Michael Noonan - ''we should pay our way''. RTE radio one

squod

How many FG voters on here genuinely believe that we should voluntarily pay back the €100bn+ of bank debt incurred by the international derivatives traders and property developers who owe these banks?

123balltv

the poorest in society are bailing out the richest
I cry every week when I check my payslip ***** lets raid the dail if this
happened in any other Country :mad: there would be murder.
bring on 2012 I cant take anymore cuts lets end this

PeterIanStaker

It doesn't matter what government is elected.

FF and their friends in the race tent and banks have stripped the nation like a plague of locusts.

The 31st Dail may as well not bother coming in to work, because there's nothing they can do to even take the country off life support as it were.

seamus

123balltv wrote: »

the poorest in society are bailing out the richest

Yawn.

In fact the richest in society are propping up the poorest, who pay almost nothing in taxes and take a lot in benefits.

Triangla

Surely he means we should pay their way.

Me: never bought a house or took out loans in the 'boom', never unemployed, paying income tax since I was 16.

Them: speculators who took a risk, lost and now the idiots at the wheel will pay them back because they have no idea how these things actually work.

Clowns.

SEPT 23 1989

seamus wrote: »

Yawn.

In fact the richest in society are propping up the poorest, who pay almost nothing in taxes and take a lot in benefits.

Every penny the poor have goes back into the economy

jimmycrackcorm

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Every penny the poor have goes back into the economy

As long as they don't live near the border.

starbelgrade

seamus wrote: »

Yawn.

In fact the richest in society are propping up the poorest, who pay almost nothing in taxes and take a lot in benefits.

Hardly.

Most of the taxes in the economy are generated by the middle classes, who you could hardly call rich. They pay far & above the most taxes out of any of the social classes and in proportion to what they earn, they pay the highest percentage.

And it will be the middle classes who will continue to pay the most in the term of paying for the IMF & bank bailouts.

And if FG take power, their plan is to hit the private sector middle class workers even harder in order to pay for middle class public sector wages rather than make the cut backs needed in that sector.

As far as getting easy cash into the economy, the middle class PAYE sector has always & will probably always be, easy pickings.

brianthebard

seamus wrote: »

Yawn.

In fact the richest in society are propping up the poorest, who pay almost nothing in taxes and take a lot in benefits.

Is that you Maggie? The dementia seems to have made you even less credible in your old age.

Gunsfortoys

starbelgrade wrote: »

Hardly.

Most of the taxes in the economy are generated by the middle classes, who you could hardly call rich. They pay far & above the most taxes out of any of the social classes and in proportion to what they earn, they pay the highest percentage.

And it will be the middle classes who will continue to pay the most in the term of paying for the IMF & bank bailouts.

And if FG take power, their plan is to hit the private sector middle class workers even harder in order to pay for middle class public sector wages rather than make the cut backs needed in that sector.

As far as getting easy cash into the economy, the middle class PAYE sector has always & will probably always be, easy pickings.

This.

I work in the industry, I can tell you people on 100,000 a year are paying feck all and getting tax breaks through the nose.

seamus

starbelgrade wrote: »

Hardly.

Most of the taxes in the economy are generated by the middle classes, who you could hardly call rich. They pay far & above the most taxes out of any of the social classes and in proportion to what they earn, they pay the highest percentage.

The top 25% of earners pay 80% of the tax in this country.

Proportion to income is largely irrelevant in terms of talk of "bailing out". Simple fact is that if any "bailing out" is to be done, then most of the money for that bailout will come from the wealthiest in society, not the "poor wurker" or the hard-pressed middle class.

http://www.ronanlyons.com/2009/07/28/a-little-quiz-on-irelands-income-tax/

Scroll down past the questionnaire. Big earners pay proportionally more of their income than any other group.

Rabble Rabble

seamus wrote: »

Yawn.

In fact the richest in society are propping up the poorest, who pay almost nothing in taxes and take a lot in benefits.

The poorest in net worth ( middle income people on negative equity) are clearly bailing out the richest. Fact.

Also keeping the lads in benefit going.

Monty Burnz

SEPT 23 1989 wrote: »

Every penny the poor have goes back into the economy

Are we talking about those who work at the lower end of the pay scale, or those who don't work at all?

What qualifies as poor these days? Seeing as poverty is defined in relative terms, eliminating poverty is an impossibility. The best we can do is to see that everyone in society is fed, clothed, housed and has the opportunity to have their children educated.

Rabble Rabble

seamus wrote: »

The top 25% of earners pay 80% of the tax in this country.

Proportion to income is largely irrelevant in terms of talk of "bailing out". Simple fact is that if any "bailing out" is to be done, then most of the money for that bailout will come from the wealthiest in society, not the "poor wurker" or the hard-pressed middle class.

Have you got a source for that? The PAYE sector is where most of the money comes from - and I doubt if the PAYE take is even 80%.

Monty Burnz

starbelgrade wrote: »

And it will be the middle classes who will continue to pay the most in the term of paying for the IMF & bank bailouts.

And if FG take power, their plan is to hit the private sector middle class workers even harder in order to pay for middle class public sector wages rather than make the cut backs needed in that sector.

As far as getting easy cash into the economy, the middle class PAYE sector has always & will probably always be, easy pickings.

What?? I think you meant to say Labour - FG are the guys who want to see cuts in pay and numbers in the PS, Labour and the Shinners want no cuts. Fianna Failure are obviously irrelevant, as they'd probably do the opposite of whatever they say anyhow.

Rabble Rabble

Gunsfortoys wrote: »

This.

I work in the industry, I can tell you people on 100,000 a year are paying feck all and getting tax breaks through the nose.

No real money is earned by wage-earners with a few exceptions. Money earned by contractors, and self owned businesses can be hidden with expenses.

seamus

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

Have you got a source for that? The PAYE sector is where most of the money comes from - and I doubt if the PAYE take is even 80%.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0828/1224277778361.html
http://www.ronanlyons.com/2009/07/28/a-little-quiz-on-irelands-income-tax/

Edited my post too late.

Dionysus

Triangla wrote: »

Surely he means we should pay their way.

Me: never bought a house or took out loans in the 'boom', never unemployed, paying income tax since I was 16.

Them: speculators who took a risk, lost and now the idiots at the wheel will pay them back because they have no idea how these things actually work.

Clowns.

Maith thú! 100% agree. Likewise with me. And now Fine Gael want to use my taxes to bail out these naive, idiotic, misguided, Sunday Independent-reading superficial morons who purchased houses at the height of the boom, while I eschewed it all paying my supposedly "dead money", rent, while the supposedly invincible Celtic Tiger materialists lived on money they didn't have.

It's disgusting to see the impending Fine Gael-led government promising to in effect prop up the property market with my taxes and defer the day when house prices will fall to affordable levels - i.e. four times a person's annual income. So much for a market economy. My taxes are going to be used by Fine Gael to keep me out of the property market, and reward those who fúcked-up during the boom. Fine Gael "fairness" my arse. Bribing corrupt bastards - even before they get into power.

Gunsfortoys

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

No real money is earned by wage-earners with a few exceptions. Money earned by contractors, and self owned businesses can be hidden with expenses.

Not necessarily.

Plenty of high wage-earners through companies get massive expenses too.

Brenireland

seamus wrote: »

Yawn.

In fact the richest in society are propping up the poorest, who pay almost nothing in taxes and take a lot in benefits.

Hi just seen your user name and I just had to say....Morning Seamus.

11:11

Well, I am personally paying an extra €600 a year on top of what I already pay.

I work full-time, and don't actually get 'great' pay, but I get by (€19,000 a year). I can say I don't starve, I've somewhere to live and money on the side for whatever I need. I don't want wide-screen televisions, unlimited drinking money or spending spree money for crap I don't need.

People are biting off more than they can chew these days...even with this new tax, it's not impossible to get by as long as you actually work hard and take some personal financial sacrifices, and stop buying absolute **** you don't need.

As for the banks. Well. I don't want to pay for that. But I am forced. This is what we face.

Any ideas how to change that?

squod

11:11 wrote: »

Any ideas how to change that?

People have spent the last few months discussing that. Sen Shane Ross, David mcWilliams et al over on http://newvision.ie/wordpress/

Orando Broom

PeterIanStaker wrote: »

It doesn't matter what government is elected.

FF and their friends in the race tent and banks have stripped the nation like a plague of locusts.

The 31st Dail may as well not bother coming in to work, because there's nothing they can do to even take the country off life support as it were.

Aided and abetted by the opposition. Never forget there is a political class not a party class.

niallers1

If you have a problem paying back other people loans, investments , gambling debts then vote for Sinn Fein or The socialist/United left alliance party..

If you are happy to pay back other people loans, investments , gambling debts then vote Labour, Fianna Fail or Fianna Gael.

Royal Irish

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

The poorest in net worth ( middle income people on negative equity) are clearly bailing out the richest. FACT.

Also keeping the lads in benefit going.

FYP. Fact has to be in caps to make it true.

starbelgrade

seamus wrote: »

The top 25% of earners pay 80% of the tax in this country.

Proportion to income is largely irrelevant in terms of talk of "bailing out". Simple fact is that if any "bailing out" is to be done, then most of the money for that bailout will come from the wealthiest in society, not the "poor wurker" or the hard-pressed middle class.

http://www.ronanlyons.com/2009/07/28/a-little-quiz-on-irelands-income-tax/

Scroll down past the questionnaire. Big earners pay proportionally more of their income than any other group.

I read that report & the other link you gave to the Irish Times article. I cannot see anywhere where it backs up your claim that the top 25% of earners pay 80% of the tax in this country.

In addition to this, PAYE is only half of the total tax take in this country - the other half comes from VAT. Value Added Tax is a highly inequitable tax as it costs everyone the same amount, regardless of their income.

I don't have any statistics to prove this, but I would hazard a guess that the 75% of people who aren't in the top 25% of top earners, would make up a significant part of the total VAT take each year.

seamus

starbelgrade wrote: »

I don't have any statistics to prove this, but I would hazard a guess that the 75% of people who aren't in the top 25% of top earners, would make up a significant part of the total VAT take each year.

You wouldn't suggest though that they pay 75% of the VAT, right?

It's next to impossible to spend money without paying tax on it one way or another. If you buy products, you pay VAT. If you buy shares, you end up paying CGT and other income taxes on it. If you stick it into a savings account, you pay DIRT on the accrued interest (and end up paying VAT or whatever when they withdraw and spend that cash). Even you stick it all in a private pension, it comes back to the state eventually as an income tax.

So it stands to reason that a person who takes home €300k after income tax still pays ten times more into the exchequer than someone who takes home €30k. Now, granted ten times is probably a bit high; the person on €30k will likely spend most of their money on goods and services, the person on €300k will stick a significant amount in investments.
But it stands to reason that those with the most money probably still contribute a significant bulk of our indirect taxes as well as direct ones because they are spending the most money.

It simply doesn't support the assertion that the poor are supporting the rich. Quick figures for 2009 show that Income tax take was 12bn. If the top 5% of people contribute 6bn of that @ an average rate of 20% then the total pay of the top 5% is 30bn. If the average wage per capita is €30k x 2m workers, then the sum of cash earned by all workers in the year is €60bn. In other words, the top 5% are earning and spending around half the of the money in the economy at any given time.

Now that massive inequality aside, it stands to reason that the top 10 or 20% of the earners are therefore spending more than half of the money in the economy in a given year and therefore contributing more than half of the indirect taxes.

gcgirl

How many partook in SSIA's ?

Well they are well and truly clawing that euro back

Liam Byrne

If Noonan said "WE should pay OUR way", then I have no problem with that; I have, and always will, pay MY debts.

If, however, he wants me to pay OTHER PEOPLE'S WAYS, then he can feck off.

Or is there political doublespeak going on and was he saying "we'll pay AS WE SEE FIT" - i.e. "OUR WAY" ?

Think I've gone into political overload / hyperanalysis & sentence get-out-clause deconstruction after listening to FF all week.

Rabble Rabble

seamus wrote: »

You wouldn't suggest though that they pay 75% of the VAT, right?

It simply doesn't support the assertion that the poor are supporting the rich. Quick figures for 2009 show that Income tax take was 12bn. If the top 5% of people contribute 6bn of that @ an average rate of 20% then the total pay of the top 5% is 30bn. If the average wage per capita is €30k x 2m workers, then the sum of cash earned by all workers in the year is €60bn. In other words, the top 5% are earning and spending around half the of the money in the economy at any given time.

I think the poor subsidising the rich is meant to be us, subsidising the bankers, and the super rich non-taxpayers. Nobody is saying that the general taxation system prior to the banking bailout subsidised the normal rich.

That should have been obvious.

As for the rich and the poor, the wealth and income within the top 25% is more stratified than the wealth of the bottom 75%, and the welath and income of the top 1%, and probably the top 0.1% is also more stratified than the bottom 99%, or the bottom 99.9%.

In that reckoning the family on 100K are not that rich, nor are the family on 150K, or 200K.

These kind of people, often in the PAYE sector, pay their taxes. The subsidising of the super-rich ( or as I prefer rich, lets normalise) goes on because the super-rich often dont pay any taxes, and are bailed out for massive investments.

To pick an example from a different jurisdiction, which I will use to make the difference between the rich and the resr of us plain.

In 2005 Philip Green, founder of Top Shop earned 1.2B pounds. That's right. Billion. Numbers we cant even really fathom. But lets try:

Drawing his earnings on a graph which is 12 inches high, and with 12 ticks each ( therefore) representing £100M, he will appear at the top of the yaxis. My thought experiment is to see how relatively poor everybody else is,

If you earn, per annum:

1) £100M you are one inch from the bottom. Thats near the bottom of the graph.
2) £10 M you are 1/10 inch from the bottom. You are barely visible.
3) £1M you are 1/100 inch from the x-axis. Probably not visible.
4) £300K down. You are effectively on the x-axis. No printer will show you. You are statistically earning nothing compared to Green.

He didnt pay taxes as a non-Dom that year. Does he have investments, is he a bond holder? He could be. He is the kind of person the relative poor - the bottom 95% are subsidising.

Buceph

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

He didnt pay taxes as a non-Dom that year. Does he have investments, is he a bond holder? He could be. He is the kind of person the relative poor - the bottom 95% are subsidising.

I don't think anyone is saying that we should reimburse them because it's the morally correct thing to do. People are saying that we should honour the debt because the effects of not doing so would be catastrophic.

Personally, I'd go somewhere between Labour and FG's plans. But ultimately, I don't think it's a case of us negotiating with the EU. But the EU with Ireland a part of it, taking a stance on how the markets operate, how they should be corrected and how banks do business in the future. The current banking crisis isn't a purely Irish issue, and the bond situation isn't an Irish issue, it's a Eurozone issue. There have been calls from some Germans for a huge investigation into how the markets do business. It's just it's going to take Ireland living up to EU obligations in the mean time to ensure we as a European entity get to the point where the issues can be addressed at a global level.

Rabble Rabble

WEll I was arguing against Seamas, who said the rich are not subsidised by the poor. I changed the goal posts on the definition of poor.

Buceph

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

WEll I was arguing against Seamas, who said the rich are not subsidised by the poor. I changed the goal posts on the definition of poor.

I agree with the way your looking at it. But I don't think that's how parties like Sinn Fein or the ULA are looking at it. People who I think are moderately well off they think are absurdly rich, and taking advantage of the "average man" and the "wurker."

squod

Buceph wrote: »

The current banking crisis isn't a purely Irish issue, and the bond situation isn't an Irish issue, it's a Eurozone issue.

We do seem to have a disproportionate amount of the debts though. Can't imagine any other nation taking FF/FGs proposals seriously.

Buceph wrote: »

People are saying that we should honour the debt because the effects of not doing so would be catastrophic.

How catastrophic. If a €100bn+ debt on a nation of ~1.2 million workers (and falling) isn't a catastrophe then I don't know what is. We can't possibly afford it. I doubt we could even afford a quarter of that debt.

Snakeblood

squod wrote: »

How catastrophic. If a €100bn+ debt on a nation of ~1.2 million workers (and falling) isn't a catastrophe then I don't know what is. We can't possibly afford it. I doubt we could even afford a quarter of that debt.

I think over the next five years we'll make an attempt at paying it, the country will spiral further downwards, every multinational will leave and then we'll default, because in that situation, **** the EU, we're totally boned and they've thrown us a lead lifejacket with the EU/IMF intervention.

We'll be totally hosed as a nation though.

Buceph

squod wrote: »

How catastrophic. If a €100bn+ debt on a nation of ~1.2 million workers (and falling) isn't a catastrophe then I don't know what is. We can't possibly afford it. I doubt we could even afford a quarter of that debt.

If you mean rejecting the loans we've been given, and telling the international markets to eff off? Then the banks collapsing, every MNC leaving the country, every indigenous business unable to access any cash, and the government not being able to pay the teachers, nurses, cleaners, prison guards, Gardai, the dole, disability allowance, etc., etc.. The country shutting down completely. That's a catastrophe.

Liam Byrne

niallers1 wrote: »

If you have a problem paying back other people loans, investments , gambling debts then vote for Sinn Fein ......

If only it were that simple. I have just as much of an objection to people who collect murderers from jail and don't even refer to this state by its proper name.

Do you think the USA would elect someone who called it "the northern half of the continent excluding Canada" ?

Snakeblood

Buceph wrote: »

If you mean rejecting the loans we've been given, and telling the international markets to eff off? Then the banks collapsing, every MNC leaving the country, every indigenous business unable to access any cash, and the government not being able to pay the teachers, nurses, cleaners, prison guards, Gardai, the dole, disability allowance, etc., etc.. The country shutting down completely. That's a catastrophe.

The problem is that's going to happen eventually anyway. We're expected to pay back 100 billion over many many years, by raising taxes. Our economy is in recession. We will earn less each year, be able to pay back less, the interest rates will make the amount we have to pay back larger. We can't pay the money back, it's impossible unless there's a radical change to prosperity when most evidence points to us losing any competitive advantage over other nations as a quid pro quo for the bailout.

Buceph

Snakeblood wrote: »

The problem is that's going to happen eventually anyway. We're expected to pay back 100 billion over many many years, by raising taxes. Our economy is in recession. We will earn less each year, be able to pay back less, the interest rates will make the amount we have to pay back larger. We can't pay the money back, it's impossible unless there's a radical change to prosperity when most evidence points to us losing any competitive advantage over other nations as a quid pro quo for the bailout.

That's why I think renegotiating the deal is important. And a mixture of Labour and FG's policies is the best position to do that from. Throwing out the IMF and rejecting the markets is just petulant. If we can make a case where by the plan isn't working, despite trying it, we can actually do something. That allows for things to change. Rejecting everything out of hand just guarantees failure.

Snakeblood

Buceph wrote: »

That's why I think renegotiating the deal is important. And a mixture of Labour and FG's policies is the best position to do that from. Throwing out the IMF and rejecting the markets is just petulant. If we can make a case where by the plan isn't working, despite trying it, we can actually do something. That allows for things to change. Rejecting everything out of hand just guarantees failure.

I don't think renegotiating will do it. It'll have to be rejection at some point, because we're not going to be allowed weasel out of 100 billion, if that's even the total amount. It'll be like reparations for the Weimar republic.

squod

Buceph wrote: »

If you mean rejecting the loans we've been given, and telling the international markets to eff off? Then the banks collapsing, every MNC leaving the country, every indigenous business unable to access any cash, and the government not being able to pay the teachers, nurses, cleaners, prison guards, Gardai, the dole, disability allowance, etc., etc.. The country shutting down completely. That's a catastrophe.

Who is suggesting that, RTE? The separation of debts has to happen. Like it or not. The vision you're painting of the utter destruction of the country is of course 100% bull-poo. No sane economist would endorse FF/FGs plan.

1. The separation of Bank debt and Sovereign debt

Point number one. The starting point of recovery.

imme

Is that you Mary Lou/Bertie, OP?

Can you give the context or some text of the Noonan piece on radio. It makes a good headline though;)

squod

imme wrote: »

Is that you Mary Lou/Bertie, OP?

Can you give the context or some text of the Noonan piece on radio. It makes a good headline though;)

You can listen to it for yourself, RTE.ie n'all that. The question is legitimate and has been raised many times on TV/radio. How about you? Are you going against the advice of every other economist on the planet and volunteer to cough up a princely sum just to keep some accountant happy in Germany?

imme

squod wrote: »

You can listen to it for yourself, RTE.ie n'all that. The question is legitimate and has been raised many times on TV/radio. How about you? Are you going against the advice of every other economist on the planet and volunteer to cough up a princely sum just to keep some accountant happy in Germany?

are we doing things to keep accountants happy
I should hope not. you do know this is After Hours, don't you:eek:

Pete_Cavan

Lets look at the facts;

1. We were being charged over 9% yields on government bonds before the bailout, the bailout money has an average interest rate of 5.8% - I know which one I would choose
2. We have an €18bn gap between our national income and expenditure (nothing to do with banks). With out the EU/IMF money we have nowhere else to get money so losing the bailout would mean we have to make an €18bn budget adjustment this year - imagine the damage that would do to the economy when you consider last years adjustment was only €6bn
3. Our banks cant get money elsewhere so the ECB has committed €160bn to Irish banks. Were we to default on senior bondholder debt, they would remove that funding thereby collapsing our entire banking system - no money in ATMs, all deposits wiped out, no payment of wages, businesses not able to access working capital, etc.

We have to pay the bondholders until the EU says otherwise. Without their money we would have to slash €18bn from the national budget and our banks would collapse, basically complete economic devastation within weeks. Like it or not, but they are the only people giving us money right now.

The EU/IMF are beginning to realise that we will not be able to repay our debts and there is a growing consensus that something will have to be done. The IMF want burden sharing with bondholders but the EU want to lower the interest rate (burning bondholders would cause further problems in other European countries). Something is going to have to give, but we cant make that decision on our own - pissing off all our major trading partners is not going to set us on the road to economic recovery.

Having listened to all the parties over the past few weeks I know Noonan is the guy I want to be doing the talking when we go back into negotiations (which will happen).

squod

imme wrote: »

are we doing things to keep accountants happy

Apparently...

Ireland central bank counterfeited 51 billion Euros out of thin air. The amount is not backed by government bonds. Nor was it a loan from the ECB or anyone else.

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/ecb-allows-ireland-to-counterfeit-51-billion-euros-2011-1#ixzz1EuH85rJ6

imme wrote: »

I should hope not. you do know this is After Hours, don't you:eek:

I am going to shut my big mouth and go back to slagging people's Ma's after the election, I promise.

Buceph

squod wrote: »

Who is suggesting that, RTE? The separation of debts has to happen. Like it or not. The vision you're painting of the utter destruction of the country is of course 100% bull-poo. No sane economist would endorse FF/FGs plan.

Where will we get the money to run the country from? What banks will operate here if the current ones are allowed to collapse? What will the indigenous businesses use for money?

squod

Pete_Cavan wrote: »

Lets look at the facts;

1. We were being charged over 9% yields on government bonds before the bailout, the bailout money has an average interest rate of 5.8% - I know which one I would choose
2. We have an €18bn gap between our national income and expenditure (nothing to do with banks). With out the EU/IMF money we have nowhere else to get money so losing the bailout would mean we have to make an €18bn budget adjustment this year - imagine the damage that would do to the economy when you consider last years adjustment was only €6bn
3. Our banks cant get money elsewhere so the ECB has committed €160bn to Irish banks. Were we to default on senior bondholder debt, they would remove that funding thereby collapsing our entire banking system - no money in ATMs, all deposits wiped out, no payment of wages, businesses not able to access working capital, etc.

We have to pay the bondholders until the EU says otherwise. Without their money we would have to slash €18bn from the national budget and our banks would collapse, basically complete economic devastation within weeks. Like it or not, but they are the only people giving us money right now.

The EU/IMF are beginning to realise that we will not be able to repay our debts and there is a growing consensus that something will have to be done. The IMF want burden sharing with bondholders but the EU want to lower the interest rate (burning bondholders would cause further problems in other European countries). Something is going to have to give, but we cant make that decision on our own - pissing off all our major trading partners is not going to set us on the road to economic recovery.

Having listened to all the parties over the past few weeks I know Noonan is the guy I want to be doing the talking when we go back into negotiations (which will happen).

The same people who got us into this mess are the ones telling you this story. It's just a story. Part of the ''only game in town'' story or the ''no other choice'' story.

The fact that Anglo was bailed at all is testament to the corruption of the current oligarchy. Do you actually believe these people? FF/FG have cried wolf one too many times and taken the nuclear option first on each decision they've made.

I'll take economic advise from economists thank you.

squod

Buceph wrote: »

Where will we get the money to run the country from? What banks will operate here if the current ones are allowed to collapse? What will the indigenous businesses use for money?

These questions have already been answered. Either you are not listening or you do not want to hear.

squod

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bk-PX7VgZzk

From 15 mins on. If anyone is interested.

Buceph

squod wrote: »

These questions have already been answered. Either you are not listening or you do not want to hear.

The only thing you've said is a quote from an economist who seems to think we're still on the gold standard.
:rolleyes: