Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Off Topic Thread 3.0

1…180181183185186…334

Comments

  • #5462
    swiwi_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭swiwi_


    My economic philosophy is simple: incentivise the common man to work hard and get ahead in life. I think the current Irish tax system is the complete antihesis of this. Not helped by a system that encourages multi-nationals to make buckets of tax-free money, increasing further the need to tax the employed middle classes.

    The politics of envy (progressively tax those who earn more) is a form of communism that encourages state dependance. There is a reason Switzerland has minimal unemployment: it is financially much more attractive to work here, than to to try and live off welfare (which is virtually impossible as a lifestyle choice anyway, as benefits rapidly tail away after a couple of years). It should ALWAYS be better financially to work than to live off the state. It is quite possible in Ireland to have as much money through benefits and allowances than from holding down a standard 9 to 5 job. It is amazing how motivated people become when the choice is work vs poverty.

    There are always exceptions to the rule, I'm not hard-hearted, but in general terms this would be my approach if I were finance minister...


  • #5463
    DGRulz
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,232 ✭✭✭DGRulz


    swiwi_ wrote: »
    My economic philosophy is simple: incentivise the common man to work hard and get ahead in life. I think the current Irish tax system is the complete antihesis of this. Not helped by a system that encourages multi-nationals to make buckets of tax-free money, increasing further the need to tax the employed middle classes.

    The politics of envy (progressively tax those who earn more) is a form of communism that encourages state dependance. There is a reason Switzerland has minimal unemployment: it is financially much more attractive to work here, than to to try and live off welfare (which is virtually impossible as a lifestyle choice anyway, as benefits rapidly tail away after a couple of years). It should ALWAYS be better financially to work than to live off the state. It is quite possible in Ireland to have as much money through benefits and allowances than from holding down a standard 9 to 5 job. It is amazing how motivated people become when the choice is work vs poverty.

    There are always exceptions to the rule, I'm not hard-hearted, but in general terms this would be my approach if I were finance minister...

    Okay ... but what would you do about fixing the roads?


  • #5464
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    swiwi_ wrote: »
    My economic philosophy is simple: incentivise the common man to work hard and get ahead in life. I think the current Irish tax system is the complete antihesis of this. Not helped by a system that encourages multi-nationals to make buckets of tax-free money, increasing further the need to tax the employed middle classes.

    The politics of envy (progressively tax those who earn more) is a form of communism that encourages state dependance. There is a reason Switzerland has minimal unemployment: it is financially much more attractive to work here, than to to try and live off welfare (which is virtually impossible as a lifestyle choice anyway, as benefits rapidly tail away after a couple of years). It should ALWAYS be better financially to work than to live off the state. It is quite possible in Ireland to have as much money through benefits and allowances than from holding down a standard 9 to 5 job. It is amazing how motivated people become when the choice is work vs poverty.

    There are always exceptions to the rule, I'm not hard-hearted, but in general terms this would be my approach if I were finance minister...

    Your economic philosophy is called objectivism. Just in case you wanted to a niftier word for it.

    It's commonly associated with Ayn Rand and her book Atlas Shrugged. The arguments against it are pretty varied and I won't bore you with them, but it's an interesting sphere of reading.


  • #5465
    swiwi_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭swiwi_


    DGRulz wrote: »
    Okay ... but what would you do about fixing the roads?

    Ah now, don't start asking difficult questions...

    (Switzerland has a dedicated roading fund plus a once per year motorway tax of about €60, but it's hard to compare as Switzerland is a federal constitution, so each canton has a lot of autonomy).

    I think the water charges fiasco sums up things up nicely: something for nothing seems to be the attitude of People before Profit and the like.


  • #5466
    swiwi_
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,550 ✭✭✭swiwi_


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Your economic philosophy is called objectivism. Just in case you wanted to a niftier word for it.

    It's commonly associated with Ayn Rand and her book Atlas Shrugged. The arguments against it are pretty varied and I won't bore you with them, but it's an interesting sphere of reading.

    Oooh. I'm an objectivist :o

    Hardwork, thrift, responsibility for ones actions, social conscience for those genuinely in need, would sort of be my approach...


  • Advertisement
  • #5467
    thomond2006
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45,433 ✭✭✭✭thomond2006


    Here's my economic philosophy: The TV licence is a ****ing scam.


  • #5468
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,833 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Well I'm not actually talking about post-crash fallout at all actually. Pre-crash GDP was what I was referring to in the first part of my post.

    None of that actually changes my point, which is that public spending was not the problem and the cuts were completely avoidable if the ECB had remembered it was a central bank in 2008 rather than 2012. Public spending only became a problem when our GDP was threatened by the downturn, before then it was within perfectly normal levels of GDP and would have remained there.
    And my point is that public spending was based on an income stream that was itself based on quicksand. A base that the then government refused to act to curtail.

    Spending to GDP was 35% in 2007, 42% in 2008, 47% in 2009 and a whopping 66% in 2010. Only Sweden and Slovakia ever hit higher levels than that.


  • #5469
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    swiwi_ wrote: »
    Oooh. I'm an objectivist :o

    Hardwork, thrift, responsibility for ones actions, social conscience for those genuinely in need, would sort of be my approach...

    Yeah, only a part of that is objectivism I guess. I'm not a philosopher at all, but basically Ayn Rand became a darling of the right (particularly in America) based on the argument that everyone should be responsible for their own actions and outcome. Objectivism itself goes much deeper than that, because philospohers have way too much time on their hands.

    If you want to get elected as a republican in certain parts of America, the best approach is to claim your favourite books are Atlas Shrugged (fiction) and the bible (non-fiction) (< I think it was Paul Ryan who listed them exactly like that). It's often used in arguments against "the welfare state" etc.


  • #5470
    molloyjh
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 24,767 ✭✭✭✭molloyjh


    Buer wrote: »
    Well, it's also turkeys voting for Christmas given the politicians themselves are highly paid public sector employees.

    They're the very epitome of the mentality of the nation. Our current leader became a TD at 24 with no qualification aside from his father having been a TD and dying in office. They've no appetite to deal with the status quo.

    Well I think my general point is that it isn't up to the politicians to deal with the status quo. That's on the electorate. We're the ones who make the demands of our politicians and give them approval for their behaviour through reelection. Politicians aren't going to address big issues off their own bat, nor should we expect them to. As an electorate we're sitting back and hoping someone else fixes it, but if we don't step up to the plate then how can we expect anyone else to?


  • #5471
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    CMOTDibbler wrote: »
    And my point is that public spending was based on an income stream that was itself based on quicksand. A base that the then government refused to act to curtail.

    Spending to GDP was 35% in 2007, 42% in 2008, 47% in 2009 and a whopping 66% in 2010. Only Sweden and Slovakia ever hit higher levels than that.

    I know it was based on quicksand, I said that originally. That doesn't mean it was incorrect, it was based on actual GDP that actually occurred.

    The reason it shot up in 2009 and 2010 so much was specifically because of the mistakes and intentional retraction of our economy. 35-45% is completely normal. It's the same reason our debt to GDP ratio shot up, we slashed our GDP because it was the only option we were left with by Trichet.

    EDIT: Just to keep this in context, the original claim was that public spending was "the cause" of our financial problems. I'm saying that it wasn't at all, it wasn't a banking crisis that was mismanaged into a public debt crisis


  • Advertisement
  • #5472
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,833 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    I know it was based on quicksand, I said that originally. That doesn't mean it was incorrect, it was based on actual GDP that actually occurred.
    Were you talking about the same quicksand though?
    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    Our GDP was over-inflated by the lack of control of the European banking sector.
    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    The reason it shot up in 2009 and 2010 so much was specifically because of the mistakes and intentional retraction of our economy. 35-45% is completely normal. It's the same reason our debt to GDP ratio shot up, we slashed our GDP because it was the only option we were left with by Trichet.
    We slashed our GDP by means of cutbacks in government spending to match the shortfall in income caused by the property crash. That's what I meant by 'chicken and egg'.
    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    EDIT: Just to keep this in context, the original claim was that public spending was "the cause" of our financial problems. I'm saying that it wasn't at all, it wasn't a banking crisis that was mismanaged into a public debt crisis
    I agree with this. Except for the point that prudent government would have looked closely at the underlying GDP figures and hedged on the possibility of the property boom being a bubble.

    The same way that the central bank (and the individual banks) should have been aware of the over-exposure of the banking sector to property investment. Bank of Ireland were probably the only one that started to see the writing on the wall and had actually started a process of divestment before the crash happened.


  • #5473
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    CMOTDibbler wrote: »
    Were you talking about the same quicksand though?
    The quicksand was the massive over-capitalisation of the european banking sector. The symptom of that was the property sector you're referring to.


    CMOTDibbler wrote: »
    We slashed our GDP by means of cutbacks in government spending to match the shortfall in income caused by the property crash. That's what I meant by 'chicken and egg'.
    We engaged in austerity despite it being a repeatedly failed approach to economic downturns. And the huge surprise was... it didn't work. "Expansionary fiscal contraction" was what they expected, somehow. Unfortunately our own government had no alternative choice as we have no fiscal or monetary control of our own. Despite Dominique Strauss-Kahn (remember him?!) on behalf of the IMF and some of our own government arguing against austerity, knowing well what was going to be the outcome. Thankfully then the ECB copped on after a few years of waiting around.
    CMOTDibbler wrote: »
    I agree with this. Except for the point that prudent government would have looked closely at the underlying GDP figures and hedged on the possibility of the property boom being a bubble.

    The same way that the central bank (and the individual banks) should have been aware of the over-exposure of the banking sector to property investment. Bank of Ireland were probably the only one that started to see the writing on the wall and had actually started a process of divestment before the crash happened.
    They weren't the only government to fail to see the crash coming. In fact we were just like everyone else in our failure to see it coming. They also couldn't really have expected Trichet to abdicate responsibility.

    I'm not actually sure there's an alternative reality where this could have been avoided as if we had tried to curtail our banking sector I guarantee you that the EU would have come down on us like a ton of bricks, as our banks were their customers. Our banks were not the root of the problem, just an extension of it, the continental banks were in a much worse position, the only difference is their governments never had to take responsibility for it in the same way ours did.


  • #5474
    CMOTDibbler
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 9,833 ✭✭✭CMOTDibbler


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    The quicksand was the massive over-capitalisation of the european banking sector. The symptom of that was the property sector you're referring to.
    Well yes, easy credit fuelled the propery boom. But there were also government incentives, lack of regulation and cosy relationships between government and developers and some very questionable practices amongst outlier banks.
    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    I'm not actually sure there's an alternative reality where this could have been avoided as if we had tried to curtail our banking sector I guarantee you that the EU would have come down on us like a ton of bricks, as our banks were their customers. Our banks were not the root of the problem, just an extension of it, the continental banks were in a much worse position, the only difference is their governments never had to take responsibility for it in the same way ours did.
    Over exposure to one particular economic sector or one particular customer was anathema to prudent banking practice in the years before the early to mid noughties. The reasons for these practices were forgotten in the usual cyclical corporate amnesia that happens in large organisations.


  • #5475
    b.gud
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,876 ✭✭✭b.gud


    thomond2006 wrote: »
    Here's my economic philosophy: The TV licence is a ****ing scam.

    I would like to vote for you in any upcoming election


  • #5476
    Rigor Mortis
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,914 ✭✭✭Rigor Mortis


    I always liked this quote, there are many variations

    “He who is not a r?publicain at twenty compels one to doubt the generosity of his heart; but he who, after thirty, persists, compels one to doubt the soundness of his mind.

    the other famous version is attributed (incorrectly I think) to Churchill

    Anyone who is not a liberal at 20 has no heart, any who is not a conservative at 40 has no brain


  • #5477
    Erik Shin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,721 ✭✭✭Erik Shin


    Come all the way to Lisbon and this is what i see when i walk in the hotel door :)


  • #5478
    CatFromHue
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,330 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    irishbucsfan wrote: »

    EDIT: Just to keep this in context, the original claim was that public spending was "the cause" of our financial problems. I'm saying that it wasn't at all, it wasn't a banking crisis that was mismanaged into a public debt crisis

    Do you mean it was a banking crisis mismanaged into public debt?

    As others have said our govt income had been increased by property/construction bubble that was never going to last and when it burst we were left with massive budget deficits.

    I'd love to see more on how exactly the bail out money was spent as as far as I know a lot of it went on our day to day expenditure.

    Also not only are you not getting into Heaven but now CMOTDibbler has gotten two passes in :pac:


  • #5479
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    CatFromHue wrote: »
    Do you mean it was a banking crisis mismanaged into public debt?

    As others have said our govt income had been increased by property/construction bubble that was never going to last and when it burst we were left with massive budget deficits.

    I'd love to see more on how exactly the bail out money was spent as as far as I know a lot of it went on our day to day expenditure.

    Also not only are you not getting into Heaven but now CMOTDibbler has gotten two passes in :pac:

    Yes, I do mean that, sorry.

    Our government income was marginally increased by a bubble, the size of that bubble looks far larger in hindsight now due to how horrifically things went from 2009-2012, but it accounted for somewhere between 10%-20% of GDP. Public spending increases were completely sensible in context, and were not the cause of that bubble.

    There was no public spending orgy. It's a myth, not only in Ireland but across Europe and in the US as well. Our public expenditure did not become a problem until after we committed hari kari and went through austerity, slashing our own GDP. They've done a fantastic job of convincing everyone that the problem was public spending.

    The bail out money was split roughly 50/50 between covering the banking sector and expenditure. It was always going to be there to cover the banking sector though, the bank with the biggest exposure to Ireland was not any Irish bank, but Deutsche Bank.


  • #5480
    CatFromHue
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,330 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    That was my original point, that they hadn't convinced everyone that public spending was a problem as Mick Barry was saying on Thursday that all the problems were caused by the greedy bankers. That's not an exact quote but it's pretty much exactly what he said.

    I'm not saying the banks didn't cause us big problems, as they did, I'm saying we had other big problems too.

    I can't copy and paste but Fig 2 on page 10 is pretty interesting, the report itself is good too
    http://www.tcd.ie/Economics/staff/phonohan/What%20went%20wrong.pdf


  • #5481
    thomond2006
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 45,433 ✭✭✭✭thomond2006


    http://waterfordwhispersnews.com/2017/04/21/maternity-hospital-will-respect-rights-of-the-mother-if-shes-married-confirms-spokesnun/

    Awesome.


  • Advertisement
  • #5482
    Tom Mann Centuria
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,305 ✭✭✭✭Tom Mann Centuria


    New venture from O2 and Rugby Union to get people into the game and make it more exciting
    Play Rugby League! :)

    https://twitter.com/O2touch/status/856885527953285122

    Oh well, give me an easy life and a peaceful death.



  • #5483
    awec
    Administrators Posts: 55,090 Admin ✭✭✭✭✭awec


    Wouldn't want to be John Terry today :pac:


  • #5484
    Erik Shin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,721 ✭✭✭Erik Shin


    awec wrote: »
    Wouldn't want to be John Terry today :pac:

    Apparently not his mum, but it's still funny​ !


  • #5485
    mfceiling
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 13,002 ✭✭✭✭mfceiling


    Never heard the story but a saw a tweet along the lines of "Changing my tinder age to 60 in the hope of meeting John Terry's mum"...


  • #5486
    irishbucsfan
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 37,978 ✭✭✭✭irishbucsfan


    This Fyre Festival stuff is brilliant


  • #5487
    Synode
    Closed Accounts Posts: 7,967 ✭✭✭Synode


    irishbucsfan wrote: »
    This Fyre Festival stuff is brilliant

    There goes my afternoon


  • #5488
    errlloyd
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 12,633 ✭✭✭✭errlloyd


    Erik Shin wrote: »
    Come all the way to Lisbon and this is what i see when i walk in the hotel door :)

    I once traveled to an Island called Gili Trawangan. It's about a kilometre wide, beaches on all sides. Hardly any roads, no cars, cops or dogs. To get there I had to get a 4 hour van across Bali - which itself is a fairly isolated Island on the Indonesian archipelago - but that isn't important. The van dropped us at this last port.From there we boarded a fast ferry, 8 200 horsepower outboard motors and it still took us about 90 minutes to power across to Gili T.

    Now coming it was beautiful. You could see beaches and huts, and you just knew it was paradise like. There was no dock on that side. The boat got close and you just waded in. So you walk up the kinda ramp, hours from the nearest proper infrastructure, in the middle of nowhere. A thousand miles from the next Irish speaker. And Bang. Right in front of you. "Tir Na nÓg".


  • #5489
    CatFromHue
    Moderators, Science, Health & Environment Moderators Posts: 18,330 Mod ✭✭✭✭CatFromHue


    I didn't know Second Captains put this clip up online, it's one of their very best if you ask me

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zCyC6SW9rkI


  • #5490
    Bazzo
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,047 ✭✭✭Bazzo


    Unbelievable fight.


  • Advertisement
  • #5491
    Erik Shin
    Closed Accounts Posts: 3,721 ✭✭✭Erik Shin


    Surely something got lost in translation here....or do Colombian drug prices play a part in transfer dealings :)


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement