'All of the wrong options have been pursued'

The Volt

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2010/0308/1224265794036.html


It was heartening to see the attached article appear in the Irish Times today. Signed by 28 eminent economic professors and lecturers. At last we see an alternative view by people who are more qualified than the present Minister of Finance, lets hope someone pays attention to them.

Laminations

I'm sure someone will pop out to argue that they are just trying to protect their academic salaries. Wasn't that the line used when academics protested against the appointment of Bertie as an Adjunct Professor?

jimmycrackcorm

if only they had gotten together 6 years ago to write a joint letter then they might have had the credibility they desire.

Laminations

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

if only they had gotten together 6 years ago to write a joint letter then they might have had the credibility they desire.

If only the government hadn't mismanaged the economy for the past 10 years then they'd have the credibility that allows them stay in office.

woodseb

there's a lot of sense in that article, but alas most of it falls in to the category of 'easier said than done'

for example article states....

Budgetary policies have been short-termist and reactive. Instead of cutting real waste in the public sector by increasing productivity and efficiency, the Government has cut public services and the living standards of those who can least afford it, further reducing domestic demand and, thus, employment.

and is signed by:

Paul Sweeney, economic adviser, the Irish Congress of Trade Unions.

Tony Moriarty and Michael Taft, Unite trade union.

The Volt

woodseb wrote: »

there's a lot of sense in that article, but alas most of it falls in to the category of 'easier said than done'

for example article states....



and is signed by:

Easier said than done, but it does need to be said before it can be done! While 3 of the signatories work for trade unions, those trade unions still represent over 600,000 workers in the Republic of Ireland so it is interesting to note that 25 other academics who don't work for trade unions share their opinions.

Fat_Fingers

Meh, they are about 10 year too late. Now they are saying things that everyone already knows. I think not " leading economists", more like "too late economists".

"elevating the ethos of public service and personal responsibility will require harnessing the collective resources of employees through an open and honest engagement by all stakeholders" HA, as if this is going to happen!

The Volt

Fat_Fingers wrote: »

Meh, they are about 10 year too late. Now they are saying things that everyone already knows. I think not " leading economists", more like "too late economists".

"elevating the ethos of public service and personal responsibility will require harnessing the collective resources of employees through an open and honest engagement by all stakeholders" HA, as if this is going to happen!

If it's the right thing to do and it hasn't been tried, and what we're doing right now isn't working then not try something different?

Fat_Fingers

Voltwad wrote: »

If it's the right thing to do and it hasn't been tried, and what we're doing right now isn't working then not try something different?

All i'm saying its all lovely on the paper but come on, do you see Jack O'Connor or other union heads going for it. It will be more like " our member will not stand for it..."

Idbatterim

Whatever cuts there have been have been nullified by deflation! on top of that during the boom, welfare and pay increases were much higher than inflation! Its funny that 2 or 3 union leaders signed it, they were the first looking to bleed the system dry and trying to do as little work as possible! These publicity grabbing bulls**t reports dont reveal anything we dont already know! The only thing that will get us out if this is money, generated by private businesses, the only thing the unions know about businesses is how to destroy them! Sure they are meant to be promoting business and jobs and the phones in FAS the job creation agency arent being answered! The war between the unions and the gov (i.e everyone else) is not one we can lose! I could go on and on and on! Its reforms or more pay cuts, Im glad several ministers already stated their position on this! Take a read of the below article! They are a disgrace!

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lenihan-how-unions-are-bullying-politicians-2091497.html

Its hilarious that all these educators cant work out that 33 billion doesnt pay for 55billion in outgoings isnt it? No wonder so many of us are sh*t at maths!

The Volt

Idbatterim wrote: »

Whatever cuts there have been have been nullified by deflation! on top of that during the boom, welfare and pay increases were much higher than inflation! Its funny that 2 or 3 union leaders signed it, they were the first looking to bleed the system dry and trying to do as little work as possible! These publicity grabbing bulls**t reports dont reveal anything we dont already know! The only thing that will get us out if this is money, generated by private businesses, the only thing the unions know about businesses is how to destroy them! Sure they are meant to be promoting business and jobs and the phones in FAS the job creation agency arent being answered! The war between the unions and the gov (i.e everyone else) is not one we can lose! I could go on and on and on! Its reforms or more pay cuts, Im glad several ministers already stated their position on this! Take a read of the below article! They are a disgrace!

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/lenihan-how-unions-are-bullying-politicians-2091497.html

Its hilarious that all these educators cant work out that 33 billion doesnt pay for 55billion in outgoings isnt it? No wonder so many of us are sh*t at maths!

You're right about people being **** at maths, particularly when you look at the sums that taxpayers are having to pay to bail out AIB, BOI, Anglo-Irish and all of those gamblers (sometimes called developers and property speculators) who so obviously got their sums wrong but have the gob****e taxpayer to bail them out.

Of course they are the people who have been part of Fianna Fail since the foundation of the state and how quickly everyone has forgot their eruption.

As far as that Independent article goes, it's the job of the unions to protect and defend their members and it should come as no surprise that they are trying to do their job. Conversely, it's the job of the elected government to lead the country and creating divisions between working people and bailing out the people who are responsiblr, with not one of them having ever appeared in court does not seem like leadership.

Économiste Monétaire

Hilarious: 'leading economists'. These people are irrelevant in our field. Half of those on the list aren't economists.

The Volt

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

Hilarious: 'leading economists'. These people are irrelevant in our field. Half of those on the list aren't economists.

Are you one of the few who predicted what was going to go wrong? Did you make your views known at the time? And what is your view of the government's actions in helping to overheat the economy with grants for housing and hotels which nobody needed? Did you advise them of that at the time? And do you believe we can cut ourselves out of economic recession in circumstances where no other country ever has?

Idbatterim

Voltwad you are absolutely correct in saying that the unions business is getting as much as possible for as little work as possible! I am in total agreement that it is entirely the goverments fault for where we are at, they are the top of the chain and they make the decisions, no one else! Its just when I hear about the unions saying what needs to be done to right our situation it makes me laugh, im sure none of their remedies include pay cuts, reform or extra work for their members! its so predicatable its pathetic! Sometimes I just wish the situation gets so bad that we have to default, I dont care about the consequences to myself workwise, I just want to see all the rats on the sinking ships drown! Brilliant quote I read earlier to all the gambling bankers, investors etc, it was " Heads I win, tails you lose" It makes me sick to my stomach!

Liam Byrne

Fat_Fingers wrote: »

Meh, they are about 10 year too late. Now they are saying things that everyone already knows. I think not " leading economists", more like "too late economists".

Maybe they were afraid that their new work colleague would view them as pessimistic and tell them to commit......

Feck it, even I was stunned when the banks started offering 100% mortgages and when FF started running the country's day-to-day budget based on what was essentially one-off capital sales......and I'm no economist.

Imagine - I could have gotten paid to be on "advisory committee".

Of course, I'd have been turfed off the following day for being realistic and having cop-on and being prudent......

The Volt

Idbatterim wrote: »

Voltwad you are absolutely correct in saying that the unions business is getting as much as possible for as little work as possible! I am in total agreement that it is entirely the goverments fault for where we are at, they are the top of the chain and they make the decisions, no one else! Its just when I hear about the unions saying what needs to be done to right our situation it makes me laugh, im sure none of their remedies include pay cuts, reform or extra work for their members! its so predicatable its pathetic! Sometimes I just wish the situation gets so bad that we have to default, I dont care about the consequences to myself workwise, I just want to see all the rats on the sinking ships drown! Brilliant quote I read earlier to all the gambling bankers, investors etc, it was " Heads I win, tails you lose" It makes me sick to my stomach!

Ultimately what we have to do is seek a solution and in order to arrive at a solution we need all elements of society to be involved and committed. How we get there is a matter for government and it's now obvious that this government does not have the will or the ability to lead. Our best hope is that we get a new government with a mandate to do what is necessary but to do so on a fair and equitable basis. I know it's an extremely difficult task but personally I feel that if the rats all go down with the sinking ship so will everybody else.

MaceFace

Total crap - 100% bull.

investment has plummeted off the chart - What chart is that? Of course investment has plummeted - we are in the middle of a recession and the only way to continue investing is to raise taxes, borrow money, or move it from elsewhere.

The Government has pursued deflationary policies - Oh right, the government cut spending as opposed to borrowing for day to day spending or increasing taxes which itself would have been deflationary.

Budgetary policies have been short-termist and reactive - this may have something to do with having to seriously address our deficit which would push our debt and interest payments to unmanagable levels.

Instead of cutting real waste in the public sector by increasing productivity and efficiency, - how the hell is increasing productivity and efficiency going to result in cost savings? I can only assume they mean cutting extra payments such as overtime etc, but that would not fly because those who have those payments consider them as part of their normal renumeration.

failed low-tax, low-spend model - I thought it was the over reliance on construction that caused the problems and we done quite well attracting international investment.

employ new funding vehicles..... bonds - who is going to invest in a bond? The people of Ireland? Would that not just take the money we have on deposit in banks or paying off debts and put them into the hands of the government to squader while at the same time requiring a higher level or recapitalisation?

A comprehensive property tax.... starting with high income groups - does this mean property tax on commercial property? Considering most the property belongs to the banks or developers who are about to lose their investments, I think it would be better to call this a bank tax. If they are thinking about residental property tax, then you have to target the house, not the owner. Good luck getting the public to agree to this without a fight, let alone the unions.

Reform of regressive tax expenditures (ie tax breaks that disproportionately benefit high income groups) - well, most of them are already gone. Sure there are some left, but hardly a pot of gold. Also be aware that tax breaks are there for a reason - to encourage the private sector to invest in areas the government won't.

An additional tax band at the higher level is needed. - I have said before that this is definitely not what we want. Any increase in the higher level of tax will make it more difficult to invest the talent we are desperately short of in this country. Defo not good.

social insurance and local taxation - great - more taxes. See above.

PRSI can be expanded to incorporate a comprehensive free healthcare system (in particular, primary care) as well as earnings-related pensions - yes, and while we are at it, why don't I just give all my money to the government and they can give me an allowance every week for socialising.

make public sector workers partners in the process - aka - give them cash to get them on board.

So to summarise - the government are wrong. We are right. Just don't ask for specifics of what we are suggesting because we don't really know.

Économiste Monétaire

Voltwad wrote: »

Are you one of the few who predicted what was going to go wrong? Did you make your views known at the time? And what is your view of the government's actions in helping to overheat the economy with grants for housing and hotels which nobody needed? Did you advise them of that at the time?

This is your check list for "eminent economic professors and lecturers"? No, I do not write to the Irish Times nor do I work for the Irish government. How many of these have published in any of the top 5 economics journals in the last decade? A guess would be: none. You know you're scraping from the bottom of the academic barrel when you have to ask lecturers at LIT and CIT their opinion.

Voltwad wrote: »

And do you believe we can cut ourselves out of economic recession in circumstances where no other country ever has?

Wrong. Denmark and Ireland in the 80s. There's a well-established literature on non-Keynesian effects of fiscal consolidation. Also look up any papers using VARs to analyse the effect of government consumption on the economy, specifically wage expenditure and it's effect on the real exchange rate. Hydraulic Keynesian economics espoused by these economic-dinosaurs and sociologists isn't relevant to a small open economy in monetary union.

SkepticOne

Ireland in the 80s? Pretty depressing if that is what we can hope for.

Économiste Monétaire

SkepticOne wrote: »

Ireland in the 80s? Pretty depressing if that is what we can hope for.

87-90.

The Volt

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

This is your check list for "eminent economic professors and lecturers"? No, I do not write to the Irish Times nor do I work for the Irish government. How many of these have published in any of the top 5 economics journals in the last decade? A guess would be: none. You know you're scraping from the bottom of the academic barrel when you have to ask lecturers at LIT and CIT their opinion.


Wrong. Denmark and Ireland in the 80s. There's a well-established literature on non-Keynesian effects of fiscal consolidation. Also look up any papers using VARs to analyse the effect of government consumption on the economy, specifically wage expenditure and it's effect on the real exchange rate. Hydraulic Keynesian economics espoused by these economic-dinosaurs and sociologists isn't relevant to a small open economy in monetary union.

So if those policies work so well, how come we're in the mess that we're in now?

The unregulated free market economy had its' chance and it blew it.

Économiste Monétaire

Voltwad wrote: »

So if those policies work so well, how come we're in the mess that we're in now?

The unregulated free market economy had its' chance and it blew it.

Because the Irish government didn't think it would be a good idea to... you know... save in the good times?

Liam Byrne

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

Because the Irish government didn't think it would be a good idea to... you know... save in the good times?

That's about half of the story.

Even if the Government had saved, the banks would still have done what they did, and would be screaming for us to bail them out.

They should, quite frankly, be told to go f**k themselves.

Did the banks not "save in the good times" ? Because if they did, they'd be able to well absorb a 2.65 bn loss.

They milk it to make massive profits, but as soon as they make losses they come running to us, cap in hand.

And then - despite wasting that money on paying massive amounts to their bosses - they decide they're not making "enough" profit.

Shower of corrupt, incompetent, selfish wan*ers. If they made crap decisions, then that should be their problem and theirs alone.

Profit should not be a priority at the moment; making a living and keeping jobs should be.

The sooner greedy, arrogant, double-standards blind capitalism is binned the better.

The Volt

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

Because the Irish government didn't think it would be a good idea to... you know... save in the good times?

They weren't slow to save the banks and their property developing friends :pac:

Économiste Monétaire

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That's about half of the story.

Even if the Government had saved, the banks would still have done what they did, and would be screaming for us to bail them out.

They should, quite frankly, be told to go f**k themselves.

Did the banks not "save in the good times" ? Because if they did, they'd be able to well absorb a 2.65 bn loss.

They milk it to make massive profits, but as soon as they make losses they come running to us, cap in hand.

And then - despite wasting that money on paying massive amounts to their bosses - they decide they're not making "enough" profit.

Shower of corrupt, incompetent, selfish wan*ers. If they made crap decisions, then that should be their problem and theirs alone.

Profit should not be a priority at the moment; making a living and keeping jobs should be.

The sooner greedy, arrogant, double-standards blind capitalism is binned the better.

I think you're looking for Joe Duffy.

Voltwad wrote: »

They weren't slow to save the banks and their property developing friends :pac:

Because, without the money put into the banks, we wouldn't have a deficit of around 15% of GDP, right?

Liam Byrne

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

I think you're looking for Joe Duffy.

Never listen to the guy, and so you'd be 100% wrong. :rolleyes:

It seems to be a standard tactic these days to dismiss valid, objective and considered points of view as "populist" and all sorts of rubbish, but despite those best efforts it still doesn't dilute the truth therein.

So now that the glib dismissive "cleverness" is out of the way - maybe you'll answer the point - why did you point out the problem of the government not saving (which I will agree is a valid point) and still not object to the banks doing the exact same thing ?

Économiste Monétaire

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Never listen to the guy, and so you'd be 100% wrong. :rolleyes:

You're being sarcastic about not listening to Joe Duffy?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

It seems to be a standard tactic these days to dismiss valid, objective and considered points of view as "populist" and all sorts of rubbish, but despite those best efforts it still doesn't dilute the truth therein.

If you believe that your rant could be labelled as a 'considered' and 'objective' point of view, then I'm amazed.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

So now that the glib dismissive "cleverness" is out of the way - maybe you'll answer the point - why did you point out the problem of the government not saving (which I will agree is a valid point) and still not object to the banks doing the exact same thing ?

The thread was made in the context of the IT piece -- why the government should stop cutting expenditure as a policy stance. I pointed out why we're cutting: because the government pursued pro-cyclical policies, i.e. didn't save in the good times. Banks made poor choices, they had insufficient capital to protect against risky investments; our regulators failed, on an epic scale; bankers aren't very nice people. Welcome to what everyone else already knows, yet has near-zero relevance to a debate on the current side of the budget.

K-9

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

This is your check list for "eminent economic professors and lecturers"? No, I do not write to the Irish Times nor do I work for the Irish government. How many of these have published in any of the top 5 economics journals in the last decade? A guess would be: none. You know you're scraping from the bottom of the academic barrel when you have to ask lecturers at LIT and CIT their opinion.

Good post.

The questions that was asked of you:

Voltwad wrote:

Are you one of the few who predicted what was going to go wrong? Did you make your views known at the time? And what is your view of the government's actions in helping to overheat the economy with grants for housing and hotels which nobody needed? Did you advise them of that at the time? And do you believe we can cut ourselves out of economic recession in circumstances where no other country ever has?

Should be asked of them.

If they didn't predict what went wrong and made their views known, why trust them now?

Liam Byrne

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

You're being sarcastic about not listening to Joe Duffy?

No, I'm rolling my eyes that someone could be so incorrect as to assume that I'd listen to that show.

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

If you believe that your rant could be labelled as a 'considered' and 'objective' point of view, then I'm amazed.

I'm not surprised, given that you dismissed it as a "rant" and a "Joe Duffy listener" piece. That would appear to be the handbook response to any understandable views that object to the massive transfer of wealth to FF's friends.....as if we should all sit back and say "yeah, fair enough, shaft us - we're fine with it".

Anything I've said is a lot more considered and more acceptable than anything FF have come up with. At least it doesn't reward incompetence and impose blatant socialisation of losses.

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

The thread was made in the context of the IT piece -- why the government should stop cutting expenditure as a policy stance. I pointed out why we're cutting: because the government pursued pro-cyclical policies, i.e. didn't save in the good times. Banks made poor choices, they had insufficient capital to protect against risky investments; our regulators failed, on an epic scale; bankers aren't very nice people. Welcome to what everyone else already knows, yet has near-zero relevance to a debate on the current side of the budget.

That appears to be half the story, and it's the half that backs up your argument. Handy to focus on that and ignore the rest.

However, the other half includes:

The most damaging are cuts in transfers to low-income groups which, along with general tax increases on low and average pay in 2009, have reduced spending power in the economy at a time when it was most needed.

Low income groups being taxed more = less spending = more layoffs = even more welfare claims.....and so the cycle continues.

In the meantime, these "low income groups" are part-owners of banks with incompetent managers who are being paid €600,000 a year, and those groups will have to contribute even more of their "disposable" income to pay higher interest rates in order that the bank can make more "profit".....a bank that the government owns and supposedly has influence over....

They then have even less disposable income - and add in carbon taxes and other hikes and it gets worse - and they end up living and working merely to pay the mortgage + food bills + taxes and nothing else, therefore other businesses have less sales and have to close, creating the same scenario for even more people.

All the above is factual, and all is down to FF and their ridiculous policies, combined with greed, incompetence, gambling and the safe knowledge that - having seen AIB bailed out with no consequence in the 80s - their mates in FF would repeat the process.

Count Dooku

Voltwad wrote: »

So if those policies work so well, how come we're in the mess that we're in now?

Because you cannot combine free market with left wing policies of spending money.
Rather then waste money on benchmarking, government should save them and use when crisis hits. For example for infrastructure projects.

Imagine if government would have 50 Bn in pocket – all unemployed construction workers could be used for building roads and schools.

The Volt

Count Dooku wrote: »

Because you cannot combine free market with left wing policies of spending money.
.

Social Democracy. It's worked in Scandanavia where you have a successful economy that has relatively high taxation but excellent public services.

Count Dooku

Some inconsistency

Budgetary policies have been short-termist and reactive. Instead of cutting real waste in the public sector by increasing productivity and efficiency, the Government has cut public services and the living standards of those who can least afford it, further reducing domestic demand and, thus, employment.

and then

In the medium term, we should explore the potential of social insurance and local taxation to broaden the tax base while providing real benefits in return.

Sounds like non-unionized private sector workers can afford decreasing of living standards.
Second lie is that public sector can offer something to lower paid workers. It is absolute rubbish about free healthcare system. Healthcare system requires huge investments. Government wasted money on improving working conditions of nurses instead of investing into hospital beds, but10 nurses will not replace single bed.
Government will need to invest at least 50 Bn to achieve the same level as in other countries. It means that rather then use borrowed to keep living standards of public servants, government must reduce PS payroll bill by 50% and invest money into health system.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/4223425/Britain-has-fewer-hospital-beds-than-Lithuania-and-Hungary.html

The number of hospital beds per 100,000 inhabitants

Germany 829.1
Czech Republic 817.0
Lithuania 801.0
Hungary 792.1
Austria 770.9
Latvia 755.4
France 707.5
Finland 695.6
Belgium 672.3
Slovakia 671.4
Romania 658.6
Poland 647.5
Bulgaria 621.4
Luxembourg 569.4
Estonia 565.3
Switzerland 555.6
Croatia 545.0
Ireland 524.7
Slovenia 477.5
Greece 473.8
Macedonia 463.1

Liam Byrne

Count Dooku wrote: »

Because you cannot combine free market with left wing policies of spending money.

But you can combine "free market" private profits from gambling with "left wing" socialising when that gambling involves massive losses ?

Count Dooku

Voltwad wrote: »

Social Democracy. It's worked in Scandanavia where you have a successful economy that has relatively high taxation but excellent public services.

and public servants with much lower pay
PS average in Finland is 28K, while country is not cheaper then Ireland

The Volt

Count Dooku wrote: »

and public servants with much lower pay
PS average in Finland is 28K, while country is not cheaper then Ireland

You don't need extremely high pay when you have extremely good public services and you're not being hit at every turn for things like private tuition and hidden charges

Liam Byrne

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

This is your check list for "eminent economic professors and lecturers"? No, I do not write to the Irish Times nor do I work for the Irish government. How many of these have published in any of the top 5 economics journals in the last decade? A guess would be: none. You know you're scraping from the bottom of the academic barrel when you have to ask lecturers at LIT and CIT their opinion.

True....I mean why should you take the word of a non-expert ?

Just as well that Ahern, Cowen & Lenihan's extensive economic expertise and years of experience made them perfect choices for key economic positions making key decisions without any input or mandate or choice in the matter :rolleyes:

Just how many articles did Lenihan have published in "any of the top 5 economics journals" before he became Minister for Finance, again ?

Count Dooku

Liam Byrne wrote: »

But you can combine "free market" private profits from gambling with "left wing" socialising when that gambling involves massive losses ?

What do you want from center-left Fianna Fail?

Do you remember?

'I'm one of the last socialists left in Irish politics.'
(Bertie Ahern, December, 2004)

The Volt

well there's no disagreement from me that the last few years we've seen a progression towards what I call the Fascism of the center

Count Dooku

Voltwad wrote: »

You don't need extremely high pay when you have extremely good public services and you're not being hit at every turn for things like private tuition and hidden charges

It is perfectly fine with me
Lets cut salaries in public sector first and start implement reform when average in PS will be 28K
All money from raised taxes must be used for capital projects, but not for keeping living standards of public servants

The Volt

Count Dooku wrote: »

It is perfectly fine with me
Lets cut salaries in public sector first and start implement reform when average in PS will be 28K
All money from raised taxes must be used for capital projects, but not for keeping living standards of public servants

That didn't deal with my question. Public services are absolutely critical for the vast majority of Irish citizens who depend on them for education, health, security and transport. They're obviously of no importance to those who can use their wealth (ill gotten or otherwise) to buy private education , health, security and transport.

Liam Byrne

Count Dooku wrote: »

Do you remember?

'I'm one of the last socialists left in Irish politics.'
(Bertie Ahern, December, 2004)

And when run through the mechanism that I normally used to process Ahern's utterances, the above comes out the other side and passes the "perfectly true" test.

Off-topic, but if anyone wants one of them, they're available here

Économiste Monétaire

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No, I'm rolling my eyes that someone could be so incorrect as to assume that I'd listen to that show.

:rolleyes: = 'Roll Eyes (Sarcastic)'. Your comments are akin to a Joe Duffy rant, nothing more.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm not surprised, given that you dismissed it as a "rant" and a "Joe Duffy listener" piece. That would appear to be the handbook response to any understandable views that object to the massive transfer of wealth to FF's friends.....as if we should all sit back and say "yeah, fair enough, shaft us - we're fine with it".

Anything I've said is a lot more considered and more acceptable than anything FF have come up with. At least it doesn't reward incompetence and impose blatant socialisation of losses.

Uh, what? Is this written to me, or are you writing to yourself? Just a quick note: I'm not a proxy for 'FF' rants.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That appears to be half the story, and it's the half that backs up your argument. Handy to focus on that and ignore the rest.

However, the other half includes:



Low income groups being taxed more = less spending = more layoffs = even more welfare claims.....and so the cycle continues.

In the meantime, these "low income groups" are part-owners of banks with incompetent managers who are being paid €600,000 a year, and those groups will have to contribute even more of their "disposable" income to pay higher interest rates in order that the bank can make more "profit".....a bank that the government owns and supposedly has influence over....

They then have even less disposable income - and add in carbon taxes and other hikes and it gets worse - and they end up living and working merely to pay the mortgage + food bills + taxes and nothing else, therefore other businesses have less sales and have to close, creating the same scenario for even more people.

All the above is factual, and all is down to FF and their ridiculous policies, combined with greed, incompetence, gambling and the safe knowledge that - having seen AIB bailed out with no consequence in the 80s - their mates in FF would repeat the process.

With low-income households now part owners of banks, it's a bad idea for banks to make a profit? Silly low-income families, only loss-making investments are good. The above is opinion, factual would include an analysis of exogenous shocks to consumption, which you haven't given. You've outlined a first-year macro model of the circular-flow, without leakages or adjustments to expectations due to the burden of future debt that allows a boost in current consumption.

I'd swear I was reading Politics.ie with the number of 'FF <insert insult>' comments in your posts.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

True....I mean why should you take the word of a non-expert ?

Just as well that Ahern, Cowen & Lenihan's extensive economic expertise and years of experience made them perfect choices for key economic positions making key decisions without any input or mandate or choice in the matter :rolleyes:

Just how many articles did Lenihan have published in "any of the top 5 economics journals" before he became Minister for Finance, again ?

I'm not sure why you're linking my opinion to one of support for 'FF'. Their collective opinion carries as much weight as anyone who's completely ignorant of economics; like yourself, for example. You and FF have something in common!

Count Dooku

Voltwad wrote: »

That didn't deal with my question. Public services are absolutely critical for the vast majority of Irish citizens who depend on them for education, health, security and transport.

Public services are critical for people, but living standards of public servants not.
Public services can start reform, government will add money saved from cuts to money raised through taxes, use it for capital projects and in few years time public servants can live without high salaries.
This is exactly what you told me few posts before

Voltwad wrote: »

You don't need extremely high pay when you have extremely good public services and you're not being hit at every turn for things like private tuition and hidden charges