Talk:Modified gross national income/Archive 1

Archive 1

Others?

Are there any countries or territories other than Ireland whose GDP is distorted by BEPS? I'm a little suspicious that some of these might be: Liechtenstein, Qatar, Monaco, Macau, Luxembourg, Falkland Islands, Singapore, Bermuda, Isle of Man, Brunei, Norway, Kuwait, United Arab Emirates, Sint Maarten, Gibraltar, Switzerland, Hong Kong, San Marino.

Would be nice if the IMF or OECD could publish GNI* for additional countries -- or, issue a statement confirming that there are no other countries for which this is an issue. 174.24.21.234 (talk) 19:56, 19 January 2019 (UTC)

The tax haven article has a section on the GDP distortion of all tax havens. The most extreme are the big corporate tax havens as the volume of BEPS flows is a material part of their economy. IMF, OECD, and Eurostat do publish GNP vs. GDP (GNI vs GDP), but only sporadically.Britishfinance (talk) 10:01, 22 January 2019 (UTC)

Article title

The article title implies it may be a generic subpage of Gross national income (GNI). The content is probably would probably cause WP:UNDUE if attemped to merge to that article so the GNI is probably best left as is. There may be some traction in the title being considered a WP:NEOLOGISM but I perhaps leave that for others at this point. Probably the biggest concern is the article title implies this is a country generic, whereas the article content indicates this is (at least currently and possibly permanently) an Ireland specific article. Thus I think I might be concerned the article title is misleading. At least one relevant policy is WP:TITLE. A number of alternative article titles might have merit, Including:

• Modified gross national income (Ireland)
• Gross nation income Ireland modification
• Irish modified gross national income
• Irish GNI* (Assumes WP:TSC compliant)

My suggestions for article titles usually have a habit of non-adoption, and the suggestions above probally all have issues, but it may be appropriate to have a discussion. There is no criticism of the article author on choice of article title ... article content is possibly more important and my thoughts are rename can sometimes be better considered when more mature article content is available to be viewed. Thankyou. Djm-leighpark (talk) 21:13, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

I think these are good points. My plan was to leave it this way for a time to see if any other jurisdictions copy Ireland (especially Luxembourg, which I think EuroStat are having talks with on this issue). If others adopt, then your first suggestion, "Modified gross national income (Ireland)", would be a good choice to ensure the reader can get to the Irish version easily (and is the way that I think a reader would start to type into a search box in reading up on the term). However, if Luxembourg went for something completely different, then the term is unique to Ireland and might not merit changing. "Modified gross national income" is the formal term the Irish central bank and the Irish central statistics office (and Eurostat) use, along with the short-hand of GNI* (but I don't think GNI* is right per the main Gross national income article; although I have set up redirects to the page from GNI*). thanks. Britishfinance (talk) 21:35, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

Conflict between text and source material

There is no evidence in source material that CSO "refused to identify the source of leprechaun economics ... in the manner of a "captured state"" according to RTE source provided:

The article states that "as a direct result of the "leprechaun economics" affair, the Governor of the Central Bank of Ireland ("CBI"), Philip R. Lane, convened a special cross-economic steering group, the Economic Statistics Review Group ("ESRG"), of stakeholders (incl. CBI, IFAC, ESRI, NTMA, leading academics and the Department of Finance), to recommend new economic statistics that would better represent the true position of the Irish economy.[53]" However, the article's source states that Economic Statistics Review Group was convened by the CSO: "the CSO convened the ESRG to bring a broader dimension to its deliberations on the challenges of globalisation with the participation of policymakers, analysts, regulators, business and trade union representatives, academics, and the international statistics community represented by Eurostat and the IMF."

The following sources instead suggests that the CSO Assistant Director General with responsibility for Economic Statistics announced the group in July 2016: --Ballystrahan (talk) 13:12, 3 June 2019 (UTC)

I have changed the word "convened" to "chaired". I can see references that are advocating both sides; the only one that they all agree on is that Lane did chair the ESRG. My understanding from reading the references is that it was the either the Central Bank and/or Dept. of Finance that drove the change, but that it was carried out under a committee (chaired by Lane) structured as a CSO ESRG so that it would become a reportable metric by the CSO once agreed; however, I also note that on completion of the review, the CSO informed the committee that they would still be producing the old GDP figure (regardless of the fact of its issues), so I can't see that it was the CSO who "led" this process. Britishfinance (talk) 13:18, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Thank you for engaging with my second comment. I disagree. There is only one source cited and it does not advocate both sides. Regarding leading the change, the continued production of GDP etc, this is a red herring. The production of GDP and most macroeconomic statistics are mandated under EU rules.Ballystrahan (talk) 20:42, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

There are many sources cited that say that the Central Bank played the key role in this; here is the Financial Times saying Please use the sharing tools found via the share button at the top or side of articles. Copying articles to share with others is a breach of FT.com T&Cs and Copyright Policy. Email licensing@ft.com to buy additional rights. Subscribers may share up to 10 or 20 articles per month using the gift article service. More information can be found at https://www.ft.com/tour.

https://www.ft.com/content/dd3a6f1c-6aea-11e7-bfeb-33fe0c5b7eaa

This year a study steered by Ireland’s central bank concluded that, if a measure of activity were required that eliminated wild fluctuations and would be consistent over time, it should be along the lines of GNI*. The Central Statistics Office last week published its first set of data using this benchmark.[1]. You are continuing to push a POV which, per the earlier IIEA article, may indicate that you have a COI here; I advise you not persist on such edits. Britishfinance (talk) 09:45, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Unfortunately I cannot see how your last point about 'key role' is related. Could you clarify it please? Please refrain from the groundless ad hominem stuff. Ballystrahan (talk) 17:07, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

References

More explanation on what GNI* is

This article refers to a macroeconomic concept that superseded GNP as the primary current price measure of the Irish economy. However, the article mainly refers to Ireland as a tax haven and leprechaun economics. Here are some potential sources to explain what GNI* is:

Ballystrahan (talk) 09:56, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

References

Revert tag by Ballystrahan

Ballystrahan. I have reverted your WP:COATRACK tag on the article. Wikipedia is not a dictionary of economic terms (per WP:NOTADICTIONARY), but collections of articles that can give a deeper understanding of a topic. Per the references, when Ireland introduced "Modified GNI" it was a direct result of the distortions of Leprechaun economics, which of course was as a result of the tax activities of multinationals in Ireland (see the Financial Times here). Here is the Irish Times stating [2] Following the 26 per cent jump in Irish gross domestic product (GDP) in 2015, a figure that was derided internationally as “leprechaun economics”, the CSO convened a special review group, chaired by Central Bank governor Philip Lane and including the ESRI, to make recommendations on providing greater insight into underlying developments in the Irish economy. In fact, RTE News described Modified GNI as "Leprechaun-proofing" Irish economic data [3]; something which the Irish Times also noted [4]. Trying to assert that Leprechaun economics, and the tax activities of multinationals in Ireland, is not directly linked to Modified GNI (e.g. is coatracking) is directly against the quality references say, and would be a misrepresentation to readers of what happened (here is the Irish Times again on the connections with: The move comes in the wake of the revised 26 per cent growth in Irish GDP for 2015, derided by US economist Paul Krugman as “leprechaun economics”. That leap in GDP was underpinned by the relocation of €300 billion in capital assets to Ireland by multinationals – mainly in the form of intellectual property. The massive transfer of assets here came amid a global clampdown on multinational tax avoidance. [5]).

Having looked at your edits since you started on Wikipedia, I note that they are all directed at whitewashing issues regarding Irish economic topics (e.g. your edits on the Institute of International and European Affairs). I advise you not to persist with this approach and to contribute productively to the project. Britishfinance (talk) 13:12, 10 July 2019 (UTC)

Hi User:Britishfinance, If I want to understand what the economic difference is between GNI and GNI* I cannot tell from this page. The main macroeconomic concept pages follow the approach of explaining what they are in macroeconomic terms (except for cases where you have included references to Ireland as a tax haven and leprechaun economics). This page does not. Instead, as mentioned above, the article mainly refers to Ireland as a tax haven and leprechaun economics. While these are closely related topics, they are not the same as this topic, which is why there are separate pages for them (otherwise there would be a case for a WP:MERGE). Thus, I think WP:COATRACK is justified.

I do not think your comments about my edits can be objectively seen as true. It is fair that we evidently disagree on these two topics but this is not the same as whitewashing or being unconstructive and I think this can be resolved through discussion in good faith.

Regarding the Institute of International and European Affairs page, it is not an economic topic and I have made a series of suggestions on the text that are more true to the cited material and I look forward to your engagement on this on the talk page there. I have also found some independent sources for improving the history section of that page and hope to suggest them to you for incorporation in the future.Ballystrahan (talk) 21:02, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

I have given you several references from high-quality RS to disprove your assertion. Your response is to ignore them and simply re-state your assertion (i.e. WP:ICANTHEARYOU). Wikipedia is not a manual or textbook (e.g. WP:NOTTEXTBOOK), and does get into detailed definitions on subjects. The article already has an explanation by the CSO in a quotebox on what GNI* is.

You suggested edits on IIEA page, where you attempt to portray the IIEA as something very different to what it is, show you have a strong COI in this area. 09:52, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

You have proved nothing of the sort. Your citations argument does not really tackle the point I was making so I clarified my point in the hope that you would see what I was getting at. Maybe reading over the preceding text again will help. Cheers, Ballystrahan (talk) 16:57, 5 September 2019 (UTC)

2018 (just published)

I am unsure as to the final quoted 2017 figure of 181bn as that appears to be €184 in the most recent data. I must confess I was not aware that revised CSO figures were subject to yet further revision but there you go.

Section

Irish GDP versus Modified GNI (2009–2018)

Can someone check these figures here please.

https://www.cso.ie/en/releasesandpublications/ep/p-nie/nie2018/mgni/

2017 is shown HERE as

GDP 297.1 > GNI* 184.0 and Ratio 161% in the above link meaning the 2017 numbers appear to be €3bn shy each.

2018 is shown as

GDP 324.1 > GNI% 197.5 and the ratio would be 164% .

I have not filled out all the fields pending review. I have not change any values in 2017 or ante.

If I were to then GNI* would go from €181bn to €197.5bn, 9.1% up.//// where it should be €184bn to €197.5bn according to that link which is a mere 7.3% increase in that case. Wikimucker (talk) 18:37, 11 July 2019 (UTC)

Inconsistency with Source Material

The article states that "Eurostat show that GNI* is also still distorted by certain BEPS tools, and specifically contract manufacturing, which is a significant activity in Ireland". However, reading the source, it is clearly referring to GNI not GNI* (these are different statistics; GNI grew by 18.7% in 2015 while GNI* grew 8.3% as per this article):

"Nevertheless the rise in GNI is still very substantial because the additional income flows of the companies (interest and dividends) concerned are considerably smaller than the value added of their activities."

Having looked at that assertion and the source reference I am inclined to agree, could you perhaps sign your comments with the four tildas ~ next time and suggest a rewording of that piece. Wikimucker (talk) 12:58, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

Sorry about not signing the comment, first time. I don't see why that piece even needs to be included since there are no sources to back up the claim that GNI* is distorted. Alby benny (talk) 20:13, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

GNI* is distorted. On the GNI* measure the Irish Economy grew by 7% in 2018. The challenge to my mind is a) to explain GNI* better and also b) to explain how the GNI* measure itself is a work in progress between Eurostat, the Irish CSO and The World Bank as I understand too. All the while killing Leprechauns as there is no definition of a Leprechaun (economic or otherwise) in any Economic Dictionary. Wikimucker (talk) 11:56, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

It's all well and good to say that GNI* is distorted but there needs to be at least one source backing up that statement, otherwise it's just someone's opinion. That's all I'm saying. The page currently says that it's distorted due to contract manufacturing, but that's not mentioned in the source. Additionally, in the table it says that the GNI* growth for 2013-2016 is distorted, but 2017 is not? Why is that, is it just beacuse it's above 8% for 2013-2016 while it's only 3.1% for 2017 or did the issue with contract manufacturing cease to exist in 2017? There is no consistency. Alby benny (talk) 12:33, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

It looks like the formulation of the measure, IE the calculation of GNI* itself, is itself subject to revision. My understanding is that this is a multilateral effort involving the CSO as the 'canary' agency, the World Bank and Eurostat. The overweening intent is that countries other than Ireland would also publish GNI* and the gap between GDP and GNP is significantly higher for Luxembourg than it is for Ireland. . I'll have to wait to see what "subsequent" means here seeing as the 2018 GNI* was just published. But a 7.3% increase (my estimate) is not reflective of the real economy in Ireland which appears to be growing at around 4%. This gap of 3% between the real and synthetic measure may be corrected in part soon. I can enquire.

Absent a revision to the basis and an explanation note on same you are right, logically, as there is no source for an assertion of distortion in GNI* calculation absent a statistical revision to remove that very distortion and which revision would come with a detailed rational for the same revision. Wikimucker (talk) 13:21, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Back to the assertion based on the Eurostat Reference. It is IMHO fair to say that:

A) The Eurostat reference predates the first publication of GNI* , by the CSO, by around a full year and it cannot be held to refer to something that simply did not exist at that time.

B) It does as you said Alby Benny, refer to ordinary decent GNI and the weakness of GNI as a measure.

C) The thrust of the Eurostat article is, to my mind, contained on Page 8 of 16 where the problems accounting for globalisation are very well summarised. This problem is equally shared by all statistical agencies whether in Europe or not.

Consequently there are 3 weaknesses in the particular use of this reference, 1) it does not refer to GNI* but it does 'wish' for such a thing and 2) it does refer to a Global problem of which the Irish restatement of GDP/GNI is but a notable part, especially with regard to Intellectual Property holdings and the internal licencing thereof by other components of an MNC and 3) it only refers to contract manufacturing in passing.

So I would be happy to see that clarified but I think the entire article needs to be rewritten and this article is part of a crosslinked series of articles by a single main author which are somewhat jargonised with serial usege of rather obscure terms like BPE and Leprechaun across the entire corpus. Wikimucker (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

Wikimucker (talk) 14:52, 13 July 2019 (UTC)

References

22 Leprechauns

The article at present has 22 iterations of the word "Leprechaun" While this may be acceptable in an article on Leprechauns it is overdone in this piece which is an economic article.

I therefore propose to reduce the 22 iterations to no more 10 when I next edit this article. Suggestions on the optimalisation of deleprechaunisation most welcome in advance. Wikimucker (talk) 13:35, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• I have a breakdown. I think I count about one little fella in the lede, 5 in the body, one each in a see also, a note, and a picture caption. I think the 13 remaining are in the references ...Djm-leighpark (talk) 14:06, 12 July 2019 (UTC)

• Agree with Djm-leighpark. You are showing a bias to wanting to "whitewash" elements that are WP:IDONTLIKEIT form the article. Britishfinance (talk) 09:54, 28 July 2019 (UTC)

Pre-2010s content

The material inserted and aggressively protected by BritishFinance on the Celtic Tiger period is irrelevant and misleading. As I mentioned on that user's talk page, the content is very simplistic and at odds with the mountains of research and policy analysis relating to it, including the Regling and Honohan reports, the NCC reports from the mid-2000s, or any of the academic research on Ireland's bubble/crash. I had initially attempted to correct the material, unaware that BritishFinance will not accept changes in relation to this. In particular, I pointed out that GNI* actually rose by more than GDP 1995-2007 so there is simply no way that exaggerated national accounts drove both internal and external optimism about Irish economic conditions, leading to the Celtic Tiger bubble/crash. Rather, in this instance, Ireland's bubble was driven by a classic Kindleberger cycle of a favourable shift in underlying economic conditions (entry into the Single European Market and the eurozone), followed by lack of control by policymakers over credit growth (especially in relation to leverage ratios), leading to Irish banks borrowing short and lending long, with predictable results. Exaggerated GDP simply doesn't come into it. However, despite my efforts to reflect these facts - and I'm willing to consider reference to the perceptions to the contrary - and later to simply ask for citations for what are effectively baseless claims about Ireland's bubble/crash, it is impossible to edit this page as BritishFinance will simply edit it back. Pecheneg860 (talk) 11:01, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Hi @Pecheneg860:. I had similar difficulties with @Britishfinance: on this same page. Don't be intimidated. This article is riddled with inaccuracies. I recommend using the dispute resolution feature on Wikipedia (Wikipedia:Dispute_resolution) to raise and resolve this. I found that it worked in resolving most of the difficulties on the IIEA article in the past. Note that similar issues with this article have been raised before. There are similar difficulties with similar Irish economy-related Wikipedia articles. See the archived talk page for this article: Talk:Modified_gross_national_income/Archive_1. Best regards, Ballystrahan (talk) 15:17, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

Thanks @Ballystrahan:, I thought I was losing my marbles! When I've a bit of time, I'll go down the dispute resolution route. I am wary of even looking at some other Irish economy articles, given the state of this! Best, Pecheneg860 (talk) 15:46, 22 July 2020 (UTC)

You're welcome! Britishfinance is bluffing since the sources clearly don't support the argument, and much of the content does not relate to what the article is supposed to be about. However, you need to put in some time to call their bluff. Occasionally I forget how bad these Irish economy Wiki articles are and go to them for reference and am left with a sense of disgust. It's almost hard to know where to begin but they need to be fixed up. In fairness, there is a lot of of very valuable material there too, much of it contributed by Britishfinance. If Britishfinance didn't aggressively guard this article so much I suspect it would be improved quite organically.Ballystrahan (talk) 07:51, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Consistent false information

This article - written by Britishfinance - contains consistently false, exaggerated, and distorted information that is used in a political manner to attack Ireland and its corporate tax policy. Whether Ireland's corporate tax regime is right or wrong is certainly up for debate; however, it is vitally important to keep to the facts, and that is something that this article fails to do. It must also be noted that Britishfinance has made numerous personal attacks against IDA Ireland CEO Mark Shanahan.

I recommend at the very least reading this article with severe reservations. This is an article which simply does not meet Wikipedia's standards of objectivity, accuracy and integrity. Duke Of Dirty Dancing (talk) 20:47, 13 August 2021 (UTC)