Why don't we just sell the entire country?

beejee · 10-10-2019 09:28PM

Claire Scarce Roadside wrote: »

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

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

Would you thank me for that?

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 10-10-2019 09:29PM

beejee wrote: »

Why is it hyperbole?

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

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

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

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

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

beejee · 10-10-2019 09:31PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

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

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

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

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 10-10-2019 09:31PM

beejee wrote: »

Why is it hyperbole?

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

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

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

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

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

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

dxhound2005 · 10-10-2019 09:33PM

beejee wrote: »

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

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

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

beejee · 10-10-2019 09:34PM

Claire Scarce Roadside wrote: »

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

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

That's a rejection from me!

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 10-10-2019 09:36PM

beejee wrote: »

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

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

dxhound2005 · 10-10-2019 09:36PM

beejee wrote: »

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

That's a rejection from me!

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

nkl12xtw5goz70 · 10-10-2019 09:37PM

beejee wrote: »

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

How did we become a modern country then?

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

beejee · 10-10-2019 09:40PM

Channing Faithful Sometime wrote: »

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

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

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

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

Perhaps the easiest to recognise of these consequences.

beejee · 10-10-2019 09:44PM

Claire Scarce Roadside wrote: »

How did we become a modern country then?

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

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

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

dxhound2005 · 10-10-2019 09:45PM

beejee wrote: »

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

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

Perhaps the easiest to recognise of these consequences.

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

beejee · 10-10-2019 09:46PM

Claire Scarce Roadside wrote: »

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

Thank you for the citizens information website.

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

beejee · 10-10-2019 09:51PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

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

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

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

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

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 10-10-2019 09:52PM

beejee wrote: »

Sovereignty means little to a beholden sovereign. End of story

You are wrong. End of story. Close thread.

Is this how it works?:)

dxhound2005 · 10-10-2019 09:52PM

beejee wrote: »

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

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

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

End of story.

PhilOssophy · 10-10-2019 09:53PM

beejee, you just concentrate on staying alive.

is_that_so · 10-10-2019 09:54PM

ToddyDoody wrote: »

DeValera would be spinning in his grave.

Rattling at this stage!

beejee · 10-10-2019 09:54PM

Channing Faithful Sometime wrote: »

You are wrong. End of story. Close thread.

Is this how it works?:)

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

dxhound2005 · 10-10-2019 09:55PM

Can we open up another tangent?

beejee · 10-10-2019 09:56PM

PhilOssophy wrote: »

beejee, you just concentrate on staying alive.

But how deep is your love for the country?

beejee · 10-10-2019 09:57PM

dxhound2005 wrote: »

Can we open up another tangent?

You're already washed up? Man, the stamina just isn't there

Your Face · 10-10-2019 09:58PM

Force Carrier wrote: »

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

Waylon Jennings

Ipso · 10-10-2019 09:58PM

beejee wrote: »

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

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

Someone else like the bank, until you pay it off.

is_that_so · 10-10-2019 09:59PM

beejee wrote: »

But how deep is your love for the country?

He should be dancing kind of love!

dxhound2005 · 10-10-2019 10:00PM

beejee wrote: »

You're already washed up? Man, the stamina just isn't there

Give me a chance. I'm checking out those Australian laws.

You were wrong about the wealth being concentrated into fewer hands. There are more of what are classified as middle class than ever before.

ytpe2r5bxkn0c1 · 10-10-2019 10:06PM

What about the fact that Irish companies are now investing as much money abroad as foreign firms do in Ireland and have been doing so since at least 2006? We could just swap bits of our country for the bits we own of theirs. Bring back barter and the good old days of widespread poverty and unemployment that many of us endured for too long.

Ipso · 10-10-2019 10:21PM

Channing Faithful Sometime wrote: »

What about the fact that Irish companies are now investing as much money abroad as foreign firms do in Ireland and have been doing so since at least 2006? We could just swap bits of our country for the bits we own of theirs. Bring back barter and the good old days of widespread poverty and unemployment that many of us endured for too long.

There are a few true believers still around, they'd love it.

10-10-2019 10:30PM

Have you considered how much Ireland owns abroad?
A relatively low profile company like CRH employs 85,000 people, 83,000 outside of Ireland.

Ipso · 10-10-2019 10:38PM

Deleted User wrote: »

Have you considered how much Ireland owns abroad?
A relatively low profile company like CRH employs 85,000 people, 83,000 outside of Ireland.

Shh. You're undermining the underdog narrative.

Why don't we just sell the entire country?

Comments