15:16, 21 August 2018 (UTC)

• Keep it. I have learnt a lot about how world really works from here. Zezen (talk) 12:46, 13 November 2018 (UTC)

• Keep I am doing a paper on this subject - there are already published papers on it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 31.187.0.241 (talk) 12:10, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

FYI: Paul Krugman referenced this Wikipedia article in a 31 March 2019 tweet from @paulkrugman

Hi. Paul Krugman himself just referenced this Wikipedia article in a tweet titled "By the way, if you are trying comparisons of, say, GDP rather than employment, be aware that Irish numbers can be hugely distorted by "leprechaun economics" -- spurious shifts in corporate reporting driven by tax avoidance 3/ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leprechaun_economics …"; on 31 March 2019 at 7:58

(is this information something that can be included in this article). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 109.255.33.206 (talk) 17:56, 1 April 2019 (UTC)

Cillian Doyle

This paragraph was added by an IP-editor to the lede (with no link to any material in the body):

Irish economist Cillian Doyle first identified the problems in Ireland's GDP figures in early Q2 of 2016 in an article titled 'Ireland: A recovery built on sand'. Doyle noted that at the time of writing Irish GDP appeared to be growing at 7.8 per cent, outpacing both India and China, despite lending to households and non-financial corporations being at very low levels. He stated that 'the lion's share of this growth is illusory' and was a result of large tech multinationals shifting their 'intellectual property products' away from Bermuda into Ireland. Although the Irish media refused to print his analysis, it appeared in the two popular US publications Naked Capitalism and Counterpunch. When these growth figures were revised up 3 months later to a then record high of 26.3 per cent, Krugman coined the term 'Leprechaun economics' and the story garnered worldwide attention.

I can't find any link to Cillian Doyle in a proper WP:RS saying that Cillian Doyle was an early spotter of Leprechaun economics? "Naked Capitalism" is not a proper RS. If there are better WP:RS (e.g. academic papers, major Irish newspapers) on Doyle writing about the distorting BEPS effects on Irish GDP data, then I would support it being added to the body under the "Modified GDP" section (e.g. examples of Irish economists pointing out that Irish GDP was distorted etc.). thanks Britishfinance (talk) 09:41, 13 May 2019 (UTC)

Confusion of current and constant price growth

The first line of the page states that 2015 Irish GDP growth was 26.3 and later revised to 34.4. This confuses current price growth (i.e. growth with inflation) and constant price growth (GDP net of inflation). GDP constant price growth was revised from 26.3 to 25.1. The revised number for current price GDP growth is 34.4. See table b here for data: https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-nie/nie2017/mainaggregates/ An explanation of current and constant prices is available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gross_domestic_product#Nominal_GDP_and_adjustments_to_GDP Ballystrahan (talk) 12:56, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

Revertion of POV edits re user Ballystrahan

I have reverted POV-tagging by Ballystrahan on the consensus version of this article. Ballystrahan has attempted to make such assertions on other articles (e.g. Institute of International and European Affairs) for which they have shown a strong WP:COI in this area.Britishfinance (talk) 09:59, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

I disagree. If you think I have a COI, please flag it on the Conflict of interest Noticeboard. If you do not, please stop saying so. As previously mentioned, I think you are confusing COI with differences of opinion. "Comment on content, not contributors. The purpose of discussion is to improve the article, not to complain about other editors." Ballystrahan (talk) 17:13, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• GDP as a % of GNI 2 (OECD Data) - Copy.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 20:09, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• GDP as a % of GNI 2 (OECD Data) - Copy.png

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 08:02, 28 March 2021 (UTC)

Krugman's animus

Krugman's animus toward the Irish is an important part of his coining and promotion of the term. Readers should understand that since there term itself is not neutral if they use it they may cause offense.

I notice that a recent edit to the Controversy section removed the sentence, "The use of an ethnically charged term to describe a tax system has been criticized." I propose returning that language (or something similar). The reason given for the edit was "Fix wording" which doesn't align with the actual change which was a deletion. --Lobster Doorframes (talk) 02:39, 9 October 2021 (UTC)

Haven't heard anything on this, so I'm going to make the change. If I'm following the wrong procedure please let me know. --Lobster Doorframes (talk) 17:54, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

It was right to ask here. Ideally you'd wait a little longer for response, but 10 days is a decent start. For myself then, three comments:

• The basic concept of this introductory phrase seems OK, given the sentence following, which shows at least one party (of some standing) making such a remark.
• It would not be proper to infer any wider support for this position - it is clear from sources that public opinion in Ireland splits on tax-related topics - though only a very small percentage favour large companies paying 0.5% or less in tax, many also resent Ireland being cast as a special kind of villain, when several other European countries, several Caribbean entities and several US states also have "interesting" corporate tax arrangements.
• We try to avoid personal remarks, even with support, and especially without strong referencing (see BLP policies) - the comment above about a highly respected economist and columnist is out of order without quoted support. And I'm not aware of such supporting evidence - and I've been reading the NYT for Krugman's entire time there. SeoR (talk) 21:28, 18 October 2021 (UTC)

I removed that sentence as it seemed very loaded and unnecessary. 78.19.224.132 (talk) 12:47, 1 December 2021 (UTC)