Which party is best suited to accept a change in Culture ?

Drumpot

Before anybody gives me their views, can they please at least try to be objective and honest.

My views are -

• I want realy political reform (not token gestures), but that involves a complete change of the culture within the dail.
• I want to have accountability within the Public service and within politics with definitive guidelines. Anybody who is accused of wrongdoings will be suspended without pay, until they prove otherwise (this will give them a motive to assist any enquiry!).
• We should aim (long term objective) to have a universal health service with no need for private health insurance. I believe every citizen of Ireland should have access to the best possible healthcare irrespective of the depth of their pockets.
• A long term strategy should be implemented to make sure that the banks of this country are never in a position to be of systemic importance again. This is because they have shown (again and again and again) that they cannot be trusted to show prudency when they can chase big gains. Not just that, concurrent governments are incapable of regulating them as they start to reduce regulation as soon as things improve. As such , we should be encouraging foreign investment firms to offer mortgages etc.
• Laws to protect the vulnerable against criminals should once again be reviewed and strengthened to always protect the innocent in 50/50. Cases should not be allowed to be thrown out because of "technicalitys" and in any situation, the laws should always be geared towards getting justice served, with a proper outcome, instead of loopholes being allowed to be explored.
• A new form of education should be introduced in schools to try and get children involved and interested in politics (perhaps included with their history class). This includes encouraging debates on politics and policies.
• A debate needs to be had on the whole political system. Why do we need more then 20 TDs (ministers) to run a country when most backbenchers/opposition members spend over half their time in their own constituancies trying to make sure they get re-elected. Just make them councellors and let a select few run the country (as thats what goes on anyways!) or arrange for our elected officials to run the country (not their own agendas).

These are a few of the things I believe in, but alas, I am struggling to find a party that shares my beliefs.

FF - Lack credibility because of their dispicable leadership over the last 12 years.
FG - So far have shown little interest in true reform. A couple of token gestures.
Lab - Protecting THEIR members and shameful populist rhetoric before elections.
SF - Looney economic policies.
People Before Profit - Hmmmmm

Anybody got any views on which party would help get true change ?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Drumpot

Thanks for discussing my original question !


Differant is not necessarily better, so its best off not trying ? I never said I had all the answers, I was saying we need a change. If you have suggestions I will gladly listen !

I never said "guilty until proven innocent". In many cases, the reason tribunals, etc, are held up is because the people involved have a motive for dragging them out. None of my suggestions are absolute, but we have to try something to improve the way things are run. There are more then one way to force/encourage people to clear up any "misunderstandings".

In terms of Healthcare, I am not really sure why you bother replying to people trying to encourage progression or encourage change for the better. Best intentions dont lead to guaranteed success, but only by trying will you ever know if things can be done better.

There is nothing wrong with wanting better and trying to come up with ideas to improve things. Unfortunaltey a country cannot be run on the things that cannot be done and while there are many people like yourself who can only react negatively to anything people try to do to improve things in this country, is there a chance you have anything constructive to add to this thread ?

Valmont

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You should probably stop using white coloured font to make this point.

I think it is a mistake to look at the political parties for a change in culture. All they have bequeathed us with so far is a culture of corruption and mismanagement- I can't see this trend being reversed somehow.

Drumpot

Valmont wrote: »

You should probably stop using white coloured font to make this point.

I think it is a mistake to look at the political parties for a change in culture. All they have bequeathed us with so far is a culture of corruption and mismanagement- I can't see this trend being reversed somehow.

Well I think the electorate have to want a change in culture, but that just isnt going to happen while their choices/alternatives are very limited . .

We need a population that gets more engaged in the process of deciding who gets into power, which is why I think we should be encouraging children to show an interest in it from an early age.

Liam Byrne

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

What ? Because private banks have worked so, so well for this country, haven't they ? :P

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ethics and honesty? Sustainability ? Probably too much to ask given that they're the worst offenders for having their eye on maximum short-term obscene profit; but we can always hope.

Drumpot

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What ? Because private banks have worked so, so well for this country, haven't they ? :P




Ethics and honesty? Sustainability ? Probably too much to ask given that they're the worst offenders for having their eye on maximum short-term obscene profit; but we can always hope.

Agreed. You see people get stuck thinking that conventional wisdom is unquestionable . . If everybody was a conformist, we would still think the world is square and that sacrificing people for religious beliefs was acceptable ! !

I really think so many people live their lives without ever questioning the hypocricy's that go on in everyday life.

Democracy . . That is "encouraged" and greatly influenced by investors/moneymen . .

Justice . . That is selective and served on those with empty pockets . .

Healthcare . . Again dependent on your wallet . .

Bit of a pattern here . . But sure, lets not bother trying anything knew and just be good little serfs , to speak of change is heresy . .

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Liam Byrne

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

None of which would have made any difference if the banks behaved properly. And since you prefer minimum interference, and the fact is that what happened was due to the Financial Regulator not doing his job, the "protected and propped up" was implemented by doing what you usually suggest; it's therefore hypocritical to imply that you object.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Then we are of completely different mindsets. Unfortunately we have to share the same world.

Making a profit to tide you through the bad times, or for investment and improvement is fine......obscene profits are not.

Nodin

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I see we're headed into 'No True Bank Of Scotland' territory....

Sleepy

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It leads to a lack of strategic management of organisations. It's why I'd argue for the bulk of director salaries to be paid in the form of 5-10 year stock options, tbh.

Bottle_of_Smoke

Assuming a party had a majority I think people before profit or the Green Party would be most likely to make real political reform a reality.

PBP would reform it to communism. Greens would be the best option. They never had at chance at reforming with such a small share of power with Fianna Fail but the type of people who'd vote for them don't exist in sufficient numbers.

Liam Byrne

Bottle_of_Smoke wrote: »

PBP would reform it to communism. Greens would be the best option. They never had at chance at reforming with such a small share of power with Fianna Fail but the type of people who'd vote for them don't exist in sufficient numbers.

Wouldn't touch the Greens with their "tax first, provide alternatives later (maybe)" mentality.

beeftotheheels

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Making a profit to tide you through the bad times, or for investment and improvement is fine......obscene profits are not.

The problem here is that "obscene" is both a subjective and pejorative term. Was it obscene that I earned more than my parents by my mid 20s? Given I blew a lot of money on clothes, shoes, holidays, eating out I certainly didn't need the money I earned, I don't today (and I earn more than I did then).

But I am good at what I do, and at times my work has taken over my life, which I allow it to do because I love it. But would I do it for a pittance? No, it is human nature to want to be valued for what you do, and one of the most objective methods of evaluation is through salary (I expect to be paid better than anyone who is in the same field and is not as good as I am).

The problem is starker when we move to companies since they have an obligation to maximise the returns for their investors.

Where the mismatch occurred was that they failed to price the risks associated with their activities properly, and then they failed to pay for that mispricing when we stepped in to save them.

I have to be aware that there are risks associated with what I do, and if I don't appreciate those risks properly then I could be sued in the morning. So I appreciate those risks.

I fully approve of rules and regulations forcing businesses to account for risks, and to my mind one of the huge failings was that the Financial Regulator did not do this in relation to the banks.

But wanting to see greater regulation/ regulation actually being enforced in order to mitigate unforeseen risks is not the same thing as wanting to prevent any business making a profit. Profit is good. In the words of Gordon Gecko "Greed is good", failing to appreciate and price risks is what is bad.

Drumpot

Yeh, was looking at People before profit . .

The problem I have with these kind of parties is that they normally ignore the rest of world when it comes to economic policies. Their intentions usually appear sound, but their understanding of world markets and the financial services industry is what stops me from getting on board!

While I would have socialist principles, I think you have to be clever about how you go about implementing change in society. You have to work with what you have and to try and mould it (over a long time) into a more ethical system that can use the good parts of the financial services sector and aggresively discourage practises that could have a negative impact on society (that doesnt threaten all potential for growth).

Liam Byrne

beeftotheheels wrote: »

....... is not the same thing as wanting to prevent any business making a profit. Profit is good. In the words of Gordon Gecko "Greed is good", failing to appreciate and price risks is what is bad.

Profit is good.

Massive profits are not.

Then again, you're talking to someone who thinks that any Lotto over €500,000 should be shared so that a lot of people get enough to live on for life.

The more I see going on, the more I believe I don't belong in this silly-money-mindset world.

Drumpot

beeftotheheels wrote: »

The problem here is that "obscene" is both a subjective and pejorative term. Was it obscene that I earned more than my parents by my mid 20s? Given I blew a lot of money on clothes, shoes, holidays, eating out I certainly didn't need the money I earned, I don't today (and I earn more than I did then).

But I am good at what I do, and at times my work has taken over my life, which I allow it to do because I love it. But would I do it for a pittance? No, it is human nature to want to be valued for what you do, and one of the most objective methods of evaluation is through salary (I expect to be paid better than anyone who is in the same field and is not as good as I am).

The problem is starker when we move to companies since they have an obligation to maximise the returns for their investors.

Where the mismatch occurred was that they failed to price the risks associated with their activities properly, and then they failed to pay for that mispricing when we stepped in to save them.

I have to be aware that there are risks associated with what I do, and if I don't appreciate those risks properly then I could be sued in the morning. So I appreciate those risks.

I fully approve of rules and regulations forcing businesses to account for risks, and to my mind one of the huge failings was that the Financial Regulator did not do this in relation to the banks.

But wanting to see greater regulation/ regulation actually being enforced in order to mitigate unforeseen risks is not the same thing as wanting to prevent any business making a profit. Profit is good. In the words of Gordon Gecko "Greed is good", failing to appreciate and price risks is what is bad.

Yeh, heard this argument before and while I agree with the principle on moral hazzard, the problem is that institutions of significant importance to economies will never be allowed to fail. As such, we will NEVER get the kind of free markets that are supposed to exist already.

That said, greed is bad and has no positive traits . . Its like saying to an alcoholic that drinking is good. Greed is all about ones self. Increasing ones wealth out of greed usually means that somebody else will pay for it. Greed is what makes people want more then they need and is what forces countries to invade other countries.

What you feel you are worth is subjective. Whether or not your job is important or worthy of an inflated wage is also subjective.

Drumpot

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Profit is good.

Massive profits are not.

Then again, you're talking to someone who thinks that any Lotto over €500,000 should be shared so that a lot of people get enough to live on for life.

The more I see going on, the more I believe I don't belong in this silly-money-mindset world.

Agree completely about the lotto . . I emailed them in a few suggestions that they didnt bother replying to . .I dont think there should ever be more then 2 draws without a winner (they should have some way of randomly picking a number of winners to share the amounts!)

In a cruel fate of irony, they know that if they didnt have the "win 4mil" lottos, they wouldnt get as many people buying tickets. In truth they rely on greed to inflate their figures!

beeftotheheels

Drumpot wrote: »

Yeh, heard this argument before and while I agree with the principle on moral hazzard, the problem is that institutions of significant importance to economies will never be allowed to fail. As such, we will NEVER get the kind of free markets that are supposed to exist already.

I didn't argue that they should have been allowed to fail, Anglo and INBS fair enough but not AIB or BOI as the knock on effect would have been huge. My issue is with the regulator not forcing them to price risks which we the taxpayer ultimately, and foreseeably bore, correctly.

Drumpot wrote: »

That said, greed is bad and has no positive traits . . Its like saying to an alcoholic that drinking is good. Greed is all about ones self. Increasing ones wealth out of greed usually means that somebody else will pay for it. Greed is what makes people want more then they need and is what forces countries to invade other countries.

This is absurdly basic. In case you weren't watching the news Communism is so last season!

Companies which, by law are obliged to seek profits, generate wealth. They generate employment, they pay taxes, all for the purposes of creating wealth for their shareholders. And who are these shareholders? Well, for a large part they are either directly or indirectly, our pension funds. So every time that Ryanair posts bigger profits and their share price increases, my pension fund increases just a little bit.

There is no magic black hole into which the wealth generated disappears.

In a system which doesn't pay me what I am worth relative to my peers where is the incentive for me to work? Where is the incentive for me to generate wealth? Once I have that wealth I will happily pay more tax than the majority of people because we live in a country with a progressive taxation system which I approve of. I will pay for my private health insurance and never be a burden on the health system I am helping to pay for, I will contribute to my pension and never be a burden on the State pension which I help to pay for. And all of this is fair because I want to live in a functioning society.

But to suggest that I should not want to generate wealth, or that my generating wealth is "taking it off someone else" is really quite wrong.

To suggest that greed necessarily leads to war...

Drumpot

beeftotheheels wrote: »

This is absurdly basic. In case you weren't watching the news Communism is so last season!

Companies which, by law are obliged to seek profits, generate wealth. They generate employment, they pay taxes, all for the purposes of creating wealth for their shareholders. And who are these shareholders? Well, for a large part they are either directly or indirectly, our pension funds. So every time that Ryanair posts bigger profits and their share price increases, my pension fund increases just a little bit.

There is no magic black hole into which the wealth generated disappears.

In a system which doesn't pay me what I am worth relative to my peers where is the incentive for me to work? Where is the incentive for me to generate wealth? Once I have that wealth I will happily pay more tax than the majority of people because we live in a country with a progressive taxation system which I approve of. I will pay for my private health insurance and never be a burden on the health system I am helping to pay for, I will contribute to my pension and never be a burden on the State pension which I help to pay for. And all of this is fair because I want to live in a functioning society.

But to suggest that I should not want to generate wealth, or that my generating wealth is "taking it off someone else" is really quite wrong.

To suggest that greed necessarily leads to war...

Ah, if I dont agree with the current unregulated mess, then I must love Communism . . Another lame argument usually put forward to supposedly prove that the system works !

Why did the US invade Iraq ? To liberate the country or to get multi billion contracts and access to oil ? Am I being naieve to suggest it ?

I never said people shouldnt want to generate wealth. There is a differance between generating wealth to literally generating more wealth then you need. Greed has no limit, that is a huge problem , enough is never enough, which means we will limp from one financial disaster to another mainly down to people deregulating an industry that has no regard for anybody and stops at NOTHING to increase its control/wealth.

I want to be rich. . But only so I dont have to put up with the BS hypocrisy that exists in our "democracy". . Incidentally, the problem with any system (capitalism and communism included) is usually the people the people at the top abusing it for their own self gain. As stated, we should not be encouraging a free flowing system that has no regard for the progression of society, but the increase of vested interests wealth. Especially one that will always default to socialist measures to bail out institutions too big to fail . .

Laminations

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

It's amazing that you still don't see the fatal flaw in your utopian libertarianism. If a truly private business, with a lot of money behind them, bought up Market share by offering unsustainable prices they could become systemic in their industry. They could, being run with gay abandon, for thepurpose of extracting maximum short term returns, make obscene profits. This short termism and mismanagement would rake it in for the directors but undoubtedly lead to unsustainable debt for the company and eventual closure.

So in your perfect little world we now have the collapse of a systemic company (much like we have had in our imperfect reality) but without any bailout, without any state intervention, without anyone to immediately fill that gulf (not for profit but for social needs) people would be left without a potentially essential service. And while we waited for a smaller competitor company to take over operations people would be put at great risk (I'm thinking of a healthcare scenario here moreso than banks)

So in an unregulated market where companies can engage in sharp practices to gain monopoly Market share, you get social reliance on private companies, companies that may have no interest in long term social needs and instead just be gouging the public for maximum short term obscene profits.

Hopefully your ideology never wins out.

EDIT: to answer OP, I think a new party would be best placed for radical political cultural reform. Failing that, FG and Labour are taking baby steps but have a far way to go, but I trust them over any other established party we have

beeftotheheels

Drumpot wrote: »

Ah, if I dont agree with the current unregulated mess, then I must love Communism . . Another lame argument usually put forward to supposedly prove that the system works !

No, to argue that the seeking of profits is bad, which is not in fact what I think you are arguing from this post, was what I equated with Communism.

Drumpot wrote: »

Why did the US invade Iraq ? To liberate the country or to get multi billion contracts and access to oil ? Am I being naieve to suggest it ?

Not the point, not everyone who seeks profits will necessarily invade another country

Drumpot wrote: »

I never said people shouldnt want to generate wealth. There is a differance between generating wealth to literally generating more wealth then you need. Greed has no limit, that is a huge problem , enough is never enough, which means we will limp from one financial disaster to another mainly down to people deregulating an industry that has no regard for anybody and stops at NOTHING to increase its control/wealth.

I want to be rich. . But only so I dont have to put up with the BS hypocrisy that exists in our "democracy". . Incidentally, the problem with any system (capitalism and communism included) is usually the people the people at the top abusing it for their own self gain. As stated, we should not be encouraging a free flowing system that has no regard for the progression of society, but the increase of vested interests wealth. Especially one that will always default to socialist measures to bail out institutions too big to fail . .

Lets look at some of the richest men on the planet, the likes of Gates and Buffet. Did they generate huge, even obscene, amounts of money? Yes. And having generated that money what are they doing with it? Doing more to fight the impact of AIDS in Africa than most western States.

Of course society matters, but wanting to generate wealth does not preclude being interested in society. Many higher income earners are more than happy to pay their taxes to support society, more and more investors are investing on ethical lines. It is not an either or situation.

In all honesty, if PBP were ever to lead a government I would emigrate. Their policies are too extreme when it comes to commerce, they would stifle the very commercial activities which generate taxes, the very commercial activities which can generate wealth.

I'm for increased regulation, I'm for progressive taxation, I am all for bringing those who destroyed the country to court where they broke the law. But no government can tell me how much I should earn given I do not work in the public sector. No government should try to dictate how much a business should earn. The earnings are not the problem, the failure to price risk and the failure to enforce risk assessment procedures are the problem here.

Laminations

I actually agree somewhat with beeftotheheels here (at least because he is not a libertarian there is scope for agreement on such matters)

Profit is good
Even greed is good.
Its an important motivator

But unbridled greed is bad

The state (as well as the individual) should capitalise on individual greed. And in a progressive tax system they do. Libertarians don't agree with such a system. Then again, libertarians think everyone can be an entrepreneur (or don't care that they can't) regardless of McClellands research (for example) that shows only 20% of people have high N-Ach scores (meaning they are driven by achievement). This inequality in temperament and proclivities is just the natural way of things in the libertarian survival of the fittest.

beeftotheheels

Laminations wrote: »

I actually agree somewhat with beeftotheheels here (at least because she is not a libertarian there is scope for agreement on such matters)

Profit is good
Even greed is good.
Its an important motivator

But unbridled greed is bad

The state (as well as the individual) should capitalise on individual greed. And in a progressive tax system they do.

You put this better than I did so thank you. The unbridled greed bit is the bit where greed is allowed to triumph over risk, and the law, and it is a bad thing. Of course we should be able to limit the risks that businesses cause us as a society.

If ABC Plc makes widgets which generate a huge profit but result in tonnes of poison being dumped in the river Lee then we should make ABC Plc pay for cleaning up that poison, and we should be able to punish them for damaging the environment.

If XYZ Plc sees that a way to make more profits is to use child slave labor in India then we should be able to stop them, we should be able to make them pay.

If Bank Plc sees that a way to make more profits is to behave completely recklessly safe in the knowledge that society will stop them going under then we have the right to regulate them to try and prevent that from happening (which is the bit we failed on).

But if XYZ Plc sees that a way to make more profits is to set up their call center in India with lower wages then I have no gripe with that.

If Hedge Fund LLC wants to invest in risky Irish bank bonds then I have no gripe with that since (LTCM aside) hedge funds are not of strategic importance to the real economy and should be allowed to fail if they misprice their risk (and no hedge fund should ever be allowed to get as big as LTCM again).

If the actions of a business are capable of causing real harm to individuals or society then they should be prevented from doing that, I think we as a society retain that right. But in order to do something which mitigates their ability to make profits we must be able to point to that harmful outcome which we are seeking to avoid.

Laminations

@beeftotheheels

Agreed. But I think the state should go further with regulation and punitive measures when it comes to company (and banking) collapses. The fact that throughout a period of mismanagement people like David Drumm and Sean Quinn were able to pay themselves massive salaries and then retain this money (and bumper pensions) by squirrelling it away with wives and family members, means that after a certain point there is very limited personal risk to running a company into the ground, and I think this limited liability encourages carelessness. Of course things can go wrong in business and I think our bankruptcy rules are somewhat archaic but I'd rather see someone being properly 'wiped out' and allowed start again sooner, then prevented from trying again for a decade.

HivemindXX

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Lets look at some of the richest men on the planet, the likes of Gates and Buffet. Did they generate huge, even obscene, amounts of money? Yes. And having generated that money what are they doing with it? Doing more to fight the impact of AIDS in Africa than most western States.

These people are quite exceptional though. Plenty of individuals and companies (I'm thinking of oil companies in particular) use their money to generate more money. By founding "think tanks" to make it appear there is disagreement over the facts. By setting up lobbying groups and paying off politicians to deregulate their industry or pass laws which help them. If we let companies completely alone to generate as much wealth as they can by whatever means they can I think we'd end up with a lot more Enrons than Gates Foundations.

Some people think that government is overly restrictive of companies and if only they got their nose out of things they didn't understand everything would be much better. Others think that companies are utterly amoral monsters and their every move must be controlled by governments to prevent abuses. In my opinion, and I believe the opinion of the majority, neither of those is correct. A middle ground with some space for innovation and profit but with some regulation to protect the commons. People disagree (strongly) about where the middle is but I don't think that will lead to the sort of total change in the political landscape the OP is talking about.

An earlier reply mentioned Lowry. This highlights another issue, you can't change the political landscape and the way the government is structured without the cooperation of the electorate. If the voters don't care that their TD is a liar or a thief is it not undemocratic to tell them they can't vote that way? Removing corrupt politicians is the job of the electorate. All the government can, and should, do is bring this corruption to light and let the electorate decide. To get rid of the Lowrys and Healy Raes we need to change the opinion of the electorate.

Liam Byrne

beeftotheheels wrote: »

we should be able to punish them for damaging the environment.

It's too late at that stage. The damage is done.

We need to STOP them before they do the above.

Say, for example, the "environment" is a 3,000 year old glass bowl. Once broken, no "punishment" can bring it back.

We therefore need ethics and conscience in business. And if they refuse to act that way and choose to act like petulant impulsive kids with tantrums, we need to regulate them.

There is no other option. But the required choice is within their control.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Liam Byrne

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

You'll need to work, but you need to do that to keep yourself sane anyway.

€500,000 would definitely ensure that you never again have to worry about money.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Wanting more money than you could ever possibly spend.

I note that you didn't comment on the fact that damage done cannot be reversed ? Or the fact that the "hands-off" regulation approach got us into this mess ?

Any particular reason why you ignored those ? Too inconvenient for the "Libertarian" argument ?

end a eknny

is nobody else getting sick of this notion that is been continually being forced down or throats that banks forced loans on people and encouraged them to take out loans they couldnt repay. how many of these poor people who are struggling now lied and forged documentation to get loans / mortages in the first place

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Liam Byrne

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If you've paid for your house then you can easily survive on a few hundred quid a month. And paying for a house should only account for half of the €500,000, leaving plenty aside for a rainy day.

Even allowing for another €100,000 spent, there's still €150,000 left, and with no mortgage that could tide you over for at least 10 years.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Liam Byrne

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

We've discussed this before under your old username; I disagreed completely then and I still disagree with you.

If and when we want you to act "to expose" then we'll ask for it.

Until then you are acting in no-one's interest other than your own, and making life more expensive for everyone who is barely surviving in the process.

That disgusts me, and I wish there were no speculators on the planet.

Some day, hopefully. The Western Economy has been damaged by greed, and hopefully it will be dismantled and replaced by something fair, ethical and sustainable.

I live in hope.

later12

Originally Posted by Liam Byrne
€500,000 would definitely ensure that you never again have to worry about money.

No.

For someone of the median Irish age (34) living the mean Irish life expectancy for 65 year olds (up to 83 years being the mean of female + male) this would amount to an income of €10, 204 per year.

Now I don't know about what sort of world you live in, but if I were on that income, which equates to €196/ wk, I would be pretty worried about money, and putting my kids through college, and keeping our home warm, and buy household furniture, and other things that feature on the deprivation index.

To be quite frank with you Liam Byrne, what another person earns in a legal manner is of none of your concern. if you're already ticked off at paying for the mistakes of others, then perhaps you should be quite grateful that there are very high income earners because these are the people who pay most of the tax. Those on less than €30,000 in the last year for which we have figures, who you and almost everyone else will proclaim pay the burden of the crisis, pay only 3% of the total tax.

It's very easy to criticise high earners and speculators while you're living under a regime whose widely enjoyed services are for a very large part bankrolled by these high earners.

end a eknny

it would be simple and better to elect a govermant without any parties that way the goverments only interest would be the country and not party politics and you would not have to worry about people working for the best interest of the county against what is best for the country you also would have people in the right ministries to which they are best suited. simple people elect people to all the ministries individually and nationaly like the president e.g enda kenny, miceaal martin, eamon gilmoore, gerry adams would put themselves forward as taoiseach and the country would vote as a whole similarily micheal noonan, richard bruton, brian lenihan, joan burton etc would put themselves forward as minister for finance. then those elected would take responsibility for these portfolio. then in a seperate election you would vote for one person in all of the constituencies as a sort of govenor who would oversee the running of that area a person whose job was solely the good of that area

Liam Byrne

later10 wrote: »

No.

Now I don't know about what sort of world you live in, but if I were on that income, which equates to €196/ wk, I would be pretty worried about money, and putting my kids through college, and keeping our home warm, and buy household furniture, and other things that feature on the deprivation index.

Did I say anything about it being the ONLY income?

I merely said that it would stop the need to worry.

later10 wrote: »

To be quite frank with you Liam Byrne, what another person earns in a legal manner is of none of your concern.

Ah but it does if I have to pay towards their wages, be they politicians, bankers, developers or the types of speculators who only exist to make oil prices rise or bet against Ireland making our loans more expensive, thereby acting like complete parasites.

In fact, every high-flying CEO is getting paid put of the extra €2 on a flight or €15 on a TV or 1c on texts. So yes, it is partly my concern.

Look, I'm not trying to kill off all incentives for people to innovate and work hard; all I'm saying is that unbridled greed got us where we are. That should prove that that system doesn't work, but those with money as their method of power and influence will do their damndest to revive it and maintain their position, regardless of whether that is for the good of the general population.

There's a LOT more to living than money, if we could only get the balance right.

later12

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I merely said that it would stop the need to worry.

Then you're still wrong. An extra €10k per year for someone on the minimum wage is still going to worry about energy bills like home heating, or house repairs, or getting their children through college. If you think that is a life changing sum of money over a lifetime I think you are pretty detached from the real world.

Ah but it does if I have to pay towards their wages

Why would you have to pay toward their wages? Say someone who earns their money on futures and derivatives... why do you think you would necessarily be paying their wage?

making our loans more expensive, thereby acting like complete parasites.

Where are you getting this sh1t? Leviticus?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Seloth

As you said Op even though the credibility of FF is currently destroyed the party its self is about to undertake huge reforms.Even John Bruton acknowledged this while making note that FG is not.

FG are just in but being a right party I cant see them making some of those changes.
SF,allot of people would assume would seeing as they were never in position to do so before but quite often they do only have a single agenda.
Lab...despite being left are very very conservative surprisingly.I do however really like their idea of constitutional reform.The second Irish Republic could do quite allot of wonders for the legal system.

Valmont

Liam Byrne wrote: »

There's a LOT more to living than money, if we could only get the balance right.

So there's a lot more to living than money, but first we need to steal as much of it as we can and heap it into various social experiments that will somehow reduce our reliance on said money...you've lost me.

Valmont

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The Western Economy has been damaged by greed, and hopefully it will be dismantled and replaced by something fair, ethical and sustainable.

I live in hope.

I think your only option is to replace the human race with synthetic humans not capable of individual thought- perhaps like the Borg in Star Trek. Otherwise you're hinting for Communism Part II. We all know how that worked out last time.

Liam Byrne

Valmont wrote: »

I think your only option is to replace the human race with synthetic humans not capable of individual thought- perhaps like the Borg in Star Trek. Otherwise you're hinting for Communism Part II. We all know how that worked out last time.

I have individual thought, so there's no need to be patronising about it.

We've also seen where rampant capitalism and greed got us.

So both have failed.

What next?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Liam Byrne

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

A bank bailout might fit your description, however the fact remains that that bailout would not have been required had the unsupervised / unregulated banks been trustworthy enough not to put profit and commission ahead of common sense.

That, sir, is a fact.

And since you want LESS regulation and "interference" by governments, that is how businesses would operate.....screwing decent people in search of profits.

I'm not against profit, I'm just against it being the main driver for businesses.

Greed is bad.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

Liam Byrne wrote: »

A bank bailout might fit your description, however the fact remains that that bailout would not have been required had the unsupervised / unregulated banks been trustworthy enough not to put profit and commission ahead of common sense.

That, sir, is a fact.

A fact you seem to continually avoid is that the banks had a massive swathe of government generated credit and an implicit bailout guarantee. Do you not see that they wouldn't have been able to behave the way they did if it weren't for a lax monetary policy and a cosy relationship with government bigwigs?

How do you reconcile this fact with your greed analysis? Face it, the government was charged with managing our economy and through their corrupt relationship with the banks, they failed miserably. How you can now call for more of the same is beyond me.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And since you want LESS regulation and "interference" by governments, that is how businesses would operate.....screwing decent people in search of profits.

If a company screws me over, I take my custom elsewhere- that is the beauty of a free market. Competition is good for everybody.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm not against profit, I'm just against it being the main driver for businesses.

You are clearly and utterly opposed to profit unless it fits your arbitrary description of not being "obscene". And if you could come up with something workable that could drive productive enterprise other than profit, I'm all ears. Although I suspect it will be a spurious soundbite concerning sustainability and equitability and some other fluffy terms.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Greed is bad.

Unless it's state greed, right?

Liam Byrne

Valmont wrote: »

I think your only option is to replace the human race with synthetic humans not capable of individual thought- perhaps like the Borg in Star Trek. Otherwise you're hinting for Communism Part II. We all know how that worked out last time.

I'm perfectly capable of independent thought, thanks - so there's no need to be so patronising.

As for communism not working, it's one-all on that score with the financial crisis as caused by private companies having no conscience and being greedy.

So what would you suggest? The Libertarian crap with even less regulation ?

I'd love if we could trust babka and the like, but since we can't, and since obviously so few businesses have a social conscience, we need to do something.

With so many people determined to screw everyone else, I don't know what that is - but I wish I did.

BTW, contrary to a post earlier I want to point out that I did not suggest "robbing" anyone.

Liam Byrne

Valmont wrote: »

A fact you seem to continually avoid is that the banks had a massive swathe of government generated credit and an implicit bailout guarantee. Do you not see that they wouldn't have been able to behave the way they did if it weren't for a lax monetary policy and a cosy relationship with government bigwigs?

Would you care to provide proof of this "implicit bank guarantee" ?

Because to a normal person it seems like the guarantee was given AFTER the banks behaved ridiculously.

Unless it's state greed, right?

I never said that, but feel free to add in misdirection and misrepresentation if that's the only way you can feel superior while arguing your point.

DJCR

Afaik, Political parties want to be elected.

They do so by alligning themselves with the will of the people, and campaigning on the populist ideals of the day.

THese of couse come form us, the elecorate..... so until we change, they won't.

FIN

Valmont

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Would you care to provide proof of this "implicit bank guarantee" ?

Because to a normal person it seems like the guarantee was given AFTER the banks behaved ridiculously.

The banks knew that other EU members would ride to our rescue if the national finances span out of control - they knew that the European project would be salvaged at all costs.