Off Topic Thread 3.0

Deleted User wrote: »

I never said anything about an electorate being ideologically driven?

I said that the electorate must unfortunately learn the harsh truth that demagogues and their easy answers are not the solution to their woes, and that the emperor has no clothes is actually a solid life lesson.

The Greek electorate is learning the hard way. I wish the US didn't have to, and that people could just see through the lies but they have managed to elect a president who fits every single tangible indicator of demagoguery.

I don't think that will ever happen. Ever. People have never approached politics that way.

The Greek electorate is not a great example purely because of the troika. The party had to give in to Europe after the referendum, their democracy was undermined after the referendum which is really what ultimately produces this sort of reaction from the electorate in the first place. So we'll see how that goes. It may be the 5 star movement become the first left wing example of it, that's where I'd put my money because I think Corbyn arrived too late to get his own opportunity.

I don't think this gets solved by any change in the electorate. It gets changed by fixing the problems which have led to the conditions they are finding themselves in. The EU is continuing to make the very same mistakes; The Stability and Growth pact is hugely damaging, based on flawed economics, and the attempts to stick to it are going to massively harm the continent, unfortunately, and the reaction to that will be a further rejection of the political elite who produced it.

Deleted User wrote: »

Whilst one small part of the country at a time might vote for someone like Lowry, (and I hate it). On a national scale he wouldn't register a single %.

Trump would be completely unelectable in Ireland, he'd be run out of any race the second he got into it.

We're not as good as we could be, but were significantly removed from what we just saw in America.

We have our own Trumps though. Some of the election promises in the last general election were almost as wild as what Trump proposes.

The old promise of "A chicken in every pot" still works.

b.gud

I think we all probably need a little something to improve our mood this morning

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I don't think that will ever happen. Ever. People have never approached politics that way.

The Greek electorate is not a great example purely because of the troika. The party had to give in to Europe after the referendum, their democracy was undermined after the referendum which is really what ultimately produces this sort of reaction from the electorate in the first place. So we'll see how that goes. It may be the 5 star movement become the first left wing example of it, that's where I'd put my money because I think Corbyn arrived too late to get his own opportunity.

I don't think this gets solved by any change in the electorate. It gets changed by fixing the problems which have led to the conditions they are finding themselves in. The EU is continuing to make the very same mistakes; The Stability and Growth pact is hugely damaging, based on flawed economics, and the attempts to stick to it are going to massively harm the continent, unfortunately, and the reaction to that will be a further rejection of the political elite who produced it.

This is all basically bollox. Genuinely. If some group democratically vote to have money given to them by you, are you undermining their democracy by not delivering it?

What I'm talking about is that the Greeks 'bought' what Syriza sold them, "the easy answers" which have proved utterly impossible to actually deliver.

How are Syriza polling at the moment? Where are Greek voters going? http://greece.greekreporter.com/2016/11/08/greek-polls-gap-between-new-democracy-syriza-widens-by-15/

The vast majority of participants (87%) believe that the country is moving in the wrong direction and 89% are dissatisfied with the government’s performance. It is worth noting that only 13% of those who voted for SYRIZA in September 2015 are satisfied with the administration’s performance. Conversely, 79% of SYRIZA voters are not satisfied by the hitherto government work.

The Greek electorate has learned that the Emperor has no clothes. The Greek electorate is 'returning' to reality, and the difficult decisions that must be made.

molloyjh

Deleted User wrote: »

Whilst one small part of the country at a time might vote for someone like Lowry, (and I hate it). On a national scale he wouldn't register a single %.

Trump would be completely unelectable in Ireland, he'd be run out of any race the second he got into it.

We're not as good as we could be, but were significantly removed from what we just saw in America.

I'm not saying we're as bad, but I think we are headed down a similar enough path. The biggest issue in the US is the fact that so much of the population are willing to buy into things that are complete lies, misrepresentations or hugely unrealistic. We're doing the same more and more here. Look at water charges. Sure there are issues with how that was all implemented that people should have been pissed off about. Instead we had groups like SF, AAA etc all whipping the public up into a frenzy about how we shouldn't have to pay for water or how this was another stealth tax (when it wasn't even a tax).

The truth was income tax was reduced because the Government didn't need as much money to come from tax for water. We need to pay for water because it doesn't make it's way to our taps by magic. The water infrastructure is a total mess and needs to be sorted, which requires investment. There were issues with how the Irish Water company was set up and with how the rates were determined, but those specific issues (the not so simple ones that needed fixing) were never really addressed. Instead we got stupid, lazy and "catchy" slogans like "From the river to the sea, Irish water will be free". I mean seriously!? We're meant to be educated to a reasonable degree. How could the provision of clean, drinkable water to every single house in the State be free? That's mind bogglingly stupid.

It kind of goes back to what IBF was saying. People live in their own bubble and are focused on their needs and the needs of those closest to them. If they can afford to they might look beyond that bubble, but only if they can afford to. Add in the fact that attention spans are getting shorter and shorter (if it can't be said in a tweet or on a poster people don't want to know) and you have an electorate that simply don't want to engage in a meaningful way. When they are happy they want things to keep going as they are (hence FFs period in Government). When they aren't happy they want someone to blame and a way to vent their frustrations without having to spend time figuring it all out. Unless this changes then politics never will, because ultimately politics is just a reflection of what the electorate want.

Deleted User wrote: »

This is all basically bollox. Genuinely. If some group democratically vote to have money given to them by you, are you undermining my democracy by not delivering it?

What I'm talking about is that the Greeks 'bought' what Syriza sold them, "the easy answers" which have proved utterly impossible to actually deliver.

How are Syriza polling at the moment? Where are Greek voters going? http://greece.greekreporter.com/2016/11/08/greek-polls-gap-between-new-democracy-syriza-widens-by-15/

The Greek electorate has learned that the Emperor has no clothes. The Greek electorate is 'returning' to reality, and the difficult decisions that must be made.

What did Syriza sell them exactly?

I actually think Varoufakis did a very good job of defending their position on BBC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYS2BlrjqKQ

http://links.org.au/node/2888

irishbucsfan wrote: »

What did Syriza sell them exactly?

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I actually think Varoufakis did a very good job of defending their position on BBC: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nYS2BlrjqKQ

Summary of the video?

Deleted User wrote: »

http://links.org.au/node/2888

Summary of the video?

His side of the story is probably worth watching before accusing him (I say him because in reality it was his ballgame, I think its fair to say) of demagoguery. Effectively that they went to the EU and tried to make the economic argument that Greece's debt was entirely unsustainable and entirely unpayable, and were rejected. His reports of what Ecofin is actually like is pretty horrendous (and he's campaigned for there to be TV cameras installed in those meetings to solve it). Don't forget, there are no bad debtors without bad creditors.

Ultimate after they won the referendum he was told by Tsipras that they were going to surrender to the Troika and so he resigned, and I think at that point the entire program for government went out the window and the people were abandoned. But i don't think that is demagoguery, that's defeat. Interesting on that note also to remember his belief is that the Greek bailout was just a bailout of the perilously exposed European banking sector, just hidden by proxying it through the public sector.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

His side of the story is probably worth watching before accusing him (I say him because in reality it was his ballgame, I think its fair to say) of demagoguery. Effectively that they went to the EU and tried to make the economic argument that Greece's debt was entirely unsustainable and entirely unpayable, and were rejected. His reports of what Ecofin is actually like is pretty horrendous (and he's campaigned for there to be TV cameras installed in those meetings to solve it).
Ultimate after they won the referendum he was told by Tsipras that they were going to surrender to the Troika and so he resigned, and I think at that point the entire program for government went out the window and the people were abandoned. But i don't think that is demagoguery, that's defeat. Interesting on that note also to remember his belief is that the Greek bailout was just a bailout of the perilously exposed European banking sector, just hidden by proxying it through the public sector.

Shining a light on the impossibility of what they promised was defeat. It's how to defeat demagogues, by showing that what they have promised is not achievable.

The referendum was an exercise in narcissism and pointlessness that we'll hopefully never see the likes of again. A truly self-inflicted wound that has cost the country years and enormous strife.

Demagogues will never ever take responsibilities for their failures to deliver, it is always someone else's fault.

Interestingly, the Greek electorate actually reinstalled Syriza after the referendum. They were chosen by the electorate to attempt to clean up the mess they created. How has that been going for them?

Deleted User wrote: »

Shining a light on the impossibility of what they promised was defeat. It's how to defeat demagogues, by showing that what they have promised is not realistic.

The referendum was an exercise in narcissism and pointlessness that we'll hopefully never see the likes of again. A truly self-inflicted wound that has cost the country years and enormous strife.

Demagogues will never ever take responsibilities for their failures to deliver, it is always someone else's fault.

Interestingly, the Greek electorate actually reinstalled Syriza after the referendum. They were chosen by the electorate to attempt to clean up the mess they created. How has that been going for them?

Well I would suggest actually listening to what he has to say before condemning him.

As he said, the biggest loan in history was given to one of the most bankrupt countries in history. There are no bad debtors without bad creditors.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

Well I would suggest actually listening to what he has to say before condemning him.

I haven't. At all. Nor him. I've pointed out that Syriza promised the impossible to deliver. And unsurprisingly, did not deliver. And that the Greek electorate are now punishing them for it. That the electorate has discovered that the 'easy answer' is not so easy, nor is it in anyway an answer.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

As he said, the biggest loan in history was given to one of the most bankrupt countries in history. There are no bad debtors without bad creditors.

They could have defaulted on the national debt that they had run up year on year for decades. They could have. But they didn't.

Just like we could have not guaranteed Anglo, but we did.

Actions. Have. Consequences.

molloyjh

Deleted User wrote: »

... it is always someone else's fault...

In fairness this is just becoming a social norm these days.

Deleted User wrote: »

I haven't. At all. Nor him. I've pointed out that Syriza promised the impossible to deliver. And unsurprisingly, did not deliver. And that the Greek electorate are now punishing them for it. That the electorate has discovered that the 'easy answer' is not so easy, nor is it in anyway an answer.

The Greek electorate are right. They failed to deliver. But I'm saying it was not demagoguery. These are 20th century Keynesians who stood on a genuine anti-austerity platform and lost their battle with the Troika.

Deleted User wrote: »

They could have defaulted on the national debt that they had run up year on year for decades. They could have. But they didn't.

Just like we could have not guaranteed Anglo, but we did.

Actions. Have. Consequences.

They could have done that. Varoufakis as Minister for Finance drew up plans to do exactly that. http://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2016/07/05/ex-varoufakis-advisor-galbraith-reveals-details-of-plan-x-for-grexit/

But something stopped that, and I'm sure there'll be many accounts written about it. I really suggest you watch that interview. Or alternatively for a longer form watch Blyth's Global Trumpism lecture which ties it back to the original conversation very well.

Synode

irishbucsfan wrote: »

There are no bad debtors without bad creditors.

An easy way to absolve responsibility - they shouldn't have loaned me the money :rolleyes:

irishbucsfan wrote: »

The Greek electorate are right. They failed to deliver. But I'm saying it was not demagoguery. These are 20th century Keynesians who stood on a genuine anti-austerity platform and lost their battle with the Troika.

You can only be anti-austerity if you can afford to be. Could they?

irishbucsfan wrote: »

They could have done that. Varoufakis as Minister for Finance drew up plans to do exactly that. http://www.keeptalkinggreece.com/2016/07/05/ex-varoufakis-advisor-galbraith-reveals-details-of-plan-x-for-grexit/
But something stopped that, and I'm sure there'll be many accounts written about it.

Oh I can't wait. I assume Galbraith, Stiglitz, Varoufakis and Paul Mason will be involved, and it will be a truly objective and fair description of events.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

I really suggest you watch that interview. Or alternatively for a longer form watch Blyth's Global Trumpism lecture which ties it back to the original conversation very well.

Summary? 2 hours of video to listen to (30mins and 90mins) in order to contend a point seems a very very high cost to pay. I probably won't be doing it tbh.

Synode wrote: »

An easy way to absolve responsibility - they shouldn't have loaned me the money :rolleyes:

It's not a way of absolving responsibility. They are responsible and clearly accept that. It's not an attempt to say that they are blameless, it's a reminder that the troika share some responsibility. If a drunk man with no income asks for a mortgage to buy a £1,000,000 house and the bank give it to him, are the bank faultless? Of course not. If he then drinks himself to death and you inherit his debt, you would be completely right to go to the bank and tell them they were acting reckless.

But this all ignores the greatest moral hazard trade in history. Absolutely terribly regulated banks in France, Germany and Holland created massive debt across Europe. Deutsche bank are particularly relevant to Greece and they were exposed for more than 80% of the entire German GDP. Greece's banks were actually incredibly well behaved in comparison to Deutsche Bank believe it or not (closer to 16% of their own GDP). So instead of letting the systemically crucial (hence moral hazard) banking sector collapse, they forced the debt to the public accounts of the PIIGS and then bailed them out. Greece already had a huge amount of debt. The same happened in Ireland, we just weren't as massively irresponsible as the Greeks had been for decades before it, and we didn't have major corruption problems (something SYRIZa also tried to fix believe it or not). This was all to allow the Germans (DB), French (SG) and Dutch (ING) to avoid a direct bailout, which was politically (and financially) impossible, and also meant that they could squeeze peripheral nations who are less politically powerful.

If Greece had defaulted, as emmett suggests was an option, then there would be a massive contagion across the bond markets of Europe. The bond markets in peripheral European countries had become hugely valuable instruments before the crash because the Euro had supposedly made them 'risk free'. Even if they weren't risk free the banks knew they would never be allowed to go down. That's your moral hazard. Portugal would have been dumped instantly, then Ireland would go next. That would be containable because we're pretty small. But then Spain would go, and then Italy. And with them would go the currency union and a depression unlike we've ever witnessed. And so the PIIGS were squeezed, the "REBLL alliance to blow up the debt star" in Eastern Europe as well. It's very obvious why Greece could never have defaulted on their debt, there would have been war before that happened.

Yes, Draghi eventually fixed that contagion risk with his OMT, but you have to remember Trichet had refused to do that back when the real austerity was starting. Now the other quasi-QE is underway and we're spending far far more than the original proposed alternative to austerity (ECB investment).

Deleted User wrote: »

You can only be anti-austerity if you can afford to be. Could they?

The real question is whether anyone can afford austerity, or whether it's continued and repeated failure (despite excelgate!) is an indication that we should have evolved past broken theory decades ago.

Deleted User wrote: »

Oh I can't wait. I assume Galbraith, Stiglitz, Varoufakis and Paul Mason will be involved, and it will be a truly objective and fair description of events.

Summary? 2 hours of video to listen to (30mins and 90mins) in order to contend a point seems a very very high cost to pay. I probably won't be doing it tbh.

Ah well I meant the account would be of the relationship between Tsipras and Varoufakis and how on the night of the referendum they gave in. Effectively they broke ranks. If you believe Varoufakis the Troika had divided and conquered them. I think it'd be really interesting to hear from someone on the other side (or Tsipras).

It's really difficult to summarise. But I suggest it's definitely worth watching if you get a chance.

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

The voting breakdown numbers coming out show the poorer income brackets didn't vote for Trump as much as the richer/whiter brackets did. Some of this may have been down to economic anxiety but it's not the big issue.
They also show that among people who voted for Trump the most important issues for them were immigration and terrorism.

Buer

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

The voting breakdown numbers coming out show the poorer income brackets didn't vote for Trump as much as the richer/whiter brackets did. Some of this may have been down to economic anxiety but it's not the big issue.
They also show that among people who voted for Trump the most important issues for them were immigration and terrorism.

Immigration (and terrorism by association) was always the biggest issue he based his campaign around. All the bombast was centred on it.

I'm not surprised to see the wealthy classes voting for him. His tax plans are going to massively benefit them if introduced.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

It's really difficult to summarise. But I suggest it's definitely worth watching if you get a chance.

I was listening in work so here's a short part of the conversation:

VF: "Let me tell you why I was so despised by Dijsselbloem (head of ecofin). I was minister for 3 days. He came to Athens and he put it to me very simply that either we capitulate, we accept the program of the previous governments which had failed so spectacularly, or our banks would be closed. I made it abundantly clear to him that I would never submit to such blackmail. He understood it. So it was very important to him and to the troika that I should be sidelined. As the Finance Minister of a bankrupt state I would not sign up for another loan in the knowledge we would be unable to pay it. This is what a sensible, rational, moderate finance minister should do. If you are running a company you should never accept a loan if your existing loans are not sustainable..."

SS: "You were a radical. You're proud to be a radical. When rationalism hits reality, reality trumps radicalism. That was the message that came out. It's the message that comes out in many parts of Europe today, there are powerful voices like yours who propound a very radical leftist view"

VF: "But what you're saying is completely baseless I'm afraid."

SS: "Well explain to me why."

VF: "All you have to do and all our viewers have to do is go to my website or any website or any google search engine and look at my proposals as minister for finance on the 11th May 2015. What were our proposals to the troika of lenders? They were the most moderate proposals you can have."

SS: "But you're not in power any more. Tsipras still is. Tsipras is working with the troika. Greece is trying desperately to maintain the 3rd bailout. You with all due respect are history."

VF: "So reason and moderation failed. This is what you are telling me. It's not that the radicality failed. We had to have a radical leftwing finance minister to propose to the Troika what a Wall Street or City of London bankruptcy lawyer would have proposed. This is the depth of the European crisis. You need to have a radical left winger to propose something common sense, because common sense is in very short supply in Europe. Is Greece better off as a result of my defeat? And my removal? No. We are deeper into the mire than we were a year ago. If my proposals had been accepted instead of the troika's, would Greece be better off? Absolutely. Would Europe be better off? Indisputable."

SS: "Unknowable and unprovable."

VF: "Well it is not unknowable. Just look at the proposal. Ask top-notch economists around the world. Which are better and more sensible. Which would have given the Greek national income a chance to recover. Think about it. After my removal... well my "removal"..."

SS: "Well I don't want to get stuck on the past"

VF: "Well you're leaving an impression that a radical minister left and moderation prevailed. The opposite happened. A moderate minister, or at the least a radical minister proposing moderate policies was removed, and idiocy prevailed. Radical idiocy prevailed. Let me give you one example because our audience needs to hear this. One of the things I would not sign into law was an increase in corporate tax in a country that was broken and the imposition of pre-paying next year's tax a year in advance for small businesses that were broken."

SS: "You're not reconciled to your defeat are you?"

... (skip a bit where Stephen tries to get him to talk about his new movement) ...

VF: "Well the movement is not me... But since this is focusing on my past, it's important that we set it straight. In my 6 months in the finance ministry I put forward certain proposals. I consider them to be the only chance, even today, of Greece's recovery and of healing within the eurozone. I may be wrong, I may be right..."

SS: "Well the Greek people have decided that they don't buy your approach"

VF: "No no no. When did that happen exactly? I'm sorry but you just slipped in a major way. Because when we put, and when I put as finance minister and the most vociferous supporter of this program to the Greek people in the referendum of the 5th July we got 62% of the vote...

SS: "... Of course you did and the next day the prime minister said 'you know what we're going to back the deal anyway"..."

VF: "... But please do not say it was the Greek people who rejected the proposals."

SS: "Do you even look at opinion polls in your country today? SYRIZa aren't even in first place any more"

VF: "But I'm not in SYRIZa and that might have something to do with the decline in our fortunes."

SS: "Oh I see!"

And they go on to talk about DiEM

TICKLE_ME_ELMO

Buer wrote: »

Immigration (and terrorism by association) was always the biggest issue he based his campaign around. All the bombast was centred on it.

I'm not surprised to see the wealthy classes voting for him. His tax plans are going to massively benefit them if introduced.

Yeah, I'm sure there are some poorer people naive enough to belive he would bring back the glory days of industry and American jobs etc. but I don't buy that that was the deciding factor in this election as some people do. Rich college educated white people voted for him in large numbers. Ironically futures nosedived last night so he may have cost quite a few of them a fair bit.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

VF: "Let me tell you why I was so despised by Dijsselbloem (head of ecofin). I was minister for 3 days. He came to Athens and he put it to me very simply that either we capitulate, we accept the program of the previous governments which had failed so spectacularly, or our banks would be closed. I made it abundantly clear to him that I would never submit to such blackmail. He understood it. So it was very important to him and to the troika that I should be sidelined. As the Finance Minister of a bankrupt state I would not sign up for another loan in the knowledge we would be unable to pay it. This is what a sensible, rational, moderate finance minister should do. If you are running a company you should never accept a loan if your existing loans are not sustainable..."

No, you go into liquidation.

He wouldn't accept either scenario. His third option is to effectively ask for a blank cheque from creditiors to pay off the debt.

thomond2006

I read his plan is to introduce a corporate tax cut and tariffs for trade overseas.

Is there a serious risk posed to Ireland here? Many many multinationals are here for tax reasons.

CMOTDibbler wrote: »

No, you go into liquidation.

He wouldn't accept either scenario. His third option is to effectively ask for a blank cheque from creditiors to pay off the debt.

No. That's completely false?

Buer

TICKLE_ME_ELMO wrote: »

Yeah, I'm sure there are some poorer people naive enough to belive he would bring back the glory days of industry and American jobs etc. but I don't buy that that was the deciding factor in this election as some people do. Rich college educated white people voted for him in large numbers. Ironically futures nosedived last night so he may have cost quite a few of them a fair bit.

They're the traditional voters for the Republican party, though. Not too much of a shock to see them vote for the Republican candidate particularly one that is proposing big tax cuts for them.

The poor and blue collar workers lean towards the Democrats more. Even if the bigger numbers of his votes came from wealthier classes, the deciding factor is more likely to have been his ability to take a chunk of the votes from poorer demographics that normally would have been seen as reliable votes for the Democrats e.g. if a state had been 40% wealthy Republicans and 60% blue collar Democrats, Trump just needed to take 11% of those blue collar votes even though the majority of his backing is still coming from the traditional sections of society.

The "Rust Belt" was a massive focus for Trump featuring Pennsylvania, Ohio and Michigan. All voted for Obama twice. In fact, Penn and Michigan hadn't voted Republican since 1988. They're massively impacted by the loss of their steel and automotive industries. Clinton lost all three (with West Pennsylvania, where the steel industry was voting more prominently for Trump than east) which was a massive swing in the election. She retains those 3, she wins the election.

Clinton lost too many of the Democrats traditional electorate who have become disenchanted and saw a champion of their cause in Trump. The wealthier classes just stuck with who they saw as the closest thing to themselves who was giving them what they wanted.

thomond2006 wrote: »

I read his plan is to introduce a corporate tax cut and tariffs for trade overseas.

Is there a serious risk posed to Ireland here?

It's too early to say.

The interesting thing is that he could end up being opposed by Congress (even though it's a Republican Congress) on certain of his measures. A trade war with China or Europe could be massively counterproductive and lead to economic stagnation.

A corporate tax cut could help repatriate the many billions sitting off-shore like the Apple money, but would have a huge hit on tax revenues generally. Back at the time of the Apple ruling, this was discussed and it's generally accepted that the hit wouldn't be worth the money.

irishbucsfan wrote: »

No. That's completely false?

What? That you go into liquidation when you can't service your debt?