[Article]Sinn Fein economics for the provo riche

MT

Thought the following was an interesting article. I have to say that I agree fully with what McWilliams writes here.

27 February 2005 By David McWilliams

What next for Sinn Féin? There seem to be three general theories doing the rounds. The first is that the doves succumb, in their own parlance, to the hawks, and the IRA goes back to war.

The second is that Sinn Féin forces the IRA to disband, in which case Sinn Féin - the nationalist socialist party - is back at the electoral races.

The third eventuality is that they are one and the same group, and that Sinn Féin/IRA always had a peace tactic rather than commitment to a peace process, and that they have been secretly trying to hoodwink all of us as part of a long-term strategy to increase influence and ultimately to gain control in the Republic.

Whichever theory you subscribe to, what happens next will have long-term ramifications for our economy. Strangely, the economic consequences of the peace - to paraphrase the title of John Maynard Keynes' brilliant analysis of the 1918 Versailles treaty - are often overlooked.

There can be little doubt that prosperity and peace go together. The first lesson of economic history is to avoid war at all costs. War destroys everything. Continuously successful countries have avoided wars for hundreds of years. In Europe, Switzerland and Sweden are fine examples.

Although it is hard to prove conclusively, there is an obvious overlap in terms of timing at least, between the end of the war in the North and the blooming of the economy of the Republic.

It is impossible to distinguish chicken and egg. Common sense suggests, though, that given the semi-detached nature of most of Ireland's relationship with the North, the direct impact of no bombs in Belfast on jobs and wealth down here was probably negligible.

But there is no doubt that the ceasefire affected perceptions of Ireland internationally - the vibe, the image, the marketing spiel, the entire background noise was positively influenced by the ceasefires.

What's next? Let's say the doves and hawks theory is correct and Gerry Adams gets pushed aside in favour of hardliners who see fit to go back to war.

The first economic casualty will be perceptions of Ireland in America.

Times have changed, both in the White House and in corporate America, and even a low-level campaign would have serious negative effects on direct American investment.

A second direct casualty would be tourism, the biggest employer in the state. We sometimes underestimate how many people were scared to come here in the bad old days - particularly British visitors, who are our best customers by far.

A third impact would be on Ireland as a place to live. Again we are talking about perceptions here, not reality. Immigrants are attracted to countries for a variety of reasons, one of which is the received wisdom about the place. A renewed IRA campaign - with CNN pictures beamed into living rooms around the globe - would dissuade immigrants from coming here.

All these factors would undermine business, consumer and investor confidence. At the moment in Ireland, confidence is crucial to keeping the whole indebted show on the road and anything that punctures that effervescence would have dramatic consequences.

But what if there is no war and either the IRA disbands or our short memories allow a cynical peace tactic rather than process to prevail? In this situation, Sinn Féin/IRA would continue to win at the ballot boxes.

We then have to consider the financial impact of Sinn Féin's economic policies.

But what are Sinn Féin's economics? A look at their manifestos does not help to give a title to Sinn Féin's economic philosophy. It is certainly not capitalism, nor is it real socialism. It's neither liberalism nor collectivism.

Sometimes the best way to categorise policies is to examine who benefits from them. In the past decade, the main beneficiaries of Ireland's boom have been the much-maligned nouveau riche. But if Sinn Féin's economics were to dominate in the future, the main beneficiaries will be a new class. Let's call them the ‘provo riche'.

At the moment, the provo riche are, allegedly, a bunch of money launderers and bank robbers. But in an era of Sinn Féin economics, the provo riche would proliferate.

The main problem with the provo riche manifesto is that (like its bank robbing genesis) it says very little about creating wealth, but lots about taking wealth.

Here, for example, is the provo riche policy on taxation taken from Sinn Féin's 2005 pre-budget submission: “It is essential to reform and re-weigh the taxation system in favour of the low paid and to increase the overall tax take by targeting wealth, speculative property and corporate profits.”

Measures should include the end of tax avoidance schemes, measured increases in corporation tax and increased capital gains tax for owners of multiple properties and a 50 per cent tax band for incomes over €100,000.

So far so extortionate. So the provo riche's policy is about taking money from the rich, but what does the manifesto say about creating money and wealth? Not a lot, frankly. But back in 2003, at a submission to the Oireachtas Committee on the Constitution, the provo riche had the following to say about your house: “Private property has been and remains an instrument of oppression of people the world over.”

There are those (maybe the 86 per cent of Irish people who own their own homes) who would argue the opposite: that private property and ownership is the very cornerstone of a civilised, law-abiding society, that with property rights come responsibilities - the sort of responsibilities that bind families and communities together.

Once a manifesto deviates from private ownership, at the very least it puts huge faith in the promise of public ownership.

And this is at the core of the provo riche economic doctrine. It believes in the state - the power of the state, the control of the state over people and the primacy of the will of the collective over the rights of the individual.

In some areas there is a benefit to this approach, and, if wealth is generated, most of us support the idea of redistribution to help others. But you need to have a view about creation not just redistribution. And central to wealth creation is the ownership of property, capital and ideas. All these seem to be anathema to the provo riche.

In Putting People First, a serious, wide-ranging and interesting Sinn Féin policy document, the party outlines its views on multinationals, which are crucial to our economy. It states: “Sinn Féin believes there needs to be a fundamental rethink around the role of foreign investment and trans-national corporations in the Irish economy.”

It goes on to suggest that we should be managing trade and investment and increasing tax on these companies. It fails to see the positive side to multinationals and their contribution to our economic health. Throughout its economic publications, Sinn Féin displays ‘national socialist' thinking. This means everything national, small and local is good, and everything, international, big and cosmopolitan is bad.

High tax seems to be an end rather than a means, and the philosophy is predicated on an all-knowing, all-powerful state taking our money and spending it for us in areas the state - that is Sinn Féin - sees fit.

At best, this is the economics of a 1970s student bedsit. If the manifesto were introduced to the letter, the country would risk bankruptcy. All would suffer - except maybe the provo riche.

MT

IMO McWilliams usually has a pretty sound analysis of developments in the economy and this piece is no different. It sums up for me the very real risk electing Sinn Fein poses for Ireland’s economy. With its mixture of marxist rhetoric, pavement populism and an extended sense of persecution politics the party would probably offer at best an incoherent mess of industrial policy. At worst – as the article highlights – the enactment of Sinn Fein’s various economic diktats to the letter would result in national economic suicide. Either way the shady elements attached to the movement – as is the case in most kleptocracies and banana republics – would be the few who’d see their nests more thoroughly feathered. The rest of us could catch the next boat.

Up until now the lion’s share of political discussion has understandably been focussed on Sinn Fein’s ambivalence to criminality and the IRA’s ongoing activities. What hasn’t yet undergone such close scrutiny are the party’s various ideologies. To me both their constitutional and economic theories are seriously flawed. As for the former, that’s another thread. For now, it’s their prognosis for the economy that this Sunday Business Post column shines a timely spotlight on.

Take private property for example. The ability to establish ownership over something is seen by many as one of the key ingredients for self-advancement. There was a book published a number of years back that made a well justified claim that the lack of clear private property rights placed a severe restriction on economic development in much of the third world. Think about it, what would be the point in increased industriousness or entrepreneurialism if the fruits of your labours resulted in no gain for yourself or your family. Yes we could all work for the greater good – as many currently do – but surely there has to be a balance. People also need some measure of private material wealth. Whether it’s retail therapy, a holiday in the sun or the investment in a new home – we all desire something for ourselves. Even if you have no consumer needs whatsoever, the health and well being of your partner, children etc. is of considerable importance in encouraging someone to seek financial stability and a prosperous future. But take away the rights to provide for your loved ones or leave them an inheritance and you take away a large part of what helps to form a responsible society. No government should strip away the ability to improve oneself.

With their attack on all forms of private property this is exactly what Sinn Fein seem to unwittingly desire. I believe in the welfare state and the need for a pooling of collective resources to support those in difficulty and less fortunate than ourselves, but to decry all private ownership as a yoke of oppression takes the biscuit. We can’t all live for the state or work selflessly for the greater good of society all of the time. People have a private dimension to their outlooks too. Each of us must be allowed to retain the right to enrich ourselves and our nearest and dearest. To see such feelings as character flaws that need to be eradicated would be to deny human nature. The IRA is as good an example of this as anything else. No matter how much they reiterated their exclusive commitment to an ‘armed struggle’ they were unable to stop numerous members attempting to enrich themselves and presumably their families. Indeed, by tying someone entirely to an all consuming cause you subvert their individuality. My view is that, on the contrary, society and the economy will work best when there is a mix of individual freedom in the form of private consumption and a collective pooling of resources to provide a safety net.

In summary, my feeling is that the following remark represents a mindset destructive to Ireland’s well being:

“Private property has been and remains an instrument of oppression of people the world over.”

If anything the opposite is the truth. Some measure of private property ownership is in fact liberating. With 86% of Irish people owning their own homes I don’t think they’d disagree. Does Sinn Fein want a return to mass tenancy with the state taking the place of the once notorious absentee landlords? Or is property confiscation only oppression when the Brits do it?

A Dub in Glasgo

The chances of SF's policies being followed to the letter are extemely remote to say the least.

I found this bit quite ironic considering it was my experience of the late 1980s in the Republic of Ireland

as is the case in most kleptocracies and banana republics – would be the few who’d see their nests more thoroughly feathered. The rest of us could catch the next boat.

MT

I found this bit quite ironic considering it was my experience of the late 1980s in the Republic of Ireland

It might be had I been a member of the Irish government in the 1980s. But then was Ireland ever really governed as badly as a south American kleptocracy - even in the 1980s - I think not. Furthermore, did any of the governments in the 1980s have high ranking members involved in the murder of a man on a night out in a pub? Or the attempted murder of another present. Did any party running for office maintain a secretive private army engaged in intimidation and punishment beatings? Now those really are things you'd experience in a banana republic.

I guess the governing record of the various parties in power in the 80s would look quite favourable alongside the extra curricular attivities of the Republican Movement. Charlie Haughey's catch phrase could have been 'the brown envelope in one hand, the ballot box in the other' but surely there'd have been no reference to armalites.

A Dub in Glasgo

The people in power feathered their own nest whilest the unemployment problem was taken care of by the boat. Those are the facts, I am not debating if it will be any worse. I just find it ironic the choice of words in the bit I quoted.

MT

Again, do you believe that Ireland was governed like a south American banana republic in the 1980s? Or do you believe that the activities of the governments in that period were on a par with those of the Republican movement? Activities that do bear all the hall marks of a banana republic.

If not then you can hardly find the post ironic.

As badly as Ireland was governed then it never stooped to the lows of some south American dictatorship of the same period. And as I posted previously there were no murders, witnesses weren't intimidated and punishment beatings weren't delivered in backstreet kangaroo courts.

Sand

Ireland fared so badly economically and the corruption was endemic because A) The protectionist socialist garbage that influenced economic policy since the formation of the state was only just even questioned in the 60s, and in the 70s the fools decided to implement Keynsian spending policies in a *tiny* economy like Ireland. Tax levels were set to ludicrous amounts by a government eager to spend spend spend and ready to jack the currency any time they couldnt extort more tax money out of people.

Sinn Feins policy seems to be to return to those heady days of the 1980s - Not that I can truly be surprised, their political analysis is locked in the 1920s mindset, so its no surprise their economical analysis is from the same era.

And yes, to agree with a major theme of MTs post, private property is a corner stone of modern democratic liberal tradition and capitalism itself. Without private property there is no capital to invest, no reward for such investments and no demands for the rule of law to protect such property. Again, given its Sinn Fein were talking about we shouldnt be surprised theyre trying to destroy a corner stone of modern democracy.

AngelofFire

I am not a Sinn Fein supporter but i disagree with Sands view that abandoning socialist policies caused Irelands economic boom. The period between the Mid 60s and Mid 70s was a time of growth for Ireland and during that period many socialist policies such as free 2nd level education, child benefit, lone parents allowance were introduced. This application of economic Justice ensured that people who were the most vulnerable in terms of Income, were given a decent start in life allowing them to participate in society thus benefiting the economy. During that period the economy grew by about 30%. The recession that followed was triggered primarly by the oil crisis (a work of market forces). High taxes in the 80s was a symptom of the recession not a cause, Money was needed to sustain the Public realm, in order to have enough to do so more revenue had to be generated, if taxes and spending was cut important social services such as health and eduction would have cracked and gone under. Lower taxation did not cause economic recovery, economic recovery actually came first and was chanelled into tax concessions. The phrase ''Celtic tiger'' was coined in 1994 before the 12.5% corporate tax was introduced during that period growth was an average of 7%, and Jobs were being created at a rate of 50,000 per year.

cdebru

I just think it is funny that you are all so wrapped up in what Sinn Fein says and does to the most minute detail

this is a party with 5 tds and if opininion polls are right just 9% support

but everyday you are dissecting the latest statement or titbit from Sinn Fein look after recent events Sinn Fein are not going to be in a position to implement any policies for the forseeable future there are other political parties would you not go and have a look at the green party they have 6 tds or the labour party with about 20 or even FG with 30 odd
if there is going to be a change of taoiseach after the next general election then the chances are that enda kenny will be taoiseach i can gaurantee you it wont be adams or anyone else from SF so why so worried about them

If you dont want them around you are going about it the wrong way just keeping talking about them the whole time like they are the most important party in the country just raises there profile and makes them seem more important than they really are


I mean sand you have even got parts of their manifesto in your sig even the people who are sinn fein members on here dont have sinn fein quotes in their sigs

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

this is a party with 5 tds and if opininion polls are right just 9% support

And a private army and massive funding campaign through illegal activity.

There the best funded political party in Ireland and the UK and the majority of their funding is coming from criminality

Their support base is blooming and we need to understand where the money comes from.

Redleslie2

cdebru wrote:

I just think it is funny that you are all so wrapped up in what Sinn Fein says and does to the most minute detail

I think it's funny the way people bang on and on about the sanctity of property rights but have HD's stuffed with software, films and music they didn't pay for.

cdebru

Redleslie2 wrote:

I think it's funny the way people bang on and on about the sanctity of property rights but have HD's stuffed with software, films and music they didn't pay for.

your not suggesting hypocrisy here are you

mycroft

Redleslie2 wrote:

I think it's funny the way people bang on and on about the sanctity of property rights but have HD's stuffed with software, films and music they didn't pay for.

Uh huh.

Theres a difference between some teenager downloading episodes of south park from a P2P site and some gangsters running an illegal dvd burning industry where they are laundering money through sales.

Context and volume matters, and if what I am reading is true theres this massive industry of the IRA for illegal money gathering

Theres an article in todays observer (not online yet) about IRA creating cheap fuel in illegal factories by products of which nearly made the water of Nth Louth undrinkable due to illegal dumping.

I'm so remembering this for the next time a SFer tries to claim to be the green vote.

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

And a private army and massive funding campaign through illegal activity.

There the best funded political party in Ireland and the UK and the majority of their funding is coming from criminality

Their support base is blooming and we need to understand where the money comes from.

how do you know they are the best funded links please

and sinn fein like other parties have to provide accounts

I just think and i am not just talking about boards here but the media continually talk about sinn fein

even myers piece on lone parents had a part about Sinn Fein

I honestly think that you are building them up into the Opposition


If the recent opinion polls are anything to go by what should have been devastating blows to any political party seem to have had little effect
maybe there is no such thing as bad publicity
maybe the worst publicity is no publicity

seriously i bet if i asked most people here could name 6 or 7 at least sinn feiners probably 10
but would struggle with 6 or 7 from FG or the Labour party

true

cdebru wrote:

your not suggesting hypocrisy here are you

Nobody needs to suggest it, Sinn Fein / IRA are the biggest hippocrits around.

true

cdebru wrote:

seriously i bet if i asked most people here could name 6 or 7 at least sinn feiners probably 10

Thats because RTE does nothing but interview them the whole time. Also, many Sinn Feiners are known from their immoral and illegial activities in the past eg Martin Ferris smuggling weapons of death for the IRA on a trawler.

A good reason to perhaps have them silenced until they give up their arms ?

Redleslie2

mycroft wrote:

Theres a difference between some teenager downloading episodes of south park from a P2P site and some gangsters running an illegal dvd burning industry where they are laundering money through sales.

Makes no difference to the producers of south park whether someone steals their work from the net or whether a pirated dvd of it is bought in a dodgy pub. They don't make a cent either way.

Redleslie2

cdebru wrote:

your not suggesting hypocrisy here are you

Yes. Yes I think I am. But a little bit unarsedly.

mycroft

Redleslie2 wrote:

Makes no difference to the producers of south park whether someone steals their work from the net or whether a pirated dvd of it is bought in a dodgy pub. They don't make a cent either way.

No put the kid isn't profiting from it, the guy selling them from his van is. Theres a world of difference.

how do you know they are the best funded links please

and sinn fein like other parties have to provide accounts

firstly

Sinn Féin is the wealthiest party on both sides of the border in Ireland.

from here


secondly What part of the term "money Laundering" confuses you? The problem is keeping track of what donations SF gets that come from illegal activity that was washed clean

cdebru

cdebru wrote:

how do you know they are the best funded links please

Well anecdotally I can tell you I heard Pat Rabbitte say on questions and answers that he knows a thing or two about elections and he cant understand how SF are able to fund their campaigns in the way they do,he certainly cant.

If the recent opinion polls are anything to go by what should have been devastating blows to any political party seem to have had little effect

SF are a socialist party, thats their core support base,you cant go to too many middle income households suggest that you want to tax them more and expect to get their vote.That in my view has always been a restriction on the growth of SF.At this stage those that are voting SF are largely those who value the work that individuals put in on the ground-they are in the bag so to speak as they are looked after better than kittens by their mammy cat.
No party that I know of spends as much attention on their core support.
It's the growth outside of the non socialist mindset , ie the majority of the electorate that is being harmed by the current go-ings on.
And don't tell me the majority of the electorate aren't non socialists, people are greedy, the more they have the more they want, thats why despite the desperate state of the health service, this current government has recovered support back to the level it was at the last election ie people have jobs, unemployment is so low we have to import tens of thousands to fill jobs.

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

.



firstly


from here

you stated that they were the wealthiest party in Ireland and the Uk
that merely mentions Ireland and offers no figures

ie income and expenditure

or even election expenditure to back up this claim

if they are the wealthiest party why do they spend far less on elections than FF FG labour

this is the Euopean election expenditure for 2004


FF 1,291,065.10
FG 1,135,170.78

LABOUR 715,431.70

SINN FEIN 313,939.81

GREEN PARTY 199,931.97


from here
http://www.sipo.gov.ie/2902_246.htm#BE


I believe what you may have meant was they spend more per vote received than any other party in Ireland

the legal sources of sinn feins money are outlined in the examiner link below

mycroft wrote:

.

secondly What part of the term "money Laundering" confuses you? The problem is keeping track of what donations SF gets that come from illegal activity that was washed clean

No link to sinn fein income and any illegal activity has been established

http://www.examiner.ie/pport/web/opinion/Full_Story/did-sgyFLHrKOC3qYsg0aewFBADppk.asp

mycroft

cdebru wrote:

the legal sources of sinn feins money are outlined in the examiner link below

I can't believe you're quoting that examiner article as defense of SF's fund raising.

In reality it is almost impossible to get an overall accurate and up-to-date picture of how much any political party raises or spends. In the case of SF this task is further complicated by the fact that the party is funded from various sources in at least three jurisdictions.

The entire article pretty much says thats nigh on impossible to figure out where SFs funding comes from and where.

cdebru

Earthman wrote:

Well anecdotally I can tell you I heard Pat Rabbitte say on questions and answers that he knows a thing or two about elections and he cant understand how SF are able to fund their campaigns in the way they do,he certainly cant..

well the labour party spent over twice as much in the euro elections last year
sinn fein representatives pay their salary to the party and get paid back the average industrial wage if the labour party did something similiar they might have a bit more money to spend

715,431.70 labour party spending

313,939.81 sinn fein spending


this i don't know how they do it nudge nudge wink wink thing that the various political parties engage in with regard to sinn fein spending simply does not stand up to scrutiny

the european election is probably the fairest way to measure spending as all parties ran canidates in all constituencies

Earthman wrote:

SF are a socialist party, thats their core support base,you cant go to too many middle income households suggest that you want to tax them more and expect to get their vote.That in my view has always been a restriction on the growth of SF.At this stage those that are voting SF are largely those who value the work that individuals put in on the ground-they are in the bag so to speak as they are looked after better than kittens by their mammy cat.
No party that I know of spends as much attention on their core support.
It's the growth outside of the non socialist mindset , ie the majority of the electorate that is being harmed by the current go-ings on.
And don't tell me the majority of the electorate aren't non socialists, people are greedy, the more they have the more they want, thats why despite the desperate state of the health service, this current government has recovered support back to the level it was at the last election ie people have jobs, unemployment is so low we have to import tens of thousands to fill jobs.

their core support base is probably the 2 to 3 % that voted for them before the peace process

cdebru

mycroft wrote:

I can't believe you're quoting that examiner article as defense of SF's fund raising.



The entire article pretty much says thats nigh on impossible to figure out where SFs funding comes from and where.

from the article


"However, on balance, I disagree with the implication that some of these resources must be coming from unconventional sources"


the article lists the numerous different legitimate sources that sinn fein is getting money from




and you still have not explained why they are spending less if they are the wealthiest party