How do all the dissenters propose to close the deficit?

NIMAN

I accept that many harsh decisions have been made affecting nearly everybody in Ireland to some degree over the last 6 austerity budgets, and we have had an endless stream of people, be they general public, opposition politicians, journo's etc say that this cut and that cut should not have been made.

But one massive question has gone unanswered throughout the last few years, and that is how exactly could we close the €20bn deficit without these cuts?

For me, its simply not possible. OK so some of the poorest and most needy could have been targeted slightly less and maybe more put on to the shoulders of the better paid, but it still would not have solved the big problem.

The only way out, and it might be hard to accept, is that everyone has to suffer. Or am I being naive?

The Clown Man

Cue some ill-informed nonsense about burning bondholders and taking back imaginary cash to solve all the worlds woes.

Calculators optional.

loggedoff

We should take the bailout deal and re-negotiate it.
Next year we will be paying over €8 billion in interest charges, that's €8,000 million.
With the amount of money we're taking in, that is unsustainable.
The bailout money should be paid back, maybe over 50 years at a very low interest rate.
If we don't have funds to stimulate our economy, and to get people off the dole and back working, we are heading on a downward spiral.
The whole austerity thing is killing not just our economy but the european economy too.
A report yesterday showed that the eurozone is back in recession.
The Germans would do well to remember how long it took them to pay off their loans after starting 2 world wars.
Merkel's insistance on austerity is the one thing holding back recovery.
After 5 years of this it is plain to see that austerity does not and will not work, a change of direction is needed.

loggedoff

The Clown Man wrote: »

Cue some ill-informed nonsense about burning bondholders and taking back imaginary cash to solve all the worlds woes.

Calculators optional.

Imaginary cash is the promissory notes our central bank hold in anglo.

Jaysoose

The Clown Man wrote: »

Cue some ill-informed nonsense about burning bondholders and taking back imaginary cash to solve all the worlds woes.

Calculators optional.

So whats your suggestion then?

im invisible

Cut the dole and the public service by 10 to 15 percent (calculator not used)

getsome

Don't know if this has mentioned, but has the idea of cutting social welfare for under 21's (harsh I know) after 6 to 9 months completley ? exclusions being mother and people with disabilities. Looking at eastern european coutries this has pushed their youth into entreneruship, creating jobs and income for themselves while liffting off the burden of high youth unemployment.

I say 21 as most young people do not have responsibilities, and by money saved by these cuts can be put back into grants for viable business or coarses on entreprenuership.

crusher000

Throw out the Croke Park deal for one. How wages are protected whilst front line services are being cut in HSE is dis graceful. Get rid of 50% of our politicians don't need them either. Reduce the pensions of the bankers and politicians along with the higher paid in the civil service. Reward start up businesses in Ireland better with a more solid financial backing and a specialist team to help them of the ground. Abolish PRSI for anyone that is newly employed for the first six months with the primise that they are kept on for a year or more. See I'm not all about cut,cut cut.

srsly78

Going back to the punt and printing loads of money = another comedy option.

Chucky the tree

We'll just use the oil and gas we have. Once we get Sinn Fein and ULA in charge then we are sorted.

The Government estimates that these reserves have a value of €420 billion, in reality that is a very conservative figure and only comprises of oil and gas fields off the West coast.....

The ULA calls for:
The establishment of a state owned gas and oil company to manage develop the natural resources

http://richardboydbarrett.files.wordpress.com/2012/12/ula-budget-20131.pdf

Sinn fein will also save the day

At current oil prices, this equates to a value of approximately €540billion. While it is true that the actual amount of oil and gas brought ashore has been small, reserves exist.

Examine the potential to establish a state oil, gas and mineral exploration company that would hold a 51% share in all oil and gas finds and would have its own research facility in order to collect full and up-to-date information on reserves

http://www.sinnfein.ie/budget-2013-tax-and-savings#.UMHw5IM_z-Y

hatrickpatrick

Reform the concept of currency so that currency = value of goods and services produced, as it's supposed to, rather than the other way around.
What we're capable of doing should dictate how our currency system behaves, we should not be limited in capability by the imaginary concept of currency. If we still have the skills and raw materials to produce what we were able to produce last year, currency should facilitate that, not limit it.

Green Diesel

getsome wrote: »

Don't know if this has mentioned, but has the idea of cutting social welfare for under 21's (harsh I know) after 6 to 9 months completley ? exclusions being mother and people with disabilities. Looking at eastern european coutries this has pushed their youth into entreneruship, creating jobs and income for themselves while liffting off the burden of high youth unemployment.

I say 21 as most young people do not have responsibilities, and by money saved by these cuts can be put back into grants for viable business or coarses on entreprenuership.

That will save peanuts, it's already 50% the dole rate

8under

Calling people "dissenters" because they disagree with the content of the budget is typical of the attitude put out by this gvernment and others who are not showing the capacity to be innovative in managing the finances of this country at a time when we need innovation the most.

The government was voted in to power in the hope that they would be different to the previous goverment and on the strength of their many election promises one of which is well quoted.. "..not a cent more for Anglo.." (Varadaker)

All we have seen so far is terms of goverment priorities is ... to balance the books,save the banks, save the Euro, pay the secured bondholders, pay the unsecured bondholders, save face in Europe and elsewhere by being poster boys.

Where is the innovation in managing our finances differently, on job creation and the generation of growth in the economy.?
I would also add a lack of innovation in the negotiation process with Europe.

And finally at last, our citizens get a mention, which is... screw them all including the vulnerable, but, we will do it equitably. !!

And when they have run out ideas ? "blame the previous crowd, what more can we do ?

KyussBishop

If the EU succeed in holding us in austerity policies, then we are simply fúcked no matter what we do, and things will stay bad for the best part of a generation.

The longer we stay in austerity the greater the damage to our country, and the only solution to this is at an EU level; the EU has control over money creation, and it is precisely money creation that is needed, to fund the necessary debt relief and job programs, to get us out of this.

When a country has control over its own currency (which we don't but which the EU as a whole does), with the ability to fund things through money creation, this turns a lot of gold-standard-based economic thinking on its head, with Post-Keynesian and MMT based economics, opening up some immediate policy choices: (copy pasted from MMT link)
- Government deficits do not matter, they can be funded through money creation, so long as inflation is kept manageable (the only reason we have to meet deficit targets right now, is for political reasons, not economic)

- Public debt can be rolled-over (kept at current levels, and more) indefinitely, so long as interest (which government in control of their own currency, has control over) and inflation are kept manageable; the debt crisis is again, purely political

- Government can monetize part of private debt (e.g. crippling mortgages), and the primary source of inflation will be peoples dispensable income that is freed up by this (which allows a lot of debt to be paid down, without a proportionate inflationary penalty)

- Government can provide a direct once-off stimulus payment to every citizen (a 'debt jubilee'), which can alleviate debt deflation that is holding our economy down, and provide a private sector stimulus all in one go, so long as inflation is kept manageable

- Government is able to use money creation, to setup a job-guarantee program, which replaces unemployment with temporary public jobs that utilize surplus resources (thus avoiding inflation), e.g. undertaking large-scale infrastructure projects, using excess construction capacity across the EU, to provide much needed improvements to e.g. transport and power infrastructure (with fiscal policy being used, where needed, to manage any inflation)


There are ample ways of utilizing money creation, while keeping inflation to a minimum, and either policies funding through money creation will get us out of this economic crisis, or instead, the economic crisis will be allowed to achieve maximum damage through austerity (ending many peoples lives, harming even more, and destroying many peoples futures, not to mention the damage to societies/economies), which will keep going to the point where things just can't get any worse, and by the time we start our way out of this, so much damage will be done that the only way is up.

The problem right now for us, is entirely at an EU level, with countries being held in austerity and a refusal to fund any adequate growth programs; the solution is there, but political inertia (some of it possibly deliberate) at the EU level, is ensuring the solution is not taken.

Farmer Pudsey

I was listening to the radio this morning and when all the loan notes are paid and we leave the bailout program even if things do not get worse we will ahve a 10 billion a year intrest payment. Now I know all this is not related to the banks and the present Program. Howeve this is not sustainable.

Because of government insistance in protecting CP and welfare and not allowing extra taxation measures we are seeing some of the cuts causing severe hardship. When I hear Labour TD's harping on about the''most vunerable'' I puke. Because of there insistance on protecting well over half the budget then cuts fall dissapportionatly on certain vunerable area's. There idea's for taxes on the wealthy that in reality will not bring in any money are laughable.

Certain taxes could have been increased. There is no reason that anu can of larger should retail for less than 1 euro or even 1.50. There are also some sprits that are way under priced in supewrmarkets/off liciences.

If headline rates of social welfare were reduced by 5% this year and next how much would be saved and would it have helped to reduced employment costs. Cuts to rent allowance's and increses in cost of local authority would also increase the viability of low paid employment.

When you look at the public service take the situation where you have probally around 100 chief Fire officers and assistancechief fire officers in the fire service accross all local authority, probally more than that of road engineers. Accross all local authority's the average basic wage of the top ten officials in general average over 100k/ council. Expenses would be on top of this. This shows the reality of the way the PS works and the scope for cuts in this area.

NIMAN

8under wrote: »

Calling people "dissenters" because they disagree with the content of the budget is typical of the attitude put out by this gvernment and others who are not showing the capacity to be innovative in managing the finances of this country at a time when we need innovation the most.

The government was voted in to power in the hope that they would be different to the previous goverment and on the strength of their many election promises one of which is well quoted.. "..not a cent more for Anglo.." (Varadaker)

All we have seen so far is terms of goverment priorities is ... to balance the books,save the banks, save the Euro, pay the secured bondholders, pay the unsecured bondholders, save face in Europe and elsewhere by being poster boys.

Where is the innovation in managing our finances differently, on job creation and the generation of growth in the economy.?
I would also add a lack of innovation in the negotiation process with Europe.

And finally at last, our citizens get a mention, which is... screw them all including the vulnerable, but, we will do it equitably. !!

And when they have run out ideas ? "blame the previous crowd, what more can we do ?

As the OP I used the term 'dissenters' simply as its more concise that using 'those who disagree with the Budget' in the title.

So if people turfed out FF, and then gave FG and Labour a chance and they have failed, who are they going to vote for next time? SF, ULA?

Lets be honest, the deficit HAS TO BE RECTIFIED. End of. Even SF would have to do that, and to do that they would have to make cuts, whether they pretend they would or not.

KyussBishop

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

...

The problem is, that any cuts are inherently going to worsen the economic crisis here, because it's exactly a greater injection of money that the domestic economy needs.

Talk about the budget, should be about reform of the budget to be more efficient, to have less waste and make new/better public use of the freed up money, not about overall cuts and higher taxes.

As I said in my last post, as long as we accept austerity, as long as money creation is kept away as a policy choice, we will only ever be debating over the precise way we want to further destroy the economy, we will only be debating over what budget numbers to fiddle around with (including what essential public service or public program to cripple next), while the wider economy is burning.

It really is a massive waste of time that misses the bigger picture.

KyussBishop

NIMAN wrote: »

Lets be honest, the deficit HAS TO BE RECTIFIED. End of. Even SF would have to do that, and to do that they would have to make cuts, whether they pretend they would or not.

No, it simply does not. As I explained in my first post in this thread, with the EU ability to use money creation, the deficit does not matter.

The deficit/public-debt crisis is entirely a political problem with the EU, that is resolvable politically; there is no fundamental economic problem there that can not be solved.

A couple of explanations why printing more money and throwing it out on the streets is not a good idea:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/03/18/note-to-krugman-greece-proves-keynesian-economics-wrong/
Krugman's declarations below are tackled:
What Greek experience actually shows is that while running deficits in good times can get you in trouble… trying to eliminate deficits once you’re already in trouble is a recipe for depression…Greece is the worst case, with unemployment soaring to 20 percent even as public services, including health care, collapse.”

Bankrupt economies, like Greece, need stimulus, not austerity, Krugman declares indignantly.

"Why not just print lots of money" is tackled with some basics on inflation:
http://economics.about.com/cs/money/a/print_money.htm

Farmer Pudsey

KyussBishop wrote: »

The problem is, that any cuts are inherently going to worsen the economic crisis here, because it's exactly a greater injection of money that the domestic economy needs.

Talk about the budget, should be about reform of the budget to be more efficient, to have less waste and make new/better public use of the freed up money, not about overall cuts and higher taxes.

As I said in my last post, as long as we accept austerity, as long as money creation is kept away as a policy choice, we will only ever be debating over the precise way we want to further destroy the economy, we will only be debating over what budget numbers to fiddle around with (including what essential public service or public program to cripple next), while the wider economy is burning.

It really is a massive waste of time that misses the bigger picture.

In theory Kyruss what you state is about using fiscal stymulis to restart the economy is right in an ideal world. However this would only work if the previous administration had saved during prosperity not squandered it bloated public services, welfare and tax breaks. We cannot continue to live beyond our means, however what is happening is unsustainable due to high rate of intrest and our inability to create money due to EU rules there may come a time (maybe sooner than we think) where the ECB will have to do this. The excuses of German or French elections is stupidas no sooner will the German one be over than the Finnish or Dutch line up next.

Some people have a massive fear of inflation however short to mid term inflation of 3-4% would at this stage boot the european economy and it was fiscalt tighting by increasing intrest rates by the ECB in the late noughties that has exasperated the problems accross the EU.

8under

My point is that the standard of politician we have, in general, is poor in that they lack the innovation and capacity to deal with the current (very difficult) crisis.

Cuts alone won't solve our problem and there are more of these type of budgets to come if the government stay in power. It's not just about cuts but all the new charges such as the water (on the way) and so on. There is a limit that can be achieved through cuts and new charges and it appears that many, many poeple are currently there or past that limit already.

We need to also focus on growing the economy, creating jobs so that we can improve income (the tax take) which is the other side to cuts. Most of all, we need to be more creative and innovative in the handling of our economy.

NIMAN

Have the Irish people not started to save in huge numbers since this crisis started?

If you pump money into the economy is there not a fair chance that a lot of it might simply get put into savings or used to pay off debt, and not actually spent again?

KyussBishop

bluewolf wrote: »

A couple of explanations why printing more money and throwing it out on the streets is not a good idea (not that it should need any, but there we go):
http://www.forbes.com/sites/paulroderickgregory/2012/03/18/note-to-krugman-greece-proves-keynesian-economics-wrong/
Krugman's declarations below are tackled:
What Greek experience actually shows is that while running deficits in good times can get you in trouble… trying to eliminate deficits once you’re already in trouble is a recipe for depression…Greece is the worst case, with unemployment soaring to 20 percent even as public services, including health care, collapse.”

Bankrupt economies, like Greece, need stimulus, not austerity, Krugman declares indignantly.

"Why not just print lots of money" is tackled with some basics on inflation:
http://economics.about.com/cs/money/a/print_money.htm

That article does not even quantify an amount of money that would be spent, which is a necessity for quantifying inflation; it is largely based on assertions; the first being "If we print more money, prices will rise such that we’re no better off than we were before.", which is false because an increase in the money supply is not directly related to inflation (it is how money is spent, not the act of creating it, which causes inflation).

The article also gives a false example of money being spent on luxury goods, meaning the article is already presupposing where money is going to be spent, which is fallacious; we are in the middle of a huge debt crisis, and you can specifically target debt with money creation.

That is a totally non-inflationary way to use money creation, where the only inflation is an incidental effect, of peoples disposable income being increased, through reduced debt burdens; you can sink massive amounts of money creation into debt, with the increase in money spent on goods not even coming close to matching that increase.

There are more problems with the article, such as ignoring surplus resources and surplus labour, which are both buffers to price inflation and wage inflation; the article is a good example of why not to print money in an economy at full capacity, but it is a very bad example for an economy in downturn.

KyussBishop

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

In theory Kyruss what you state is about using fiscal stymulis to restart the economy is right in an ideal world. However this would only work if the previous administration had saved during prosperity not squandered it bloated public services, welfare and tax breaks. We cannot continue to live beyond our means, however what is happening is unsustainable due to high rate of intrest and our inability to create money due to EU rules there may come a time (maybe sooner than we think) where the ECB will have to do this. The excuses of German or French elections is stupidas no sooner will the German one be over than the Finnish or Dutch line up next.

The bit I've bolded here, is a very very good example of economic theory that is a leftover from the gold-standard:
You don't need to save in prosperous times anymore, in order to spent in downturns, because the supply of money is not limited anymore like it was during gold-standard times; we can now use money creation instead.

Think of what money is; money is there to allow production to happen in the private economy (it allows the exchange of goods/services to happen), and when you take money out of the private economy (e.g. saving during good times), you are just preventing production from happening, that could otherwise be funded.

You are not saving production by saving money in good times, you are just preventing it from happening, putting a damper on prosperous periods; when you spend that money in an economic downturn, you don't add any extra productivity, you are just removing the damper you put down on productivity.

You also have precisely the same inflationary pressures you get from money creation, because it is still an injection of money into the economy; so government saving/surplus in prosperous times doesn't make sense anymore due to money creation, it does not provide any benefits with regards with inflation etc. in downturns.

KyussBishop

NIMAN wrote: »

Have the Irish people not started to save in huge numbers since this crisis started?

If you pump money into the economy is there not a fair chance that a lot of it might simply get put into savings or used to pay off debt, and not actually spent again?

Well, we want newly created money to be put into debt, because it is debt-deflation (people paying down debt instead of spending) that is assisting in holding our economy down.

If you decrease the debt load on people, those people have more money freed up to use on dispensable income, which is money that will go into the private economy and will help provide more business and jobs, helping to set us on the path to recovery.

steamengine

Good question - asking how one would close the massive operating deficit this country has at the moment. I think it should be preceded by the question of how this deficit managed to reach such astronomical proportions for the day to day balancing of the books. Brendan Howlin mentioned some of the contributing factors in his budget speech - over 500,000 extra medical cards, 200,000 more on the dole, 80,000 extra students, 80,000 more old age pensioners since 2008.

To answer the original question, and as some economic commentators in the media saying, we have reached the point where debt has to be written down. There seems to be very little else middle or lower Ireland can give or do to sort this one out. I've been around since the fifties and have never witnessed anything like this recession. Over 1000 emigrating per week says it all for me.

Idbatterim

Have the Irish people not started to save in huge numbers since this crisis started?

If you pump money into the economy is there not a fair chance that a lot of it might simply get put into savings or used to pay off debt, and not actually spent again?

yes this is the case. That is why I think it would have been far better all around, for the government to rein in the deficit far quicker. We have 2 more austere budgets to go, people know they are going to be worse off after the next one and then again the following one. Psychology is a huge factor in this.

hatrickpatrick

Why does currency have to be debt issued by a bank in the first place? Why for example don't we what Guernsey did, and create a currency which is NOT ruled by an endless cycle of "create more debt to repay previous debt" bollocks?

http://kentfreedommovement.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-magic-isle-of-guernsey-by-bill-still-director-of-the-best-doc

They issue currency according to supply and demand, and they issue it without creating interest which doesn't exist until more interest is created. For profit banks do not control currency supply, actual real physical factors are used to control it instead.

I'm not talking about simply printing money, I'm talking about entirely changing how money is defined and who has control over it. It should not be defined as debt from the start, and the ultimate source should not be a for profit corporation which has a vested interest in perpetuating a game of musical chairs which collapses as soon as the music stops since there were never enough chairs in the first place.

KyussBishop

Idbatterim wrote: »

yes this is the case. That is why I think it would have been far better all around, for the government to rein in the deficit far quicker. We have 2 more austere budgets to go, people know they are going to be worse off after the next one and then again the following one. Psychology is a huge factor in this.

Why is that better? Reducing the deficit faster, slows down spending even more.

The psychological effect you're looking for through doing that, presumably letting people know they won't have future austerity budgets to deal with (which they would, because if you cut spending like that, you slowdown the economy even more, requiring more austerity), can be achieved exactly through committing to spending, based on money creation, through policies that keep inflation to a minimum.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why does currency have to be debt issued by a bank in the first place? Why for example don't we what Guernsey did, and create a currency which is NOT ruled by an endless cycle of "create more debt to repay previous debt" bollocks?

http://kentfreedommovement.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-magic-isle-of-guernsey-by-bill-still-director-of-the-best-doc

They issue currency according to supply and demand, and they issue it without creating interest which doesn't exist until more interest is created. For profit banks do not control currency supply, actual real physical factors are used to control it instead.

I'm not talking about simply printing money, I'm talking about entirely changing how money is defined and who has control over it. It should not be defined as debt from the start, and the ultimate source should not be a for profit corporation which has a vested interest in perpetuating a game of musical chairs which collapses as soon as the music stops since there were never enough chairs in the first place.

I haven't looked at that yet, but Modern Monetary Theory would, to a significant extent, move towards this kind of ideal, utilizing money for maximum productivity, while still managing the problems of inflation.

murphaph

loggedoff wrote: »

The Germans would do well to remember how long it took them to pay off their loans after starting 2 world wars.

But they did pay them back and it was indeed a very austere place in Germany post war (for 20 years!). People worked 12 hour days, 6 days a week. This is real austerity. They deserved it of course (in the case ow WWII), but they took their medicine and worked their way out of their mess. The allies helped (West Germany) but life in Germany was extremely austere for the 20 years after the war. Austerity is not an option in Ireland. We (as a people, not everyone) partied too hard for that.

KyussBishop

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why does currency have to be debt issued by a bank in the first place? Why for example don't we what Guernsey did, and create a currency which is NOT ruled by an endless cycle of "create more debt to repay previous debt" bollocks?

http://kentfreedommovement.ning.com/profiles/blogs/the-magic-isle-of-guernsey-by-bill-still-director-of-the-best-doc

They issue currency according to supply and demand, and they issue it without creating interest which doesn't exist until more interest is created. For profit banks do not control currency supply, actual real physical factors are used to control it instead.

I'm not talking about simply printing money, I'm talking about entirely changing how money is defined and who has control over it. It should not be defined as debt from the start, and the ultimate source should not be a for profit corporation which has a vested interest in perpetuating a game of musical chairs which collapses as soon as the music stops since there were never enough chairs in the first place.

That was a good article; read up on the guy who wrote that, Bill Still, and he is even a Libertarian, who challenged Gary Johnson in running for president in the Libertarian Party.

Pretty surprising (and good to see some of them can acknowledge the role of fiat money), as it's extremely far from the 'party line', where money creation is always scaremongered as causing hyperinflation.

hatrickpatrick

I honestly believe that as a society of ordinary people we should give up on waiting for politicians to do this and just do it ourselves.

It happens all the time already, when you use a McDonald's voucher, a tesco clubcard offer or a book token. The internet community has created a thriving currency called BitCoins which not centrally controlled in any way, and it's used to facilitate of internet trade (probably best known in terms of people buying drugs from Silk Road). It works, it has many flaws in that as an experimental currency is has built in deflation and currency ratio rises, but it's the concept that matters, where a large group of people have agreed to use it as a currency independent of banks and governments.

I would absolutely love to see something like that happening in Ireland tbh. It would require a very large activist movement to get it start I imagine but once in circulation, we could bypass banks altogether for local trade and trade as much as we can produce with our own social currency instead.

Bottom line is, if we're able to produce X number of products every year and there are X number of people who ideologically want them, it's incredibly stupid that an artificial facilitator, in this case a broken currency system, holds that back. All that should matter is whether we have the skills and the materials to produce something, and whether or not there are people who want it. If the currency system is the only thing holding that back, then it's that system which needs to be changed. All our talk of debts and deficits would become irrelevant if we used a currency system which wasn't based on bank issued loans in the first place.

srsly78

Yes wouldn't it be great to just ignore all those loans and not pay them back! Would also be great if there was world peace and a cure for cancer etc.

KyussBishop

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I honestly believe that as a society of ordinary people we should give up on waiting for politicians to do this and just do it ourselves.

It happens all the time already, when you use a McDonald's voucher, a tesco clubcard offer or a book token. The internet community has created a thriving currency called BitCoins which not centrally controlled in any way, and it's used to facilitate of internet trade (probably best known in terms of people buying drugs from Silk Road). It works, it has many flaws in that as an experimental currency is has built in deflation and currency ratio rises, but it's the concept that matters, where a large group of people have agreed to use it as a currency independent of banks and governments.

I would absolutely love to see something like that happening in Ireland tbh. It would require a very large activist movement to get it start I imagine but once in circulation, we could bypass banks altogether for local trade and trade as much as we can produce with our own social currency instead.

Bottom line is, if we're able to produce X number of products every year and there are X number of people who ideologically want them, it's incredibly stupid that an artificial facilitator, in this case a broken currency system, holds that back. All that should matter is whether we have the skills and the materials to produce something, and whether or not there are people who want it. If the currency system is the only thing holding that back, then it's that system which needs to be changed. All our talk of debts and deficits would become irrelevant if we used a currency system which wasn't based on bank issued loans in the first place.

Ya it would be nice if that could be done, though government would inevitably stomp on it, since they need to maintain a currency monopoly
I guess the problem always goes back to: You need a centralized authority to manage the currency, and the only democratic way, is for government to do that.

BitCoins and Gold both provide a limit to the money supply that alleviates the requirement for government, but as you say, that adds deflationary problems, and no commodity or money-supply limited currency, can manage the money supply to avoid either deflation or inflation; need government for that.

tails_naf

Farmer Pudsey wrote: »

we will ahve a 10 billion a year intrest payment. Now I know all this is not related to the banks and the present Program. Howeve this is not sustainable.

Sorry for my Ignorance - but how does it come to 10 billion? (genuine question)

If I remember correctly, we own about 130 Billion as it stands. So we'd have to be paying close to 7.7% of that a year to be paying back 10 billion.

It sounds like we are getting a pretty poor interest rate, especially when ECB rates are < 1%.

woodoo

NIMAN wrote: »

But one massive question has gone unanswered throughout the last few years, and that is how exactly could we close the €20bn deficit without these cuts?

Enda says the deficit is 12bn. It seems to be a difficult figure to get anyone to agree on. I have heard 12, 14, 18 and 20bn.

woodoo

If out interest bill is going to be a massive 8 billion there then that is the best place to target. Get a long term loan to the ECB over about 50 years or else a debt reduction. I don't know how that would be achieved but we don't even seem to be trying

Reductions in all welfare across the board by about 10%. There would need to be a way out of crippling debts for those who have large debts.

Tax child benefit

Drastic reduction in public service allowances and Travel & Subsistence.

The rest really is down to getting people working, off welfare and paying tax Its like a double saving. Tax receipts go up welfare goes down. We aren't going to close the deficit with 21 billion going on all welfare payments. Not all are dole but alot are extras like rent allowance, and other benefits you get when on the dole.

KyussBishop

By cutting spending on welfare (or government spending in general, as opposed to redistributing it more efficiently) we would just be slowing down the economy even more though, worsening tax income, and requiring even more cuts.

Closing the deficit is not the solution to the crisis, it makes things worse, and we don't need to cut the deficit, because if the EU wasn't fast-set on its current destructive path, money creation could be used to increase tax intake and temporarily fund any deficit shortfall.

jank

KyussBishop wrote: »

By cutting spending on welfare (or government spending in general, as opposed to redistributing it more efficiently) we would just be slowing down the economy even more though, worsening tax income, and requiring even more cuts.

Closing the deficit is not the solution to the crisis, it makes things worse, and we don't need to cut the deficit, because if the EU wasn't fast-set on its current destructive path, money creation could be used to increase tax intake and temporarily fund any deficit shortfall.

Em, yes we do. Otherwise where would Ireland get money from to pay its PS employees? One cannot run a deficit indefinitely especially one as large a Ireland.

Paddy De Plasterer

Some Irish got used to a state that looked after them from cradle to grave, it does not pay to go to work, pay taxes, run a car , childcare etc. FF increased child benefit prior to 2002 election by 25%, backdated 3 months.ts now almost impossible to row back on that. Harsh reality is needed. And the likes of Joe Duffy and Whineline provide a stomping ground for whingers. We even see it with a modest increase on prescriptions - this modest increase may stop abuse of prescription drugs. What about those unfortunates who have no medical card ?

It will take a long time to turn the ship around, which FF set sail into an iceberg field.

washman3

srsly78 wrote: »

Yes wouldn't it be great to just ignore all those loans and not pay them back! Would also be great if there was world peace and a cure for cancer etc.

They are not our loans bud..!!
If i got a loan tomorrow i would not expect you to pay it back for me.
If i back a horse in the 2.30 at Ascot tomorrow and he finishes last i will not ask the bookie for my money back. Plain and simple.;)

Good loser

washman3 wrote: »

They are not our loans bud..!!
If i got a loan tomorrow i would not expect you to pay it back for me.
If i back a horse in the 2.30 at Ascot tomorrow and he finishes last i will not ask the bookie for my money back. Plain and simple.;)

Of couse they are ours.

If they were not legitimate, legal loans we would not be repaying them.

A bet/wager is not a loan.

Icepick

woodoo wrote: »

Enda says the deficit is 12bn. It seems to be a difficult figure to get anyone to agree on. I have heard 12, 14, 18 and 20bn.

It depends on revenues, of course.

KyussBishop

jank wrote: »

Em, yes we do. Otherwise where would Ireland get money from to pay its PS employees? One cannot run a deficit indefinitely especially one as large a Ireland.

The answer is in the same sentence containing the part you bolded, which if you read just that one sentence to the end, you'd see deals exactly with your own post.

Cavehill Red

murphaph wrote: »

We (as a people, not everyone) partied too hard for that.

This is a core issue right here. The majority of citizens are paying (in some cases many times over, in terms of tax increases, wage cuts, unemployment, property tax on top of stamp duty) for the sins of the few.
Until something is done to address the culpability issue of those who did actually 'party hard', then I think the majority of the citizenry have every right to protest being forced to pay for the sins of others, having already done so multiple times over.

hatrickpatrick

KyussBishop wrote: »

Ya it would be nice if that could be done, though government would inevitably stomp on it, since they need to maintain a currency monopoly

They tried to do that with bitcoin and failed spectacularly, it has multiple built in safeguards specifically designed to ring fence it against any form of regulation

I guess the problem always goes back to: You need a centralized authority to manage the currency, and the only democratic way, is for government to do that.

BitCoins and Gold both provide a limit to the money supply that alleviates the requirement for government, but as you say, that adds deflationary problems, and no commodity or money-supply limited currency, can manage the money supply to avoid either deflation or inflation; need government for that.

Then it should be done by an independent body of qualified economists who are totally and completely independent of any vested interests except maintaining the fluidity of trade, ie, avoiding the situation in which everyone wants to buy things and everyone is producing things but the currency system has frozen the whole thing solid so nothing can move.

Right now the banks and politicians have control of it, and rather than being interested in keeping the gears moving they're just interested in making sure they're not the ones who get hurt when it stops working.

Cavehill Red

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Then it should be done by an independent body of qualified economists who are totally and completely independent of any vested interests except maintaining the fluidity of trade, ie, avoiding the situation in which everyone wants to buy things and everyone is producing things but the currency system has frozen the whole thing solid so nothing can move.

I'm always concerned at technocratic, anti-democratic solutions to problems. They are a waystation to eroding democracy fundamentally. That said,

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Right now the banks and politicians have control of it, and rather than being interested in keeping the gears moving they're just interested in making sure they're not the ones who get hurt when it stops working.

This is evidently true. So how could it be fixed without a technocratic solution? The only thing that occurs to me is either the libertarian notion of a free market of currencies (which I have significant reservations about) or a single global currency, administrated by no one. A gold standard goes some way to fulfilling the latter, though perhaps not entirely.

hinault

Cut taxes while cutting government (current) expenditure.

Cutting taxes will generate more economic activity which will improve economic growth.

Cavehill Red

hinault wrote: »

Cutting taxes will generate more economic activity which will improve economic growth.

Not necessarily. Many people will simply seek to pay down accrued debt. The only thing that will benefit our economy currently is creating jobs. Cutting taxes across the board won't achieve that. Cutting certain specific taxes might, but we have limited room to manoeuvre there.

Chucky the tree

Cavehill Red wrote: »

This is a core issue right here. The majority of citizens are paying (in some cases many times over, in terms of tax increases, wage cuts, unemployment, property tax on top of stamp duty) for the sins of the few.
Until something is done to address the culpability issue of those who did actually 'party hard', then I think the majority of the citizenry have every right to protest being forced to pay for the sins of others, having already done so multiple times over.

We're being mainly forced to the pay for the sins of a Government who can't/won't balance it's books.

djflawless

im invisible wrote: »

Cut the dole and the public service by 10 to 15 percent (calculator not used)

you'd wanna hope you dont end up on a dole qeue the wouldnt you?at least have some kind of cop on to yourself