The Government: Have they failed?

Riddle101 · 12-11-2008 5:18pm #1

Ever since Brian Cowen came to power i've often said to myself, Brian Cowen is by far the worst Taosieach we've ever, had. I mean seriously let's put aside the fact that he failed to get the Lisbon Treaty passed, even though i voted no. He has also failed to get his act together in terms of the Recession. First he takes away the Over 70's Medical Card and plans to bring in Student Fees, then he closes down those Army Barracks some of which house families of PDF soldiers, then the dispute with Teachers. He also insists that the Gardai have the resources to deal with Law and Order even though we've had dozens of gangland killings and the only thing he plans to do is introduce new survalience laws

Then you have Mary Harney. I don't need to explain why Mary Harney is terrible, the Health System is in shambles with her around. Even with the public outcry to give her the sack she continues to hold her post

Mary Coughlan, what can i say as Taniste she should be helping Cowen to deal with the pressure but I hear little about her on the news, and she seems to be keeping silent, what's the matter Mary cat got your tongue

There's more i could say but i'll stop where i am. I don't know it just seems like the government are failing us and i know it's going to be hard we can't expect them to be good because of the Recession and all but the Government have their heads in their arses now. Look at USA, they're heading into recession now but B-Rock Obama had managed to put hope in the Americans, that's what we need. But what can we do, i mean is there anyone in Irish politics good enough to take up the helm. Fine Gael are most likely the best candidate but i'm not a big fan of Enda Kenny and Labour are only good when they're siding with Fine Gael. The rest are not good enough as they just aren't powerful enough. Sinn Fein i can't get around because they're still living in the 1960's and Green are about as adequate as comatose

ednwireland · 12-11-2008 10:28pm

they failed several years ago its just that people have only started realising it now. they'll still vote for em next time

dresden8 · 13-11-2008 12:12am

Failed at what?

Their rich friends have made fortunes.

Score 1.

eoinbn · 13-11-2008 12:24am

The 2002-2007 government failed, the current government is in an impossible situation.

ednwireland · 13-11-2008 10:22am

sorry i must have my usual cynicism generator turned off you are right of course. the final nail in that coffin was the 1.65 billion bailout of the builders in the last budget. when they are trying to save 2 billion as to what FF are really about.

Biggins · 13-11-2008 11:33am

Failed: 2 words...

BIG TIME.

Permabear · 13-11-2008 12:55pm

This post has been deleted.

jmayo · 13-11-2008 7:14pm

Hey I notice a trend here

Hey I notice another trend here, the love affair with the low tax, low spend, little government and low interference model.

And would the fact that governments worldwide stayed out of the bankers lives have anything to do with the fact that the once great free marketters are suddently begging governments for bail out money from us the taxpayers eh ?
Reversed Socialism I call it

Just wondering if you aren't a soon to be homeless PD by any chance ?
Mods I am just wondering

Tea drinker · 14-11-2008 8:13pm

perfect answer, 10 out of 10.

heyjude · 14-11-2008 8:52pm

AFAIK the Democrats had a majority in Congress and the Senate during the Clinton years and he left office with government finances in a record surplus, then 8 years of Bush and the Federal deficit is at an all time high, as Bush failed to balance the books spectacularly. Now Obama comes in and with the bank bailout and Fed deficit, if he wants to do anything he has to borrow more or tax those that Bush's tax cuts strongly favoured. The people wanted change and change comes with a price tag, the problem is Bush has left the cupboard bare and the credit card maxed out.

Permabear · 14-11-2008 11:11pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 14-11-2008 11:18pm

This post has been deleted.

ninty9er · 14-11-2008 11:55pm

The government has taken action to ensure the legislation required to combat gangland was introduced.

Longer detention periods
Statements to Gardaí admissable in court
Emergency Response Unit on the ground (And they are....there are 2 of those new armour plated Volvos in Limerick 24/7)

For the first time we have a dedicated Garda Traffic Corps

The government took decisive action (with the opposition) in tackling the financial crisis that hit the global economy and worked through the night to draft legislation to ensure AIB didn't collapse and bring down PTSB causing a consumer rush on the remaining banks which would have seen the IMF knocking on the doors of Government Buildings on October 2nd looking for the keys.

We have a cost of approx €600m of providing the guarantee, cheaper than any other.

I agree with means testing the medical card for all, and have had an article to that effect published which my FG counterpart locally agreed with privately to one of my committee before admonishing it when asked by others.

I'll admit that I don't see any reason that higher taxes shouldn't be levied on.

I'm listening to Snap, Crackle and Pop on the Late Late now. Anton Savage on the end is is the only one talking sense.

Fintan O'Toole does have a point on the levy increasing to 3%, 4%, 5% etc...

Michael Healey Ray is making an eejit of himself.

We will have increased unemployment, to be expected as the whole Eurozone is now in recession. The likes of Dell etc will eventually pack up manufacturing. The focus NEEDS to be on getting the workers there upskilled and working for themselves. The era of the multi-national manufacturing base is over as greed has pushed wage demands, inflation and debt skyrocketing. I have been quilty of that myself, but I worked in retail and keep my debt low.

The backlash against Reg. Fee hikes is symptomatic of a student movement that says

"no you can't do that, but we're clueless as to how you can save the money and we will work tooth and nail to stop any fees on even the richest students"

This is symptomatic of the upper income unemployable arts student with rich parents being the only people willing to run for these positions. You rarely find the sons and daughters of private sector employees who have worked their arses off to send them to college spending this year/2/3/4/5/6/7/8/9/10 running a students' union.

The less well off will now feel the brunt (and I warned the SU President in UL that being unengaging and unreceptive would lead to all student's being shafted before the budget....but nobody would listen)

Means tested Tuition Fees ARE and always HAVE BEEN the way to properly fund a 3rd level institution. I never have and never will buy the argument that more than 90% of students are self financing, if the actual figure was higher than 3-4% I'd be extremely shocked.

Taxes could be higher, but I imagine that's what we'll get in next year's budget. Corporation tax should be lower.

There are no longer hostilities in Northern Ireland and frankly, why should soldiers in Longford be any more immune to restructuring than Pfizer workers or Intel executives. The facilities are no longer necessary or economical. Athlone is hardly Baghdad!

I'm sure you'll find another thread with comprehensive views I've expressed on the education budget.

Failure, no. Could be doing better, YES.

nesf · 15-11-2008 5:17am

He is to the PDs what the Socialist Party is to Labour.

Permabear · 15-11-2008 1:07pm

This post has been deleted.

molloyjh · 15-11-2008 2:59pm

Very true. But the fact of the matter is most are. You'll find relatively few people here in Ireland agreeing with your point of view. At the end of the day the "less Government interference" idea, no matter what way you try and spin the current economic crisis (Government made banks take on those loans? Please! They were more than happy to do it and the US Government more than happy to let them.), has led to a period where-by the Governments of multiple Western capitalist democracies have had to directly bail out their financial institutions. It hasn't worked.

Our problems have been compounded further by irresponsible Government over the last 10-15 years. The housing market is always an unstable one. For every boom there is a crash and its been a while coming now. Yet the foundation of much of our economy was in the construction area, one of the least stable areas. What sense does that make? FF looking out for their buddies has landed us in hotter water than we should have been in. I agree Cowen and co are in an impossible situation, but then they were part of the problem up until now so they are hardly going to be the solution. Just look at the budget, which they tried to spin as fair and relative across the board. Most of the changes introduced were static changes affecting everyone across the board equally, which by definition affects the less well off more than the well to do.

Those who took these so called "risks" over the last decade were rewarded for doing so but are now being protected from the fallout of those risks, which means they weer never risks to begin with. This combined with the shocking neglect of the public service, in terms of making the relevant changes to bring about a better service, means that we have had the biggest and best years of the country gone by and all we got was overpriced houses and a few roads. Its downright shameful. There have been a few positive moves in the policing area, but for the most part they have been lip service compared to what was needed, nothing in terms of health care leading to a criminally poor and bloated system, an education system badly in need of reform which they now want to take away from despite looking to create a knowledge based workforce and the so-called middle-class carrying the buck.

I'm on nearly twice the national average wage. I bought a house 4 years ago with my better half on the edge of the city for a relatively low price and are facing the very real probability of negative equity in the next couple of months. My outgoings are fairly minimal all things considered and I'm still having a hard time month on month because of the high cost of living. Heaven help anyone on the average national wage after buying a house in the last 2 years. I don't know how they are surviving. And if people on the average wage are barely getting by then you know there is something very seriously wrong.

Permabear · 15-11-2008 7:47pm

This post has been deleted.

gurramok · 15-11-2008 8:25pm

I'm intrigued, what evidence do you have of TSB been the bank that was going to be brought down that fateful night?
In the media, speculation has been it has been BOI or Anglo, do you have a source for it been the TSB.

In another part of your post, you said national debt was 117% of GDP in bust times.

We're going to reach that again in a few years unless drastic action is taken now to tackle the public sector thru either layoffs and/or pay cuts OR a magical export driven growth industry appearing as the saviour to replace the housing bubble revenues.

ninty9er · 15-11-2008 9:29pm

I was in Leinster House that day. AIB would have brought TSB with it is what I actually said. Speculation is not always true, or even loosely related to the truth.

That wasn't me actually. But as I have previously said it does partially explain where all the boom cash went as opposed to the accusations that 100s of billions were squandered.

Debt will increase over the coming 7-10 years, but it'll never hit those levels again, and it won't be to fund current spending on the dole.

evil-monkey · 15-11-2008 9:59pm

ya, it's called democracy...

+1

Kershaw.D · 15-11-2008 10:11pm

Yes they have failed big time
right now I think that we would have been better staying part of the uk

None of the current gov will be here after the the next election
And now with the country falling apart they decide to go and spend €60000 on Christmas lights for O'Connell st alone

ninty9er · 15-11-2008 11:13pm

:rolleyes:

molloyjh · 16-11-2008 12:42pm

The two are in no way comparable due to the level of information available to us now on the issue in debate vs the level of information available then on that issue. Maybe you should have picked a more relevant example?

Maybe you didn't get the point I was making. In the US the policy had been less interference and more of a move toward true free market. It was the US that brought about this global economic crisis purely because there was noone stepping in and regulating what the lenders were doing. It was this movement towards true free markets that led to the bail-outs and guarantees. That's what is so funny about the whole thing. The one thing they were avoiding at all costs, i.e. Government interference, turned out to be the one thing they desperately needed in the end. If that is not proof that the model failed I dion't know what is.

I think the fundamental difference between your view and mine is that I honestly believe the system we have in place is a good one. However the problems that we have had have been in how that system has been utilised buy our Governments. I blame the politicians for this mess, not the system. I strongly believe that the only long-term successful model out there is one consisting of one major element: balance. We need regulation of businesses to ensure that capitalism doesn't run away with itself to the detrement of society. However we need to ensure it is regulated in such a way as to not stifle it also, a careful balancing act. I believe trade unions are an extremely important part of the whole set-up, however I believe many trade unions have developed too much power.

Basically the truth is in the middle somewhere. No extreme view is right purely because society as a whole is in no way extreme. The happy medium is where we need to be aiming for.

I'm not sure if you realise just how this credit system works. For a bank to change its interest rates at all, be it an increase or a decrease, it must first get approval to do so from the Irish Cenrtal Bank, not the ECB. This reminds me of my favourite gripe people have had with credit card lenders in the past: When their credit limit was raised automatically people used to complain that the banks were "forcing them to spend more". That is not what was happening. They were given the option to spend more, but the decision to do so lay entirely with them.

No, this is an argument for a different Government. Don't blame the system for the failings of the individuals within it. It strikes me that you're oversimplifying the problem, and as a result the solution too.

I.e. the people within Government, not the system itself. As above.

Without knowing what money was going where I can't say with any great accuracy where the cuts were best made. I think tightening up on social welfare abuse is a must, targeting the wealthy in our society for a more proportional contribution is another. The only point I was really making there is that the people who suffered most from the last budget were not the ones who were taking the risks and the status quo of the well off not contributing relative to the rest of us has remained. This was a perfect time to address that issue. And the whole idea of cut backs in education when trying to build a knowledge based workforce does seem a bit counter-productive, doesn't it?

On that point I think we agree. As I said it's all about balance IMO, which means more Government in some areas, less in others.

There is nothing contradictory in that statement. If you look at the housing boom for example, that was driven by the market not the Government. The baby boomers needed accomodation. There was always going to be an overall economic impact to that, which was always going to positive. So what did the Government do in that case? Did they say to themselves that this was a temporary jump in the construction industry that was unsustainable and put in place measures to ensure that once this boom ended the economy as a whole would be cushioned? Or did they piggyback on the wave of this increased demand and neglect the economy completely?

The boom years were not created by Government. They made a few policy decisions along the way that ensured that we got a good deal from it alright, but then they squandered what we did get. To say that economically the last 15 years were good and the Government mismanaged that is in no way contradictory so I fail to see your point.

Again, oversimplification of the problem and the solution. Does the above statement mean that you want the health service privatised? Do you want an American system, where-by if you can't afford it you can go feck off? Just because something is not run correctly does not mean that it cannot be. Things like health and education need to remain public services because of the service they provide, an altruistic service more concerned with the people than the profit. Take the NCT as a great example. They have set failure rates (leading to follow-up NCTs) that they need to "achieve" to make their targets. Do you want to see something like that in our schools? I sure as hell don't.

Having worked long enough in the financial industry I can tell you that this is total nonsense. The banks, as I explained above, sought the reductions in interest rates that they charged. They are as much to blame as anyone else. They sought these reduction for one reason and one reason only - without the reduction in interest rates noone could have afforded the houses. However that point just took us into a spiralling effect where-by the lower the interest rates the more expensive the houses became. Noone stepped in at any point to stop the market doing its thing - increased demand led directly to the higher house prices and lower interest rates, not anything any Government did, they just facilitated it and took a tidy sum annually from stamp duty. Had the Government stepped in at some point to reduce the stamp duty rates - which at the moment mean you need at least 30k plus your 8% deposit to get anything in Dublin - and at the same time passed legislation to prevent the construction companies increasing their unit prices in line with this reduction then they may have been able to reduce the damage this collapse is causing. At the moment I'm faced with a situation of needing 60-70k to cover a deposit and stamp duty on a house, which we're never going to have. And there are plenty of people in this situation. And this is just adding to the countries problems because it's my generation that should be creating the most demand, young people getting married and starting a family.

As you've no doubt figured I'm strongly opposed to this idea for the most part. There is a happy medium that our system as it stands will accomodate with very little modification, the only problem we have (IMO) is that our elected officials aren't that interested in the system or how it might best serve this country. That's their failing, and ours for not getting the best out of them yet continually electing them, not the systems.

molloyjh · 16-11-2008 12:43pm

Didn't the retailers fork out for that rather than the Government in an attempt to get people into the Christmas spirit early, and therefore spend more in their stores?

Kershaw.D · 16-11-2008 1:16pm

no ,i think the gov paid for it ,the same idea xmas early just the gov done it for more taxes

Permabear · 16-11-2008 2:11pm

This post has been deleted.

RedPlanet · 16-11-2008 2:26pm

Complete rubbish,
It's deregulation which has failed miserably.
The loans in which you speak, where regulated because banks were happy to take deposits from minorities, but wouldn't give them loans in return.
The governmnet moved in to stymie institutional racism.
The "freemarket" in which you advocate, was soundly condemed since the Great Depression. You need to read The Grapes of Wrath or The Jungle to see how capitalists exploited people in the decades before the big crash.
Heck, i bet you're even opposed to legislation to curtail monopolies.
Your ideology belongs to a different era donegalfella, the pendullum has swung!

Permabear · 16-11-2008 9:36pm

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo · 17-11-2008 12:16pm

Ah yes, the glory days of Standard Oil and the US Steel Corporation. The free market at its finest. Until the pesky government came along and spoiled the party. What's wrong with monopolies, anyway?

Permabear · 17-11-2008 12:30pm

This post has been deleted.

RedPlanet · 17-11-2008 12:35pm

It's lunatic ideology.
You're just here hijacking a thread.
You should probably start your own thread on the Economics board.
Though you may be playing to an empty gallery there too.

Permabear · 17-11-2008 12:43pm

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo · 17-11-2008 12:58pm

No, it's mine. I'd appreciate if both of you left the moderating to me.

donegalfella, I'm not going to pay $7.50 to read that article. I strongly suspect it's a dissenting view from mainstream opinion. Care to explain how market forces can break down a monopoly?

jmayo · 17-11-2008 1:11pm

Ah I see, it was all the fault of the Democrats, i.e. Bill Clinton.

The problem I would say with your free market theories is that greed takes over. People are inheritentky greedy and will take any chances if they think they can get away with it.
Hence you need a storng regulatory system to prevent bankers in particular from creating products that can ultimately lead to global castrophe.
Of course if the regulator is weak and government don't care then it compounds the problems.

As for letting the market always handle things, see rail system in Uk, water services in UK as examples where the state should provide some basic services.
Private entities have to pay dividents to their shareholders rather than plough money back into infrastructure.
Our Broadband rollout in this country is hampered by fact that telecoms line infrastructure is owned and run by private company.

But did they get their cars or was it them that was waiting for their cars to be released ?
Oh and they only patrol good straight roads shooting fish in a barrell and they don't do it at night since they do not have adequate resources.

Ps it will cost more since our borrowing now cost more and these borrowing are increasing to meet revenue shortfalls.
If it took them all night to formulate the legislation why didn't they build in the option of taking preferential shares in institutions being helped ?

It wasn't just greed, house prices went through the roof dragging everything else with them. Retail prices went up, utility costs went up. Saying that, people borrowed more and wanted to live beyond their means keeping up with the Jones down the road.

Funny I always saw the SU as a breeding ground for would be politicans like yourself. Having been in two colleges I always saw them as inaffectual eejits.

Well ...

This government is a failure just like it's predecessor whose chickens are coming home to roost.
- They refused to do anything about bank deposit guarantees until Joe Duffy show started a run on deposit accounts. Then they got off their ar*** and upped the guarantee.
- They bailed out good and bad banks and did not stick it to the banks for the guarantee that we will all be paying for.
- They brought budget forward yet it was a shambles.
- They did not touch the public sector in the budget.
- They attacked the old and the young. Any politican should know that was not going to be a good idea.
- They gave 1.65 billion as developer/builder bailout and setup the state as a subprime lender.
- They refuse to admit that the HSE is a shambles costing people their lives. This by far the biggest failure under both this and previous governments. It is a nightmare that costs inocent people their lives.
- They cancelled the cervical cancer vacination that would probably save some lives down the road.
- They allowed the numebr of miniisters of state remain as is when cutting them back would be seen by the public as cost cutting at the top.

So if that ain't a failure, then I want to know what is ?

But they are such nice pretty environmentally friendly lights

Permabear · 17-11-2008 1:13pm

This post has been deleted.

djpbarry · 17-11-2008 1:17pm

Our health system is not as bad as many think:

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2008/1114/1226408634167.html

Permabear · 17-11-2008 1:28pm

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo · 17-11-2008 1:37pm

Nice theory, except that it ignores an important factor in the perpetuation of monopolies: high barriers to entry.

Let's take Eircom as a case in point: suppose you wanted to compete directly against Eircom in the provision of DSL services over phone lines. How much capital do you suppose would rush to your competing firm?

Permabear · 17-11-2008 1:45pm

This post has been deleted.

oscarBravo · 17-11-2008 1:52pm

And you're conveniently forgetting that you've claimed that the market will inevitably destroy monopolies.

And the fact that Eircom now allow competitors access to that "last mile" is solely and completely a function of government regulation forcing them to do so. In other words, their monopoly would persist indefinitely were it not for the government forcing them to allow competition.

Competing technology platforms are slowly making inroads, but the very slowness is a function of the lack of availability of alternative wholesale infrastructure. According to your theory, capital should be flooding to these alternative platforms. I can assure you from experience that this is not the case.

Biggins · 17-11-2008 1:58pm

Credit to some of the posters here. Ye know your stuff.
I wish ye were running the state - maybe things would be much better off!

Permabear · 17-11-2008 2:08pm

This post has been deleted.

molloyjh · 17-11-2008 2:12pm

Apologies donegalfella I don't have the time (and don't really have the inclination either if I'm honest

) to address each of your points individually. However there is one huge gaping flaw in your logic regarding the financial industry, and I tried to sum it up using the credit card limit example but perhaps didn't make myself clear enough.

Government can provide the conditions for cheap credit, they can open the door if you will. That does not force the banks to adopt the policy of cheap credit or create or modify existing products to take advantage of that. Those decisions were business decisions. In fact those decisions should give you a good indication of what the financial industry would do in a deregulated market. Once given the opportunity to reduce their rates they leapt at the chance, they were not pushed.

As for the US specific examples I find it hard to believe that you could seriosuly think that Government are driving business over there. It's quite blatantly the other way around with many big businesses forming very powerful lobby groups. In fact Freddie and Fannie were both revealed to have been consistantly "contributing" to most Senators in the US Congress. Both conrtibuted to Obama AND McCain. They weren't doing that for any other reason than to get greater control over their policies. And they certainly weren't doing it to ensure that they had less control over their business. After all Obama got more from them than McCain and he's far more pro-regulation.

oscarBravo · 17-11-2008 2:27pm

So if the government were to remove its guarantee of monopoly, the monopoly would inevitably disappear? In other words, if the government hadn't mandated competition on Eircom's fixed-line network - had simply sold off the company and walked away - there would now be competition on that fixed-line network?

Maybe, but you're changing the subject. Given the historical fact of a state monopoly - it's hard to change historical facts - you're trying to make the case that the market would be more competitive in the absence of regulation.

Yeah, that's why we have the cheapest mobile calls in the world. Oh wait...

If you think mobile "broadband" is realistic competition to fixed-line services, you obviously don't use it much.

Mobile "broadband" is a symptom of market failure, and the absence of fixed-line competition. Why do you suppose mobile "broadband" penetration is so much higher in Ireland than in other OECD countries?

I didn't say anything about Ireland's mobile infrastructure. You're the one confusing mobile Internet access with broadband.

But, tell you what: if you're so convinced there's a flood of capital into competing technologies, why don't you set up a wireless broadband company in Ireland? Let me know how you get on.

Permabear · 17-11-2008 2:28pm

This post has been deleted.

molloyjh · 17-11-2008 2:41pm

So why is there a bit of hoo-ha at the moment over whether the banks will pass on the ECB rate cuts to their customers? If an ECB rate cut automatically means bank rate cuts then surely this would not be an issue. Also why is there such a thing as a tracker mortgage as a product if all banking products track the ECB rate automatically?

Didn't I leterally say the opposite, that if the door is open to them they will jump at it???? Doesn't this point contradict your other points that a free market will regulate itself? How many ravenous five-year-olds do you know that can regualte themselves?

True. And your point is? If we did away with criminal law there would be no crime. That doesn't mean doing away with criminal law is the answer.

I think maybe you;ve misunderstood the difference between true free market and movement towards true free markets. I never said anywhere was a true free market, I did say the US over the last 8 years has moved more in that direction.

oscarBravo · 17-11-2008 2:41pm

And yet, you would have us believe that leaving five-year-olds to their own devices will have a happier outcome than supervising them.

brianthebard · 17-11-2008 2:44pm

Vigourous competition?

from here

The market is inherently stable and will inevitably gravitate towards monopoly. So says Paul Sweezy. Can you give us some examples of monopolies being broken down and not being replaced by another monopoly? Without government intervention?

Permabear · 17-11-2008 3:00pm

This post has been deleted.

Permabear · 17-11-2008 3:05pm

This post has been deleted.

djpbarry · 17-11-2008 3:28pm

My fixed-line broadband connection has a speed of 24Mbps. Fiber-optic communication systems can achieve transmission speeds several orders of magnitude higher than this.

The Government: Have they failed?

Comments