Do you want this man anywhere near the controls?

Sand

http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/opinion/2002/0123/3455752780DIJAN23.html

Now Myers expresses the lunacy of the scheme quite well. Another point that would strike me is that Noonan and company are always going on about the need to improve public services. And one would assume this would require money. Taxpayers money. Which would require at the very least maintence of the current tax regime, or more likely raised taxes should Noonan get in charge. How would Noonan reconcile this to his plan to reduce the burden of tax for those who invested in Eircom. Its hardly a "socially just" tax, given that these people seemed to have plenty to spare on what was always a gamble.

This basically displays the sheer bribery that passes for a manifesto in Ireland these days. It wont be long before politicians are waiting outside polling booths to pass *us* the brown envelopes.

azezil

Alot of what labour is promising is imo unattainable and I dear say damn right foolish to even attempt it.

Definitely not getting my vote.

bonkey

Originally posted by Sand
This basically displays the sheer bribery that passes for a manifesto in Ireland these days. It wont be long before politicians are waiting outside polling booths to pass *us* the brown envelopes.

Well said.

I like Myers' writing. Sometimes I agree with him, sometimes not, but it is always entertainingly written on top of being well informed.

Noonan is basically trying to buy votes from 16% (by my dodgy maths) of the voters. "Vote for us, and we'll repay you for having made a lousy investment" would be their slogan on any signs they put up, if they were honest.

While there is a certain logic in his thoughts (the overpricing was a government mistake, so the government should pay for it), the simple fact is that no-one but a complete cretin believes that the stockmarket is anything but a gamble. There are, and lets count this carefully, a sum total of 0 exceptions to this. There are good bets and bad bets, but no certainties. Eircom flotation prices were being frowned at long before they launched by many, and those who eventually bought them have no-one to blame but themselves.

And, as Myers pointed out...they can afford it. IIRC, the government was pretty vocal about encouraging people to invest, but were equally vocal about warning ppl that they should only invest money they could afford.

As for me? I looked at Eircom and reckoned the only way their share price would ever go up after launch was if someone announced a buyout of Eircon within 7 days of the launch.

jc

gandalf

Well I was one of the 16% that "invested" in Eircon shares. I knew what I was getting myself into and no I shouldn't expect a handout for basically gambling which is at the end of the day what you do when you buy shares.

What should be done though is get the Government ministers, Eircon Directors and all the advisors that were paid alot of money to explain themselves over the high initial share price and the fact that this company is now owned by a foreign consortium and the man chairing it already has a near monopoly with the countries print media.

If Noonan had any balls at all he would ask these questions. Unfortunately I expect the various Political Parties to come out with more and more dodgy promises to the electorate the closer we get to an election. I mean why did it take the Government 5 years to come out with the plan for reform of the Health Service when its been crying out for reform since they took office.

Gandalf.

Ri-ra

But is it at all likely that Noonan will get near "the controls"? Myers may be a good op/ ed writer (i.e., the type that gets off on being a contrarian), but he doesn't cut it as either a journalist or a novelist.

Sand

I personally hope he wont if this is his idea of good government. Unfortunately, like all democracies, change is often preferred to stasis, especially seeing as the sins/ineptitude of the other side are often forgotten in the intervening 3-5 years of government.

I would agree that Eircom shares were overvalued, family members of mine purchased a small amount of shares despite my advice not to. However, as Myers said, future privatisations will not be affected by this "pay back" but rather will be judged by people upon their merits, assuming their properly valued to begin with. Should people let bad memories of Eircom cloud their judgement, then they only distance themselves from a potential profit.

Shinji

Heh, reminiscent of the situation in Britain at the moment where the shareholders in Railtrack are clamouring to be paid off by the Government now that the company has gone into administration.

Best bit is, they want significantly more money per share than Railtrack was worth when Byers shut the bástard thing down...

Some people, it would seem, just don't get the whole "capitalism" idea. You invest in a company that's utterly rubbish, all over the papers for its incompetence and regular failures... And then whinge when suddenly your investment is worth nothing?

Naturally it's the big corporate investors whinging most, not the grannies who put their savings into Railtrack...

Niallmac

You all seem to be forgetting that many people actually made a profit on the sale of Eircom shares. Those that did not obviously decided to gamble and go in for the long haul, which is fair enough, but they lost, that's life. I think what Noonan is proposing is absurd, and worryingly it also sets a precedent for future privatisations that may go badly. Also people made the decision to hang onto these shares when the proverbial arse was falling out of the telecoms and IT markets world wide, Eircom was not the only company to devalue dramatically in that time.

TwoShedsJackson

Noonan has some nerve offering this 'rebate' after he fought like hell not to give any compensation to the Hepatitis B sufferers while he was Minister for Health.

Meh

The taxi drivers are trying their luck as well:
http://www.ireland.com/newspaper/breaking/2002/0124/breaking40.htm
Seems Noonan wants to pay €200 million of our money out to them!

The NTDU claims opposition parties such as Fine Gael have been "more creative" in terms of the restructuring package -with a substantial proportion of the funding generated by taxi drivers. "A figure of €200 million has been mentioned..."

Well, at least I know who I won't be voting for...

Sand

Taxi Drivers deserve no compensation. If anything they should be compensating us, the customers, for the ****ty service and high prices weve had to pay during their "golden age" of regulation. Noonan just seems to be either a moron, or politicians who thinks politics is all about getting power, rather than using it correctly.

gandalf

Well hes going the right way to make sure he doesn't get elected in

Bertie must be delighted with Michaels initiatives, because of them I reckon FF are guaranteed to return to power.

Gandalf.

mike65

Listening to the phone-in reaction on Liveline its ben quite heartening to hear most callers rubbish this initiative, though one or two did actually say they'd be voting for FG because of it!

I bought the minimum number possible when the float happened, I never expected to get rich or even make any money at all, so I have'nt been disapointed.

Yet plenty of fools rushed in and actually borrowed, the banks proberly could'nt belive thier luck as all these fiscal illiterates pilled in and I have to say they deserve everything they don't get.

Mike.

Sand

I think Bertie should just keep his trap shut and let Noonan squirm - whenever Bertie tries to be clever he often says exactly the wrong thing - I read in the Irish times today that upon hearing of Noonans Eircom lunacy Berie said something along the lines of "We examined a similar possibility ourselves but decided it wouldnt work " - In a letter or opinion piece (Cant remember and cant be arsed to check tbh ) It was asked whether this meant Berite had felt remorse of the overvaluation of the Eircom stocks and wanted to make right on it, or whether he had been aiming for a similar "buying " of votes.

The sad thing is, in 5 months this will probably be forgotten (A week is a long time in politics, 5 months? ) and Noonan will be ready to take office:)

Biffa Bacon

I believe taxi drivers should be compensated. Effectively they had their property confiscated.

Lemming

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
I believe taxi drivers should be compensated. Effectively they had their property confiscated.

By that logic, then the public can ask the government for compensation at the ludicrous taxi prices during government regulation of said taxi business??

Meh

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
I believe taxi drivers should be compensated.

Fair enough -- if you believe they should be compensated, put your money where your mouth is. You donate some of your own money to the poor starving taxi drivers. But don't try and force me to compensate them from my taxes.

Effectively they had their property confiscated.

No they didn't. They bought those licenses in the expectation that the taxi market would continue to be restricted and mismanaged by the Government. They were speculators. Their gamble didn't pay off -- for once, the government managed to stand up to a cartel. Tough excrement. Cry me a ****ing river. World's smallest violin etc. etc.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Lemming


By that logic, then the public can ask the government for compensation at the ludicrous taxi prices during government regulation of said taxi business??

No because that did not involve the confiscation of property.

Originally posted by Meh
Fair enough -- if you believe they should be compensated, put your money where your mouth is. You donate some of your own money to the poor starving taxi drivers. But don't try and force me to compensate them from my taxes.

Taxation is not voluntary. You cannot pick and choose what your taxes will be spent on.

They were speculators.

No they were not. They did not purchase licences in the hope of selling them on later at a higher price. They bought them so as to obtain the right to operate a taxi cab.

Lemming

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
No because that did not involve the confiscation of property.

What did the taxi drives have taken off them??

ALl that happened was that the market was de-regulated to allow competition, thus a devaluation in the OVER-INFLATED price of taxi plates.

BOO HOO

Why should the taxi drivers be compensated for what was an artificial price? Because the government allowed competition in?? My comment was as follows .. since this is all the governments fault, and the taxi drivers are entitled to compensation for that, then surely the public can demand compensation for the "confiscation of fiscal property" by taxi drivers because the market was kept artificial by the government??

The taxi drivers deserve squat from the government.

Meh

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

No they were not. They did not purchase licences in the hope of selling them on later at a higher price. They bought them so as to obtain the right to operate a taxi cab.

They paid for the right to operate a taxi cab. After the reforms, they still have the right to operate a taxi cab. They have lost no property and nothing has been confiscated from them. If they weren't speculating, they have lost nothing. Therefore they deserve no compensation. QED.

Taxation is not voluntary. You cannot pick and choose what your taxes will be spent on.

I think you're missing my point. Which was that if you think that taxi drivers are so deserving, take some money out of your after tax income and give it to them yourself.

bonkey

Originally posted by Meh

No they didn't. They bought those licenses in the expectation that the taxi market would continue to be restricted and mismanaged by the Government. They were speculators.

I could be wrong, but I seem to remember the govt offering some rebate to the drivers who had bought the latest batch of plates before deregulation - the ones which required the purchase of wheelchair-accessible cars. IIRC, these were the only plates given out in recent years?

The problem is that the plates (sheelchari accessible or the older "standard" type) themselves were not really that expensive. However, they were in such demand that their resale value was ridiculous. The drivers who complain the loudest are the ones who paid tens of thousands (or more) for a plate who's actual book value was a fraction of that.

Meh is right - this is nothing but speculation. If you buy anything for far above its "real" value, simply because the market is charging that, then you are either willing to spend that money and mark it off as a necessary cost, or you are spending the money because you believe you can recoup it by selling on at a later stage. In no case does the market or anyone else owe you your money back.

The drivers bought plates secondhand for ludicrous sums, believing that they were a good investment. Now, they've lost their investment. Tough. I remember talking to one taxi driver who lamented having just spent X thousand on a plate which was now worthless, but he was somewhat philosoohical about it. His attitude was that he made the investment so he didnt have to pay someone else to drive a taxi, and because he didnt believe that the government would carry through on deregulation (it wasnt exactly an overnight decision). He acknowledged that while he would have liked the govt to offer him something, it was his own choices that put him where he was.

If a recession caused house prices in Dublin to plummet tomorrow, would we argue that poor home-owners should be refunded for having paid far too much in recent years for their homes? No, i dont think so.

The simple fact is that no-one forced people to buy Eircon shares, no-one forced taxi-drivers to buy plates, and no-one forced people to buy houses. The fact that all three were purchased at far over-the-odds prices is not the public's problem. The fact that prices can go down as well as up is not the public's problem.

A politican offering to refund any part of the public for making a bad voluntary investment is nothing but a shallow attempt to curry favour with one sector or another, and is completely wrong

jc.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Lemming

What did the taxi drives have taken off them??

The exclusive right to operate a taxi.

ALl that happened was that the market was de-regulated to allow competition...

Thus confiscating the taxi drivers' property

...thus a devaluation in the OVER-INFLATED price of taxi plates.

They were not over-inflated in the context of a regulated market.

Why should the taxi drivers be compensated for what was an artificial price?

What was "artificial" about the price in the context of a regulated market?

surely the public can demand compensation for the "confiscation of fiscal property" by taxi drivers because the market was kept artificial by the government??

High taxi fares do not constitute confiscation of property.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by bonkey

Meh is right - this is nothing but speculation. If you buy anything for far above its "real" value, simply because the market is charging that, then you are either willing to spend that money and mark it off as a necessary cost...

This is not speculation.

...or you are spending the money because you believe you can recoup it by selling on at a later stage. In no case does the market or anyone else owe you your money back.

You should be compensated if your property is confiscated, regardless of whether or not you are a speculator.

Now, they've lost their investment. Tough.

No, they've had their property confiscated.

I remember talking to one taxi driver who lamented having just spent X thousand on a plate which was now worthless, but he was somewhat philosoohical about it.

Many taxi drivers cannot afford to be so philosophical unfortunately.

...he didnt believe that the government would carry through on deregulation (it wasnt exactly an overnight decision).

It was. The governments were ordered by the courts to deregulate.

If a recession caused house prices in Dublin to plummet tomorrow, would we argue that poor home-owners should be refunded for having paid far too much in recent years for their homes? No, i dont think so.

That situation is different as no property confiscation is involved.

The simple fact is that no-one forced people to buy Eircon shares, no-one forced taxi-drivers to buy plates, and no-one forced people to buy houses.

Taxi-plate owners were forced to surrender their exclusive right to operate taxi cabs.

Lemming

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

Taxi-plate owners were forced to surrender their exclusive right to operate taxi cabs.

Reading between the lines .. that translates as:

The taxi drivers have to deal with competition now (just like the rest of the economy), and had their cartel broken.

Boo hoo

And before I go fuirther .. I'm gonna say this .. Biffa ... read my signature quote.

I'm applying it to you. Good day and good night

Meh

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
The exclusive right to operate a taxi.

They were never sold the exclusivity. Point out one single place where the government said that it would never under any circumstances issue additional taxi licenses. They were sold one thing, and one thing only -- the right to operate a taxi. A right which they still have.

What was "artificial" about the price in the context of a regulated market?

Artificial restrictions on supply leads to artificial inflation in price. In a free, unregulated market, the number of taxis would have been fixed by customer demand, and the price of a taxi license would be zero. In the artificial market created by government restrictions, taxi licenses wwere exorbitantly priced, and the number of taxis was fixed by the government. This suited the taxi license owners, as it created an entry barrier to the market, reducing competition for them. They could also rent their licenses out when they weren't using them. It suited the government, because they got the taxi driver votes, and they got a drive home in their ministerial mercs every night. It didn't suit the consumers, because they had to queue for two hours in the rain to get a taxi home.

In conclusion, **** the taxi drivers with a rusty chainsaw. Their own greed got them into this situation, and I for one would like to see them suffer for a change. Hopefully, the days are gone where a cartel of special interests could hold the public to ransom.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Lemming

And before I go fuirther .. I'm gonna say this .. Biffa ... read my signature quote.

Nice tip. I'll keep that in mind next time you post.

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by Meh

They were never sold the exclusivity. Point out one single place where the government said that it would never under any circumstances issue additional taxi licenses. They were sold one thing, and one thing only -- the right to operate a taxi. A right which they still have.

Of course exclusivity was never stated but neither was the intent to deregulate. No one had any idea that deregulation was going to happen. It is still a fact that they bought the exclusive right to operate a taxi cab at the time they bought it.

If you buy a house, it is assumed that you have the right to exclude other people from living there. Has any government ever stated that they would or would not change this? And if they were, how would you feel if the value of your house suddenly fell to zero?

Meh

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon
Of course exclusivity was never stated but neither was the intent to deregulate. No one had any idea that deregulation was going to happen. It is still a fact that they bought the exclusive right to operate a taxi cab at the time they bought it.

I'm going to take the advice in Lemming's signature. Goodbye.

bonkey

Originally posted by Biffa Bacon

Of course exclusivity was never stated but neither was the intent to deregulate. No one had any idea that deregulation was going to happen. It is still a fact that they bought the exclusive right to operate a taxi cab at the time they bought it.

You're missing a very simple point. The government sold plates for a nominal fee. The plate owners re-sold them for exorbitant amounts of money.

At the end of the day, the government deregulated because the taxi-drivers refused to play ball. They refused to accept any proposal for increases in the number of plates in a regulated market, despite there being a clear market need for it.

Eventually, there was no effective option for the government - either they would kowtow to the wishes of the cartel and effectively make it an organisation run from within, or they could break the cartel. These were the two options the taxi-drivers left the government with. For once, our politicians realised that while the taxi-drivers had political influence, the p1ssed-off punters standing in queues had more. They chose deregulation.

The taxi drivers effectively went out, bought large elephant guns, loaded them, took careful aim at their feet, and pulled the trigger. Now they complain that they got hurt in the process. Boo flocking hoo.

The government didnt suddenly deregulate on them - the government deregulated them to show once and for all that some cartel could not hold the capital city to ransom in order to overly protect its own interests to the detrmient of the public at large. Personally, I think its one of the best moves we've seen from Dail Eireann in the last decade.

If you buy a house, it is assumed that you have the right to exclude other people from living there. Has any government ever stated that they would or would not change this? And if they were, how would you feel if the value of your house suddenly fell to zero?

Excuse me, but are you completely ignoring what has been said? A taxi driver buys the right to drive a taxi. This has not been taken away from him. They still have the right that they paid for. In your case, you no longer have what you paid for.

The taxi drivers did *not* buy exclusivity. The government has always maintained the right to add more licenses as and when it saw fit. Deregulation is the extreme case of this, but the governmetn has always had that right, and anyone who chose to ignore it has only ignorance of the facts (or assumptions contrarty to them) to blame for their loss.

A better example would be what would happen if you paid an exorbitant amount for a house which you believed to be exclusive, only to discover that aftera few years hundreds more hosues were being built around you, and that your house value was plumetting.

Newsflash - you had no rights on the surrounding land, nor was the perceived exclusivity of your house any guarantee that it would remain so.

I feel dorry for some taxi-drivers. If they want to take it out on anyone, they should blame their own union and the cartel behind it for forcing the government into a tight quarter. Let the people who made millions selling plates give the money back to those who lost some. The public owes them nothing.

jc

Biffa Bacon

Originally posted by bonkey

At the end of the day, the government deregulated because the taxi-drivers refused to play ball.

Wrong. They deregulated because the courts told them to.

They refused to accept any proposal for increases in the number of plates in a regulated market, despite there being a clear market need for it.

And without any compensation on offer?

Excuse me, but are you completely ignoring what has been said? A taxi driver buys the right to drive a taxi. This has not been taken away from him. They still have the right that they paid for. In your case, you no longer have what you paid for.

No in my case you do because you still have the right to live in your house, you just can't exclude others from living there too.

The taxi drivers did *not* buy exclusivity. The government has always maintained the right to add more licenses as and when it saw fit. Deregulation is the extreme case of this, but the governmetn has always had that right, and anyone who chose to ignore it has only ignorance of the facts (or assumptions contrarty to them) to blame for their loss.

Alright then, take the example of the mobile phone licences. The government holds an auction to sell off a limited number of mobile phone licences. Telecoms companies spend billions to purchase these licences. The next day, the government announces that the market is completely deregulated and no one needs a licence anymore. Is that fair?

gandalf

Biffa I'm assuming that you have an interest connected with the Taxi Drivers.

The reason I'm saying this is because they are the only people who are defending that group.

The service in Dublin was a disgrace, the Government of course have to take some of the blame for this because of their pandering to the Taxi lobby groups, but so do the Taxi Drivers. The Carraige office set the legal price of the plates. Taxi drivers between themselves inflated the price. They sould not get one penny because of that.

However we want a Taxi Service in Ireland that is a quality one. The Government should enforce a scheme that gives Taxi Drivers tax breaks for investing in proper vehicles and not the flea bitten Jap imports that I've been forced to use sometimes.

Explain one further thing to me Biffa. How come most of the Taxi Drivers in Dublin up until recent times were all earning £11500IRP a bit of coincident that really eh.

Any political party that compensates the Taxi Drivers for prices they inflated themselves will lose my and many others votes for good.

Gandalf.