why so afraid to go it alone

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

(5) No EU quotas - will be able to produce more and so more economical.

How will we get the extra production, how will it be financed?

K-9

kevteljeur wrote: »

The theory is to encourage business, and so employment. But this is really about creating personal wealth quickly in an unstable business environment, rather than a strong, wealthy state and fewer, stronger indigenous businesses. Good cars on bad roads, vs good busses on good roads; democracy at work, but if you can't pay for the car you'll be going nowhere.

Any examples of the theory in practice in countries similar to Ireland?

kevteljeur

Seanies32 wrote: »

Any examples of the theory in practice in countries similar to Ireland?

Apart from the latest EU accession states, I don't have any; and unfortunately I don't have the time to back up my statements with figures (so you can take them as opinion). I'll be standing in the queue outside Wikipedia with thehighground and O'Morris later on!

I do believe that low tax on high volume is the Tesco approach to putting money in State coffers. In the long run, State finances will be beholden to the whims of international markets and consumer confidence, which can only be a bad thing.

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

Back to Wiki for Thehighground!

Seriously, brush up on some basic EU facts like 27 member states, no Ministers, vetoes etc.

Originally Posted by Seanies32
However, for our economy and our position in the EU as a high cost economy we need an advantage like 12.5% tax for Companies.

Originally Posted by thehighground
Hope the rest of the 24 member states don't mind if we hold onto that advantage and that they don't bow to the French & German demands.

Indeed Seanie, reread what I posted again (above in italic).

24 member states
France +1
Germany + 1
We +1
= 27 I think. Did you do reading & sums in school?

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

Originally Posted by Seanies32
However, for our economy and our position in the EU as a high cost economy we need an advantage like 12.5% tax for Companies.

Originally Posted by thehighground
Hope the rest of the 24 member states don't mind if we hold onto that advantage and that they don't bow to the French & German demands.

Indeed Seanie, reread what I posted again (above in italic).

24 member states
France +1
Germany + 1
We +1
= 27 I think. Did you do reading & sums in school?

Ah ok, still, brush up on the vetoes then!

thehighground

IRLConor wrote: »

You said that "So, 5% of the EU population has to produce all the food for the rest!" which to me implies that you believe that the 5% are providing a critical service unavailable elsewhere.

I simply countered by asking how much food we import. Any non-zero amount given in your answer implies that food is available elsewhere. Not just that, but the food from elsewhere is often cheaper even when you take into account the tariffs and protectionism which stacks the deck massively in the EU-based farmer's favour.

Food production in Ireland (and I presume the rest of the EU, based on the subsidy system) is fundamentally not economically viable. You can juggle the figures all you like, but we pay more than we should for our food one way or another.

You think the protectionism and tariffs is just about protecting farming income. Its not. Its about protecting a food supply, which is as essential as oil.

Please read this article. A paragraph here about countries protecting their own food supplies.
"But relying on food imports becomes much dicier if other countries are prepared to shut off the tap.

An obscure rule of the World Trade Organization requires members to notify the agency when they restrict food exports. But there are no penalties for ignoring the rule, and not one of the countries that has imposed restrictions in the past year has complied, according to the WTO.

Japan and Switzerland are leading a group of food-importing nations so alarmed by restrictions that they are seeking an international agreement preventing countries from unilaterally limiting food exports. The agreement would be part of the current, already-rocky Doha round of trade talks, named for the city in Qatar where negotiations began.

http://www.tehrantimes.com/index_View.asp?code=172154

I never claimed or implied that food was not essential. What I'm saying is that it is not essential (or economical) to grow it ourselves.

Don't think it is essential to grow it, but we would be made not to. Why you think it is uneconomical I don't know (As I've pointed out Tesco & Dunnes have a big say in how much food costs in this country).

Anyway, if the climate on the planet changes to the point at which our farms are economically viable then I'm sure we can re-examine agriculture as a significant player in our economy. The only way our farms are going to become economically viable is if either the cost of production goes down or if everyone else's cost of production goes up.

So, to downscale farming - they let all the stock die, machinery rust, countryside go wild? Farmers goes off and gets a job working for local software company - he likes the 9-5 job, so when you need him to go back, he doesn't fancy starting from scratch again!

As it stands, if we left the EU or the EEA we'd be rightly buggered because the only parts of our economy that wouldn't/couldn't emigrate aren't enough to prop it up.

Well, tbh, there is quite a migration of Irish farmers to the US mid-west and UK. (Farm land is quite cheap in the UK at the moment).

How the hell is food from the other side of the world still cheaper when you take into account current fuel prices AND the tariffs? Oh yeah, it's because their cost of production is much, much lower.

What countries are exporting food to Ireland that is much cheaper? If you are thinking of Brazil - I think the major complaint from Irish farmers is that Brazilian farmers without a similar compliance & traceability that European farmers have to comply with. And by the way, Irish farmers at the moment are getting 2 Euro a kilo LESS than French farmers for beef. Its at the supermarkets you should be looking.

One of the biggest things keeping poor countries poor are the tariffs (on all products, not just food) that first world countries use to prop up uneconomical industries.

The biggest problem that poorer countries have is that they just don't have enough food.

In 2006 the average direct aid payment per farm worker was €10,577.

... and per Farm was about 9K.

How much direct EU aid did any other industry get that even approaches that?

Other industries got precious little more than what the farmers got and the farmers got a hell of a lot more than everyone else.

I seem to recall Gov. grants going to new companies setting up in Ireland of an average of £20,000 per person employed up to a few years ago. Sometimes I think it was even greater than that.

Why not?

Various reasons that farmers can just turn the key in the door and take off to India are that farm animals are living things - animals need to be fed. If everyone moved out which which is what you seem to want there would be an awful lot of decaying animals, sheep on the road, etc. etc. You just can't put an animal on a DVD and move country.

IRLConor

If farming is economically viable (which I contend it isn't and you seem to not believe me) then why don't we remove all the subsidies and tariffs and let's see how many farms survive? Why pay more if it can pay for itself?

What realistic scenario could happen where we couldn't buy the food we need? Apocalyptic WW3 scenarios need not apply.

thehighground wrote:

I seem to recall Gov. grants going to new companies setting up in Ireland of an average of £20,000 per person employed up to a few years ago. Sometimes I think it was even greater than that.

As someone who set up a company in Ireland in 2004 I can tell you that the government is absolutely useless for giving you money. It was cheaper, faster and less work to borrow the money we needed from a bank.

thehighground wrote:

Various reasons that farmers can just turn the key in the door and take off to India are that farm animals are living things - animals need to be fed. If everyone moved out which which is what you seem to want there would be an awful lot of decaying animals, sheep on the road, etc. etc. You just can't put an animal on a DVD and move country.

I don't advocate a "turn off the tap" approach. I just think that the subsidies and tariffs which unfairly protect farmers from competition should be reduced and eventually phased out. Some farming would probably survive this since there would be consolidation within the industry which would provide some improvement in efficiency and there would probably be some producers capable of selling to the premium market.





Anyway, back where the topic used to be:

The reason we're so afraid to go it alone is because our entire economy is tuned towards being in the EU. If we leave we either face a total collapse of our economy (worst case) or a very long and painful recession and brain drain (best case). And for what? Petty, idiotic nationalism.

thehighground

djpbarry wrote: »

How about we deal with the here-and-now, rather than speculating about the future effects of climate change?

Think the climate change thingy is getting to be a major problem ...

But you're forgetting about the cost of production; as oil prices go up, so does the cost of production in Ireland. Even factoring in transport costs, imported food from South America will still be cheaper than Irish-produced food.

Would you please, please, please do a search in google with the words 'world food shortage'

I'm with IRLConor on this one; morals are not something that the European farming lobby have in great abundance.
No, they probably would not. As has been shown time and time again, trade is an almost guaranteed means of stimulating economic growth and dragging a country out of poverty. How else is a poor country going to generate income other than selling produce?
I certainly would, especially if the tariffs were removed!
Did they?

You mean countries like South Africa should replicate what happened in Ireland in the mid 1840s - export food while Irish people went hungry.

If Ireland's corporation tax was double what it currently is, we most likely would not have attracted the investment we did and so there would, in all likelihood, have been less tax (both CT and income tax) going into the state coffers. To suggest (as a matter of fact) that more tax would have been generated is a complete fallacy.

I'm not debating whether Ireland should or should not have had a higher Corporate Tax Rate, or whether we would have attracted any foreign investment into Ireland - just pointing out that a tax break could be considered as a type of 'subsidy'.

...whereas a 10kg bag of rooster potatoes will currently set you back €6.99 in Superquinn - that's about €0.70 per kilo.

So, you would be prepared to live on potatoes then. Bet you if everyone started eating potatoes, the price would go up! (Supply & demand again )

Is it? Don't know about you, but I get my water direct to my house for free. If you're referring to bottled water, well, I think it's fair to regard that as a luxury item.

So you think the water you get direct into your house is for free? (I'll let you in on a secret - the Co. Council don't put in all those pipes, fixes them, etc. for free). And TBH, I'd say you will more than likely be paying for your house water within the next 4/5 years, just like the bins.

Don't think bottled water was a luxury item in Galway last year (and probably still isn't). Its not a luxury item in most of our fellow EU countries either.

I'm not sure where you're getting the €14 per kilo from, but it's irrelevant; a 10% increase in the price of any item is significant.

In 2006, the EU produced:

• 4% more cheese than it consumed
• 5% more milk powder than it consumed
• 8.7% more butter than it consumed

That is nothing ... after the war, the aim was to produce 120% of immediate needs. From all reports now, its seems they have been cutting it a bit fine and quotas have been raised by 2/3% recently (but generally, it takes a year or so though for the producer to come up with the foods (leadtime / food cycle).

Intervene? How?

Insist that property developers release land so that there wasn't such a demand for houses, curbed the banks from giving 100% 'crazy' loans.

[/QUOTE]That’s not the point; “belief” or trust in a politician is not a necessity in voting one way or the other.[/QUOTE]
I wasn't making any point there about belief in politicians - only the point that 22% of those surveyed said that 'Lack of Information' was why they voted 'No' to the Treaty.

Hang on a tick; you said in a recent post that EU accounts have not been audited for 13 years?

No - this is what I said in that post.
So who are they answerable to? Who are they 'open' to? (Have you forgotten the Auditor have not signed off accounts for 13 years now, MEPs are all claiming expenses, etc.) How will the Lisbon Treaty sort this problem out?
[/QUOTE]

Who cares whether they mind or not; we have a veto, remember?

Well, I hope you are right about that.

thehighground

IRLConor wrote: »

The disgusting thing is that we're paying to keep them poor.

You really need to read up about this and I'd start with the Irish famine.

thehighground

djpbarry wrote: »

Bit of a contradiction there, don't you think?

Don't think there is any association in those two posts. the first one is about explaining how a tax break could be considered to be a 'subsidy' and the 2nd one is just a statement of fact.

I see no association between them (post 625).

IRLConor

thehighground wrote: »

You really need to read up about this and I'd start with the Irish famine.

Which happened over 150 years ago and had nothing to do with subsidies, tariffs, the EU or modern farming practices and techniques.

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

But as you say prices will rise so................
BMW's aren't luxuries to most people, they are unaffordable.
Meat is affordable now, but for how long for large sections of our population!

I'd say most will still be able to afford meat for a long time to come ... even in the EU, we are still one of the most expensive countries in Europe. I wonder how that happened.

I just had a pint of water there, no charge!

Well more fool you if you think its free. You paid for it!

[/What does cumulative stock mean?

Combined/accumulated stock of Irish FDI in the US stood at 21 bn in 2005.

Are you suggesting US companies would have pulled out because of a Yes vote?

No, I'm pointing out that some conspiracy theories say that Ganley is financed by the US Arms Industry to stop Project 'United States of Europe' which would be harmfull to American business, since American business has so much invested in Ireland to supposedly export into the EU (or maybe they are only in Ireland because of the tax break rather than the EU market).

Well I don't think anybody is going to convince you on that one, despite it being shown it's a non runner.

I'll be convinced one way or the other by the behaviour and attitude that other EU countries / 'Yes' voters adopt over the next few months

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

Your original quote was:

You then said:

So the Corporation tax rate was not increased from 10%. The rate was 32% with exceptions for selected industries.
You weren't being strictly accurate!

The legislation was contained in section 71 of the Finance Act 1999 and provided for a phased introduction of the 12.5% rate from 32% for the financial year 1998 to 12.5% commencing from 1 January 2003.

These companies that still have the 10% rate that will end in 2010 are lobbying the Govt. to reduce it the rate from 12.5 to 10%. I wonder why, if tax isn't an important issue to them?

This is what I said in my original post. I've highlighted the relevant bit in Bold.

"In the early 80s the tax rate of 10% was applicable to SELECTED services & manufacturing - and as one of our major developing industries of that time, I'm pretty certain that the Dells, Apples etc. would have benefited - not to mention the use of all the IDA built factories around the country. Irish Gov. (taxpayer) probably paid for those, though."

Which part of 'SELECTED'* do you not understand?

*For your convenience, a definition of 'selected' - Singled out in preference; chosen: a select few.

I can't believe some of the people who voted No, are saying if we had a 24% CT rate we'd get extra tax revenues! I thought these people voted no to stop France and Germany making us higher it?

Who said that? I didn't anyway. (see previous posts as to the reasons why the figure 24% was mentioned in the first place).

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

I don't think even Europhiles would have a problem with saying the EU was bad for fishing.

Now, let's turn the question around.

What would be the downsides of us not being EU members, In your opinion?

Some EU Environmental legislation was quite good.
European Courts have been very good on occasion and of course our politicians would have no one to keep an eye on them.

I would like to know what a 2 speed Europe would mean. I might be interested in that!

I can imagine up in Donegal as a BMW area, you would be much harder hit.

K-9

So thehighground, I'll ask again, what are the disadvantages of going it alone?

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

How will we get the extra production, how will it be financed?

Well, I have a cousin who dries his cows off for (doesn't milk) for 3 months of the year because he will exceed his milk quota. He still has to feed his cows every day though, they still might get bluetongue and need the vet - only thing he doesn't do is milk the cows.

Farmers are paid to produce less at the moment. That is why they get subsidies.

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

I'd say most will still be able to afford meat for a long time to come ... even in the EU, we are still one of the most expensive countries in Europe. I wonder how that happened.

Not expensive meat which you are advocating. You want Irish beef to be a premium product.

This world food crisis thingy you mention, how will that affect Irish premium beef?

thehighground wrote:

Well more fool you if you think its free. You paid for it!

Good, I hope you'll be supporting water rates, like myself and the EU.

thehighground wrote:

Combined/accumulated stock of Irish FDI in the US stood at 21 bn in 2005.

You didn't answer the question. What is combined stock of FDI? You brought it into the thread, answer the question!

thehighground wrote:

No, I'm pointing out that some conspiracy theories say that Ganley is financed by the US Arms Industry to stop Project 'United States of Europe' which would be harmfull to American business, since American business has so much invested in Ireland to supposedly export into the EU (or maybe they are only in Ireland because of the tax break rather than the EU market).

Each industry looks after itself. American software doesn't care about the American arms industry.

The American arms industry care about missiles in Poland, not the Irish tax rate!

You really think they care about Ireland?

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

Well, I have a cousin who dries his cows off for (doesn't milk) for 3 months of the year because he will exceed his milk quota. He still has to feed his cows every day though, they still might get bluetongue and need the vet - only thing he doesn't do is milk the cows.

Farmers are paid to produce less at the moment. That is why they get subsidies.

So the 1 billion or so subsidies will be gone. How much production will it take to counteract that loss?

K-9

Oh semantics is fun.

thehighground wrote: »

This is what I said in my original post. I've highlighted the relevant bit in Bold.

"In the early 80s the tax rate of 10% was applicable to SELECTED services & manufacturing - and as one of our major developing industries of that time, I'm pretty certain that the Dells, Apples etc. would have benefited - not to mention the use of all the IDA built factories around the country. Irish Gov. (taxpayer) probably paid for those, though."

Which part of 'SELECTED'* do you not understand?

*For your convenience, a definition of 'selected' - Singled out in preference; chosen: a select few.

You said, being accurate, our Corporation rate was highered.

Completely and totally inaccurate. Do I have to go back and highlight the specific post?

thehighground wrote:

Who said that? I didn't anyway. (see previous posts as to the reasons why the figure 24% was mentioned in the first place).

You argued we would get more tax if the rate was 24 not 12.5%.

Which confuses me, when McCreevy 1/2'ed CGT and increases the tax take!

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

Yes, all corporations are being subsidised if they are getting preferential treatment as regards tax, though to be strictly accurate, the Corporation Tax was increased to 12.5% from 10% in 2002 (causing ructions in Europe - fair play to Charlie McCreevy - he held them all off).

In the early 80s the tax rate of 10% was applicable to SELECTED services & manufacturing - and as one of our major developing industries of that time, I'm pretty certain that the Dells, Apples etc. would have benefited - not to mention the use of all the IDA built factories around the country. Irish Gov. (taxpayer) probably paid for those, though.

This is your original post.

Not your SELECTIVE excerpt!

Scofflaw

thehighground wrote:

No, I'm pointing out that some conspiracy theories say that Ganley is financed by the US Arms Industry to stop Project 'United States of Europe' which would be harmfull to American business, since American business has so much invested in Ireland to supposedly export into the EU (or maybe they are only in Ireland because of the tax break rather than the EU market).

Actually, the conspiracy theory is that Ganley is doing a favour for the US security/neocon element of the US administration (from which his company derives most of its business) because they prefer doing bilateral deals without non-national scrutiny. Lisbon would bring the kind of bilateral deals on 'security' and 'terrorism' the neocons like to make under EU ratification, and under EU Parliamentary scrutiny. See the link re private data that FionnMathews pointed to on another thread, regarding US access to EU citizens' data:

Bush administration officials say they would like to resolve the problem before they leave office next January. If the agreement does not require legislative action, Mr. Bush could complete it with a signature.

European officials may have an easier time securing its approval now, before the European Union completes proposed changes. Member nations now ratify such accords, but the changes would hand ratification power to the European Parliament, which has been skeptical of American antiterrorism policies. The report says Europeans intended to wait until 2009 after the planned completion of the reforms to finish it. But the changes are now facing likely delay after Irish voters rejected them in a referendum this month.

Ganley need not be funded by any US element. He can have put his own money into Libertas before the campaign, and be sure of getting it back because he's doing the 'right thing' for the people he does business with.

One thing we can be certain of, given that he operates in a security-sensitive line of business - if the US security complex disapproved of what Ganley was up to, he wouldn't be doing it, because you don't get security-sensitive contracts if you're seen as politically unreliable.

cordially,
Scofflaw

djpbarry

thehighground wrote: »

Don't think it is essential to grow it, but we would be made not to. Why you think it is uneconomical I don't know.

Because it is? If it is perfectly economical for us to grow our own food, then why do EU farmers need subsidies?

thehighground wrote: »

The biggest problem that poorer countries have is that they just don't have enough food.

Specifically, which countries are you referring to?

thehighground wrote: »

Think the climate change thingy is getting to be a major problem ...

That’s not the point; nobody can say for sure what the climate will be in Ireland in say, 50 years time. There’s no point basing an argument on unknown quantities.

thehighground wrote: »

Would you please, please, please do a search in google with the words 'world food shortage'

:rolleyes:

Would you please explain why there will be extra demand for Irish beef during the “world food shortage”? It is staple foods such as rice that are in short supply; I can’t see the people of Asia and Africa demanding steaks and burgers as substitutes.

thehighground wrote: »

You mean countries like South Africa should replicate what happened in Ireland in the mid 1840s - export food while Irish people went hungry.

I never said that. You didn’t answer my question; how will poorer nations increase their wealth without exporting produce?

thehighground wrote: »

… just pointing out that a tax break could be considered as a type of 'subsidy'.

Which is nonsense. By your logic, anyone paying less than 100% tax is availing of some sort of subsidy.

thehighground wrote: »

So, you would be prepared to live on potatoes then. Bet you if everyone started eating potatoes, the price would go up!

It was just one example, illustrating the fact that meat is a luxury item for many; I often do without it due to it’s high price relative to vegetables.

I imagine if everyone took to eating beef, the price would go up too.

thehighground wrote: »

So you think the water you get direct into your house is for free?

In the sense that I was not directly charged, yes.

thehighground wrote: »

Its not a luxury item in most of our fellow EU countries either.

Really? Which countries are you referring to?

thehighground wrote: »

That is nothing ... after the war, the aim was to produce 120% of immediate needs.

Nothing? If we’re producing 8.7% more butter than is needed by the 470 million people of the EU, that means there is an annual surplus that would do (roughly) 43 million people – that’s more than the combined populations of Ireland, the Netherlands, Portugal and Greece.

thehighground wrote: »

Insist that property developers release land…

You want the state to force people to release their land for construction? Even though there is already a massive housing surplus in this country?

Presumably then, you would be ok with the state forcing farmers to “release” their land for the same purpose?

thehighground wrote: »

…curbed the banks from giving 100% 'crazy' loans.

I don’t know about you, but I certainly do not want the state interfering with my personal finances. Would you consider it ok if the Dept of Finance stepped in and prevented a bank from approving an overdraft on your current account?

thehighground wrote: »

Have you forgotten the Auditor have not signed off accounts for 13 years…

Source?

thehighground wrote: »

Well, I hope you are right about that.

I am right; “hope” is irrelevant.

thehighground wrote: »

You really need to read up about this and I'd start with the Irish famine.

What the hell has that go to do with us (EU citizens) paying subsidies?

thehighground wrote: »

Don't think there is any association in those two posts. the first one is about explaining how a tax break could be considered to be a 'subsidy' and the 2nd one is just a statement of fact.

You said that;

“ If Irish Gov. charged 24% CTR, Irish Gov. would have double (12.5 x2) what it does take.”.

You then went on to say that;

“… by 1982 over 80% of companies who located in Ireland cited the taxation policy as the primary reason they did so.”

So, had the corporation tax been higher, certainly if it had been double what it was, a very large number of companies that located in Ireland would probably have located elsewhere.

thehighground wrote: »

Who said that? I didn't anyway.

You most certainly did; here:

“If Irish Gov. charged 24% CTR, Irish Gov. would have double (12.5 x2) what it does take.”

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

Not expensive meat which you are advocating. You want Irish beef to be a premium product.

I've never advocated expensive meat. But, with shortages (supply & demand!) it will get expensive. Irish beef satisfies all compliance criteria of the EU and which is checked by EU officials all the time. So you know, the beef you are getting doesn't have mad cow disease, Foot & Mouth, TB or is full of misused growth promoters. Apart from tasting fairly good, thats what makes it a premium product.

This world food crisis thingy you mention, how will that affect Irish premium beef?

It won't affect Irish beef (more reliant on grass than grain for feed). Irish farmers, will however see a demand for beef (by the way, you can buy cheap cuts of beef (mince), not just expensive cuts of fillet steak), so they can produce more beef (there is a capacity to produce more, but are not allowed by the EU), so make more money.

Good, I hope you'll be supporting water rates, like myself and the EU.

Well, I'm paying anyway for water through income tax. I'd like a meter though!

You didn't answer the question. What is combined stock of FDI? You brought it into the thread, answer the question!

It was a quote from the American Chamber of Commerce (link below) - saying that accumulated Irish FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) in the US was 21 bn Euro. (Irish companies own 21bn's worth of business in the US which employ 74,000 Americans/US residents).

http://www.amcham.ie/article.cfm?idarticle=461

Each industry looks after itself. American software doesn't care about the American arms industry.

The American arms industry care about missiles in Poland, not the Irish tax rate!

You really think they care about Ireland?

But the Arms industry is big business, just like software. Surely its the US Gov. who want to put missiles in Poland.

I think most of them only care about money. So, they won't want to be losing too much in Ireland.

thehighground

Seanies32 wrote: »

Ah ok, still, brush up on the vetoes then!

Your lack of comprehension of that small passage certainly doesn't fill me with confidence that you actually understand the Lisbon Treaty.

thehighground

IRLConor wrote: »

Which happened over 150 years ago and had nothing to do with subsidies, tariffs, the EU or modern farming practices and techniques.

You are right about the subsidies and the tariffs, and hopefully the EU will not take food out of a country that is short of food by armed guard, even if it pays for it.

Big concern is that the countries that you want to import from are all 3rd world countries, with huge populations, survive on subsistance farming and are drought prone.

This is what is happening in Japan. Food imports from Australia have reduced (drought). Please read this article - it gives a good overview of the situation and should make you happy that you live in a country that is self sufficient in food.

http://business.theage.com.au/japans-hunger-becomes-a-dire-warning-for-other-nations-20080420-27ey.html?page=1

thehighground

IRLConor wrote: »

If farming is economically viable (which I contend it isn't and you seem to not believe me) then why don't we remove all the subsidies and tariffs and let's see how many farms survive? Why pay more if it can pay for itself?

Food is actually cheaper now than it was 40 years ago (basing it on how much of a family's income was spent on food then). Since the 2nd World War, food has been subsidised because it is essential. End the subsidies and pray that all farmers don't start growing oilseed rape for boifuels. They are going to make a lot more from those now, because of the price of oil.

Farmer debt hit €4.75bn last year
http://www.independent.ie/farming/farmer-debt-hit-8364475bn-last-year-1424581.html

The report, which was compiled by Mr Smyth, showed that Irish food and drink exports in 2007 rose by more than 5pc to €8.6bn and now accounted for 10pc of overall exports.

The UK remains the primary outlet for food and beverage exports, taking 39pc of the total. Other EU markets took 17pc overall.

However, Mr Smyth pointed out that exports to Asia had doubled over recent years and he predicted that this would be a key growth market for Irish food and drinks into the future.

The agri-sector accounted for 171,400 jobs, or 8.2pc of total employment. Mr Smyth said the sector remained a major employer in rural Ireland, with 43pc of the 50,000 people involved in related processing enterprises employed in the Border Midlands and West region.

In terms of direct payments, the study found that the average Single Farm Payment was €10,000.

What realistic scenario could happen where we couldn't buy the food we need? Apocalyptic WW3 scenarios need not apply.

Well, I think if you cant buy the food you need, you go hungry!

As someone who set up a company in Ireland in 2004 I can tell you that the government is absolutely useless for giving you money. It was cheaper, faster and less work to borrow the money we needed from a bank.

Only Foreign Investors get grants to come to Ireland. Count yourself lucky you didn't start your business in the late '80s when interest rates varried between 12%-18%.

I don't advocate a "turn off the tap" approach. I just think that the subsidies and tariffs which unfairly protect farmers from competition should be reduced and eventually phased out. Some farming would probably survive this since there would be consolidation within the industry which would provide some improvement in efficiency and there would probably be some producers capable of selling to the premium market.

It works both ways - when you have a food shortage you need to have a guaranteed food supply. From my experience, farming has become very efficient with a lot of farmers now having a part-time job as well as running the farm. It makes for hard work though.

Anyway, back where the topic used to be:

The reason we're so afraid to go it alone is because our entire economy is tuned towards being in the EU. If we leave we either face a total collapse of our economy (worst case) or a very long and painful recession and brain drain (best case). And for what? Petty, idiotic nationalism.

That petty idiotic nationalism (I'd think tribalism/patriotism is more appropriate) can be useful. One of the commentators the other day said it was unlikely that the Irish owned Bank of Ireland / AIB would not go the same route as Hibernian (now British owned) to India specifically because their board of directors are predominantly Irish.

And our entire economy is not tuned towards the EU (check out the breakdown of exports) and even if it is, there are opportunities in the developing countries like China. Wasn't there a picture (and article) of an Irish guy on the cover of Forbes magazine recently who is known in the US as 'Mr China'.

K-9

thehighground wrote: »

I've never advocated expensive meat. But, with shortages (supply & demand!) it will get expensive. Irish beef satisfies all compliance criteria of the EU and which is checked by EU officials all the time. So you know, the beef you are getting doesn't have mad cow disease, Foot & Mouth, TB or is full of misused growth promoters. Apart from tasting fairly good, thats what makes it a premium product.

thehighground wrote:

It won't affect Irish beef (more reliant on grass than grain for feed). Irish farmers, will however see a demand for beef (by the way, you can buy cheap cuts of beef (mince), not just expensive cuts of fillet steak), so they can produce more beef (there is a capacity to produce more, but are not allowed by the EU), so make more money.

So in the first quote you agree it will get more expensive.

Yet in the second you say there will be/is cheap beef. I think the point you are missing is: the cheap meat will get expensive as you pointed out yourself. It doesn't make any sense, you seem to be saying Irish beef will get more expensive, yet it will be cheap!

thehighground wrote:

It was a quote from the American Chamber of Commerce (link below) - saying that accumulated Irish FDI (Foreign Direct Investment) in the US was 21 bn Euro. (Irish companies own 21bn's worth of business in the US which employ 74,000 Americans/US residents).

http://www.amcham.ie/article.cfm?idarticle=461

Might as well quote the full article:


Today, nearly 100,000 people are directly employed in over 580 US firms in Ireland[ii] accounting for 70% of all IDA supported employment[iii]. Indirect employment in sub-supply and community industry & services has been estimated at over 225,000[iv].
US companies have a US$61.5b (€50b) cumulative stock of investments in Irish based operations (7.6% of all US investment in the EU & 3.5% worldwide[v] - over double that invested in the Peoples Republic of China.
The US accounts for between 60-70% of Ireland's inward investment in 2005[vi]. Analysed at a sectoral level, Ireland is the premier location worldwide for US FDI in the information sector and fourth worldwide in chemicals[vii]. The return on investment (ROI) for US firms in Ireland has been estimated at 19% over the past decade[viii].
During 2006 67% (48/72 projects) of foreign direct investment (FDI) projects into Ireland originated from the US. Ireland's Industrial Development Authority (IDA) reports that 63% (34/54 projects) of the research and development projects that it supported involved units of US firms in Ireland. Furthermore, the IDA reports that nearly 4 out of every 5 of its projects (78%) outside of the Dublin area were in conjunction with US firms[ix].
In 2006, US firms paid over €2.4b to the Irish Exchequer in Corporate Tax (or approx 40% of total corporate tax take in 2006[x]) and contributed a further €13b in expenditure to the Irish economy in terms of payrolls, goods and services employed in their operations[xi].
Irish companies directly employ an estimated 74,000 in 50 States across the USA The cumulative stock of Irish FDI in the US stood at €21b in 2005[xii].
The US is Ireland's top export destination with total bilateral trade in 2005 (exports to + imports from the USA) worth €23.5b[xiii] and US firms export an estimated €57b[xiv] of products and services from Ireland into world markets. During the first three quarters of 2006 exports from Ireland to the US where up 7% over the same period in 2005. Exports to the USA accounted for 10% of Ireland's GDP in 2005[xv].
US firms in Ireland form a critical part of Ireland's cutting edge, internationally traded goods and services economy in industries such as information & communications technology, biotechnology, pharmaceuticals, medical technologies and financial services.
Top US Employers in Ireland [xvi]

• - Intel : 5500
• - Dell: 4300
• - IBM Ireland : 3,500
• - Wyeth: 3,090
• - Janssen Pharmaceutical: 2,800
• - Boston Scientific: 2,600
• - Hewlett Packard: 2,500
• - Xerox Europe : 2,000
• - Medtronic: 1,950
• - Bausch & Lomb: 1,800
• - Analog Devices: 1,500
• - Abbott Ireland: 1,500
• - EMC Ireland: 1,400
• - McDonalds Restaurants of Ireland: 1,250
• - Hertz Europe Service Centre : 1200
• - Oracle Europe: 1067
• - Baxter Healthcare: 1040
• - Glaxo Smithkline OTC & OT: 1000
• - MBNA: 1000

I think American FDI in Ireland is slightly more important to us than Irelands FDI to the US.

THEHIGHGROUND wrote:

But the Arms industry is big business, just like software. Surely its the US Gov. who want to put missiles in Poland.

Ah, I think you might have got my point! Hence Libertas and why the origins of the Ganleys idea is so relevant. I don't like being told what to do by French and German politicians, but I hate the Americans telling us what to do for their own motives far more.

thehighground wrote:

Your lack of comprehension of that small passage certainly doesn't fill me with confidence that you actually understand the Lisbon Treaty.

Ok, point out how taxation isn't guarenteed by our veto. Strangely the The Irish Taxation Institute say Corporation Tax is safe, but I'm sure you are a far more eminent tax authority than them.

K-9

Seanies32 wrote: »

So thehighground, I'll ask again, what are the disadvantages of going it alone?

In your own time, or is it all good?

djpbarry

thehighground wrote: »

I've never advocated expensive meat. But, with shortages (supply & demand!) it will get expensive.
…
It won't affect Irish beef (more reliant on grass than grain for feed). Irish farmers, will however see a demand for beef (by the way, you can buy cheap cuts of beef (mince), not just expensive cuts of fillet steak)...

Either the meat will be expensive or it won’t; which is it?

thehighground wrote: »

Since the 2nd World War, food has been subsidised because it is essential. End the subsidies and pray that all farmers don't start growing oilseed rape for boifuels. They are going to make a lot more from those now, because of the price of oil.

So are you admitting now that, without subsidies, Irish agriculture is, for the most part, not economically viable?

thehighground wrote: »

Well, I think if you cant buy the food you need, you go hungry!

That’s not an answer; give an example of a scenario in which we would not be able to buy the food we need.

thehighground wrote: »

Only Foreign Investors get grants to come to Ireland.

Do they?

thehighground wrote: »

…farming has become very efficient with a lot of farmers now having a part-time job as well as running the farm.

How is that “very efficient”? That sounds terribly inefficient. Why are they working part-time jobs when they should be concentrating full-time on farming?

irish_bob

djpbarry wrote: »

Either the meat will be expensive or it won’t; which is it?
So are you admitting now that, without subsidies, Irish agriculture is, for the most part, not economically viable?
That’s not an answer; give an example of a scenario in which we would not be able to buy the food we need.
Do they?
How is that “very efficient”? That sounds terribly inefficient. Why are they working part-time jobs when they should be concentrating full-time on farming?

most beef farmers have to have a part time job or maybe its more that they have a job and are part time farmers
the reason for this is most irish beef farms are too small to be the sole breadwinner for a family
profits on beef are tiny so you need scale , this country doesnt do scale , partly due to geography but mostly because of cultural reasons
selling land in this country is seen as heresy so farmers struggle on and those who want to buy land , even they had the money , cant get access to it locally
irish beef farming is in a rut , saved only by subsidies from europe