Sean O'Rourke Today Show

BarryD2 wrote: »

Bit of a 'car crash' interview with Brian Hayes former FG MEP. He retired from the MEP gig and has apparently stepped straight into a role of being a PRO for the banks.

Going down like a lead balloon with the listeners. Would he not have been wiser to sit out a few years and then take on a role like this?

It's part of the revolving door between the public and private sectors that goes on all over the world. Politicians in particular, but also senior public servants moving from government jobs to lobby for the private sector - and in particular for financial services (and often for Goldman Sachs).

And in fact, sometimes it works the other way around, where people from the private sector are brought into the public sector. Have a look at the career of Mario Draghi, for example - from general director of the Italian Treasury, to vice chairman and managing director of Goldman Sachs International, and then Governor of the Bank of Italy, and then to being chairman of the ECB.

Closer to home look at someone like John Bruton, who went from being Taoiseach, to being the European Union ambassador to the US, to then becoming chairman of financial services body, IFSC Ireland.

You then have to ask yourself this question - do you think that these people, while being public servants, will do anything that will not benefit the private sector, and in particular the financial services industry, when they might be the recipients of lucrative contracts from that industry when they finish? It's called "Regulatory Capture":

When regulatory capture occurs, the interests of firms, organizations, or political groups are prioritized over the interests of the public, leading to a net loss for society.

AFAIK, certain countries have a "decontamination" period for public servants when they leave office, whereby they cannot work for a certin period of time in an industry that they were previously in charge of regulating, although, IMO, this is just a sop. These guys have long memories of favours that were done for them.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

If you don't provide a public-service pension to decisionmakers in public office, be they politicians or civil servants, then lucrative private-sector careers are exactly what they are likely to pursue.

And how better to pursue such an opportunity than to befriend, or develop a good track record in defending such an industry?

I'm sure this is already happening to an extent. But leave some lad in the Central Bank in charge of making recommendations on banking policy, and then tell him he'll have to sort out his own pension, well it doesn't take a cynic to suspect what he might do.

I think you misunderstand my post or point M.

I’m not referring to Ordinary Joe here I am referring to dudes like say Ivan Yeates , Bertie Ahearn, for example.

These guys are on mega pensions at relatively young ages.

I’m sure both of them are earning good moolah right now?

I’m sure they both got big ‘packages’ on ‘retiring’?

Why should the state be paying them ‘pensions ‘ on top of that?

Surely a pension is to tide you over when no longer in employment?

If the want to work on let them, but I would contend the ‘pension’ shouldn’t kick in till no longer employed and be ‘co ordinated’ with any other income from other sources.

That’s how I see it.

He realized up in portrush that his ministerial keys wont open up every door

I need a 2nd car in my house (large family). I've done the sums and can't afford it.

However, should I now go and get a loan that I can't afford?...in the name of progress of course

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

These people are desperate and are just trying to live fairly ordinary lives, as you are. They are not the problem.

Indeed. The minimum wage being far behind the living wage which is itself being mainly inflated by the exorbitant cost of housing is the problem.

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

So you work, and you probably work hard. And you can't afford to organise your family in a fairly normal way?

That's pretty rubbish. But you're using this example, which is a fairly big infringement on your life, as a way of attacking other working class people?

These people are desperate and are just trying to live fairly ordinary lives, as you are. They are not the problem.

Not quiet sure why you felt the need to throw a dig like that at my situation.

I'm not attacking no one. A holiday to Spain is not part of a 'normal' life. it's a luxury which should only be undertaken if it can be afforded.

No one in Ireland is desperate unless they've made their life that way. There's plenty of social supports provided by the working people through their taxes to keep everyone comfortable.
But holiday's to Spain....work and save or forget about it.

One man's necessity is another man's luxury! In my book, a foreign holiday is a luxury...maybe that's as a result of being an 80's child when the furthest I ever got was Achill Island, Bundoran or Mosney for a day trip.
My problem even back then was work....my parent's worked very hard during the Summer. Never had time for holidays

A Tyrant Named Miltiades! wrote: »

These days, a holiday in Achill or Bundoran (Mosney is gone unless you drive up to the airport and claim asylum!) will cost you more than a holiday to Spain anyway.

I'm a bit puzzled by this notion that the poor should essentially 'know your place' and not expect to be able to take a holiday. The people who work the hardest are often those who earn the least, and they should deserve a holiday more than most people.

In fairness Mil, I see no such notion in any of the posts here.

The main point is that borrowing money from a loan shark for a holiday, given the clues which that portrays, can only end up badly, sometimes very badly.