What if the shirts didn't spend our money

johnnyjb

Do you think we would be in such a bad way here if the government spent money wisely during the last decade.Or would we still be here since there is a global recession.

Imagine all the money squandered on voting machines and overpriced fields.It makes me shake my head in disbelieve so i try not to think to much of it.Is there a figure of the amount of money that was mis-spent on projects that didn't do to well

RichardAnd

If the "shirts" attempted to put money away for a rainy day then they would probably have been voted out of power. The reason is simple.

Imagine FF put away 5 billion back in 2003 just in case it might be needed. Then imagine that there is a hospital that needs a lick of paint but which hasn't been seen to because X amount of people aren't doing their job. People would see this iffy hospital and then they would read that FF had put away 5 billion. A few might see the prescience in this act but most wouldn't, they would be calling mr Duffy, whinging to their local TDs etc etc.

So yea, FF wasted a fortune on crap but they were simply leading a nation in the act of P!ssing money (most of it borrowed) down the drain.

The_Honeybadger

They did put some money away, it was called the National Pension Reserve Fund, sadly we will end up giving it to the banks :mad:

They also paid down alot of the national debt to be fair, if they hadn't done this we'd be in even more trouble. There was scandelous waste in virtually every sector of government spending throughout the past decade. However as Richard helpfully pointed out it was done to buy votes, and if they hadn't done it they would have been voted out, short term election focused policies are a real problem in our political establishment. The prevailing attitude at the time was the country was awash with money so lets enjoy it, it's just a pity it was borrowed money that now has to be paid back.

ardmacha

The point is not so much that they wasted money, although they certainly did, but that the that the government had a flawed macroeconomic model. So they they were spending money that they didn't really have. In order for voters to allow them not spend a lot of money the government would have to articulate that we were in a unsustainable boom. Not only did they not do this but they did exactly the opposite.

Indeed the fact that there was some inefficient expenditure makes it easier to cut back now.

Japer

johnnyjb wrote: »

Do you think we would be in such a bad way here if the government spent money wisely during the last decade.Or would we still be here since there is a global recession.

Imagine all the money squandered on voting machines and overpriced fields.It makes me shake my head in disbelieve so i try not to think to much of it.

The government did not spend tens of billions on overpriced fields. Instead it spent tens of billions on overpaid and overpensioned ( and often inefficient ) government employees, regulators, politicians, central bank etc.

Laminations

johnnyjb wrote: »

Do you think we would be in such a bad way here if the government spent money wisely during the last decade.Or would we still be here since there is a global recession.

Imagine all the money squandered on voting machines and overpriced fields.It makes me shake my head in disbelieve so i try not to think to much of it.Is there a figure of the amount of money that was mis-spent on projects that didn't do to well

Do you think if you saved part of your wages this week, you'd be in a better position next week when your american employer goes bust and you have no job?
The government spent everyting it took in, it was McCreevys mantra. Of course we'd be better off now if the government had saved some. There is a global recession but Ireland has the worst deficit in the Eurozone. We have been hardest hit, why do you think that is??

johnnyjb

Is there anyway we can get control of our country back.We are secretly being repressed slowly but surely.

Id love to make an "unannounced trip" into the dail with a few friends to meet the ministers :cool:

ardmacha

Of course we'd be better off now if the government had saved some.

We'd also be better off if people had saved some. It is because citizens and the private sector borrowed money that they are now refusing to pay back that all of this money is needed for banks etc.

Liam Byrne

Correction :

We'd also be better off if people had saved some. It is because some citizens and some of the private sector borrowed money, PLUS the aforementioned Government wastage and non value-for-money and lack of saving and long-term goals .... that all of this money is needed for banks etc.

RichardAnd

ardmacha wrote: »

We'd also be better off if people had saved some. It is because citizens and the private sector borrowed money that they are now refusing to pay back that all of this money is needed for banks etc.

Yeap, and these are the same people who vociferous shout something along the lines of "we didn't cause the recession, why should we pay for it?" The saddest thing is that most of them probably believe this to be true.

ardmacha

PLUS the aforementioned Government wastage and non value-for-money

The aforementioned Government wastage and non value-for-money has certainly reduced the quality of services, but has not had any appreciable effect on the recession. If the government had run services more cheaply during the boom they would not have saved the funds released, as they nor the public saw any value in saving. They would have reduced taxes and many of the citizens wouldn't have saved this either but would simply have driven house prices up to an even higher level, leading a bigger bust.

The recession is as it is because of a flawed macro model of the economy. Government waste is undesirable in its own right, but it did not cause the recession.

zootroid

ardmacha wrote: »

The aforementioned Government wastage and non value-for-money has certainly reduced the quality of services, but has not had any appreciable effect on the recession. If the government had run services more cheaply during the boom they would not have saved the funds released, as they nor the public saw any value in saving. They would have reduced taxes and many of the citizens wouldn't have saved this either but would simply have driven house prices up to an even higher level, leading a bigger bust.

The recession is as it is because of a flawed macro model of the economy. Government waste is undesirable in its own right, but it did not cause the recession.

True. But I would like to think that had the government spent the money more wisely, and made better and more cost effective investments in infrastructure, the country would be in a better position to emerge from recession. As it stands we have a poor public transport system, our motorway network still isn't finished, and our ICT infrastructure is generally regarded as being poor. In fact, in terms of infrastructure, we are ranked 52nd in the world in the Global Competitiveness Report. Link See page 29 of the pdf file.

Also, had the government not bought off every vested interest with money, we might not now have to borrow huge sums of money just to run the country. The interest payments on this debt will have huge implications in the years to come.

cson

They serviced the National Debt only to have a big helping hand in making it a multiple of what it was, all in about 2 years. Nice work FF.

cson

ardmacha wrote: »

The recession is as it is because of a flawed macro model of the economy. Government waste is undesirable in its own right, but it did not cause the recession.

You can't nail down a definitive cause to the recession. It's naturally a combination of factors; our insane gearing, worldwide contraction, Government policy encouraging borrowing... I could go on. It's a multitude of things but Government waste would be a factor too.

turly

What if the shirts didn't spend our money

Did you mean to type the 'r' in 'shirts'?