Irish Debt Clock

Dannyboy83

http://www.financedublin.com/debtclock.php --> This is scary, click the link.





A question for the economists:
Why wasn't the Irish debt paid off in full when we had the money?

Seth Brundle

Surely buying off the unions, SSIAs, etc. was more important?

Riskymove

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

A question for the economists:
Why wasn't the Irish debt paid off in full when we had the money?

that would be against the berite/mccreevy philosophy of "spend it while you have it" and "keep everyone happy no matter what the cost"

Riskymove

kbannon wrote: »

Surely buying off the unions, SSIAs, etc. electorate was more important?

I think this was more the objective than any one sector

jimmmy

Riskymove wrote: »

I think this was more the objective than any one sector

If one was from that sector, one may say that. The fact remains that sector is the highest paid in the known world.

Seth Brundle

Riskymove wrote: »

I think this was more the objective than any one sector

Speaking for myself, I can't think of how I was bought! I could possibly say the same for my close family and friends.

Lockstep

What is the current debt/GDP ratio?

Riskymove

kbannon wrote: »

Speaking for myself, I can't think of how I was bought! I could possibly say the same for my close family and friends.

SSIAs?
tax reductions?
Increased expenditure on child benefit, OAP pensions etc?
tax breaks?
financial and legislative support for many private sector areas?

obviously not everyone votes FF as a result but many obviously did and I firmly believe the intention was to throw as much money around as possible to keep everyone happy

Seth Brundle

I wasn't bought though! I can still see a politician or a political party for who they are!

Riskymove

kbannon wrote: »

I wasn't bought though! I can still see a politician or a political party for who they are!

er...good for you

I think i can too but I still think my point is generally sound in that the bertie regime threw money at all sectors in order to try and keep them happy and stay in power

this is why they did not pay off the national debt

Dannyboy83

kickoutthejams wrote: »

What is the current debt/GDP ratio?

I think its currently at the same level as 1996, and since we are borrowing €1 billion per 2 weeks, it will be closer to 1994 by December.

We are going back to the future!
I wonder if we could bring Sean Lemass back to fix the budget.
Honestly tho, we don't need Lemass, everyone knows what needs to be done, just Brian Clow(e)n is too spineless to do it.

We are like an African child, Fianna Fail are like the vulture and the Green party are Kevin Carter.

Don't forget that the economy is still predicted to contract again next year and interest rates are predicted to rise, so GDP is going to fall faster next year and debt is going to rise faster.
I wonder if those famine ships still float?

ardmacha

so GDP is going to fall faster next year

Nonsense. I'll bet you the price of a house that GDP does not fall faster next year.

Nate--IRL--

ardmacha wrote: »

Nonsense. I'll bet you the price of a house that GDP does not fall faster next year.

Would that be the real Market price or the Long Term Economic Value price?

Nate

Tipp Man

My God that is frightening and nothing is being done to stop the flow.

There are 3 really worrying things 1) the unions and a lot of the public sector seem oblivious/blind/don't care as to how fast our debt is rising and will do anything to stop public sector wage cuts 2) why on earth haven't the government taken some action already, the April budget clearly wasn't enough ad did nothing to address the fundamental problem they have i.e way too much is being spent on public sector wages and on welfare 3) there is no sign that the economy is going to change for the better anytime soon and i still believe that it will get worse before it gets better. House prices have not yet bottomed and jobs are still being lost

In the time it takes you to read this post the country will have become about 20k more indebted, frightening

Dannyboy83

€ 71,000,008,866

Another billion gone

Seth Brundle

sure whats a billion between friends (or party donors)

dfbemt

kbannon wrote: »

sure whats a billion between friends (or party donors)

or bankers, or developers, or Galway Race Tent goers !!!

jimmmy

dfbemt wrote: »

or bankers, or developers, or Galway Race Tent goers !!!

Many of the above are "in negative equity" / insolvent, due to mismanagement of the economy by the govt, central bank and regulator.
There is an elephant in the room when it comes to the "Irish Debt Clock" ticking as fast as it is...

Dannyboy83

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

8 weeks ago
€ 71,000,008,866

Another billion gone

Today
€ 74,876,018,437

ei.sdraob

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Today
€ 74,876,018,437

putting figures out like that is pointless

people blankout when they see large numbers



you need to convert the difference into units which people understand such as:

* Children's Hospitals
* M6 Motorways

Nate--IRL--

16,639,115,208 pints of Guinness.

We owe every single person in the world about 3 pints.

Nate

Dannyboy83

ei.sdraob wrote: »

putting figures out like that is pointless

people blankout when they see large numbers



you need to convert the difference into units which people understand such as:

* Children's Hospitals
* M6 Motorways

The problem with that is, by the time I'd have calculated it, it would well out of date.
I could barely even copy/paste the sum, as the debt is rising so fast.

Probably need to calculate it to sometime in the future.

I'll have a go anyway:

So 74Billion.
The new terminal at Dublin Airport should have cost 200mill according to Ryanair, but it cost 1.2billion.

So at Fianna Fail prices, every county in the country could have 2.3 new airport terminals.
At Ryanair prices, there would be over 370 terminals to go round so about 15 per county.

Problem is, I'm about to click Submit and this is already out of date.
The Clock is about to strike 75 Billion

Flamed Diving

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

http://www.financedublin.com/debtclock.php --> This is scary, click the link.





A question for the economists:
Why wasn't the Irish debt paid off in full when we had the money?

Why is this a question for economists?

Flamed Diving

I will see your paltry debt clock, and raise you a US debt clock:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

thebman

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

http://www.financedublin.com/debtclock.php --> This is scary, click the link.





A question for the economists:
Why wasn't the Irish debt paid off in full when we had the money?

I'm pretty sure it is desirable to have a certain about of national debt as no matter how much you have in tax, you could spend more on infrastructure etc...

There is always something important to spend money on and the people lending to you probably won't be encouraged to lend if you paid off entirely same as a loan shark prefers if you keep slowly paying off your debt and keep it constantly at a low level rather than paying him back in full. The loan shark would much rather to lend to the person that he knows will be slower to pay him back as he'll get the interest all that time.

I think FF did well to pay off as much of the debt as they did anyway as there was still massive calls for spending on a range of issues. They could have been even more nuts than they were and I'm not one to sing their praises.

Dannyboy83

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Why is this a question for economists?

Because I couldn't find the corrupt politician's forum.:(

Flamed Diving

This article is relevant. Oh, if only we had this finance minister...

Macroeconomics doesn't get much plaudits around now, but here is a real-life story that should hearten those who think the field is really broken. It concerns Andres Velasco, a distinguished macroeconomist who is currently the minister of finance in Chile, and who also happens to be a good friend, colleague and co-author.

Until the current crisis hit, Chile's economy was booming, fueled in part by high world prices for copper, its leading export. The government's coffers were flush with cash. (Chile's main copper company is state-owned, which may be a surprise to those who think Chile runs on a free-market model!) Students demanded more money for education, civil servants higher salaries, and politicians clamored for more spending on all kinds of social programs.

Being fully aware of Latin America's commodity boom-and-bust-cycles and recognizing that high copper prices were temporary, Velasco stood his ground and decided to do what any good macroeconomist would do: smooth intertemporal consumption by saving most of the copper surplus. He ran up the largest fiscal surpluses Chile has seen in modern times.

This didn't make Velasco very popular. Last November, public sector workers marched in downtown Santiago, burning an effigy of Velasco.

But by the time the financial crisis hit Chile, Velasco (and the Central Bank governor Jose de Gregorio, another fine macroeconomist) had accumulated a war chest equal to a stupendous 30% of GDP.

The price of copper plummeted 52 percent from Sept. 30 to year-end, and Velasco dusted off his checkbook. In the first week of January, he and Bachelet unveiled a $4 billion package of tax cuts and subsidies... Velasco’s stimulus spending, includ[ed] 40,000-peso ($68.41) handouts to 1.7 million poor families...

The surpluses accumulated during the good years has given the Chilean government unusual latitude in responding to the crisis. As a result, the economy is doing much better than its peers. As Bloomberg reports, "the country’s economy is expected to grow 0.1 percent in 2009, as the region contracts 1.5 percent, according to the International Monetary Fund."

And does good economics pay off politically? Eventually, yes. Five months after being burned in effigy, Velasco is currently President Bachelet's most popular minister.

http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2009/04/when-textbook-macro-pays-off.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Intertemporal_consumption

Dannyboy83

thebman wrote: »

I'm pretty sure it is desirable to have a certain about of national debt as no matter how much you have in tax, you could spend more on infrastructure etc...

There is always something important to spend money on and the people lending to you probably won't be encouraged to lend if you paid off entirely same as a loan shark prefers if you keep slowly paying off your debt and keep it constantly at a low level rather than paying him back in full. The loan shark would much rather to lend to the person that he knows will be slower to pay him back as he'll get the interest all that time.

I think FF did well to pay off as much of the debt as they did anyway as there was still massive calls for spending on a range of issues. They could have been even more nuts than they were and I'm not one to sing their praises.

I think the main reason is inflation.

They hope that inflation will lower the debt.

I don't believe the UK have ever repaid their debt, they just borrow less as a percentage of GDP.

Given their QE Stimulus/30% Devaluation & Deflation, that doesn't seem to be working out too well for them now.
I think they've added £200 billion to their debt in the last year alone.
£600 + £200 = £800 billion.

Anyone I've talked to says they will soft default on their debt, no questions.

Dannyboy83

Flamed Diving wrote: »

I will see your paltry debt clock, and raise you a US debt clock:

http://www.usdebtclock.org/

As far as I understand it, their $12 trillion debt is still 85-90% of GDP.
Taking all of ours into account including NAMA, I believe we are significantly worse than that.

Flamed Diving

NAMA need not be considered part of Exchequer accounts, according to the EU Commission. Of course this is just window dressing, but it will allow the NTMA to publish Debt/GDP figures minus the NAMA accounts. Considering the special nature of NAMA, this is not entirely unreasonable. The only question is what the bond markets make of it, but seeing as the EU is allowing it, it might pass.

Dannyboy83

Flamed Diving wrote: »

NAMA need not be considered part of Exchequer accounts, according to the EU Commission. Of course this is just window dressing, but it will allow the NTMA to publish Debt/GDP figures minus the NAMA accounts. Considering the special nature of NAMA, this is not entirely unreasonable. The only question is what the bond markets make of it, but seeing as the EU is allowing it, it might pass.

Yes good point, I think you're right as long the ECB are behind us, and not willing to let us (the first domino) fall, then investors are looking at us as a safe bet, so there is not really much need for the SPV at all.

I don't presume anyone would be stupid enough to invest a country with the biggest GDP contraction (bar Iceland) since 1923, without checking out the background info first, so I don't really understand this SPV thing.
If anything, I thought it would act as a warning label.