The irony of ireland`s homelessness crisis

realitykeeper

Suryavarman wrote: »

The Euro has been a disaster for Ireland. During the boom monetary policy was too loose for Ireland. And over the past few years it was far too tight. Unemployment would never have reached the level it did if we had our own currency and we'd probably be back at full employment by now as well. And as bad as its been for us it's been even worse for Greece and Spain.

The Euro has been bad for every country apart from Germany and a complete disaster for many countries. It has been a political vanity project masquerading as sound economic policy. Its introduction has resulted in political instability throughout Europe and is probably the worst thing to happen to the EU.

Back in the late eighties, Ireland`s economy was not good and the infrastructure funding from Europe was very welcome.

The EU project was a good idea but in order to work, each country had to be fiscally responsible. In other words, it would have worked well if countries like Ireland and some of the med countries were excluded. Lender nations should insist, if you want our money you will need our morals. I am increasingly convinced the short term reactionary thinking in Ireland is really just a guise for dishonesty.

Wanderer78

realitykeeper wrote:

The EU project was a good idea but in order to work, each country had to be fiscally responsible. In other words, it would have worked well if countries like Ireland and some of the med countries were excluded.

All well and good folks, but what do we do about it now?

Zubeneschamali

Wanderer78 wrote: »

All well and good folks, but what do we do about it now?

Keep kicking the can down the road.

Maybe the horse will learn to sing.

KingBrian2

Wanderer78 wrote: »

All well and good folks, but what do we do about it now?

I don't see being fiscally responsible as a being innately bad. A poster commented that the € was the worst to happen to the EU. Lets put it this way if the drachma or punt can have terrible fortunes on the world market so can the € at least now the economy has stabilizers coming from the ECB.

Wanderer78

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I don't see being fiscally responsible as a being innately bad. A poster commented that the € was the worst to happen to the EU. Lets put it this way if the drachma or punt can have terrible fortunes on the world market so can the € at least now the economy has stabilizers coming from the ECB.

ah these fiscal rules are ridiculous, id have to agree to a point about the euro being a bit of a disaster for many European countries including ours. our economies are too different, its destroying some economies and strengthening others. it ll end badly for most. theres nothing wrong with governments printing money just like banks, in fact id say its probably safer and better

KingBrian2

Wanderer78 wrote: »

ah these fiscal rules are ridiculous, id have to agree to a point about the euro being a bit of a disaster for many European countries including ours. our economies are too different, its destroying some economies and strengthening others. it ll end badly for most. theres nothing wrong with governments printing money just like banks, in fact id say its probably safer and better

Not if gvt spending causes run away inflation which we know historically is the case. The Weimer Republic first attempted to print itself out of trouble during the bad days and when the € came about keeping inflation down was one of the priorities for membership. Just before Britain entered the EU they went bankrupt and needed IMF support. The argument that gvt spending will rescue the economy alone has shown not too work.

Wanderer78

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Not if gvt spending causes run away inflation which we know historically is the case. The Weimer Republic first attempted to print itself out of trouble during the bad days and when the € came about keeping inflation down was one of the priorities for membership. Just before Britain entered the EU they went bankrupt and needed IMF support. The argument that gvt spending will rescue the economy alone has shown not too work.

increasing levels of private debt isnt working either. we have to stop with this madness or we ll keep going from boom to bust

KingBrian2

Banks have an advantage over gvt though they don't have to spend on welfare subsidies industries provide care to the public. I would not be quick to dump banking in favour of whole scale gvt involvement in the economy.

Wanderer78

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Banks have an advantage over gvt though they don't have to spend on welfare subsidies industries provide care to the public. I would not be quick to dump banking in favour of whole scale gvt involvement in the economy.

theres nothing wrong with providing welfare, its a safety net for all. its becoming clearly obvious to me that theres something fundamentally wrong with our financial and banking sectors, i do truly beleive these industries are slowly becoming parasitic and predatory, they are not truly beneficial for us all. we need to try gain some sort of control over these industries or they could completely destroy our economies. a properly functioning banking sector is required for a prosperous economy, for all, but we actually dont have that, its highly dysfunctional. at the moment id rather more governmental involvement in these sectors and to create public banking options as well as private banking options. its disturbing to watch that very little has actually changed over the last few years regarding these issues, we re all just waiting around for the next crash, where i suspect, we ll just continue to kick the cans further down the road, again.

KingBrian2

Wanderer78 wrote: »

theres nothing wrong with providing welfare, its a safety net for all. its becoming clearly obvious to me that theres something fundamentally wrong with our financial and banking sectors, i do truly beleive these industries are slowly becoming parasitic and predatory, they are not truly beneficial for us all. we need to try gain some sort of control over these industries or they could completely destroy our economies. a properly functioning banking sector is required for a prosperous economy, for all, but we actually dont have that, its highly dysfunctional. at the moment id rather more governmental involvement in these sectors and to create public banking options as well as private banking options. its disturbing to watch that very little has actually changed over the last few years regarding these issues, we re all just waiting around for the next crash, where i suspect, we ll just continue to kick the cans further down the road, again.

Agree completely with this sentence.

Wanderer78

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Agree completely with this sentence.

the only problem with the statement is, im not really sure if we know what a properly functioning banking system is or how to achieve it. it seems like to me our political leaders are fumbling around, hoping and praying, tweaking this that and the other thing, but are not exactly sure whats going on or if what theyre doing is working. if the eu collapses, we re all in big trouble, and its not looking great at the moment, so we better think fast

KingBrian2

Wanderer78 wrote: »

the only problem with the statement is, im not really sure if we know what a properly functioning banking system is or how to achieve it. it seems like to me our political leaders are fumbling around, hoping and praying, tweaking this that and the other thing, but are not exactly sure whats going on or if what theyre doing is working. if the eu collapses, we re all in big trouble, and its not looking great at the moment, so we better think fast

Well it involves everyone having a stake in a common European approach instead of looking at outdated notions going according to a banking model that placed to much emphasis on debt spending.

Wanderer78

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Well it involves everyone having a stake in a common European approach instead of looking at outdated notions going according to a banking model that placed to much emphasis on debt spending.

absolutely, but how do we actually achieve that? theres very powerful forces trying to maintain the status quo within these complex systems, it wont be easy to break that, but we have to try, collectively. there are some very interesting ideas out there and groups trying to achieve this but it wont be easy. i suspect it ll take a couple of more serious economic/financial crisis before these ideas are even considered.

realitykeeper

Wanderer78 wrote: »

im not really sure if we know what a properly functioning banking system is or how to achieve it. it seems like to me our political leaders are fumbling around, hoping and praying, tweaking this that and the other thing, but are not exactly sure whats going on or if what theyre doing is working. if the eu collapses, we re all in big trouble, and its not looking great at the moment, so we better think fast

I agree with this which is why I do not understand why you would want more government involvement. I not agree that there should be public banking options because like everything else, the state can use taxpayers money to run loss making entities leaving no reason for a private banking system. Anything the government touches, it destroys. The government`s job is to be as small and unobtrusive as possible.

KingBrian2

realitykeeper wrote: »

I agree with this which is why I do not understand why you would want more government involvement. I not agree that there should be public banking options because like everything else, the state can use taxpayers money to run loss making entities leaving no reason for a private banking system. Anything the government touches, it destroys. The government`s job is to be as small and unobtrusive as possible.

We need an economic system that allows banks to lend to the public and if losses build up the banks take the hit not the gvt. The CB can monitor banking activity in Ireland and most certainly revoke licenses from banks that break the rules but allowing the gvt to take the liability for what a private bank does cause more damage. Customers need to diversify when it comes to banking. A market place for banks that offers a valuable service.

Wanderer78

realitykeeper wrote: »

I agree with this which is why I do not understand why you would want more government involvement. I not agree that there should be public banking options because like everything else, the state can use taxpayers money to run loss making entities leaving no reason for a private banking system. Anything the government touches, it destroys. The government`s job is to be as small and unobtrusive as possible.

almost completely disagree, its becoming obvious, to me anyway, this utopian view of an almost none existing government involvement in economic and financial matters will more than likely lead to a dystopia, if we continue with it. things such as free market economics and neoliberalism are a bust. in order to have these methods of economics be functional for all, we need systems that will distribute wealth more evenly, what we actually have is almost the opposite. this idea of perpetual growth must also stop, as its complete nonsense. we are accelerating the ability of our planet not to able to maintain life including human life, largely by our economic activities. is this what we want? do we want future generations to struggle largely due to our current activities? this is rather selfish and ignorant behavior in my eyes.

according to advocators of public banks, they actually can be more stable and more profitable than some private banks, by not engaging in highly risky activities such as derivatives trading etc. public banks are not always controlled by politicians, theyre generally controlled and run by bankers but they are answerable to governmental bodies which of course we should have some say in. obviously these ideas are debatable but id rather have the option. germanys sparkasse bank seems to be reasonably successful and highly protected under german law

we elect our governments to do whats right for us, obviously this doesnt always happen but if we have the ability to elect them, we have the ability to effectively sack them if they dont do whats right for society as a whole. we dont necessarily have those abilities if our banks are wholly controlled by private entities.

why cant we have both options of public and privately owned banks?

Suryavarman

KingBrian2 wrote: »

I don't see being fiscally responsible as a being innately bad. A poster commented that the € was the worst to happen to the EU. Lets put it this way if the drachma or punt can have terrible fortunes on the world market so can the € at least now the economy has stabilizers coming from the ECB.

I suggest that you read the short Krugman paper I posted on the last page because it is clear you don't really understand the argument I'm making. And if you don't understand the argument I'm making you're not in a position to be saying whether or not the Euro is a good or a bad thing.

This isn't an argument about whether or not the Euro is performing well or poorly at any one time. The argument is that the Euro is a fundamentally flawed currency as the Eurozone is not an optimal currency area. This means that optimum monetary policy is impossible for most Eurozone countries as long as the Euro is in place.

KingBrian2 wrote: »

Not if gvt spending causes run away inflation which we know historically is the case. The Weimer Republic first attempted to print itself out of trouble during the bad days and when the € came about keeping inflation down was one of the priorities for membership. Just before Britain entered the EU they went bankrupt and needed IMF support. The argument that gvt spending will rescue the economy alone has shown not too work.

Government spending doesn't cause inflation. Inflation is everywhere and always a monetary phenomena as Milton Friedman was always happy to explain.

KingBrian2

Suryavarman wrote: »

I suggest that you read the short Krugman paper I posted on the last page because it is clear you don't really understand the argument I'm making. And if you don't understand the argument I'm making you're not in a position to be saying whether or not the Euro is a good or a bad thing.

This isn't an argument about whether or not the Euro is performing well or poorly at any one time. The argument is that the Euro is a fundamentally flawed currency as the Eurozone is not an optimal currency area. This means that optimum monetary policy is impossible for most Eurozone countries as long as the Euro is in place.



Government spending doesn't cause inflation. Inflation is everywhere and always a monetary phenomena as Milton Friedman was always happy to explain.

I am familiar with Krugman and his positions just like i am aware of other economists who take an even more desperate position on the €. As i pointed out earlier having an economic system with no rules in place will continue to just lead to gvt having access to easy funding with the end result Argentina style bankruptcies. What is appealing of the € is that CB from across Europe can actually steer the currency through choppy waters & stormy clouds.

realitykeeper

Wanderer78 wrote: »

almost completely disagree, its becoming obvious, to me anyway, this utopian view of an almost none existing government involvement in economic and financial matters will more than likely lead to a dystopia, if we continue with it. things such as free market economics and neoliberalism are a bust. in order to have these methods of economics be functional for all, we need systems that will distribute wealth more evenly, what we actually have is almost the opposite. this idea of perpetual growth must also stop, as its complete nonsense. we are accelerating the ability of our planet not to able to maintain life including human life, largely by our economic activities. is this what we want? do we want future generations to struggle largely due to our current activities? this is rather selfish and ignorant behavior in my eyes.

according to advocators of public banks, they actually can be more stable and more profitable than some private banks, by not engaging in highly risky activities such as derivatives trading etc. public banks are not always controlled by politicians, theyre generally controlled and run by bankers but they are answerable to governmental bodies which of course we should have some say in. obviously these ideas are debatable but id rather have the option. germanys sparkasse bank seems to be reasonably successful and highly protected under german law

we elect our governments to do whats right for us, obviously this doesnt always happen but if we have the ability to elect them, we have the ability to effectively sack them if they dont do whats right for society as a whole. we dont necessarily have those abilities if our banks are wholly controlled by private entities.

why cant we have both options of public and privately owned banks?

By stealing from the rich and sharing some of their plunder with the poor, politicians will achieve equality alright. The rich will invest their wealth in poor countries and when the next economic shock hits, the west will be plunged into a deep depression while some or the poorest countries will experience boom time prosperity. When sentiment moves against the US dollar, the greatest wealth shift in history will happen.

The reason private banks invest in risky derivatives is because the central banks are making conservative responsible banking impossible. They even admit themselves their purpose behind monetary stimulus and negative central bank deposit rates is to force banks to lend when clearly the banks themselves would rather not lend.

The cause and effect of political decisions can take years to play out and the electorate in most countries do not understand the real reasons bad things happen in the economy. The electorate frequently praise the culprits for good things and blame the good guys for the bad things.

realitykeeper

realitykeeper wrote: »

The bond holders would have been burnt. The tax payers would still have their 60 billion. The cost of renting would have been cheaper. Building houses could have resumed as viable business activity. The Irish would be wiser.

A month later - why would they bondholders who had just been burnt (foreign banks, savers, credit unions) be rushing to get back into this market given the losses they had just incurred and the uncertainty that prevailed?