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

‘OCCUPY Wall Street’ protestors on Dame Street

1…1415171920…25

Comments

  • #482
    Hayte
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 485 ✭✭Hayte


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    The problem there is this - if a society has not defined something as a crime before the fact, then anyone committing that act has no case to answer after the fact.

    The Irish public for over a decade accepted a government that was publicly known to be soft on white-collar crime (see the ODCE saga), and treated that attitude on the part of the government as either a trivial issue, or as a reasonable part of a "business-friendly" strategy. The Irish public cannot therefore reasonably call for punishment after the fact.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    "The Irish public" is not a completely homogeneous entity that has an adhesion like contract with its elected representatives. Nevertheless, Irish citizens absolutely can call for punishment after the fact.

    Politics in this country is incredibly opaque and for the last decade has had a frankly unhealthy relationship with construction and financial industry insiders in now infamous private forums as the FF Galway Races tent. There is no public register of lobby groups, and the language of legislation is thick with idiosyncrasy and jargon.

    I would even go so far as to say that it is for the most part incomprehensible to anyone who doesn't have a legal background because the legislature isn't designed to be read like a book or by a layman. It is designed to be consulted in the event that you have or anticipate a legal problem.

    I cannot in good faith hold any citizen responsible for failing to understand the creation and application of policy in this country. You have to expend an enormous amount of effort to even learn the language of politics and law before you can even begin to translate this f**ked up language into actions taken in your own name. We traditionally relied upon the integrity of our elected representatives and an independent media to expose wrong doing but in recent years it appears as if both have a price and both can be bought.

    Over the past 5 years I have spent a substantial amount of time in the High Court and am lucky enough to be paid to see the wheels of our Judiciary turning. One thing I note is that our Judges for the most part take great pains to ensure that the law is accessible to laymen, because it is our system and it was made to protect us. They are very lenient on lay litigants and will take the time to explain the process and to ensure matters of form are made clear to people who cannot be expected to know better.

    I wish more people in this country had the time in their daily lives to see this. I think however that our legislature and our politicians are far less transparent in their dealings.


  • #483
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    ....We're not, we're calling it Occupy Dame Street..... :D



    I've said it about a bajillion times here already, it signifies the social clique which dictates government policy and comes before everyone else. If Ireland was the Titanic and the government were the crew, the 1% are those who have the VIP lifeboats with buckets of legroom in which you could fit 20 other people, and who get instant access while everyone else has to queue and has no guarantee of actually getting into one before the ship goes down.



    Again, I've gone over this already. I'm not repeating myself again. Read back maybe 3-4 pages if you're using the standard page view.
    I've read the thread start to finish and I'm yet to see real, achievable or thought-out goals.

    Certainly, you may have them... but the Occupy Dame Street movement as a whole seems to be underpants gnome logic at its finest.


  • #484
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,364 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I've read the thread start to finish and I'm yet to see real, achievable or thought-out goals.

    Certainly, you may have them... but the Occupy Dame Street movement as a whole seems to be underpants gnome logic at its finest.

    I am still waiting on a list of aims/goals

    The the rhetoric we are hearing from this lot is confusing, non focused and in some cases contradicting.

    They are comparing themselves to Arab Spring etc but all of those protesters have very clear aims and uniting goals, neither did any of them live in the oldest democracy of modern europe.


  • #485
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Here's my issue with this argument. It could be that you believe in what I'm about to say too and just aren't mentioning it, in which case I take back the following. But why attack the "sacred cows" of social welfare and PS pay, but not the "sacred cows" of bank bondholders, executives, golden circles, etc?

    I believe that the problems we are having with our finances would have happened anyways, the banks, golden circle et al. were merely the tipping point. They precipitated the problem sooner that it would have otherwise happened. They weren't the sole cause, as much as many people would like to paint it that way.

    The reason that so many people are willing to accept this is so that they can salve their own consciences and allow them to delude themselves by saying "I didn't contribute to the mess we're in". I've some news for these people:
    It doesn't matter that it wasn't intentional but everyone that bought so little as a pint of milk over the past 15 or so years participated in creating the mess we are in now.

    How I hear you cry?

    It's simple, every economy is driven by money (even the communist ones, which have thriving black/grey markets). In order to get into the Euro we can do harmonize interest rates across the Eurozone counties before 1/1/1999 (when the Euro currency came into force). This process started in 97/98 and interest rates dropped from over 6% to about 3%, meaning that cash was more easily available. Which meant that people borrowed more & spent this money on things like new cars (supported by the 1st scrappage scheme) and buying properties that were now affordable because their wages were rising.

    We should have went into recession about 10 years ago when the tech bubble burst, but the construction industry had taken off at that stage and everybody wanted a bit of the action. It was a chance for farmers & landowners (e.g. farmers that were no longer farming) to set themselves up for life. As the economy expanded, the population boomed, so we actually needed a whole lot of new dwellings to be built.

    The construction industry ended up underpinning the entire economy, eventually undermining it. Why did this happen? We the people allowed it to, through being willing to pay through the nose for properties (buy or rent, doesn't matter).
    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    In my view, that elite is far MORE directly responsible for the mess we're in than the PS or people on welfare although I think all three need to come down. But that's the issue I have with it. Some people on social welfare are vulnerable and do need some support. No one who earned a six figure salary for the hard work of running a bank into the ground and then scarpering with the spoils when things got ugly can be described either as vulnerable or in need. By all means, reduce PS pay and reduce social welfare if it must be done - but not before every penny corrputly spent on gangsters is either recovered, or the perpetrators punished.

    You still don't get it, even without the banking debts, we're still paying out far more than we're getting in. Here's an example: SW increased massively during the boom. In 2006 the spend was €7.1 billion. In 2008 it was €9.4 billion - this was before we started seeing the rise in unemployment. In 3 years there was a 32% increase in SW payments. In 2010 that figure was €13.1 billion (PAYE was over 14). Since 2003 current expenditure has increased by 60% (from about €30 billion to €48 billion)

    As for the hard work of "running a bank into the ground", grow up. Nobody set out to do that.

    While I do have a problem with the collection of bonuses etc they were legal so not a lot can be done. I believe that the main reason they are not being pursued is the can of worms it will open in employment law. What you are proposing is that an employer should be allowed to withold something that a worker is entitled to under contract. This will effectively make employment law null & void becuase employers will be under no obligation to pay workers a wage for their work.
    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Ironically, I almost misspelled "perpetrators" as "perpetraitors".
    I kinda wish I'd left the typo in there.

    Good job you didn't. It's childish, unhelpful and undermines your argument.
    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    [quoteI was under no illusion that FG & Lab would have to roll back on their promises because they were so blatantly aimed at buying the election. All the focus on the banks etc while not looking at the 12.5 billion current deficit (which does not include payments on national debt - that only added about 6.1 billion to the deficit).

    And do you regard that as acceptable? Buying the election? Making false promises solely for the purpose of committing electoral fraud? In my view, this is precisely the kind of thing which needs to be stamped out before we can call ourselves a democracy.[/quote]

    Electoral fraud is rigging an election, so be very careful because that statement is slander and libel.
    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Oh and don't give me the "it would fall apart if Politicians were requiredto keep their promises". Everyone who throws that one at me is missing a crucial piece of the puzzle - no one FORCES any politician to make promises. Can't keep it? Don't MAKE it in the first place.

    I do not expect that every election promise will be kept, as we can't see into the future so we don't know what changes might happen. E.g. make a promise to extend a school in Ballygobackwards, but don't because somebody finds some rare bog cotton on the land beside the school and objects to planning permission (while the neighbours scrounge a couple of gallons of petrol from the objector's car to remove the cause of the objection) preventing it from being built. Things change over the lifetime of governments.

    I was realistic, the politicians weren't, so now it appears that I'm in the wrong for (a) not believing them and (b) being content that my estimate of what was going to happen has turned out to be far more accurate than the promises. I'm not going to hold them accountable to things that I didn't believe were practical in the first place.

    Am I satisfied with government performance?
    Is there a kinda option?

    Do I think they're doing a bad job?
    No not really, it's roughly going along the lines I expected. From the surveys (which are generally accurate, see press coverage of the last elections) a lot of the population are of a similar opinion.
    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    See Eamonn Gilmore's pathetic false statements over Lisbon, made, as revealed by Wikileaks, "for political reasons". It's disgusting. I wouldn't have given him any number on my ballot paper if I'd known about that prior to the election, as it happened I gave him my second preference. :(

    Please feel guilty over backing Gilmore, but not for lying over Lisbon or whatever you're referring to.

    Instead let it be for his role in undermining the economy through his support of the unions and his refusal to comment on just how bad a deal for the private sector the croke park agreement is (which freezes pay for PS workers, meaning that we have to increase taxes to pay for it).

    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but the scandals in the banks came out in 2008, didn't they? After that election.
    How many people would have voted different if those secrets had been aired earlier?

    They didn't come out before the election, but then if the media reporting is to be believed the big problems happened after that election (transfers between anglo & the other banks to make balance sheets look good etc).
    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Yet another case for leaks and transparency.

    You're looking at things with perfect hindsight, which means revisionism. The problem with revisionism is that it's biased. The tent in Ballybirt is about as transparent as it gets, hell you could walk in and annoy frankeen on front of bertie about why the GCOB wasn't being built yet. In keeping with the revisionism bit, before 2007 it was seen as a quaint fundraiser but since 2009 it's the spawn of Satan.

    In the further interests of transparency it's been pointed out often enough that FF (successfully) attempted to buy elections with the people's own money. It'd be remiss of me not to point out to the revisionists that FG & Labour have tried this in the past - that they failed is irrelevant.


  • #486
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Hayte wrote: »
    "The Irish public" is not a completely homogeneous entity that has an adhesion like contract with its elected representatives. Nevertheless, Irish citizens absolutely can call for punishment after the fact.

    They can certainly call for it, but that doesn't make it justice. How can anyone know what is legal and what is not if they can be punished after the fact for something that wasn't a crime at the time?
    Hayte wrote: »
    Politics in this country is incredibly opaque and for the last decade has had a frankly unhealthy relationship with construction and financial industry insiders in now infamous private forums as the FF Galway Races tent. There is no public register of lobby groups, and the language of legislation is thick with idiosyncrasy and jargon.

    I would even go so far as to say that it is for the most part incomprehensible to anyone who doesn't have a legal background because the legislature isn't designed to be read like a book or by a layman. It is designed to be consulted in the event that you have or anticipate a legal problem.

    I cannot in good faith hold any citizen responsible for failing to understand the creation and application of policy in this country. You have to expend an enormous amount of effort to even learn the language of politics and law before you can even begin to translate this f**ked up language into actions taken in your own name. We traditionally relied upon the integrity of our elected representatives and an independent media to expose wrong doing but in recent years it appears as if both have a price and both can be bought.

    Over the past 5 years I have spent a substantial amount of time in the High Court and am lucky enough to be paid to see the wheels of our Judiciary turning. One thing I note is that our Judges for the most part take great pains to ensure that the law is accessible to laymen, because it is our system and it was made to protect us. They are very lenient on lay litigants and will take the time to explain the process and to ensure matters of form are made clear to people who cannot be expected to know better.

    I wish more people in this country had the time in their daily lives to see this. I think however that our legislature and our politicians are far less transparent in their dealings.

    On the whole, I agree with that. Keeping up with the process of legislative creation is a full-time and quite demanding job, and the Irish system is pretty opaque.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • #487
    antoobrien
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Somebody linked this over in the 1% thread.

    Unlike a lot of the rhetoric that ha been spewed forth, this makes (a scary kind of) sense.

    Occupy grandma's house
    THE trouble with being a rebel without a cause is that people tend to project their causes on you. That seems to be the case with Occupy Wall Street (and its many local offshoots). The movement has gotten a great deal of attention, despite the absence of a clear objective, gripe or solution. Perhaps that’s what’s so fun about the movement; OWS allows everyone to make it about their favourite villain. For some, that's capitalism; for others, just the parts of capitalism they don’t like. Others get their kicks targeting the protestors. The popular interpretation of OWS is that its an outgrowth of class war: the 99% taking on the 1% who have all the wealth. It's rarely productive for one group of citizens to fight another over resources, because the game is so rarely zero-sum. But if I may be so presumptuous (pretty much everyone else is, so why not me?), I’d suggest that rather than singling out Wall Street fat cats for taking too much of the pie, the protestors look closer to home. Maybe they should look to their parents and grandparents.

    A large part of the frustration downtown is probably driven by the fact that young people feel they've gotten a bad deal. The unemployment rate for those under 25 is 17.1%. There's evidence the recession will impact their wages for decades. But to some degree the trouble goes beyond current economic conditions. Some future economic problems are structural and much of the blame can be placed on older workers. Older generations aren't necessarily themselves to blame; shifting demographics and the current phase of globalisation mean there’s a chance many young people today will not enjoy the rise in prosperity their parents and grandparents did. The bill for pensions and retiree health care are set to take an increasing share of GDP, which means that fewer resources will go towards the young and their children. Spending fewer resources on capital that benefits current and future workers can have negative consequences for long-term growth.

    Liabilities for state and local pensions are probably much larger than people realise, and the shortfall will likely come out of the pockets of the young and future workers. Or, as we’ve seen in places like Vallejo, California, savings will be achieved at the cost of fewer of the services used by the entire population. Buttonwood recently pointed out that any pension, even funded ones, is really a claim on future workers’ output. These claims are rising rapidly.

    Another reason OWS may want to shift their focus is that the elderly (or at least the their most effective lobbby, the AARP) has declared war on them. Retirees recently marched on Washington demanding that Social Security and Medicare cuts not be included in any debt proposal. Yet, who is proposing that existing benefits be cut? Social Security benefits were actually just increased 3.6%, as part of the annual cost of living adjustment. If you read the fine print in most proposals I’ve seen, substantial benefit cuts affect people set to retire at least ten years from now and would have little impact on current or soon-to-be retirees. Is that what they’re protesting? AARP has historically fought any future benefit cuts (though recently they have changed tone and taken a controversial decision to be more open to the idea—as yet they have not endorsed any plan that involves benefit cuts), which implies that they’re counting on more revenue from future tax payers. They won’t even endorse raising the retirement age on future retirees. Recent history suggests that each new cohort lives longer than the last, so this means that each generation gets a longer retirement, while its children get stuck with a progressively bigger bill. Resistance among seniors to even engage in a serious discussion about entitlements makes reform poltically difficult. This is delays decisions, which makes the solution more expensive still for future taxpayers and retirees.

    It seems ironic to me that retirees are marching on Washington as their grandchildren protest, concerned about their economic future. America and Europe are long overdue for entitlement reform precisely because the elderly are great at mobilising and wielding their political power. I suggest the OWS youth use this opportunity do the same.


  • #488
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Did it ever occur to you that the choice on offer in both countries is dismal? In the United States they are asked to choose between two parties. Both are, to my mind, an abomination. I wouldn't be caught dead voting for either. What are those with this view supposed to do? The party system itself is profoundly democratic, as evidenced by the UK's EU referendum vote. The MPs were not representing the people's wishes when they rejected it, they were representing their party leadership's wishes. That is not democracy.
    Squatting in a tent demanding democracy is pointless if three-quarters of your peers can't be bothered even to vote.

    I'm going to vote tomorrow, for Michael D.
    I know three friends who aren't voting. And it's not because they "can't be bothered". It's because they regard absolutely all of the candidates as a joke, and the method used to select candidates as a joke. And I don't blame them.


  • #489
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    They can certainly call for it, but that doesn't make it justice. How can anyone know what is legal and what is not if they can be punished after the fact for something that wasn't a crime at the time?

    Fiddling your company's accounts isn't a crime? Lending money from a company for people to buy shares in that company and artificially inflate the share price isn't a crime?
    News to me. :confused:
    On the whole, I agree with that. Keeping up with the process of legislative creation is a full-time and quite demanding job, and the Irish system is pretty opaque.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    So what would YOU propose to open it up? You're opposed to movements like Wikileaks for example, how would you force transparency on people who's natural instinct seems to be talking utter sh!te, anything but the actual truth?


  • #490
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Worst straw man EVER.

    I'm talking specifically about investment here. Why is this so hard for you to grasp?
    If I walk into a bookies and make a bet on a horse, and that horse doesn't win, do I expect the Irish taxpayer to pay me back? WOULD the Irish taxpayer pay me back if I asked them to?

    Replace "bookies" with "investment bank" and "horse" with "bond", and suddenly the Irish taxpayer WILL be forced to repay you.

    That's not equality. If we bail out some speculators we bail out all of them, otherwise we're playing favourites. Croneyism. Bailouts for buddies.
    Do you think Anglo would have been rescued if the people who had stakes in it weren't personal friends of FF's leadership?

    Furthermore, the most vulnerable in our society need help to survive.

    There's a difference between needing help to survive and needing help to fund your helicopter refuellings.

    People who make six figure salaries and were directly responsible for the practises which led to the crash can well afford to contribute to fixing it, and should be asked to contribute far more than anyone else.

    It's their mess. Not yours. Not mine. If we're going down and they're not, it's like, as I said in another topic, the people who crashed the Titanic having a VIP lifeboat to get away on while their passengers drown due to their folly. It's disgusting on every possible level.


  • #491
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I've read the thread start to finish and I'm yet to see real, achievable or thought-out goals.

    Certainly, you may have them... but the Occupy Dame Street movement as a whole seems to be underpants gnome logic at its finest.

    Holding people to account isn't a thought out goal? Seeing justice served isn't a thought out goal? Forcing those who caused the problem to clean it up rather than passing the buck to innocent people like you and me isn't a thought out goal?

    Strange, because I've been thinking it out ever since the last government refused to name and shame the Golden Circle.


  • Advertisement
  • #492
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,396 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Holding people to account isn't a thought out goal? Seeing justice served isn't a thought out goal? Forcing those who caused the problem to clean it up rather than passing the buck to innocent people like you and me isn't a thought out goal?

    Strange, because I've been thinking it out ever since the last government refused to name and shame the Golden Circle.
    No, they're vague and simple catchphrases with little to no substance or meaning.


  • #493
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Fiddling your company's accounts isn't a crime? Lending money from a company for people to buy shares in that company and artificially inflate the share price isn't a crime?
    News to me. :confused:

    If there's a case to answer on those there's a case to answer - and if not, not. Believing them to be the case is neither here nor there.
    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    So what would YOU propose to open it up? You're opposed to movements like Wikileaks for example, how would you force transparency on people who's natural instinct seems to be talking utter sh!te, anything but the actual truth?

    Er, I'm a regular Wikileaks reader and donor. Put down the black paint for a moment.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • #494
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    No, they're vague and simple catchphrases with little to no substance or meaning.

    Holding people to account for their actions is a vague catchphrase?

    What more do you want? Can I put it a different way then:

    Those who committed actions which broke the rules, must face the consequences for breaking those rules.
    Those whose actions, whether illegal or illegal directly led to many of the problems, should bear the heaviest cost of fixing those problems.
    Those who lied, made corrupt and deliberately dishonest decisions, or put their friends before the rest of the nation, must also be held to account and penalized for it.

    This is not about revenge. It's about utterly destroying the concept of power as it stands, to make sure that no government will ever DARE to behave in this manner ever, ever again. The people run this. This is a republic. Those who we elect to represent us better actually represent us or they can get the hell out of their offices.


  • #495
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    If there's a case to answer on those there's a case to answer - and if not, not. Believing them to be the case is neither here nor there.

    And if so, WHEN will it be answered? When will it even be investigated? When will we actually see action being taken against these individuals by the state?
    Er, I'm a regular Wikileaks reader and donor. Put down the black paint for a moment.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw

    O_O :eek:

    Whoa, who am I thinking of then? I could've sworn it was you who defended governments keeping policy secrets and lying to the public about them? It was definitely a mod in either Politics or European Union, my profoundest apologies if it wasn't you. Seriously... That's a major screwup on my part if I am in fact wrong. :o


  • #496
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    antoobrien wrote: »
    I believe that the problems we are having with our finances would have happened anyways, the banks, golden circle et al. were merely the tipping point. They precipitated the problem sooner that it would have otherwise happened. They weren't the sole cause, as much as many people would like to paint it that way.

    Where did I say they were the sole cause? Reckless lending was the main cause - still not the sole cause. But they WERE largely responsible for the collapse in Anglo's share price and the eventual collapse of the bank, which is why its €60bn in debts is now our responsibility to sort out.
    The reason that so many people are willing to accept this is so that they can salve their own consciences and allow them to delude themselves by saying "I didn't contribute to the mess we're in". I've some news for these people:
    It doesn't matter that it wasn't intentional but everyone that bought so little as a pint of milk over the past 15 or so years participated in creating the mess we are in now.

    How I hear you cry?

    It's simple, every economy is driven by money (even the communist ones, which have thriving black/grey markets). In order to get into the Euro we can do harmonize interest rates across the Eurozone counties before 1/1/1999 (when the Euro currency came into force). This process started in 97/98 and interest rates dropped from over 6% to about 3%, meaning that cash was more easily available. Which meant that people borrowed more & spent this money on things like new cars (supported by the 1st scrappage scheme) and buying properties that were now affordable because their wages were rising.

    We should have went into recession about 10 years ago when the tech bubble burst, but the construction industry had taken off at that stage and everybody wanted a bit of the action. It was a chance for farmers & landowners (e.g. farmers that were no longer farming) to set themselves up for life. As the economy expanded, the population boomed, so we actually needed a whole lot of new dwellings to be built.

    The construction industry ended up underpinning the entire economy, eventually undermining it. Why did this happen? We the people allowed it to, through being willing to pay through the nose for properties (buy or rent, doesn't matter).

    I accept all that as a large part of the cause, however I have serious issues with it:

    1. It was government policy which helped to fuel this - government policy driven by jobs for the boys and friends helping friends. You can't deny that many of FFs actions in power were straight up corruption - doing things which affect the entire nation for the benefit of their political clique.

    2. It was banking policy which allowed subprime lending to reach the insane levels it did. Where the hell was the regulator? Why was this allowed? Why weren't the people whose job it was to oversee the banks, not actually doing their jobs?

    3. Not everyone is an economist. Not everyone knows how these bubbles work - I must admit I didn't until after it happened and I read up on how it all happened. The regulators (and indeed those who run the financial system) do. They are there to oversee and control it, and they chose not to do so.
    You still don't get it, even without the banking debts, we're still paying out far more than we're getting in. Here's an example: SW increased massively during the boom. In 2006 the spend was €7.1 billion. In 2008 it was €9.4 billion - this was before we started seeing the rise in unemployment. In 3 years there was a 32% increase in SW payments. In 2010 that figure was €13.1 billion (PAYE was over 14). Since 2003 current expenditure has increased by 60% (from about €30 billion to €48 billion)
    As for the hard work of "running a bank into the ground", grow up. Nobody set out to do that.

    No, it was just a side effect of sheer criminality and corruption. Have you actually read this yet?
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo_Irish_Bank_hidden_loans_controversy
    And yes I know Wiki isn't reliable, but this article has links to numerous articles from other sources.
    While I do have a problem with the collection of bonuses etc they were legal so not a lot can be done. I believe that the main reason they are not being pursued is the can of worms it will open in employment law. What you are proposing is that an employer should be allowed to withold something that a worker is entitled to under contract. This will effectively make employment law null & void becuase employers will be under no obligation to pay workers a wage for their work.

    No I'm not, I am suggesting that these people committed crimes (see link above) and that therefore the government should fire them - not make them resign but literally throw them out. Then get the criminal assets bureau after them - isn't it there to reclaim the proceeds of crime?
    Good job you didn't. It's childish, unhelpful and undermines your argument.

    This is a pretty intense debate, we're allowed a LITTLE humour, dammit :D
    Electoral fraud is rigging an election, so be very careful because that statement is slander and libel.

    From dictionary.com:
    Fraud:
    1. deceit, trickery, sharp practice, or breach of confidence, perpetrated for profit or to gain some unfair or dishonest advantage.
    2. a particular instance of such deceit or trickery: mail fraud; election frauds.

    In my view, saying something which you know at the time is a blatant lie because it will get people to vote for you, is stealing votes. It's getting elected on completely and knowingly false premises. I regard myself as having been defrauded of my vote due to the secrecy over gilmore's lies - had I known of that cable before the election, I wouldn't have even given him a preference. Instead he got my second. :(
    I do not expect that every election promise will be kept, as we can't see into the future so we don't know what changes might happen. E.g. make a promise to extend a school in Ballygobackwards, but don't because somebody finds some rare bog cotton on the land beside the school and objects to planning permission (while the neighbours scrounge a couple of gallons of petrol from the objector's car to remove the cause of the objection) preventing it from being built. Things change over the lifetime of governments.

    You don't get it, do you? This isn't about an election promise which he wasn't able to keep. This is about a statement he made in public, then immediately told the US ambassador "Don't worry that's bullsh!t, I have no intention of opposing the second referendum I'm just saying that for political reasons".

    This is absolutely despicable and it's exactly what's wrong with our alleged "democracy".
    I was realistic, the politicians weren't, so now it appears that I'm in the wrong for (a) not believing them and (b) being content that my estimate of what was going to happen has turned out to be far more accurate than the promises. I'm not going to hold them accountable to things that I didn't believe were practical in the first place.

    I'm not asking you to. I'm asking you to hold them accountable for making the promises at all unless they knew they could keep them.

    My view is, if there's even a shred of doubt about it, tell people that. Don't say "This will happen" if the truth is "This will [hopefully] happen".

    If you don't want to get caught with your trousers down, don't leave your house unless you know your belt is on.
    Am I satisfied with government performance?
    Is there a kinda option?

    Do I think they're doing a bad job?
    No not really, it's roughly going along the lines I expected. From the surveys (which are generally accurate, see press coverage of the last elections) a lot of the population are of a similar opinion.
    I wasn't asking you that. I was asking are you satisfied with being lied to in order to trick you into voting for someone?

    Please feel guilty over backing Gilmore, but not for lying over Lisbon or whatever you're referring to.

    Why shouldn't I? He's a liar. I don't accept that lying knowingly is ever justified when one holds a public office (or indeed when one doesn't).
    Instead let it be for his role in undermining the economy through his support of the unions and his refusal to comment on just how bad a deal for the private sector the croke park agreement is (which freezes pay for PS workers, meaning that we have to increase taxes to pay for it).

    Fair enough. What about his silence over the 1% as outlined above? Where has he categorically stated that those who made the mess shouldn't be profiting for it? Where has he commented on how bondholders don't deserve to be repaid if ordinary mortgage holders aren't going to be bailed out too?

    They didn't come out before the election, but then if the media reporting is to be believed the big problems happened after that election (transfers between anglo & the other banks to make balance sheets look good etc).

    And therein lies the problem with the democratic system. The citizenry should be able to impeach a government at any time by extreme popular demand rather than allowing them to do as much damage as possible for five totally powerless years. That's where the demand for "participatory democracy" comes into play.
    You're looking at things with perfect hindsight, which means revisionism. The problem with revisionism is that it's biased. The tent in Ballybirt is about as transparent as it gets, hell you could walk in and annoy frankeen on front of bertie about why the GCOB wasn't being built yet. In keeping with the revisionism bit, before 2007 it was seen as a quaint fundraiser but since 2009 it's the spawn of Satan.

    If all of this had been public knowledge when it was happening there would be no need for hindsight. That part of my post was primarily aimed at Scoffy who bashes wikileaks and insists that governments have a right to withhold important information from the people.
    In the further interests of transparency it's been pointed out often enough that FF (successfully) attempted to buy elections with the people's own money. It'd be remiss of me not to point out to the revisionists that FG & Labour have tried this in the past - that they failed is irrelevant.

    Of course it is, which is why I'm bashing the entire party system, not just FF, and refusing to engage in a system which I regard to be corrupt, not just on the surface but to its very core.

    I'm not denying that people may have started out with good intentions, but such good intentions pave the roadway to the gates of hell. It has to go.


  • #497
    hmmm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,202 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    And therein lies the problem with the democratic system. The citizenry should be able to impeach a government at any time by extreme popular demand rather than allowing them to do as much damage as possible for five totally powerless years. That's where the demand for "participatory democracy" comes into play.
    So because you want this change to our democracy, the entire system "has to go"?

    We'd be having an election every second week if you got your way.

    Most people don't want to spend their lives taking part in your "participatory democracy". We elect full time politicians who represent our views, and then ask them to get on with the job while people get on with their lives.


  • #498
    hmmm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,202 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    In my view, saying something which you know at the time is a blatant lie because it will get people to vote for you, is stealing votes. It's getting elected on completely and knowingly false premises. I regard myself as having been defrauded of my vote due to the secrecy over gilmore's lies - had I known of that cable before the election, I wouldn't have even given him a preference. Instead he got my second. :(
    How naive an attitude is this? I hate to break it to you, but people don't always tell the truth. Not just politicians, everyone. Life is going to be an awful disappointment if you go around with this attitude.
    This is absolutely despicable and it's exactly what's wrong with our alleged "democracy".
    Show me the political system where the politicians are 100% honest.

    You get to vote for someone else at the next election if you think a politician lied for your vote. That's life.
    I wasn't asking you that. I was asking are you satisfied with being lied to in order to trick you into voting for someone?
    More fool you if you voted for someone who you think lied. Why should the rest of us have to suffer the anarchy and collapse of "the system" because you were naive?
    I'm not denying that people may have started out with good intentions, but such good intentions pave the roadway to the gates of hell. It has to go.
    It's like listening to failed property investors whinging for a bailout. "No-one told me property prices could fall, estate agents lied to me, I was told I'd be rich bwaaaaaaaaaaa".


  • #499
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    hmmm wrote: »
    How naive an attitude is this? I hate to break it to you, but people don't always tell the truth. Not just politicians, everyone. Life is going to be an awful disappointment if you go around with this attitude.

    So in other words, you're OK with politicians directly and knowingly lying to the public to trick them into giving them votes? You don't find that outrageous?
    Show me the political system where the politicians are 100% honest.
    A system where they know their lies will be published if put in writing, perhaps? A system wherein a politician can be penalized if it can be proven in writing that they knew what they were saying was untrue when they spoke to the media about a matter of public importance?
    You get to vote for someone else at the next election if you think a politician lied for your vote. That's life.

    That's a sh!tty system. I have to wait FIVE YEARS knowing that our Tanaiste, our second in command, is a dishonest liar. The general public had to put up with FF for two years after the bailout despite their shambolically low approval rating.

    I am calling for a mechanism for citizens to impeach a government. That does not mean elections every two weeks. That means that in extreme circumstances, the people, by referendum, can call for an election.
    More fool you if you voted for someone who you think lied. Why should the rest of us have to suffer the anarchy and collapse of "the system" because you were naive?

    More fool me? Do you think I'm a psychic? Did you know Gilmore had lied about this? IF so, how did you know? :confused:
    It's like listening to failed property investors whinging for a bailout. "No-one told me property prices could fall, estate agents lied to me, I was told I'd be rich bwaaaaaaaaaaa".

    Well they're being bailed out, AGAIN by the Irish taxpayer. Where's the NAMA for people in negative equity? Oh yeah sorry, help is only for the people who are in the government's pocket. The 1%, in other words.


  • #500
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    hmmm wrote: »
    Most people don't want to spend their lives taking part in your "participatory democracy". We elect full time politicians who represent our views, and then ask them to get on with the job while people get on with their lives.
    some people do.
    and it would not take 100% of your time, most people would complete it quite quickly.

    we did elect full time politicians and we did leave them to do the job, but they messed up.

    it's like leaving kids to cook meals because you want to watch tv.

    you have to have take responsibility and if that means more effort and time, so be it ...


  • #501
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    hmmm wrote: »
    So because you want this change to our democracy, the entire system "has to go"?

    We'd be having an election every second week if you got your way.

    Most people don't want to spend their lives taking part in your "participatory democracy". We elect full time politicians who represent our views, and then ask them to get on with the job while people get on with their lives.

    Except as you said in a previous post, you're ok with them pretending to "represent our views" until they're guaranteed a seat for 5 years in which case all pretense falls apart and they reveal their true colours.

    Imagine if Stalin had run on a platform you believed in, and then when in power it turned out it was all lies. Imagine he ran on a capitalist platform and then simply turned around and said "I'm in power now, I can do whatever I want, forget what I said before let's nationalize everything asap".
    Are you saying that you'd resign yourself to his policies because you should have known better? You wouldn't fight to get rid of him? Seriously?


  • Advertisement
  • #502
    hmmm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,202 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    So in other words, you're OK with politicians directly and knowingly lying to the public to trick them into giving them votes? You don't find that outrageous?
    People lie and cheat, that's life. The nice thing about politicians is that you don't have to vote for them if you don't trust them.
    A system where they know their lies will be published if put in writing, perhaps? A system wherein a politician can be penalized if it can be proven in writing that they knew what they were saying was untrue when they spoke to the media about a matter of public importance?
    Oh god what sort of world are you advocating. I'm going to get smacked by the moderators, but this is the sort of thing I'd expect a teenager to say.
    The general public had to put up with FF for two years after the bailout despite their shambolically low approval rating.
    It's impractical to run a country on the basis of opinion polls. We'd have Sean Gallagher elected last week and thrown out of office this week.
    I am calling for a mechanism for citizens to impeach a government. That does not mean elections every two weeks. That means that in extreme circumstances, the people, by referendum, can call for an election.
    Grand. Go for it. Run on this as a platform, I've no objection to this and would probably vote for it. It doesn't require the complete collapse of our democracy.
    More fool me? Do you think I'm a psychic? Did you know Gilmore had lied about this? IF so, how did you know? :confused:
    I know nothing about Gilmore and whether he tells the truth or not. I knew enough not to vote for a party that promised sunshine and happiness and no pain for anyone except "the rich".
    Where's the NAMA for people in negative equity?
    You want renters to pay their landlords mortgage? Families who have lived in dingy rental accomodation because they didn't get themselves into massive debt will now be forced to pay for the D4 set who bought mansions they could never afford? You're as bad as developers looking for a bailout.


  • #503
    hmmm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,202 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Imagine if Stalin had run on a platform you believed in, and then when in power it turned out it was all lies. Imagine he ran on a capitalist platform and then simply turned around and said "I'm in power now, I can do whatever I want, forget what I said before let's nationalize everything asap".
    Are you saying that you'd resign yourself to his policies because you should have known better? You wouldn't fight to get rid of him? Seriously?
    I'd have thought "hmmmmm, Stalin is promising wonderful things, I think I'll vote for him. I know he's murdered millions of people, but surely he wouldn't do something as awful as lying."


  • #504
    Suryavarman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 2,583 ✭✭✭Suryavarman


    davoxx wrote: »
    some people do.
    and it would not take 100% of your time, most people would complete it quite quickly.

    People will be able to regularly study and become informed enough to vote on new pieces of legislation "quite quickly"? In the cases where they vote down legislation they will also be able to draw up their own pieces of legislation and offer them as an alternative, "quite quickly"? Most people are hardly bothered enough to inform themselves on tomorrows referendums and you expect them to inform themselves on a regular basis in order to take part in a participatory democracy?


  • #505
    hmmm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,202 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    Suryavarman wrote: »
    Most people are hardly bothered enough to inform themselves on tomorrows referendums and you expect them to inform themselves on a regular basis in order to take part in a participatory democracy?
    The other downside is the Californian experience, where the electorate vote down any bill which involves raising taxes, yet will happily vote in endless entitlement programs or financial ringfences. As a result, the finances of that (very wealthy) state are in a dreadful mess with terrible impacts on the poor and public services.


  • #506
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    hmmm wrote: »
    People lie and cheat, that's life.

    People also rape and murder, that's life. Should we not bother punishing them for it?
    The nice thing about politicians is that you don't have to vote for them if you don't trust them.

    No but if you vote for them before you find out it was a lie, you have to put up with them for 5 years. There is no way to force them out unless they willingly resign.
    Oh god what sort of world are you advocating. I'm going to get smacked by the moderators, but this is the sort of thing I'd expect a teenager to say.

    How so? If someone holding a public office makes a statement to the public and it is later proven, in writing, that they knew the statement was false and deliberately mislead people anyway, there should be a serious penalty. If it happens say three times, the people should have the opportunity of a bye election - if they decide they don't care about those lies then can always vote the person back in.
    It's impractical to run a country on the basis of opinion polls. We'd have Sean Gallagher elected last week and thrown out of office this week.

    Agreed, but the public should have a way to impeach a government. Two million signatures maybe? That's just under half the population?
    Grand. Go for it. Run on this as a platform, I've no objection to this and would probably vote for it. It doesn't require the complete collapse of our democracy.

    1: I am not advocating the "complete collapse of our democracy", I am advocating for some reforms to be made to make it more democratic.
    I know nothing about Gilmore and whether he tells the truth or not. I knew enough not to vote for a party that promised sunshine and happiness and no pain for anyone except "the rich".

    Ok. Have a read of this then.
    http://wikileaks.org/cable/2008/07/08DUBLIN433.html
    Gilmore, who has led calls against a second
    referendum, has told the Embassy separately that he fully
    expects, and would support, holding a second referendum in
    ¶2009. He explained his public posture of opposition to a
    second referendum as "politically necessary" for the time
    being.

    This is disgusting. Had I known this I wouldn't have voted for him. Now I have to put up with him for 5 years knowing I helped to put a manipulating liar in power. :mad:
    You want renters to pay their landlords mortgage? Families who have lived in dingy rental accomodation because they didn't get themselves into massive debt will now be forced to pay for the D4 set who bought mansions they could never afford? You're as bad as developers looking for a bailout.

    No I'm not, but I am saying all or nothing. Either we bail out people who made mistakes during the boom and are now in difficulty, or we don't. Bailing out one clique but not others is saying "this social group matters more than this one", and in an equal, democratic society that is unacceptable.

    I'd like to get back on topic by the way, most of this debate is fine and interesting but with regard to my specific views on democracy perhaps that could unfold in a separate thread? We haven't spoken much about ODS over the last few pages, which is what I'm in this thread to support :P


  • #507
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    hmmm wrote: »
    I'd have thought "hmmmmm, Stalin is promising wonderful things, I think I'll vote for him. I know he's murdered millions of people, but surely he wouldn't do something as awful as lying."

    I'm talking about BEFORE he murdered anyone!!!

    I'm saying if his platform before anyone had ever heard of him had struck you as quite good, a centrist moderate, and you had voted for him, and THEN he had turned around and murdered millions of people despite what he said before the election, AND you have absolutely no way to get him out of power before five years are up unless he voluntarily surrenders it... Do you regard that as a proper system of democracy?


  • #508
    hmmm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,202 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    People also rape and murder, that's life. Should we not bother punishing them for it?
    Comparing first Stalin, now rapists and murderers to a politician who, you think, didn't tell the full truth. Have problems with perspective much?
    Agreed, but the public should have a way to impeach a government. Two million signatures maybe? That's just under half the population?
    Perspective again. If you got 100,000 it'd be a miracle and would be about the right number.
    1: I am not advocating the "complete collapse of our democracy", I am advocating for some reforms to be made to make it more democratic.
    Yes you are. No you're not.
    This is disgusting. Had I known this I wouldn't have voted for him. Now I have to put up with him for 5 years knowing I helped to put a manipulating liar in power. >:(
    More fool you. Why is that anyone else's fault or problem except your own? Instead of trying to bring down Irish democracy and writing reams on forums, maybe you should go reflect on what caused you to vote for him in the first place and how you can avoid falling into that trap in the future.
    No I'm not, but I am saying all or nothing.
    :rolleyes:


  • #509
    hmmm
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 11,202 ✭✭✭✭hmmm


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    I'm saying if his platform before anyone had ever heard of him had struck you as quite good, a centrist moderate, and you had voted for him, and THEN he had turned around and murdered millions of people despite what he said before the election, AND you have absolutely no way to get him out of power before five years are up unless he voluntarily surrenders it... Do you regard that as a proper system of democracy?
    No. Thankfully, I don't think Enda will end up murdering millions of people, but if he does, I hope you will remind me of this thread and my shameful involvement in it.


  • #510
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    davoxx wrote: »
    some people do.
    and it would not take 100% of your time, most people would complete it quite quickly.

    ...


    This is hopelessly naive. I am familiar with legislation, particularly employment law, much more informed and understanding than the average person, yet I would find it extremely difficult to keep up with all of the legislation being published at the moment. To be honest, I have only read about four new Bills this year which is much less than the total being published. I would say there are very few in the general population who have read as many as that. Just take one out and read it, particularly a Bill that is amending an existing Act, where you have to have the previous Act to hand (as well as any other amendments that have happened in the meantime).


  • Advertisement
  • #511
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    I'm talking about BEFORE he murdered anyone!!!

    I'm saying if his platform before anyone had ever heard of him had struck you as quite good, a centrist moderate, and you had voted for him, and THEN he had turned around and murdered millions of people despite what he said before the election, AND you have absolutely no way to get him out of power before five years are up unless he voluntarily surrenders it... Do you regard that as a proper system of democracy?


    But that has never happened in a true Western-style democracy and never would. It is like asking me will I vote for Spiderman in tomorrow's Presidential election - it has no basis in reality.


Advertisement