Fiscal Treaty Megathread [Poll Reset]

K-9 · 24-05-2012 1:24am

Wild Bill wrote: »

Our national debit is increasing by €500,000,000 per week. That's €1 billion per fortnight.

If you can prove the above the rest makes sense. If you can't it's just ranting based on made up figures.

Wild Bill · 24-05-2012 1:31am

K-9 wrote: »

If you can prove the above the rest makes sense. If you can't it's just ranting based on made up figures.

Our debt will increase by €26 billion in a full year; 1/1/12 to 1/1/13.

Do the maths. It's rather easy if you can +, -, / and X :cool:

insanity50 · 24-05-2012 1:34am

Will be voting no just to stick it to europe and the shower of cnuts running this country.

I think i'll take my poisoned ale in a different glass thank you very much.

Stick your Fourth Reich up your bollox.

K-9 · 24-05-2012 1:37am

Wild Bill wrote: »

Our debt will increase by €26 billion in a full year; 1/1/12 to 1/1/13.

Do the maths. It's rather easy if you can +, -, / and X :cool:

Sorry, you might have missed it, I asked you to prove it, not reiterate your opinion.

Where did you learn of this?

24-05-2012 1:45am

insanity50 wrote: »

Will be voting no just to stick it to europe and the shower of cnuts running this country.

Very mature voting stance.

Wild Bill · 24-05-2012 1:47am

K-9 wrote: »

Sorry, you might have missed it, I asked you to prove it, not reiterate your opinion.

Where did you learn of this?

The info is freely available; I don't have to prove it. But if you choose to keep digging, I will.

Separately yesterday, Minister of State for European Affairs Lucinda Creighton accepted that Ireland may need a second bailout and she said the country’s 12.5 per cent corporation tax could be threatened by a No vote.
She said if Ireland excluded itself from the European Stability Mechanism by voting No, other European countries that might contribute to a fund on which Ireland could draw might put other issues into the mix.

So, we now have confirmation from the "yes" camp of what they claimed was "ridiculous" just two months ago (a second "bailout")!

As for the 12.5% - were we not assured at Lisbon II that we could veto any such proposals?

Now, apparently, we might find ourselves in need of the recently "ridiculous" and have to surrender our corporate tax rate to obtain it! :rolleyes:

Would you buy a used car from these cretins? :cool:

Firefox11 · 24-05-2012 1:49am

insanity50 wrote: »

Will be voting no just to stick it to europe and the shower of cnuts running this country.

I think i'll take my poisoned ale in a different glass thank you very much.

Stick your Fourth Reich up your bollox.

As long as you dont mind paying the much larger tax hike you'll be paying on that poisoned ale of yours.:)

Wild Bill · 24-05-2012 1:54am

Firefox11 wrote: »

As long as you dont mind paying the much larger tax hike you'll be paying on that poisoned ale of yours.:)

Our tax-take largely goes to pay excessive numbers of Government employees the highest pay and pensions in the world (near enough).

There are other solutions to that absurdity than raising taxes

Wild Bill · 24-05-2012 1:58am

Our debt will increase by €26 billion in a full year; 1/1/12 to 1/1/13.

Googled a bit?

I guess, K9, it is dawning on you that this is true!

Reality bites!

K-9 · 24-05-2012 2:10am

Wild Bill wrote: »

Googled a bit?

I guess, K9, it is dawning on you that this is true!

Reality bites!

Grand, where'd you get that information from? links and all that irrelevant nonsense being irrelevant to Wild Bill but I'm afraid the internet doesn't work like that dear chap, gentleman you are. Could you please copy over that link you just read a few minutes ago, sorry to inconvenience you dear chap, shocking I know, your word means little these days. Terrible manners.

Wild Bill · 24-05-2012 2:26am

I've always prioritized truth over manners :cool:

But I'm extremely mannerly too, God knows.

Try this (I'm surprised your search engine couldn't find it) :

http://www.financedublin.com/debtclock.php

K-9 · 24-05-2012 2:34am

Wild Bill wrote: »

I've always prioritized truth over manners :cool:

But I'm extremely mannerly too, God knows.

Try this (I'm surprised your search engine couldn't find it) :

http://www.financedublin.com/debtclock.php

Amazing brain you have, putting a ticking clock into meaningful figures.

You care to explain to us mere ordinary people how you figure out our debt will increase by €26 Billion, about 25% this year. I'll pass on the information to the economists.

New Information like this needs to get out there Wild Bill, it's of national importance.

Scofflaw · 24-05-2012 7:28am

Wild Bill wrote: »

Our tax-take largely goes to pay excessive numbers of Government employees the highest pay and pensions in the world (near enough).

There are other solutions to that absurdity than raising taxes

Accurate figures would be a good starting point for a solution:

The lead editorial in today’s Sunday Times (not on the web) states

Many in Fine Gael believe it is almost impossible to judiciously — and fairly — cut €2.2 billion from spending if 70% of the total, in the shape of public-sector pay, is protected from further reduction.

Now I know that the Irish government is pretty hopeless at presenting its fiscal accounts but it’s really not too hard to find out the true figures on the shares of expenditure taken up by pay and other elements.

Go to page 49 of this document which we have to send to Brussels on a regular basis and which uses the perfectly sensible approach of reporting all of the government’s spending and revenue, rather than specific sub-components picked out according to some unintelligible criteria. The shares of public expenditure for major categories this year are as follows:

Pay and pensions = 25.5%
Social payments = 37.8%
Intermediate consumption = 11.4%
Interest payments = 8.4%
Capital formation = 6.4%
Other (including subsidies) = 10.5%

So not 70%. Closer to one-third of that figure. And, as I’ve dicussed before, when income taxes paid by public sector workers are factored in, the net cost is significantly less.

http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2011/11/27/shares-of-public-expenditure/

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wild Bill · 24-05-2012 8:19am

K-9 wrote: »

Amazing brain you have

Thank you. :cool:

Wild Bill · 24-05-2012 8:39am

And , K9, if you can "prove" your repeated claim that the national debt is repayable, perhaps you'd pass that on to the very many economists who say otherwise.

You asked me for a source; I provided one.

Now, please tell me the growth assumptions behind your claim that we can repay the national debt. I'd also be interested in your assumptions regarding the ultimate cost of the bank bailout. Give me the numbers and I'll do the hard sums.

The debt, incidentally, includes the current and future borrowing to bail out the European banking system, a commitment this Regime and their FF predecessors have chained to the Irish people.

The treaty is a means to ensure we don't divert our children's earnings away from the German banks.

Note that it calls for structural deficit targets; not actual deficit targets. Because if it did the latter we'd have to suspend repayments and abandon the fantasy that we can repay the debt.

Greece set about the Noonan solution of taxing their way to economic stability; two years on from their first bailout their tax revenues are down 50%.

Out debt is every bit as unsustainable, "going forward", as that of Greece was two years ago.

Wild Bill · 24-05-2012 8:58am

Scofflaw wrote: »

Accurate figures would be a good starting point for a solution:

http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2011/11/27/shares-of-public-expenditure/

cordially,
Scofflaw

That says that 30% of expenditure is for interest payments (on borrowings to pay public sector wages, pensions and bank bailouts!); plus something called "intermediate payments" plus something called "other" which includes unspecified subsidies.

That is hardly a model of clarity.

As these are, apparently, as "untouchable" as the Croke Park agreement the general thrust of the Sunday Times piece is fairly clear; reducing our "structural deficit" will involve slashing welfare and what is left of capital spending.

gent9662 · 24-05-2012 8:59am

I was voting Yes until I read the McWilliams article in the indo yesterday. So now I do not know, think I will probably vote No, based on the simple economic article.

Check it out here:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-mcwilliams/david-mcwilliams-fiscal-treaty-is-kamikaze-economics-for-most-of-eu-3116838.html

Scofflaw · 24-05-2012 9:09am

Wild Bill wrote: »

That says that 30% of expenditure is for interest payments (on borrowings to pay public sector wages, pensions and bank bailouts!); plus something called "intermediate payments" plus something called "other" which includes unspecified subsidies.

That is hardly a model of clarity.

As these are, apparently, as "untouchable" as the Croke Park agreement the general thrust of the Sunday Times piece is fairly clear; reducing our "structural deficit" will involve slashing welfare and what is left of capital spending.

You could read the article, the lined article, and the linked report, which will clear up your confusion. Your claim that the majority of our tax take goes on PS wages and pensions, however, was simply wrong.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wild Bill · 24-05-2012 9:17am

dclane wrote: »

I was voting Yes until I read the McWilliams article in the indo yesterday. So now I do not know, think I will probably vote No, based on the simple economic article.

Check it out here:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-mcwilliams/david-mcwilliams-fiscal-treaty-is-kamikaze-economics-for-most-of-eu-3116838.html

I'm not sure why you were going to vote yes! But the article is on the money -

This is why austerity without debt forgiveness can't work. School kids could figure this out.

This is why the fiscal treaty is Kamikaze economics for most of Europe, it is designed to suit the Germans' short-term political interests and has nothing to do with macroeconomics as we know it.

I couldn't put it any better myself. :cool:

Scofflaw · 24-05-2012 9:27am

dclane wrote: »

I was voting Yes until I read the McWilliams article in the indo yesterday. So now I do not know, think I will probably vote No, based on the simple economic article.

Check it out here:

http://www.independent.ie/opinion/columnists/david-mcwilliams/david-mcwilliams-fiscal-treaty-is-kamikaze-economics-for-most-of-eu-3116838.html

While McWilliam's article at least is an antidote to the "cut the deficit right now" - and it's nice to see him nod a little more in the direction of economics - it manages to more or less have nothing to do with the referendum, since an Irish No vote will neither prevent us having to observe the fiscal limits nor prevent the rest of Europe from doing so.

It's also perhaps worth pointing out that McWilliams is one of the very few economists who is advocating a No - and that the others are rather more economists and rather less journalists, whereas the reverse is true for McWilliams.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Wild Bill · 24-05-2012 9:37am

Scofflaw wrote: »

You could read the article, the lined article, and the linked report, which will clear up your confusion.

I tried, it didn't. I got stuck at

Following three consecutive years in which output fell, the Irish economy is expected to grow once again this year. On the back of a strong export performance, GDP growth is forecast at around ¾% in 2011 and 2½% in 2012. This represents a downward revision compared to the Budget 2011 forecasts, of around 1 percentage
point for this year and ¾ of a percentage point for next year. The composition of growth has also altered, with the contribution of domestic demand revised down and the contribution of net exports revised up.

These changes follow from a weaker than assumed starting position this year, along with the materialisation of some of the upside and downside risks identified at Budget time.

Even after I stopped laughing I couldn't seriously read past concepts like

- GDP growth is revised downwards on the back of a strong export performance

- these changes follow from a weaker than assumed starting position (which implies your budget forecast of just a few months earlier was as crap as your current one!)
- the materialisation of some of the upside and downside risks identified at Budget time. (Essentially this says "we are clueless and the figures in this document should be read with that in mind")

I think the Debt Clock captures the reality of our position much better than this gobbledygook.

gent9662 · 24-05-2012 9:46am

Scofflaw wrote: »

While McWilliam's article at least is an antidote to the "cut the deficit right now" - and it's nice to see him nod a little more in the direction of economics - it manages to more or less have nothing to do with the referendum, since an Irish No vote will neither prevent us having to observe the fiscal limits nor prevent the rest of Europe from doing so.

It's also perhaps worth pointing out that McWilliams is one of the very few economists who is advocating a No - and that the others are rather more economists and rather less journalists, whereas the reverse is true for McWilliams.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well, maybe he is but he puts a good argument together. I think the timing of this treaty vote is extremely bad.

Micky Dolenz · 24-05-2012 9:46am

After my extensive research I have come to the conclusion that a no vote is the best thing for Ireland and Europe.

Wild Bill · 24-05-2012 9:48am

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's also perhaps worth pointing out that McWilliams is one of the very few economists who is advocating a No - and that the others are rather more economists and rather less journalists, whereas the reverse is true for McWilliams.

Also worth pointing out that, as he says, Brendan is also a businessman.

Unlike so many economists who are employed by Government, Academic and Financial bodies and who thus have a personal vested interest in continuing the current cycle of borrowing to pay for the European banking system.

Quite apart from the vastly superior track record of prediction by McWilliams and others who oppose the treaty compared to the appalling record of those supporting the treaty.

gent9662 · 24-05-2012 10:02am

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

After my extensive research I have come to the conclusion that a no vote is the best thing for Ireland and Europe.

Do you mind me asking you what was the biggest single aspect that made you choose no?

Micky Dolenz · 24-05-2012 10:18am

dclane wrote: »

Do you mind me asking you what was the biggest single aspect that made you choose no?

That if we fall within a percentage of our GDP, automatic procedures will kick into place to "correct"'the situation.

We may as well just give them the keys to the Dail. I also
Believe everytime we vote yes, we are a step closer to not having a vote in the future.

Money is short term solution to a long term problem. We are
Being bought and I don't care for it.

Scofflaw · 24-05-2012 10:34am

Wild Bill wrote: »

Also worth pointing out that, as he says, Brendan is also a businessman.

Unlike so many economists who are employed by Government, Academic and Financial bodies and who thus have a personal vested interest in continuing the current cycle of borrowing to pay for the European banking system.

Quite apart from the vastly superior track record of prediction by McWilliams and others who oppose the treaty compared to the appalling record of those supporting the treaty.

McWilliams has only one point in his favour - pointing out the bubble. Unfortunately, he also claimed it was going to burst within six months roughly every year from 1999 on. In addition, there is the embarrassment of having hailed Lenihan's guarantee as a "masterstroke" when it was announced.

I'd give him more credit for spotting the bubble were it slightly slightly less obvious he adopts a contrarian position as a matter of USP, and had I not personally considered the fact that it was a bubble to be relatively obvious.

He's fundamentally a journalist, and his track record in doing proper economic analysis is virtually nil - even here, he's rather obviously regurgitating the findings of a recently published report without referring to it, which at least Michael Taft has the decency to do.

None of which deals with the substantive issue of the article, which is that a No vote will not prevent austerity around Europe, because none of the countries experiencing austerity are able to borrow in order to do anything else, treaty limits or no. Yes, pan-European austerity will mean a dragging economy for a few years - but no, McWilliams has not offered a solution to that problem. You cannot vote your way out of a recession, no matter how nice that would be.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Toby Take a Bow · 24-05-2012 10:53am

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's also perhaps worth pointing out that McWilliams is one of the very few economists who is advocating a No - and that the others are rather more economists and rather less journalists, whereas the reverse is true for McWilliams.

cordially,
Scofflaw

There were very few economists criticising the situation in this country in the run-up to the crash. I think the lack of critical thinking in economist circles probably revolves around a tendency towards one form of theory (the theory that is taught to them in university) than credibility for a particular way of viewing our situation.

Scofflaw · 24-05-2012 11:00am

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

That if we fall within a percentage of our GDP, automatic procedures will kick into place to "correct"'the situation.

We may as well just give them the keys to the Dail.

Give who the keys to the Dáil? The correction mechanism will be Irish, not EU.

Micky Dolenz wrote: »

I also
Believe everytime we vote yes, we are a step closer to not having a vote in the future.

That's something that is said every time, yet the votes never seem to get fewer.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw · 24-05-2012 11:10am

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

There were very few economists criticising the situation in this country in the run-up to the crash. I think the lack of critical thinking in economist circles probably revolves around a tendency towards one form of theory (the theory that is taught to them in university) than credibility for a particular way of viewing our situation.

That I'd agree with - but it's not something that makes McWilliams any better as an analyst.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Fiscal Treaty Megathread [Poll Reset]

Comments