Advertisement
Help Keep Boards Alive. Support us by going ad free today. See here: https://subscriptions.boards.ie/.
If we do not hit our goal we will be forced to close the site.

Current status: https://keepboardsalive.com/

Annual subs are best for most impact. If you are still undecided on going Ad Free - you can also donate using the Paypal Donate option. All contribution helps. Thank you.
https://www.boards.ie/group/1878-subscribers-forum

Private Group for paid up members of Boards.ie. Join the club.

Well, bank recapitalisation is here

13

Comments

  • #62
    Time Magazine
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,452 ✭✭✭Time Magazine


    SimpleSam06 wrote: »
    we are in a similar position in ways to the pre crash US, or Germany after Weimar. The solutions I am suggesting would not work in those countries or globally today. They are tailored for Ireland.
    I'm confused here but I think you're rebutting the article I linked to without exactly specifying why. The fiscal stimuli you mention (the New Deal and Nazi Germany) didn't really work. Why would you tailor failed historical examples to Ireland if you think we are in a similar position to where they were?
    We are getting into massive public debt regardless, so we may as well something out of it.
    I agree; I'm not sure a fiscal stimulus is the best thing we could get from it.


  • #63
    SimpleSam06
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,048 ✭✭✭SimpleSam06


    The Economist wrote: »
    I'm confused here but I think you're rebutting the article I linked to without exactly specifying why. The fiscal stimuli you mention (the New Deal and Nazi Germany) didn't really work. Why would you tailor failed historical examples to Ireland if you think we are in a similar position to where they were?
    Eh first off, the article doesn't specify why the author feels they were not applicable, unless he is some sort of unquestionable authority on the subject - improved infrastructure and public works do offer tremendous demonstrable long term advantages to a country. Not to mention that all of the countries where these policies were executed are now some of the most powerful economies on earth.

    Secondly what I took from the article was that he was saying that applying enormous amounts of money in the manner it is being applied at the moment is a bad idea (hence the quoting of the "bottom line"), which I agree with.

    You can't just wave a hand at poorly targeted fiscal stimulus and say it represents all stimulus, that would be a fatal generalisation.
    The Economist wrote: »
    I agree; I'm not sure a fiscal stimulus is the best thing we could get from it.
    What would you suggest to put Ireland on a sound economic footing for the mid to long term?


  • #64
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    SimpleSam06 wrote: »
    Bad example there. The asset price bubble in Japan popped in 1990, and its collapse lasted more than a decade, with stock prices bottoming in 2003.

    Indeed, despite every keynsian trick thown at the Japanese problem it managed to stay in recession for more then a decade despite a growing international economy. Surely this demonstrates that actively trying to prop up past bubbles extends the recessions beyond what would naturally have occured.
    SimpleSam06 wrote: »

    Are you trying to say that industry and commerce should be entirely unregulated, because thats what I'm picking up.

    Absolutely not, I've no opinion on that , all I'm interested in for now is there a causal relationship between past gov intervention in a market and that market behaving in a disfunctional manner or will the policy reponse to a "crises" make matters worse. I'd argue that based on experience regulation is not the be all and end all , it seems that either the regulation is pi88 poor for example Sarbanes Oxley or the regualtions are the problem in the first place for instance the rating agency cartel created by the SEC.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #65
    SimpleSam06
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,048 ✭✭✭SimpleSam06


    silverharp wrote: »
    Indeed, despite every keynsian trick thown at the Japanese problem it managed to stay in recession for more then a decade despite a growing international economy. Surely this demonstrates that actively trying to prop up past bubbles extends the recessions beyond what would naturally have occured.
    Thats a false corollary, its not Keynesian=trying to prop up bubbles beyond their lifespan. It would be of course foolish to attempt to do so (or even more foolish to allow yourself to be put in a position where your economy can be wiped out by a bubble in the first place).
    silverharp wrote: »
    I'd argue that based on experience regulation is not the be all and end all , it seems that either the regulation is pi88 poor for example Sarbanes Oxley or the regualtions are the problem in the first place for instance the rating agency cartel created by the SEC.
    I agree that regulation is not the be all and end all, but a sufficient balance needs to be found. Left to its own devices the market tends towards massive consolidation and locking out of smaller players; conversely, drastic government intervention wipes out economies. Right now we need more regulation in financial circles, and growth policies to lay the groundwork for domestic export based industries - put the tax money where it will do the most good.


  • #66
    thebman
    Closed Accounts Posts: 10,007 ✭✭✭✭thebman


    rrpc wrote: »
    And letting these housing stocks go at fire damage sale prices would create a negative equity situation for thousands of people who bought at the height of the market. Maybe that's not you Dave but you proabably know lots of people who are already there.

    That has to happen anyway, the market has to correct itself, does it not? There are too many empty houses. The value of a house isn't that important as long as the owners intend to live in it. People will earn and pay off their mortgages that they have which they are going to have to do anyway. I wouldn't mind helping people in some way that have lost their jobs and can't afford their mortgage for the house they live in, I'm just against protecting investors that invested badly.

    The only people affected would be investors in the housing market. People that invested in an overflooded market. There is no way to protect them IMO. The market is overflooded. Unless you want to go demolishing the empty houses in which case, the property developers will be hit hardest. Although the investors and property developers are the same people in many instances.

    Can you outline how the over supply will correct itself without having a negative affect?
    Lending is a risk assessment activity. On a micro scale, if you borrowed 300k to buy a house two years ago, would you have believed then that it was a bad investment? Yet now, this kind of borrowing is described as irresponsible :confused:

    Irrelevant IMO. What does it matter that it looked like a good investment then? It wasn't and tough luck to the person that invested in it. In a single isolated case, nobody would care. People only care because of the number of people affected.

    Well the housing market is still going to have to correct itself so the money invested will most likely be lost at some point anyway unless someone can show me some plan that prevents that happening. I'd be for anything that would actually work and solve the problem and not just prolong the inevitable.
    Obviously many people didn't, but they are now in possession of unsaleable houses whose value has dropped below the price paid at the time.

    Most people live in their houses and aren't really intending to sell so the value of the house isn't all that important to them as long as they can afford the repayments. Investing in property with empty houses all over the place (which everybody could see) was inevitably going to be a bad idea. That market is screwed and the people that bought have lost their investment same as if they had invested in a company and its share priced collapsed.

    I wouldn't entirely be against the government helping out people who can't pay off their mortgages on the residence they live in. It would obviously need to be worked out so there are no loop holes people could take advantage of though. I don't want to see people homeless but people that made bad investments can't really be bailed out by the taxpayers. Why should the people that didn't make bad investments bail out those who did? Especially when those who made bad investments, borrowed the money to make bad investments. It just doesn't make sense to me.

    Personally I agree in investing in infrastructure hugely at the moment. You could probably retrain a lot of the unemployed construction sector to work on the projects so they could afford their mortgages. The projects are required anyway. Name one person that thinks public transport is adequate or that broadband is adequately provided in the country or even that we have enough roads. We absolutely need (actually desperately need) to invest in infrastructure in this country. Infrastructure has been ignored for too long in this country.

    I'm very tired writing this so apologies if I've written b*ll*cks or come across as cranky. I'm pretty reasonable and could never declare myself an expert on these issues so if you show me I'm wrong, I won't have a problem with it, I'll just consider it a lesson learned :)


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    SimpleSam06 wrote: »
    Thats a false corollary, its not Keynesian=trying to prop up bubbles beyond their lifespan. It would be of course foolish to attempt to do so (or even more foolish to allow yourself to be put in a position where your economy can be wiped out by a bubble in the first place).

    Ok then in your opinion did japan "generally" do the right thing from 1990 onwards, where did they go wrong?
    SimpleSam06 wrote: »
    Right now we need more regulation in financial circles, and growth policies to lay the groundwork for domestic export based industries - put the tax money where it will do the most good.

    I doubt if regulation will be a problem for many years given a falling asset price environment.

    do you trust gov. to "pick" winning industries or to spend borrowed money in a way that it will generate a positive return? this economy is going nowhere until private debt in the economy drops to Euopean averages at least, and the public sector by some miracle becomes more efficient then our European neighbours. Tax cuts and a balanced budget would help.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #68
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    brim4brim wrote: »
    Personally I agree in investing in infrastructure hugely at the moment. You could probably retrain a lot of the unemployed construction sector to work on the projects so they could afford their mortgages. The projects are required anyway. Name one person that thinks public transport is adequate or that broadband is adequately provided in the country or even that we have enough roads. We absolutely need (actually desperately need) to invest in infrastructure in this country. Infrastructure has been ignored for too long in this country.


    It comes down to what do you need and what can you afford? we may need new school buildings or more roads but borrowing to build them may create more problems in economic terms. All things being equal we are unlikely to be in a situation where we can borrow our way out of this like the 70's

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #69
    SimpleSam06
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,048 ✭✭✭SimpleSam06


    silverharp wrote: »
    Ok then in your opinion did japan "generally" do the right thing from 1990 onwards, where did they go wrong?
    I'm not here to analyse Japan any more than I am here to dissect the New Deal, these seem to be your fortes.
    silverharp wrote: »
    I doubt if regulation will be a problem for many years given a falling asset price environment.
    So you would be perfectly happy to continue with the existing fairly unregulated financial environment, even though it has brought the world economy to its knees?
    silverharp wrote: »
    do you trust gov. to "pick" winning industries or to spend borrowed money in a way that it will generate a positive return?
    If you distrust "government" so much, vote in a new one. Long live democracy.
    silverharp wrote: »
    this economy is going nowhere until private debt in the economy drops to Euopean averages at least, and the public sector by some miracle becomes more efficient then our European neighbours. Tax cuts and a balanced budget would help.
    The economy is always going somewhere. The prudent move right now would be to use what we have to do what we should have been doing all along, promoting export based domestic industry and weaning the country off the teat of FDI. How exactly do you propose to balance the budget without said domestic industry and without riots in the streets from the unions? Or are you just spouting low taxes and deregulation on all sides, a fine populist sentiment but in terms of practicality its somewhat lacking.
    silverharp wrote: »
    It comes down to what do you need and what can you afford? we may need new school buildings or more roads but borrowing to build them may create more problems in economic terms.
    We'll be borrowing any way you slice it. Unless the ravenous public sector is brought to heel, we'll be borrowing to our great detriment.
    silverharp wrote: »
    All things being equal we are unlikely to be in a situation where we can borrow our way out of this like the 70's
    Its not so much how much you borrow, its what you put it into.


  • #70
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    SimpleSam06 wrote: »
    I'm not here to analyse Japan any more than I am here to dissect the New Deal, these seem to be your fortes..
    if you dont learn from history you are doomed to repeat it
    SimpleSam06 wrote: »
    So you would be perfectly happy to continue with the existing fairly unregulated financial environment, even though it has brought the world economy to its knees?..
    in response to your "right now" I'm just saying you are in a barn door and bolted situation, I'd worry about regulation a few years out from now. Market participants will be more conservative now then any new regulations could introduce

    SimpleSam06 wrote: »

    The economy is always going somewhere. The prudent move right now would be to use what we have to do what we should have been doing all along, promoting export based domestic industry and weaning the country off the teat of FDI..
    Aspirational stuff, I wait with baited breath


    SimpleSam06 wrote: »
    We'll be borrowing any way you slice it. Unless the ravenous public sector is brought to heel, we'll be borrowing to our great detriment..

    yes that is set in stone I'd say
    SimpleSam06 wrote: »
    Its not so much how much you borrow, its what you put it into.

    and it will be used for day to day spending or pet projects that wont give any long term financial benefits. we will see debt to GDP heading for 150% of a much educed GDP and rising interest rates

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #71
    SimpleSam06
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,048 ✭✭✭SimpleSam06


    silverharp wrote: »
    if you dont learn from history you are doomed to repeat it
    The irony of that coming from a laissez faire capitalism advocate is overwhelming.
    silverharp wrote: »
    in response to your "right now" I'm just saying you are in a barn door and bolted situation, I'd worry about regulation a few years out from now. Market participants will be more conservative now then any new regulations could introduce
    Actually I wouldn't underestimate the damage that financial institutions are capable of doing even at this late stage. The sooner controls are brought to bear, the better.
    silverharp wrote: »
    Aspirational stuff, I wait with baited breath
    Wait for what, you already know the bones of the policies I suggested.
    silverharp wrote: »
    and it will be used for day to day spending or pet projects that wont give any long term financial benefits. we will see debt to GDP heading for 150% of a much educed GDP and rising interest rates
    Unless something is done about it.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    SimpleSam06
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,048 ✭✭✭SimpleSam06


    silverharp wrote: »
    Aspirational stuff, I wait with baited breath
    Just to save further debate on the issue, here are the original policy ideas I laid out back in September.
    What I would do is:
    Step 1:
    Go on a rampage through the public sector, cutting off dead weight left and right without fear or favour. The problem with beaurocracies is that eventually the people that rise to the top end up caring more about the organisation than about the organisation's goals, so start at the top and work your way down. Healthcare reform, top of the agenda.

    The unions would protest, weep, and threaten to bring the country to its knees (and they could do it too), so they need to be broken good and hard. I'm thinking along the lines of eminent domain for threatening the country, do your jobs or go to prison. Harsh yes, but needed, the purpose of the public sector is to support and maintain the nation, not the other way round.

    That would more or less help the economy to balance the books, then we move along to

    Step 2:

    Finance and build eight or ten world class educational institutions, with a difference, which is that they would be quite specialised. I'm think along the lines of
    • Marine engineering and technology- We are an island ffs
    • Chip fabrication- Chip fabs are high expense but low ongoing cost, and there is no reason we couldn't do it as well as people in Taiwan
    • Robotics and Automation- If you want to compete with slave labour conditions in the third world, you need free labour, to whit automation
    • Pharmaceuticals- Again another soft market, once you have the result you can reproduce it for half nothing
    • Bioengineering- Biofuel algae, marine life, hydroponics, the list goes on and on
    • Materials science- SOme very interesting things going on in this field at the moment
    • Energy physics- Batteries and supercapacitors, these will be vital components no matter what happens in the future
    • Cultural and artistic- We have a rich culturaltradition here, which needs to be developed centrally, and turned into tourist bobs as well as reflected in a variety of ways throughout society
    • Software and media- More high initial cost, low ongoing cost industries, also vital for marketing for any other industries founded

    Plus a few others.

    The mandate of these institutions would be not just to educate but to research. Also they would provide a massive cash boost to any town or city they are placed in, ongoing.

    Step 3:
    While your institutions are being built and start pumping out graduates, the overall aim of government would be to improve infrastructure, roads, rail, electricity, telecomms, basics like water, and generally prepare for industrial growth.

    You can then create and fund domestic industries for each group, much more private than semi state, and each of those would then lead directly on to subsidiary industries, and so on.

    I am aware that a plan like this would put us badly in the hole to the tune of tens of billions, but we're going there anyway, so we may as well get something out of it. Not to mention that if even one or two of these groups successfully produce industries, we'll have that paid back smartly.
    When I posted that in AH, it received tremendous popular support. I posted it in accom/prop after someone asked about it, and it was the first time ever that those perennial duellists, the vested commercial interests and the pro-consumer advocates, stood up in support of an idea. So there is demonstrable widespread support for the approach.


  • #73
    AARRRGH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    SimpleSam06 etc., you're ruining this thread. Can you accept you're all sort of right/sort of wrong and get back on topic?


  • #74
    SimpleSam06
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,048 ✭✭✭SimpleSam06


    AARRRGH wrote: »
    SimpleSam06 etc., you're ruining this thread. Can you accept you're all sort of right/sort of wrong and get back on topic?
    If you had bothered to read the thread you'd realise it is all on-topic. Failing that complain to a mod, although they have been participating in the thread as well.


  • #75
    dresden8
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,291 ✭✭✭dresden8


    Impose Martial Law on public servants and jail them?

    Are you for real?

    There are things said on this board about public servants that would get you put in jail if you said them about "the blacks".

    Get a grip on reality will you.


  • #76
    AARRRGH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    SimpleSam06 wrote: »
    If you had bothered to read the thread you'd realise it is all on-topic. Failing that complain to a mod, although they have been participating in the thread as well.

    I have read your posts - they're full of childish tit for tat nonsense. That kind of crap just derails topics.


  • #77
    SimpleSam06
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,048 ✭✭✭SimpleSam06


    dresden8 wrote: »
    Impose Martial Law on public servants and jail them?
    I didn't say anything about martial law. However if any group or organisation represents a threat to the well being of the nation as a whole, then that organisation must be removed, end of. The public sector unions have made a habit of threatening to hold the entire country to ransom (and they could do it / have done it) unless their unreasonable pay demands are met, under the false umbrella of first the dot com boom and now the construction boom, a situation which has lead to enormous deficits and the removal of funds from areas which should be catered for.

    It is you who should get a grip on reality.
    AARRRGH wrote: »
    I have read your posts - they're full of childish tit for tat nonsense. That kind of crap just derails topics.
    I love these posters that come into the discussion, read the last three posts and can't draw a line between that and the original topic, before spoiling the thread for everyone else by complaining about their deficiencies. Discussion is why we are here and why we are posting, if you can't deal with that, start a blog.


  • #78
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    SimpleSam06 wrote: »
    The irony of that coming from a laissez faire capitalism advocate is overwhelming.

    dont think so, the Austrains washed their hands of the current system when the Fed was created in 1913. A centralised fractional reserve banking system is the anthetitises of laissez faire. The lesson that everyone has to learn is that you cant inflate your way to prosperity. The irony is that in an age where the state controls or regulates just about every economic activity that you think that any of the problems we have today are related to laissez faire. frog in slowly boiling pot comes to mind.



    I read your other piece while agreeing with take a hatchet to the civil service and other state agencies (which in itself would be a demanding exercise) I think your solutions may have been a suitable for the 1990's. Looking forward into the next 5 or 10 years when the global economy will be contracting at its biggest clip since the 1930's is not the time to be expanding the educational sector or picking sectors for future development, if anything our educational sector is probably bloated and has probably lost its way like many countries.

    if you read the following bloomberg articles on how the chip sector is doing you may want to scrub it from your list of preferred sectors to invest in. gov. bailouts in the sector etc.

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601204&sid=aURD9YHSZ.KE&refer=technology


    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601204&refer=technology&sid=aphIFVYMrAhA

    http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601204&refer=technology&sid=aF_K_4jTKMxE

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #79
    AARRRGH
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,382 ✭✭✭✭AARRRGH


    SimpleSam06 wrote: »
    I love these posters that come into the discussion, read the last three posts and can't draw a line between that and the original topic, before spoiling the thread for everyone else by complaining about their deficiencies. Discussion is why we are here and why we are posting, if you can't deal with that, start a blog.

    Yawn. :rolleyes:


  • #80
    SimpleSam06
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,048 ✭✭✭SimpleSam06


    silverharp wrote: »
    dont think so, the Austrains washed their hands of the current system when the Fed was created in 1913. A centralised fractional reserve banking system is the anthetitises of laissez faire.
    Please don't tell me you are an Austrian adherent.
    silverharp wrote: »
    The lesson that everyone has to learn is that you cant inflate your way to prosperity.
    If your currency is the default global currency, you actually can. The rest of the world is screwed of course, but hey.
    silverharp wrote: »
    The irony is that in an age where the state controls or regulates just about every economic activity that you think that any of the problems we have today are related to laissez faire. frog in slowly boiling pot comes to mind.
    The lack of control left us in this position, and frogs leap out of a warm pot.
    silverharp wrote: »
    Looking forward into the next 5 or 10 years
    I'm looking forward to the next century, as it turns out.
    silverharp wrote: »
    if you read the following bloomberg articles on how the chip sector is doing you may want to scrub it from your list of preferred sectors to invest in. gov. bailouts in the sector etc.
    The final analysis is that chipfabs are neccessary to future technological growth. They are so expensive that there might only be one per country, but the governments of said countries feel they are valuable enough to bail them out, for a good reason.

    So overall, you are in agreement with the ideas laid out, or would you go a different route?


  • #81
    dresden8
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,291 ✭✭✭dresden8


    SimpleSam06 wrote: »
    I didn't say anything about martial law. However if any group or organisation represents a threat to the well being of the nation as a whole, then that organisation must be removed, end of. The public sector unions have made a habit of threatening to hold the entire country to ransom (and they could do it / have done it) unless their unreasonable pay demands are met, under the false umbrella of first the dot com boom and now the construction boom, a situation which has lead to enormous deficits and the removal of funds from areas which should be catered for.

    It is you who should get a grip on reality.

    As I recall your idea for public servants was
    do your jobs or go to prison

    Where will you put this public service concentration camp? And what's the colour of the sky there?


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    SimpleSam06
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,048 ✭✭✭SimpleSam06


    dresden8 wrote: »
    Where will you put this public service concentration camp? And what's the colour of the sky there?
    Actually I would reserve the most serious penalties for union leaders. So tell me, o fount of limitless wisdom, what would you do with the public sector, or would you just let the rest of the population languish for the next few generations until private sector wages catch up with public sector, or perhaps you would have public sector wages with permanent jobs stay forever ahead of the private sector, and the public deficit on a permanently growing spiral?

    What a joke.


  • #83
    Économiste Monétaire
    Closed Accounts Posts: 2,208 ✭✭✭Économiste Monétaire


    There's no need to be overly-dramatic with accusations of SimpleSam's implicit desire to put employees, working in the public sector, into concentration camps.


  • #84
    dresden8
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,291 ✭✭✭dresden8


    Économiste Monétaire wrote: »
    There's no need to be overly-dramatic with accusations of SimpleSam's implicit desire to put employees, working in the public sector, into concentration camps.

    I digress, I realise I was over the top.

    Only Union Leaders would be liquidated for the common good.

    I realise the errors of my ways.

    Commie scum.

    It's a pity stupidity is not a reason for a perma-ban.


  • #85
    SimpleSam06
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,048 ✭✭✭SimpleSam06


    dresden8 wrote: »
    It's a pity stupidity is not a reason for a perma-ban.
    I take it you work for the public sector then? :D

    And as a sidebar, you continually refer to them as public servants, which given their actions and general attitude, is the last thing they are.

    Come to think of it, reading back over your posts, you have thus far compared the public sector to pre-civil rights black people, Jews under Hitler, and some sort of reference to Communists, I'm guessing witch hunts are your general gist here. These jaw droppingly poor comparisons are not only par for the course for public unions (one clown actually used the holocaust thing in a press release), they are a grotesque insult to the people that had to go through these struggles.

    Its not particularly surprising however, the circus-like mindset, divorced from anything even vaguely resembling reality, of the unions is astonishing to put it mildly.

    I recall I was waving a report at one individual highlighting pay differences, and he started telling me that half the authors of the report had resigned, and one had tried to commit suicide. He then linked to some article which had nothing to do with what we were discussing, I mean at all. So he literally invented, wholesale, his half of the argument and waffled around in circles for pages while he was called on it. Its hard to argue with people that will look you straight in the eye and spout deliberate freewheeling bollocks. We used to call that sort of carry on trolling, but these lads actually mean it, in a warped and convoluted way.


  • #86
    rugbyman
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,789 ✭✭✭rugbyman


    Silverharp and Simple sam

    I am completely bogged down in your type of debate, I know little of the topic, and arguing whether the after the great depresion measures were any good or whether they are applicable today. I am a strong admirer of Thatcherism,whose era I lived through. She is said to be Keynesian.


    However the one point on which you seem to agree is that this country is top heavy with public servants. Their salaries come from the taxes on the wealth produced by the economy. It seems clear to me that swinging cuts need to be made there,unfortunately laying out more money to cut out those who are not productive or not needed at all., and reducing salaries of those remaining.

    To be fair to the Govt., they have been edging towards efficiency for some years by giving out work to private contractors(whose pension,and sick days they dont have to fund.)

    readers, look around you and see how many of your family and friends work for the state. Its incredible.

    Some poster on one of these threads commented that benchmarking should be revisited. Surely in a well operated Benchmarking operation there would be salary reductions, with no argument from the Unions because the same comparision process would be used.


    Quote
    "the population languish for the next few generations until private sector wages catch up with public sector, or perhaps you would have public sector wages with permanent jobs stay forever ahead of the private sector, and"


    Somewhat surprised at you Sam, the problem is not the differential between sectors, its the bloatedness of the public sector. Though admittedly the difference is now getting out of proportion.





    Quote
    " if anything our educational sector is probably bloated and has probably lost its way like many countries."

    I agree with this line,from my distant observations. In our local Institute of Technology, bloated is not the word.
    It seems to me that if a would be pupil walked in and and enquired about Courses in Afghan Hound rearing, there would be an half page advert in a national newspaper the next week for Lecturers in Afghan Hound rearing, oh and a secretary for same,and a technician.


    regards, Rugbyman


  • #87
    ThermalBER GUY
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5 ✭ThermalBER GUY


    Well David McWilliams says that Lenihan is a muppet and he is going to prolong this recssion by not cutting to the chase and making the tough decisions so we are all SHAGGED!! I believe him to be correct


  • #88
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    rugbyman wrote: »
    I am a strong admirer of Thatcherism,whose era I lived through. She is said to be Keynesian.

    I'd say she was more of a Monetarist, here is a glowing piece about her.


    Thatcher’s Defense of the Free Market


    by J. R. Nyquist
    Weekly Column Published: 12.12.2008
    Print
    G oethe once said, “I hate everything that merely instructs me without augmenting or directly invigorating my activity.” The political teachings of right and left, for the past thirty years, constitute a sort of sleepy and repetitive humbug. We hear the words, we repeat the words, and we shuffle along like sleepwalkers. If the left is disappointed by Obama’s centrist appointees, or the right is disappointed at the emptiness of Republican politicians, then perhaps today’s ideologies are more sedative than stimulant. “Here is the truth,” they promise. “Now you can rest because everything is settled.” For an exhausted modernity, ideological instruction is like a pillow. It is a place to rest one’s head.

    Goethe would argue that an idea (as opposed to an ideology) is not a resting place, but a point of departure. The case of former British Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher offers a good example of someone whose activity was directly invigorated by instruction. Instead of using ideology as a comfortable corner to defend, she challenged the world. We see this in Claire Berlinski’s biography of Thatcher, There Is No Alternative. According to Berlinski, “It is critical to appreciate that Thatcher’s enthusiasm for free markets can’t be reduced to an enthusiasm for economic efficiency – this is a charge often made, but it simply isn’t so. A moral society, not an efficient one, was her ultimate goal.”

    It is my theory that today’s gross materialism is a corollary of our collective sleepwalking. Our political and economic ideas are merely convenient, and adapted to meet the needs of a hedonistic shopping mall regime. Our society has lost its way, forgetting the values that made us strong and prosperous. In 1977 Thatcher noted: “The main issues are moral. In warfare, said Napoleon – the moral is to the material as three to one. You may think that in civil society the ratio is even greater. The economic success of the Western world is a product of its moral philosophy and practice.”

    As America turns to socialism (i.e., the government allocation of economic resources) it is interesting to consider the immorality of what is done. The rich want to keep their wealth. And they seem perfectly willing to exhaust public funds to do so. But the wealth that many want to preserve was never real. The boom that made this wealth was false – and corrupting. At bottom, the market is now trying to correct the immorality of self-deceptive practices. Many participants don’t accept this correction, and so they reject the market just as the ancient Israelites rejected the prophets.

    “Choice is the essence of ethics.” said Thatcher, “If there were no choice, there would be no ethics.” If human beings are free to choose, then man must reap what he sows. This is what is being denied today. Therefore, many financiers and industrialists turn to the government. “Bail us out,” they cry. “If we go down, everything goes down.” In answer to this, precious resources are diverted by the state in support of the worst malpractices of the previous era. Here is the essence of socialism, the core of a rotten policy. “The socialists,” said Thatcher, “would take away most or all of [our] choices. A man would do what he was told by the state and his union, work where work was ‘found’ for him, at the rate fixed and degree of effort permitted. He would send his children to school where the education authority decided what the children are taught and the way they are taught, irrespective of his views, he would live in the housing provided, take what he could get, give what he was obliged to give.”

    Even if the U.S. government could save Detroit, the banks and Wall Street, consider Thatcher’s warning: “This doesn’t produce a responsible or a moral society. This doesn’t produce a classless society; on the contrary it produces the most stratified of all societies, divided into two classes: the powerful and the powerless; the party-bureaucratic elite and the manipulated masses.” The result is disastrous: economic inefficiency, national demoralization and schlubocracy. (Speaking of which, we see the future promise of this type of government in Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich’s attempt to solicit bribes in exchange for the president-elect’s senate seat.)

    Politicians believe that government spending can save us from catastrophe. Berlinski calls this “the wickedness of profligacy.” Such spending marks a return to inflation. As Margaret Thatcher explained, “For many years we have been told that a little bit of inflation is good for you. Many economists assured us … that inflation is necessary to maintain full employment, to facilitate growth and keep the economy moving. The message was: spend your way to prosperity, and when the economy faltered, spend and spend again.” History shows that the policy doesn’t work. By debasing the currency, the government breaks the trust between government and the governed. According to Thatcher, “Once the people lose their trust in money, the freedom of … society will be diminished or even, eventually, destroyed.”

    Thatcher was confident in her conclusions because she had historical sense. She saw that the West was the most advanced civilization. She looked at the values and ideas that held sway as the West advanced from feudal squalor to modern prosperity. When these values were discarded, she saw that progress turned to stagnation. Quite logically, the solution was to rediscover the old values. Invigorated by this instructive insight, Thatcher turned her country around by defending the free market as a moral principle.

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • #89
    SimpleSam06
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,048 ✭✭✭SimpleSam06


    rugbyman wrote: »
    To be fair to the Govt., they have been edging towards efficiency for some years by giving out work to private contractors(whose pension,and sick days they dont have to fund.)
    I've noticed that too. Its not enough to cut back on the public sector though, if the country as a whole is to progress we need a roadmap for the future. Is the current government able to provide that? I have my doubts.
    rugbyman wrote: »
    Somewhat surprised at you Sam, the problem is not the differential between sectors, its the bloatedness of the public sector. Though admittedly the difference is now getting out of proportion.
    The private sector is the yardstick by which public sector salaries must be measured. It needs to be, since the private sector pays for every penny of the public sector. Everything.

    The problem with benchmarking is that the process is flawed from the get-go; public sector salaries began at parity with private sector when benchmarking was first introduced, now it outweighs private sector entirely. This was achieved by union strongarming and bully boy tactics.

    The difference is they aren't strongarming some greedy corporation, they are strongarming you and me, the taxpayer, and they aren't going for equal pay and conditions, they want as much as they can take, and then some. If we let them they'd be on 10 hour weeks with a bonus for any time worked over that. Add to this the bloat you mentioned and you have a millstone around the country's neck.

    If this were a company it would have gone out of business long ago. A country can't go out of business, although it can come very close.


  • #90
    silverharp
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 18,853 ✭✭✭✭silverharp


    SimpleSam06 wrote: »
    So overall, you are in agreement with the ideas laid out, or would you go a different route?

    You seem to be suggesting building an "elite" post grad system of top of the existing structures, I'd say we cant afford it. I'm guessing our 3rd level system is bloated and needs to be restructured. I've lost count of the amount of admin assistants I've interviewed over the years with "communications degrees":rolleyes:

    I will be suspicious of any measures that leaves us among the highest cost countries to do business in, the economic base will be eroded before we have a chance of being the "Israel" of Europe

    A belief in gender identity involves a level of faith as there is nothing tangible to prove its existence which, as something divorced from the physical body, is similar to the idea of a soul. - Colette Colfer



  • Advertisement
  • #91
    SimpleSam06
    Closed Accounts Posts: 4,048 ✭✭✭SimpleSam06


    silverharp wrote: »
    You seem to be suggesting building an "elite" post grad system of top of the existing structures, I'd say we cant afford it. I'm guessing our 3rd level system is bloated and needs to be restructured.
    I'd say we can't afford not to have it. It is insufficient to produce run of the mill general graduates, we need specialisation and expertise that feeds back into the education process. Many existing courses are half "filler", where lecturers need to put something in the blank time slots, and the information they have is often out of date or not applicable to modern work practices.

    Rather than trying to shoehorn them in on top of existing educational facilities, it might be better to view them as alternative educational facilites.
    silverharp wrote: »
    I will be suspicious of any measures that leaves us among the highest cost countries to do business in, the economic base will be eroded before we have a chance of being the "Israel" of Europe
    What economic base? We're already deep in hock and getting deeper, the public sector unions are going to bring the country to a halt at any attempt to change that, and we have an incumbent president on the US who by all accounts isn't going to do FDI any favours. And FDI is really all we have. We need to get the finger out and become more self reliant immediately.


Advertisement