Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.
Hi all, please see this major site announcement: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058427594/boards-ie-2026

The Anti-Austerity Crowd

1…89101214

Comments

  • #332
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Oh look, you dodged it again!

    Here it is again:
    If the banks want money creating powers (a massive privilege granted by the state), they can follow the states rules (setting credit restrictions), or they can feck off and become 100% reserve banks, and take whatever risks they like.


    Your argument isn't even Libertarian - you want the government to just hand over the massive privilege and subsidy to banks, of being able to create money from nothing, without any restrictions (which is typical of Libertarians - pretending they are all about freedom from the state, while wanting one of the biggest subsidies there is from the state - the power to create money).

    My argument - of making banks that want to take that risk, do it at 100% reserve rate - is Libertarian, yours isn't.


  • #333
    Idbatterim
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,706 ✭✭✭✭Idbatterim


    In his fine new book, European Spring, Legrain helpfully reminds us of the nature of the game: “had Irish banks defaulted on all their debt at the end of September 2010, German banks would have lost €42.5 billion, British ones €27.5 billion and French ones €12.3 billion.”
    If these figures can be believed, while it is understandable, that those countries might have had a major problem with it, surely to them it would be a drop in the ocean that the banks could have taken a hit on themselves, without having to go to their respective taxpayers to receive a bailout? Given the size of their banks... Or even only some assistance V the entire country here getting absolutely screwed over it?


  • #334
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Convexity wrote: »
    Banks don't have " money creating powers". They have the ability to lend which they've given themself just like a shop has thr ability to sell milk which it gives itself.

    Let companies charge what they want for their products, if a bank goes bust due to wreckless lending let them fail, don'bail them out . Banks will then need to be prudent to attract depositors.
    You've re-regged and been banned more times than I can keep track of - please don't reply to me, as posts just get deleted when you're banned, and I don't want to spend time writing those posts.


  • #335
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Merrion wrote: »
    So the reverse of this ability of banks to create money is the ability of others to destroy it. If I decide it is too risky to buy the server in today's economy and thus cancel my loan, the bank loses the 10k asset but also the 10k liability so they are OK. (They would even charge me a penalty to cover their costs.) However 10k disappears from the economy causing it to contract.

    In my opinion, it is this change in sentiment in borrowers rather than lenders that causes recessions.
    Exactly, yes - what happens is that the level of private debt gets so high (here was Ireland's), that when an economic slowdown happens and new debt:money stops being created, the economy freezes up and you enter a period of debt-deflation, which leads to an economic crisis while debts are deleveraging.


  • #336
    darkpagandeath
    Closed Accounts Posts: 24,461 ✭✭✭✭darkpagandeath


    Idbatterim wrote: »
    If these figures can be believed, while it is understandable, that those countries might have had a major problem with it, surely to them it would be a drop in the ocean that the banks could have taken a hit on themselves, without having to go to their respective taxpayers to receive a bailout? Given the size of their banks... Or even only some assistance V the entire country here getting absolutely screwed over it?

    Yeah but they would have been EU pillar banks weakening them would have weakened the Euro and create a threat of loss of confidence in the single currency. And Germany want other EU countries to Prop up the Devalued deutsche mark


  • Advertisement
  • #337
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Ray Palmer wrote: »
    I think talking about economic theory misses some massive points about the anti-austerity crowd and the supporters. They are not talking about using any of these methods. Go look at the people before profit website and you will see what they are suggesting. It is about increasing tax on the high earners, businesses and financial transactions.

    If people want to talk about alternatives they should really stick to that on another thread probably in the economics forum. There is no party suggesting the methods that seem to have been suggested here. Unless of course they are hiding it because their supporters wouldn't understand it, which I could well believe.

    If that is the case then the proponents are loosing support people would give in favour of support from hardliners and the angry. Then what will happen is they will lose the support as they don't do as they said.

    Politics of how to bring any changes in are as important as anything else. Let's not forget decentralisation apparently would save the country a fortune. The electronic voting machines failure was more to do with political resistance than anything else. They did work and I would admit there was a flaw with them but not a fatal flaw it was political opposition that was the problem.

    Same problem with any change to the tax collection system. You need the employees and the other political parties to agree while letting the public understand. If you don't do that it doesn't matter it will never happen.
    I agree with you on the first part here, but the problem is that threads like this end up panning all people who are anti-austerity, so it kind of has to be defended as a general term, rather than as referring to the groups/parties that are discreditable.

    I mean, you see a lot of the narrative in this thread, talking about 'tax the rich' and 'there is no alternative [to austerity]', so it kind of inevitably leads to a wider discussion, that there are alternatives, and that maybe higher taxes aren't a good thing to focus on.


  • #338
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Jaxen Late Supporter wrote: »
    Not this absolute absolute nonsense again.

    The banks don't create money and the government don't grant them any privileges.

    Why are you the only person pushing this incorrect view and don't quote the UK central bank because it does not support your view, you are twisting what they say, adding a bit of salt and then making totally incorrect statements to support your own agenda.
    I am not the only person who holds this view, hatrickpatrick/Merrion (among others) also holds this view, and the Economics forum moderator andrew holds this view, and there is a discussion on the Irish Economy forum here, where many other people also hold this view:
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057197057

    I will now post the Bank of England report again, and you need to prove how I am mis-stating what they are saying:
    https://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2057167651

    Here are some quotes from the Bank of England - have fun trying to prove that any of this is a mis-statement, or a twisting of words:
    This article explains how the majority of money in the modern economy is created by commercial banks making loans.
    ...
    Whenever a bank makes a loan, it simultaneously creates a matching deposit in the borrower’s bank account, thereby creating new money.
    ...
    The reality of how money is created today differs from the description found in some economics textbooks:
    • Rather than banks receiving deposits when households save and then lending them out, bank lending creates deposits.
    ...
    This article explains how, rather than banks lending out deposits that are placed with them, the act of lending creates deposits — the reverse of the sequence typically described in textbooks.
    ...
    Commercial banks create money, in the form of bank deposits, by making new loans. When a bank makes a loan, for example to someone taking out a mortgage to buy a house, it does not typically do so by giving them thousands of pounds worth of banknotes. Instead, it credits their bank account with a bank deposit of the size of the mortgage.
    At that moment, new money is created.
    ...
    Just as taking out a new loan creates money, the repayment of bank loans destroys money.
    (if anybody is in doubt, just read the short list of quotes above from the Bank of England, and search for them in their official document below)

    Prove that any of that is a mis-statement. You only assert it, and you have no argument, and you can not even be bothered to quote anything to counter what I have said - here is a direct link to the full report, knock yourself out:
    http://www.bankofengland.co.uk/publications/Documents/quarterlybulletin/2014/qb14q1prereleasemoneycreation.pdf


  • #339
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 38,989 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #340
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Yes and Yes.

    What is the purpose of Government ? What is it there for ? I suggest to you that one core function of the government is to regulate our economy for the good of the country. And part of that role is to restrict or prevent behaviour that damages the economy/country.

    For example one benefit that the Government affords business people is to grant them limited liability when they have an ongoing business that fails. It is a huge benefit. It also has side effects that hurt the economy, but the benefits outweigh the downsides. Ask any entrepreneur.

    When a situation arises where house prices inflate to such an extent that the appearance of a recession causes an inability by a significant number of borrowers to repay their debt, and default. This has a knock on effect on the whole country at large.

    It is most definitely in the interest of the country for the Government to act to stop this happening. People defaulting on debt is not just a private personal experience. If it were then the Gov would have no part to play. But it isn't a private experience.

    I believe that we should have restrictions on borrowing such that the amount borrowed is reasonable, in the light of the ability of the borrowers to continue earning and repaying that debt. I see no argument against that making any sense whatsoever.

    Had sensibly restrictions applied many of the developers who borrowed billions of euros against housing estate developments here and abroad without any collateral and without any evidence that their income would be sufficient to repay that debt - then the scale of the recession would have been significantly less. Had sensibly restrictions applied, most people who borrowed 100%+ loans to up bid housing prices without assured long term ability to repay those loans - then the scale of the recession would have been significantly less.


  • #341
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 38,989 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • Advertisement
  • #342
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Actually it only takes one person to inflate the price. Not only that, but when that house sells at the resulting higher price, the other houses in the area are then repriced upward by their sellers and their estate agents. The result is higher prices for all of the other houses. So a relatively small number of people able, or enabled, to bid higher can effect a huge number of house prices.


  • #343
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 38,989 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #344
    Potatoeman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,090 ✭✭✭Potatoeman


    pO1Neil wrote: »
    I agree with the angry mob. More taxes on the rich & less on the working/poorer classes.

    Define rich.


  • #345
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 38,989 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #346
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 24,773 ✭✭✭✭ [Deleted User]


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    And already subsidizes the anti-austerity protester by paying far more tax than them.


  • #347
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    This is something I was so easily able to show, was a deliberate lie from you on the Political Theory forum, that I had to get a mod to step in to stop you from smearing me.

    Now, one hour later, you are displaying your dishonesty and deliberate lying once again, to try and paint me as soapboxing (and, in my opinion, you're trying to create a consensus among mods/admins, to trigger mod action against me - something that some Libertarian posters have the ability to see and participate in on the mod forums) - this is something a mod had to tell you to stop with on another forum, and one hour later, after you had seen that, here you are again, putting forward the same lie.


    Your posts in general now, seem to be following a pattern of taking the most obtuse/nitpicking interpretation of what I have said, in order to try and string out the debate pointlessly, so you can take potshots - I reckon now, again to try and find opportunities to provoke me and create mod action against me.


  • #348
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,798 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Most that I know of refer primarily to gravy train riders and not just wealthy people in general. There's a difference between someone like Mark Zuckerberg being the CEO of Facebook and Brian Cowen bagging a seat on the Topaz board of directors for instance. And again, the moral implication of people who had a direct hand in causing the banking crisis still somehow earning massive multitudes of money is pretty nasty.


  • #349
    Piliger
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 6,741 ✭✭✭Piliger


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Most that I know of refer primarily to gravy train riders and not just wealthy people in general. There's a difference between someone like Mark Zuckerberg being the CEO of Facebook and Brian Cowen bagging a seat on the Topaz board of directors for instance. And again, the moral implication of people who had a direct hand in causing the banking crisis still somehow earning massive multitudes of money is pretty nasty.

    That is an 'attempt' at reducing the hysteria to a rational thumbnail. But unfortunately too many loud mouthed practitioners of envy don't see it like that. They lump everyone earning more than they do into some kind of appalling stereotype. And although I always found Cowen repulsive and blame him for many horrific decisions, he is entitled to earn a living as much as anyone else. And if Topaz think he brings value to them then so be it. This nasty resentment thing is beyond me and thankfully most people in Ireland.


  • #350
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 38,989 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #351
    pO1Neil
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 354 ✭✭pO1Neil


    Potatoeman wrote: »
    Define rich.

    Possessing great material wealth.


  • Advertisement
  • #352
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 38,989 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #353
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    You are trying to do that, by deliberately mislabeling it as something it is not - and then labeling it soapboxing based upon that.

    You know it is not 'MMT', and you know that the Bank of England explicitly supports the views I hold on bank money creation, yet you still try to paint it as being part of a view that you can more easily pass off as soapboxing - just because it offends your own ideological views.


  • #354
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 38,989 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #355
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    'every single time you start typing' - yes, that's not a hyperbolic exaggeration is it :rolleyes:

    Some news for you: It's none of your business what I type or when, and lying about what I am discussing, to try and trigger a mod reaction, shows you have a rather big problem with me mentioning it at all.

    Mind your own business perhaps, and don't smear other posters as making infractionable offenses, to the point that mods have to tell you to stop?


  • #356
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 38,989 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #357
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 38,989 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #358
    beardy_mcgrath
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 27 ✭beardy_mcgrath


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.


    Bono is probably green with envy about your income permabear


  • #359
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 38,989 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #360
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.
    Well I can say the same to you so - you have no place to tell me what I can and cannot post, so if you have a problem with something I post, debate it, don't whine that I post a view you don't like hearing, and try to lie to other posters about what I am posting, to smear me and make it look like I am advocating something that would be soapboxing (to the point, that a mod has to tell you to stop...).


  • Advertisement
  • #361
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 38,989 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


Advertisement
Advertisement