Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/

How does the government plan to create jobs?

  • 28-04-2010 11:24PM
    #1
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,251 ✭✭✭


    I'm confused as to this one. There's a general insistance in this forum, that despite the IMF's utter failure in such policy, it's a case of slash and burn to get Ireland out of it's special circumstance.

    But what about creating jobs? You drop welfare to shove people into jobs (:rolleyes:) but where are they going to come from?

    Cutting your way out of a recession doesn't really work. Realistically, what the government should have done at the start of this mess was said **** the banks, and spend a ****load of money on creating all kinds of arseways jobs. We'd have been in a lot of debt, but we'd have worked our way out of it since we'd actually have a reasonable tax intake, and have a good chance to build up infrastructure(Which is also good for the economy).

    I'm curious as to whether the beef the "Libertarians" in this forum have with the Keynesian model is with Ireland's specific situation, or in general, and why Ireland in specific.

    I also don't understand the complaints about dole being too high, etc., when it's acceptable to piss money into the banks. Why is corporate welfare okay? Libertarians in particular seem to have an issue where some kinds of welfare are okay, the kinds they like, others not so much. Or do they take issue with the bailing out of the banks? If so, why do they focus so much on welfare?

    I just don't see where the jobs are going to come from, and cutting welfare means there's less money circulating. I don't understand the focus on national debt when the collapsing economy is more impending. Even if we bail the government out; what then?

    We won't create any new jobs. They won't be able to spend any more money, since the whole way they're staying afloat is by cutting and slashing. It's a stagnant position, which is why it has tended to stunt growth rate in areas "Helped" by the IMF.

    I think the governments main plan is to set public and private sector workers against each other and hope to detract from what a mess they made, and the EU does something or other.


«1

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    Sandvich wrote: »
    I just don't see where the jobs are going to come from, and cutting welfare means there's less money circulating. I don't understand the focus on national debt when the collapsing economy is more impending. Even if we bail the government out; what then?
    I don't think the current government has any particular plans beyond staving off the inevitable until they can retire. Meanwhile, here are a few good ideas.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,123 ✭✭✭stepbar


    Sandvich wrote: »
    I'm confused as to this one. There's a general insistance in this forum, that despite the IMF's utter failure in such policy, it's a case of slash and burn to get Ireland out of it's special circumstance.

    But what about creating jobs? You drop welfare to shove people into jobs (:rolleyes:) but where are they going to come from?

    Cutting your way out of a recession doesn't really work. Realistically, what the government should have done at the start of this mess was said **** the banks, and spend a ****load of money on creating all kinds of arseways jobs. We'd have been in a lot of debt, but we'd have worked our way out of it since we'd actually have a reasonable tax intake, and have a good chance to build up infrastructure(Which is also good for the economy).

    I'm curious as to whether the beef the "Libertarians" in this forum have with the Keynesian model is with Ireland's specific situation, or in general, and why Ireland in specific.

    I also don't understand the complaints about dole being too high, etc., when it's acceptable to piss money into the banks. Why is corporate welfare okay? Libertarians in particular seem to have an issue where some kinds of welfare are okay, the kinds they like, others not so much. Or do they take issue with the bailing out of the banks? If so, why do they focus so much on welfare?

    I just don't see where the jobs are going to come from, and cutting welfare means there's less money circulating. I don't understand the focus on national debt when the collapsing economy is more impending. Even if we bail the government out; what then?

    We won't create any new jobs. They won't be able to spend any more money, since the whole way they're staying afloat is by cutting and slashing. It's a stagnant position, which is why it has tended to stunt growth rate in areas "Helped" by the IMF.

    I think the governments main plan is to set public and private sector workers against each other and hope to detract from what a mess they made, and the EU does something or other.

    Here's an idea... maybe the people THEMSELVES should take responcibility to create jobs themselves? Remind me of a time in college when students gave out about the college not doing enough to secure work placements for people. Those who got placements did the donkey work themselves. You cannot seriously expect the Government to solve absolutely every problem in this country. It's time people took personal responcibility for what happened during the boom years and try to work through it.

    And BTW I'm not in any way trying to absolve the Government from their sins but people need to take responcibility as well.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 583 ✭✭✭danman


    I'm not an economist sandvich, in fact i didn't even get to any economics lectures at Uni (9am start, I worked till 4am the night before).

    But even I know that the only way to create jobs is promoting business.

    But firstly the deficit must come down. That means cuts.
    The money required for the. Things you outline and if we didn't cut, has to come from borrowing. Higher deficit.

    The money for NAMA being given at a different rate because it's considered investment. If we used this money for anything else, it goes onto the deficit at higher rates.

    Ditto, most of the money for the bailouts.

    A simple look at Greece over the past 10 years will explain everything.
    We are only 2 years into their 10 year journey.
    They used the model you are advocating, they are now completly broke.

    We can't rely on borrowing.
    We have to cut the deficit.

    We have to cut.

    (like I explained, economics wasn't my subject. Sorry if I over simplify)


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,251 ✭✭✭Sandvich


    Amhran Nua wrote: »
    I don't think the current government has any particular plans beyond staving off the inevitable until they can retire. Meanwhile, here are a few good ideas.

    Cockin'. Thanks for the link, I'll take a look.

    But firstly the deficit must come down. That means cuts.
    The money required for the. Things you outline and if we didn't cut, has to come from borrowing. Higher deficit.

    It doesn't actually necessarily mean cuts. I suggest reading up on the Keynesian model which has become popular again recently(As it does every recession).

    Generally cutting your way out of a recession is a bad idea. If we're in a position where we can't spend out of it, then we're more ****ed than what chopping bits off is going to solve.

    "We can't rely on borrowing, we have to cut". People keep saying this, yet many economic models hold the opposite. That the only way is to bear with it and keep borrowing, then raise taxes when we have another boom to pay for it.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 583 ✭✭✭danman


    But is that not exactly what Greece did for the past 10 years, borrow?


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    Sandvich wrote: »
    Cockin'. Thanks for the link, I'll take a look.
    Not a bother, and not a mention of borrowing in there either.
    Sandvich wrote: »
    It doesn't actually necessarily mean cuts. I suggest reading up on the Keynesian model which has become popular again recently(As it does every recession).
    We're into the Keynesian neoclassical synthesis these days, pure Keynesian theory is a bit outdated. What many governments are doing is dipping into their own reserves in order to provide stimulus packages, like the Germans and Chinese, although neither are free of debt either. The important difference to draw is between borrowing to pay persistent costs like public sector wages, and borrowing for investment. The former is bad (Greece) the latter can be good (most businesses or infrastructural investment), as recognised by the markets. The chancers in the Dáil managed to get our sovereign debt reclassified as an investment, but that won't last long.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 39,019 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,124 ✭✭✭Amhran Nua


    This post has been deleted.
    Regulation can stimulate entrepreneurship if its done right, take a look at Song dynasty China.
    This post has been deleted.
    Business and investment funds aren't paid out of the national coffers.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6,123 ✭✭✭stepbar


    Sandvich wrote: »
    Cockin'. Thanks for the link, I'll take a look.




    It doesn't actually necessarily mean cuts. I suggest reading up on the Keynesian model which has become popular again recently(As it does every recession).

    Generally cutting your way out of a recession is a bad idea. If we're in a position where we can't spend out of it, then we're more ****ed than what chopping bits off is going to solve.

    "We can't rely on borrowing, we have to cut". People keep saying this, yet many economic models hold the opposite. That the only way is to bear with it and keep borrowing, then raise taxes when we have another boom to pay for it.

    So what do you propose our next "boom" will be based on? Property again eh? The country took their eye of the ball during the last boom... and by that I mean the likes of the IDA etc were concentrated on attracting business to the country. Fair enough that's their remit. But in the mean time we forgot about creating our own export environment and the sustainable jobs that could be created from engaging in real exporting and not from depending on the likes of Microsoft exporting billions worth of software every year. The likes of Microsoft will only remain in this country as long as it's worth their while economically. As least an Irish company who engages in export "might" have some sort of loyalty to the country.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 4,025 ✭✭✭Tipp Man


    This post has been deleted.

    Unfortunately it seems that a lot of people can't see the connection, including people who have an unwarrented excess of power in determining the economic future of this country, Jack O Connor and friends


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,419 ✭✭✭Count Dooku


    Sandvich wrote: »
    I just don't see where the jobs are going to come from, and cutting welfare means there's less money circulating.
    Keeping welfare benefits and public sector wages untouched through increased taxes will not increase amount of circulating money, but will destroy motivation in private sector to earn more


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 785 ✭✭✭zootroid


    Sandvich wrote: »
    Cockin'. Thanks for the link, I'll take a look.




    It doesn't actually necessarily mean cuts. I suggest reading up on the Keynesian model which has become popular again recently(As it does every recession).

    Generally cutting your way out of a recession is a bad idea. If we're in a position where we can't spend out of it, then we're more ****ed than what chopping bits off is going to solve.

    "We can't rely on borrowing, we have to cut". People keep saying this, yet many economic models hold the opposite. That the only way is to bear with it and keep borrowing, then raise taxes when we have another boom to pay for it.

    That's too simplistic an argument. Surely the debate should be about the inefficient use of government resources, ie taxpayers money. If cuts were made to the public sector wage bill and social welfare, we would have to borrow less and pay less interest (which is not only a leakage to the economy, but a very unproductive use of money). It might also free up funds that could be invested in infrastructure. Improved infrastructure will help businesses become more competitive, which will lead to more employment, more taxes being raised, and the government then makes a return on its investment.

    Simple example, if someone earns 30k in the public sector, and 20k in the private sector for the exact same job, then the state is being ripped off to the tune of 10k, which could be put to more productive uses. Multiply that by the numbers employed in the public sector and it becomes a huge amount of money. That money could be put to much more productive uses.

    It also creates a disincentive for people to stay in the private sector, which is where risks are taken, and wealth is generated. How many public sector organisations do you know of that provide consumer goods/services? And how many do so on a competitive basis, ie not subsidised by the state or subject to favourable regulations? The role of the public sector should be to provide services for the public that can't be provided by the private sector, or would be undesirable to be provided by the private sector (eg law enforcement). It should also be the aim of the state to create an environment where enterprise thrives. But governments have no business trying to run businesses that can just as easily be run by private sector organisations (eg airlines).

    Back to my original point, the opposite to cutting would be to continue borrowing, which is akin to taking out a loan and thinking you're suddenly rich. In any basic economics class you are taught that governments should only borrow for capital purposes. Similarly, a business would not fund its day to day operations with long term borrowings. Long term loans should only be sought for capital projects as they will provide a return on the investment. So while the government is trying to cut its public sector wage bill and social welfare bill, doing so will help ensure its resources are going to a more productive use.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,251 ✭✭✭Sandvich


    Which libertarians on this forum are complaining about welfare while supporting corporate bailouts? I personally support neither.

    Come on, which do you bitch about more? At the end of the day what's more important to your ideology is that the workers get a kick in the teeth. If people end up dying in the streets for libertarian principles, who gives a ****? Just make up some excuse as to how people would be magically better and more capable without a government. I'm sick of people moaning about welfare which some people actually need yet the far more wasteful uses of money go ignored.

    And you can't complain about me saying something like that when you continually make chidlish insults like "Oh this is the heart of the issue - statists just LOVE to be controlled!". ****ing pathetic.
    You don't see the connection between the national debt and the collapsing economy? If we didn't have any debt, how would we be collapsing?

    Because, get this, there aren't any jobs. 15+% unemployment isn't great for the economy, you know?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,535 ✭✭✭✭astrofool


    We can't spend our way out because we are in the Euro. We could have done like the UK if we had the punt, decrease our value (and worth of every citizen in the country by 35%), printed money until the punt collapsed, and turn into Zimbabwe, or we can cut the costs and make ourselves more competitive internationally so that we attract businesses here, and increase our exports (and money coming in). We are paying ourselves more than every other western country in the world, this is not in any way sustainable.

    Which would you prefer, everyone to lose 30%+ of their net worth due to currency devaluation, or make cuts?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 19,044 ✭✭✭✭murphaph


    Sandvich wrote: »
    Because, get this, there aren't any jobs. 15+% unemployment isn't great for the economy, you know?
    Why do you think people are being made redundant and factories moving to Poland?

    We are still far too expensive a country to do business in. Costs need to come down to stop the loss of jobs and reverse the tide.

    The only real way out of a recession for a small open economy is to export your way out. We must get exports up. How do we do that with high costs for exporters though? We must redce the burden on exporters by reducing minimum wages, social welfare and public sector pay to Eurozone average levels at most and let businesses and individuals work, without taxing the hell out of them, thus creating jobs.

    How would you create export led jobs without cutting business costs, primarily wages?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,892 ✭✭✭Head The Wall


    Sandvich wrote: »

    Generally cutting your way out of a recession is a bad idea. If we're in a position where we can't spend out of it, then we're more ****ed than what chopping bits off is going to solve.

    So if you can't tax your way out of a recession and you can't cut your way out of a recession whats the solution so? Are we just to do nothing so?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 290 ✭✭alias141282


    murphaph wrote: »
    The only real way out of a recession for a small open economy is to export your way out. We must get exports up. How do we do that with high costs for exporters though? We must redce the burden on exporters by reducing minimum wages, social welfare and public sector pay to Eurozone average levels at most and let businesses and individuals work, without taxing the hell out of them, thus creating jobs.

    Murphaph do you know how many jobs will be created in Ireland if exports grow, lets say by 3% a year over the next five years?


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2, Paid Member Posts: 24,612 ✭✭✭✭Sleepy


    Sandvich wrote: »
    Come on, which do you bitch about more?
    I can explain why I focus more on the welfare systeom and wage bill and waste of the public sector than on the corporate bailouts: we're in a position to do something about them.

    From everything I'm reading, the government have driven us down a course where we can no longer allow our banks to fail without causing far more expensive/damaging results than the expensive/damaging results of their current course of action. i.e. we're damned if we continue but we're worse damned if we change course.

    The public sector unions have become so incredibly arrogant after a decade of being felated by Messr's Ahern and Cowen that they've lost all touch with reality and, to a large degree, their own membership. They're politically weak and financially without the resources for a meaningful strike. Speaking in generalities, their members aren't in a position to go without wages for more than a few days / weeks at best and have no better alternatives in the private sector so when push comes to shove are better off accepting a 15/20% paycut than joining the thousands already on the dole.

    Our social welfare system is overly generous. There is no way we need to be giving out *THREE* times the level of unemployment benefit of our nearest neighbour who, in terms of cost of living etc. are *reasonably* comparable to us (based on my having spent the past 6 months over here - the main cost differentials are on luxuries like alcohol and supermarkets being about 10-20% cheaper). Rent allowance levels being dropped would have an almost immediate effect on rent levels around the country and would lead to a minimum of suffering for those in receipt of it (the pain being suffered by their landlords instead).

    All a politician needs in order to make drastic improvements to our defecit is the willingness to put the good of the country ahead of his desire to be re-elected. Unfortunately, that's unlikely to happen in this banana republic.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,136 ✭✭✭Spudmonkey


    Sandvich wrote: »
    Because, get this, there aren't any jobs. 15+% unemployment isn't great for the economy, you know?

    Why not get out and create some jobs. There are a few on boards who have taken it upon themselves to get up of their ****s and get out and do something. And not just setting up a coffee shop or hair-dressing salon, but companies which actually exports services abroad, which guess what... are exactly what we need!!

    We should thank our lucky stars these people are still here willing to pay taxes in a country which actively seems to discourage any kind of entrepreneurship (what with no safety nets for those who are actually willing to take a chance)

    Even those who are involved in wealth generation in this country, how reliant are we on FDI? Even I am guilty of it. We always seem to expect someone to come in and set up a company and start employing people. Never taking it upon ourselves.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 290 ✭✭alias141282


    Sleepy wrote: »
    I can explain why I focus more on the welfare systeom and wage bill and waste of the public sector than on the corporate bailouts: we're in a position to do something about them.

    From everything I'm reading, the government have driven us down a course where we can no longer allow our banks to fail without causing far more expensive/damaging results than the expensive/damaging results of their current course of action. i.e. we're damned if we continue but we're worse damned if we change course.
    .

    Actually I heard on the radio this morning that Lenihan had hinted for the first time that anglo may have to be wound down. Of course I'm open to correction on that.
    Sleepy wrote: »
    The public sector unions have become so incredibly arrogant after a decade of being felated by Messr's Ahern and Cowen that they've lost all touch with reality and, to a large degree, their own membership.
    .
    Sleepy wrote: »
    They're politically weak and financially without the resources for a meaningful strike. Speaking in generalities, their members aren't in a position to go without wages for more than a few days / weeks at best

    So people who can't afford to go more than a few days without pay are "arrogant" and "out of touch".


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    Sandvich wrote: »
    I'm curious as to whether the beef the "Libertarians" in this forum have with the Keynesian model is with Ireland's specific situation, or in general, and why Ireland in specific.

    For the Keynesian model to work
    money has to be saved during the good times
    needless to say that wasnt done

    look at UK to see an example of failure of Keynesian economics


    anyways borrowing 20billion a year and handing it over is a stimulus


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 514 ✭✭✭Dazzler88


    the government are doing the same as they did in the Eighties.Let the youth leave and hopefully it will relieve social welfare. who cares if 80,000 or so have to move abroad? You wont see any ministers sons or daughters going. Then these youth might comeback to retire and we'll give them an easy pension. Sure we didnt help them 40/50 years ago when they left,its the least we could do. History is repeating itself.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 290 ✭✭alias141282


    Obviously the government would prefer if there was full employment in the country but employment is not the priority. The priority is fixing the banks, to get lending again, so the economy can return to growth. During the recession of the 1980's there was growth for something like 8 out of 9 years but there was still massive unemployment. When the Finnish economy returned to growth after its recession in the early 90's it was 5 years before there was any growth in employment.

    Most of the unemployment is among the youth and they don't vote in big numbers - so the govt is hoping the world economy picks up and they will have places to emigrate to. If that doesn't happen then we are in trouble.


  • Moderators, Category Moderators, Arts Moderators, Business & Finance Moderators, Entertainment Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 18,555 CMod ✭✭✭✭Nody


    So people who can't afford to go more than a few days without pay are "arrogant" and "out of touch".
    Yes because if a person in PS is paid 10% or more then someone in a similar private company AND still have spent that much money that they can't afford even losing a few days of wage they are going to be royally screwed once the interest rate starts to rise; and that is even before we add in the next budget cuts in to the picture.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,914 ✭✭✭danbohan


    Dazzler88 wrote: »
    the government are doing the same as they did in the Eighties.Let the youth leave and hopefully it will relieve social welfare. who cares if 80,000 or so have to move abroad? You wont see any ministers sons or daughters going Then these youth might comeback to retire and we'll give them an easy pension. Sure we didnt help them 40/50 years ago when they left,its the least we could do. History is repeating itself.

    agreed , and they also borrowed money to placate the public service in the 80s as they are doing now


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,227 ✭✭✭✭jmayo


    Ireland is in a much worse position now than ever it was in the 80s.

    Not alone do we have a huge current deficit due to years of pandering to unionised public servants and welfare recipients, we have huge collosal cost fo bailing out insolvent useless banks.

    Add in the fact that we don't have the luxury of having healthy world economies to offload our young unemployed.
    Add in the fact that our labour and business costs are now very high and we have to compete with all the much cheaper Eastern European former Soviet block countries and Asia for FDI from Japan, Europe, US and Korea.
    There is a worldwide recession meaning FDI is down anyway.

    Add in the huge level of personal debt being carried by a huge chunk of our population in the age groups above 20 and below 50.

    All of these mean that we are facing a much bigger uphill task than in the 80s.

    The only way the government can directly create jobs is through wholesale infrastructure jobs which means capital expenditure.
    It would be a kinda New Deal type affair but remember machines do much of the work that mankind once did.
    I believe shoving people on Fás training courses is just massaging the figures.

    The big thing the government can do is create an environment, so that it is attractive to set up business here and thus hope to create jobs that way.

    Of course that means they cut the cost of doing business here by cutting minimum wages (and by extension welfare), cutting cost of services provided by the state to private sector (water, power, transport) and cutting state taxes (rates, prsi).

    I am not allowed discuss …



  • Closed Accounts Posts: 290 ✭✭alias141282


    jmayo wrote: »
    Ireland is in a much worse position now than ever it was in the 80s.

    Not alone do we have a huge current deficit due to years of pandering to unionised public servants and welfare recipients, we have huge collosal cost fo bailing out insolvent useless banks.

    Add in the fact that we don't have the luxury of having healthy world economies to offload our young unemployed.
    Add in the fact that our labour and business costs are now very high and we have to compete with all the much cheaper Eastern European former Soviet block countries and Asia for FDI from Japan, Europe, US and Korea.
    There is a worldwide recession meaning FDI is down anyway.

    Add in the huge level of personal debt being carried by a huge chunk of our population in the age groups above 20 and below 50.

    All of these mean that we are facing a much bigger uphill task than in the 80s.
    ).

    Totally agree.

    jmayo wrote: »
    The big thing the government can do is create an environment, so that it is attractive to set up business here and thus hope to create jobs that way.

    Of course that means they cut the cost of doing business here by cutting minimum wages (and by extension welfare), cutting cost of services provided by the state to private sector (water, power, transport) and cutting state taxes (rates, prsi).

    Yes to make Ireland attractive to foreign companies, given the competition we face now and given the shrinking pie of foreign direct investment, you would basically have to destroy democracy and divert almost all of the states resources away from core areas of social investment and instead give that money (through grants, investment and tax breaks) to private companies.


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,121 ✭✭✭RichardAnd


    stepbar wrote: »
    Here's an idea... maybe the people THEMSELVES should take responcibility to create jobs themselves? Remind me of a time in college when students gave out about the college not doing enough to secure work placements for people. Those who got placements did the donkey work themselves. You cannot seriously expect the Government to solve absolutely every problem in this country. It's time people took personal responcibility for what happened during the boom years and try to work through it.

    And BTW I'm not in any way trying to absolve the Government from their sins but people need to take responcibility as well.


    Agreed. But alot of people DO expect the government to solve all their problems. I'm actually surprised that Joe Duffy didn't do a few shows where people could call up and ask what FF are going to do to stop that volcano erupting.

    Would have been entertaining; "Joe, I pay me taxes like what them germans does, why can't me and me mates fly to Spain and get s**tfaced?"


  • Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,445 ✭✭✭BluePlanet


    Which would you prefer, everyone to lose 30%+ of their net worth due to currency devaluation, or make cuts?
    Why not take a bit of both?
    Obviously we need cuts to the government bill, but that's self evident.
    I thought the idea of a deflationary cycle was that it was going to make Ireland a cheaper place to do business adn therefor attract jobs?
    And the only hitch was we can't do that the easy way by devaluing currency.

    Why not push toward lower wages, reduce costs, mandate job-sharing, maybe a 3.5 day week (the goal being the one position is filled by 2 people) etc etc.
    Surely it's better to get people working rather than idyling on the dole.

    This "laissez faire" do-nothing isn't creating jobs.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,251 ✭✭✭Sandvich


    Spudmonkey wrote: »
    Why not get out and create some jobs. There are a few on boards who have taken it upon themselves to get up of their ****s and get out and do something. And not just setting up a coffee shop or hair-dressing salon, but companies which actually exports services abroad, which guess what... are exactly what we need!!

    We should thank our lucky stars these people are still here willing to pay taxes in a country which actively seems to discourage any kind of entrepreneurship (what with no safety nets for those who are actually willing to take a chance)

    Even those who are involved in wealth generation in this country, how reliant are we on FDI? Even I am guilty of it. We always seem to expect someone to come in and set up a company and start employing people. Never taking it upon ourselves.

    Where are you going to get the loans for this? Also not everyone can run a business. People should absolutely do something about it - but what and how? There's something deeper wrong here, and it's not public servants and welfare recipients.
    RichardAnd wrote: »
    Agreed. But alot of people DO expect the government to solve all their problems. I'm actually surprised that Joe Duffy didn't do a few shows where people could call up and ask what FF are going to do to stop that volcano erupting.

    Would have been entertaining; "Joe, I pay me taxes like what them germans does, why can't me and me mates fly to Spain and get s**tfaced?"

    Expecting the people on their own to take any kind of organised action especially in Ireland is pretty unrealistic.

    One of the Libertarian's rather assways excuse for bitching about welfare and not bailouts was that we could do something about it - it's possible to do something about the government, but getting everyone to fix the economy isn't going to work.

    As per your comment; I heard a much better one; "Irish taxpayers pay for Volcano - sure why not, they're paying for everything else."


Advertisement