The Irish kick in the face to the EU is disgusting

southsiderosie

cavedave wrote: »

O
Our politicians and central bank and regulator did not do their jobs. The Irish central bank could have increased reserve requirements for example. The central bankers job has been described as having to take away the punchbowl just as the party is getting good. Because politicians won't do this independent central banks are regarded as better.

Politicians will not contract an economy that is overheated. That is why we have independent central banks. So giving out to politicians for not doing what no one expects them to do seems naive.

But with a fixed currency and an open economy, the politicians HAVE to do it. They don't have a choice. They can be responsible, or they can be like Argentina. Ireland appears to have taken the latter route.

Also, it is not as if they hadn't done it before: the politicians were willing to engage in public sector spending constraints in the run-up to adopting the euro. But they didn't hold to it, even though the game had completely changed at that point.

If Irish politicians are immature enough that they are unwilling to manage the part of the economy over which they still maintain some sovereign control, then just sign the country over to Germany and be done with it. Otherwise, it is long past time to behave like rational adults who have been given a grave level of responsibility by their fellow citizens.

southsiderosie

ahal wrote: »

But the evidence dictated that the Irish economy couldn't fail?!

What evidence might that be?

cavedave

southsiderosie

But with a fixed currency and an open economy, the politicians HAVE to do it. They don't have a choice. They can be responsible, or they can be like Argentina. Ireland appears to have taken the latter route.

Who has successfully done this? I am not being funny here I genuinely want to know. Who was offered overly cheap money and a peg to fixed currency and kept their heads? Ireland pegged itself to Sterling but never got cheap money and was willing to devalue when needed.

If Irish politicians are immature enough that they are unwilling to manage the part of the economy over which they still maintain some sovereign control, then just sign the country over to Germany and be done with it. Otherwise, it is long past time to behave like rational adults who have been given a grave level of responsibility by their fellow citizens.

No party ran on the "we will not increase public spending. We will put what is an extraordinary booms tax revenue into capital spending only. We will increase reserve requirements to reduce the number of jobs in building" manifesto

They should have had this as policy. They would also have been out of a job if they did.

I do not think this is a grand revelation. From what others have said there seems to be some agreement that
1. People will take cheap money when they can
2. Politicians will do what people will vote for them to do
3.

the central bank and the regulator's are just yes men. They are appointed by the Govt

. Central bankers put in place by politicians or hoping to get later jobs from the people will go along with what the politicians or the people want.

This is a rather cynical view of the realpolitik.

Scofflaw

ahal wrote: »

But the evidence dictated that the Irish economy couldn't fail?!

Hmm. You're confusing two things there.

In the former case, one can make various different predictions with the same set of facts, because we're asking what might happen based on those facts. No matter how right the facts are, we can still make the wrong prediction, because predictions are fundamentally just opinions. "Can the Irish economy fail?" is not a factual question.

In the latter case, we're simply asking "how much fish?". That is a factual question, and an answer to that question is either right (with a degree of error) or wrong.

If you want to know how much fish other nations have caught in Irish waters, Pew can supply the recorded catches, to which opinion is irrelevant.

If you want to predict how much fish will be caught next year, and by whom, opinions become relevant again - an optimist will predict more, a pessimist less. But neither the optimist's nor the pessimist's opinion is relevant to the recorded catches.

In other words, you're confusing arguing from a set of facts to a prediction (that the Irish economy is sound) with arguing with a set of facts. If you're going to do the latter, you should supply a different set of facts, and the methodology behind those facts, and the two sets can then be compared in terms of their likely reliability.

In this case, we have on the one side a set of detailed catch figures, provided by a reputable and politically neutral research establishment, with an explicit and accepted methodology, used by fishery scientists and planners - on the other we have a nice round figure pulled out of somebody's rear end and waved about for political purposes. You're at liberty to accept either.

cordially,
Scofflaw

yoshytoshy

We are on a european stage as far as I'm concerned ,without it we wouldn't even be near contemplating world events at the moment.

Things take time to grow ,like the investment we got from europe years ago. Without it we'd beggers rather than choosers at the moment ,I think.

ahal

Indeed the figures may well have come out of someone's backside. Don't you think it's strange though, after 40 years, that this is so? We are an island nation with fishery as one of our main natural assets, yet after all that time we're still largely in the dark about what we're giving away?

The problem with facts and statistics is that they are selectively available it would seem. The E.U. is a political entity which is more interested in surviving as a political entity than it is about it's subjects.

Incidentally, re the suggested confusion between opinion and facts in the past, the projections were based on facts alright. The problem is, the facts turned out to be wrong in the real world. Facts have their place, but they don't tell the whole story.

beeftotheheels

ahal wrote: »

The E.U. is a political entity which is more interested in surviving as a political entity than it is about it's subjects.

Would you care to explain (not least when I voted to create a pan European monarchy)?

Have you even contemplated the possibility that right now the EU is more concerned with avoiding the Credit Crunch Mark II which would destroy wealth for all European peoples?

ahal

beeftotheheels wrote: »

Have you even contemplated the possibility that right now the EU is more concerned with avoiding the Credit Crunch Mark II which would destroy wealth for all European peoples?

Sorry, I thought it had already done that ... well, among the working ants that is.

sollar

Scofflaw wrote: »

But we do have a lot of material from the time of the decision about the people involved, right down to Lenihan's midnight garlic-munching, plus the variety of quite detailed ass-covering leaks from the DoF....and the ECB is conspicuous by its absence. None of the documents, as far as I recall, even say "we must take into account the ECB's policy of x", the very least one would expect if the driver for the decision was ECB policy.

We need to know what exactly was said and by whom on that night. If there were minutes then they should be released if not then an inquiry should be carried out. We need it all pieced together.

Brian Cowan was there... has he ever been interviewed about that alone and provided answers. Its madness that they could guarantee €400 billion and not even feel the need to explain in detail the how's, why's and what for's.

If the EU really had no part in it... let us know exactly what was said on that night so we know who is to blame. And whether they should see the inside of a court room.

Scofflaw

ahal wrote: »

Indeed the figures may well have come out of someone's backside. Don't you think it's strange though, after 40 years, that this is so? We are an island nation with fishery as one of our main natural assets, yet after all that time we're still largely in the dark about what we're giving away?

Not really. The figures don't inform public debate - perhaps because many, like yourself, seem entirely willing to take figures on trust. The figures are available to the Minister in question, and have once or twice been used in the Dáil to answer opposition claims, but they're not collated and published on any regular basis.

ahal wrote: »

The problem with facts and statistics is that they are selectively available it would seem. The E.U. is a political entity which is more interested in surviving as a political entity than it is about it's subjects.

In fact, the EU is very much better about making data available than is our government.

ahal wrote: »

Incidentally, re the suggested confusion between opinion and facts in the past, the projections were based on facts alright. The problem is, the facts turned out to be wrong in the real world. Facts have their place, but they don't tell the whole story.

In the case of someone claiming the EU has taken €100bn of fish from our waters, they do. They tell you that the claim is a load of cod.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Dob74

CommuterIE wrote: »

They helped us along the way since the 70's to prosperity... the structural funds given to this country were unreal, hell they bailed us out now... yet you have a lot of inept and dam right stupid people now blaming the EU for our ills...

This is 125% bull****... the Irish got themselves into this mess by electing an incompetent government time and time again....

I think it is about time people in Ireland relise who is paying the ****ing bills right now! And shame on anybody who blames the EU for this mess... we had autonomy and we failed...

So what are you saying the ECB is not flawed?
The current system clearly does not work. All the piigs are heading towards default. There needs to be a total overhall of the ECB.
I think people have every right to complain about the EU afterall aren't we members?


As for all the structural funds we have recieved, we have given up our fishing rights. You buy a girl flowers and then get into her pance.
Afair deal for us and them.

matthew8

The EU seem to be the only ones who don't want their money back. They seem to want to punish us. Britain wants to help us out of this tough time (I am eternally grateful to George Osborne for coming out to support us) and another EU-sceptic country the Netherlands say they respect our sovereignity re tax while Germany and France want a profit off of us. The IMF recognise that the best way of us paying the money back is with a lower interest rate. Sarkozy, meanwhile is living in his own world.

Monty Burnz

beeftotheheels wrote: »

I think the fish is a red herring! What their "fishing boats" were actually doing was secretly stealing the €850 bn worth of oil and gas that used to be under our seas...

http://www.indymedia.ie/article/99406

What the hell has that got to do with 'fishing boats'?

Also, all news sources have biases, but few can be as obviously biased as 'Indymedia'.

Monty Burnz

ahal wrote: »

Sorry, I thought it had already done that ... well, among the working ants that is.

Germany is booming quietly. Belgium is absolutely as it was in 2007, pre-credit crunch. Other countries seem to be fine. Don't buy the rubbish put about by Fianna Failure that we are only slightly worse off than the rest of Europe. We've fallen off a cliff, and most of Europe is merely standing in a puddle.

matthew8

Monty Burnz wrote: »

Germany is booming quietly. Belgium is absolutely as it was in 2007, pre-credit crunch. Other countries seem to be fine. Don't buy the rubbish put about by Fianna Failure that we are only slightly worse off than the rest of Europe. We've fallen off a cliff, and most of Europe is merely standing in a puddle.

I think you're being too kind to them with that name. Fianna FAIL IMF Anglo seems more appropriate.

beeftotheheels

Monty Burnz wrote: »

What the hell has that got to do with 'fishing boats'?

Also, all news sources have biases, but few can be as obviously biased as 'Indymedia'.

The use of irony to mock or convey contempt is a definition of...

Laminations

The EU has been very good to Ireland. They have fattened us up nicely, we got so bloated we became incapacitated and now with their help we have gotten to the point where we are ready to be devoured.

Eat up EU. You poured money into us like hot fat down an animals throat, now you own our bones so pick away.

Monty Burnz

beeftotheheels wrote: »

The use of irony to mock or convey contempt is a definition of...

I've no idea. But relying on Indymedia as an information source is not my definition of sensible.

ilovelamp2000

CommuterIE wrote: »

They helped us along the way since the 70's to prosperity... the structural funds given to this country were unreal, hell they bailed us out now... yet you have a lot of inept and dam right stupid people now blaming the EU for our ills...

This is 125% bull****... the Irish got themselves into this mess by electing an incompetent government time and time again....

I think it is about time people in Ireland relise who is paying the ****ing bills right now! And shame on anybody who blames the EU for this mess... we had autonomy and we failed...

I despair for the country if many people think this way.

Most people accept that there were a number of factors to blame for the economic collapse, for some of them the blame lies with the successive governments that were elected. Some of them are problems caused by EMU - e.g. interest rates that were unsuitable for the economy, leading to increased inflation.

To deny the EU played any role in the mess is to bury your head in the sand.

RandomName2

CommuterIE wrote: »

They helped us along the way since the 70's to prosperity... the structural funds given to this country were unreal, hell they bailed us out now... yet you have a lot of inept and dam right stupid people now blaming the EU for our ills...

This is 125% bull****... the Irish got themselves into this mess by electing an incompetent government time and time again....

I think it is about time people in Ireland relise who is paying the ****ing bills right now! And shame on anybody who blames the EU for this mess... we had autonomy and we failed...

The 'EU' is shoring up its interests and investment to this point by providing a loan that has to be paid back with interest.

You should probably be sending a letter of thanks to your bank for providing you with a mortgage, if you are looking for people to be thankful to.

JustinDee

Aw, the poor stricken oppressed who had nothing to do with the sandy-based boom of late.
Nobody forced Paddy Irish to live beyond his means with credit upon credit, drop education to work in construction/property sector, or hire a nanny/cleaner.

If you want to find the problem, start on doorstep. Less of the usual Irish self-pitying victimhood would be nice, for a change.

Scofflaw

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

I despair for the country if many people think this way.

Most people accept that there were a number of factors to blame for the economic collapse, for some of them the blame lies with the successive governments that were elected. Some of them are problems caused by EMU - e.g. interest rates that were unsuitable for the economy, leading to increased inflation.

To deny the EU played any role in the mess is to bury your head in the sand.

Let's see. Did we know, when we were going through the convergence process for the euro, that once we adopted it the rate would not be set for Ireland alone, and would largely be determined by the state of the largest eurozone economies?

Why, yes, we did!

Did we therefore have the choice between adapting sensibly to that reality, or not doing so?

Why, yes, we did!

Which did we do?

Euro membership put certain constraints on the Irish economy, just as it did on the economies of every other euro member, the majority of whom are small economies like ourselves. They ran their policies that took into account the lowered interest rate - we ran policies that treated it as a great big free money bonanza. We're now in a massive crisis, they're not - oh, that is, apart from the other countries that did what we did.

Today, in Dublin at least, it's raining. I can see that it's raining. If I go outside without an umbrella I will get wet. If I take an umbrella I will not. If I have an umbrella, and do not take it, and get wet, should I then blame the rain, or my own stupidity?

Your view: blame the rain.
Your justification: without the rain we wouldn't have got wet.

My view: good luck out there today. You'll evidently need it, since you'll apparently be relying on rain not being wet rather than an umbrella.

regards,
Scofflaw

MagicSean

CommuterIE wrote: »

They helped us along the way since the 70's to prosperity... the structural funds given to this country were unreal, hell they bailed us out now... yet you have a lot of inept and dam right stupid people now blaming the EU for our ills...

This is 125% bull****... the Irish got themselves into this mess by electing an incompetent government time and time again....

I think it is about time people in Ireland relise who is paying the ****ing bills right now! And shame on anybody who blames the EU for this mess... we had autonomy and we failed...

You are missing the point. People get mortgages from banks. Can't pay and suffer. The banks who gave them mortgages lose money and suffer. The larger euro banks who funded the Irish banks are somehow immune from any ill effects when they were just as reckless as the Irish banks. If they had taken their fair share of responsability for poor lending practices then we would be in a much better position.

Then the EU decide to raise the interest rates, putting even more pressure on mortgage holders and their banks. The reason? Germanys inflation is too high and they won't sort it out themselves. Screw the smaller states.

The fact is that by accepting the IMF bailout we have bailed out the larger european states by keeping their banks secure. Our reward for this is constant pressure to raise out tax rates and further damage our state.

JustinDee

Who forced the Irish people to go for the credit route as opposed to living within means?
Nobody.

Icepick

People like to blame others.

Scofflaw

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

You are missing the point. People get mortgages from banks. Can't pay and suffer. The banks who gave them mortgages lose money and suffer. The larger euro banks who funded the Irish banks are somehow immune from any ill effects when they were just as reckless as the Irish banks. If they had taken their fair share of responsability for poor lending practices then we would be in a much better position.

Then the EU decide to raise the interest rates, putting even more pressure on mortgage holders and their banks. The reason? Germanys inflation is too high and they won't sort it out themselves. Screw the smaller states.

The fact is that by accepting the IMF bailout we have bailed out the larger european states by keeping their banks secure. Our reward for this is constant pressure to raise out tax rates and further damage our state.

Icepick wrote:

People like to blame others.

What's amazing is that they're prepared to do so without evidence. Somebody said "it was German banks" (likely McWilliams back in 2006), and everybody just goes "yeah" and builds their outrage on top of that without looking to see whether there's any evidence it's actually true.

cordially,
Scofflaw

MagicSean

Scofflaw wrote: »

What's amazing is that they're prepared to do so without evidence. Somebody said "it was German banks" (likely McWilliams back in 2006), and everybody just goes "yeah" and builds their outrage on top of that without looking to see whether there's any evidence it's actually true.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Are you saying my post is incorrect? You quoted it but I'm not sure why.

Scofflaw

Seanbeag1 wrote: »

Are you saying my post is incorrect? You quoted it but I'm not sure why.

The points I would take issue with are:

"larger euro banks who funded the Irish banks"

- do you have any evidence for this? Have you seen any evidence for it, or are you taking the word of others? Do you know what evidence the others are using?

"Germanys inflation is too high and they won't sort it out themselves"

- controlling inflation in the eurozone is the job of the ECB. It's not a case of "screw the small states" - first, not all small states are where we are, second, the ECB would have normally been expected to react aggressively to German inflation by decisively raising rates, but haven't precisely because of the position of Ireland et al. The large rises in Irish domestic rates have been introduced by the Irish banks - something of a reminder that they could have done so during the boom.

"constant pressure to raise out tax rates"

- well, no. The French (and more quietly the Germans) won't give us a rate reduction without movement on our CT rate. If Ireland wasn't at the table pressing for a reduction, the question wouldn't be on the table. As it is, we have the EU Commission, the IMF, the OECD, and 25 of the 27 on our side, but we can be blocked by any one state because the decision-making is unanimous, not majority.

So, er, pretty much taking issue with everything you said, I'm afraid. What I would most nearly agree with is:

"we have bailed out the larger european states by keeping their banks secure"

That's not actually accurate in terms of mechanism, because we're not "keeping their banks secure", but the bailout is in the interests of other EU states, and the wider EU as well. Unfortunately, because you're wrong about the mechanism by which it's in their interests, you're also wrong about whose interests it's in - the countries who have least need of Ireland having a bailout are in fact Germany and France. Even in the event of a catastrophic collapse of the euro, they will most probably be OK - indeed, Germany and France actually benefit from the turbulence, because it keeps the euro low, and pushes their borrowing rates down. French 10-year bond yields are close to 10-year lows, not highs.

So, unsurprisingly, the main parties being sticky about our bailout interest rates are those who pay most into it, and to whom it is of least value.

OK, I don't actually come close to really agreeing with you there either. We haven't bailed out the larger European states, and it's not their banks we're helping keep stable - it's those of the other distressed countries.

cordially,
Scofflaw

ilovelamp2000

Scofflaw wrote: »

Let's see. Did we know, when we were going through the convergence process for the euro, that once we adopted it the rate would not be set for Ireland alone, and would largely be determined by the state of the largest eurozone economies?

Why, yes, we did!

Did we therefore have the choice between adapting sensibly to that reality, or not doing so?

Why, yes, we did!

Which did we do?

Euro membership put certain constraints on the Irish economy, just as it did on the economies of every other euro member, the majority of whom are small economies like ourselves. They ran their policies that took into account the lowered interest rate - we ran policies that treated it as a great big free money bonanza. We're now in a massive crisis, they're not - oh, that is, apart from the other countries that did what we did.

Today, in Dublin at least, it's raining. I can see that it's raining. If I go outside without an umbrella I will get wet. If I take an umbrella I will not. If I have an umbrella, and do not take it, and get wet, should I then blame the rain, or my own stupidity?

Your view: blame the rain.
Your justification: without the rain we wouldn't have got wet.

My view: good luck out there today. You'll evidently need it, since you'll apparently be relying on rain not being wet rather than an umbrella.

regards,
Scofflaw

I'd actually like to post my honest reaction to your horrendously smug reply but calling a spade a spade isn't allowed around here.

It's absolutely undeniable that our inability to devalue the currency and our inability to set our own interest rates (features of EMU) played a massive part in us getting to where we are and are another reason why we'll stay here for a long time. EMU is a massive hinderance to us and has been for quite a while now , our inept governments would have more options open to them to avoid and fix messes without it.

do one,

Ilovelamp2000

Scofflaw

ilovelamp2000 wrote: »

I'd actually like to post my honest reaction to your horrendously smug reply but calling a spade a spade isn't allowed around here.

It's absolutely undeniable that our inability to devalue the currency and our inability to set our own interest rates (features of EMU) played a massive part in us getting to where we are and are another reason why we'll stay here for a long time. EMU is a massive hinderance to us and has been for quite a while now , our inept governments would have more options open to them to avoid and fix messes without it.

do one,

Ilovelamp2000

No, it's absolutely undeniable that our government's failure to adapt to the fact that we were unable to set our own interest rates played a large part in getting us here (devaluation wasn't relevant in getting us here). And one can easily make the case that had the government had more policy options open to them, they would have used them to make things even worse - after all, they used all the available tools to make things worse.

As I said, you're blaming something that was an integral part of euro membership, something we agreed to, something that applied in the convergence period, something that was characteristic worldwide during the last decade, and something that other countries successfully adapted government policy to, for the failure of successive Fianna Fáil led governments to do anything other than blow the bubble up just as hard as they could.

They didn't have to do so. They chose to do so. And as a nation, we chose to vote for them, and for their disastrous policies. Are you arguing that their policies weren't disastrous, but were, on the contrary, the best possible attempt to adapt to the incredibly difficult conditions imposed by euro membership?

Because that's what you have to argue to argue that the problem lies in euro membership itself. And, really, I just don't see you being able to argue it with any reference to reality.

cordially,
Scofflaw

later12

Scofflaw wrote: »

Sorry - did you scroll all the way down the page? The "Show Tabular Data" button is at the bottom right, but just below the fold when you open the page. Should work, even if you're getting this error message for the chart:

That worked for me now; thanks.

Those Pew catch values by fishing country are pretty explicit. Looking at the figures:

IRELAND EEZ: DOMESTIC & FOREIGN CATCH VALUES
Period|Total value| IRL |Non-IRL| % IRL
1973 - 79|2,261|203|2,058|9%
1980 - 89|3,054|652|2,402|21%
1990 - 99|3,931|1,168|2,764|30%
2000 - 06|3,432|1,029|2,403|30%
TOTAL|12,679|3,052|9,627|N/A

Figures are in millions. Denominated in Real US$ 2000 value.

UNITED KINGDOM EEZ: IRISH SHARE
Period|Irish Share|
1973 - 79|314
1980 - 89|909
1990 - 99|942
2000 - 06|876
TOTAL|3,042

Figures are in millions. Denominated in Real US$ 2000 value

I haven't included the Irish catch for French waters because they are not susbtantial enough.

So we have a situation whereby the net foreign catch value in Irish fishing waters comes to US$10 billion, or thereabouts, when we deduct the Irish share, for the period 1973 - 2006.

Being quite confused about where the $100 bn figure actually came from, could it be possible that it was a mistake? That somewhere the figure was multiplied by 10?

Please note, I have rounded these figures to the nearest million, this may affect %s and totals very slightly.

Anyway, you are right Scofflaw, this story is a bit fishy for my liking (sorry, all the other puns have been taken)

cavedave

JustinDee

Who forced the Irish people to go for the credit route as opposed to living within means?
Nobody.

If you reduced the price of cigarrettes would you expect more people to smoke? People obey that laws of supply and demand if the price of something drops more will be consumed. How much more depends on the elasticity of demand for that product.

People who eat too much or smoke too much bear some of the responsibility for the ill health that results. In the same way people who borrow too much bear responsibility. But smokes and food have serious information campaigns to inform people of the dangerous. Credit does not. If anything it is encouraged. Car adverts are ubiquitous. Presumably they work in getting people to borrow money and buy a car otherwise they they would not spend so much money on them. I see very few adverts warning of the dangers of buying a new car on credit.

You can blame people for buying a new car on credit. But I do think you have to take into account the laws of supply and demand and that advertising works as well.

JustinDee

cavedave wrote: »

If you reduced the price of cigarrettes would you expect more people to smoke? People obey that laws of supply and demand if the price of something drops more will be consumed. How much more depends on the elasticity of demand for that product.

People who eat too much or smoke too much bear some of the responsibility for the ill health that results. In the same way people who borrow too much bear responsibility. But smokes and food have serious information campaigns to inform people of the dangerous. Credit does not. If anything it is encouraged. Car adverts are ubiquitous. Presumably they work in getting people to borrow money and buy a car otherwise they they would not spend so much money on them. I see very few adverts warning of the dangers of buying a new car on credit.

You can blame people for buying a new car on credit. But I do think you have to take into account the laws of supply and demand and that advertising works as well.

Market forces are only a part of the equation. The buck still stops at the proponent and nobody forces them to spend or go into silly debt.

cavedave

Ok put it this way. There are facts and opinions. I believe these to be facts (and if I am wrong I do want to be corrected)

1. If the price of credit drops people will borrow more
2. If the ease of getting credit drops people will borrow more
3. Advertising works. Specifically if you advertise loans people will borrow more.

These facts have to be integrated with our opinions. One opinion I share is that
1. People should take personal responsibility.
2. Companies that give out loans should take corporate responsibility.

Sorry for the repetition but I do think we have to make our theories of how to treat people (our opinions) match up with how the world and people actually are.

JustinDee

Yes, and people have a mind of their own. They are not in any way forced to avail of cheap credit. They are not slaves to market forces but can opt to participate by their own free will.
This isn't complicated. Its a basic economic tenet. Many Irish folk didn't manage too well becoming 'Nouveaux Riches'. People who went beyond their means did so under no duress. They did it willingly and in spite of the risk. Now it has gone belly-up, some see themselves as 'victims' instead of just folk who joined in and went overboard. Nobody held a gun to their head and told them to go for more or newer cars, follow the headhunters, extend the house or cash in and go even bigger.

cavedave

JustinDee

This isn't complicated. Its a basic economic tenet.

Sorry what is a basic economic tenet?
That people have free will? It is not as far as I know.*
That people should be responsible for their actions. Again I am not sure that is a tenet of economics.

Both of these are principles of ethics certainly. It is an economic tenet that it is unwise to not make people responsible for their actions but it is not that people naturally are AFAIK. If they are tenets of economics or you mean something else I do want to be corrected.

*though if the government made borrowing mandatory that would increase borrowing. The conditions of bankruptcy do effect the likelihood of default and the likelihood of borrowing. But freewill in everyday usage is a bit like god. You might believe in it but it is hard to find it in the equations.

Yahew

Scofflaw wrote: »

Euro membership put certain constraints on the Irish economy, just as it did on the economies of every other euro member, the majority of whom are small economies like ourselves. They ran their policies that took into account the lowered interest rate - we ran policies that treated it as a great big free money bonanza. We're now in a massive crisis, they're not - oh, that is, apart from the other countries that did what we did.

Did they now? It does seem that peripheral members of the Euro - possibly including larger members like Spain, might be in trouble, and Italy, Greece and Spain. And of course, if all these are in trouble, France and Germany are in trouble. At some stage we may want to put some , albeit, tiny amount of blame on the Central bank which kept interest rates in negative real territory for about a decade. Just a tiny smidgin of blame. Pretend that all these peripheral countries were, in fact, in control of their own central banks and kept interest rates below inflation. Now, would you not blame them? Now use that logic on the central European bank

Previously you posted an xls link which went nowhere about how there was little exposure to Ireland's banks in Germany any France. Apparently the loans to Irish banks came from within Ireland, in some kind of magical alchemy.

The WSJ begs to differ. German banks hold $222B in Irish banks.

later12

Yahew wrote: »

Previously you posted an xls link which went nowhere about how there was little exposure to Ireland's banks in Germany any France. Apparently the loans to Irish banks came from within Ireland, in some kind of magical alchemy.

The WSJ begs to differ. German banks hold $222B in Irish banks.

Gimme an

I - International!
F - Financial!
S - Services!
C - Centre!

Yahew

So you are saying that the WSJ is misleading. That the "exposure to Ireland" is not to Irish banks but to banks in Ireland?

Laminations

JustinDee wrote: »

Yes, and people have a mind of their own.

Prove it. Because that statement is not accurate at all, even debatable on metaphysical grounds - e.g. where is this 'mind' or where is the 'you' that owns this mind? Your stuck in the ideas of neo-classical economics, the 1930s Samuelson stuff where economic theory was axiomatic and hinged on humans being rational actors. That's not the case and has been proven so.

Let's see how your 'mind of your own' is completely under your control. Don't think of an elephant. Wow, mind control!

ahal

later10 wrote: »

That worked for me now; thanks.

Those Pew catch values by fishing country are pretty explicit. Looking at the figures:

Christ, did you think about this all night?!

cavedave

Laminations

Your stuck in the ideas of neo-classical economics, the 1930s Samuelson stuff where economic theory was axiomatic and hinged on humans being rational actors

Does being a rational actor require you have free will? If anything to me it implies you do not.

For society to work you probably need to assume people have free will. If judges went "you murdered this person but that was inevitable given your background so punishing you would be unfair" it would be a pretty odd world.

You can require free will to avoid moral hazard problems. But again this is a question of how things should work rather than how they do.

Yahew

Laminations wrote: »

Prove it. Because that statement is not accurate at all, even debatable on metaphysical grounds - e.g. where is this 'mind' or where is the 'you' that owns this mind? Your stuck in the ideas of neo-classical economics, the 1930s Samuelson stuff where economic theory was axiomatic and hinged on humans being rational actors.

Actually, he wasn't. He was suggesting that people had minds of their own and didnt have to buy houses, while standard economic theory would suggest that low or negative real interest rates would cause asset bubbles, as people respond pavlovian-like to the stimulus. Not all of pre-Game Theory economic analysis is incorrect, and this one is correct.

later12

Yahew wrote: »

So you are saying that the WSJ is misleading. That the "exposure to Ireland" is not to Irish banks but to banks in Ireland?

I am not suggesting that the WSJ is being misleading, I am saying thatit looks as though they are including the IFSC in their figures. Therefore, somebody who is not familiar with differentiating between the IFSC and the Irish covered institutions more specifically could be unduly shocked by those figures.

later12

ahal wrote: »

Christ, did you think about this all night?!

No, just this morning. If anything, you got my hopes up that there was fishy gold to be had off Clew Bay. Alas, since the fishes are not going to save us, we shall have to go back to praying for the plain old black gold now.

dan_d

Are we discussing mind control, free will, fish or economics here??
I'm confused:o

Yahew

dan_d wrote: »

Are we discussing mind control, free will, fish or economics here??
I'm confused:o

/MindControl

Forget about the mindcontrol.

// Mindcontrol

Yahew

later10 wrote: »

I am not suggesting that the WSJ is being misleading, I am saying thatit looks as though they are including the IFSC in their figures. Therefore, somebody who is not familiar with differentiating between the IFSC and the Irish covered institutions more specifically could be unduly shocked by those figures.

Fair enough - however given that Scofflaws original link is still borked I am none the wiser on the real thing. However, the WSJ is not all that reputable these days.

end a eknny

the biggest mistake irish people made was joining the e.u the second biggest was joining the euro. of course its like everything else promise the irish a few pond and they would sell you their granny

feicim

CommuterIE wrote: »

They helped us along the way since the 70's to prosperity... the structural funds given to this country were unreal, hell they bailed us out now... yet you have a lot of inept and dam right stupid people now blaming the EU for our ills...

This is 125% bull****... the Irish got themselves into this mess by electing an incompetent government time and time again....

I think it is about time people in Ireland relise who is paying the ****ing bills right now! And shame on anybody who blames the EU for this mess... we had autonomy and we failed...

Unreal?? How much is that? 100 billion, 500 billion, 10 billion?

Any chance you can put a figure on this? You asked for a value of how much other EU members took out of Irish fishing waters, without giving any figures for your own claims, fair is fair:)

http://www.afloat.ie/blogs/island-nation/item/14806-giving-away-a-billion-from-the-sea/

the value of fish given to other EU states from irish waters was 1 billion last year (2010)


Edit: if this trend continues Ireland is gifting the EU 1 billion per year from Irish waters - forever and ever. Thats a whole lot of billions. the long term view on this is that Ireland will put much more into europe than it will take out. (Not to mention all of the profit that will be made by the EU in the form of interest on the "bailout".) The EU is set to do quite well from ireland.

In this light Ireland appears to be a serf for the EU lord...