Direct Democracy Ireland Launches Today

yore

SeanW wrote: »

Godwinned in close to record time ...

Because the Swiss (who the idea of direct democracy is modelled after) are SOOO much like the Nazis ...

What have the Swiss got to do with the view expressed on here that we'd be better off without any TDs (and hence Dail/parliament) at all . Or are you trying to tell us that the Swiss have no parliament?

Just for future reference, it does no harm to read and comprehend a post before just jumping in with a picture of a cat. Because you might make yourself look very silly.

I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but if you want to talk about relationships between the Swiss and Nazis (for some reason), or pictures of cats, you should probably start a separate thread on it.

yore

joe12345 wrote: »

I am however very saddened by the negative comments on here, and quite frankly some of them are defamation of the DDI leader, who I have met and is an honest and decent man, that has done a lot to help keep people in their homes all over Ireland that were facing eviction because they could not pay unsustainable mortgages to criminal bankers, that do not give a damn about the people, but only about profit.

Nobody forced them to take out unsustainable mortgages. Letting them keep the houses is creating a new aristocracy at the expense of the less well off. You possibly only see it otherwise because you either have a mortgage, or are close to someone who does, and don't see yourself as "wealthy".

joe12345 wrote: »

The current system just does not work. Politicians always putting their own vested interests (pensions, etc.) and putting the banking cartel first and the people of Ireland second.

Again see above for explanation how this is ironic. People with mortgages they can't pay want society, including those with no property, to give them a free ride and free property wealth. And somehow they aren't putting their "vested interests" first? :rolleyes:

joe12345 wrote: »

It has become acceptable to tell lie after lie (e.g. 'not one more cent', etc.) and no one bats an eyelid. Hell they even tell us to 'get a life' ! I am sick of politicians that are sucking up before election time and then go back on most everything that was promised. They are really like a virus that has taken over Ireland, corrupt in every way .. look at the Supreme Court ruling last week, again showing the government to be the manipulators that they are.

joe12345 wrote: »

I don't blame the politicians alone, but the system which is clearly broken. It's like a MAZE - it doesn't matter who you send in there after a while they are bound to either get lost or reach a dead end - in other words - it's the MAZE that has to change. That's why DDI is presenting itself a 'political system' rather than 'party'. At the moment we have a system, lets say like a production line in a manufacturing plant and a set of steps that produces a product at the end... well it's predictable isn't it? Exactly the same here, the Irish people complain about the corrupt politicians, such as Bertie, and some of the current ones, etc., but can we be surprised when we have a system that keeps producing them?

"Unfortunately" , the system we have is democracy. So if your local politician promise you the moon and stars to vote for him, and you believe him and he goes to the Dail, then the greater democracy will overrule him. If you have a local issue go to one of your meetings, you will be meeting people who are a lot like you, in similar situation. You will get a biased opinion that your view is widespread and correct. Then you vote for some politician who promises to fix what is effectively a local vested interest. When he goes to society at large, then the greater democracy kicks in.

joe12345 wrote: »

I just want the best for my family and the Irish people. I attended the DDI launch and there was a tremendous atmosphere there, with 200 plus people very positive that there a brighter future ahead for Ireland. And after whats gone before, and what we have at the moment, surely they deserve a fair chance? It seems people on here are unfairly condemning them for making an effort because they want a better Ireland. Sure, they have not all the answers, but in my opinion they have something that is of shortage - an empathy and understanding for the wants and needs of the Irish people. Please, for gods sake, I ask you to give them that chance

We live in a democratic country. You have a"fair chance" already. "Fair chance" means you can set up and broadcast your ideas. It doesn't mean that I have to bow down to them if i think they are frankly silly and unworkable and, ironically, driven by some with vested interests at least as great as the current ones that you bemoan

billbrifinlay

Re: DDi Party. Checkout Wikipedia Switzerland and then comment !

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

.....and how would you protect minorities?

Ah Nodin, a man totally obsessed with all things minorities related. One particular set of minorities in particular.

Conjecture removed

yore wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but if you want to talk about relationships between the Swiss and Nazis (for some reason), or pictures of cats, you should probably start a separate thread on it.

On a number of occasions, you've thrown the "Nazi" label at people you disagree with, with references to a Fuhrer and the Reichstag Fire.

You've also tried to dismiss proponents of direct democracy with smears about "hardcore Tea Partiers"

yore wrote:

"Direct Democracy" seems like something that hardcore US Republicans/Tea Partiers would be in favour of!

I don't agree with abolishing TDs altogether, if that's what you were objecting to, but my posts' point was twofold:

1. You invoked Godwins law by making spurious "Reducto Ad Nazium" arguments.
2. Switzerland is what most people would consider the ideal example of direct democracy, yet for some reason the country isn't crawling with Nazis and Tea Partiers ...

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

Ah Nodin, a man totally obsessed with all things minorities related. One particular set of minorities in particular.

Whats that supposed to mean, exactly?

SeanW wrote: »

Let me translate that for those not familiar with you:

Please remove the quote box from around that nonsense. I never said any such thing.

SeanW

If I understood your post correctly, you oppose direct democracy on the basis that it doesn't protect minorities or whatever. Presumably you have in mind the Swiss minarent ban, which affects a minority that you have a particularly high view of.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

If I understood your post correctly, you oppose direct democracy on the basis that it doesn't protect minorities or whatever. Presumably you have in mind the Swiss minarent ban, which affects a minority that you have a particularly high view of.

...actually the first minority that came to mind was single mothers, in this instance. However its liable to affect smokers, minority sports, music interests....and yes, possibly muslims, immigrants and such like too.

For the second time - would you kindly remove the quote box from around that bit of nonsense in your post?

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

...actually the first minority that came to mind was single mothers, in this instance. However its liable to affect smokers, minority sports, music interests....and yes, possibly muslims, immigrants and such like too.

For the second time - would you kindly remove the quote box from around that bit of nonsense in your post?

Seems I misread your post. Got serious egg-on-face now. But I do recall very clearly that after the result of that referendum the reaction of the Swiss political class was "some things people just shouldn't be allowed to vote on" and I assumed (incorrectly perhaps?) that was your view too.

I stand over my view though that the will of the people should come above that of the political class. That would have made it virtually impossible for FF to piss away the wealth of the next two generations with the ruinous bank guarnatee of ~2008.

I'd also like you to explain some of your comments about:

• Smokers? If people were to decide that smoking should be actively discouraged, what could reasonably go wrong?
• Minority sports, music interests? Again what could possibly go wrong here?

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

Seems I misread your post. Got serious egg-on-face now. But I do recall very clearly that after the result of that referendum the reaction of the Swiss political class was "some things people just shouldn't be allowed to vote on" and I assumed (incorrectly perhaps?) that was your view too.

....it is my view, but it wasn't centred on muslims in regards to this state. There are other groups which receive far more flak here.

SeanW wrote: »

I'd also like you to explain some of your comments about:

• Smokers? If people were to decide that smoking should be actively discouraged, what could reasonably go wrong?
• Minority sports, music interests? Again what could possibly go wrong here?

People being banned from smoking in their own home, people being banned from playing sports because of freak accidents or joe duffyesque inspired hysteria, likewise music. A state governed by a kneejerk mob - the political class are bad enough as it is.

yore

SeanW wrote: »

On a number of occasions, you've thrown the "Nazi" label at people you disagree with, with references to a Fuhrer and the Reichstag Fire.

Eh no. I threw no labels at anyone. Stop making shit up. I don't know why you keep going on about the Swiss and Nazis. People were saying we could/should get rid of TDs and hence the Dail. If you want an example of a country that basically did away with it's functioning parliament I would give Germany as a first example. Another example I could have given would be Cuba or perhaps China or Zimbabwe. If I had used Zimbabwe would you have deduced that I was saying Swiss people were black? That makes as much sense logically as you thinking I was calling Swiss people Nazis.

SeanW wrote: »

You've also tried to dismiss proponents of direct democracy with smears about "hardcore Tea Partiers"

Why is that a smear? And yes, there are a lot of similarities from what I've seen in the video from the DDI website.

SeanW wrote: »

I don't agree with abolishing TDs altogether, if that's what you were objecting to, but my posts' point was twofold:

1. You invoked Godwins law by making spurious "Reducto Ad Nazium" arguments.
2. Switzerland is what most people would consider the ideal example of direct democracy, yet for some reason the country isn't crawling with Nazis and Tea Partiers ...

What's your obsession with the Swiss and Nazis? Yeah they still have plenty of their gold (....according to Bill Bailey ) but that's another thread. I never mentioned Switzerland. I was responding to people who supported the abolition of our Dail!

"Reducto ad bullshite"

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

....it is my view ... a kneejerk mob

Thank you for confirming that my initial suspicions were not entirely wrong.

What you're saying is, that because people as a whole disagree with your world view (including your views on multiculturalism) they should be silenced?

Why is that a smear?

You said "Hardcore U.S. Republicans/Tea Partiers" like it was an insult, which I presume you meant it to be. It also appeared that you were speaking of direct democracy as a concept, not of DDI.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

Thank you for confirming that my initial suspicions were not entirely wrong.

What you're saying is, that because people as a whole disagree with your world view (including your views on multiculturalism) they should be silenced?.

No, they can say what they want. I'm saying that the mob shouldn't have the final say over minorities whereby it affects their lives. Were that principle followed here post independence, there would have been divorce and contraception, for instance.

SeanW

from where? The people were ruled by the Catholic Church, and the political class had a similar view. Only a dictatorship would have yielded the desired changes.

yore

SeanW wrote: »

You said "Hardcore U.S. Republicans/Tea Partiers" like it was an insult, which I presume you meant it to be. It also appeared that you were speaking of direct democracy as a concept, not of DDI.

I looked at the video on the front if the DDI website. They talked about things like the people taking back the power from the state bodies and having the freedoms to say no to interference from the state and have more control over their way of life.................Sound very much like something a a Hardcore Republican/Tea-partier would want.

If you think that was an insult to use the comparison, then that's your interpretation of it. There are plenty of Americans proud to call themselves hardcore Republicans. It's a mainstream political belief. I just thought it was ironic as I get the impression that this DDI is driven by laminate "lefties".

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

from where? The people were ruled by the Catholic Church, and the political class had a similar view. Only a dictatorship would have yielded the desired changes.

...or the recognition that minorities should be allowed their views.

hatrickpatrick

yore wrote: »

Nobody forced them to take out unsustainable mortgages. Letting them keep the houses is creating a new aristocracy at the expense of the less well off.

Nobody forced the bondholders to invest in unsustainable banks, forcing the entire nation to repay them for their stupidity creates a new aristocracy at the expense of everyone.

Under a participatory democracy I see zero chance of that happening.

If one deserves a bailout so does the other - particularly when it's every citizen in this country that has been forced to repay the banks' debts. I wonder if we can calculate how much percentage of the 80-odd billion we've put into the banks was paid in tax by each individual citizen, and deduct that from their mortgages? That sounds like a fair solution to me...

yore

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Nobody forced the bondholders to invest in unsustainable banks, forcing the entire nation to repay them for their stupidity creates a new aristocracy at the expense of everyone.

This is, frankly, bullshit.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If one deserves a bailout so does the other - particularly when it's every citizen in this country that has been forced to repay the banks' debts. I wonder if we can calculate how much percentage of the 80-odd billion we've put into the banks was paid in tax by each individual citizen, and deduct that from their mortgages? That sounds like a fair solution to me...

See above. Where will this money come from?

yore

yore wrote: »

This is, frankly, bullshit.




See above. Where will this money come from?

As I got warned for the above, I will expand using more appropriate language.

It is completely illogical to associate paying bondholder with "creating a new aristocracy".
Bondholders are people who lend money to an institution. They have money and they lend it out. Of course there is a chance that they don't get it back but there are pros and cons of repaying them. But they already had the money so you are not maKing an aristocracy.
Equity holders buy shares in the bank. They got no bailout (other than in the sense that their shares went to near zero as opposed to actually zero by virtue of government intervention.) If a shareholder got a massive loan, a la Sean Quinn, to buy shares and they tank, then they lose that money. This is the analogy that you are looking for for people who overborrowed to buy property.Sean Quinn should not get refunded nor have those loans reduced and neither should the people who overborrowed.
Paying back a bondholder, right or wrong, is paying owed money back. Allowing greedy eejits to keep the 10 apartments they bought-to-let on the back of their zero-qualification estate agent wages is just giving enormous wealth to someone who never did anything to justify it.

The irony is that a lot of people reading this would have lost money had these evil "bondholders" not breen repaid. Because a lot of your credit unions and pension funds might have gone bust. But of course, that is conveniently ignored by the rabble-rousing, self-serving people who feel entitled to everything for free and prefer to project an image of a "bondholder" as an evil Bond-villian-type or "lizard person" ruling the world from behind the scenes.

As for your other point, you want the equivalent of the money pumped into the banks to be given to the citizens... Do you not realise where the money comes from? Are the ECB/IMF going to hand over 60bn as a loan to give everyone a heap of "free money". That makes no sense.

KyussBishop

yore wrote: »

As for your other point, you want the equivalent of the money pumped into the banks to be given to the citizens... Do you not realise where the money comes from? Are the ECB/IMF going to hand over 60bn as a loan to give everyone a heap of "free money". That makes no sense.

Money (in a fiat currency system) comes, literally, out of nowhere; the ECB can tap digits into a computer and spew out arseloads of money if they want, and (just like the infrastructure projects they funded) they don't have to add that onto our national debt.

yore

KyussBishop wrote: »

Money (in a fiat currency system) comes, literally, out of nowhere; the ECB can tap digits into a computer and spew out arseloads of money if they want, and (just like the infrastructure projects they funded) they don't have to add that onto our national debt.

Of course. It isn't even on a computer. But there are reasons why they don't do it. It's a slippery slope to Robert Mugabe economics. We could easily "bail out" Greece by doubling the amount of Euros in circulation "for free". Only thing is that you'll pay for it through the inflation ripping your savings and wages tro shreds.

And if you want to get technical, "creating" money to pay for infrastructure is perfectly valid as the money itself is backed by society and the wealth of that society, which has been increased by that infrastructure.... Not so much so for a "bailout"

KyussBishop

yore wrote: »

Of course. It isn't even on a computer. But there are reasons why they don't do it. It's a slippery slope to Robert Mugabe economics. We could easily "bail out" Greece by doubling the amount of Euros in circulation "for free". Only thing is that you'll pay for it through the inflation ripping your savings and wages tro shreds.

And if you want to get technical, "creating" money to pay for infrastructure is perfectly valid as the money itself is backed by society and the wealth of that society, which has been increased by that infrastructure.... Not so much so for a "bailout"

Again the hyperinflation myth; as I've been repeating endlessly in threads the last week, the ECB has printed over €1 trillion thus far to fund bailouts, and this has not created hyperinflation.

Money creation does not lead to hyperinflation, that is wholly unbacked scaremongering, and there are multiple ways to manage the potential for inflation.

yore

KyussBishop wrote: »

Again the hyperinflation myth; as I've been repeating endlessly in threads the last week, the ECB has printed over €1 trillion thus far to fund bailouts, and this has not created hyperinflation.

Money creation does not lead to hyperinflation, that is wholly unbacked scaremongering, and there are multiple ways to manage the potential for inflation.

Wholly unbacked money creates inflation. Simple as.

KyussBishop

yore wrote: »

Wholly unbacked money creates inflation. Simple as.

That is falsified by the ECB's printing of over 1 trillion euro; that is simply false, proven so.

Sierra Oscar

I think the idea behind the new party is good intentioned, but I am not entirely sure if the wider electorate will embrace it.

Personally I feel that the ordinary citizen wishes to elect someone to legislate for them - they have the confidence that they will legislate on their behalf. They do not want continuous plebiscites for matters of policy. Public representatives are there to legislate on behalf of the electorate. Low turnouts in various referendums demonstrates that in my view.

Also it will be very hard for anyone to get elected. What will the platform for election be, what will they believe in? Just saying 'Oh well we will ask you to vote on those matters' will not cut it with the wider electorate. They elect you to legislate on their behalf.

yore

KyussBishop wrote: »

That is falsified by the ECB's printing of over 1 trillion euro; that is simply false, proven so.

Not quite.

http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=EUR&to=JPY&view=5Y



I didn't pick USD for the simple reason that they had their own "quantitative easing" programme.

KyussBishop

Almost every currency in the world dropped against the Yen over the last 5 years, that actually doesn't show anything at all, other than the fact that the EU is performing quite poorly.

You don't even show how that data correlates with periods of money supply expansion.

If the EU put €10 billion into a job guarantee program, how much inflation will we get? What about €100 billion, or even a trillion?

yore

KyussBishop wrote: »

Almost every currency in the world dropped against the Yen over the last 5 years, that actually doesn't show anything at all, other than the fact that the EU is performing quite poorly.

You don't even show how that data correlates with periods of money supply expansion.

If the EU put €10 billion into a job guarantee program, how much inflation will we get? What about €100 billion, or even a trillion?

http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=EUR&to=AUD&view=5Y
http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=EUR&to=CNY&view=5Y


"Periods of money expansion" is a misnomer in any case. These things are factored into the market long before they become policy.

Even forget about your inflation. The ECB would be creating a huge moral hazard if it just printed extra money to give to Ireland/Greece/Spain/Portugal. This is completely separate from the DDI which this thread is about. Unless the DDI want money to be printed by the ECB for them? I didn't think that from what was said

KyussBishop

yore wrote: »

"Periods of money expansion" is a misnomer in any case. These things are factored into the market long before they become policy.

If these things are factored into the market long before they become policy, that's directly saying money creation doesn't create inflation, but that it's an effect of market perception.

yore wrote: »

Even forget about your inflation. The ECB would be creating a huge moral hazard if it just printed extra money to give to Ireland/Greece/Spain/Portugal. This is completely separate from the DDI which this thread is about. Unless the DDI want money to be printed by the ECB for them? I didn't think that from what was said

The ECB have created a huge moral hazard by printing money and giving it wholesale to the banks, bailing out bondholders and incentivizing 'too big to fail' institutions, and are undergoing morally reprehensible policy decisions through forcing people into unemployment, and creating the 'moral hazard' of rewarding the finance industry for the crisis, by pushing austerity and forcing governments into privatization programs and selling off of assets.

Since it's apparently a moral hazard for governments to, essentially, be given money, maybe tax overall is a moral hazard? What a ridiculous argument.

Was it a moral hazard for the EU to fund the various infrastructure programs across the continent? (something which would probably be a component of any job guarantee program)

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Nobody forced the bondholders to invest in unsustainable banks, forcing the entire nation to repay them for their stupidity creates a new aristocracy at the expense of everyone..

Nobody forced the entire nation to repay them. The FF government in September 2008 decided to repay them of its own accord. The repayments since then are a consequence of that guarantee. Once a sovereign government gives its word, it must keep its word.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If one deserves a bailout so does the other - particularly when it's every citizen in this country that has been forced to repay the banks' debts. I wonder if we can calculate how much percentage of the 80-odd billion we've put into the banks was paid in tax by each individual citizen, and deduct that from their mortgages? That sounds like a fair solution to me...

We made one stupid decision in September 2008 already. Why should we make a second ridiculously stupid decision?

yore

KyussBishop wrote: »

Since it's apparently a moral hazard for governments to, essentially, be given money, maybe tax overall is a moral hazard? What a ridiculous argument.

Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying with this argument. It seems to come out of the blue and then you call it ridiculous yourself. Moral hazard occours with an asymmetric risk/return payoff. For example, if you know that you can get a loan from your friend to go down the bookies and spend the day betting it in the knowledge that if you can't pay the loan back, your friend will let you away with it and give you another one tomorrow. If you win at the bookies, you keep the winnings, and if you lose all the money, you don't lose anything. And in anticipation of your next point, no, these evil "bondholders" aren't speculative gamblers. The bondholder is the friend that lent you the money expecting it back in good faith.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Was it a moral hazard for the EU to fund the various infrastructure programs across the continent? (something which would probably be a component of any job guarantee program)

See above for an explanation of the term "moral hazard". When someone says that printing money to give to Greece for example creates a moral hazard, they don't mean the act of the printing itself is bad. It just means that it creates an atmosphere whereby people who do not follow the rules (talking about Greece here) know they can't lose and so might as well take risky gambles. I don't see any logic that could link an EU infrastructure project to "moral hazard" unless the EU were jumping in to clean up and complete private sector projects that the private sector companies messed up and were allowed to walk away from without consequences.