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

Options
1…1920222425

Comments

  • Options
    #632
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #633
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    And the proof that this will work better is...?

    amused,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #634
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    However, history has amply demonstrated that if working conditions are dictated by this Laissez Faire form of government the result is appalling exploitation. Until governments began to enforce rights for workers via legislation child labour was commonplace, health and safety was non-existent and industry was driven by a sweat-shop ethos.

    There were valid reasons why Western governments sought to impose conditions on the market - to prevent the wholesale exploitation of the workforce. If government restricts itself to protecting property rights and enforcing contracts what is to prevent a return to the working conditions that prevailed in the 19th century?

    We already have multinationals moving manufacturing to countries where workers have little or no rights. Should we remove workers rights to allow us to compete?


  • Options
    #635
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #636
    rodento
    Registered Users Posts: 1,728 ✭✭✭rodento


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    And the proof that this will work better is...?

    amused,
    Scofflaw

    Very amusing indeed, one word for ya Nama:eek:


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #637
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #638
    rodento
    Registered Users Posts: 1,728 ✭✭✭rodento


    What would happen if the property crash was allowed to happen and the cost of commercial leases etc became affordable or if the cost of property hit the real bottom and we didn't have to pay people over inflated salaries just to pay the banks for their mortgages....


  • Options
    #639
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Options
    #640
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    While I certainly agree that incompetence played a huge part in getting us where we are, I don't agree that 'corruption' encompasses incompetence at all.

    Corruption encompasses covering up and defending incompetence because the people responsible are your friends.

    IE, croneyism.
    Historically, no. I can't think of any examples of government which have been completely free from illegality and incompetence, and which have refrained from using what room they are legally granted to act in to get their way.

    So how about we give my idea of citizens' recall a try? Maybe they wouldn't be so corrupt if they knew the citizens could call the shots and call for a general election - not in 5 years, but at any point the rage got widespread and strong enough.


  • Options
    #641
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Corruption encompasses covering up and defending incompetence because the people responsible are your friends.

    IE, croneyism.

    I'd accept that.
    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    So how about we give my idea of citizens' recall a try? Maybe they wouldn't be so corrupt if they knew the citizens could call the shots and call for a general election - not in 5 years, but at any point the rage got widespread and strong enough.

    If it comes onto the legislative agenda I'd certainly vote for it, as I'd vote for citizen-led referenda. On the other hand, politicians aren't completely immune to public pressure even now - sure, it took slightly longer to force the last government from power than we might have liked, but presumably it would have taken time to meet the necessary criteria for a recall.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #642
    EI_Flyboy
    Registered Users Posts: 444 ✭✭EI_Flyboy


    Permabear's explanation of free market economics is probably the simplest and best explanation I've ever heard. It does sound ideal but only in an ideal world where freedom from regulation doesn't mean we end up with inscrutable financial tools like derivatives or business ignoring the environment to make a quick buck ala fracking. I also don't think it would work unless labour conditions are the same the world over as the haves will always pick the most vulnerable have nots to do all the dirty work leading to a disappearance of those in the middle as they lose their jobs to the have nots and find themselves joining them. Which, as I think about it, seems to be a natural balancing out of such a system but the problem with that is how it's happening happens to be grossly unfair.

    I'm fine with having the mega rich and the grossly poor but one should not out number the other in such a huge unbalanced way. I don't know where I heard the anecdote but if anyone can back me up on this, that'd be great but I'll go look after. Milton Friedman supposedly said if he could start all over, he wouldn't use money as a measure of success but would instead measure it in happiness. As it stands there are plenty of people living full happy lives in poverty and plenty of rich people are miserable.

    The system as it stands is corrupt but there are alternatives which can only be realised when governments become properly representative of their people. The story of the six figure speeding fine handed out in Finland to a wealthy boy racer comes to mind. Fines like that which are linked to income are only possible in a system of very low corruption where every link in the chain can be trusted to do the right thing. So how do we implement a system of accountability, such as Hatrick's, without resorting to protests or violence?


  • Options
    #643
    ei.sdraob
    Closed Accounts Posts: 9,376 ✭✭✭ei.sdraob


    rodento wrote: »
    Very amusing indeed, one word for ya Nama:eek:

    Dont mention NAMA to Scofflaw he spent a considerable amounts of posts on this forum defending this bad joke


  • Options
    #644
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    ei.sdraob wrote: »
    Dont mention NAMA to Scofflaw he spent a considerable amounts of posts on this forum defending this bad joke

    Well, pointing out that the hysterical snap judgements being made it about it were hysterical snap judgements, but whatever - I appreciate that people who make snap judgements feel vindicated afterwards so long as anything not a million miles from their snap judgement happens, and I suppose the likely losses of €3bn could be considered as sort of similar to the kinds of figures being bandied about then, even if different by an order of magnitude or so.

    amused,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #645
    rodento
    Registered Users Posts: 1,728 ✭✭✭rodento


    Scofflaw how can you be amused by a scheme that was promised not to be a bail out for developers that turned into a bailout for developers, so much so we now pay developers who nearly bankrupt the country a salary and expenses :eek:

    Its also hindering the ecomonic recovery of the country by creating an artificial floor for the property market and holding back the country for the next 10 years


  • Options
    #646
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Head The Wall wrote: »
    What a ridiculous comment to make, do you pay any income tax - probably not. Also you are a student so unless you are paying the full cost of your education (which I doubt) you are actually costing the state more than what your "taxes" contribute to the economy.

    So here you are looking for the money being lent to the govt which keeps you in college to be revoked in the misguided notion that you are paying your way via taxes on plastic bags and bags of tayto etc. You really have not got a clue
    his parents paid and are paying for it. they paid income tax before he was born so that people could go to get an education ...

    also he will be paying income tax once he gets a job, which is how the system is meant to work, society pays for education now so that later on he pays it back.

    what about child benefit? are those kids paying income tax? i certainly hope not ...

    any other silly comments?


  • Options
    #647
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Suryavarman wrote: »
    So people should just be able to vote away other peoples rights because it suits them?
    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Judges don't make laws at all. Laws are made in the Oireachtas.
    it was in context with the claim that "common" people are too stupid to understand legal matters, so that they have to elect people to sort that all out for them, while the fact is that judges, who should have the best understanding of the law (though that is very debatable) are not responsible for bring laws into effect.

    but yeah it was kinda off topic as it was just another attempt to resist any sort of change ...


  • Options
    #648
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    davoxx wrote: »
    it was in context with the claim that "common" people are too stupid to understand legal matters, so that they have to elect people to sort that all out for them, while the fact is that judges, who should have the best understanding of the law (though that is very debatable) are not responsible for bring laws into effect.

    but yeah it was kinda off topic as it was just another attempt to resist any sort of change ...
    Judges must interpret the laws made by the legislative and enacted by the executive within their powers. I fail to see how it is appropriate to blame judges for their decisions when they are making them in line with the laws on the books?


  • Options
    #649
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Well, pointing out that the hysterical snap judgements being made it about it were hysterical snap judgements, but whatever - I appreciate that people who make snap judgements feel vindicated afterwards so long as anything not a million miles from their snap judgement happens, and I suppose the likely losses of €3bn could be considered as sort of similar to the kinds of figures being bandied about then, even if different by an order of magnitude or so.

    amused,
    Scofflaw
    okay, seriously, i have no idea what are you saying here ... did you have your coffee yet?

    are you saying that the hysterical snap judgements were right and were not actually hysterical snap judgements?

    or that just because they knew it was a bad idea but did not specifically state exactly what would happen and when and how with who, they were wrong?

    what kind of logic is that?


  • Options
    #650
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    Judges must interpret the laws made by the legislative and enacted by the executive within their powers. I fail to see how it is appropriate to blame judges for their decisions when they are making them in line with the laws on the books?
    well i can blame them as i think that they sometimes make bad interpretations ...

    but that is not the point here. the point here is that one does not need to be a judge to make legislation, indeed one can be a layman or all of the public.


  • Options
    #651
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    davoxx wrote: »
    well i can blame them as i think that they sometimes make bad interpretations ...

    but that is not the point here. the point here is that one does not need to be a judge to make legislation, indeed one can be a layman or all of the public.
    I'm not disagreeing that you don't need to be a judge to make laws, but clearly if the laws are badly drafted or ill-conceived it leaves the judiciary scratching their heads a bit. Then when laws are badly "interpreted" the people blame the judges, the solicitors and the barristers.

    For example, pick a "bad interpretation" or "bad decision" and go read the actual law in that area. Or even give me an example and I will break it down for you.
    I think it would be a useful exercise to show my point.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #652
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    However the increasing mechanisation of the Industrial Revolution merely changed which minority group accumulated wealth from the landowners to the factory owners. It certainly did not improve the lives of the rural poor, including children, who flocked en masse to urban centres to work and live in appalling conditions for a pittance. The working condition experiences by children in factories, collieries etc cannot be classified as anything but systematic exploitation. How can over 13 hours a day working at mechanised looms or pushing pit carts, living in foetid tenements, thrown on the mercy of the workhouse if unable to work be an improvement?

    Dickens may have tugged the heart strings of the sentimentalist Victorian public - that does not mean the conditions he wrote of did not exist and it is disingenuous of you to dismiss his concerns - concerns shared by many of his contemporaries - as 'the usual Dickensian script'.

    No - I do not assume we would be transported back to Manchester in the 1830s - I fear it.



    Do you want to tell us what the logical conclusion is here? Western workers retain their "rights" to high wages and make extortionate demands via their unions — while jobs disappear to other nations? Because that's what is happening.

    The 'logical conclusion' from a free market perspective is in order to 'compete' Western worker's rights are eroded to the level 'enjoyed' by those currently being exploited in developing countries - for what exactly? For increased profits for multi-nationals?

    Do you seriously advocate the repeal of some (all?) employment laws and deterioration of working conditions so Apple, Dell, GAP, Nike, Pfizer etc can pay bigger dividends to their shareholders and larger bonuses to their CEOs?

    What is happening is business people are continuing to demonstrate their priority is the accumulation of wealth regardless of the cost in human misery. That they have no qualms about using child labour, slave labour, convict labour to make a buck. It was immoral 400 years ago when Hawkins perfected the Triangular Trade ( goods to Africa for slaves/slaves to the Americas for raw materials/raw materials to England), it was immoral in the factories of Manchester, Sheffield, Belfast etc 200 years ago and it is still immoral in China, India, Indonesia etc today.

    We are human beings - not drones.

    You may be content to spend your life as a worker bee whose whole existence is to service the economy. I, for one, do not happen to believe that is why we were born.


  • Options
    #653
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I'm not disagreeing that you don't need to be a judge to make laws, but clearly if the laws are badly drafted or ill-conceived it leaves the judiciary scratching their heads a bit. Then when laws are badly "interpreted" the people blame the judges, the solicitors and the barristers.
    well then we agree on the fact that one does not need to be a judge to make laws, and that more public participation is possible.
    i think more pubic participation would be good.

    my point (in which you are kinda jumping into) is that we should also have a set of judges to overlook the law being drafted, with the view to proposing changes, though those changes could be accepted or ignored when put to the vote. it was just an idea of a fail safe ...
    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    For example, pick a "bad interpretation" or "bad decision" and go read the actual law in that area. Or even give me an example and I will break it down for you.
    i could and would in another thread, it's not relevant here.
    FreudianSlippers wrote: »
    I think it would be a useful exercise to show my point.
    your point is moot here, though i do understand what you are saying, there are 100% circumstances where people think a judge made a bad call, and it is not true (i'm reminded of the warrant case with the pedo judge) though the fact that this was interpreted differently before (i'm sure i read/heard from some solicitors) proves that judges can also be wrong.

    laws are based on words, the words used is open to interpretation.


  • Options
    #654
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    davoxx wrote: »
    okay, seriously, i have no idea what are you saying here ... did you have your coffee yet?

    are you saying that the hysterical snap judgements were right and were not actually hysterical snap judgements?

    or that just because they knew it was a bad idea but did not specifically state exactly what would happen and when and how with who, they were wrong?

    what kind of logic is that?

    Basically, if someone decides something is a bad thing based on virtually no evidence bar their own prejudices, then if it does turn out to be a bad thing they usually see themselves as vindicated, and their 'analysis' as robust. In fact, they're not vindicated - they were, instead, 'lucky', and their analysis has about as much value as a coin toss.

    hope that helps,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #655
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Scofflaw wrote: »
    Basically, if someone decides something is a bad thing based on virtually no evidence bar their own prejudices, then if it does turn out to be a bad thing they usually see themselves as vindicated, and their 'analysis' as robust. In fact, they're not vindicated - they were, instead, 'lucky', and their analysis has about as much value as a coin toss.

    hope that helps,
    Scofflaw
    ahh, thanks i think i get ya.

    but how do you know they were just lucky?
    maybe they just understood more than others did?
    you know like people who saw they property crash before it happened?

    and those who decide something based on their "analysis" which turns out to be wrong, were they just unlucky or wrong?


  • Options
    #656
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    I laughed when I read this a few minutes ago.

    Report: Govt debt €3.6bn less after 'accounting error'
    Government debt is some €3.6bn less than was previously thought owing to an "accounting error", it was reported today.

    The sum, which would represent some 2% of GDP, was "double counted" by two government agencies, TV3 News reported.

    The error was discovered on Friday last during an examination of the classification of the state’s assets and liabilities, the broadcaster said.

    "The €3.6bn had been advanced by the National Treasury Management Agency last year to another, unnamed state agency and was debited by both agencies in their financial reconciliations," a TV3 statement said.

    "Sources at the Department of Finance have verified and confirmed the TV3 story."

    Contacted for comment today a Department of Finance spokesperson declined to confirm the details of story but said "there will be an adjustment" in the medium-term fiscal statement set to be issued on Friday.

    I have to say: this is what we get for hiring arts grads to run the country


  • Options
    #657
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    antoobrien wrote: »
    I laughed when I read this a few minutes ago.

    Report: Govt debt €3.6bn less after 'accounting error'



    I have to say: this is what we get for hiring arts grads to run the country

    Are there many arts grads in the dept of Finance then? Maybe there should be as it seems the accountancy, economic and business grads can't do the job...:D


  • Options
    #658
    Bannasidhe
    Moderators, Society & Culture Moderators Posts: 19,219 Mod ✭✭✭✭Bannasidhe


    http://www.breakingnews.ie/ireland/report-govt-debt-36bn-less-after-accounting-error-526658.html

    Just wondering - was it resting in another account?:p


  • Options
    #659
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Are there many arts grads in the dept of Finance then? Maybe there should be as it seems the accountancy, economic and business grads can't do the job...:D

    As far as I recall, they mostly don't use graduates at all. Last time I looked, the Department of Finance tended to prefer people with just an LC.

    No, I don't know why.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


  • Options
    #660
    antoobrien
    Registered Users Posts: 6,106 ✭✭✭antoobrien


    Bannasidhe wrote: »
    Are there many arts grads in the dept of Finance then? Maybe there should be as it seems the accountancy, economic and business grads can't do the job...:D

    I'll see if I can dig up an article but I remember hearing it was as much as 1/3.


  • Advertisement
  • Options
    #661
    Scofflaw
    Registered Users Posts: 23,283 ✭✭✭✭Scofflaw


    davoxx wrote: »
    ahh, thanks i think i get ya.

    but how do you know they were just lucky?
    maybe they just understood more than others did?
    you know like people who saw they property crash before it happened?

    and those who decide something based on their "analysis" which turns out to be wrong, were they just unlucky or wrong?

    People who saw the property crash coming (and I include myself) had a lot of data to work with, and plenty of historical parallels to draw on. People who were convinced NAMA was a scam before the details were even available rather clearly weren't making up their minds on the facts, but had to operating on the basis of prejudice. And no matter how many times a prejudice is confirmed it remains a prejudice.

    cordially,
    Scofflaw


Advertisement