[Amhran Nua]

Originally Posted by jimmmy

Nope, you would vote for the government + the p.s. sector to spend the money, which is what they do. Great value for money the citizen gets as well ( looking at the defecit, the state of our hospitals + schools etc ).

I don't want this government to spend the money. Saying Ganley or O'Leary aren't right for the job isn't an endorsement of the wahoos we have in power at the moment.

[jimmmy]

Originally Posted by Scofflaw

jimmmy, other posters' personal circumstances are not germane. You've been asked to leave out the snide personal remarks - if you can't, we can easily escalate this.

moderately,
Scofflaw

sorry , and apologies to anyone I may have offended.

[Biggins]

Originally Posted by jimmmy

sorry , and apologies to anyone I may have offended.

Good man, nuff said.

Back on topic, Ganley would be a mistake to let in.
All he has going for him is some PR (be it good or bad).
Hell, Paris Hilton has had PR too and spoke up at American election time.
I still wouldn't invite her either to come and go in the Dail by the front door or the back door!

[jimmmy]

Originally Posted by Amhran Nua

I don't want this government to spend the money. Saying Ganley or O'Leary aren't right for the job isn't an endorsement of the wahoos we have in power at the moment.

You said "I wouldn't vote for him to spend it", but yet his track record at earning money and spending money wisely is infinitely better than any of the " wahoos we have in power ", is it not ? The wahoos* we have in power are like the bosses we had in Aer Lingus 30 years ago, are they not? They were great for themselves and great for their employees, but for the rest of us ?

I think Michael O'Leary deserves great respect, and I would value his opinions on economics. Plus he pays his taxes in Ireland. Not everyone does.

* wahoos in power : not my term ....some are better than others in our govt....the next few months will tell a lot and decide if our minister for finance is a wahoo or not - for now I will give him the benefit of the doubt. He inherited / stepped in to a crazy situation.

[Amhran Nua]

Originally Posted by jimmmy

You said "I wouldn't vote for him to spend it", but yet his track record at earning money and spending money wisely is infinitely better than any of the " wahoos we have in power ", is it not ?

Only in terms of making a profit, not in terms of looking after the social good.

Originally Posted by jimmmy

I think Michael O'Leary deserves great respect, and I would value his opinions on economics. Plus he pays his taxes in Ireland. Not everyone does.

I'd value his opinions on how to run an airline to be honest. Beyond that I'd take it as it comes.

Originally Posted by jimmmy

* wahoos in power : not my term ....some are better than others in our govt....the next few months will tell a lot and decide if our minister for finance is a wahoo or not - for now I will give him the benefit of the doubt. He inherited / stepped in to a crazy situation.

So what you're saying is you support NAMA? But a minute ago you were comparing the people in charge to Aer Lingus bosses in the 80s, good for nobody but themselves. Which way do you want it now.

[P. Breathnach]

Originally Posted by jimmmy

sorry , and apologies to anyone I may have offended.

I wasn't offended. I was irritated that a discussion was being deflected.

[jimmmy]

Originally Posted by Amhran Nua

Only in terms of making a profit .

if earning money / providing a better service for the public and spending money wisely can be reduced to "Only in terms of making a profit"...were Aer Lingus bosses say 30 years ago interested in making a profit or in terms of looking after the social good ?

Originally Posted by Amhran Nua

not in terms of looking after the social good..

O'Leary has done more for the social good of the country by lowering air faires and creating employment and paying massive taxes than any of the bossees of the unionised airline that was Aer Lingus 30 years ago.

Originally Posted by Amhran Nua

I'd value his opinions on how to run an airline to be honest. Beyond that I'd take it as it comes..

I would value his opinion on anything to do with economics to be honest.
He has experience of how the real world works.

Originally Posted by Amhran Nua

So what you're saying is you support NAMA? .

I did not mention Nama. Nama would not be necessary if the govt / central bank / regulator had acted properly over the years. Now the banks are in difficulty, if the govt let them go to the wall, foreign bond holders would lose money, our credit rating would go sky high + the govt would not be able to borrow the money for next weeks public servants wages. Plus you would have tens of thousands of unemployed bank people, and a huge knock on effect. Nationalised banks tend not to perform well, so I think either a big loan or NAMA are the only games in town. As Dermot Desmond says, probably NAMA was not the best idea....we need to be reducing the public sector, not increasing it. Plus the banks know the loans / people best, and can manage the debts best. So for the govt to lend money to the banks would in my opinion have been the best option, but NAMA is just a means of acquiring the goods ( in this case property ) for a percentage of the market cost a few years ago.
The people who have definitely lost out / have lost money are the developers, who lost their 20% ( or whatever the individual case may be ) deposit in the property.

Originally Posted by Amhran Nua

But a minute ago you were comparing the people in charge to Aer Lingus bosses in the 80s, good for nobody but themselves.

Most of them are. Lenehen though is getting to grips with the job, after Ahern + Cowen caved in to the p.s. unions during the tiger. The measure of his performance will be the extent and means by which he grapples with public sector pay.

[Amhran Nua]

Originally Posted by jimmmy

if earning money / providing a better service

He didn't provide a better service though. Only a cheaper one.

Originally Posted by jimmmy

O'Leary has done more for the social good of the country by lowering air faires and creating employment and paying massive taxes than any of the bossees of the unionised airline that was Aer Lingus 30 years ago.

He wasn't trying to do any social good though, only make a profit.

Originally Posted by jimmmy

I would value his opinion on anything to do with economics to be honest.

He has experience of how the real world works.
Economics are a far cry from the skills needed to run an airline.

Originally Posted by jimmmy

I did not mention Nama.

But is that not Lenihan's baby?

Originally Posted by jimmmy

Most of them are. Lenehen though is getting to grips with the job, after Ahern + Cowen caved in to the p.s. unions during the tiger. The measure of his performance will be the extent and means by which he grapples with public sector pay.

Lenihan is getting to grip with tens of billions of other people's money in one of the worst implementations of a NAMA type model ever seen.

[jimmmy]

Originally Posted by Amhran Nua

He didn't provide a better service though. Only a cheaper one..

Better value for money in most peoples eyes ( compared to the 180 to 200 pounds most people were forced to pay on unionised Aer Lingus 30 years ago ) .
Ok you may have got a reheated breakfast on board but it cost you more than a fortnights wages

Plus O'Leary provided more frequent flights, flew from / to more airports ...ok he + his company are not perfect, but overall to millions of people they have provided a better service....and they have paid a lot of tax....

His airline unlike Aer Lingus has a record of no crashes either ( thank God )....and I think he has a better record on punctuality than Air Lingus ...and probably lost baggage ..so I dunno how you can say "He didn't provide a better service"

Originally Posted by Amhran Nua

He wasn't trying to do any social good though, only make a profit..

"only" make a profit....I demonstrated how he did achieve social good though. I think him and his airline have beneffited society more than many do-gooders paid by the govt to benefit society.

Originally Posted by Amhran Nua

Economics are a far cry from the skills needed to run an airline..

So you could not develop or run one of the leading airlines in Europe ( from a little green island off Europes west coat ) without Economics ?

Originally Posted by Amhran Nua

Lenihan is getting to grip with tens of billions of other people's money in one of the worst implementations of a NAMA type model ever seen.

perhaps. time will tell a lot.

[Amhran Nua]

Originally Posted by jimmmy

Better value for money in most peoples eyes

No, cheaper in most people's eyes. O'Leary recognised a simple fact about airline travel, which is that its not an end unto itself, its a taxi ride.

Originally Posted by jimmmy

"only" make a profit....I demonstrated how he did achieve social good though. I think him and his airline have beneffited society more than many do-gooders paid by the govt to benefit society.

He didn't set out to achieve social good, it was a byproduct of his profit making goals.

Originally Posted by jimmmy

So you could not develop or run one of the leading airlines in Europe ( from a little green island off Europes west coat ) without Economics ?

Yes, economics in the macro sense has little to do with book keeping and cost cutting, its an entirely different discipline.

Originally Posted by jimmmy

perhaps. time will tell a lot.

Not if the greens pull out. Which is admittedly unlikely.

[Biggins]

Originally Posted by Amhran Nua

...O'Leary recognised a simple fact about airline travel, which is that its not an end unto itself, its a taxi ride...

LOL Its off topic (sorry) but does O'Leary still own his own infamous taxi?

For those that don't know, he purchased one some time back so that he could speed through Dublin streets in the Taxi lanes and avoid a lot of the traffic!
That's O'Leary for you!

[Amhran Nua]

I think they made him get rid of that.

[jimmmy]

He does not make govt rules. he just lives by them + pays his taxes. And millions of people keep wanting to give his company money. Strange that

[bug]

Originally Posted by odoylerulez

What an inditement of irish politics! lol

Irish politics is one big joke. Family after family getting their inlaws involved you know. Anyone not in the inner circle is treated like an outcast.

Irish politics is somewhat of a ridiculous inherited entitlement.

In the run up to the Lisbon debate there were people here who dedicated more time to it that the politicians involved themselves.

To be honest there are enough of you here intelligent enough, eloquent enough, and so engaged, that you could break the mould.

[nacho libre]

Originally Posted by ei.sdraob

agree with him on the Iraq war?

wtf the guy is selling weapons

he shouldnt be allowed near politics

he has no policies

oh you don't have to convince me. i am likely as opposed to war-profiteers, as you are, having an influence in politics. as general patton famously once said war is a racket and Ganley has made millions from it.
what i'm saying to you is there are others here who despise him not for this but for his stance on the Lisbon Treaty. If he was a yes campaigner for Lisbon i suspect there wouldn't have been the level of scrutiny against him that there was.
i suspect the more right-wing advocates of the treaty would only care to the extent of whether his presence would undermine the campaign.