Things that cost €30 million

later12

POINTBREAK wrote: »

The cost of this is not what it seems. Ireland is no poorer because all the money has presumably stayed in the country and is going to be spent by the people who earned it thus boosting the economy.

At least, if you are going to advance this argument, bother to read with or engage some of the posts instead of repeating the same old thing

later10 wrote:

Yes... so why not double it? Treble it? Have the air corps dump bags of it?

This is not how a stimulus ought to work, in my opinion.

Firstly whether a stimulus is to be contemplated at all is dubious.

Secondly the notion that this would be an efficient means to distribution of such a package is quite incredible. Far more likely to return the injection to the local economy in an immediate way would be its dispersal via welfare recipients by trebling the intership programme for this year, for example. There is in the first instance the benefit that we would be putting welfare recipients into the workforce gaining up to date experience for employment history. But in terms of a Keynesian mulitiplier effect, we know how welfare recipients tend to return money to their local economy as a matter of necessity, do we have any such information on 7,500 reasonably well paid public servants? It would seem logical that the higher the public wage, the more likely the individual is to be concerned about savings, and the lesser the multiplier effect of temporarily increasing that wage will be on the overall wage, thereby diminishing the stimulus.

If one is going to argue for this as a stimulus, one should certainly not argue for it as an efficient means of economic stimulus, unless there is some actual information that backs up a greater multiplier than would be logical, prima facie, compared to another means of distribution targeting consumption.

later12

View wrote: »

These days though, you'd really want to have little else to do with your day to be hanging around to protest about or watch UK Ministers/Prime Ministers when they come over to visit.

Opposed as I am to the cost of this visit, I have to say I think the same applies to many of those who were involved in the more violent protests yesterday.

Is this news item what those who believe in the tourism effect were talking about? One of the tragedies from a marketing perspective, in my opinion, is that none of those members of the public who genuinely welcome the Queen can show their enthusiasm in any meaningful way.

So to anyone looking in it may appear as though officialdom is welcoming the party, whereas the people are not.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TbtBDEiTJKo

Monty Burnz

later10 wrote: »

Meaningless, please give something logical to the debate, or at least answer whether you think this money would not be better spent on employment initiatives. The jobs budget could have done with an extra €30m for the internship or retrofitting programmes, don't you think?

No, I don't think so. Governments can't create real jobs - the best thing they can do is get out of the way of those who can.

This is something that had to happen. I know that it was Fianna Failure who set this visit in train - that does not make it wrong by default. Cancelling it would have caused a lot more damage to the country than carrying it through. What message would we be sending to the world if we cancelled? "Ireland is closed for business - would the last one to leave please turn out the lights".

later12

Monty Burnz wrote: »

No, I don't think so. Governments can't create real jobs - the best thing they can do is get out of the way of those who can.

Then why are you supporting this for its commercial benefits?

And surely, in that case, you must have been opposed to the jobs initiative????

Monty Burnz

later10 wrote: »

Then why are you supporting this for its commercial benefits?

Because the commercial benefits will have nothing to do with the government. They got us on telly, that's the best they can do. Now its up to the beneficiaries of the free advertising to capitalise.

later10 wrote: »

And surely, in that case, you must have been opposed to the jobs initiative????

I haven't looked at it in earnest to be honest. If I did, I may well be against it, but I have other things to worry about.

Sesshoumaru

later10 wrote: »

Is this news item what those who believe in the tourism effect were talking about? One of the tragedies from a marketing perspective, in my opinion, is that none of those members of the public who genuinely welcome the Queen can show their enthusiasm in any meaningful way.

So to anyone looking in it may appear as though officialdom is welcoming the party, whereas the people are not.

I don't have a 24 hour news feed playing in my brain, but what coverage I did watch (BBC & Sky News) was quite positive about the reception the Queen received. Presenters seemed to mention quite often that the majority of the country according to opinion polls welcomed the Queen and that the number of protesters was in reality very small. I also see a lot of British media mentioning how much the Queen seems to be enjoying herself. So far I think the tone of the media coverage has been very positive for Ireland.

I also think this visit was more about ritual and ceremony. State visits by the heads of friendly nations/empires/kingdoms etc are an ancient tradition that serve a purpose that goes beyond money counting. Is improving relations with arguably our most important neighbour worth 30 million? That is the metric by which I'm judging the value of that 30 million euro (not forgetting that Obama accounts for some of that money). Money well spent IMO and a nice side benefit was showing those scumbags they can't dictate to the rest of us whether or not we can invite the Queen.

Sesshoumaru

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Because the commercial benefits will have nothing to do with the government. They got us on telly, that's the best they can do. Now its up to the beneficiaries of the free advertising to capitalise.

I haven't looked at it in earnest to be honest. If I did, I may well be against it, but I have other things to worry about.

I think you're getting sucked into the OP's reality now. Not everything in life has to be primarily justified by cost. Not every outgoing has to have an identifiable return that must be used to justify the expenditure. It's like inviting your neighbour over to your BBQ (few beers etc), you don't do it as an accounting exercise expecting your neighbour to return the 2 beers and 1 burger you invested in them. You probably did it so you can get along better with them. The return on that investment can't really be measured by an accountant.

later12

Monty Burnz wrote: »

They got us on telly, that's the best they can do.

With, it has to be said, mixed coverage.

I don't have a 24 hour news feed playing in my brain, but what coverage I did watch (BBC & Sky News) was quite positive about the reception the Queen received.

I would say there was positive and nagative. Certainly the British public could be in no two minds about the state's official feelings towards the British monarch, but the state's people? The only ordinary people likely to be on TV outside of a handpicked number who will meet her, are those who will be vigorously opposing her. I wish there were some sort of meet and greet/ public event available to the (upwards of 70% of) people who do care about the visit, but tellingly, security problems won't allow it.

There have been more bomb alerts in Dublin in the last four weeks than probably over the past decade. I don't think this helps, and the foreign coverage is remarking upon it.

Sesshoumaru

later10 wrote: »

With, it has to be said, mixed coverage.

I would say there was positive and nagative. Certainly the British public could be in no two minds about the state's official feelings towards the British monarch, but the state's people? The only ordinary people likely to be on TV outside of a handpicked number who will meet her, are those who will be vigorously opposing her. I wish there were some sort of meet and greet/ public event available to the (upwards of 70% of) people who do care about the visit, but tellingly, security problems won't allow it.

There have been more bomb alerts in Dublin in the last four weeks than probably over the past decade. I don't think this helps, and the foreign coverage is remarking upon it.

There is an extremely small minority of people on this island that would do the Queen harm if they had the chance. That is very sad! As I for one would have loved to have gone out to greet the Queen. Leaving aside for the moment all the arguments against the monarchy (not democratic etc), how often would I have a chance to bring my daughters to see the Queen? Kids love that stuff

But of course a few lunatic scumbags ruin it for us all. But not totally ruined! her not visiting at all is what they wanted. Hopefully with this precedent set, future visits by the Queen (or her successor) will require less and less security.

*edit*

I see some really nice comments in the Guardian's comment sections coming from British people who have Irish ancestors who fought in WW 1&2. They seem pleased their ancestors sacrifices on behalf of Empire are being shown respect by the Queen. How many British people know over 50,000 Irish died fighting for Britain in WW1? I think that's the kind of thing that helps improve relations between neighbours.

later12

Sesshoumaru wrote: »

There is an extremely small minority of people on this island that would do the Queen harm if they had the chance. That is very sad!

Indeed. I don't see the point of monarchy largely because the Queen is little more than, in some ways, a rather unfortunate little old lady who has had all of this cast upon her.
However, it is precisely that fact which makes assasination threats to her, or public violence generally, all the more incomprehensible.

I see some really nice comments in the Guardian's comment sections coming from British people who have Irish ancestors who fought in WW 1&2. ....think that's the kind of thing that helps improve relations between neighbours.

In fairness, if we ignore the two states (states being such an artificial construct anyway), when have relations between ordinary British people and ordinary Irish people really been that bad? Not in recent history, certainly.

There have always been small minded individuals on both sides, but i don't think Martin driving a cab in London felt any animosity towards Martin driving a cab in Cork up until this moment. Did that need addressing? I cannot help but feel that this is all about appeasing our respective 'states', symbolically and with all the pomp that such entities seem to love, as opposed to their peoples. I doubt the people commenting on that Guardian site ever felt ill will towards the Irish people, nor from them.

later12

I'll start the jobs log, shall I?

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/ireland-did-its-bit-for-guinness-but-diageo-responds-with-job-cuts-2658148.html

beeftotheheels

If the papal visit to the UK cost £6.9m for security, and Bush's visit cost £4.1m when a lot of angry anti war protesters were on the streets how on earth can we have spent €30m on security for two visits?

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/magazine-13508572

dvpower

later10 wrote: »

I'll start the jobs log, shall I?

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/ireland-did-its-bit-for-guinness-but-diageo-responds-with-job-cuts-2658148.html

And how exactly are these job losses related to the visits?

later12

dvpower wrote: »

And how exactly are these job losses related to the visits?

They're not, I'm pointing out job losses in the company that had most to gain from the state visits... and yes, I am being somewhat facetious. Because I think the notion of big employment gains arising from the royal or presidential visits are equally ridiculous and unfounded.

monkeybutter

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0526/breaking21.html

All down to the queens visit, sweeeeeeet

dvpower

monkeybutter wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/breaking/2011/0526/breaking21.html

All down to the queens visit, sweeeeeeet

Good news for sure, but unless they were all journalists and secret service agents....

Einhard

I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but it's been estimated that the visits of Bess and Barack were worth approx €150 million in terms of publicity for Ireland. Not to be sniffed at.

kippy

Einhard wrote: »

I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but it's been estimated that the visits of Bess and Barack were worth approx €150 million in terms of publicity for Ireland. Not to be sniffed at.

Nope, that hadnt been mentioned at all yet.......

later12

Einhard wrote: »

I don't know if this has been mentioned already, but it's been estimated that the visits of Bess and Barack were worth approx €150 million in terms of publicity for Ireland. Not to be sniffed at.

Can I just point out that the royal wedding, which was watched by hundreds of millions of people and was probably the ultimate once-in-a-generation royal, fairytale event, with the future King marrying a beautiful commoner... is expected to generate an actual return of £120m for a city of twice our population.

Now if that's the actual projected revenue, one would suggest that the worth of the publicity resulting in such revenues should be less than £120m. Was the Queen's visit really worth a similar amount of publicity to the UK royal wedding, which captured the imagination of hundreds of millions of people? Really? Come on.

Anyway... yes this figure of €150m has been mentioned... but it has also been mentioned that it relates to an advertising campaign, and the background to this figure has never been described, and furthermore there is no reference to a single job being created or no known projection of improved revenue.

Monty Burnz

later10 wrote: »

Anyway... yes this figure of €150m has been mentioned... but it has also been mentioned that it relates to an advertising campaign, and the background to this figure has never been described, and furthermore there is no reference to a single job being created or no known projection of improved revenue.

Why don't you stop moaning about this and come up with your own projections. Sit down and work it out. If you don't have the expertise, then perhaps you should ask those who do.

dvpower

@later10
Whatever about the €150m estimate, would you agree that the benefits of these visits are likely to be greater than the costs?

kippy

dvpower wrote: »

@later10
Whatever about the €150m estimate, would you agree that the benefits of these visits are likely to be greater than the costs?

It depends.
Read a few of my earlier posts.

It is exceptionally difficult, especially where tourism is concerned, to determine the effects these visits will have had and anyone coming up with tourism figures and using these visits to jusify any increase in them is, in my opinion, a spoofer.

There MAY be an increase in the amount of FDI as a result of this, but that is completely determined by discussions in the background and MAY have occurred anyway - who actually knows.

Some people would like to think that tourists care about where their head of state has been, some people believe this is nonsense.

Monty Burnz

kippy wrote: »

Some people would like to think that tourists care about where their head of state has been, some people believe this is nonsense.

I don't really think that's the argument. I imagine it is more along the lines of simply raising the existence of the country as a place to visit in the minds of potential tourists. Any photos or footage of the Prez in a pub, or Liz in Cork or Cashel will merely reinforce this.

I don't know if anyone is arguing that people in Britain are thinking, 'the queen has been to Ireland, I guess I'll have to go too now...'.

kippy

Monty Burnz wrote: »

I don't really think that's the argument. I imagine it is more along the lines of simply raising the existence of the country as a place to visit in the minds of potential tourists. Any photos or footage of the Prez in a pub, or Liz in Cork or Cashel will merely reinforce this.

I don't know if anyone is arguing that people in Britain are thinking, 'the queen has been to Ireland, I guess I'll have to go too now...'.

Have a look at my earlier posts.
Nowadays, there are far more ways to "view" Ireland and indeed most roads in the country, that on television when someone important goes there.
People are interested in cost and a lot more factors than just buying into - oh someone was there on the telly, thats nice, type of thing.

Thats my take on it.
Theres absolutely NO WAY, of proving the benefit of this as any increase in tourism numbers will be attributed to these visits anyway......

dvpower

kippy wrote: »

It is exceptionally difficult, especially where tourism is concerned, to determine the effects these visits will have had and anyone coming up with tourism figures and using these visits to jusify any increase in them is, in my opinion, a spoofer.

You could make a similar arguement about any form of advertising or even marketing in general. No one can look into the future, but we should at least take seriously the opinions of people like Tourism Ireland - it would be deeply cynical to write them off simply as spoofers.

kippy wrote: »

Some people would like to think that tourists care about where their head of state has been, some people believe this is nonsense.

This is a bit of a strawman. No one really thinks that people would make a decision purely based on the fact that their head of state has visited. Its much more of a soft sell - the hundreds of foreign journalists, producing lots of nice colour pieces that will push Ireland into contention as a possible destination.

splashthecash

30 million cuisine de france blueberry muffins

later12

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Why don't you stop moaning about this and come up with your own projections.

I emailed Tourism Ireland asking for a breakdown of this figure, and am still awaiting a reply.
Would you agree that it seems a little bizarre that worth of the marketing has been put at a value similar to that of the Royal wedding to a jurisdiction of twice our population?

dvpower wrote:

@later10
Whatever about the €150m estimate, would you agree that the benefits of these visits are likely to be greater than the costs?

I think I mentioned this earlier if you read back... studies show a temporary short term increase in trade following on from state visits whereby diplomatic relationships have not previously existed. Unless repeated state visits occur, the impact seems to dissipate. Whereby trade is already enhanced and there are existing diplomatic relations, trade is far more likely to be influenced by non diplomatic factors such as forex rates and inflation.

Like I said this cost is the equivalent, between lost taxes and unemployment transfer payments, of 1,500 job losses.

I don't see that many jobs arising from it, and no, I am not convinced that we will recoup our costs arising from the visit.

Laminations

later10 wrote: »

Can I just point out that the royal wedding, which was watched by hundreds of millions of people and was probably the ultimate once-in-a-generation royal, fairytale event, with the future King marrying a beautiful commoner... is expected to generate an actual return of £120m for a city of twice our population.

The royal wedding was just a fvcking wedding. It was not a showcase of a country's tourist attractions nor a demonstration that the country is generally very welcoming and has moved on from it's troubled past. The wedding was Westminster cathedral and those shots will generate £120million. This was shots of Dublin and Ireland, it's attractive landscapes and pleasant people. Both the Queen and Barack said they'd be back - a ringing endorsement of the country. The wedding was not an endorsement of Britain, it was just a fancy wedding.

Monty Burnz

later10 wrote: »

Would you agree that it seems a little bizarre that worth of the marketing has been put at a value similar to that of the Royal wedding to a jurisdiction of twice our population?

No. The size of the population is a red herring, which you should know. The value of the exposure is determined solely by the number of tourists who visit and the money they spend when they are here.

later10 wrote: »

Like I said this cost is the equivalent, between lost taxes and unemployment transfer payments, of 1,500 job losses.

Can you please give me a breakdown of how you arrived at this figure?

later12

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Can you please give me a breakdown of how you arrived at this figure?

Combat Poverty Agency (2009) Submission on Supplementary Budget 2009. Dublin: CPA.
http://www.google.ie/url?sa=t&source=web&cd=1&ved=0CBwQFjAA&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.cpa.ie%2Fpublications%2Fsubmissions%2F2009_Sub_SupplementaryBudget2009.pdf&rct=j&q=Combat%09%20%20%C2%A0Poverty%09%20%20%C2%A0Agency%09%20%20%C2%A0(2009)%09%20%20%C2%A0Submission%09%20%20%C2%A0on%09%20%20%C2%A0Supplementary%09%20%20%C2%A0Budget%09%20%20%C2%A02009.%09%20%20%C2%A0Dublin%3A%09%20%20%C2%A0CPA.%09&ei=D7bfTfGgMJO5hAeFmcXPCg&usg=AFQjCNHEKTwSmHlcpYQPqyr7B8VLZV55ng&sig2=Vwvd3f-TiQaJckahrUqvxg&cad=rja

A person who moves from employment to unemployment no longer contributes tax and PRSI and becomes a financial burden on the state (at an estimated cost of €20,000).

30,000,000/ 20,000 = 1,500