Board index » The IRISH PROPERTY BUBBLE » The Central Bank » IMF Watch (IRL)

Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 151 posts ]  [Go to page]   Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next
Author Message
 Post subject: Re: ECB says get real - No Public Sector Cuts = No Deal
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:12 pm 
Offline
Holiday Home Owner
User avatar

Joined: Feb 7, 2008
Posts: 315
Fingers wrote:
blanchguy wrote:
Well you definitely said reductions were counterproductive. And unlike Rick you are against a sensible increase in government spending on the public sector which would boost our economy. So.... Things are good where we are and the 17% cut in PS wages was (while harsh) brought spending to a correct level? Or what? This is all very complicated.


It's only complicated if you don't know how to read. I didn't say reductions were "counterproductive." Without further nuance, such a claim wouldn't mean much.


Well if you are in favour of public sector cuts you aren't making that very clear. You've led poor Rick completely astray.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ECB says get real - No Public Sector Cuts = No Deal
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:15 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Aug 2, 2009
Posts: 1513
We are in the land of hyper neo Micawberism:

"Annual income €34,027,229,000, annual expenditure €34,000,000,000, result happiness. Annual income €34,027,229,000, annual expenditure €57,544,107,000, result misery.

What's that young Copperfield? Force the rich to sell 30% of their assets every year and tax the lot to make-up the difference while doing nothing to address our incontinent spending. Capital idea."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ECB says get real - No Public Sector Cuts = No Deal
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 3:20 pm 
Offline
Holiday Home Owner
User avatar

Joined: Feb 7, 2008
Posts: 315
jxbr wrote:
We are in the land of hyper neo Micawberism:

"Annual income €34,027,229,000, annual expenditure €34,000,000,000, result happiness. Annual income €34,027,229,000, annual expenditure €57,544,107,000, result misery.

What's that young Copperfield? Force the rich to sell 30% of their assets every year and tax the lot to make-up the difference while doing nothing to address our incontinent spending. Capital idea."


Ah, but think of the multiplier... XD


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ECB says get real - No Public Sector Cuts = No Deal
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 4:55 pm 
Offline
Property Magnate

Joined: Jun 14, 2010
Posts: 729
jxbr wrote:
We are in the land of hyper neo Micawberism:

"Annual income €34,027,229,000, annual expenditure €34,000,000,000, result happiness. Annual income €34,027,229,000, annual expenditure €57,544,107,000, result misery.

What's that young Copperfield? Force the rich to sell 30% of their assets every year and tax the lot to make-up the difference while doing nothing to address our incontinent spending. Capital idea."


I didn't say "force the rich to sell 30% of their assets every year." You did:

jxbr wrote:
What are you suggesting? That we have an annual asset tax of c. 30% on these assets (assuming that the figure is accurate, represents net assets rather than gross and the assets can be realised at 100% of their notional value) rather than addressing runaway current account expenditure.?


If you want to spend your time arguing with figments of your imagination, be my guest. But you then give up the right to cast yourself as some sort of voice of reason.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ECB says get real - No Public Sector Cuts = No Deal
PostPosted: Wed Mar 21, 2012 10:21 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation
User avatar

Joined: Oct 20, 2010
Posts: 2203
Moving briefly back on topic - Twitter is buzzing with word that the deal is done but it's a bastardised deal that sees the promissory notes being repaid but at the same time Anglo purchases a government bond maturing in 2020 or 2025. So basically more kicking the can down the road.

_________________
banana republic, septic isle


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ECB says get real - No Public Sector Cuts = No Deal
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 4:03 am 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation
User avatar

Joined: Apr 23, 2008
Posts: 2965
Location: In exile
kennypowers wrote:
Fingers wrote:
kennypowers wrote:
Or how I just show this following chart, which by using your logic illustrates how US federal spending causes unemployment...
Image


No, it shows how unemployment causes US spending. Are you saying there's no causal link there?


Federal unemployment benefits spending peaked at less than $100bn in 2010, which is less than 0.7% of US GDP, so it could only explain a small fraction of the c.5% of GDP increase in government spending (the spending fell even further to $60bn in 2011) and I don't believe the direct causal link of unemployment causing spending is that meaningful. (http://money.cnn.com/2011/12/05/news/ec ... /index.htm)

There is a perfectly reasonable argument (grounded in economic analysis) for believing the causation goes the other way, in that that government spending leads to a 'crowding out' of the private sector whereby the government taxes relatively efficient businesses to spend money on the relatively inefficient public sector, which leads to higher unemployment - I'm not saying that I believe this position to be true, but you could use the correlation in this chart as evidence if you were that way inclined.

My point (which probably wasn't as clear as it could have been) is that you have to look at other potential causes outside of those shown in the chart, which explain the correlation - in this case, both unemployment and gov't spending as % of GDP are chiefly caused by the impact of the business cycle (particularly as the denominator of the gov't spending metric here is GDP) and not by each other.


Kenny, I understand perfectly well the difference between causation and correlation. In this case, however only a fool would argue that there is no causal relationship between the decimation of the Union movement in the United States and the seismic shifts that have occurred in income distribution. :roll:

_________________
Mr. David Stockman has said that supply-side economics was merely a cover for the trickle-down approach to economic policy—what an older and less elegant generation called the horse-and-sparrow theory: If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.- JK Galbraith

Taxes are what we pay for civilized society. -- Oliver Wendell Homes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ECB says get real - No Public Sector Cuts = No Deal
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 4:20 am 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation
User avatar

Joined: Apr 23, 2008
Posts: 2965
Location: In exile
Quote:
No, Fingers is losing the argument and by a very, very wide chalk. Here are some things his and your side don't seem to understand:


Well if we are talking sides, your side has had the reins for the last three years and austerity is getting us nowhere. In fact, we are going backwards. Lower growth, higher unemployment, defecit virtually unmoved.


Quote:
1. That there is no money for stimulus. I'm not sure what part of the word "broke" you folks don't understand. You seem to think it means: "Broke, but really there's €7b hiding down the side of the sofa." (€7b is SF's stimulus figure).


You are thinking too small. The Troika run ireland. It is the Trolika that determine economic policy. Ireland is broke yes but the EU is not. Barrosso and the boys talk a good fight about brininging about economic revovery in the eurozone but every single policy implemented is making matters worse.



Quote:
2. That massive amounts of any stimulus spend would flow out of the economy. The idea it would all move around the economy in a pretty little circle, creating jobs and multipliers with every cent, and all of it hermetically sealed within our borders, is absurd. And of the money that does stay in the economy, large amounts would go to landlords, banks and other unproductive areas of the economy. So much of it would flow out of the country or into a black hole never to be seen again.


The exact same thing was said about the US. It wasnt true there, and while there would be leakage if it was attempted in Ireland it is foolish to argue that targetted fiscal stimulus wouldnt have net postive effects in Ireland. This was discussed at lenght over on the DMW thread and we all came up with good suggestions for targetted spending.

Quote:
3. "Too much money chasing too few goods" = inflation. So, after stimulus I am back to paying €6 for a pint, €90 for a dentists check-up, 30% more on a pair of jeans than they pay in Manchester or Belfast, higher rent etc etc etc. We're back to square one with rip-off Ireland.


How do you figure that?


Quote:
4. Stimulus jobs - and those that come from the multiplier - last as long as the stimulus project runs. After that project finishes...what? Where do those builders go? Or do we do another stimulus? Or, will those roads and retrofitted houses suddenly start generating cash for the exchequer? How? And what kinds of workers other than construction workers are employed through all this?


Jaysus, do we have to do first principles again?

Christy Romer:
Quote:
No country has ever run deficits like that for a sustained period and remained solvent. So, the long-run deficit is a problem we absolutely have to solve.The same is true of many other advanced economies. Germany, France, Japan, and Britain all have terrible long-run budget outlooks.And the true problem children of Europe—Greece, Portugal, Spain, and Italy—have such unsustainable deficits that financial markets have already lost confidence in their ability to repay.The research on the impact of fiscal contractions, however, suggests that we need to be smart about dealing with these deficits. Aggressive moves to immediately lower the deficit will cause unemployment to rise. Indeed, as I have described, we have already seen this happen in a number of countries that have either chosen or been forced by debt crises to shrink their deficits immediately.The resulting high unemployment just makes the deficit problem even worse. Right now, countries like Greece and Spain are in a vicious circle, where fiscal austerity leads to higher unemployment which leads to higher deficits and more austerity.A much more sensible way forward is to pass aggressive plans that will shrink deficits gradually over time


Quote:
The one thing that has disillusioned me is the discussion of fiscal policy. Policymakers and far too many economists seem to be arguing from ideology rather than evidence. As I have described this evening, the evidence is stronger than it has ever been that fiscal policy matters—that fiscal stimulus helps the economy add jobs, and that reducing the budget deficit lowers growth at least in the near term. And yet, this evidence does not seem to be getting through to the legislative process.
That is unacceptable. We are never going to solve our problems if we can’t agree at least on the facts. Evidence-based policymaking is essential if we are ever going to triumph over this recession and deal with our long-run budget problems.

http://www.econ.berkeley.edu/~cromer/Wr ... Policy.pdf




Quote:
5. Spending and tax take are today back to where they were some time in the middle of the Ahern era. Whether you realise it or not, disagreeing with austerity and calling for stimulus is a tacit statement that Bertie's Ireland wasn't that bad. Or, at best, that the damage of that period can be fixed by 2 or 3 austerity budgets followed by some stimulus. Stimulus + no austerity = Bertienomics.


I'm calling for targetted cutting and targetted spending. The two are not mutually exclusive. For example, Im wuite happy to see the fat cut from the top of the public service but i would also like to see significantly increased spending on education schemes to our structurally unemployed.


Quote:
6. The 2 things you say some of us don't understand, I understand very well. I actually agree with both statements. I AGREE WITH THEM. Which is tricky for your side, since those on my side agree with you...but we still think there is no other way than to reset the economy in spite of them. That is a measure of how fucked we are, which seems to be the final thing you folks don't understand: We're more fucked than you can get your heads around.


Great Larry, so what next then? The beatings continue until morale improves? What is resetting the economy? Sure, I get YM's point about rebalancing away from construction but what does resetting mean and how do you do it?


Quote:
I suspect any answer to this post will mention bondholders and rich people a lot


Yes Larry, more progressive taxation may be part of the solution but you wont hear me arguing its a panacea.

As for the bondholders, yep I still object to the status quo on the score. More than once on these boards has the view been aired that even without the guarantee we would have ended up in Troika land. Is that your view? That it wasnt really the full scale of the banking disaster being revealed that put a rocket under our bond price?

_________________
Mr. David Stockman has said that supply-side economics was merely a cover for the trickle-down approach to economic policy—what an older and less elegant generation called the horse-and-sparrow theory: If you feed the horse enough oats, some will pass through to the road for the sparrows.- JK Galbraith

Taxes are what we pay for civilized society. -- Oliver Wendell Homes.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ECB says get real - No Public Sector Cuts = No Deal
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:07 am 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation

Joined: Aug 2, 2009
Posts: 1513
Rick Flair wrote:
Well if we are talking sides, your side has had the reins for the last three years and austerity is getting us nowhere. In fact, we are going backwards. Lower growth, higher unemployment, defecit virtually unmoved.


There has not been any real austerity in terms of government spending. That is the problem. Revenue drops by 13.7% from 2007 to 2008 and but a further 19% from 2000 to 2009. In the same two years spending goes up by 10.6% and 1.1% respectively.

All there has been is picking away at the scabs of the disease. The result is an economy strucurally unbalanced with too high government spending. The separate issue of the nationalisation of private bank debts just makes this worse.

The only way this can be resolved is through growth than will lead to taxation growth as well as quick and substantial spending cuts. Reducing the cost base to enable growth is the path to resolution.

The reason why the deficit has not moved is because there is too much spending. The reason why there is continued high unemployment is a combination of too high unemployment benefits acting as a disincentive to take jobs as well as too high costs for companies to increase employment.

This is not idealology. It is just arithmetic.

Spending

Code:
                                               2011           2010           2009           2008           2007           2006
Total                                57,544,107,000 60,520,062,000 63,051,261,324 62,395,041,591 56,426,009,677 50,016,306,055
Pay Bill                             18,641,974,000 18,664,939,000 20,071,792,135 19,338,697,188 18,156,737,047 16,752,327,617
Non Pay                              34,211,680,000 35,599,831,000 35,646,858,127 34,045,260,562 30,450,135,897 26,602,933,226
Capital                               4,690,453,000  6,255,292,000  7,332,611,062  9,011,083,841  7,819,136,733  6,661,045,211
Total % Change                                -4.9%          -4.0%           1.1%          10.6%          12.8%
Pay Bill % Change                             -0.1%          -7.0%           3.8%           6.5%           8.4%
Non Pay % Change                              -3.9%          -0.1%           4.7%          11.8%          14.5%
Capital % Change                             -25.0%         -14.7%         -18.6%          15.2%          17.4%


Revenue

Code:
                                               2011           2010           2009           2008           2007           2006
Total                                    34,027,229     31,752,669     33,043,173     40,777,196     47,249,352     45,538,905
Customs                                     240,258        228,521        208,598        248,001        265,904        256,829
Excise Duty                               4,677,600      4,677,969      4,702,552      5,443,338      5,837,878      5,588,897
Capital Gains Tax                           415,974        346,711        541,849      1,430,080      3,105,495      3,099,933
Capital Acquisitions Tax                    243,507        237,769        254,258        331,600        392,349        352,660
Stamps                                    1,391,289        960,091        929,510      1,650,792      3,185,602      3,716,501
Income Tax                               13,797,532     11,276,092     11,835,235     13,176,857     13,572,410     12,389,939
Corporation Tax                           3,520,193      3,923,637      3,900,306      5,065,894      6,390,625      6,683,247
Valued Added Tax                          9,740,525     10,101,284     10,669,652     13,429,602     14,496,588     13,447,991
Levies                                          351            596          1,213          1,032          2,501          2,908
Unallocated Tax Receipts                          0             -1              0              0              0              0
Total % Change                                 7.2%          -3.9%         -19.0%         -13.7%           3.8%
Customs % Change                               5.1%           9.6%         -15.9%          -6.7%           3.5%
Excise Duty % Change                           0.0%          -0.5%         -13.6%          -6.8%           4.5%
Capital Gains Tax % Change                    20.0%         -36.0%         -62.1%         -54.0%           0.2%
Capital Acquisitions Tax % Change              2.4%          -6.5%         -23.3%         -15.5%          11.3%
Stamps % Change                               44.9%           3.3%         -43.7%         -48.2%         -14.3%
Income Tax % Change                           22.4%          -4.7%         -10.2%          -2.9%           9.5%
Corporation Tax % Change                     -10.3%           0.6%         -23.0%         -20.7%          -4.4%
Valued Added Tax % Change                     -3.6%          -5.3%         -20.6%          -7.4%           7.8%
Levies % Change                              -41.1%         -50.9%          17.5%         -58.7%         -14.0%
Unallocated Tax Receipts % Change


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ECB says get real - No Public Sector Cuts = No Deal
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 11:47 am 
Offline
Real Estate Developer

Joined: Nov 7, 2006
Posts: 856
jxbr wrote:
Rick Flair wrote:
Well if we are talking sides, your side has had the reins for the last three years and austerity is getting us nowhere. In fact, we are going backwards. Lower growth, higher unemployment, defecit virtually unmoved.


There has not been any real austerity in terms of government spending. That is the problem. Revenue drops by 13.7% from 2007 to 2008 and but a further 19% from 2000 to 2009. In the same two years spending goes up by 10.6% and 1.1% respectively.

All there has been is picking away at the scabs of the disease. The result is an economy strucurally unbalanced with too high government spending. The separate issue of the nationalisation of private bank debts just makes this worse.

The only way this can be resolved is through growth than will lead to taxation growth as well as quick and substantial spending cuts. Reducing the cost base to enable growth is the path to resolution.

The reason why the deficit has not moved is because there is too much spending. The reason why there is continued high unemployment is a combination of too high unemployment benefits acting as a disincentive to take jobs as well as too high costs for companies to increase employment.

This is not idealology. It is just arithmetic.

Spending

Code:
                                               2011           2010           2009           2008           2007           2006
Total                                57,544,107,000 60,520,062,000 63,051,261,324 62,395,041,591 56,426,009,677 50,016,306,055
Pay Bill                             18,641,974,000 18,664,939,000 20,071,792,135 19,338,697,188 18,156,737,047 16,752,327,617
Non Pay                              34,211,680,000 35,599,831,000 35,646,858,127 34,045,260,562 30,450,135,897 26,602,933,226
Capital                               4,690,453,000  6,255,292,000  7,332,611,062  9,011,083,841  7,819,136,733  6,661,045,211
Total % Change                                -4.9%          -4.0%           1.1%          10.6%          12.8%
Pay Bill % Change                             -0.1%          -7.0%           3.8%           6.5%           8.4%
Non Pay % Change                              -3.9%          -0.1%           4.7%          11.8%          14.5%
Capital % Change                             -25.0%         -14.7%         -18.6%          15.2%          17.4%


Revenue

Code:
                                               2011           2010           2009           2008           2007           2006
Total                                    34,027,229     31,752,669     33,043,173     40,777,196     47,249,352     45,538,905
Customs                                     240,258        228,521        208,598        248,001        265,904        256,829
Excise Duty                               4,677,600      4,677,969      4,702,552      5,443,338      5,837,878      5,588,897
Capital Gains Tax                           415,974        346,711        541,849      1,430,080      3,105,495      3,099,933
Capital Acquisitions Tax                    243,507        237,769        254,258        331,600        392,349        352,660
Stamps                                    1,391,289        960,091        929,510      1,650,792      3,185,602      3,716,501
Income Tax                               13,797,532     11,276,092     11,835,235     13,176,857     13,572,410     12,389,939
Corporation Tax                           3,520,193      3,923,637      3,900,306      5,065,894      6,390,625      6,683,247
Valued Added Tax                          9,740,525     10,101,284     10,669,652     13,429,602     14,496,588     13,447,991
Levies                                          351            596          1,213          1,032          2,501          2,908
Unallocated Tax Receipts                          0             -1              0              0              0              0
Total % Change                                 7.2%          -3.9%         -19.0%         -13.7%           3.8%
Customs % Change                               5.1%           9.6%         -15.9%          -6.7%           3.5%
Excise Duty % Change                           0.0%          -0.5%         -13.6%          -6.8%           4.5%
Capital Gains Tax % Change                    20.0%         -36.0%         -62.1%         -54.0%           0.2%
Capital Acquisitions Tax % Change              2.4%          -6.5%         -23.3%         -15.5%          11.3%
Stamps % Change                               44.9%           3.3%         -43.7%         -48.2%         -14.3%
Income Tax % Change                           22.4%          -4.7%         -10.2%          -2.9%           9.5%
Corporation Tax % Change                     -10.3%           0.6%         -23.0%         -20.7%          -4.4%
Valued Added Tax % Change                     -3.6%          -5.3%         -20.6%          -7.4%           7.8%
Levies % Change                              -41.1%         -50.9%          17.5%         -58.7%         -14.0%
Unallocated Tax Receipts % Change

Correct.
In fact current spending only in past year started decreasing according to Gurdgiev. The easy cuts to capital expenditure fooled the troika for now. We are not an economy capable of spending 50+billion a year when we are currently taking in 34. We should be aiming to spend in low 40s of billions based on current GNP. I remember hearing a former civil servant on radio last year saying we were spending swedish levels per capita on health and education and social services but getting a fraction of that in actual services. In sweden they get free at source physio,dental, gp, childcare,year off paternity leave etc etc for less than we are spending per capita ! Bonkers. Of course the irish public servants dont want the scandinavian system as they pay a lot lot less there to public servant despite same cost living and higher taxes. Amazing though that despite being paid so much less than their Irish counterparts the swedish public servants seem very happy and content with their lot probably because they are valued in their society and the services WORK as lower wages allow more staff to be hired meaning less congestion and stress in service provision.
Also how many people are staying in Ireland rather than emmigrating? If i wass on dole getting all the welfare offers i wouldnt emmigrate to do 80 hour weeks for a bit more money in canada or australia or uk.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ECB says get real - No Public Sector Cuts = No Deal
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 1:27 pm 
Offline
Property Magnate

Joined: Jun 14, 2010
Posts: 729
All of this talk presupposes that "what we are taking in" is absolutely immutable. It is not.

I'd like to see the figures from further back, all the way to the mid-90s. People here like to rail about the "explosion" in public expenditure under FF (which never kept pace, by the way, with growth in either GDP or GNP), but they never mention the constant lowering of income tax rates and the consistently low corporate tax rates or the shifting of a large part of the tax base from income and corporate taxes to stamps and capital gains.

What is obvious from those figures is that revenue from Capital Gains and Stamps fell off a cliff. This was unfortunate but wouldn't have led to the utter collapse in revenue had the tax base not been shifted toward them.

What this amounts to is obvious: property collapsed. That is to say: private sector speculation in markets went pear-shaped resulting in a loss of revenue. The question then is: who shall make up the difference in revenue that the collapse of property entailed?

On the pin, the glib answer is always: "The public sector! Make them pay (and not me!)" This is often accompanied by a lot of Orwellian talk about how everyone "has to do their fair share."

Well, the way in capitalist democracies for everyone who is able to contribute to do their fair share is through the tax system, since everyone working is part of that system (whether or not they are liable for tax). Public sector workers pay taxes the same as everyone else. If we are all in it together and all have to do their part to rectify the error of changing the tax base to cyclical sources of revenue, then taxation is they way to do this. If, as many like to claim, PS worker are overpaid, then the progressivity of the tax system will ensure that they contribute more than others.

Meanwhile, what those figures show is that there is a lag between the drop in revenue and the implementation of spending cuts. Little more than that. It doesn't show that there was some sort of foolhardy attempt to spend more and more while revenue was dropping, as has been implied.

To say that "the reason the deficit hasn't moved is too much spending" is not "arithmetic." It's ideology: you would prefer that someone other than yourself make the sacrifice and therefore you insist on looking only at spending that can be cut and not at revenue that can be increased.

My position, on the other hand, is not about protecting my own ass(ets): bring on the tax increases! I'll pay them gladly, knowing that we truly are "all in this together." But if you want to make only the PS pay for the effects of a private-sector speculative bubble, sorry, then it's everyone for him or herself. In other words: only you want someone else to pay for you. I don't. I want everyone to share the burden.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ECB says get real - No Public Sector Cuts = No Deal
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 1:29 pm 
Offline
Too Big to Fail

Joined: Feb 21, 2008
Posts: 3646
Fingers wrote:
but they never mention the constant lowering of income tax rates and the consistently low corporate tax rates or the shifting of a large part of the tax base from income and corporate taxes to stamps and capital gains.


This has been discussed extensively here, you see what you want to see and nothing more.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ECB says get real - No Public Sector Cuts = No Deal
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 1:33 pm 
Offline
Property Magnate

Joined: Jun 14, 2010
Posts: 729
sharper wrote:
Fingers wrote:
but they never mention the constant lowering of income tax rates and the consistently low corporate tax rates or the shifting of a large part of the tax base from income and corporate taxes to stamps and capital gains.


This has been discussed extensively here, you see what you want to see and nothing more.


Show me where a poster has accompanied this discussion with a call for his own tax rates to be increased.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ECB says get real - No Public Sector Cuts = No Deal
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 1:37 pm 
Offline
Too Big to Fail

Joined: Feb 21, 2008
Posts: 3646
Fingers wrote:
Show me where a poster has accompanied this discussion with a call for his own tax rates to be increased.


"Oh I know I'm totally wrong so let me just invent yet another requirement out of thin air"


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ECB says get real - No Public Sector Cuts = No Deal
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 1:46 pm 
Offline
Property Magnate

Joined: Jun 14, 2010
Posts: 729
sharper wrote:
Fingers wrote:
Show me where a poster has accompanied this discussion with a call for his own tax rates to be increased.


"Oh I know I'm totally wrong so let me just invent yet another requirement out of thin air"


Whatever. Do you have anything of substance to say?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject: Re: ECB says get real - No Public Sector Cuts = No Deal
PostPosted: Thu Mar 22, 2012 1:57 pm 
Offline
Under CAB Investigation
User avatar

Joined: Aug 27, 2011
Posts: 2001
Location: Local bubble zone
jxbr wrote:
Rick Flair wrote:
Well if we are talking sides, your side has had the reins for the last three years and austerity is getting us nowhere. In fact, we are going backwards. Lower growth, higher unemployment, defecit virtually unmoved.


There has not been any real austerity in terms of government spending. That is the problem. Revenue drops by 13.7% from 2007 to 2008 and but a further 19% from 2000 to 2009. In the same two years spending goes up by 10.6% and 1.1% respectively.

All there has been is picking away at the scabs of the disease. The result is an economy strucurally unbalanced with too high government spending. The separate issue of the nationalisation of private bank debts just makes this worse.

The only way this can be resolved is through growth than will lead to taxation growth as well as quick and substantial spending cuts. Reducing the cost base to enable growth is the path to resolution.

The reason why the deficit has not moved is because there is too much spending. The reason why there is continued high unemployment is a combination of too high unemployment benefits acting as a disincentive to take jobs as well as too high costs for companies to increase employment.

This is not idealology. It is just arithmetic.



Spending was out off control under the FF government running at over 10% - crazy, blow your brains out stupidity
the austerity was simply slowing that down to a sustainable path - i think you would agree that 10% increase is unsustainable

We need to reduce debt
we have too much public and private debt. end of
Austerity has to be part of the solution but not the only option employed

_________________
Qi hu nan xia: When one rides a tiger, it is difficult to dismount.
House prices are cyclical, no nation has ever lived through a perpetual house price expansion or contraction.
Money is a public good; as such, it lends itself to private exploitation - CP Kindleberger


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 151 posts ]  [Go to page]   Previous  1 ... 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11  Next

    Board index » The IRISH PROPERTY BUBBLE » The Central Bank » IMF Watch (IRL)

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  

Click for Latest Posts LATEST POSTS Click for Forum List FORUMS

Click for Latest PostsFollow, Retweet @dailypinster

- Pyramid Built, Is Better Built!