A question to all Cowen critics here

Johnny Murphy FF

Should we reinstate Bertie as leader of FF and of the country. If we are to be honest with ourselves, Cowen has been blamed for too much and it is seems is crackign under the weight of pressure.

Just thinking back, and I admit it I did vote for Bertie for these reasons

(1) prosperity
(2) Northern Troubles sorted/ GFA
(3) Improving standard of life.

So its up for debate, if not Cowen is it time to bring Ahern back to FF and give the country a second chance?

Revolution9

Johnny Murphy FF wrote: »

Should we reinstate Bertie as leader of FF and of the country. If we are to be honest with ourselves, Cowen has been blamed for too much and it is seems is crackign under the weight of pressure.

Just thinking back, and I admit it I did vote for Bertie for these reasons

(1) prosperity
(2) Northern Troubles sorted/ GFA
(3) Improving standard of life.

So its up for debate, if not Cowen is it time to bring Ahern back to FF and give the country a second chance?

Ahern was not the sole factor behind the prosperity brought by the Celtic Tiger, like your post seems to suggest. The boom would've happened with or without his input. Infact, it would've lasted longer if not for his criminal party culture of brown envelopes and golden handshakes.
The man is a fraud and should be jailed, not re-elected.

FreudianSlippers

Get rid of Cowen ASAP, but why bring back Bertie? Jesus, it's backwards thinking like this that makes all the parties in this country equally shíte.

super_furry

How about we just get rid of Fianna Fail - the people that have steered the country into the mess it's in?

FreudianSlippers

super_furry wrote: »

How about we just get rid of Fianna Fail - the people that have steered the country into the mess it's in?

Oh yeah, because it was just Fianna Fáil that did this. Come on :rolleyes:

Cool Mo D

The only thing that Cowen has going for him is that at least he isn't Bertie Ahern - the man who is probably is the most culpable individual in the country for the mess we're now in.

Johnny Murphy FF

OisinT wrote: »

Oh yeah, because it was just Fianna Fáil that did this. Come on :rolleyes:

The other parties are angels of course :rolleyes:

Drummerboy08

Find me a person who represents the general public and actually cares about what happens to this country and I will vote him in, whether he is a member of Fianna Fail/Fine Gael/Labour/etc.

Find someone who seems to have a bigger interest in his/her bank account, pension and entitlements and we ain't getting out of this hole anytime soon.

Bertie certainly doesnt deserve a second chance though.

FactSeeker

The Celtic Tiger was a ponzi scheme.

Do people still not understand that ?

southsiderosie

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

Find me a person who represents the general public and actually cares about what happens to this country and I will vote him in, whether he is a member of Fianna Fail/Fine Gael/Labour/etc.

Find someone who seems to have a bigger interest in his/her bank account, pension and entitlements and we ain't getting out of this hole anytime soon.

Bertie certainly doesnt deserve a second chance though.

Would someone from any of those parties put the interests of the country above the interest of the party?

We KNOW they won't within FF. But I have my doubts about the other two.

super_furry

OisinT wrote: »

Oh yeah, because it was just Fianna Fáil that did this. Come on :rolleyes:

Well which other political parties are responsible for the current state the country is in?

Traditional

where is BIFFO & CHIPS to day , hiding in china , the size of him , built like a brick house , sure he is the typical irish bacon & cabbage man , slurp slurp .

Wicklowrider

Johnny Murphy FF wrote: »

Should we reinstate Bertie as leader of FF and of the country. If we are to be honest with ourselves, Cowen has been blamed for too much and it is seems is crackign under the weight of pressure.

Just thinking back, and I admit it I did vote for Bertie for these reasons

(1) prosperity
(2) Northern Troubles sorted/ GFA
(3) Improving standard of life.

So its up for debate, if not Cowen is it time to bring Ahern back to FF and give the country a second chance?

On the off chance this isn't trolling:
How would you get him back? He ran like the rat he is at the 1st signs of trouble.Do you seriouly think that he'd face up to what he caused? Also, do you really believe he had anything to do with peace in North? Do you think anyone who held weapons gave a flying so & so about Bertie (or FF, or anyone in the South or England for that matter). If you do believe that even one paramilitary laid aside a weapon because of Bertie you are incredibly naive.

FreudianSlippers

super_furry wrote: »

Well which other political parties are responsible for the current state the country is in?

Fine Gael and Labour actually.

So many people posting crying about how the Celtic Tiger was a ponzi scheme etc. when they don't remember (obviously) that the Rainbow Coalition was in power until 1997.

You're seriously kidding yourself if you think that they weren't doing the same garbage as the FF government that followed and that John Bruton wasn't JUST as bad as Bertie Ahern.

Take off your family blinders that makes you so pro whatever party you are blindly following and wake up: We need all new parties in this country... they're all crooks at the moment

Drummerboy08

southsiderosie wrote: »

Would someone from any of those parties put the interests of the country above the interest of the party?

We KNOW they won't within FF. But I have my doubts about the other two.

Agreed.

I'm fairly sure Kenny is of the same ilk, and Gormley hasnt a hope.

Gilmore could make a goof job of it, its just a shame he hasnt got much of a party behind him to do it.

FreudianSlippers

Drummerboy08 wrote: »

Gilmore could make a goof job of it, its just a shame he hasnt got much of a party behind him to do it.

Freudian slip? :P

FactSeeker

OisinT wrote: »

Fine Gael and Labour actually.

So many people posting crying about how the Celtic Tiger was a ponzi scheme etc. when they don't remember (obviously) that the Rainbow Coalition was in power until 1997.

You're seriously kidding yourself if you think that they weren't doing the same garbage as the FF government that followed and that John Bruton wasn't JUST as bad as Bertie Ahern.

Take off your family blinders that makes you so pro whatever party you are blindly following and wake up: We need all new parties in this country... they're all crooks at the moment

The growth from 94-97 was sustainable and real.

Edit: Also, blaming parties that were last in power 13 years ago would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

starbelgrade

OisinT wrote: »

Fine Gael and Labour actually.

So many people posting crying about how the Celtic Tiger was a ponzi scheme etc. when they don't remember (obviously) that the Rainbow Coalition was in power until 1997.

You're seriously kidding yourself if you think that they weren't doing the same garbage as the FF government that followed and that John Bruton wasn't JUST as bad as Bertie Ahern.

Take off your family blinders that makes you so pro whatever party you are blindly following and wake up: We need all new parties in this country... they're all crooks at the moment

As far as I know, no current or previous members of Labour or the Green Party have been involved in corruption allegations, scandals, tribunals or have ever served time in prison.

Unlike the long list of Fianna Fail members & the shorter list of Fianna Gael ones.

Callan57

Listening to Vincent Browne's Monday night prog on playback & Vincent again said 'whatever Cowan is he's not a moron .. he's very bright'. I'm well sick of hearing this on Pat Kenny, Matt Cooper etc etc

Will someone please, please give me an example to justify this assessment of him as bright?

Obviously Seanie & Co didn't think he was particularly 'bright' and he proved them right! Or is it just that because he has a legal qualification ergo he is assumed to be is 'very bright'?

Vinegar Hill

A proper investigation needs to be done into the entire bank bailout and the reasons behind it. The investigation should be by an independent commission and not affiliated with the government. The actions of Cowen and the government need to be part of this investigation.

Then files need to be sent to the DPP if appropriate.

FreudianSlippers

FactSeeker wrote: »

The growth from 94-97 was sustainable and real.

Edit: Also, blaming parties that were last in power 13 years ago would be funny if it wasn't so serious.

The annual average rate of growth during that period was 8.7%. That is abnormally high for any country, especially during that period of time.

I'm no fan of FF, but let's be honest the Celtic Tiger was born under Bruton in 94, that's a fact. If you want to blame the Celtic Tiger then you have to blame the Rainbow Coalition too. That started 13 years ago.

The problem was not the recession, it was worldwide and we couldn't avoid it. The problem is the reaction to the recession and all of the parties have had their thumbs up their collective arses.

starbelgrade wrote: »

As far as I know, no current or previous members of Labour or the Green Party have been involved in corruption allegations, scandals, tribunals or have ever served time in prison.

Unlike the long list of Fianna Fail members & the shorter list of Fianna Gael ones.

I'll give you that Labour and Greens haven't been in too many scandals, except Dick Spring in the 90s.

But, they're not exactly the best parties as far as policy goes.

starbelgrade

OisinT wrote: »

I'll give you that Labour and Greens haven't been in too many scandals, except Dick Spring in the 90s.

But, they're not exactly the best parties as far as policy goes.

That may well be true, but it doesn't make them crooks.

FreudianSlippers

starbelgrade wrote: »

That may well be true, but it doesn't make them crooks.

Point taken. I should have said "they're all either crooks or incompetent"

dan_d

Well Bertie thinks he left everything in perfect order, and there were no problems at all.

Maybe if we bring him back, we can all live in lah-lah land with him???

starbelgrade

OisinT wrote: »

Point taken. I should have said "they're all either crooks or incompetent"

Now, that - I cannot dispute.

bmaxi

I wouldn't give a fiddler's if Kim Jung Il was leader of FF (and sometimes it seems like he is) so long as they fcuk off and leave us alone.

OisinT, I don't know how you can compare the growth in the 90's based on manufacturing and hi-tech industry to the growth that happened in the new millennium under FF which involved people taking out massive loans to buy massively overpriced property from each other - which was fueled by government policy and propaganda, tax breaks etc

I honestly don't know where your comparison is coming from. Can you explain?



Oh and on topic - Bertie Ahern is a CROOK and it's jail he should be in, rather than the taoiseach's office.

FreudianSlippers

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

OisinT, I don't know how you can compare the growth in the 90's based on manufacturing and hi-tech industry to the growth that happened in the new millennium under FF which involved people taking out massive loans to buy massively overpriced property from each other - which was fueled by government policy and propaganda, tax breaks etc

I honestly don't know where your comparison is coming from. Can you explain?



Oh and on topic - Bertie Ahern is a CROOK and it's jail he should be in, rather than the taoiseach's office.

How do you think that growth in manufacturing and hi-tech happened? They just magic'd money out of nothing to draw in these companies?

It's not necessarily our government's fault that they (we) followed standard international practice of living off of borrowed money. It backfired because of greed, not even necessarily greed in this country. The US sparked this recession and the house of cards fell. Let's just accept that, deal with it and move on.

Liam Byrne

Johnny Murphy FF wrote: »

Should we reinstate Bertie as leader of FF and of the country.

Absolutely not. Ahern lies through his teeth even in current interviews about the crisis, once second saying that he "was never warned" and the next having to apologise for telling those who warned him that he can't understand why they don't commit suicide.

Johnny Murphy FF wrote: »

If we are to be honest with ourselves, Cowen has been blamed for too much and it is seems is crackign under the weight of pressure.

If we were to be truly honest, then Cowen has been blamed too little and still hasn't taken responsibility for the decisions that he made as Minister for Finance.

Johnny Murphy FF wrote: »

Just thinking back, and I admit it I did vote for Bertie for these reasons

(1) prosperity
(2) Northern Troubles sorted/ GFA
(3) Improving standard of life.

You can vote for him based on whatever you like, but of those 3 things there's only one that I would remotely associate with Ahern, and that's the part that he played in #2 (along with others).

Johnny Murphy FF wrote: »

So its up for debate, if not Cowen is it time to bring Ahern back to FF and give the country a second chance?

It's certainly not up for debate, because bad and all as Cowen is, he's nowhere near as bad as Ahern.

OisinT

OisinT wrote: »

How do you think that growth in manufacturing and hi-tech happened? They just magic'd money out of nothing to draw in these companies?

It's not necessarily our government's fault that they (we) followed standard international practice of living off of borrowed money. It backfired because of greed, not even necessarily greed in this country. The US sparked this recession and the house of cards fell. Let's just accept that, deal with it and move on.

I don't understand the part in bold. What do you mean? They drew in the companies by making Ireland an attractive place to invest. What has that got to do with a government running a ponzi scheme based on selling houses? I don't see the comparison.

FreudianSlippers

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

I don't understand the part in bold. What do you mean? They drew in the companies by making Ireland an attractive place to invest.

...by tax breaks and borrowing to invest in infrastructure.

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

What has that got to do with a government running a ponzi scheme based on selling houses? I don't see the comparison.

:rolleyes:

OisinT

OisinT wrote: »

...by tax breaks and borrowing to invest in infrastructure.

:rolleyes:

I'm absolutely stumped. Perhaps you're making a brilliant point but after a long day my brain simply can't absorb such brilliance. Or else you're just making absolutely no sense.


So :rolleyes: you go.

Het-Field

OisinT wrote: »

How do you think that growth in manufacturing and hi-tech happened? They just magic'd money out of nothing to draw in these companies?

It's not necessarily our government's fault that they (we) followed standard international practice of living off of borrowed money. It backfired because of greed, not even necessarily greed in this country. The US sparked this recession and the house of cards fell. Let's just accept that, deal with it and move on.

In fairness, that is only partially true. Much of the cheap credit which Ireland was enjoying was of German origin. Furthermore, the experience of other countries would also suggest that the issues are far more systemic (home grown) in some countries as opposed to others. Countries like Germany have enjoyed unexpected levels of growth since August 2009. Canada's banking system was set up to guard against large overdrafts and loans, with a more conservative ratio of deposits to loans. Australia was shielded from the worst effects of the recession thanks to John Howard's fiscal rectitude. As such it is oversimplifying the crisis to look to America's problems as the root of all ills. Other European states are incrementally developing. On the other hand, Ireland is not. We have been fed spin and political jargon, but it cannot mask the cold hard facts that we are where we are thanks to ignorance of legislated banking regulation, wanton increases in public expenditure, and the Gvoernment's willingness to inflate the property market through state and interference in the sector.

This borrowed money was used on projects, such as benchmarking II, which were intended to placate sectors of society. The same applies to goodies like SSIA Schemes and the Over 65s medical card which were handed out in the 2001 Budget in an attempt to make FF look like a caring party. After the 2004Locals, Bertie and his friends decided that popularity could only be achieved through wanton public expenditure increases of 10% per annum. The Reigling & Watson report, and the Honohan report make it clear, we were the architects of our own downfall. To blame America is a bit of a cop-out.

Laminations

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

I'm absolutely stumped. Perhaps you're making a brilliant point but...

He's really not

Or else you're just making absolutely no sense.

That's closer to the truth

OisinT wrote: »

...by tax breaks and borrowing to invest in infrastructure.

:rolleyes:

You do realise that that type of long term investment, which benefits both society and economy for decades is a part of what you'd call 'sustainable' investment. Regardless of whether the money was borrowed, it's where the money is spent that matters. The pre bubble Celtic tiger was healthy growth, it was healthy to incentivise businesses to come here, it always is. If you can't see the difference between the economic legacy of the rainbow coalition and what the current gov will leave the next generation then I don't know how to debate with you, one may as well go reason with a bin cos it'd spout a similar amount of rubbish

southsiderosie

(sorry this is so long, even for me, but...)

Most outside economic analyses I've read of the "Tiger years" are really referring to the 1990s. Ireland cut taxes, had a highly educated, English-speaking workforce, and women were starting to enter the workforce in larger numbers. They also made some economic and legal changes in preparation to enter the euro zone. All of this led to a very high-productivity workforce for a reasonably low cost, which in turn drove the first wave of the boom, which was driven by international investment, especially from the US.

FF came back into power in the late 1990s, when the groundwork had been laid (and to their credit, they did play a role in this in earlier years, although some would argue that the PDs played a significant role in this). And the euro was introduced in 1999 (for banking purposes). So FF was handed an economic boom, but they also found themselves in a situation where they had lost a key policy tool - the ability to control interest rates in order to dampen economic overheating.

And what did they do? They put the car into overdrive.

Now as I said, I don't know that the other parties would have done anything differently. Labor was pretty quiet since social partnership worked for most of the public sector. Fine Gael had (and still suffers from) an identity crisis, and veered between wanting to be FF-lite, out Bertie-ing Bertie, and being true economic conservatives.

What I do know, however, is that Fianna Fail coalition governments did nothing to try and control the overheating economy. I think some of this was ideological, as the PD wing of government was opposed to regulating business and capital. And the parish pump wing of the party had no idea how to manage a modern, growing service economy. And we are all now living with the results.

So, yes the government deserves blame. But within the government, I think those that deserve particular blame are those who are or were responsible for economic policy from 1997 - 2008. And who might that be...???

Charlie McCreevey, Finance, 1997 - 2004
Brian Cowen, Finance 2004-2008

Now considering how "boomy" the boom was under Cowen, he is precisely who should have led the charge to cool down the overheating economy.

And he didn't.

Cowen failed as a finance minister, and given his inability to address the nation or international investors in a coherent honest manner, he is failing as taoiseach as well.

maynooth_rules

Is it not indicative of thew stupidity of many in this country that a decent percentage of people still yurn for Bertie back. How could any educated person with even a passing interest in politics not have seen through the chancer by now.

FactSeeker

Laminations wrote: »

He's really not



That's closer to the truth




You do realise that that type of long term investment, which benefits both society and economy for decades is a part of what you'd call 'sustainable' investment. Regardless of whether the money was borrowed, it's where the money is spent that matters. The pre bubble Celtic tiger was healthy growth, it was health to incentivise businesses to come here, it always is. If you can't see the deference between the economic legacy of the rainbow coalition and what the current gov will leave the next generation they I don't know how to debate with you, one may as well go reason with a bin cos it'd spout a similar amount of rubbish

I agree, how do you debate with someone who sees investment in infrastructure to attract high value businesses which will employ educated people as the same thing as borrowing to inflate a property bubble.

The sad thing is I don't think he's trolling.

Johnny Murphy FF

maynooth_rules wrote: »

Is it not indicative of thew stupidity of many in this country that a decent percentage of people still yurn for Bertie back. How could any educated person with even a passing interest in politics not have seen through the chancer by now.

So says the man who calls the rest of us stupid while spelling the as thew. Bertie done great things, if it was anybody else they would rightfully be regarded as a national hero, but grudges hold people back from admitting the truth, its almost trendy to hate and mock Bertie, despite the great man he is and was.

desertcircus

I'm astonished that anyone seriously thinks that the collapse of the Irish economy was a result entirely of the global credit crunch. The reason it happened was certainly the crunch; the scale of our collapse is entirely due to internal factors. Construction comprised 5% of the economy in 1996 and twice that in 2006; Ireland reached eurozone-average per capita earnings in 1998. Average house prices went up about 20-30% between 1995 and 1997; they went up about 300% between 1997 and 2007. A boom based on using a highly-educated English-speaking workforce in the Eurozone is massively different to a boom based on building houses to sell to speculators without any thought for whether anyone would actually want to live in them.

One party was continuously in government from 1997 onwards. FG and Labour may not have covered themselves in glory, but they didn't have their hands on the wheel. They didn't make the decision to keep the whole farce going. This is one thing that drives me nuts about people laughing at the idea of Labour being given a say in economic affairs - they'd find it difficult to do anywhere nearly as badly as FF did. Simply paying attention when the IMF point out that your economy is ready to go bang, or making some token effort to keep an eye on lending practices, would instantly make them about thirty times more credible than FF.

FreudianSlippers

Laminations wrote: »

He's really not



That's closer to the truth




You do realise that that type of long term investment, which benefits both society and economy for decades is a part of what you'd call 'sustainable' investment. Regardless of whether the money was borrowed, it's where the money is spent that matters. The pre bubble Celtic tiger was healthy growth, it was health to incentivise businesses to come here, it always is. If you can't see the deference between the economic legacy of the rainbow coalition and what the current gov will leave the next generation they I don't know how to debate with you, one may as well go reason with a bin cos it'd spout a similar amount of rubbish

Firstly, 8.7% growth is not healthy growth no matter how you slice it.

Secondly, an earlier poster said that the Celtic Tiger was a ponzi scheme.
I pointed out that the Celtic Tiger began during the Rainbow Coalition.
Another poster moans about tax breaks and borrowing, which happened during the 90s as well in order to build up the Celtic Tiger as well.

The point is that the same carry on happened in the 90s that happened recently. The thing that happened differently this time is that there was an international financial meltdown, had that not happened we could still be booming (maybe).
Had the same thing happened in 1997, we'd be in the same boat complaining about the tax cuts and borrowing that happened immediately prior.

Saying ponzi scheme over and over again doesn't make any more sense and if you don't understand that, you're better off talking to the bin because it's probably more on par with the intelligence level

DHYNZY

We need a strong leader. We need someone who is up to standard on a global level.

desertcircus

Johnny Murphy FF wrote: »

So says the man who calls the rest of us stupid while spelling the as thew. Bertie done great things, if it was anybody else they would rightfully be regarded as a national hero, but grudges hold people back from admitting the truth, its almost trendy to hate and mock Bertie, despite the great man he is and was.

If you're going to correct a typo, the least you could have managed was use "did" instead of "done".

Seth Brundle

Johnny Murphy FF wrote: »

So says the man who calls the rest of us stupid while spelling the as thew. Bertie done great things, if it was anybody else they would rightfully be regarded as a national hero, but grudges hold people back from admitting the truth, its almost trendy to hate and mock Bertie, despite the great man he is and was.

Your username shows where your loyalties lie but seriously can you not see the man for what he is?Seriously open your eyes and stop believeing all of the hype! Think for yourself for once!

FreudianSlippers

desertcircus wrote: »

I'm astonished that anyone seriously thinks that the collapse of the Irish economy was a result entirely of the global credit crunch. The reason it happened was certainly the crunch; the scale of our collapse is entirely due to internal factors. Construction comprised 5% of the economy in 1996 and twice that in 2006; Ireland reached eurozone-average per capita earnings in 1998. Average house prices went up about 20-30% between 1995 and 1997; they went up about 300% between 1997 and 2007. A boom based on using a highly-educated English-speaking workforce in the Eurozone is massively different to a boom based on building houses to sell to speculators without any thought for whether anyone would actually want to live in them.

One party was continuously in government from 1997 onwards. FG and Labour may not have covered themselves in glory, but they didn't have their hands on the wheel. They didn't make the decision to keep the whole farce going. This is one thing that drives me nuts about people laughing at the idea of Labour being given a say in economic affairs - they'd find it difficult to do anywhere nearly as badly as FF did. Simply paying attention when the IMF point out that your economy is ready to go bang, or making some token effort to keep an eye on lending practices, would instantly make them about thirty times more credible than FF.

No, of course it wasn't the result. My point is that the same or similar practices happened when the Rainbow Coalition was in power. Dishonesty is dishonestly and stupid practices are stupid practices. It takes a global financial crisis to bring these acts to light.

One didn't happen in the 90s so the crap that went on then didn't come to light.

Crying about who we should blame isn't going to solve much. Unfortunately, the same problem exists in this country as it always had, and this problem is clearly visible on boards: Someone believes in their party, be it FF or FG or Labour - and they believe blindly and vehemently.
They blame the rival party for everything. ANYONE BUT FF! is what they start shouting without realising that their party is pretty garbage too.
Real reform and change will arise when these people take off their blinders and start voting for people in any party once they have sound politics and policies.

OisinT

OisinT wrote: »

Firstly, 8.7% growth is not healthy growth no matter how you slice it.

Secondly, an earlier poster said that the Celtic Tiger was a ponzi scheme.
I pointed out that the Celtic Tiger began during the Rainbow Coalition.
Another poster moans about tax breaks and borrowing, which happened during the 90s as well in order to build up the Celtic Tiger as well.

The point is that the same carry on happened in the 90s that happened recently. The thing that happened differently this time is that there was an international financial meltdown, had that not happened we could still be booming (maybe).
Had the same thing happened in 1997, we'd be in the same boat complaining about the tax cuts and borrowing that happened immediately prior.

Saying ponzi scheme over and over again doesn't make any more sense and if you don't understand that, you're better off talking to the bin because it's probably more on par with the intelligence level

Welcome to boards, Bertie!

desertcircus

How is a specific level of growth intrinsically unhealthy? The growth seen in the late 1990s simply brought Ireland up from a horrendously low starting point to being even with the rest of Europe.

southsiderosie

OisinT wrote: »

The point is that the same carry on happened in the 90s that happened recently. The thing that happened differently this time is that there was an international financial meltdown, had that not happened we could still be booming (maybe).
Had the same thing happened in 1997, we'd be in the same boat complaining about the tax cuts and borrowing that happened immediately prior.

Saying ponzi scheme over and over again doesn't make any more sense and if you don't understand that, you're better off talking to the bin because it's probably more on par with the intelligence level

NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO NO.

The 1990s are NOT comparable to the 2000s, with one key difference being the inability of Irish interest rates to move independently.

The last 8 years HAVE been a TEXTBOOK ponzi scheme (i.e. get rich quick and leave someone else holding the bag when the music stops), and that was obvious by 2006.

FreudianSlippers

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Welcome to boards, Bertie!

An intelligent and well thought out response. Thank you.

OisinT

OisinT wrote: »

An intelligent and well thought out response. Thank you.

Thrice as intelligent as anything you've posted, my dear boy


Anyway handbags be gone, I'm done with this thread.

FreudianSlippers

desertcircus wrote: »

How is a specific level of growth intrinsically unhealthy? The growth seen in the late 1990s simply brought Ireland up from a horrendously low starting point to being even with the rest of Europe.

Perhaps you have no knowledge of neoclassical growth theory, but it covers long-term economic growth etc.

Basically though, when a country has high economic growth in comparison to richer countries (8.7% compared to other countries with more money between 2% and 5% during that period) they are far more likely to experience severe recessions when the global market restricts. These countries also experience higher than normal output losses.

It's also pretty clear that policies directed towards achieving high economic growth are far substandard to policies which are focused on achieving economic stability - these policies may hinder economic growth, but it allows for less severe losses during global economic and credit crunches.

DHYNZY

OisinT wrote: »

- these policies may hinder economic growth, but it allows for less severe losses during global economic and credit crunches.

But wheres the fun in that??