Green Party wish list.

combat14 · 27-06-2020 6:07pm

Tell me how wrote: »

And that's almost entirely down to people giving FF/FG a pass on any obligation to provide solutions which would allow us to meet the targets we signed up to in the Paris Agreement.

It's an ignorance of either the need for action, or how any government should be putting the necessary effort in to it.

so how will the new green govt meet the terms of the Paris Agreement?

What is the concrete step by step plan?

What is the time line?

Tell me how · 27-06-2020 6:12pm

combat14 wrote: »

so how will the new green govt meet the terms of the Paris Agreement?

What is the concrete step by step plan?

What is the time line?

It won't.

What's FG/FF's response to that? Or yours?

KyussB · 27-06-2020 6:33pm

efanton wrote: »

I think you need to take a reality pill.

Money comes from somewhere. To borrow it you must be able to repay it and show you can repay it. There are EU rules on how much this country an borrow.

I would love nothing more than this country borrowing a sufficient amount to fix our significant problems. The reality is that it simply would not be possible.
We dont make the rules, banks and financial institutions make the rules and the EU compounds that be setting borrowing limits.

Try reading what you reply to: The EU rules are suspended, due to the coronavirus.

Where, exactly, do you think money comes from? There is a ready supply flowing from the ECB's QE program, at negative interest rates, which is readily available indirectly, using low interest government bonds...

KyussB · 27-06-2020 6:41pm

Bass Reeves wrote: »

Sorry efanton I have been here before with his magic money idea. He considers that we can borrow unlimited. He even have this idea that we could borrow enough at negative interest rates and use it to solve any economic woe. Do the sums on borrowing at a negative interest rate of 0.5%( and we cannot borrow at that) to use 20 billion a year ie the 20 billion is the negative interest on the money. I think it about 2 trillion.

It called Magic Money

Quote me ever saying that. That's a lie.

That you profit on negative interest rate debt, even if you do nothing with that principal and just let interest payments accrue, doesn't mean that I suggest not spending the principal, nor does it mean the whole budget can be funded that way.

Again, with the use of the term 'magic money', you demonstrate that you still think we live in an economy, where the creation of money is a burdensome effort - as if it has to be dug up out of the ground or something... - and that you don't understand how a fiat money system works.

KyussB · 27-06-2020 6:51pm

combat14 wrote: »

we still have to service the debt I.e. at a minimum repay the billions owed in interest each year let alone the principal

the national debt back in 2008 was approx 45 billion it has now ballooned to approx 205-235 billion factoring into the current covid 19 hit

even with low interest rates the interest repayments on 230 billion of debt is not insignificant

we have only barely got rid of the IMF and they are still keeping oversight of our budgets.......

there are approx. 2 million tax payers in the country divide 205 billion by the number of workers and we currently owe €102,500 plus interest for every worker in the country

I know it is great to borrow a load of money at 0% interest but we still have to pay it back .....

The current bond rate is close to zero, and is regularly dipping into the negative - Ireland can be paid to take on debt - creating a no-lose situation.

Irelands Public Debt vs GDP is at a fairly modest level, with loads of room for expansion - nowhere near 2008 levels - and frequently at NEGATIVE interest rates, where the servicing cost is negative, you get paid to take on debt...(it's the composition of Public Debt that determines its sustainability, not its total size, nor even its size relative to GDP - the latter just being a first-look guideline figure)

Government finances do not work like household finances - the Public Debt is not divided up among the workforce, like a households debt would be among people living there and working. Public Debt vs GDP is eroded away through GDP growth, which means keeping GDP maximized is the priority and is the fatest way to erode away public debt...

Ireland hasn't been in debt to the IMF for years, you're talking nonsense.

ExMachina1000 · 27-06-2020 6:54pm

KyussB wrote: »

The current bond rate is close to zero, and is regularly dipping into the negative - Ireland can be paid to take on debt - creating a no-lose situation.

Irelands Public Debt vs GDP is at a fairly modest level, with loads of room for expansion - nowhere near 2008 levels - and frequently at NEGATIVE interest rates, where the servicing cost is negative, you get paid to take on debt...

Government finances do not work like household finances - the Public Debt is not divided up among the workforce, like a households debt would be among people living there and working. Public Debt vs GDP is eroded away through GDP growth, which means keeping GDP maximized is the priority and is the fatest way to erode away public debt...

Ireland hasn't been in debt to the IMF for years, you're talking nonsense.

Per capita where do you think Ireland sits in the league table of national debt?

combat14 · 27-06-2020 7:05pm

KyussB wrote: »

The current bond rate is close to zero, and is regularly dipping into the negative - Ireland can be paid to take on debt - creating a no-lose situation.

Irelands Public Debt vs GDP is at a fairly modest level, with loads of room for expansion - nowhere near 2008 levels - and frequently at NEGATIVE interest rates, where the servicing cost is negative, you get paid to take on debt...(it's the composition of Public Debt that determines its sustainability, not its total size, nor even its size relative to GDP - the latter just being a first-look guideline figure)

Government finances do not work like household finances - the Public Debt is not divided up among the workforce, like a households debt would be among people living there and working. Public Debt vs GDP is eroded away through GDP growth, which means keeping GDP maximized is the priority and is the fatest way to erode away public debt...

Ireland hasn't been in debt to the IMF for years, you're talking nonsense.

dividing national debt by the number of tax payers simply illustrates the extent of the debt. you can use debt per capita if you prefer

combat14 · 27-06-2020 7:07pm

Tell me how wrote: »

It won't.

What's FG/FF's response to that? Or yours?

its great, exactly as FF/FG intended for this current agreement

if green policies are fully implemented rural ireland will be wiped out

FF/FG are not going to let that happen while China is building new power plants every day of the week

KyussB · 27-06-2020 7:09pm

ExMachina1000 wrote: »

Per capita where do you think Ireland sits in the league table of national debt?

I don't think such a table has any relevance, as neither the stock of public debt, nor its size relative to GDP, takes into account the composition of the debt and thus the true sustainability of the debt - especially with negative interest rates, which are a no-lose situation.

efanton · 27-06-2020 7:09pm

KyussB wrote: »

The current bond rate is close to zero, and is regularly dipping into the negative - Ireland can be paid to take on debt - creating a no-lose situation.

Irelands Public Debt vs GDP is at a fairly modest level, with loads of room for expansion - nowhere near 2008 levels - and frequently at NEGATIVE interest rates, where the servicing cost is negative, you get paid to take on debt...(it's the composition of Public Debt that determines its sustainability, not its total size, nor even its size relative to GDP - the latter just being a first-look guideline figure)

Government finances do not work like household finances - the Public Debt is not divided up among the workforce, like a households debt would be among people living there and working. Public Debt vs GDP is eroded away through GDP growth, which means keeping GDP maximized is the priority and is the fatest way to erode away public debt...

Ireland hasn't been in debt to the IMF for years, you're talking nonsense.

Which part do you not understand. It doesnt matter what the interst rate is. Even at 0% Ireland will not get those loan unless it can show it is capable of repaying them.

If Ireland borrows 5 billion over 20 years, even without interest that mean Ireland repaying €250 million a year.
Now I would agree that that sum is perfectly affordable for the country, but only if we hadnt borrowed hundreds of billions before that to bail out banks and to deal with the Covid crisis.

As it is we are paying literally BILLIONS a year already in debt repayments.
that money comes from somewhere. That either higher taxation, reduced services or reduced money to spend on the very things that the Greens are advocating. Just look at what happened to our country becuase FF borrowed billions to bail out banks.

Are you prepared to take a significant pay cut, reduced social welfare payments, have even more cuts to our health service. housing, etc?

Thats a serious question. What would you personally be prepared to lose for the Greens to borrow yet more money?

KyussB · 27-06-2020 7:13pm

combat14 wrote: »

dividing national debt by the number of tax payers simply illustrates the extent of the debt. you can use debt per capita if you prefer

Measuring it relative to GDP also tells you the extent of it. Neither of them tell you the composition of the debt (all the bonds at different interest rates, or their maturities), nor the sustainability of the debt.

KyussB · 27-06-2020 7:20pm

efanton wrote: »

Which part do you not understand. It doesnt matter what the interst rate is. Even at 0% Ireland will not get those loan unless it can show it is capable of repaying them.

If Ireland borrows 5 billion over 20 years, even without interest that mean Ireland repaying €250 million a year.
Now I would agree that that sum is perfectly affordable for the country, but only if we hadnt borrowed hundreds of billions before that to bail out banks and to deal with the Covid crisis.

As it is we are paying literally BILLIONS a year already in debt repayments.
that money comes from somewhere. That either higher taxation, reduced services or reduced money to spend on the very things that the Greens are advocating. Just look at what happened to our country becuase FF borrowed billions to bail out banks.

Are you prepared to take a significant pay cut, reduced social welfare payments, have even more cuts to our health service. housing, etc?

Thats a serious question. What would you personally be prepared to lose for the Greens to borrow yet more money?

Ireland's debt servicing costs are less than 2% of GDP. The servicing cost of new debt at 0 or negative interest, excludes interest altogether - meaning that servicing cost overall is 0 or negative, if you continue to roll over debt...

The cost of not increasing government spending, to maximize GDP after the crisis - is in the immediate term, 10+% and more of GDP.

The perpetual cost of allowing GDP to remain below its maximum potential, is far far higher than the cost of the debt will ever be.

Having a persistent Output Gap is permanent damage to an economy. With debt being rolled over forever - which is the normal state of affairs... - you never have to roll back spending and allow an Output Gap.

Geuze · 27-06-2020 7:34pm

While it's true that public debt to GDP is not very high, note that GDP is inflated by MNC activities.

A better denominator might be GNI* or GG revenues.

The NTMA make this point, see slides 30-35

https://www.ntma.ie/uploads/general/Investor-Presentation-June-website.pdf

Pur puvlic debt to GG revenue ratio is 5th highest in EU.

Tell me how · 27-06-2020 7:46pm

Aside from the level of debt, if there was an agreement within government to access more funding, where is it likely the demand would be that money is spent.

The healthcare system (record trolley numbers, extensive waiting lists, most expensive hospital in the world)
Housing (record homeless numbers, growing disenfranchised group who fear house ownership is beyond them)
Social Welfare (Most expensive dept, Covid-19 Cost explosion)

There is less than a zero chance of any sort of agreement amongst government or the electorate to fund green progression via massive borrowing while the above issues exist.

I'm not saying that investment is not going to be critical in meaningful progress, but this angle on the conversation is once again absolving parties outside of the Greens completely.

combat14 · 27-06-2020 8:48pm

KyussB wrote: »

Ireland's debt servicing costs are less than 2% of GDP. The servicing cost of new debt at 0 or negative interest, excludes interest altogether - meaning that servicing cost overall is 0 or negative, if you continue to roll over debt...

The cost of not increasing government spending, to maximize GDP after the crisis - is in the immediate term, 10+% and more of GDP.

The perpetual cost of allowing GDP to remain below its maximum potential, is far far higher than the cost of the debt will ever be.

Having a persistent Output Gap is permanent damage to an economy. With debt being rolled over forever - which is the normal state of affairs... - you never have to roll back spending and allow an Output Gap.

cant understand the obsession with happily piling on even more national debt ....

we should be trying to build a national wealth fund instead ..... e.g. Norway's wealth fund:

It has over US$1 trillion in assets, including 1.4% of global stocks and shares, making it the world's largest sovereign wealth fund. In May 2018 it was worth about $195,000 per Norwegian citizen.

time to completely switch our focus from drowning in debt to actually building something proper for the country!

ExMachina1000 · 27-06-2020 9:42pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Aside from the level of debt, if there was an agreement within government to access more funding, where is it likely the demand would be that money is spent.

The healthcare system (record trolley numbers, extensive waiting lists, most expensive hospital in the world)
Housing (record homeless numbers, growing disenfranchised group who fear house ownership is beyond them)
Social Welfare (Most expensive dept, Covid-19 Cost explosion)

There is less than a zero chance of any sort of agreement amongst government or the electorate to fund green progression via massive borrowing while the above issues exist.

I'm not saying that investment is not going to be critical in meaningful progress, but this angle on the conversation is once again absolving parties outside of the Greens completely.

On the programme for government it is written that cycling infrastructure projects will be finished or ongoing by 2024.

They wont be happening. 1.8 billion isn't there

Demonique · 27-06-2020 9:46pm

I heard a rumour that they wanted to stop the free travel scheme for pensioners and disabled people, a lot of disabled people have appointments outside their town, it's unfair to take away free travel

namloc1980 · 27-06-2020 9:48pm

combat14 wrote: »

cant understand the obsession with happily piling on even more national debt ....

we should be trying to build a national wealth fund instead ..... e.g. Norway's wealth fund:

It has over US$1 trillion in assets, including 1.4% of global stocks and shares, making it the world's largest sovereign wealth fund. In May 2018 it was worth about $195,000 per Norwegian citizen.

time to completely switch our focus from drowning in debt to actually building something proper for the country!

Norway have built that up from vast surplus revenue from oil. We don't have anything like that. Pie in the sky to think we could build up such a fund.

namloc1980 · 27-06-2020 9:50pm

Demonique wrote: »

I heard a rumour that they wanted to stop the free travel scheme for pensioners and disabled people, a lot of disabled people have appointments outside their town, it's unfair to take away free travel

It certainly needs to be reviewed. Over 1 million people have free travel - not sure how sustainable that is.

KyussB · 27-06-2020 10:08pm

Geuze wrote: »

While it's true that public debt to GDP is not very high, note that GDP is inflated by MNC activities.

A better denominator might be GNI* or GG revenues.

The NTMA make this point, see slides 30-35

Pur puvlic debt to GG revenue ratio is 5th highest in EU.

Is a link missing? Either way - Public Debt to GDP and Public Debt to GNI* don't take the composition of debt into consideration - especially that of negative interest rate debt.

Debt Ratio's are not an accurate comment on debt sustainability.

Reinhart and Rogoff's research on debt ratio's was also shown to rely on major statistical errors.

KyussB · 27-06-2020 10:13pm

Tell me how wrote: »

Aside from the level of debt, if there was an agreement within government to access more funding, where is it likely the demand would be that money is spent.

The healthcare system (record trolley numbers, extensive waiting lists, most expensive hospital in the world)
Housing (record homeless numbers, growing disenfranchised group who fear house ownership is beyond them)
Social Welfare (Most expensive dept, Covid-19 Cost explosion)

There is less than a zero chance of any sort of agreement amongst government or the electorate to fund green progression via massive borrowing while the above issues exist.

I'm not saying that investment is not going to be critical in meaningful progress, but this angle on the conversation is once again absolving parties outside of the Greens completely.

Those are reasons for massive borrowing to fund government spending, for resolving those issues.

Zero and negative interest rate bonds make this entirely affordable for the country...

efanton · 27-06-2020 10:22pm

KyussB wrote: »

Those are reasons for massive borrowing to fund government spending, for resolving those issues.

Zero and negative interest rate bonds make this entirely affordable for the country...

Can we kill the stupid argument.

Its this simple, whether you are for borrowing or against is irrelevant.

If we wanted to borrow billions tomorrow we simply cant. Not because we choose to, or choose not to, but because there are EU limits on what we are allowed to borrow and the banks and financial institutions simply will not lend to countries that they feel are borrowing beyond what they believe to to be sustainable.

The reason Ireland was able to borrow billions for Covid was that the EU relaxed the rules specifically for covid related spending. Had they not done that then Ireland would have been totally feck'd.

So why are you arguing for something that is not possible?

KyussB · 27-06-2020 10:22pm

combat14 wrote: »

cant understand the obsession with happily piling on even more national debt ....

we should be trying to build a national wealth fund instead ..... e.g. Norway's wealth fund:

It has over US$1 trillion in assets, including 1.4% of global stocks and shares, making it the world's largest sovereign wealth fund. In May 2018 it was worth about $195,000 per Norwegian citizen.

time to completely switch our focus from drowning in debt to actually building something proper for the country!

I can't understand the obsession with treating governments as if they run like households or businesses - they don't....

Would you like enormous numbers of people to remain unemployed for most of a decade? No? Then you need to use massive government borrowing - which, at present, comes at near-zero percent and even negative interest...

Norways wealth fund is basically their oil. If Ireland tried to tax its way into building such a fund, without massive amounts of oil like Norway has - that would crater our economy.

You don't seem to understand why you think Public Debt is a bad thing. The only judgement worth making, is whether or not Public Debt and expanding it, is sustainable. You have no argument for suggesting negative interest rate bonds are unsustainable - because they aren't, they are inherently a stable and sustainable way of expanding public spending.

KyussB · 27-06-2020 10:27pm

efanton wrote: »

Can we kill the stupid argument.

Its this simple, whether you are for borrowing or against is irrelevant.

If we wanted to borrow billions tomorrow we simply cant. Not because we choose to, or choose not to, but because there are EU limits on what we are allowed to borrow and the banks and financial institutions simply will not lend to countries that they feel are borrowing beyond what they believe to to be sustainable.

The reason Ireland was able to borrow billions for Covid was that the EU relaxed the rules specifically for covid related spending. Had they not done that then Ireland would have been totally feck'd.

So why are you arguing for something that is not possible?

I'm going to bold this, as it's the third time I've had to tell you: There are no EU limits on borrowing, those rules are suspended.

Do you understand?

The EU rules are also unenforceable - as all of Spain, Germany, France and Portugal have been given favourable treatment in breaching those rules - the rules have never been enforced, and to try to enforce them would trigger a fresh political/economic crisis in the EU.

Banks and financial institutions are being shoveled mouthfuls of negative interest rate money - they will extend as much money as they possibly can to government - as they know it is inherently a sustainable way of funding.

This discussion is never going away. This discussion is the no.1 most important thing in the entire Programme For Government, and is the reason the Greens suffered a huge backlash - so get used to it.

efanton · 27-06-2020 10:35pm

KyussB wrote: »

I can't understand the obsession with treating governments as if they run like households or businesses - they don't....

Would you like enormous numbers of people to remain unemployed for most of a decade? No? Then you need to use massive government borrowing - which, at present, comes at near-zero percent and even negative interest...

Norways wealth fund is basically their oil. If Ireland tried to tax its way into building such a fund, without massive amounts of oil like Norway has - that would crater our economy.

You don't seem to understand why you think Public Debt is a bad thing. The only judgement worth making, is whether or not Public Debt and expanding it, is sustainable. You have no argument for suggesting negative interest rate bonds are unsustainable - because they aren't, they are inherently a stable and sustainable way of expanding public spending.

Are you being deliberately thick, or is this some fantastically long trolling campaign.

Its not the general public that is 'treating governments as if they run like households or businesses' and its not politicians.

BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS are the ones that decide who they will lend money to, and all borrowing comes from them.
They treat governments like businesses because lending money to government is a business.

Its their money and they decide who and who not to lend to and at which rates.
When you have a few billion in your pocket you too can decide who you lend it it, until then your opinions or fanciful beliefs are totally and utterly irrelevant.

On top of that the EU has set limits on what each country can borrow. Want to change that then start writing letter to the ECB and EU autocrats.

KyussB · 27-06-2020 10:39pm

efanton wrote: »

Are you being deliberately thick, or is this some fantastically long trolling campaign.

Its not the general public that is 'treating governments as if they run like households or businesses' and its not politicians.

BANKS AND FINANCIAL INSTITUTIONS are the ones that decide who they will lend money to, and all borrowing comes from them.
They treat governments like businesses because lending money to government is a business.

Its their money and they decide who and who not to lend to and at which rates.
When you have a few billion in your pocket you too can decide who you lend it it, until then your opinions or fanciful beliefs are totally and utterly irrelevant.

On top of that the EU has set limits on what each country can borrow. Want to change that then start writing letter to the ECB and EU autocrats.

Banks and financial institutions are so desperate to lend the government money, that they lend it at near-zero and sometimes NEGATIVE rates of interest...

This indicates sky-high demand for government bonds among banks and financial institutions.

Government finances do not work like household/business finances, no matter how much you would like them to - and the government bond market doesn't determine whether or not they operate that way or not, either.

As I said - bolding again as this is the fourth time I have to tell you - the EU rules on borrowing are suspended - they are also unenforceable, and have NEVER been enforced, because favourable treatment has been given to breaching debt rules, to France, Germany, Spain and Portugal - and if they try to enforce those rules, it will trigger a fresh political/economic crisis in the EU.

efanton · 27-06-2020 10:40pm

KyussB wrote: »

I'm going to bold this, as it's the third time I've had to tell you: There are no EU limits on borrowing, those rules are suspended.

Gt it right there are rules but these have been suspended for the purpose of tackling Covid, and ONLY that purpose. That is the only reason a government can borrow beyond its borrowing limits.

Borrowing to build wind farms is not related in any way to tackling covid,

KyussB · 27-06-2020 10:42pm

efanton wrote: »

Gt it right there are rules but these have been suspended for the purpose of tackling Covid, and ONLY that purpose. That is the only reason a government can borrow beyond its borrowing limits.

Borrowing to build wind farms is not related in any way to tackling covid,

The rules are either active or they are not - and they are completely suspended right now.

The rules are also unenforceable - because (again the fifth time now...) all of France, Germany, Spain and Portugal have been given favourable treatment in breaching those rules - those rules have never been enforced, and never will be - it would trigger a fresh political/economic crisis in the EU, not to mention litigation due to past favourable treatment.

efanton · 27-06-2020 10:55pm

KyussB wrote: »

The rules are either active or they are not - and they are completely suspended right now.

The rules are also unenforceable - because (again the fifth time now...) all of France, Germany, Spain and Portugal have been given favourable treatment in breaching those rules - those rules have never been enforced, and never will be - it would trigger a fresh political/economic crisis in the EU, not to mention litigation due to past favourable treatment.

You seem to be living in you own little world.

Do you remember austerity, the bank bail out and the troika arriving in Ireland telling the government what it could and could not do, what was that if not the EU enforcing its rules?

I will have nothing more to do with this particular topic.

combat14 · 27-06-2020 10:58pm

KyussB wrote: »

The rules are either active or they are not - and they are completely suspended right now.

The rules are also unenforceable - because (again the fifth time now...) all of France, Germany, Spain and Portugal have been given favourable treatment in breaching those rules - those rules have never been enforced, and never will be - it would trigger a fresh political/economic crisis in the EU, not to mention litigation due to past favourable treatment.

ok so lets say there are absolutely no limits on borrowing and we dont ever have to have to pay it back, how much do you suggest we borrow with these no limit negative interest rate infinity loans?

20 trillion?

100 trillion?

or do you have something more modest in mind?

what precisely would you spend all this limitless money on?

Green Party wish list.

Comments