Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

National Independent Party?

2»

Comments

  • #32
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Iwasfrozen wrote: »
    So what you're saying is the banks create money by crediting consumers accounts instead of waiting for deposits to accumulate under the money multiplier concept? Well that may be true but banks can legally only give out loans equal to a multiple of their reserves. And since the central bank can indirectly control a banks reserves through the bond market that puts interest rates and by extension inflation through monetary policy in the hands of the central bank.

    It's important the central bank remains independent so the government is not tempted to print money and/or lower interest rates there by raising inflation for their own political ends.
    That is wrong, banks aren't reserve constrained (they are capital constrained), and banks extend loans first and fix up reserves later (and central banks won't refuse to help them fix up reserves); read the second article in my post, from Steve Keen.

    There is no direct 'exogenous' (external to the economy, from the central bank) control over the money supply, money is 'endogenous' (the supply is controlled from within the economy, through demand for loans) - there is however, control over interest rates.


    Central banks are not independent, they are staffed with ex-banking/financial industry staff for the most part, and suffer extreme regulatory capture - working more in favour of the banking/financial industry, than the public they are supposed to serve.

    We need protection from the bankers/financiers who will inflate asset bubbles and destroy a large part of our economy where it makes them a profit, not from our own government (the only entity capable of taking over their role and ending their abuse - one which is actually accountable to the public) - private actors have no business, having such a socially/politically/economically powerful tool, as the ability to create money and demand interest for it.


  • #33
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    nesf wrote: »
    You do realise that if someone set up the Irish version of Stalin's Communist party with the accompanying policy of the gulags and executions of dissidents that your post above could be used to criticise anyone saying that maybe this isn't a good idea for a party in this country?
    The difference is, the lack of specific disagreements with any presented policies, with there just being a claim of a lack of specific policies (which is incorrect - and means people being critical are attacking from the safety of avoiding substantive arguments, by pretending there are no policies presented).


  • #34
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Sir Humphrey Appleby wrote: »
    Thanks to their catch all populist corporate speak, nobody actually knows what they support.
    Again, a very trite criticism, which is just a pedantic demand for more details. If you can't figure out a substantive argument to make in response to the idea of a public bank, other than "oh that's not specific enough", then that's a very poor level of argument.

    I'm actually interested in real substantive arguments, because I don't yet take this party seriously myself (even if I think some of their specific policies are quite promising) - but this kind of silly cynicism (which has already been debunked by showing specific policies) adds little.


  • #35
    Zubeneschamali
    Registered Users Posts: 16,686 ✭✭✭✭Zubeneschamali


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    people being critical are attacking from the safety of avoiding substantive arguments, by pretending there are no policies presented.

    Maybe they are presenting policies, maybe not: until they learn to write, no-one will ever know.


  • #36
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    The difference is, the lack of specific disagreements with any presented policies, with there just being a claim of a lack of specific policies (which is incorrect - and means people being critical are attacking from the safety of avoiding substantive arguments, by pretending there are no policies presented).

    Maybe when they have substantive policies you'll see substantive and specific disagreements no? I mean, "have our own currency" is about as much a specific policy as "eliminate world hunger."


  • Advertisement
  • #37
    _Kaiser_
    Registered Users Posts: 28,647 ✭✭✭✭_Kaiser_


    nesf wrote: »
    You do realise that if someone set up the Irish version of Stalin's Communist party with the accompanying policy of the gulags and executions of dissidents that your post above could be used to criticise anyone saying that maybe this isn't a good idea for a party in this country?

    Well extreme examples aside, I'd personally welcome any party that offers an alternative to the current status quo offered by FF, FG and their hangers-on.

    It's up to the voter to decide whose policies are best - and a few gulags mightn't be a bad thing for some of our political, banking and anti-social elements that our current system seems woefully ill-equipped to deal with effectively


  • #38
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    Kaiser2000 wrote: »
    Well extreme examples aside, I'd personally welcome any party that offers an alternative to the current status quo offered by FF, FG and their hangers-on.

    It's up to the voter to decide whose policies are best - and a few gulags mightn't be a bad thing for some of our political, banking and anti-social elements that our current system seems woefully ill-equipped to deal with effectively

    Sure, my point is saying we shouldn't criticise a new party merely because they're saying something different to the mainstream is an extremely weak argument.


  • #39
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    View wrote: »
    There is no mechanism under either EU law or Irish law for Ireland to stay in Europe while leaving the Euro.
    Correction - there is no such enumerated mechanism. And so what? There is already a right to exit the Euro.

    "it is widely accepted that the lack of an exit clause does not preclude the possibility of withdrawal from an international organisation. This is also possible according to art.56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties 19697 as well as by the principle of rebus sic stantibus" - "Withdrawal from the European Union and alternatives to membership". Adam Lazowski. European Law Review, 2012.
    The fastest legal way to do this is to leave the EU
    What do you mean the fastest legal way to do this? Why should it be faster to leave the European Union than to simply undertake domestic measures along the lines of Cyprus in 2013? What legal authority are you basing your statement on?


  • #40
    OCorcrainn
    Closed Accounts Posts: 428 ✭✭OCorcrainn


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Right so you agree then that they present practical reforms.

    What you quote is also not mutually exclusive: They are talking about staying in Europe, not the Euro.

    What you quote even contradicts you:
    "s a partner in the current Monetary Union, we will endeavor to uphold best practice and to work with our European Colleagues for the betterment of this project. Until such courses of action prove detrimental or indeed impair this country’s ability to protect and develop its inherent resources"


    You've already just contradicted this statement.


    Sure they could do with expanding, but the practical solutions/policies are there, presented on the website.

    I'm not going to pick 5 things out for you, when you are already misrepresenting the site and contradicting yourself, and giving the impression you are likely remain 'unconvinced' no matter what is shown (especially seeing as picking 5 things out, is already marked as 'unreasonable').

    Pretty obvious to me that you are supporter if not a member of this so called "political party" judging by this reply. By reading their website it is safe for me to say that these guys will be going nowhere.


  • #41
    View
    Registered Users Posts: 3,872 ✭✭✭View


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    Correction - there is no such enumerated mechanism. And so what? There is already a right to exit the Euro.

    "it is widely accepted that the lack of an exit clause does not preclude the possibility of withdrawal from an international organisation. This is also possible according to art.56 of the Vienna Convention on the Law of the Treaties 19697 as well as by the principle of rebus sic stantibus" - "Withdrawal from the European Union and alternatives to membership". Adam Lazowski. European Law Review, 2012.

    Re-read your quotation. It refers to "an international organistation".

    There is no "international organisation" called "The Euro", hence the above quotation doesn't apply.

    The "international organisation" in this case is "The European Union" which has an exit clause which we are free to invoke as I touched on in my previous post.


  • Advertisement
  • #42
    Cody Pomeray
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,648 ✭✭✭Cody Pomeray


    View wrote: »
    Re-read your quotation. It refers to "an international organistation".

    There is no "international organisation" called "The Euro", hence the above quotation doesn't apply.
    Re-read my quotation.

    The international organization" is merely incidental to the topic of the paper.

    The customary right of a sovereign to withdraw from a Treaty under Articles 56, 57, 58 or 61 or 62 (citing the clausula rebus sic stantibus), in public international law, as they could conceivably apply, and as affirmed by the Court of Justice of the European Union, is the key point.

    I'm still waiting on your explanation for your claim that "the fastest legal way to do this is leave the EU".

    What do you mean "the fastest"?


  • #43
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    The difference is, the lack of specific disagreements with any presented policies, with there just being a claim of a lack of specific policies (which is incorrect - and means people being critical are attacking from the safety of avoiding substantive arguments, by pretending there are no policies presented).
    There are no real policies presented at all, just a lot of populist sounding rhetoric , dressed in corporate speak.


  • #44
    Sir Humphrey Appleby
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,465 ✭✭✭Sir Humphrey Appleby


    nesf wrote: »
    Maybe when they have substantive policies you'll see substantive and specific disagreements no? I mean, "have our own currency" is about as much a specific policy as "eliminate world hunger."

    Except a lot more economically dangerous for the only english speaking member of the eurozone abnd a country so dpendent of on inward investment from the U.S.


  • #45
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    OCorcrainn wrote: »
    Pretty obvious to me that you are supporter if not a member of this so called "political party" judging by this reply. By reading their website it is safe for me to say that these guys will be going nowhere.
    Heh - read any of my posts over the last year or so - my views expressed in this thread are pretty consistent with what I've been posting for a long time (even if they've been slowly evolving over that time).

    I'd say I'm a potential supporter of this party - if their credibility into the future checks out, and if they elaborate on their policies with more clarity - not a supporter now mind, but certainly optimistic due to some of the issues they raise.


  • #46
    nesf
    Registered Users Posts: 27,645 ✭✭✭✭nesf


    KyussBishop wrote: »
    Heh - read any of my posts over the last year or so - my views expressed in this thread are pretty consistent with what I've been posting for a long time (even if they've been slowly evolving over that time).

    I'd say I'm a potential supporter of this party - if their credibility into the future checks out, and if they elaborate on their policies with more clarity - not a supporter now mind, but certainly optimistic due to some of the issues they raise.

    This I would credit, I scanned that list of currency policies and thought "well, there's Kyuss' vote sorted anyway." :P


  • #47
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Cody Pomeray wrote: »
    Re-read my quotation.

    The international organization" is merely incidental to the topic of the paper.

    The customary right of a sovereign to withdraw from a Treaty under Articles 56, 57, 58 or 61 or 62 (citing the clausula rebus sic stantibus), in public international law, as they could conceivably apply, and as affirmed by the Court of Justice of the European Union, is the key point.

    I'm still waiting on your explanation for your claim that "the fastest legal way to do this is leave the EU".

    What do you mean "the fastest"?

    There is no separate Euro treaty, though, as View said - you're talking about withdrawing from part of the EU treaties - that is, withdrawing from one obligation of membership, while still claiming membership. That's very definitely not the same as exercising the right to withdraw from the treaty in full.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #48
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Zubeneschamali wrote: »
    That website is an embarrassment, it reads like a bad transition year project:

    In contrast when multi facilitated referendum is introduced often the overall ‘group vision’ or national perspective becomes in danger of becoming blurred and rudderless. Such methods Add a cliff hanger, ‘roll a coaster’ of uncertainly into the mix; and there-in. any notion of structure becomes instantly the weaker for it. And a kind of high stakes game of Russian Roulette gets played out on everyone’s liberties

    F. See me after class.

    Yes, alas:
    We loose (sic) 17% of state contracts overseas, that's 2.3 billion spent in the last 5 years. We loose (sic) this business due to the way our contracts are structured. We want to change that so Irish tax money will be supporting more Irish jobs. Indeed, looked at in terms of current cash aid, it would support 300k jobs

    This is not quite green ink stuff, but it's badly researched (and spelled) bee-in-a-bonnet stuff better suited to politics.ie than a party manifesto. A quick look at the balance of cross-border public procurement shows that by value as opposed to number of contracts, the figure for what we award abroad is more like 9.3%, although the real figure of €2.4bn is close.

    More to the point, we award three quarters of that to UK companies, and, surprise surprise, we also win a share of the UK's business - about 30% of what they procure abroad, which perhaps unsurprisingly is worth a lot more than the 75% of what we procure abroad that they win. The balance of cross-border procurement between here and the UK looks like this:

    1. Irish contracts awarded to UK companies, 75% of €2.4bn: €1.8bn.

    2. UK contracts awarded to Irish companies, 30% of €46.5bn: €13.95bn.

    So this is another case where what someone is portraying as an easy and obvious policy win is actually an opportunity to shoot ourselves in the foot. Were we to tighten our procurement rules to advantage Irish companies, the UK, who would be the main loser, would presumably do the same, and we would lose much more heavily than them.

    Plus, of course, the fact that, again, we can't do so in any case because part of being in the EU is common EU procurement rules which allow any EU company an equal chance to bid on any public procurement contract in an EU country.

    What is the good of policies which are quite so badly researched?

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #49
    Executive Steve
    Registered Users Posts: 3,373 ✭✭✭Executive Steve


    What does this little gem of a sentence even mean?
    Evoking such passions as equality, self-determination, freedom of expression, and that nice cosy warm group hug feeling you get having achieving a consensus “Kumby-ya” and all that.


  • #50
    dsmythy
    Registered Users Posts: 10,508 ✭✭✭✭dsmythy


    http://www.poloughlin.ie/

    You could always ask their MEP candidate.


  • #51
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    dsmythy wrote: »
    http://www.poloughlin.ie/

    You could always ask their MEP candidate.

    Sigh.
    Peter O'Loughlin wrote:
    I have made these pledges to assure you that firstly I am in this for the long haul and I have no intention of giving up my seat until such time as Ireland is once again a sovereign nation within a Europe of co-operating sovereign states.

    Ireland is a sovereign nation within a Europe of co-operating sovereign states. The form that co-operation takes is the EU, as agreed between those co-operating sovereign states.

    wearily,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
Advertisement