The Irish kick in the face to the EU is disgusting

ahal · 12-06-2011 08:49PM

later10 wrote: »

That worked for me now; thanks.

Those Pew catch values by fishing country are pretty explicit. Looking at the figures:

Christ, did you think about this all night?!

cavedave · 12-06-2011 08:55PM

Laminations

Your stuck in the ideas of neo-classical economics, the 1930s Samuelson stuff where economic theory was axiomatic and hinged on humans being rational actors

Does being a rational actor require you have free will? If anything to me it implies you do not.

For society to work you probably need to assume people have free will. If judges went "you murdered this person but that was inevitable given your background so punishing you would be unfair" it would be a pretty odd world.

You can require free will to avoid moral hazard problems. But again this is a question of how things should work rather than how they do.

Yahew · 12-06-2011 08:56PM

Laminations wrote: »

Prove it. Because that statement is not accurate at all, even debatable on metaphysical grounds - e.g. where is this 'mind' or where is the 'you' that owns this mind? Your stuck in the ideas of neo-classical economics, the 1930s Samuelson stuff where economic theory was axiomatic and hinged on humans being rational actors.

Actually, he wasn't. He was suggesting that people had minds of their own and didnt have to buy houses, while standard economic theory would suggest that low or negative real interest rates would cause asset bubbles, as people respond pavlovian-like to the stimulus. Not all of pre-Game Theory economic analysis is incorrect, and this one is correct.

later12 · 12-06-2011 09:05PM

Yahew wrote: »

So you are saying that the WSJ is misleading. That the "exposure to Ireland" is not to Irish banks but to banks in Ireland?

I am not suggesting that the WSJ is being misleading, I am saying thatit looks as though they are including the IFSC in their figures. Therefore, somebody who is not familiar with differentiating between the IFSC and the Irish covered institutions more specifically could be unduly shocked by those figures.

later12 · 12-06-2011 09:08PM

ahal wrote: »

Christ, did you think about this all night?!

No, just this morning. If anything, you got my hopes up that there was fishy gold to be had off Clew Bay. Alas, since the fishes are not going to save us, we shall have to go back to praying for the plain old black gold now.

dan_d · 12-06-2011 09:19PM

Are we discussing mind control, free will, fish or economics here??
I'm confused:o

Yahew · 12-06-2011 09:22PM

dan_d wrote: »

Are we discussing mind control, free will, fish or economics here??
I'm confused:o

/MindControl

Forget about the mindcontrol.

// Mindcontrol

Yahew · 12-06-2011 09:24PM

later10 wrote: »

I am not suggesting that the WSJ is being misleading, I am saying thatit looks as though they are including the IFSC in their figures. Therefore, somebody who is not familiar with differentiating between the IFSC and the Irish covered institutions more specifically could be unduly shocked by those figures.

Fair enough - however given that Scofflaws original link is still borked I am none the wiser on the real thing. However, the WSJ is not all that reputable these days.

end a eknny · 12-06-2011 09:36PM

the biggest mistake irish people made was joining the e.u the second biggest was joining the euro. of course its like everything else promise the irish a few pond and they would sell you their granny

feicim · 12-06-2011 10:15PM

CommuterIE wrote: »

They helped us along the way since the 70's to prosperity... the structural funds given to this country were unreal, hell they bailed us out now... yet you have a lot of inept and dam right stupid people now blaming the EU for our ills...

This is 125% bull****... the Irish got themselves into this mess by electing an incompetent government time and time again....

I think it is about time people in Ireland relise who is paying the ****ing bills right now! And shame on anybody who blames the EU for this mess... we had autonomy and we failed...

Unreal?? How much is that? 100 billion, 500 billion, 10 billion?

Any chance you can put a figure on this? You asked for a value of how much other EU members took out of Irish fishing waters, without giving any figures for your own claims, fair is fair:)

http://www.afloat.ie/blogs/island-nation/item/14806-giving-away-a-billion-from-the-sea/

the value of fish given to other EU states from irish waters was 1 billion last year (2010)

Edit: if this trend continues Ireland is gifting the EU 1 billion per year from Irish waters - forever and ever. Thats a whole lot of billions. the long term view on this is that Ireland will put much more into europe than it will take out. (Not to mention all of the profit that will be made by the EU in the form of interest on the "bailout".) The EU is set to do quite well from ireland.

In this light Ireland appears to be a serf for the EU lord...

JustinDee · 12-06-2011 10:15PM

Laminations wrote: »

Prove it. Because that statement is not accurate at all, even debatable on metaphysical grounds - e.g. where is this 'mind' or where is the 'you' that owns this mind? Your stuck in the ideas of neo-classical economics, the 1930s Samuelson stuff where economic theory was axiomatic and hinged on humans being rational actors. That's not the case and has been proven so.

Let's see how your 'mind of your own' is completely under your control. Don't think of an elephant. Wow, mind control!

Markets don't force consumption. Consumer must be willfully complicit. It doesn't work the other way round. If you can't grasp that then whatever else you're selectively googling is rather pointless, especially in the context that some are crazily suggesting poor beleaguered Paddy just had to borrow so much beyond means ... because it was there.

later12 · 12-06-2011 10:30PM

end a eknny wrote: »

the biggest mistake irish people made was joining the e.u the second biggest was joining the euro. of course its like everything else promise the irish a few pond and they would sell you their granny

If Ireland were not a member of the EU/Eurozone, our banks could still borrow relatively cheap money on the market during the global upturn. Iceland liberalised its interest rates in the 1980s and Icelandic banks showed the same sort of disregard for diligence as did Irish banks. I am not sure if you are suggesting that the Financial Regulator and the CBI would behave any differently if they were not in the Eurozone.

What do Iceland and Ireland have in common in this respect?

EU membership?
No

Eurozone membership?
No

Cheap Borrowings?
Poor regulatory standards?
Ineffective leadership from Government?
Yes
Yes
Yes

Icepick · 12-06-2011 10:37PM

feicim wrote: »

Unreal?? How much is that? 100 billion, 500 billion, 10 billion?

Any chance you can put a figure on this? You asked for a value of how much other EU members took out of Irish fishing waters, without giving any figures for your own claims, fair is fair:)

http://www.afloat.ie/blogs/island-nation/item/14806-giving-away-a-billion-from-the-sea/

the value of fish given to other EU states from irish waters was 1 billion last year (2010)

Edit: if this trend continues Ireland is gifting the EU 1 billion per year from Irish waters - forever and ever. Thats a whole lot of billions. the long term view on this is that Ireland will put much more into europe than it will take out. (Not to mention all of the profit that will be made by the EU in the form of interest on the "bailout".) The EU is set to do quite well from ireland.

In this light Ireland appears to be a serf for the EU lord...

€1billion worth of catch =/ €1billion cash, not even close

CJhaughey · 13-06-2011 12:40AM

Icepick wrote: »

€1billion worth of catch =/ €1billion cash, not even close

You are quite correct, after processing and added value the 1 billion of fish will probably be worth much more than 1 billion.

meglome · 13-06-2011 10:24AM

ahal wrote: »

The E.U. has done very well out of Ireland ... I read somewhere that for every €1 we got, they fished €7 out of our waters.

The last book I read has supernatural beings in it and as I read it, it must be true.

We must have gold covered fish given the numbers that some bandy about.

As I understand it these are the correct figures.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Here are the real figures, in millions of year 2000 dollars:

Year|Ireland|France|UK|Spain|Russia|Netherlands|Norway|Faeroe(Denmark)|Germany|Belgium|Latvia|Others|Total
1950|12.03|45.4|55.68|0|0|0|0|0|0|1.66|0|0|114.76
1951|9.79|50.24|64.93|0|0|0|0|0|0|1.05|0|0.01|126.02
1952|14.37|62.18|59.14|0|0|0.01|0|0|0|1.55|0|0.06|137.31
1953|15.53|47.35|56.18|6.12|29.35|0|0|0|0|0.95|3.14|3.19|161.8
1954|14.84|60.11|23.38|0|48.17|0|0|0|0|0.83|4.11|4.72|156.17
1955|19.48|71.44|43.88|0|55.52|0.81|0|0.01|0|3.32|4.8|5.73|204.98
1956|18.43|61.2|42.01|0|54.89|0.02|0|0|0|4.49|5.11|5.87|192.01
1957|16.12|62.34|32.36|0|36.71|0|0|0.06|8.47|6.13|4.86|6.02|173.07
1958|21.31|86.66|36.73|0|31.52|0.11|0|0|2.93|6.45|4.64|5.96|196.32
1959|23.26|84.01|31.94|0|34.22|1.24|0|0|1.99|4.21|5|6.65|192.53
1960|21.17|121.28|34.31|0|34.74|0.76|0|0|0.32|1.37|4.74|6.15|224.85
1961|20.99|78.1|26.48|0|35.34|1.01|0|0|0.23|3.02|3.61|4.62|173.4
1962|21.45|103.47|26.01|0|41.2|0.24|0|0|1.7|2.92|4.01|5.03|206.04
1963|22.19|104.44|26.84|0|36.89|1.52|0|0|0.25|1.66|4.84|5.94|204.57
1964|22.24|97.74|33.03|0|33.1|1.09|0|0|0.28|3.45|5.15|6.75|202.82
1965|23.67|110.98|31.49|32.48|25.77|1.43|0|0.37|0.36|4.16|5.02|6.41|242.14
1966|29.2|163.61|26.53|0|32.03|5.16|0|0|0.98|2.89|4.88|6.21|271.49
1967|30.22|87.1|29.92|0|36.43|6.76|0|0.97|0.96|2|4.51|5.6|204.48
1968|31.86|100.48|29.23|0|54.42|5.18|0|0|1.02|1.96|4.75|5.74|234.65
1969|36.71|116|30.68|0|67.96|4.93|0|0|1.98|2.05|4.78|5.75|270.85
1970|43.58|108.04|30.92|0|80.98|3.25|2.3|0|1.13|3.1|7.59|8.22|289.11
1971|44.78|104.54|31.48|0|104.36|3.8|9.57|0.92|0.04|2.76|8.24|10.67|321.16
1972|58.09|89.5|36.9|29.32|83.72|5.49|2.28|0|0.26|1.63|8.41|10.04|325.64
1973|34.86|117.97|47.9|136.42|22.28|5.43|5.45|0.94|1.08|3.19|2.63|4.81|382.97
1974|31.87|104.93|40.6|140.64|63.3|3.01|4.29|0.57|1.66|2.99|5.23|8.22|407.3
1975|31.29|93.85|33.56|174.21|131.27|6.8|0.39|0.23|2.35|2.29|8.25|14.44|498.92
1976|39.29|68.67|38.75|150.06|203.93|6.37|1.26|1.32|2.21|3.64|14.53|22.41|552.45
1977|36.39|53.7|42.41|40.41|18.41|6.82|0.63|1.59|2.67|2.73|1.71|4.77|212.24
1978|40.09|53.01|44.4|25.76|0|6.11|1.65|5.38|9.19|2.12|0|2.87|190.57
1979|43.43|54.28|41.76|31.34|0|6.34|3.23|4.09|4.54|2.08|0|3.76|194.87
1980|55.48|60.58|30.5|19.76|0|9.98|3.53|8.07|4.11|2.72|0|4.22|198.94
1981|67.49|111.72|42.69|25.53|0|18.4|5.34|0.42|4.11|3.96|0|2.79|282.45
1982|79.71|97.11|48.93|24.85|0|18.2|7.65|5.71|1.63|3.98|0|3.02|290.79
1983|77.27|107.91|35.22|25.41|0|21.3|8|5.92|3.34|3.86|0|3.46|291.71
1984|75.95|94.01|47.3|32.51|0|31.69|7.67|8.51|1.69|3.63|0|3|305.95
1985|85.94|78.04|50.34|35.05|0|9.74|8.25|8.17|1.76|3.65|0|2.59|283.52
1986|85.47|74.73|62.75|31.14|0|17.94|11.11|18.48|1.57|3.88|0|2.9|309.98
1987|99.72|66.5|78.44|38.64|0|8.57|9.41|29.67|2.57|2.32|0|2.7|338.55
1988|100.26|66.74|73.21|46.1|0|15.02|10.53|30.99|5.38|2.04|0|2.77|353.05
1989|104.36|95.29|56.65|54.64|0|11.88|15.59|36.08|5.27|3.35|0|2.25|385.37
1990|102.87|79.47|60.66|51.93|0|18.15|14.82|20.96|4.27|2.44|0|1.16|356.73
1991|105.09|58.54|63.13|60.55|0|19|5.37|3.96|4.42|1.24|0|1.16|322.46
1992|153.25|64.32|76.19|68.47|0|19.39|5.06|2.52|8.64|1.71|0|2.21|401.76
1993|155.2|67.45|74.07|71.86|0|27.71|6.55|4.33|11.55|2.09|0|1.46|422.27
1994|138.49|68.75|80.06|66.55|0|21.25|8.92|7.5|12.98|2.9|0|2.47|409.89
1995|157.79|83.43|74.96|77.67|0|22.76|10.52|4.22|8.26|3.75|0|5.77|449.13
1996|141.47|69.86|73.37|71.16|0.59|23.19|13.88|0.33|6.91|3.66|0|3.8|408.22
1997|168.29|80.09|82.45|109.1|0.89|30.73|11.27|1.17|4.6|3.88|0|2|494.45
1998|216.86|84.27|79.59|72.88|0.22|32.35|25.21|1.7|15.75|2.85|0|2.09|533.76
1999|204.95|74.88|78.81|66.53|1.32|20.98|10.99|5.48|8.64|2.69|0|2.2|477.45
2000|153.12|94.37|60.15|47.57|0|30.09|9.24|0|12.94|2.2|0|1.64|411.32
2001|160.66|81.57|61.79|42.73|0|44.4|8.21|0|12.98|2.59|0|2.25|417.19
2002|154.32|78.82|58.05|63.92|0|34.7|8.39|0|10.4|2.71|0|1.39|412.71
2003|191.39|75.44|54.54|79.97|0|43.43|17.38|0|9.55|2.86|0|1.16|475.73
2004|198.02|66.42|50|59.9|0|60.73|12|0|9.26|2.71|0|1.37|460.42
Total|3490.64|0|1843.23|2043.26|442.21|652.46|271.79|218.31|196.28|92.71|32.35|123.11|11933.12

Source

If we throw all of the "Other" category in as EU members, then the total amount of fish the other EU states have taken from our waters is $5.2bn since 1973, while we have had $3.5bn. Over the same period we've received probably close to another half a billion in funding for our fisheries, including the building of 5 out of our 8 existing fisheries protection vessels.

You're free to argue that even that is wrong, if you like, but what you're not free to do is pluck utterly ridiculous figures out of the air.

regards,
Scofflaw

meglome · 13-06-2011 10:31AM

end a eknny wrote: »

the biggest mistake irish people made was joining the e.u the second biggest was joining the euro. of course its like everything else promise the irish a few pond and they would sell you their granny

It's this kind of 'debate' that really gets my goat. We get a load of free money from the EU over €40 billion euro since 1973. We get some great workers protection laws and are required to make many more changes that we would have never got around to if we were left to our own devices. The EU have been a major force for good in this country but we blow our success on coke and hookers then whine when the EU get a bit tough on us.

Some people have this idea that a small resource poor country can actually be truly independent.

end a eknny · 13-06-2011 11:55AM

meglome wrote: »

It's this kind of 'debate' that really gets my goat. We get a load of free money from the EU over €40 billion euro since 1973. We get some great workers protection laws and are required to make many more changes that we would have never got around to if we were left to our own devices. The EU have been a major force for good in this country but we blow our success on coke and hookers then whine when the EU get a bit tough on us.

Some people have this idea that a small resource poor country can actually be truly independent.

sure some people lapped up th e.u money andvoted for the e.u at every oppourtunity and are now whinging they would get no sympathy from me. on the other hand i have voted against the e.u at every oppoutunity and will continue to do so. i would rather be a poor nation in control of are own future than to live off charity while being told what i can and cant do.

jmayo · 13-06-2011 01:35PM

CommuterIE wrote: »

They helped us along the way since the 70's to prosperity... the structural funds given to this country were unreal, hell they bailed us out now... yet you have a lot of inept and dam right stupid people now blaming the EU for our ills...

This is 125% bull****... the Irish got themselves into this mess by electing an incompetent government time and time again....

I think it is about time people in Ireland relise who is paying the ****ing bills right now! And shame on anybody who blames the EU for this mess... we had autonomy and we failed...

I think Einhard's post #12 is the best response.

Yes we got lots of grants from the EU, they helped drag our nation structurally and socially into the 20th century.
The EU or rather the EEC was great for Ireland.
We did give up our fishing grounds, but that doesn't come near to how much we got in return.
Even worse we never had bothered developing that resource that was sitting on our doorstep.

The mess created here in the construction/retail bubble was due to short term greedy vested interests (developers, bankers, builders, EAs, retailers, politicans and media) and very incompetent short term policies by an idiot government who wanted to stay in power and look after it's core supporters.
The banking meltdown was down to incompetence, greed and arrogance by bankers, regulators, civil servants and politicans.
The increased public spending based on the short term bubble and it's subsequent deficit is down to our inept government together with vested interests such as public service dominated unions.
Lots of people spent like children in a sweet shop, again that is their fault and not the fault of some EU institution, EU state or bureaucrat.
So none of the above is due to EU.

But and it's a very big but, the draconian so called bailout pushed on the Irish state and by extension the taxpayers is down to the EU.
We are being forced to take a high interest loan that we will never be able to repay bar we achieve high levels of growth which is highly impossible as we are all the while shrinking spending.
We are being constrained due to fact we can't drop our interest rates or devalue our currency.
Ok we did sign up to that, but the ECB should remember that it limits our flexibility.

The usual pro EU posters around here will say the EU/ECB are bailing us out and offering loans at lower rates than would be achieved on the markets.
That is akin to saying someone is helping a drowning man by throwing him a sponge.

The EU or ECB have prevented us from jettisoning some of the private sector debt that was turned into soverign debt by the recently departed ex minister of finance.

Added to that prominent EU member states are demanding that we sacrifice our corporation tax which is one of the few things keeping industry and employment in this country.
That is definitely kicking someone when they are down and seeing who is the prime mover in this is historically understandable.

We are carrying the can for inept lending and pathetic fiscal management both of our own indigenous banks and the banks of other countries that lent to them.
We are paying the bill for everyone and we are signing away our future to help keep project Euro afloat.
Will that be remembered when a probable two tier Europe exists in the future and we are the bottom of the second tier ?
Will it fook.

Thus I can perfectly understand how people are angry with the EU and ECB.

What I can't understand is the sycophancy indulged in by some of our pro EU posters and commentators.
I have come across some posters claiming we should be EU citizens first and foremost.
Look at grovelling title to this thread.

People should remember, even if they are ashamed at the moment of their nationality, that they are still Irish and this is their country.

If we have to indulge in viewing ourselves as an embarrassment and claim we should be ashamed well then look at the history or our so called friends who are our European colleagues, because in the shame stakes we are at the botom of the list.
We didn't inflict colonisalism on any other nation or peoples, we didn't inflict genocide on another race.

I am not proud of what our government(s), a big chunk of our so called commerical bodies and citizens got up to.
I have always strenously stated I, and my family, did not parttake in the frenzy and I will label anyone that says otherwise a liar.

Even if I am not proud it doesn't mean I become subservient to some masters in continental Europe and that I meekly dance to their tune.
I am not going to be a Quisling.

Scofflaw · 13-06-2011 01:41PM

The EU or ECB have prevented us from jettisoning some of the private sector debt that was turned into soverign debt by the recently departed ex minister of finance.

The ECB are the ones holding that line - and holding it in the face of opposition from the EU, particularly Germany. That's the thing about a politically independent central bank - they're politically independent.

On the plus side, from our point of view, they are the ones lending us the money to have a functioning banking system.

cordially,
Scofflaw

JustinDee · 13-06-2011 02:02PM

end a eknny wrote: »

i would rather be a poor nation in control of are own future than to live off charity while being told what i can and cant do.

Jeebus cripes. How old are you?

Laminations · 13-06-2011 02:13PM

meglome wrote: »

It's this kind of 'debate' that really gets my goat. We get a load of free money from the EU over €40 billion euro since 1973. We get some great workers protection laws and are required to make many more changes that we would have never got around to if we were left to our own devices. The EU have been a major force for good in this country but we blow our success on coke and hookers then whine when the EU get a bit tough on us..

Europe has undoubtedly been good to us over the years. But that doesn't excuse their treatment of Ireland now. And the money hasn't all flowed one way

from 1990 to 1995 the Irish economy grew by 5% per annum. And in the next five years it really took off, growing at more than 9% a year. Now, during this period when the Irish economy began to boom, net receipts from the EU fell back to 3% of GDP, while Ireland's payments to the EU budget rose from €360m euro in 1990 to €1,530m in 2000. Yet in 2000, receipts from the EU were actually 11% lower than in 1991

So if they've given us €40 bn, how much have we given them? And how much will we be giving them in interest from this current bailout loan?

Some Irish people sound like farmed heifers, afraid to complain about the likely possibility that they are about to be slaughtered as it'd seem rude to the farmer who has afterall provided them with grass all these years.

jmayo · 13-06-2011 02:53PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

The ECB are the ones holding that line - and holding it in the face of opposition from the EU, particularly Germany. That's the thing about a politically independent central bank - they're politically independent.

Then why not contenance quantitative easing and devalaution ?
Or maybe you should change that to Politically independent but not nation independent.

Scofflaw wrote: »

On the plus side, from our point of view, they are the ones lending us the money to have a functioning banking system.

Define functioning in this context for me please ?
Or do you consider zombie banks as being functioning entities ?

Scofflaw · 13-06-2011 03:10PM

Laminations wrote: »

Europe has undoubtedly been good to us over the years. But that doesn't excuse their treatment of Ireland now. And the money hasn't all flowed one way

So if they've given us €40 bn, how much have we given them?

€40bn is the balance. They've given us €60bn, we've given them €20bn. And we're still net beneficiaries.

Laminations wrote: »

And how much will we be giving them in interest from this current bailout loan?

Giving who, exactly? The EU is loaning us €22.5bn at interest of 5.7%, which makes €1.2825bn per year. The multilateral EFSF is loaning another €17.5, bilateral loans another €5bn. Interest there slightly higher @ 5.82% = €1.31bn a year. The latter isn't the EU, though.

In both those cases, though, that's money we would otherwise have borrowed from the markets, so we're only paying €225m and €252m per year over what we would have paid at our pre-bailout market interest rate.

Laminations wrote: »

Some Irish people sound like farmed heifers, afraid to complain about the likely possibility that they are about to be slaughtered as it'd seem rude to the farmer who has afterall provided them with grass all these years.

Alternatively, they may realise that the EU haven't suddenly become villains about to slaughter us, and that any such claim is kind of silly?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Laminations · 13-06-2011 03:31PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

€40bn is the balance. They've given us €60bn, we've given them €20bn. And we're still net beneficiaries.

Giving who, exactly? The EU is loaning us €22.5bn at interest of 5.7%, which makes €1.2825bn per year. The multilateral EFSF is loaning another €17.5, bilateral loans another €5bn. Interest there slightly higher @ 5.82% = €1.31bn a year. The latter isn't the EU, though.

In both those cases, though, that's money we would otherwise have borrowed from the markets, so we're only paying €225m and €252m per year over what we would have paid at our pre-bailout market interest rate.

Alternatively, they may realise that the EU haven't suddenly become villains about to slaughter us, and that any such claim is kind of silly?

cordially,
Scofflaw

I'm guessing our returns to the EU will continue for the life of our membership while their structural funds could be seen as start up capital to get Ireland up to speed. So I'd imagine the €40bn balance will be paid back in full and we will then become net contributors to the EU.

Of course having the loan facility that we have through the ECB is a valuable thing but it is not being fully recognised that we are borrowing money not just to save ourselves, we are borrowing to stop contagion and help save the EU. Many commentators have mentioned the unfair traatment of Ireland who have gone down the responsible route of attempting to repay, with little public strikes and unrest as compared to Greece. With talk of AAA rated European countries asset stripping us as collateral I don't think slaughter is a silly comparison, that's if you are mature enough to see I'm comparing actual slaughter with economic slaughter.

Scofflaw · 13-06-2011 03:38PM

jmayo wrote: »

Then why not contenance quantitative easing and devalaution ?
Or maybe you should change that to Politically independent but not nation independent.

Let's see - quantitative easing = inflation. ECB main priority = controlling inflation.

So, maybe just not independent of what they were set up to do.

jmayo wrote: »

Define functioning in this context for me please ?
Or do you consider zombie banks as being functioning entities ?

If they provide the facilities for people and businesses to make payments and transact business, which in turn enables operation of the domestic economy, then from the retail banking point of view, they're functioning. From the perspective of extending credit to businesses and individuals, they're impaired, but, again, still functioning.

The perspective from which they're "zombie banks" is as businesses in themselves. As far as most people are concerned, though, so what? If CIE require regular transfusions of money form the government, are they not, in that sense, a "zombie transport company"? You can still get a bus from here to Kildare, though, so you can equally well describe it as 'a functioning transport company', since it successfully carries out the operations that characterise a transport company - that is, transport. Similarly, the banks still carry out the functions most people want from a bank, and in that sense, they're very much functioning banks. And without ECB support, they wouldn't be.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 13-06-2011 03:51PM

Laminations wrote: »

I'm guessing our returns to the EU will continue for the life of our membership while their structural funds could be seen as start up capital to get Ireland up to speed. So I'd imagine the €40bn balance will be paid back in full and we will then become net contributors to the EU.

That would be the normal course of events. In much the same way, if you're poor in Ireland, you're a net beneficiary of the tax system - if you become rich, you're a net contributor. Can't have one without the other, after all. Mind you, the expected date for Ireland to become a historical net contributor is some time around 2100.

Laminations wrote: »

Of course having the loan facility that we have through the ECB is a valuable thing but it is not being fully recognised that we are borrowing money not just to save ourselves, we are borrowing to stop contagion and help save the EU.

I think the problem is that some contributors to the debate want to focus only on that point, as if we simply didn't need the bailout money, and wouldn't otherwise have borrowed it, never mind the ELA from the ECB.

Laminations wrote: »

Many commentators have mentioned the unfair traatment of Ireland who have gone down the responsible route of attempting to repay, with little public strikes and unrest as compared to Greece. With talk of AAA rated European countries asset stripping us as collateral I don't think slaughter is a silly comparison, that's if you are mature enough to see I'm comparing actual slaughter with economic slaughter.

Thing is, though, that we haven't been asset-stripped, nor would offering collateral be "asset-stripping" - unless of course we default, but even then, we would still have the same utilities, but under different ownership. And Greece has a much much tougher deal than us - their list of required privatisations is enormous, and should put the possibility (as it currently is) of liens on state assets in our case in perspective. Last time I looked they were implementing a retrospective tax on 2010 earnings - can you imagine that here?

Most of our austerity programme has nothing to do with our bailout - whether we had a bailout or not it would still be needed, because our enormous government deficit isn't the result of the bailout in any sense. Yes, we'll wind up paying a bit more in interest payments than we would have done had we been able to maintain market borrowing at rates equivalent to our pre-bailout rate, and assuming there's no interest rate reduction - but not much more, and our government had already tied the bank debts round our necks, and we were already running a deficit that was even larger than that, so we would have been borrowing that money anyway.

What Europe is primarily guilty of is, apparently, not simply giving us the money as a gift, no strings attached. Apparently, that's what should happen, because...well, because, you know, we're worth it. Or perhaps because that's what they've always done.

So, yes, slaughter is a very silly comparison. It's like claiming the hospital is "killing you" because you think their charges for emergency care are a bit too high.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Laminations · 13-06-2011 04:05PM

Scofflaw wrote: »

What Europe is primarily guilty of is, apparently, not simply giving us the money as a gift, no strings attached. Apparently, that's what should happen, because...well, because, you know, we're worth it. Or perhaps because that's what they've always done.

Nobody is arguing that. No one expects money for nothing but the fact that we are taking this money to plug holes that will greatly benefit Europe in terms of stopping contagion, people expect an appropriate and fair rate of interest (was the IMF suggesting ~3.5% and the ECB demanded more? I can be corrected on that). People expect Europe to help us in a non profligate way, as friends. And countries demanding assets as collateral from a state that is paying back private debt, when they are in a position to heavily influence our likelihood of default (as simply as through what they say as evidenced by Merkels plunging us into a shakier international confidence territory) is just wrong. We should offer the bondholders equity in our banks and that's all.

So, yes, slaughter is a very silly comparison. It's like claiming the hospital is "killing you" because you think their charges for emergency care are a bit too high.

cordially,
Scofflaw

No it's not the same at all. That comparison is very silly

later12 · 13-06-2011 04:10PM

I have to disagree with the previous two posters, jmayo and Scofflaw, on Quantitative Easing.

Quantitative easing has been practiced by the ECB. True, most of its work has been qualitative easing, but the ECB has increased its monetary liabilities and it has simultaneously bought up paper from governments and banks whose values are known to mismatch with those liabilities.. i.e. unlimited liquidity to the banking sector and sovereign bond purchasing on the secondary markets to artificially affect yield behaviour.

While it is not correct to say that the ECB has not engaged in Quantitative Easing, neither is it correct to say that engaging in quantitative easing would give rise to inflation. As we can see from the current practices of the ECB, there is a policy of both quantitative easing and monetary tightening (interst rate increases) that can, potentially, work well together.

Scofflaw · 13-06-2011 04:14PM

Laminations wrote: »

Nobody is arguing that.

People are indeed arguing that. I'm not saying they're necessarily sensible people.

Laminations wrote: »

No one expects money for nothing but the fact that we are taking this money to plug holes that will greatly benefit Europe in terms of stopping contagion, people expect an appropriate and fair rate of interest

Why is a lower rate than the market offers a fair rate? The market charges interest based on risk of default. We have a non-zero risk of default, which the market currently prices at 11%. The EU/EFSF/IMF are lending to us at a rate only about half that - how is that not a fair rate?

Laminations wrote: »

(was the IMF suggesting ~3.5% and the ECB demanded more? I can be corrected on that).

The IMF base rate is 3.7%, but there is a currency conversion cost, because the IMF lends in SDR. The resulting rate is about 5.7%, same as the others.

Laminations wrote: »

People expect Europe to help us in a non profligate way, as friends. And countries demanding assets as collateral from a state that is paying back private debt, when they are in a position to heavily influence our likelihood of default (as simply as through what they say as evidenced by Merkels plunging us into a shakier international confidence territory) is just wrong.

It was our government who took on that private debt - the lenders are lending us the money to meet an obligation our government took on. As to collateral, we don't know what that's for as yet - it can't be for the money we already have, because it's not part of that deal. Security should buy lower interest rates, and it's another option for us.

We have a risk of default, and if we default at this stage, we default on their dime, and they are the people who don't get paid back. They're already absorbing half our default risk for nothing, what more do you want?

Laminations wrote: »

We should offer the bondholders equity in our banks and that's all.

You're confusing the bondholders with the bailout lenders?

Laminations wrote: »

No it's not the same at all. That comparison is very silly

I said it first...

cordially,
Scofflaw

meglome · 13-06-2011 04:30PM

end a eknny wrote: »

sure some people lapped up th e.u money andvoted for the e.u at every oppourtunity and are now whinging they would get no sympathy from me. on the other hand i have voted against the e.u at every oppoutunity and will continue to do so. i would rather be a poor nation in control of are own future than to live off charity while being told what i can and cant do.

I don't agree with everything about the EU however I do clearly see them as a force for good. I appreciate that this country would be far worse without them, even with the disaster we created for ourselves more recently.

We dug this hole we're in, the shovels may have been supplied cheaply from the EU but those shovels would have just come from somewhere else if not from the EU. It's what we did with them that was the problem.

The kind of 'sovereignty' that some people want doesn't exist in the real world and certainly not in a small resource poor country like Ireland. I'll call my father now and tell him that he was better off without the EU back when he had no shoes and minimal food. I'm sure he'll remember the good ole days with fondness.

Laminations wrote: »

Europe has undoubtedly been good to us over the years. But that doesn't excuse their treatment of Ireland now. And the money hasn't all flowed one way

So if they've given us €40 bn, how much have we given them? And how much will we be giving them in interest from this current bailout loan?

Some Irish people sound like farmed heifers, afraid to complain about the likely possibility that they are about to be slaughtered as it'd seem rude to the farmer who has afterall provided them with grass all these years.

What Scofflaw said...

Scofflaw wrote: »

€40bn is the balance. They've given us €60bn, we've given them €20bn. And we're still net beneficiaries.

Giving who, exactly? The EU is loaning us €22.5bn at interest of 5.7%, which makes €1.2825bn per year. The multilateral EFSF is loaning another €17.5, bilateral loans another €5bn. Interest there slightly higher @ 5.82% = €1.31bn a year. The latter isn't the EU, though.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Most of our austerity programme has nothing to do with our bailout - whether we had a bailout or not it would still be needed, because our enormous government deficit isn't the result of the bailout in any sense. Yes, we'll wind up paying a bit more in interest payments than we would have done had we been able to maintain market borrowing at rates equivalent to our pre-bailout rate, and assuming there's no interest rate reduction - but not much more, and our government had already tied the bank debts round our necks, and we were already running a deficit that was even larger than that, so we would have been borrowing that money anyway.

What Europe is primarily guilty of is, apparently, not simply giving us the money as a gift, no strings attached. Apparently, that's what should happen, because...well, because, you know, we're worth it. Or perhaps because that's what they've always done.

This sums up an awful lot of the issue for me. There's a lot of crying and finger-pointing when really we need to be taking a long hard look at ourselves.

The Irish kick in the face to the EU is disgusting

Comments