Why don't we just sell the entire country?

beejee

A tangent opened in some work that led me researching foreign investment in ireland.

A rabbit hole!

I find it difficult to identify good sources of land/property/utility ownership owned or essentially run by non state actors.

But the million examples of what you think is "irish"... But isn't... Is scarily significant.

Homes, businesses, stock exchanges, property, land... You name it, it's apparently all up for grabs, and is indeed being grabbed.

At what point, without hyperbole, is a country not a country? If China owned 20% of the value of Ireland, isnt it really like saying Ireland is now 20% smaller? If not, why not?

The information and record keeping is so poor or non-existent you'd almost think it was done on purpose

Any thoughts or insight on this phenomena? Seems to be a rapidly growing problem in a lot of countries.

Force Carrier

First define your terms. So what is 'country'?

Is it a collection of economic resources and assets?

Does the definition also include culture, ideas, people, heritage?

ToddyDoody

beejee wrote: »

A tangent opened in some work that led me researching foreign investment in ireland.

A rabbit hole!

I find it difficult to identify good sources of land/property/utility ownership owned or essentially run by non state actors.

But the million examples of what you think is "irish"... But isn't... Is scarily significant.

Homes, businesses, stock exchanges, property, land... You name it, it's apparently all up for grabs, and is indeed being grabbed.

At what point, without hyperbole, is a country not a country? If China owned 20% of the value of Ireland, isnt it really like saying Ireland is now 20% smaller? If not, why not?

The information and record keeping is so poor or non-existent you'd almost think it was done on purpose

Any thoughts or insight on this phenomena? Seems to be a rapidly growing problem in a lot of countries.

DeValera would be spinning in his grave.

dxhound2005

beejee wrote: »

A tangent opened in some work that led me researching foreign investment in ireland.

A rabbit hole!

I find it difficult to identify good sources of land/property/utility ownership owned or essentially run by non state actors.

But the million examples of what you think is "irish"... But isn't... Is scarily significant.

Homes, businesses, stock exchanges, property, land... You name it, it's apparently all up for grabs, and is indeed being grabbed.

At what point, without hyperbole, is a country not a country? If China owned 20% of the value of Ireland, isnt it really like saying Ireland is now 20% smaller? If not, why not?

The information and record keeping is so poor or non-existent you'd almost think it was done on purpose

Any thoughts or insight on this phenomena? Seems to be a rapidly growing problem in a lot of countries.

You are using hyperbole.

Fr_Dougal

beejee wrote: »

A tangent opened in some work that led me researching foreign investment in ireland.

A rabbit hole!

I find it difficult to identify good sources of land/property/utility ownership owned or essentially run by non state actors.

But the million examples of what you think is "irish"... But isn't... Is scarily significant.

Homes, businesses, stock exchanges, property, land... You name it, it's apparently all up for grabs, and is indeed being grabbed.

At what point, without hyperbole, is a country not a country? If China owned 20% of the value of Ireland, isnt it really like saying Ireland is now 20% smaller? If not, why not?

The information and record keeping is so poor or non-existent you'd almost think it was done on purpose

Any thoughts or insight on this phenomena? Seems to be a rapidly growing problem in a lot of countries.

Will swap for anything in my ads. Can you deliver?

beejee

Force Carrier wrote: »

First define your terms. So what is 'country'?

Is it a collection of economic resources and assets?

Does the definition also include culture, ideas, people, heritage?

Not easy to define for useful conversation.

But I suppose a quick and dirty definition could be "it's a home"... Thereby including all the necessities of running a home.

Sure, there are a lot of economic factors at play in maintaining your home, but selling it off bit by bit wouldn't be very smart?

odyssey06

Arent our territorial waters much larger I think than our land mass.

So we already included them in the package of sale to Europe.

beejee

dxhound2005 wrote: »

You are using hyperbole.

No I'm not, I'm using analogy, not exaggeration. The question stands.

BENDYBINN

Definitely,should sell the arran islands.......

dxhound2005

beejee wrote: »

No I'm not, I'm using analogy, not exaggeration. The question stands.

Impossible to answer because the record keeping is non-existent.

Allinall

I know what a tracker mortgage is.

But for the life of me, I’ve no notion what this thread is about.

Force Carrier

beejee wrote: »

but selling it off bit by bit wouldn't be very smart?

Well it would be smart if total revenue after sales > cost of house to you plus expenses.

dxhound2005

BENDYBINN wrote: »

Definitely,should sell the arran islands.......

Arran belongs to Scotland.

beejee

odyssey06 wrote: »

Arent our territorial waters much larger I think than our land mass.

So we already included them in the package of sale to Europe.

Well, we are essentially allowing the use of our territory. But not selling it outright.

Could be argued! But there's a clear technical difference at least.

In contrast, I was just reading that 1 in 5 homes, potentially, is being bought by cuckoo funds. And the overall increase in their purchases has risen 60% this year (iirc)

So, technically, we can boot the other eu countries out of our waters, but these homes are 100% not "irish" anymore. We no longer own them. If you live on a residential road, just picture every fifth house belongs to a foreign company. Wild, don't you think?

dxhound2005

beejee wrote: »

Well, we are essentially allowing the use of our territory. But not selling it outright.

Could be argued! But there's a clear technical difference at least.

In contrast, I was just reading that 1 in 5 homes, potentially, is being bought by cuckoo funds. And the overall increase in their purchases has risen 60% this year (iirc)

So, technically, we can boot the other eu countries out of our waters, but these homes are 100% not "irish" anymore. We no longer own them. If you live on a residential road, just picture every fifth house belongs to a foreign company. Wild, don't you think?

Four out of five a'int bad.

beejee

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Impossible to answer because the record keeping is non-existent.

It's not centrally recorded, no. But go looking for the fragmented information and you'll get a strong flavour!

Why is that? Why is such a fundamental source of information unavailable?

It could be that I haven't found it yet, maybe.

dxhound2005

beejee wrote: »

It's not centrally recorded, no. But go looking for the fragmented information and you'll get a strong flavour!

Why is that? Why is such a fundamental source of information unavailable?

It could be that I haven't found it, but I certainly haven't found it yet.

Needs more research.

beejee

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Four out of five a'int bad.

And last year it may have been 4.5/5...next year it could be 3/5...in 20 years it could be one out of 5.

Im not the kind of person that loses a finger but is happy about the situation because I've got some left

dxhound2005

beejee wrote: »

And last year it may have been 4.5/5...next year it could be 3/5...in 20 years it could be one out of 5.

Im not the kind of person that loses a finger but is happy about the situation because I've got some left

Would you sell your little finger for one million Euro?

nkl12xtw5goz70

beejee wrote: »

At what point, without hyperbole, is a country not a country? If China owned 20% of the value of Ireland, isnt it really like saying Ireland is now 20% smaller? If not, why not?

Because buying property in Ireland is not the same thing as buying Irish sovereignty.

If a Chinese company buys property in Ireland, that property does not become part of China. It is still part of Ireland and subject to Irish laws, taxes, etc.

beejee

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Would you sell your little finger for one million Euro?

There's a Stephen King novel that pops into mind.

A surgeon is stranded on an island with a load of heroine. Rather than give in, he starts to surgically remove pieces of himself to eat, using the heroine as an anaesthetic. He keeps going until there's nothing left he can eat. In the end, he can't control himself from drooling at the prospect of eating a bit more. Grisly.

I'm not that kind of person, I don't believe in giving up parts of who you are, doubly so when it's only going to keep the vultures away until next time.

Not good enough. No, I wouldn't sell my finger for a million. Evidently, there are people who would. Better yet, there are people who will sell other people's fingers for the sake of greed and complacency!

dxhound2005

England sold London Bridge to an American, and he brought it over to the States. We could sell some stuff to the Chinese to take away.

beejee

Claire Scarce Roadside wrote: »

Because buying property in Ireland is not the same thing as buying Irish sovereignty.

If a Chinese company buys property in Ireland, that property does not become part of China. It is still part of Ireland and subject to Irish laws, taxes, etc.

Sovereignty isn't worth a damn when the collective agency and power of a group outsizes the so-called sovereign.

You'll be waiting a long time to see our government say boo to the likes of Google. Now imagine that scale growing exponentially. And worse, practically "secretly".

CalamariFritti

When a Chinese person (for example) buys Irish land it doesnt become Chinese territory. The Irish state still has ultimate power over private land no matter who owns it. If push came to shove it could simply be taken off any private owners. And it does happen all the time for example when CPOs are issued. Just think of the farmer who doesnt want to give his field for the motorway r something like that.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

beejee wrote: »

A tangent opened in some work that led me researching foreign investment in ireland.

A rabbit hole!

I find it difficult to identify good sources of land/property/utility ownership owned or essentially run by non state actors.

But the million examples of what you think is "irish"... But isn't... Is scarily significant.

Homes, businesses, stock exchanges, property, land... You name it, it's apparently all up for grabs, and is indeed being grabbed.

At what point, without hyperbole, is a country not a country? If China owned 20% of the value of Ireland, isnt it really like saying Ireland is now 20% smaller? If not, why not?

The information and record keeping is so poor or non-existent you'd almost think it was done on purpose

Any thoughts or insight on this phenomena? Seems to be a rapidly growing problem in a lot of countries.

If your hyperbole holds water than the USA is currently 48% owned by foreigners.

beejee

dxhound2005 wrote: »

England sold London Bridge to an American, and he brought it over to the States. We could sell some stuff to the Chinese to take away.

Sure why would they need to move anything from here? Just set up shop and derive all value back to the home country. Much cheaper.

dxhound2005

beejee wrote: »

Sovereignty isn't worth a damn when the collective agency and power of a group outsizes the so-called sovereign.

You'll be waiting a long time to see our government say boo to the likes of Google. Now imagine that scale growing exponentially. And worse, practically "secretly".

If something is happening exponentially, it will be impractical to keep it a secret.

Ipso

How much of Bulgaria does Ireland own?

nkl12xtw5goz70

beejee wrote: »

You'll be waiting a long time to see our government say boo to the likes of Google.

As long as Google continues to employ around 8,000 people and obey Irish laws, what's the issue? Ireland should be very thankful to Google for providing all those jobs.

beejee

Channing Faithful Sometime wrote: »

If your hyperbole holds water than the USA is currently 48% owned by foreigners.

Why is it hyperbole?

If someone else owns 62% of your home, do you call it your own owned home?

If someone eats half your dinner, do you still tell yourself you've had a full meal?

If your arm was transplanted onto someone else's body, is that person now "you"?

That kinda stuff is reaching into hyperbole, but the core principle is not exaggerated. And the question is based on that core principle.

dxhound2005

beejee wrote: »

Why is it hyperbole?

If someone else owns 62% of your home, do you call it your own owned home?

If someone eats half your dinner, do you still tell yourself you've had a full meal?

If your arm was transplanted onto someone else's body, is that person now "you"?

That kinda stuff is reaching into hyperbole, but the core principle is not exaggerated. And the question is based on that core principle.

If they owned 62%, I would call it their home.

beejee

Claire Scarce Roadside wrote: »

As long as Google continues to employ around 8,000 people and obey Irish laws, what's the issue? Ireland should be very thankful to Google for providing all those jobs.

I'm going to get so involved in your life, for my own benefit, that you will become dependant upon me. Sure, you'll get a few perks out of it. But I'm the boss of your life now.

Would you thank me for that?

nkl12xtw5goz70

beejee wrote: »

Why is it hyperbole?

If someone else owns 62% of your home, do you call it your own owned home?

If someone eats half your dinner, do you still tell yourself you've had a full meal?

If your arm was transplanted onto someone else's body, is that person now "you"?

That kinda stuff is reaching into hyperbole, but the core principle is not exaggerated. And the question is based on that core principle.

I don't think you realize what Ireland would look like were it 100% Irish-owned, with zero foreign investment.

beejee

dxhound2005 wrote: »

If they owned 62%, I would call it their home.

So would I. In fact, going back to my original question... If someone else owned 20% of my home, I'd be a bit crazy if I didn't consider my stake ownership to be 80%.

So...if 23% of the country is not owned by its people or country... Then only 77% effectively remains, right?

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

beejee wrote: »

Why is it hyperbole?

If someone else owns 62% of your home, do you call it your own owned home?

If someone eats half your dinner, do you still tell yourself you've had a full meal?

If your arm was transplanted onto someone else's body, is that person now "you"?

That kinda stuff is reaching into hyperbole, but the core principle is not exaggerated. And the question is based on that core principle.

Nobody owns any of my home, eats any of my dinner, nor has use of any of my limbs but the fact remains, under your reckoning, that the USA is currently 48% foreign owned.

The whole premise ignores, wilfully or negligently, how the world and economies work.

dxhound2005

beejee wrote: »

So would I. In fact, going back to my original question... If someone else owned 20% of my home, I'd be a bit crazy if I didn't consider my stake ownership to be 80%.

So...if 23% of the country is not owned by its people or country... Then only 77% effectively remains, right?

The people are only passing through. In a hundred years' time there will be another set of people.

beejee

Claire Scarce Roadside wrote: »

I don't think you realize what Ireland would look like were it 100% Irish-owned, with zero foreign investment.

I don't believe in such nonsense. It is stating that we are an inherently inferior race of people compared to other more successful countries. That we're so backwards we couldn't possibly have a modern country without some other entity taking over.

That's a rejection from me!

nkl12xtw5goz70

beejee wrote: »

So would I. In fact, going back to my original question... If someone else owned 20% of my home, I'd be a bit crazy if I didn't consider my stake ownership to be 80%.

Apples and oranges. Your home is not a sovereign state. While you own it, you don't have sovereign domain over it — you can't establish laws inside your home that are contrary to the laws of the Irish state; you have to pay any property taxes and charges levied by that state on your home; and you can't sell, transfer, or bequeath that property without paying all relevant taxes.

dxhound2005

beejee wrote: »

I don't believe in such nonsense. It is stating that we are an inherently inferior race of people compared to other more successful countries. That we're so backwards we couldn't possibly have a modern country without some other entity taking over.

That's a rejection from me!

We're better than that. We went to America and took it over from the backward people who where there before us. We own America.

nkl12xtw5goz70

beejee wrote: »

I don't believe in such nonsense. It is stating that we are an inherently inferior race of people compared to other more successful countries. That we're so backwards we couldn't possibly have a modern country without some other entity taking over.

How did we become a modern country then?

I'll give you a clue — it has a lot to do with embracing foreign investment and EEC membership.

beejee

Channing Faithful Sometime wrote: »

Nobody owns any of my home, eats any of my dinner, nor has use of any of my limbs but the fact remains, under your reckoning, that the USA is currently 48% foreign owned.

The whole premise ignores, wilfully or negligently, how the world and economies work.

I'm not ignoring anything. Tell me how much of the United States was foreign owned in 1950? Compared to now? Sure how did they get anything done without invisible international profiteering

This isn't a steady-state problem. This is a growing problem, and you'll start to feel the effects of it eventually. Property prices, rental prices, linked to whole-sale sell offs to foreign entities looking to extract maximum profit? Think there might be a link? If not, why not?

Perhaps the easiest to recognise of these consequences.

beejee

Claire Scarce Roadside wrote: »

How did we become a modern country then?

I'll give you a clue — it has a lot to do with embracing foreign investment and EEC membership.

That may be the case. It certainly got a lot of money into a lot of hands. The problem is that the very same idea is getting even more money into fewer hands, and often not even within our own country.

But that is entirely separate from stating we can't do anything for ourselves anyway. Talk about a confidence problem!

dxhound2005

beejee wrote: »

I'm not ignoring anything. Tell me how much of the United States was foreign owned in 1950? Compared to now? Sure how did they get anything done without invisible international profiteering

This isn't a steady-state problem. This is a growing problem, and you'll start to feel the effects of it eventually. Property prices, rental prices, linked to whole-sale sell offs to foreign entities looking to extract maximum profit? Think there might be a link? If not, why not?

Perhaps the easiest to recognise of these consequences.

You tell us how much of the United States was foreign owned in 1950, compared to now.
And tell us how you found out about the invisible profiteering.

beejee

Claire Scarce Roadside wrote: »

Apples and oranges. Your home is not a sovereign state. While you own it, you don't have sovereign domain over it — you can't establish laws inside your home that are contrary to the laws of the Irish state; you have to pay any property taxes and charges levied by that state on your home; and you can't sell, transfer, or bequeath that property without paying all relevant taxes.

Thank you for the citizens information website.

I'll repeat myself. Sovereignty means little to a beholden sovereign. End of story

beejee

dxhound2005 wrote: »

You tell us how much of the United States was foreign owned in 1950, compared to now.
And tell us how you found out about the invisible profiteering.

I'm going to say roughly the same as most countries in 1950. Not very much!

It's a comparative, now versus then. If I need to show you numbers that the globalised world is different now compared to a world without globalisation... Well, I'm not going to bother!

I just gave an example of the profiteering now. 1 in 5 homes. I could show a whole load more examples, not even from this country. Look at the Australian land restriction laws passed this year, for example.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1

beejee wrote: »

Sovereignty means little to a beholden sovereign. End of story

You are wrong. End of story. Close thread.

Is this how it works?:)

dxhound2005

beejee wrote: »

I'm going to say roughly the same as most countries in 1950. Not very much!

It's a comparative, now versus then. If I need to show you numbers that the globalised world is different now compared to a world without globalisation... Well, I'm not going to bother!

I just gave an example of the profiteering now. 1 in 5 homes. I could show a whole load more examples, not even from this country. Look at the Australian land restriction laws passed this year, for example.

End of story.

PhilOssophy

beejee, you just concentrate on staying alive.

is_that_so

ToddyDoody wrote: »

DeValera would be spinning in his grave.

Rattling at this stage!

beejee

Channing Faithful Sometime wrote: »

You are wrong. End of story. Close thread.

Is this how it works?:)

No, that's the end of that asinine point. That's how it works.

dxhound2005

Can we open up another tangent?