Good economic news thread

Villa05

Mongfinder General wrote:

If we had another September 2008 type downfall at least this time the Government would have liquid. We would not immediately be at the mercy of Trioka type funding.

Irish governance is scarier than troika funding situations especially in times of crisis.
And no, we should not be adding to that debt mountain.

frankbrett

Mongfinder General wrote: »

With GDP increasing, our debt level should decrease even if we are still borrowing. Would it be imprudent for the Government to go hell for leather in the debt markets and borrow as much as they could at 1%? Would a mounting cash pile spook the markets?

If we had another September 2008 type downfall at least this time the Government would have liquid. We would not immediately be at the mercy of Trioka type funding.

While there is a case to be made for locking in low rates for additional long term borrowing with reduced refinancing risk, a cash mountain isn't optimal as deposit rates are neglible or negative, EU deficit rules would be breached and debt GDP Is already excessively high.

Geuze

Mongfinder General wrote: »

With GDP increasing, our debt level should decrease even if we are still borrowing. Would it be imprudent for the Government to go hell for leather in the debt markets and borrow as much as they could at 1%? Would a mounting cash pile spook the markets?

We have been doing this, to some degree, and using the proceed to repay IMF debt.

Maybe not "hell for leather", so yes, I agree we should issue more debt at 1%.

FreudianSlippers

Geuze wrote: »

We have been doing this, to some degree, and using the proceed to repay IMF debt.

Maybe not "hell for leather", so yes, I agree we should issue more debt at 1%.

We probably should, but the problem is that someone would need to fast-track things like infrastructure and development (Metro North, Children's Hospital, broadband, roads, etc.) rather than spending it on social welfare and the HSÉ.

Unfortunately, that's unrealistic in Ireland.

Mongfinder General

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

We probably should, but the problem is that someone would need to fast-track things like infrastructure and development (Metro North, Children's Hospital, broadband, roads, etc.) rather than spending it on social welfare and the HSÉ.

Unfortunately, that's unrealistic in Ireland.

Less spending on welfare? Don't you know that the most vulnerable have to be protected and rewarded? Those working with kids and SVR mortgages have 99% of the nation's wealth tucked away in the sock drawer and should be made pay for everyone else's problems.
How dare you. The very notion...

beeno67

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

We probably should, but the problem is that someone would need to fast-track things like infrastructure and development (Metro North, Children's Hospital, broadband, roads, etc.) rather than spending it on social welfare and the HSÉ.

Unfortunately, that's unrealistic in Ireland.

Metro North??? FFS.
We have a population of 1 million in Dublin spread over an area large enough for 5 million. The very last thing we should do is invest masses of money to encourage people to live at the limits of the city. Far better to encourage more to live in the city centre.
Children's hospital is going ahead and plenty has been spent on roads. We have motorways in areas of Ireland with not enough traffic to justify the cost.

Godge

http://www.independent.ie/irish-news/politics/spring-statement-government-pledges-tax-cuts-and-spending-increases-until-2020-31179122.html


"The Dail was told that the economy is set to grow by 4pc this year and a further 3.75pc each year until 2020 in a sign that the era of austerity is coming to an end."

"Employment is expected to go beyond two million next year with all jobs lost during the recession to be replaced by 2018."

MICKEYG

beeno67 wrote: »

Metro North??? FFS.
We have a population of 1 million in Dublin spread over an area large enough for 5 million. The very last thing we should do is invest masses of money to encourage people to live at the limits of the city. Far better to encourage more to live in the city centre.
Children's hospital is going ahead and plenty has been spent on roads. We have motorways in areas of Ireland with not enough traffic to justify the cost.

Eh, metro north would support denser populations closer to the city.

beeno67

MICKEYG wrote: »

Eh, metro north would support denser populations closer to the city.

How does building a line that goes 18KM out of the city, that was going to increase the population of Swords, support denser populations closer to the city?

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

beeno67

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Still doesn't answer the question. How does going 18km out of the city encourage people to live close to the city. Surely logically it will make it easier for people to live up to 18km from the city centre.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

beeno67

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

Equally encouraging people to live 17
and 16
and 15
and 14
and so on from the city centre. We have serious sprawl in Dublin. Metro North would have added to this problem not solved it.

draiochtanois

This post has been deleted.

beeno67

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

No arguments on that one. Is it worth pointing out that Kildare is less than 18km from city centre?

Quin_Dub

draiochtanois wrote: »

This post has been deleted.

One of the big reasons for urban sprawl in Dublin is the lack of family sized accomodation in the city centre.. All we've ever built are 1 and 2 bed apartments.. Where are the 3 and 4 bed 1200 sq ft apartments for families?

So as soon as people start families the only option is the outer suburbs..

Ren2k7

beeno67 wrote: »

Still doesn't answer the question. How does going 18km out of the city encourage people to live close to the city. Surely logically it will make it easier for people to live up to 18km from the city centre.

Swords is generally regarded as part of the Dublin metropolitan region. I'm not sure what point you're trying to make.

ardmacha

beeno67 wrote: »

Still doesn't answer the question. How does going 18km out of the city encourage people to live close to the city. Surely logically it will make it easier for people to live up to 18km from the city centre.

This is one of the most bizarre derailings of a thread. What do you suggest, that everyone lives within walking distance of everything? Every densely populated city in the developed world has a metro.

aliveandkicking

Back on topic

Irish exports reach record level of €18.6 billion

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0430/697733-irish-exports/

Exports by Irish-owned companies increased by 10% last year, reaching a new record high value of €18.6 billion, according to Enterprise Ireland. 

serfboard

aliveandkicking wrote: »

Back on topic

Irish exports reach record level of €18.6 billion

http://www.rte.ie/news/2015/0430/697733-irish-exports/

Good news indeed, considering it's Irish-owned companies, and you'd have to think that the QE-related devaluation of the Euro will help companies exporting out of the EuroZone (principally to the UK) even more.

beeno67

ardmacha wrote: »

This is one of the most bizarre derailings of a thread. What do you suggest, that everyone lives within walking distance of everything? Every densely populated city in the developed world has a metro.

That is the whole point. Dublin is not a "densely populated city". It is the very opposite.

"Dublin is in general a low density city with an overall density figure of approximately 42 persons per hectare, compared to European equivalents such as Copenhagen at 54.0/ha and Lyon at 91.3/ha. (Managing Intensification and Change: A Strategy for Dublin Building Height, DEGW, 2000). The low densities within the city can be largely attributed to the development of the suburbs in the 1950s and 1960s at net densities of between 15 to 20 dwellings per hectare (6-8 per acre) in detached or semi-detached form. Such low densities are today unable to provide the critical mass of population needed to sustain key services and quality public transport, and thus encourage a reliance on private car travel. This is unacceptable in terms of sustainability and Ireland’s commitments under the Rio Declaration of 1992 and the Kyoto Protocol, which requires Ireland to limit growth in greenhousegas emissions. This low suburban density is being further compounded by falling household sizes, which, if left unchecked, will lead to a loss of critical mass of population and a reduction in the potential to sustain local services."

But hey lets piss any recovery up against the wall, waste 3 billion and say we are building "infrastructure" no matter how nonsensical that infrastructure is.

ardmacha

beeno67 wrote: »

That is the whole point. Dublin is not a "densely populated city". It is the very opposite.

"Dublin is in general a low density city with an overall density figure of approximately 42 persons per hectare, compared to European equivalents such as Copenhagen at 54.0/ha and Lyon at 91.3/ha. (Managing Intensification and Change: A Strategy for Dublin Building Height, DEGW, 2000). The low densities within the city can be largely attributed to the development of the suburbs in the 1950s and 1960s at net densities of between 15 to 20 dwellings per hectare (6-8 per acre) in detached or semi-detached form. Such low densities are today unable to provide the critical mass of population needed to sustain key services and quality public transport, and thus encourage a reliance on private car travel. This is unacceptable in terms of sustainability and Ireland’s commitments under the Rio Declaration of 1992 and the Kyoto Protocol, which requires Ireland to limit growth in greenhousegas emissions. This low suburban density is being further compounded by falling household sizes, which, if left unchecked, will lead to a loss of critical mass of population and a reduction in the potential to sustain local services."

But hey lets piss any recovery up against the wall, waste 3 billion and say we are building "infrastructure" no matter how nonsensical that infrastructure is.

Are you a disciple of Frank McDonald? Lets leave aside for the moment that there was a great deal of development since the 1990s, almost all at a greater density. Denser development and better public transport have to go hand in hand, they are complementary not mutually exclusive.

Greyian

ardmacha wrote: »

Are you a disciple of Frank McDonald? Lets leave aside for the moment that there was a great deal of development since the 1990s, almost all at a greater density. Denser development and better public transport have to go hand in hand, they are complementary not mutually exclusive.

According to Google, Dublin County has a population of 1.186 million people, and is 921km^2 in size, or 92100 hectares, giving a population density of just under 13 people per hectare.

If we assumed every person in the county of Dublin lived inside the M50 (so Shankill area in the South, to the M1/M50 interchange in the North, that would give 1.186 million people in an area of 19690 hectares, which would be just over 60 people per hectare (and obviously, they don't all live there, considering it excludes places like Swords, Blanchardstown or Tallaght, with Tallaght alone having ~70,000 people).

ardmacha

The question of Dublin's population density is irrelevant to this thread and I for one am not posting about it again. But quite simply, unless public transport is improved people will wish to drive and so will live in 1980s style suburbs, so improving public transport is part of the way forward, which does not mean that other measures are not also appropriate.

Mongfinder General

ardmacha wrote: »

The question of Dublin's population density is irrelevant to this thread and I for one am not posting about it again. But quite simply, unless public transport is improved people will wish to drive and so will live in 1980s style suburbs, so improving public transport is part of the way forward, which does not mean that other measures are not also appropriate.

I wouldn't put an animal on public transport in Dublin

K-9

Yep, think we can get back to the topic of the thread now. No problem it meandering generally a bit but when it starts to take over...............

Feel free to start a new thread on it.

Icepick

Quin_Dub wrote: »

One of the big reasons for urban sprawl in Dublin is the lack of family sized accomodation in the city centre.. All we've ever built are 1 and 2 bed apartments.. Where are the 3 and 4 bed 1200 sq ft apartments for families?

So as soon as people start families the only option is the outer suburbs..

2 beds are enough for a lot families. Just look at the huge amount of single parent families.

BoJack Horseman

Icepick wrote: »

2 beds are enough for a lot families. Just look at the huge amount of single parent families.

Its adequate for single child families.

Once multiple kids come along 2-bed flats lose their appeal.

Planners have forced families out of urban areas.

padd b1975

serfboard wrote: »

Good news indeed, considering it's Irish-owned companies, and you'd have to think that the QE-related devaluation of the Euro will help companies exporting out of the EuroZone (principally to the UK) even more.

On the flip side of that...

I work in the haulage industry and my boss has noticed a marked difficulty in sourcing backloads from the UK to Ireland since the turn of the year, the weak Euro has definitely contributed to this.

Godge

http://www.rte.ie/news/business/2015/0505/698800-euro-zone-economy/


"The European Commission has said economic growth in Ireland grew by 4.8% last year, and will grow by around 3.5% this year and next year as the Irish economy re-emerges as one of Europe's "top performers". "


"Announcing its Spring Economic Forecast today, the Commission said that exports and private sector investment were continuing to drive growth.

It also said that domestic consumption was a contributory factor in higher growth rates for the country."

"The forecast predicted that unemployment would fall to 9.2% in 2016, down from 11.3% in 2014. "


We are continuing to grow our way out of the recession.


"Ireland's debt level will fall to 103.8% of GDP in 2016, down from 123.2% in 2013"

The debt is reducing as a result.