Dublin - Metrolink (Swords to Charlemont only)

Economics/Economic policy isn't relevant to planning and managing an economy, only 'basic accounting' and 'brutal arithmetic'? Are you aware of just how ignorant a statement that is? Lessons learned from the great recession led to an entire sea change in economics, with even entites like the IMF (renowned for being fiscal hawks) accepting that intelligent deficit spending is generally a better way to approach a cyclical deficit in a recession

What are you talking about? Why are you conflating with 'funds targeting infrastructure in member states' with 'funds targeting infrastructure in member states but actually being used to cover the general deficit'? They are completely different things and you're just showing you don't even have a basic understanding of how economies, economics, or government spending works.

The EU had a broad range of investment plans such as the European fund for strategic investments (which allowed for member states to breach the Stability and Growth pact in any EFSI investments), the European Economic Recovery Plan, the European Investment Bank. All of these promoted long-term infrastructural projects. There were also funds targeting 'green' infrastructure (esp. in the area of energy).

Separately, by 2013 when we were allowed to return to the bond markets, our 10 year yields had declined to below 4% and continued to decline until they reached negative rates.

So, you're not aware of the programs, but you know how the programs operate? How is their 'running on a cycle' relevant when they're funding specific infrastructure projects? You don't expect infrastructural spending to be anything but time limited since, duh, they're building specific pieces of infrastructure. Also no, the cycle wasn't 2009-2015. What became the current InvestEU started off in 2013 as the EFSI.

Regardless, an infrastructure fund that operated between e.g. 2009-2015, would still fund a project that took up until 2020 to finish. That's so obvious that I'm generally astounded that it needs to be stated.

It wasn't 'crazy', but it was bad. Almost the entire field of economics largely agreed with that by 2012ish. Even at the time, more economists than not advised intelligent deficit spending. Also, obviously, spending more on infrastructure will reduce unemployment and is certainly a better medium-long term 'investment' than social spending - even if one agrees that you need to cut the latter to fund the former (which you don't).

It's also a popular myth that the amount of spending cuts we enacted was forced upon us by external entities. They weren't.

I was in college because my job ended due to the recession. I was also a mature student self-funding myself through it. Don't be so ignorant.

While it might belong there, you clearly don't. You clearly don't know anything about economics or the economic history of the EU/Ireland fiscal crisis, but you're pontificating on it anyway. Why are you mistaking your 'opinions' for 'knowledge'?

Here's the basic economic argument for building infrastructure during a cyclical recession:

1) During a recession is generally the cheapest time to build (due to depressed input costs)

2) Infrastructure spending generates two types of return; a) immediate returns in terms of increased economic activity (and therefore increased employment) & b) long term returns due to the nature of the infrastructure itself, whether educational, transport, energy or some other sort

3) a+b are greater than the total cost (including interest and opportunity costs) of the infrastructure itself. a+b are generally an order of magnitude larger, but the returns are over a longer period of time

4) The economy will eventually return to growth, and this growth will outpace the growth of existing debt

There is overwhelming evidence for all these things. Yet we built almost nothing, we now have the highest construction costs we've ever had, our national debt is still growing and we are infrastructurally bankrupt vis-a-vis education, sustainable transport, property and energy when considering the size of our economy.

Here's a micro example of how the 'slavish desire' to cut spending had long-term ramifications: https://www.irishtimes.com/news/environment/dublin-bus-refused-funding-for-trial-of-hybrid-buses-1.2510039 for the sake of €1million, the decarbonisation of our bus fleet was set back by over 4 years.

This is a perfect example. No external entity signed off on government budgets. As part of the bailout, we proposed targets and the IMF/EU Commission monitored our performance - but they had no input on our budgets and there was no enforcement (or stick) as to if we deviated from the targets and budgets that we set.

Here's what the IMF official in charge of the EU-IMF bailout of Ireland had to say (Ajai Chopra):

As an example, Ireland left the excessive deficit procedure in 2013. Spain remained in it until 2019, because they didn't cut their spending as quickly. Was Spain punished? Nope.

I also explicitly stated that the IMF has come around to deficit spending since then, but you're disingenuously changing my arguments and then claiming they're daft.

Anyway, this has dragged the discussion faaaaaar off topic. I just dislike people authoritatively peddling false information that can be corrected with a google search. A topic like infrastructure deserves far better than that given the level of spending and the long-term ramifications or building (and especially, not building!)