Most ridiculous policies

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Reilly616

To be honest, it'd be great if we did have some more independent cinemas showing the best the world has to offer rather than Hollywood mediocrity. But regulation of cinemas, I must agree, is an awful idea!

CDfm

Ah Permabear - heres one for ya on FIS NUA local town currency the youro

The Irish Times - Monday, February 7, 2011New party targets corruption




FIONA GARTLAND
Its policies include the establishment of local currencies at council level to be linked together through a national network. The local currencies would work in a similar way to the Kenmare Youro, already in operation in the Kerry town. Shoppers there can buy youros for 95c, and so get a 5 per cent discount on goods when they shop locally.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Shelga

The policy of raising minimum wage back to €8.65, essentially because "cuts aren't fair!" complete with foot stomp :rolleyes:

Mahatma coat

the Youro has been shown to be an effective boost to the economy of Kenmare

I would push the boat out and bring back the Punt along the same lines

MaceFace

Putting a pay freeze on the private sector - Labour

wolfpawnat

Putting a ban and tax on those found in breach of said ban on the low price selling if alcohol - Fine Gael.

I am not a drinker, but surely that would be unfair, if Tesco can bring the consumer a product cheaper than Dunnes (or vice versa) then they should be allowed to!

30,000 more redundancies from the health sector BUT increase its efficiency again FG.

Cutting the SW and only creating 20,000 jobs a year - FG I know they plan on stamping down on Welfare fraud and that is both needed and a good thing, but there are the recently unemployed that will get cut money from what they have already, which is very little and there is not going to be work there for them!


FG and FF are as mad as one another seriously

later12

The Youro was a fantastic marketing idea for Kenmare, whoever came up with it deserves to be congratulated. I would also love to see that idea of Macdara Blaney's realised and a reversal of the dumbing down culture.

The really serious ridiculous policies, worryingly, include Fine Gael's idea to guarantee the banks' lending to SMEs. Has it ever crossed their collective mind that there may be excellent reasons not to lend to a lot of SMEs and that perhaps civil servants are not the best equipped to make lending decisions and furthermore that faulty and artificially inflated lending volumes by senior bank management, with the compliance of the state, was what got Ireland into its current banking mess to begin with.

randomhuman

CDfm wrote: »

Ah Permabear - heres one for ya on FIS NUA local town currency the youro

Local currencies can actually be a very effective way of boosting an economy. An Austrian town called Worgl created one during the great depression and their local economy recovered rapidly. When the currency was outlawed by the national government they collapsed back to the same state the rest of the country was in.

http://www.globalideasbank.org/site/bank/idea.php?ideaId=904

I've heard quite a few people say that a lot of our problems are being exacerbated by our lack of control over our currency, so maybe local currencies would be a good way of regaining that control.

The name is just terrible though...

ei.sdraob

@PermaBear+CDfm scrip/local currencies are a great idea, few articles over on Mises about it

I even had a thread here

MaceFace

wolfpawnat wrote: »

Putting a ban and tax on those found in breach of said ban on the low price selling if alcohol - Fine Gael.

I am not a drinker, but surely that would be unfair, if Tesco can bring the consumer a product cheaper than Dunnes (or vice versa) then they should be allowed to!

For most products that would be true, but there is a solid case for putting a ban on below cost selling for alcohol.

wolfpawnat wrote: »

30,000 more redundancies from the health sector BUT increase its efficiency again FG.

It is 30,000 out of the ENTIRE public sector, not just health.
BTW: The HSE can afford to lose a lot of people - remember this is the organisation that was formed by four independent health boards and not a single job was lost. Absolutely no savings from staffing

Lockstep

MaceFace wrote: »

Putting a pay freeze on the private sector - Labour

Fairly misleading, especially referring to the private sector as a single entity. Labour's suggestion was on negotiating pay freezes with workers in certain areas via worker representatives (unions).

Lockstep

MaceFace wrote: »

For most products that would be true, but there is a solid case for putting a ban on below cost selling for alcohol.

What's the solid case?
If a shop can sell cheap alcohol, that's their own business. Ditto if they want to maintain longer opening hours.

ednwireland

anything by FF, they've spent 14 years getting us here and now they are the peopel to lead us out, c'mon. complete utter lack of credibility

Block G Raptor

The ULA plans to forcibly nationalise all companies that they deem to be guilty of irresponsible practices and then give them the option to buy their own companies back after 5 years. Bye Bye Google,Intel, Ebay,Twitter,PayPal et al

grahmkeatley

Green Party - Education;

I dont find it ridiculous in terms of anything it states, but in its content;

http://www.greenparty.ie/en/policies/education__1

It is a 50 Step plan in which 25 steps are not discussed. 1-24 are outlined, Step 50 is a summary of the overall benefit. But 25-49 are just... not there. Also, the links to their separate domain for the policy is expired. No money to cover costs?

Also, another aspect of Green Party website, they have 3 Policy documents posted on their website in which it tells me I dont have permission to access. Brilliant. Access Denied.

-Graham

MaceFace

Lockstep wrote: »

Fairly misleading, especially referring to the private sector as a single entity. Labour's suggestion was on negotiating pay freezes with workers in certain areas via worker representatives (unions).

The text of their document is:
"Labour favours a negotiated wage freeze for three years. This would provide
certainty for investment in Irish enterprise."

One of Labours wishy washy type policies. Not only does it lack any commitment, it doesn't even spell out how or where a freeze will apply.
Complete b0l0xgy.

If this is anything but embarrasing rubish, please tell me how you can negotiate a pay freeze?
What areas?

MaceFace

Lockstep wrote: »

What's the solid case?
If a shop can sell cheap alcohol, that's their own business. Ditto if they want to maintain longer opening hours.

It is not about selling "cheap" alcohol, but against having alcohol as a loss-leader.
Making alcohol available at unnaturally cheap prices results in a large increase in bulk sales, which leads to more binge drinking. This is not good for anyone.

Allowing below cost selling allows the likes of Tesco/Dunnes etc to destroy local businesses which is not good for anyone. Sometimes decisions are taken that are unpopular for certain groups of people (us drinkers), but is for the greater good.

I have heard for years that if we were more like the continent our dependence on alcohol would change, but all the changes that have come in over the last 10-20 years has done nothing to change our behaviour to alcohol! All that has changes is people are drinking at home rather than the pubs.

Scrambled egg

If you want a ridiculous policy , look no further than Sinn Fein's economic policy.

Sponge Bob

Somebody told a local FF candidate in Galway West that there was a half quota in people working for or related to people working in An Post. So he developed this awful website .

http://www.saveourpost.com/

It is a policy and principle free zone.

ei.sdraob

grahmkeatley wrote: »

No money to cover costs?

10$ domain renewal?

Registrant:
Domains

Ginza 1-27-8
Sentoraru bld. 703
Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0061
Japan

Registered through: ISAS
Domain Name: 50STEPS.COM
Created on: 23-Dec-10
Expires on: 23-Dec-11
Last Updated on: 23-Dec-10

Administrative Contact:
Ooedo, Ooedo Domains saitohajime_trait_walk@yahoo.co.jp
Domains
Ginza 1-27-8
Sentoraru bld. 703
Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0061
Japan
+81.5055528148

Technical Contact:
Ooedo, Ooedo Domains saitohajime_trait_walk@yahoo.co.jp
Domains
Ginza 1-27-8
Sentoraru bld. 703
Chuo-ku, Tokyo 104-0061
Japan
+81.5055528148

Domain servers in listed order:
NS63.DOMAINCONTROL.COM
NS64.DOMAINCONTROL.COM

Lockstep

MaceFace wrote: »

The text of their document is:
"Labour favours a negotiated wage freeze for three years. This would provide
certainty for investment in Irish enterprise."

One of Labours wishy washy type policies. Not only does it lack any commitment, it doesn't even spell out how or where a freeze will apply.
Complete b0l0xgy.

If this is anything but embarrasing rubish, please tell me how you can negotiate a pay freeze?
What areas?

Negotiating a pay freeze isn't hard; as I already said, it's done by negotiations with the workers' unions.

Also, you're quoting out of context. The quote in full:

Labour Plan for Stability and Growth wrote:

In particular, it is
important that costs in the protected sectors of the economy do not undermine
the capacity of the traded sector to compete. To maintain and enhance
competitiveness, Labour is proposing the following measures.

Labour favours a negotiated wage freeze for three years. This would provide
certainty for investment in Irish enterprise.

What areas? The protected sectors of the economy. Make of this what you will. Presumably wages in the semi-states.

MaceFace wrote: »

It is not about selling "cheap" alcohol, but against having alcohol as a loss-leader.
Making alcohol available at unnaturally cheap prices results in a large increase in bulk sales, which leads to more binge drinking. This is not good for anyone.

Paternalistic, nanny-state nonsense. We don't need the state breathing down our necks unless we've done something wrong.

MaceFace wrote: »

Allowing below cost selling allows the likes of Tesco/Dunnes etc to destroy local businesses which is not good for anyone. Sometimes decisions are taken that are unpopular for certain groups of people (us drinkers), but is for the greater good.

Protectionism/market distorting nonsense. This sort of populist rubbish is what you'd have seen from Poujade. If one shop can provide a cheaper good/sercice than their competitor, then fair play to them. It's how capitalism works.
If I can provide clothes/books/drinks/food cheaper than my competitor, why should I be prevented from doing so? The government isn't there to provide jobs, it creates the environment that allows these areas to function. A cornerstone being competition.

I'm literally baffled as to how you can see wage-controls as something worthy of being included in 'most ridiculous policies' but see the merit in price controls. Generic double think.
Presumably, FG included this after urgings by the publican lobbies.

Paparazzo

Wasn't there an independent down around Carlow a few years ago that was against paedos? That was his one policy

MaceFace

Lockstep wrote: »

Negotiating a pay freeze isn't hard; as I already said, it's done by negotiations with the workers' unions.

Also, you're quoting out of context. The quote in full:


What areas? The protected sectors of the economy. Make of this what you will. Presumably wages in the semi-states.

Again, how can you negotiate anything when you have nothing to give in return. That is not a negotiation, just a dictat.
You can include the entire document and it doesn't change the fact - negotiated pay freeze outside of the public sector. It does not say anything about semi-state.
Impossible and as usual no details so as not to defend anyone.

Lockstep wrote: »

Paternalistic, nanny-state nonsense. We don't need the state breathing down our necks unless we've done something wrong.

Protectionism/market distorting nonsense. This sort of populist rubbish is what you'd have seen from Poujade. If one shop can provide a cheaper good/sercice than their competitor, then fair play to them. It's how capitalism works.
If I can provide clothes/books/drinks/food cheaper than my competitor, why should I be prevented from doing so? The government isn't there to provide jobs, it creates the environment that allows these areas to function. A cornerstone being competition.

I'm literally baffled as to how you can see wage-controls as something worthy of being included in 'most ridiculous policies' but see the merit in price controls. Generic double think.
Presumably, FG included this after urgings by the publican lobbies.

Now, I never said price controls were a good thing, but there are exceptions where over aggressive pricing can lead to problems for society, and the other problem is the aggressive nature of large multinational supermarkets who destroy competition.
There is a huge amount of information out there on the latter (see here for one)

Wage controls are all fine and good, but the only people who should be controlling the wages are those that atually pay it.

Lockstep

MaceFace wrote: »

Again, how can you negotiate anything when you have nothing to give in return. That is not a negotiation, just a dictat.
You can include the entire document and it doesn't change the fact - negotiated pay freeze outside of the public sector.

Presumably; state support, retraining, supplementing incomes and so on. The state has no mandate to unilaterally dictate private sector wages. All it can do is negotiate with private sector representatives who are having it tough. If given the choice between an uncertain future/unemployment and the promise of stability for 3 years which would you choose?

I included the relevent docutment as you were quoting out of context. Either you hadn't bothered reading the document or were being deliberatly misleading.

MaceFace wrote: »

It does not say anything about semi-state.
Impossible and as usual no details so as not to defend anyone.

It doesn't say anything about the private sector either. It refers to the 'protected areas'. Do you honestly think this is referring to IT workers or assembly linesmen?

MaceFace wrote: »

Now, I never said price controls were a good thing, but there are exceptions where over aggressive pricing can lead to problems for society, and the other problem is the aggressive nature of large multinational supermarkets who destroy competition.
There is a huge amount of information out there on the latter (see here for one)

What are you advocting with

Allowing below cost selling allows the likes of Tesco/Dunnes etc to destroy local businesses which is not good for anyone. Sometimes decisions are taken that are unpopular for certain groups of people (us drinkers), but is for the greater good.

*except price controls?

Unless the large companies are engaging in price fixing and cartels, the state has no business intervening. This isn't the case. the government's job isn't to protect small businesses via market distortions. That's up to the consumers to decide for themselves.

If I can sell something for significantly less than my competitor, do you really think the government has the right to intervene?

MaceFace wrote: »

Wage controls are all fine and good, but the only people who should be controlling the wages are those that atually pay it.

And yet you support price fixing. I'm really baffled as to how you can justify one and not the other.
The government isn't controlling the wages. They would enter into negotiations.

sollar

Fine gael's plans to increase motor tax for cc (pre 08) motors by €50 and €100. In conjunction with rising VAT and fuel prices ist just madness.

They are also increasing the post 08 cars by €50... but there is plenty of scope there imo.

MaceFace

Lockstep wrote: »

Presumably; state support, retraining, supplementing incomes and so on. The state has no mandate to unilaterally dictate private sector wages. All it can do is negotiate with private sector representatives who are having it tough. If given the choice between an uncertain future/unemployment and the promise of stability for 3 years which would you choose?

I don't understand what you are saying. Surely any business that is in difficulty is either implementing pay freezes or pay cuts on its employees.
You think that the negotiation is going to be with the companies rather than the employee groups? Any business that agrees to this will have massive problems with its employees
Any business that is not struggling will not agree to a pay freeze as it will need increasing salaries to both attract and retain staff.

Lockstep wrote: »

I included the relevent docutment as you were quoting out of context. Either you hadn't bothered reading the document or were being deliberatly misleading.

It doesn't say anything about the private sector either. It refers to the 'protected areas'. Do you honestly think this is referring to IT workers or assembly linesmen?

Oh, I read it and it makes no sense. It obviously allows different people to interpret it different ways.
It was reported in the Indo that it is a private sector pay freeze, and regardless of the paper in question, there was no clarification from Gilmore as to that story. Therefore, I am taking it that there is some truth to the interpretation that the paper has taken.

Lockstep wrote: »

Unless the large companies are engaging in price fixing and cartels, the state has no business intervening. This isn't the case. the government's job isn't to protect small businesses via market distortions. That's up to the consumers to decide for themselves.

If I can sell something for significantly less than my competitor, do you really think the government has the right to intervene?

Not neccessarily.

Lockstep wrote: »

And yet you support price fixing. I'm really baffled as to how you can justify one and not the other.

No I don't support price fixing.
I support a ban on below cost selling on a range of products - tobacco and alcohol being the two main ones (maybe the only two).

Lockstep wrote: »

The government isn't controlling the wages. They would enter into negotiations.

Who are they negotiating with - the businesses or the "workers representatives"?
Why would I agree to a pay freeze? What do I get out of it - my company is doing well, my colleagues in other countries are getting pay increases.

Besides, surely the government should be doing all it can to encourage private companies to pay their staff more as it will lead to higher tax incomes and more disposable income - both crucial to the economy.

sh7289

Lockstep wrote: »

What's the solid case?
If a shop can sell cheap alcohol, that's their own business. Ditto if they want to maintain longer opening hours.

100% agree. The argument that minimum prices of alcohol in supermarkets should be established to keep the publicans in business is absolute bs. It's true that there is a major distortion in the prices in supermarkets vs the price in pubs, but it's the pub's prices which Fine Gael should be looking at.

In my opinion, from working in a pub where young people mainly go out; all that has been created from the price of alcohol in pubs, tight serving hours and current off sales trading times have just fuelled a drinking at home binge culture. People meet at home, get drunk and go out about 11-12:00, some with more drink with them, buy a drink or 2 in a pub and then hit the clubs.

If the price of drinks in pubs came down substantially, people would be more likely to spend what little disposable income they might have in a pub. That's my two cents anyways.

Lockstep

MaceFace wrote: »

I don't understand what you are saying. Surely any business that is in difficulty is either implementing pay freezes or pay cuts on its employees.
You think that the negotiation is going to be with the companies rather than the employee groups? Any business that agrees to this will have massive problems with its employees
Any business that is not struggling will not agree to a pay freeze as it will need increasing salaries to both attract and retain staff.

Where on earth are you getting that I think the negotiations will be made with companies?
I've already stated numerous times that it would be done with unions, and as the policy/Gilmore himself states, in the sheltered sectors.

MaceFace wrote: »

Oh, I read it and it makes no sense. It obviously allows different people to interpret it different ways.
It was reported in the Indo that it is a private sector pay freeze, and regardless of the paper in question, there was no clarification from Gilmore as to that story. Therefore, I am taking it that there is some truth to the interpretation that the paper has taken.

No, it clearly refers to *sheltered sectors*. He's said this before:

Wages may fall on average next year but underneath that average we are likely to see wage pressures re-emerging in more sheltered sectors. As of now, the Government effectively has no pay policy outside the public service. I favour a return to social dialogue, in a new format with a far more limited agenda than before. Arising from that, I would like to see a negotiated pay freeze for three years.

Whatever you think of Labour, they're not far left enough to want a blanket wage freeze in the private sector. This is something more akin to the SWP/SP.
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2010/10/27/00006.asp

MaceFace wrote: »

Not neccessarily.

Well what then? Unless someone is clearly breaking the law (predatory pricing, cartels etc) then why should the government intervene?

MaceFace wrote: »

No I don't support price fixing.
I support a ban on below cost selling on a range of products - tobacco and alcohol being the two main ones (maybe the only two).

So you do support price fixing.
If a company chooses to do this, that's their own business, unless they were otherwise breaking the law.
Alcohol and tobacco prices in this country are ridiculous, if someone can sell for a lower price, excellent.

MaceFace wrote: »

Who are they negotiating with - the businesses or the "workers representatives"?
Why would I agree to a pay freeze? What do I get out of it - my company is doing well, my colleagues in other countries are getting pay increases.

The unions of course. I've said this numerous times.
Your colleagues in other countries might be getting pay increases but they're unlikely to be in as bad an economic situation as we are in.
Dunno what incentives the government will bring to the table; depends on who they're negotiating with.

MaceFace wrote: »

Besides, surely the government should be doing all it can to encourage private companies to pay their staff more as it will lead to higher tax incomes and more disposable income - both crucial to the economy.

A very blinkered viewpoint.
Wages don't just mean more taxes for the government; if higher wages don't coincide with more production, then you'll have the same amount of goods in the economy and more money chasing them, leading to unnecessary inflation.
Plus, it makes the sectors more uncompetitive (which is what Labour is addressing)

CDfm

This has all gotten very serious.

What people really want to know is do any of the parties want to interfere with the "cheap beer drink at home" policy of the current government

Lockstep

Paparazzo wrote: »

Wasn't there an independent down around Carlow a few years ago that was against paedos? That was his one policy

I bet he got in. He'd have the best campaign slogan ever:

"Not voting for me is a vote for the paedos."

Bottle_of_Smoke

MaceFace wrote: »

It is not about selling "cheap" alcohol, but against having alcohol as a loss-leader.
Making alcohol available at unnaturally cheap prices results in a large increase in bulk sales, which leads to more binge drinking. This is not good for anyone.

Allowing below cost selling allows the likes of Tesco/Dunnes etc to destroy local businesses which is not good for anyone. Sometimes decisions are taken that are unpopular for certain groups of people (us drinkers), but is for the greater good.

I have heard for years that if we were more like the continent our dependence on alcohol would change, but all the changes that have come in over the last 10-20 years has done nothing to change our behaviour to alcohol! All that has changes is people are drinking at home rather than the pubs.

That's because its a cultural problem. No amount of taxing will stop Irish people from binge drinking. They'd probably turn to making their own poteen if you taxed them high enough.

virmilitaris

MaceFace wrote: »

I have heard for years that if we were more like the continent our dependence on alcohol would change, but all the changes that have come in over the last 10-20 years has done nothing to change our behaviour to alcohol! All that has changes is people are drinking at home rather than the pubs.

Nonsense. In my local shop here in korea I can buy a bottle of some ****e whiskey for less than 3 euro. A local beer in the bars can cost as little as 1.50 to 5 euro depending on the establishment.

This nanny state nonsense is exactly why we have such an alcohol problem. Treat people like children and they'll act like children. The koreans drink as much if not more than us but you know what, they don't need the government to tell them what time to go to bed at. Plenty of them drink like idiots during the week and get up for work hangover or not.

Are the irish people really so childish compared to our european neighbours? I think not.

IF some people can't control themselves that's a sorry state of affairs but why punish the rest of us Because of them?

sh7289

MaceFace wrote: »

It is not about selling "cheap" alcohol, but against having alcohol as a loss-leader.
Making alcohol available at unnaturally cheap prices results in a large increase in bulk sales, which leads to more binge drinking. This is not good for anyone.

Allowing below cost selling allows the likes of Tesco/Dunnes etc to destroy local businesses which is not good for anyone. Sometimes decisions are taken that are unpopular for certain groups of people (us dr inkers), but is for the greater good.

I have heard for years that if we were more like the continent our dependence on alcohol would change, but all the changes that have come in over the last 10-20 years has done nothing to change our behaviour to alcohol! All that has changes is people are drinking at home rather than the pubs.

I can totally accept that drinking is embedded in our culture and it would be very difficult to change that. The problem facing us is where we drink. What good is raising prices in supermarkets, when all this does is give pubs more monopoly power when setting drink prices and that is not better for everyone. It is frankly anti-competitive. People are not drinking in pubs anymore like we had 4+ years ago and that's not solely because supermarkets can sell cheap.

The supermarkets sell much cheaper alcohol than bars in many countries. It's the prices in bars forcing people to consume alcohol at home. There is no way paying a 4 euro premium no a bottle of beer in a bar is justified in the current economic climate. If a bottle was maybe 2.50-3.50, i would be much more likely to go to the pub to drink it than if it is 4.50.

Also, there has been a sharp decline in the number of stag and hen parties and tourism in general over the last few years, down to the cost of a weekend away in Dublin being so high. There really is no solid case for having minimum prices in supermarkets and hull be a shame if fine gael pursue this.

virmilitaris

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Sorry I missed this the first time and perhaps I've taken this up wrong but what is ridiculous or wrong about this ?

Have you not seen the utter rubbish that is on in our movie theatres and on our media as a whole ?

Just taking the movie theatre issue. I live in South Korea and they have a law which in essence forces movie theatres to show a number of domestically produced movies every year. Now this particular regulation has saved the Korean movie industry and as any lover of foreign film can tell you the Koreans do make some fantastic movies.

Now I would actually be very much for the idea of a regulation which forced movie theatres to show a number of domestic and/or artistic films. Would you really be against forcing a movie theatre to show an artistic film on at least one screen at the cost of only showing some hollywood dribble like Love actually on only two or three screens ?

On a related note look at our national broadcaster, RTE. The US has CSPAN, the British have the BBC which I hope everyone will agree is simply fantastic. We have Joe ****ing Duffy and Pat Kenny.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

CDfm

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That's because its a cultural problem. No amount of taxing will stop Irish people from binge drinking. They'd probably turn to making their own poteen if you taxed them high enough.

BoS - maybe it isn't a problem. It could be a deliberate policy. :eek::eek::eek::eek:

Britain operated a cheap food and beer economic & social policy for years.

Was it Norway or Iceland that used to sell booze one day a week and everyone got wasted on a Friday. And then recovered from their hangovers and started the next week afresh.

Its been happening since Roman times with the gladiator games.

ei.sdraob

virmilitaris wrote: »

they don't need the government to tell them what time to go to bed at.

At 1900 on Wednesday, officials at the Ministry of Health will turn off all the lights in the building.
They want to encourage staff to go home to their families and, well, make bigger ones. They plan to repeat the experiment every month.

speaking of nanny state :P

MaceFace

Lockstep wrote: »

Where on earth are you getting that I think the negotiations will be made with companies?
I've already stated numerous times that it would be done with unions, and as the policy/Gilmore himself states, in the sheltered sectors.

I can only assume that you are talking about companies because otherwise it makes absolutely no sense and this is exactly what I have been saying all along.
Again I will ask:
If I am a member of a union in the private sector (lets just think Tesco, and the wording is something called "sheltered sectors" - wtf?). My company is doing well profits surging. Why would I (or my union) agree to a pay freeze?
You have said that the government will offer State Support, retraining, or supplementing incomes. What? What do I get - retraining? For what? I have a job. State support and supplementing incomes are something you would offer a business, thats why I thought you were suggesting negotiating with companies.

Lockstep wrote: »

No, it clearly refers to *sheltered sectors*. He's said this before:

What is a sheltered sector?

Also, the Indo ran an article under the headline that Labour proposed a pay freeze on the private sector and they never denied (or clarified) it. Why not?
I put it to you that they are using terminology that is so vague that no one knows what it means.

Lockstep wrote: »

Whatever you think of Labour, they're not far left enough to want a blanket wage freeze in the private sector. This is something more akin to the SWP/SP.
http://debates.oireachtas.ie/dail/2010/10/27/00006.asp

Again, they never clarified an article in a national newspaper suggesting different. Maybe you can explain - who are they going to negotiate with? Semi-states?
And again, if I work in one of these, why would I even entertain discussing a pay freeze?

Lockstep wrote: »

Well what then? Unless someone is clearly breaking the law (predatory pricing, cartels etc) then why should the government intervene?


So you do support price fixing.

NO I DO NOT.
Maybe you need to look up what price fixing actually is - the FIXING of prices.
I am suggesting a ban on below cost selling for alcohol and tobacco.
I take it you have no problems with supermarkets giving free alcohol away with purchases of certain items. Would you also have no problem with cigarette companies giving out free samples to 18 year olds?
There are times when dangerous products (and alcohol is almost always at the top of the list for most dangerous drugs in terms of damage to society) require restrictions.

Lockstep wrote: »

If a company chooses to do this, that's their own business, unless they were otherwise breaking the law.
Alcohol and tobacco prices in this country are ridiculous, if someone can sell for a lower price, excellent.

I gather you will have no problems then with alcohol and cigarette companies offering free samples to 18 year olds?

Lockstep wrote: »

A very blinkered viewpoint.
Wages don't just mean more taxes for the government; if higher wages don't coincide with more production, then you'll have the same amount of goods in the economy and more money chasing them, leading to unnecessary inflation.
Plus, it makes the sectors more uncompetitive (which is what Labour is addressing)

Inflation (not hyper) is exactly what we need in this country to lessen the debt burden that every one of us have. That is exactly what the UK and the US are both doing today to try and escape the deflationary trap that we have been stuck in.

virmilitaris

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm not talking about imposing anything on others. I am talking about providing the option for others.

Artistic films are simply not as financially successful as hollywood blockbusters. The same goes for domestically produced films.

I am talking about forcing movie theatres to provide more options. If I am a movie theatre owner and I can show x-men on 3 of my screens or show x-men on 2 of my screens and a domestically produced movie or an artistic film on my other screen, financially it probably makes more sense to use 3 screens for x-men.

This especially makes sense when you are talking about the domestic industry which simply cannot compete with the likes of Hollywood.

Yes, I would object to that. I am a market liberal, not a cultural conservative.
I don't believe that we should have a paternalistic government that decides which movies should be screened in our cinemas. If more people choose to watch The X-Factor or Spiderman than the films of Ingmar Bergman or Satyajit Ray, that is just the free market in operation.

Yes and it's also majority rule in operation where the minority have no say.

I'm not saying the state should interfere with the showing of populist nonsense, I'm saying the state should provide assistance to the alternatives.

What's your opinion of CSPAN in the states for example ?

Like it or not, Joe Duffy and Pat Kenny are popular with the public. If you don't want to listen to or watch their programmes, that's your free choice; but don't try to deny others the right to exercise their free choice, too!

Who has said a single word about denying anyone anything ? You as far as I can see.

I am talking about providing alternatives.

In your opinion should museums that are not profitable be shut down ?

MaceFace

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

That's because its a cultural problem. No amount of taxing will stop Irish people from binge drinking. They'd probably turn to making their own poteen if you taxed them high enough.

I agree. Drinking is embedded into the Irish culture and no matter what happens, we will continue to drink in large quantities.
For some reason we are unable to just go out and have one, two or three but the normality is to have a few beers before going out "to get a buzz going", then go out and continue drinking until we come home.

About a quarter of all those admitted to A&E are from alcohol related injuries (http://www.drugsandalcohol.ie/6389/1/4045-4323.pdf)

The problem is most people have this idealistic image that they can go out drinking, get hammered and go home and be none the worse for ware. Because of this, they don't want to see the bigger picture.

virmilitaris wrote: »

Nonsense. In my local shop here in korea I can buy a bottle of some ****e whiskey for less than 3 euro. A local beer in the bars can cost as little as 1.50 to 5 euro depending on the establishment.

This nanny state nonsense is exactly why we have such an alcohol problem. Treat people like children and they'll act like children. The koreans drink as much if not more than us but you know what, they don't need the government to tell them what time to go to bed at. Plenty of them drink like idiots during the week and get up for work hangover or not.

Are the irish people really so childish compared to our european neighbours? I think not.

IF some people can't control themselves that's a sorry state of affairs but why punish the rest of us Because of them?

The Irish and the Koreans are both among the heaviest drinkers in the world. To suggest that they can go out, drink like idiots and get up for work is completly ignoring the obvious facts of what impact this is having on society. That individual is both being very unproductive with the hangover, but is also significantly increasing the potential for long term damage from drinking. To suggest otherwise is to ignore all the facts.

Here in Ireland, we accept drunkeness unlike most other countries. We accept it as just a bit of fun when we see people stagger around at 3 in the morning. Its great craic when you wake up and have no idea what you done the night before.
Other countries look at people who do this and think of them as idiots and see it as unacceptable behaviour.

sh7289 wrote: »

I can totally accept that drinking is embedded in our culture and it would be very difficult to change that. The problem facing us is where we drink. What good is raising prices in supermarkets, when all this does is give pubs more monopoly power when setting drink prices and that is not better for everyone. It is frankly anti-competitive. People are not drinking in pubs anymore like we had 4+ years ago and that's not solely because supermarkets can sell cheap.

The supermarkets sell much cheaper alcohol than bars in many countries. It's the prices in bars forcing people to consume alcohol at home. There is no way paying a 4 euro premium no a bottle of beer in a bar is justified in the current economic climate. If a bottle was maybe 2.50-3.50, i would be much more likely to go to the pub to drink it than if it is 4.50.

Also, there has been a sharp decline in the number of stag and hen parties and tourism in general over the last few years, down to the cost of a weekend away in Dublin being so high. There really is no solid case for having minimum prices in supermarkets and hull be a shame if fine gael pursue this.

I agree, and to bring the thread back on topic, no one is suggesting that prices be raised so as to protect any other sector.
The suggestion is that FG want to ban below cost selling of alcohol (not fixing the price)
BTW:I actually can't find where they say they actually want this.

The argument that I am attempting to make but seems to have to support is that by allowing anyone to sell alcohol (or tobacco) as a loss leader encourages both the purchase and the consumption of the product.

It is for the same reason that we severly restrict tobacco and alcohol advertising or why junk food can not be advertised on childrens TV.
Sometimes, there are decisions that are made by those in power that may be unpopular but are done for the greater good.

Lockstep

MaceFace wrote: »

I can only assume that you are talking about companies because otherwise it makes absolutely no sense and this is exactly what I have been saying all along.
Again I will ask:
If I am a member of a union in the private sector (lets just think Tesco, and the wording is something called "sheltered sectors" - wtf?). My company is doing well profits surging. Why would I (or my union) agree to a pay freeze?
You have said that the government will offer State Support, retraining, or supplementing incomes. What? What do I get - retraining? For what? I have a job. State support and supplementing incomes are something you would offer a business, thats why I thought you were suggesting negotiating with companies.

First of all, do you really think that Tesco is a member of a sheltered sector?
State support, retraining in the event of voluntary redundancy, income supplements (as the Germans offer to businesses in trouble) are cards on the table. Exactly what the government can offer to struggling private sector workers is a matter that needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis. The private sector isn't a homogenous entity


Like it or not, Irish wages are very high. We're an expensive country to do business in. Negotiating pay freezes with the unions isn't exactly retarded. THe private sector is finding things extremely tough right now and the last thing they need is unions demanding more wages and increments. Presumably, Labour will broker a deal where layoffs and cuts are exempted in exchange for a negotiated wage freeze. Or more likely, with sheltered sectors that benefit from ancient charters and protectionism.

If you assumed I was referring to companies then you don't seem to be reading my posts. From my first post;

Fairly misleading, especially referring to the private sector as a single entity. Labour's suggestion was on negotiating pay freezes with workers in certain areas via worker representatives (unions).

From my second post;

Negotiating a pay freeze isn't hard; as I already said, it's done by negotiations with the workers' unions.

MaceFace wrote: »

What is a sheltered sector?

Law and medicine are the best examples, as Gilmore pointed out in the Dáil debate I linked you to. Did you read it?

MaceFace wrote: »

Also, the Indo ran an article under the headline that Labour proposed a pay freeze on the private sector and they never denied (or clarified) it. Why not?
I put it to you that they are using terminology that is so vague that no one knows what it means.

Given that every reference to 'pay freeze' is precluded by a reference to 'sheltered sector', it would appear the Independant is being misleading.
Areas like law and medicine (which Gilmore is referring to in the Dáil debates) are certainly in the private sector but these are what he specifically references. Their high fees are essentially the results of monopolies.

MaceFace wrote: »

Again, they never clarified an article in a national newspaper suggesting different. Maybe you can explain - who are they going to negotiate with? Semi-states?
And again, if I work in one of these, why would I even entertain discussing a pay freeze?

But he clarified what he meant in the Dáil debates and in the article itself; sheltered sectors with his examples being law and medicine. You're acting as if the private sector is a homogenous entity. It's not and Gilmore isn't calling for a blanket pay freeze. Whatever problems you might have with him, he's not retarded enough to demand such a silly policy.

MaceFace wrote: »

NO I DO NOT.
Maybe you need to look up what price fixing actually is - the FIXING of prices.
I am suggesting a ban on below cost selling for alcohol and tobacco.
I take it you have no problems with supermarkets giving free alcohol away with purchases of certain items. Would you also have no problem with cigarette companies giving out free samples to 18 year olds?
There are times when dangerous products (and alcohol is almost always at the top of the list for most dangerous drugs in terms of damage to society) require restrictions.

YES YOU DO
You accuse me of needing to look up what price fixing is? Pot. Kettle. Black.
It's a broad term but at its most basic;

"Establishing the price of a product or service, rather than allowing it to be determined naturally through free market forces. This procedure is often an illegal practice."
Fine Gael want to introduce a floor below which companies cannot sell alcohol. How is this *not* price fixing?
If supermarkets want to give away free alcohol products to adults, then that's their own business.
Your attempt to do a Helen Lovejoy ("WONT SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!") is a strawman. That's nothing to do with price fixing. That's to do with the sale of alcohol to minors. If someone is an adult and capable of voting, serving on a jury/in the armed forces, being tried as an adult etc, then buying alcohol is up to themselves. Trying to tie this so giving freebies to kids is extremely pathetic.

Are you a Fine Gaeler? You seem to be toeing the party very harshly here.
I disagree with Labour's policy but can at least see some rational for doing so. I also disagree with Fine Gael's policy. Neither of which deserve to be in "Most Ridiculous Policies".
The fact that you think wage controls are most ridiculous but price controls aren't is fairly lame.

MaceFace wrote: »

I gather you will have no problems then with alcohol and cigarette companies offering free samples to 18 year olds?

See above.
Your strawmen are getting increasingly desperate and dubious.

MaceFace wrote: »

Inflation (not hyper) is exactly what we need in this country to lessen the debt burden that every one of us have. That is exactly what the UK and the US are both doing today to try and escape the deflationary trap that we have been stuck in.

Low level inflation is fine and healthy for an economy. Wage spirals and wages that don't keep pace with production are not. Especially as wage spirals makes us even more uncompetitive to do business in. We have enough problems with our domestic economy/uncompetitiveness before raising inflation (which also hurts those on fixed incomes. If we want to reverse deflation, a stimulus package would be a much better option, getting people into work who want it. Wage spirals would mainly benefit
those already in employment.

virmilitaris

MaceFace wrote: »

The Irish and the Koreans are both among the heaviest drinkers in the world. To suggest that they can go out, drink like idiots and get up for work is completly ignoring the obvious facts of what impact this is having on society. That individual is both being very unproductive with the hangover, but is also significantly increasing the potential for long term damage from drinking. To suggest otherwise is to ignore all the facts.

I'm not suggesting otherwise. I'm suggesting that it's that individuals choice.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

virmilitaris

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In a form of providing a service to the arts ? Yes. I see it as no different from a government providing funding for museums.

Yes, exactly. As you state, the cinema can maximize its profits by screening The X-Men on all three screens. By legislating that only two screens can be used for The X-Men, while one must be devoted to a Swedish art film that only a handful of people will want to see, the government essentially compels the movie theatre to lose money. Is that a good thing?

Yes if it is carefully planned out. I do not mean that the threatre would have to show these films during peak times. Rather I mean that it should be largely up to the theatres when to show them but that they must show them or else give an incentive to show them.

If the alternatives can't compete in the marketplace, why should they be subsidized by government?

Because they are of cultural and artistic importance to our society. If a museum cannot support itself financially should it be closed down ? If a site of historical importance stands in the way of development of a shopping centre should it be destroyed ?

I enjoy watching C-SPAN—but you should note that it receives no funding from government. It is funded by cable and satellite affiliates.

Of course but it purposely denies itself such revenue options such as advertising because it's main aim is not profit. It's a wonderful channel that is of great benefit to American society in my opinion.

In reality, though, this is not about the lack of a suitable outlet for art films; it's about cultural conservatives believing that society can be saved only if the government intervenes to foist "high culture" on the unwilling masses.

I am not a cultural conservative and I don't care about fostering high culture on the masses. I am for providing alternatives even if those alternatives are not financially viable.

You still have not answered my question on museums.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

virmilitaris

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm wondering are you purposely twisting my words or am I been too unclear ?

I never suggested for a moment that the choice of what movies should be in the hands of the government. I said that the government should provide incentive to show alternatives.

Taking the Korean example. The government forces theatres to show a certain number of domestically produced films each year. The choice of what films and when they should be shown is left to the theatre itself.

Yes, it should. Museums should be supported by admission charges and private donations, not by government funding.

And there Sir we must disagree. Museums are of paramount importance to society and their existence should never have to rely on profitability.

But it has been pointed out to you that alternatives are available. Almost any movie I want to view, whether Hollywood blockbuster or Swedish art film, is just a few mouse-clicks away on a streaming video site. You're not interested so much in providing alternatives as you are in giving those alternatives a greater degree of prominence in our cultural spaces than their market share merits.

In terms of domestically produced films ? Yes I would be for giving them a greater prominence in cultural spaces than their market share merits.

MaceFace

Lockstep wrote: »

First of all, do you really think that Tesco is a member of a sheltered sector?
State support, retraining in the event of voluntary redundancy, income supplements (as the Germans offer to businesses in trouble) are cards on the table. Exactly what the government can offer to struggling private sector workers is a matter that needs to be dealt with on a case by case basis. The private sector isn't a homogenous entity

I never suggested anyone was in a sheltered sector, hence I asked who this magical group were. You say they are in the law and medicine profession.
How can you put a pay freeze on these people? It is literally impossible. They can put a freeze on the money they give them for public work, but not private. Are you suggesting that a Doctor who runs a small GP or a lawyer with an office on a main street down the country will agree to not increase his prices for retraining, state support or income supplement?
The prices they charge should be driven by market demands and the government can decrease the price by breaking up the protected sectors and increasing competition, not by some unimplementable pay freeze.
Seriously, can you give me an explanation of how the local GP or someone working in law can have their pay frozen?

Lockstep wrote: »

Like it or not, Irish wages are very high. We're an expensive country to do business in. Negotiating pay freezes with the unions isn't exactly retarded. THe private sector is finding things extremely tough right now and the last thing they need is unions demanding more wages and increments.

Maybe we are back in 2004 here, but the only unions I am aware of that were demanding more were in the Public Sector. The unions in the private sector for the last 10 years were wholey ineffective and the only times they done anything for the private sector was to try and protect the rights of the worker, not for demanding more pay.
I agree that certain sectors in Ireland have very high wages, and that is rectifying itself now with the demand for these workers decreasing resulting in mass unemployment or lower wages.
Thats the thing about the private sector - it always finds a way of finding the level is should be at.

Lockstep wrote: »

Presumably, Labour will broker a deal where layoffs and cuts are exempted in exchange for a negotiated wage freeze. Or more likely, with sheltered sectors that benefit from ancient charters and protectionism.

In medicine and law? What layoffs?
Those in the private sector are paid a certain wage, and if their employer is struggling to afford those wages, they will either implement a pay freeze themselves, request a pay cut, or implement redundancies.
Now maybe you are suggesting that Labour will agree to not break up the crazy restrictions on new entrants to the medical sector if they agree to a pay freeze?

Lockstep wrote: »

If you assumed I was referring to companies then you don't seem to be reading my posts. From my first post;

From my second post;

Law and medicine are the best examples, as Gilmore pointed out in the Dáil debate I linked you to. Did you read it?

What - the 90 page (at size 10) 76 thousand word debate? No I did not, and I make no apologise for not reading such a link - there are other books I would rather spend my time reading
.

Lockstep wrote: »

Given that every reference to 'pay freeze' is precluded by a reference to 'sheltered sector', it would appear the Independant is being misleading.
Areas like law and medicine (which Gilmore is referring to in the Dáil debates) are certainly in the private sector but these are what he specifically references. Their high fees are essentially the results of monopolies.



But he clarified what he meant in the Dáil debates and in the article itself; sheltered sectors with his examples being law and medicine. You're acting as if the private sector is a homogenous entity. It's not and Gilmore isn't calling for a blanket pay freeze. Whatever problems you might have with him, he's not retarded enough to demand such a silly policy.

Hell, I am only relaying what is both reported and as I said not clear not clarified from Labour. Your explanations help in no way to explain why this still remains a ridiculous policy.

Lockstep wrote: »

YES YOU DO
You accuse me of needing to look up what price fixing is? Pot. Kettle. Black.
It's a broad term but at its most basic;

"Establishing the price of a product or service, rather than allowing it to be determined naturally through free market forces. This procedure is often an illegal practice."

How about you type in to google "define:price fixing" for a whole host of explanations, every one of them defining it as setting a fixed price on a product. Even your explanation has it as "Establishing the price", not "minimum price", just "price".

Lockstep wrote: »

Fine Gael want to introduce a floor below which companies cannot sell alcohol. How is this *not* price fixing?

Because you can sell it for what ever price you want as long as it is not below the price you pay. So Tesco may be able to see a slab of beer for €15 but your local off license may not be allowed to sell it for less than €20.
The alternative, to allow it for sale at any price will allow the likes of Tesco to sell a slab of beer for €5 which will dramatically push up consumption, and believe it or not, alcohol is actually the most damaging drug there is.

Lockstep wrote: »

If supermarkets want to give away free alcohol products to adults, then that's their own business.
Your attempt to do a Helen Lovejoy ("WONT SOMEONE PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN?!") is a strawman. That's nothing to do with price fixing.

Please point out where I mentioned minors or children?
I didn't so stop throwing dirt.
I asked if it would be okay for Cigarette and Alcohol companies to give out freebies to 18 year olds (who are all legal age!).
We have had restrictions on alcohol in the past to stop the deliberate targetting of younger drinkers to engage in binge drinking.
Australia, which is one of the most progressive countries in my book are also looking at minimum price for alcohol. UK the same.

Lockstep wrote: »

That's to do with the sale of alcohol to minors. If someone is an adult and capable of voting, serving on a jury/in the armed forces, being tried as an adult etc, then buying alcohol is up to themselves. Trying to tie this so giving freebies to kids is extremely pathetic.

Who mentioned kids?

Lockstep wrote: »

Are you a Fine Gaeler? You seem to be toeing the party very harshly here.
I disagree with Labour's policy but can at least see some rational for doing so. I also disagree with Fine Gael's policy. Neither of which deserve to be in "Most Ridiculous Policies".
The fact that you think wage controls are most ridiculous but price controls aren't is fairly lame.

There is nothing wrong with restrictions as long as they are done for the right reason (restricting banking practices, sale and consumption of dangerous substances).
These two issues are not linked, and you trying to link them is only confusing the issue.

Lockstep wrote: »

Low level inflation is fine and healthy for an economy. Wage spirals and wages that don't keep pace with production are not. Especially as wage spirals makes us even more uncompetitive to do business in. We have enough problems with our domestic economy/uncompetitiveness before raising inflation (which also hurts those on fixed incomes. If we want to reverse deflation, a stimulus package would be a much better option, getting people into work who want it. Wage spirals would mainly benefit
those already in employment.

What wage spirals?
The only wage spirals that exist are those involving the public sector where their wages increased much higher than the private sector but efficiencies didn't result. Rapid pay increases occur in bubbles such as the IT or construction ones, and when those bubbles burst, pay rates returned to a normal level. It didn't require the Government to interfere.
Most of the private sector have been on pay freezes or pay cuts for the last few years. It is simple supply and demand of labour.
If an employee demands a wage increase, the employer can pay it, or tell the person no. That person may leave for a competitor in which case the original employer needs to introduce efficiencies to compete or it will struggle to compete and may go out of business.

Either Labour are talking about pay freezes in the Semi-States which they should just bloody say, or they are interfering in the private sector, and the only reason they would look for wage controls when they are not the ones paying it is so they don't have to face up to the Unions who may see themselves losing out in comparision to their private sector colleagues.
Just the usual Labour love in with the Unions and Public Sector.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

CDfm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Yup , its been tried before and there is no accounting for public taste,




No matter what you do for some people they just don't appreciate it.