Cowen Buddies....

tlev

http://www.independent.ie/national-news/cowen-buddies-killing-economy-1605961.html

This made me laugh and despair at the same time is it confirms the obvious and what many of us have been thinking since this whole mess has started. None of the current lot in power have the slightest inkling of what they are doing with our money and we won't ever get out of this mess if these are the type of people in charge. Not a single minister has any business experience or any economic qualifications...depressing really.:(

Biggins

This has been known for some time.

Compare our system to the the Canadian/America/French/German ones for example.

To get to any high state body and hold a position of serious responsibility, you have to before technical examining boards, deep questioning committees (made up of elected rep's from all sides) and have every possible facet be looked at before your assigned a job position.

Here... a' your a mate or a mate of a mate and we "do favours".
Here's the job, enjoy!

tlev

Yeah, I know what you mean. I know that people have been aware of it it's just so frustrating when you see it being brought up in national papers and you can't do anything to change it...elections are coming up but no one on the other side seems qualified either...:(

fintonie

As Biggins says its been know for a long time and nothing being done about, if you can bull**** and raise your voice then the job is yours, people with a successful business back ground should be making the big decisions, the polititcians should only be the face of the country fook some ugly mugs there, like I laugh every time I see Mary Harney, minister of health and the state of her, she goes to USA and gets a hair cut for $700 and its only mentioned once, ill tell you now the potato famine will look like easy living compared to what this government is going to put the people through.

Liam Byrne

Scary!

Having said that, I'd issue one word of caution; the "business" interests in the U.S. that came to the fore during the Bush administration were primarily from backgrounds of the oil industry and war-equipment manufacturers.....and THEY appeared to have their own "buddies" who - coincidentally of course - benefitted greatly from the political and policy decisions made the Bush administration.

So I wouldn't exactly hold America up as the poster-boy.

P.S. Sure this is nothing new, anyway; didn't B-B-Bertie admit, bare-faced, that he'd "only" given people jobs [not because of bribes but ] "because they were my friends"

100% nepotism, and because of the scale of what was going on, not ONE person raised the fact that nepotism is an abuse of power and therefore = corruption.

Straight admission from the horse's mouth, and yet you still can't call the bollox "corrupt".

Riskymove

Biggins wrote: »

Compare our system to the the Canadian/America/French/German ones for example.

you'd be mad if you think those systems dont also result in poor appointments, in the US for example it can result in mediocre appointments as niether side are willing to let the other have outstanding people in high office..."compromise candidates" are all too common

while there are major issues about who are appointed to state boards, but their influence can be relatively small...what is important is that those agencies have the appropriate permanent staff and that recruitment is open and transparant.

Ministers may not come from a business background but have acess to plenty of advice if they want it.

The problem with getting business people involved as politicians is that the most succesful are usually busy running their business to do so...and making a lot more money....there's a famous anecdote about Albert Reynolds having to downsize his car to the Ministerial Merc!!

Biggins

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Scary!

Having said that, I'd issue one word of caution; the "business" interests in the U.S. that came to the fore during the Bush administration were primarily from backgrounds of the oil industry and war-equipment manufacturers.....and THEY appeared to have their own "buddies" who - coincidentally of course - benefitted greatly from the political and policy decisions made the Bush administration.

So I wouldn't exactly hold America up as the poster-boy.

P.S. Sure this is nothing new, anyway; didn't B-B-Bertie admit, bare-faced, that he'd "only" given people jobs [not because of bribes but ] "because they were my friends"

100% nepotism, and because of the scale of what was going on, not ONE person raised the fact that nepotism is an abuse of power and therefore = corruption.

Straight admission from the horse's mouth, and yet you still can't call the bollox "corrupt".

Totally agree.

While the American system is like most systems, open to political influence, etc, at least with some sort of refining process, they are attempting or trying at least to cut down on the "favours for the boys" system (Here - nothing!).
Not perfect but better than the "carte blanch" system we have here and is gotten away with!

Riskymove

Biggins wrote: »

they are attempting or trying at least to cut down on the "favours for the boys" system (Here - nothing!).

the appointments are still nominated by a party and therefore is still jobs for the boys...there may be more scrutiny...but its still the same at heart

if you read any political biographies, or hell, even watch the west wing...you will see how many "friends" a president will appoijt to a government job

amacca

Biggins wrote: »

This has been known for some time.

Compare our system to the the Canadian/America/French/German ones for example.

To get to any high state body and hold a position of serious responsibility, you have to before technical examining boards, deep questioning committees (made up of elected rep's from all sides) and have every possible facet be looked at before your assigned a job position.

Here... a' your a mate or a mate of a mate and we "do favours".
Here's the job, enjoy!

While agreeing with the main thrust of the argument .Id echo Liam Byrnes points.....do we really want to copy the set up in America...........its not as if the US of A's so called experts were of much use.............in fact their management of the economy was one of the most disastrous approaches of all.

It appears as if Canada may have a better system in a lot of ways. I would prefer see us try and adapt elements of their successful system to suit this smaller country than follow the failed systems (ideologies almost) in both the US and the UK we seem to have to continually slavishly copy.

I'm also wary of so called experts (there are so many of them these days) particularly ones representing big business exclusively being allowed or forcing their way into that kind of power. It was these interests that bribed, cajoled and threatened their way to the kind of taxation and regulatory policies that resulted in our economic woes today....do we really want to hand them the reins entirely with no one in between no matter how corrupt the middlemen might be, this is what I think would end up happening. I think that if you did have a system like this the biggest players (biggest business interests) would find a way to ensure they have the greatest representation (disproportionate) and the small and medium size businesses would get screwed in the long run not to mention joe middle income sandwiched inbetween paying through the teeth for everyone.

Also amazed that the article highlights the lack of expertise in the area of finance and economics in IBEC, I never suspected this to be the case.

Riskymove

amacca wrote: »

Also amazed that the article highlights the lack of expertise in the area of finance and economics in IBEC, I never suspected this to be the case.

why? I would think the same reasons busy business people dont get into politics are the same why they dont work in IBEC

By the way having re-read the article its clear they are talking about a lack of experience in "running a business" as oppossed to expertise in the area of finance and economics, which is a bit flimsier

amacca

Riskymove wrote: »

why? I would think the same reasons busy business people dont get into politics are the same why they dont work in IBEC

By the way having re-read the article its clear they are talking about a lack of experience in "running a business" as oppossed to expertise in the area of finance and economics, which is a bit flimsier

Apologies, to answer your question, sometimes its amazing how you make assumptions.....I had always assumed that if any organization would have a concentration of employess who possess expertise and experience in the area of finance and economics or indeed "running a business" it would be the Irish Business and Employer Confederation + would have thought a fairly high level of expertise in the area of finance and indeed economics are crucial if you want to run any sort of a decent sized business...at least successfully.

+Ill bet if busy business people see it affecting their bottom lines they will get involved and ill bet they will stay involved if it allows them to claim more than their fair share.

Riskymove

amacca wrote: »

I had always assumed that if any organization would have a concentration of employess who possess expertise and experience in the area of finance and economics or indeed "running a business" it would be the Irish Business and Employer Confederation + would have thought a fairly high level of expertise in the area of finance and indeed economics are crucial if you want to run any sort of a decent sized business...at least successfully.

yes, but context is everything and both Jim Power and ISME have their own agendas

my point is that the SINDO investigated experience of "running a business" as oppossed to the level of finance and economic expertise (presumably that approach suits them)

for all we know everyone in IBEC (or indeed politicians) has a PhD in Finance or economics, just little experience of running a business

likewise while ISME (as they are made up of representatives from small and medium businesses) will obviously all have experience of running a business, they may not have any qualifications in Finance or economics


on another point I just love how Jim Power is rolled out to give out about politics given that he has been working for years in the banking sector and yet has the gall to talk about the Cabinet "killing business"

perhaps if he went down the corridor and asked the Business Finance division to start lending to small businesses rather than ranting?

amacca

Riskymove wrote: »

yes, but context is everything and both Jim Power and ISME have their own agendas

very true and there are some on here who that point is more lost on than myself

Riskymove wrote: »

my point is that the SINDO investigated experience of "running a business" as oppossed to the level of finance and economic expertise (presumably that approach suits them)

Oh, I had taken your point, just explaining that both skillsets/areas of expertise are interdependant/intertwined in my mind, hence my initial reading of the article. Now that I think about it more, the article really is pretty much fluff. If they want to highlight croneyism there are surely more direct better ways to do it or are they afraid their business relationships might be highlighted.

Riskymove wrote: »

on another point I just love how Jim Power is rolled out to give out about politics given that he has been working for years in the banking sector and yet has the gall to talk about the Cabinet "killing business"

perhaps if he went down the corridor and asked the Business Finance division to start lending to small businesses rather than ranting?

You can book his services through personallyspeaking.ie if youd like to tell him that. I should warn you the indo say hes an economist who is "used to getting paid"

Liam Byrne

Oh !!!! It was the Sunday Independent ? Not just the Independent ?

In that case I'll 100% retract any support; that rag is worse than a tabloid and has more agendas, half-truths and misinformation than an incoherent drunk.