Occupy Dame St organisation has no purpose

Bannasidhe

hmmm wrote: »

I like how some people want an "adult" political process, yet others are raging because they voted for parties that they feel didn't tell them 100% the truth. It shouldn't come as a shock to an adult to find out that political parties (and humans) don't always tell the truth - if they did, most politicians would never be elected.

Sinn Fein has promised us a pain free solution to the problem. Why didn't 100% of the electorate vote for them?

When in reality it should come as a shock to political parties that when they lie - they will be held accountable. We just got things arseways in this country.

hmmm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

When in reality it should come as a shock to political parties that when they lie - they will be held accountable. We just got things arseways in this country.

Name one political party, anywhere in the world, that is 100% truthful in everything they do.

hmmm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

We could have FF/LP or FG/LP or even, gasp, FG/FF - it would still be the same bloody government with the same bloody policies..

These are centrist parties, what do you expect? And no they don't have the same policies, although they will share 80% of their platform as they are centrist.

Fianna Fail is a chameleon but sees itself as a party of Republicanism and Nationalism, with an emphasis on the lower working class (real working class, not "working class"), FG is centre right broadly conservative socially (with a strong liberal wing) with a bent towards the middle class and free enterprise, Labour is centre left with pretensions towards socialism and broadly supportive of unions. The electorate freely elected the FF/PD government.

I think we have quite a good political choice, but our political structures are inappropriate (too many politicians, constituencies too small etc). The last thing we want is some great dichotomy between Left & Right choices, where a new government comes in and completely changes the policies implemented by the previous government. That to me is a far worse outcome.

Bannasidhe

hmmm wrote: »

These are centrist parties, what do you expect? And no they don't have the same policies, although they will share 80% of their platform as they are centrist.

Fianna Fail is a chameleon but sees itself as a party of Republicanism and Nationalism, with an emphasis on the lower working class (real working class, not "working class"), FG is centre right broadly conservative socially (with a strong liberal wing) with a bent towards the middle class and free enterprise, Labour is centre left with pretensions towards socialism and broadly supportive of unions. The electorate freely elected the FF/PD government.

I think we have quite a good political choice, but our political structures are inappropriate (too many politicians, constituencies too small etc). The last thing we want is some great dichotomy between Left & Right choices, where a new government comes in and completely changes the policies implemented by the previous government. That to me is a far worse outcome.

I don't disagree with any of that - indeed I agree heartily. We have an unwieldy structure, palpable lack of accountability, far too many politicos particularly when the whip system is so all pervasive that it renders the vast majority of them utterly pointless, too much influence vested in career civil servants, lack of transparency and an unwillingness to consult the general public on important matters (bank bail out for example) by holding a plebiscite.

My disillusionment with the main political parties stems from their failures in dealing with the above - indeed, I feel they are so entrenched in this dysfunctional process that they cannot perceive any alternative.
This had the effect of causing me - and if the letters printed daily in our national newspapers are any indication, I am not the only one -to listen to discourse that is happening outside the political mainstream - not necessarily agree, but listen - as political insiders appear tainted by association.

To me, Occupy (to bring the discussion back to the original topic ) is part of that discourse - its existence is to be encouraged as it is provoking discussion and engagement with political thought. This can only be a good thing.

hmmm

Bannasidhe wrote: »

To me, Occupy (to bring the discussion back to the original topic ) is part of that discourse - its existence is to be encouraged as it is provoking discussion and engagement with political thought. This can only be a good thing.

I think with the temporary demise of FF, we came very close to getting momentum in this country for a second Republic. A constitutional convention was mentioned a couple of times in "ordinary" discourse, for example on Prime Time & the Frontline. We were on the cusp of real change.

Unfortunately now that sort of thought has become associated with actors such as Occupy. The general public are beginning to think that major political change is yet another "trendy leftie" cause, which will automatically cause aversion amongst the majority in this country. The same way that any cause in this country is automatically finished when a ULA spokesman comes forward to support it.

Occupy aren't helping, every day they are there with their ULA flags and dreadlocks and pretentious speeches they are destroying any chance we have of real progress. They need to dismantle their squalid camp and clear off before the forces of conservatism and gombeenism decide they have the majority of the population on their side and clear the area by force.

Bannasidhe

hmmm wrote: »

I think with the temporary demise of FF, we came very close to getting momentum in this country for a second Republic. A constitutional convention was mentioned a couple of times in "ordinary" discourse, for example on Prime Time & the Frontline. We were on the cusp of real change.

Unfortunately now that sort of thought has become associated with actors such as Occupy. The general public are beginning to think that major political change is yet another "trendy leftie" cause, which will automatically cause aversion amongst the majority in this country. The same way that any cause in this country is automatically finished when a ULA spokesman comes forward to support it.

Occupy aren't helping, every day they are there with their ULA flags and dreadlocks and pretentious speeches they are destroying any chance we have of real progress. They need to dismantle their squalid camp and clear off before the forces of conservatism and gombeenism decide they have the majority of the population on their side and clear the area by force.

I'm not altogether convinced that the ULA is as toxic in the public eye as you think it is.

Either way, I cannot comment on their name being associated with Occupy Dame St as I am not in Dublin.

I saw no such banners at Occupy Cork last Sunday - I saw a well attended Xmas market in full swing.

20Cent

hmmm wrote: »

I think with the temporary demise of FF, we came very close to getting momentum in this country for a second Republic. A constitutional convention was mentioned a couple of times in "ordinary" discourse, for example on Prime Time & the Frontline. We were on the cusp of real change.

Unfortunately now that sort of thought has become associated with actors such as Occupy. The general public are beginning to think that major political change is yet another "trendy leftie" cause, which will automatically cause aversion amongst the majority in this country. The same way that any cause in this country is automatically finished when a ULA spokesman comes forward to support it.

Occupy aren't helping, every day they are there with their ULA flags and dreadlocks and pretentious speeches they are destroying any chance we have of real progress. They need to dismantle their squalid camp and clear off before the forces of conservatism and gombeenism decide they have the majority of the population on their side and clear the area by force.

There are no "ULA flags", banners, posters or anything for any party or unions there. Anyone taking part is asked to do so as themselves as an individual not as part of something else. This has been expressed right from the start to keep it as non partisan and inclusive as possible.

A constitutional convention has been discussed a lot. Other groups ideas have also been discussed such as 2nd-republic.ie who have written up a document about how one might be run. Its available here: http://www.2nd-republic.ie/files/citizens_assembly.pdf

Godge

20Cent wrote: »

There are no "ULA flags", banners, posters or anything for any party or unions there. Anyone taking part is asked to do so as themselves as an individual not as part of something else. This has been expressed right from the start to keep it as non partisan and inclusive as possible.

A constitutional convention has been discussed a lot. Other groups ideas have also been discussed such as 2nd-republic.ie who have written up a document about how one might be run. Its available here: http://www.2nd-republic.ie/files/citizens_assembly.pdf

There was a ULA poster on a board lying on the ground two yards inside the barrier today. I think it was advertising a march. Next time I will take a photo to upload.

Any news on the oil reserves yet? Has anyone been able to find the ones they want to reclaim?

20Cent

Godge wrote: »

There was a ULA poster on a board lying on the ground two yards inside the barrier today. I think it was advertising a march. Next time I will take a photo to upload.

Any news on the oil reserves yet? Has anyone been able to find the ones they want to reclaim?

A poster on the ground, you found the smoking gun there!!!!!!!!

Your question re oil makes no sense that's why it hasn't been answered.

antoobrien

Godge wrote: »

P.S. Any ODS supporter ready to answer my question from about three weeks ago as to which oil reserves they wish us to take back and from whom?

Godge wrote: »

Any news on the oil reserves yet? Has anyone been able to find the ones they want to reclaim?

Godge, the occupy supporters are so good at ignoring things when it suits them - especially around the actual facts about our notional oil reserves.

Can you supply us with a link or quote form your original question?

Godge

20Cent wrote: »

A poster on the ground, you found the smoking gun there!!!!!!!!

Your question re oil makes no sense that's why it hasn't been answered.

antoobrien wrote: »

Godge, the occupy supporters are so good at ignoring things when it suits them - especially around the actual facts about our notional oil reserves.

Can you supply us with a link or quote form your original question?

The statement from the Occupy Dame Street campaign includes the following:

"Our demand is that the oil and gas reserves off our coast that were criminally handed away to private corporations be returned to sovereign control."

My question is quite simple. What exact oil reserves (not gas reserves) are they talking about? Before we can assess whether they were criminally handed away, we need to know what and where they are.

You see, like hundreds of thousands of people, I read an apparently nonsensical demand like this and I immediately dismiss the ODS as lacking credibility. That may be unfair but the only way of restoring credibility is to produce credible independent evidence (and I don't mean deluded videos on youtube from activists) of the existence of these oil reserves.

Unfortunately, all I have met is silence. I have posted this question over the last month in a number of ODS threads and have yet to receive a coherent answer from an ODS supporter. Various people opposed to ODS or cynical about them have said I will never get a response and to be honest, I am beginning to believe that.

So 20cent, you may be right that my question makes no sense but that is only because there is no answer which means not only my question but the original statement of ODS on which the whole protest is based makes no sense. Maybe you should pack up and go home if you believe it makes no sense.

Godge

Bannasidhe wrote: »

I can't find any appreciable difference between the parties who hover between those two not very extremes of the political spectrum in Ireland - no.

What are the real differences between FG/FF/LP - not in terms of their 'policies' (which turn out not to be worth the glossy paper they were printed on) but in terms of what they actually do when in power? I haven't included the PDs or GP as both are essentially defunct but would if they were still viable parties.

We could have FF/LP or FG/LP or even, gasp, FG/FF - it would still be the same bloody government with the same bloody policies.

Cannot comment on the Socialist Party, SF etc as they have never formed part of a government.

Well, ironies of ironies, the Socialist Party is now opposing the property tax, the most socialist of taxes. I don't know whether to laugh or cry about the state of the left in Ireland.

20Cent

Godge wrote: »

The statement from the Occupy Dame Street campaign includes the following:

"Our demand is that the oil and gas reserves off our coast that were criminally handed away to private corporations be returned to sovereign control."

My question is quite simple. What exact oil reserves (not gas reserves) are they talking about? Before we can assess whether they were criminally handed away, we need to know what and where they are.

You see, like hundreds of thousands of people, I read an apparently nonsensical demand like this and I immediately dismiss the ODS as lacking credibility. That may be unfair but the only way of restoring credibility is to produce credible independent evidence (and I don't mean deluded videos on youtube from activists) of the existence of these oil reserves.

Unfortunately, all I have met is silence. I have posted this question over the last month in a number of ODS threads and have yet to receive a coherent answer from an ODS supporter. Various people opposed to ODS or cynical about them have said I will never get a response and to be honest, I am beginning to believe that.

So 20cent, you may be right that my question makes no sense but that is only because there is no answer which means not only my question but the original statement of ODS on which the whole protest is based makes no sense. Maybe you should pack up and go home if you believe it makes no sense.

What I take the statement to mean is that the Government should do all it can to get the maximum return for the Irish people on Oil and Gas finds. An oil company dealing with a dodgy politician getting a sweet deal which gives it access to resources even allows them to write off most of their costs and give no benefit to Ireland isn't much use to us. Presumably it refers to the Corrib gas project or other finds. Nothing controversial really, even Fine Gael said that they would be looking for an equity share in new finds.

Why does ODS annoy you so much if you think its a waste of time?

antoobrien

Godge wrote: »

My question is quite simple. What exact oil reserves (not gas reserves) are they talking about? Before we can assess whether they were criminally handed away, we need to know what and where they are.

What gas reserves have been handed away? Haven't all the old style exploration licenses expired?

jack presley

The government should start building a road through an archaeological site or a power line through some old ladys forest and they'll all clear off to that instead

Bannasidhe

Godge wrote: »

Well, ironies of ironies, the Socialist Party is now opposing the property tax, the most socialist of taxes. I don't know whether to laugh or cry about the state of the left in Ireland.

To my way of thinking the Right - in the form of the PDs - and the Centre -FF/FG/ LP/GP have managed between them to create a right balls up of the country - so I find it strange that people are berating the Left which has not had a sniff of political power in recent decades.

No left- Wing party brought in light touch regulation.
No left-wing party introduced benchmarking.
No left-wing party introduced the bank bail out.
No left-wing government flung money around like snuff at a wake.
No left-wing party was involved in the Croke Park agreement.

This is not to say the Left is the answer, or presenting a genuine and viable alternative at the moment, I just find it strange that they are being so persistently attacked when they had no involvement in the running of this country and the mess we are in was not created by the Left but by slightly centre of Right parties.

As for the oil question - having engaged in various discussions I disagree with the Occupy movement on this. I still support the ethos of the movement. After all, its not like anyone is expected to sign up, pay their dues and toe the party line. We can disagree with each other in the Occupy movement without anyone wielding a whip and banishing us to the opposition benches .

SupaNova

Bannasidhe wrote: »

To my way of thinking the Right - in the form of the PDs - and the Centre -FF/FG/ LP/GP have managed between them to create a right balls up of the country - so I find it strange that people are berating the Left which has not had a sniff of political power in recent decades. [...]
This is not to say the Left is the answer, or presenting a genuine and viable alternative at the moment, I just find it strange that they are being so persistently attacked when they had no involvement in the running of this country

You've kinda answered your own question. If the left is the ULA, they are being attacked because they are presenting an alternative that is laughable. Just because they didn't mess things up doesn't mean they should not be persistently attacked for promoting nonsense.

antoobrien

Bannasidhe wrote: »

so I find it strange that people are berating the Left which has not had a sniff of political power in recent decades.
...

This is not to say the Left is the answer, or presenting a genuine and viable alternative at the moment, I just find it strange that they are being so persistently attacked when they had no involvement in the running of this country and the mess we are in was not created by the Left but by slightly centre of Right parties.

But shouldn't they have to present something realistic before we stop being so persistent in our attacks.

Besides, everyone is getting it in the neck from all sides at the moment, I don't know why the left are so put out about it.

Godge

Bannasidhe wrote: »

To my way of thinking the Right - in the form of the PDs - and the Centre -FF/FG/ LP/GP have managed between them to create a right balls up of the country - so I find it strange that people are berating the Left which has not had a sniff of political power in recent decades.

No left- Wing party brought in light touch regulation.
No left-wing party introduced benchmarking.
No left-wing party introduced the bank bail out.
No left-wing government flung money around like snuff at a wake.
No left-wing party was involved in the Croke Park agreement.

This is not to say the Left is the answer, or presenting a genuine and viable alternative at the moment, I just find it strange that they are being so persistently attacked when they had no involvement in the running of this country and the mess we are in was not created by the Left but by slightly centre of Right parties.

As for the oil question - having engaged in various discussions I disagree with the Occupy movement on this. I still support the ethos of the movement. After all, its not like anyone is expected to sign up, pay their dues and toe the party line. We can disagree with each other in the Occupy movement without anyone wielding a whip and banishing us to the opposition benches .

I was not berating the Left, they cannot even be called the Left if they oppose a property tax. A property tax is a tax on wealth. Homeless people don't pay it. Tenants don't pay it. Grown-up children too poor to move out of home don't pay it. Yet, the party that is supposed to defend the poor opposes this tax!!!! Only in Ireland could a so-called left-wing party get away with opposing a property tax. It is laughable, the attitude of the Socialist Party to the property tax.

for what it's worth, of the things you listed only FF, the PDs and the Greens can be blamed for them. Two of those are dead and the other should have been dead after the last election. You can't blame the so-called Left (the laughable Left) but you can't blame FG or Labour either.

Godge

20Cent wrote: »

What I take the statement to mean is that the Government should do all it can to get the maximum return for the Irish people on Oil and Gas finds. An oil company dealing with a dodgy politician getting a sweet deal which gives it access to resources even allows them to write off most of their costs and give no benefit to Ireland isn't much use to us. Presumably it refers to the Corrib gas project or other finds. Nothing controversial really, even Fine Gael said that they would be looking for an equity share in new finds.

Why does ODS annoy you so much if you think its a waste of time?

You can take the statement to mean anything you like but it says what it says. It says the oil reserves were criminally given away. The non-existent oil reserves. It accuses someone of criminal activity. How you translate that into meaning something else is worthy of a George Orwell novel.

ODS annoys me because they are pretending that they are a new grassroots movement built out of people's dissatisfaction. In reality they are the tired old discredited protest agenda dressed up in shiny clothes. When new ideas are needed, this is all we get.

The only thing that would annoy me more would be if Fianna Fail changed its name to Fianna Success and with the same people in place pretended it had nothing to do with the last 25 years.

Bannasidhe

Godge wrote: »

I was not berating the Left, they cannot even be called the Left if they oppose a property tax. A property tax is a tax on wealth. Homeless people don't pay it. Tenants don't pay it. Grown-up children too poor to move out of home don't pay it. Yet, the party that is supposed to defend the poor opposes this tax!!!! Only in Ireland could a so-called left-wing party get away with opposing a property tax. It is laughable, the attitude of the Socialist Party to the property tax.

for what it's worth, of the things you listed only FF, the PDs and the Greens can be blamed for them. Two of those are dead and the other should have been dead after the last election. You can't blame the so-called Left (the laughable Left) but you can't blame FG or Labour either.

Cannot disagree with your sentiment that there is no Left in Ireland.

As for FG/LP (and I used to be an LP member) - my issue with them is that they are continuing the policies of the previous government -so essentially I see them as nothing but a continuation. All the factors that led us here are still in play.

As opposition both were laughable. As campaigners for government both were full of bright ideas and zeal for reform. As government in a blind taste test I would have to say 'I can't believe its not FF/GP!'.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

They cannot even be called the Left if they oppose a property tax.

Once again, please define what the term "The Left" means to you. Statements such as these are meaningless without a definition, we all know there are different angles of left wing politics.

Valmont

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Why, they would nationalise the trillions of euros of leprechaun's gold underneath all of our rainbows!

Past the "Burn the Troika" I don't think there's anything else to be honest.

Good loser

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Once again, please define what the term "The Left" means to you. Statements such as these are meaningless without a definition, we all know there are different angles of left wing politics.

You can never be wrong hatrick if you adjust the meaning of words to suit your arguments.

If you have your own private (and ever changing) definitions you will always be right.

You know that 'Socialists against a Property Tax' is an oxymoron.

Have ODS added it to their list yet?

hatrickpatrick

Good loser wrote: »

You can never be wrong hatrick if you adjust the meaning of words to suit your arguments.

If you have your own private (and ever changing) definitions you will always be right.

You know that 'Socialists against a Property Tax' is an oxymoron.

Have ODS added it to their list yet?

I'm not asking for a private definition, I am asking what "The Left" means to Godge. When I describe something as left wing I am largely referring to social policy, not economic policy. Left and Right are meaningless terms unless you specify what section of politics you are referring to. For example, I am economically reformist (so I'd say neither left or right) but socially left (I believe in total freedom unless you are infringing someone else's rights, no 'moral' laws or bans).

"The left" is an extremely broad term for a wide variety of different ideologies and you don't have to possess all of them to be described as "left wing", so I'm merely suggesting that we should abandon the term and clarify exactly what we're talking about. "The Left" doesn't have to support tax if you're referring to the social left.

You know my stance on all this, I don't support any tax on ordinary people unless those who made the mess are hit first and hit harder. Whether that's "left" or "right", you tell me? I honestly don't know, I don't think the left/right paradigm accurately applies to this at all to be honest.

Hell, if you believe that "The left" is a socialist movement for instance, which supports state ownership, then shouldn't that mean we "leftists" are delighted by banks being nationalized? Generalizing in these cases is completely meaningless.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Once again, please define what the term "The Left" means to you. Statements such as these are meaningless without a definition, we all know there are different angles of left wing politics.

Politics 1.01

At the very basic level, all left-wing politics advocate the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. This true of moderate left-wing policies right through to extreme left-wing policies (the extreme versions advocate the redistrubtion of income as well as wealth).

What is wealth? Property, investements, shares, luxury goods, cars.
As a result, all normal left-wing groups throughout the world support taxes such as property taxes, stamp duties on wealth transactions, capital taxes such as CGT and CAT, motor taxes, higher VAT rates on luxury goods with lower rates on basic goods etc. They would also generally be in favour of taxes on non-urban living such as the septic tank charge etc. You see poor people don't own property, investments, shares, luxury goods or shares.

Apart from stamp duty, all of the changes in those taxes in the recent budget were in directions favoured by normal left-wing groups. The argument could be made that as stamp duty wasn't raising any revenue and was preventing transactions, it was limiting revenue from capital taxes (I would love to know if Revenue did any analysis on this).

It is only when the above taxes are in place and/or increased that the attention of left-wing groups turns to redistribution of income. Generally, moderate left-wing groups favour progressive income tax but they have also learned the lesson over the last fifty years that overly progressive income tax rates reduce the take from income tax and reduce the creation of wealth to be taxed in other ways. Extreme left-wing groups favour penal rates of tax that only lead to collapses in the economy - Soviet Russia, Communist China and North Korea are examples of where such economic policies have prevailed (obviously the first two learned their lesson).

Funnily enough, in recent months, I have come to the view that one of the biggest problems in the world economy has been the failure to adequately tax wealth and as a result I am in favour of all of the tax increases in the last budget, thus making me more left-wing than the likes of the ULA, PbP and Sinn Fein who without any thought to ideology opportunsitically oppose those taxes but also making Fine Gael more left-wing than them. Ironic, isn't it?

If you don't understand the above, I will explain the difference between income and wealth in another post.


P.S. As you point out in another post, left-wing political groups favour the nationalisation of banks so they should be delighted with recent events.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

I'm not asking for a private definition, I am asking what "The Left" means to Godge. When I describe something as left wing I am largely referring to social policy, not economic policy. Left and Right are meaningless terms unless you specify what section of politics you are referring to. For example, I am economically reformist (so I'd say neither left or right) but socially left (I believe in total freedom unless you are infringing someone else's rights, no 'moral' laws or bans).

"The left" is an extremely broad term for a wide variety of different ideologies and you don't have to possess all of them to be described as "left wing", so I'm merely suggesting that we should abandon the term and clarify exactly what we're talking about. "The Left" doesn't have to support tax if you're referring to the social left.

You know my stance on all this, I don't support any tax on ordinary people unless those who made the mess are hit first and hit harder. Whether that's "left" or "right", you tell me? I honestly don't know, I don't think the left/right paradigm accurately applies to this at all to be honest.

Hell, if you believe that "The left" is a socialist movement for instance, which supports state ownership, then shouldn't that mean we "leftists" are delighted by banks being nationalized? Generalizing in these cases is completely meaningless.

That bit in bold is actually an extreme right-wing philosophy. Basically what you are saying is that anyone who makes a mistake in business should not expect any help from the state. They should take the full consequences of their business decisions.

Good loser

Godge wrote: »

Politics 1.01

At the very basic level, all left-wing politics advocate the redistribution of wealth from the rich to the poor. This true of moderate left-wing policies right through to extreme left-wing policies (the extreme versions advocate the redistrubtion of income as well as wealth).

What is wealth? Property, investements, shares, luxury goods, cars.
As a result, all normal left-wing groups throughout the world support taxes such as property taxes, stamp duties on wealth transactions, capital taxes such as CGT and CAT, motor taxes, higher VAT rates on luxury goods with lower rates on basic goods etc. They would also generally be in favour of taxes on non-urban living such as the septic tank charge etc. You see poor people don't own property, investments, shares, luxury goods or shares.

Apart from stamp duty, all of the changes in those taxes in the recent budget were in directions favoured by normal left-wing groups. The argument could be made that as stamp duty wasn't raising any revenue and was preventing transactions, it was limiting revenue from capital taxes (I would love to know if Revenue did any analysis on this).

It is only when the above taxes are in place and/or increased that the attention of left-wing groups turns to redistribution of income. Generally, moderate left-wing groups favour progressive income tax but they have also learned the lesson over the last fifty years that overly progressive income tax rates reduce the take from income tax and reduce the creation of wealth to be taxed in other ways. Extreme left-wing groups favour penal rates of tax that only lead to collapses in the economy - Soviet Russia, Communist China and North Korea are examples of where such economic policies have prevailed (obviously the first two learned their lesson).

Funnily enough, in recent months, I have come to the view that one of the biggest problems in the world economy has been the failure to adequately tax wealth and as a result I am in favour of all of the tax increases in the last budget, thus making me more left-wing than the likes of the ULA, PbP and Sinn Fein who without any thought to ideology opportunsitically oppose those taxes but also making Fine Gael more left-wing than them. Ironic, isn't it?

If you don't understand the above, I will explain the difference between income and wealth in another post.


P.S. As you point out in another post, left-wing political groups favour the nationalisation of banks so they should be delighted with recent events.

Don't agree with your position re distribution of wealth. We are too open an economy. I see recently Van Morrison moved to Belfast - that would be over €100 m gone. The wealthy contribute to the country in other ways than by income/wealth taxes; they have the best accountants.

I was recently at the Hargrave Estate in Waterford - 20 employed and gardens open to the public free once a week - one man's philantrophy.
How many tourists has that drawn.

The whole horse breeding sector employs thousands - with mobile capital.

Has any country a higher wealth tax than 1%?



Re your other post the day some bank was nationalised Joe Higgins said he was only in favour of positive nationalisations - not negative ones.
Beat that for opportunism!

Godge

Good loser wrote: »

Don't agree with your position re distribution of wealth. We are too open an economy. I see recently Van Morrison moved to Belfast - that would be over €100 m gone. The wealthy contribute to the country in other ways than by income/wealth taxes; they have the best accountants.

I was recently at the Hargrave Estate in Waterford - 20 employed and gardens open to the public free once a week - one man's philantrophy.
How many tourists has that drawn.

The whole horse breeding sector employs thousands - with mobile capital.

Has any country a higher wealth tax than 1%?



Re your other post the day some bank was nationalised Joe Higgins said he was only in favour of positive nationalisations - not negative ones.
Beat that for opportunism!

That is a fair point but remember I wasn't talking about a wealth tax per se. A property tax on immovable wealth (you can't dig your house up and bring it abroad), car taxes and increases in CGT and CAT were what I was talking about.

Incidentally, one change that would greatly increase CGT revenue would be the abolition or even the restriction of rollover relief. It would also put some liquidity into the property market.

edanto

I presume we can take Joe Higgins statement on bank nationalisation to mean that he supports it when a profitable bank is taking into state ownership (in the socialist manner), but that he is against it when a debt-laden, broken and corrupt bank is nationalised (in the corporatist/neo-con/Fianna Fail/dare-I-say-right-wing manner)

Any true capitalist would want a broken and debt laden private bank to fail, as would a socialist. Only those blinded by the memes of the wealthy would want such a bank nationalised.

Godge

edanto wrote: »

I presume we can take Joe Higgins statement on bank nationalisation to mean that he supports it when a profitable bank is taking into state ownership (in the socialist manner), but that he is against it when a debt-laden, broken and corrupt bank is nationalised (in the corporatist/neo-con/Fianna Fail/dare-I-say-right-wing manner)

Any true capitalist would want a broken and debt laden private bank to fail, as would a socialist. Only those blinded by the memes of the wealthy would want such a bank nationalised.

Capitalists would want the bank to collapse.
Socialists would always nationalise it.

Myself, I would have let Anglo and Irish Nationwide fail and taken AIB and BOI into temporary state ownership.

Uncle Joe doesn't know what he wants as he is a confused centrist masquerading as a socialist.

Bannasidhe

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Well they might get rid of that insane Libertarian concept of light touch regulation and the notion that financial sector/legal profession/Press/Construction industry etc are capable of self policing for a start.

Godge

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well they might get rid of that insane Libertarian concept of light touch regulation and the notion that financial sector/legal profession/Press/Construction industry etc are capable of self policing for a start.

That is FG policy.

Alan Shatter is the first Justice Minister to take on the legal profession for years.

It is also Labour policy.

Bannasidhe

Godge wrote: »

That is FG policy.

Alan Shatter is the first Justice Minister to take on the legal profession for years.

It is also Labour policy.

Stated policy. Shan't be holding my breathe....

hatrickpatrick

I'll deal with your definition of The Left in another post, but first of all:

Godge wrote: »

That bit in bold is actually an extreme right-wing philosophy. Basically what you are saying is that anyone who makes a mistake in business should not expect any help from the state. They should take the full consequences of their business decisions.

Ah, so then as this is a key aspect of not just ODS but the worldwide Occupy campaign, then would you not agree that describing us as "left wing" is woefully inaccurate?

Icepick

Bannasidhe wrote: »

Well they might get rid of that insane Libertarian concept of light touch regulation and the notion that financial sector/legal profession/Press/Construction industry etc are capable of self policing for a start.

How and would it actually improve anything or just move to another extreme?

Bannasidhe

Icepick wrote: »

How and would it actually improve anything or just move to another extreme?

More extreme then we have now?

donalg1

What is the actual end goal of the occupy Dame street movement?

hatrickpatrick

donalg1 wrote: »

What is the actual end goal of the occupy Dame street movement?

The end goal of the entire global occupy movement would appear to be a worldwide revolution of sorts. End the current structure of the monetary system and reform it in such a way as this kind of crap will never happen again. Real democracy. One person, one vote - regardless of personal connections or what economic cards you have in your hand.

What happened with Anglo was not just wrong - it shouldn't have been possible at all. In a proper democracy, a decision like that wouldn't be able to be made without at the very least a proper cabinet discussion, and preferably a proper investigation and Dail vote.

The political system needs more accountability and more safeguards.
The financial system needs to be completely de-clawed so as it cannot actually dictate government policy or hold society by the balls.

Dr Galen

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

The end goal of the entire global occupy movement would appear to be a worldwide revolution of sorts. End the current structure of the monetary system and reform it in such a way as this kind of crap will never happen again. Real democracy. One person, one vote - regardless of personal connections or what economic cards you have in your hand.

Thats all very well, and admirable, but what are the specifics?

How do we reform the worldwide monetary system? What do we replace it with?

What happened with Anglo was not just wrong - it shouldn't have been possible at all. In a proper democracy, a decision like that wouldn't be able to be made without at the very least a proper cabinet discussion, and preferably a proper investigation and Dail vote.

I'd more or less agree here

The political system needs more accountability and more safeguards.
The financial system needs to be completely de-clawed so as it cannot actually dictate government policy or hold society by the balls.

Again...How?

Bannasidhe

Dr Galen wrote: »

Thats all very well, and admirable, but what are the specifics?

How do we reform the worldwide monetary system? What do we replace it with?



I'd more or less agree here



Again...How?

Is determining how these things are possible not the point of the discussion?

edanto

Exactly. What unites the Occupy supporters is a recognition of these problems and a desire to find a solution. It will take time, and it will take bravery.

edanto

Dr Galen wrote: »

Again...How?

There certainly isn't a clear answer to this, but here is an example of brand new thinking about this problem.

http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CrKV6bfqOck

Obviously the vested interests in the Financial sector will do all they can to reduce the threat to their dominance, as we saw recently with the City of London corporation forcing Cameron to oppose the EU agreement which included a small tax on financial transaction - which was intended to slow down destructive fast money.

hmmm

edanto wrote: »

There certainly isn't a clear answer to this, but here is an example of brand new thinking about this problem.

http://www.positivemoney.org.uk/

How many more of these banking for toddlers youtube videos will be posted on threads as some sort of argument? I'm delighted that some people have figured out how banking works, but it's not earth shattering news and there's no need to continue telling everyone about your new-found knowledge. Every student in 1st year finance degrees knows how banking works, and knows the advantages and disadvantages of that system. No the system is not as simplistic as these 4 minute youtube videos make out, and no you don't understand the implications of shutting down the present system. The same way people shouting about "derivatives are bad" are equally naive and clueless about the real benefits.

Bannasidhe

hmmm wrote: »

How many more of these banking for toddlers youtube videos will be posted on threads as some sort of argument? I'm delighted that some people have figured out how banking works, but it's not earth shattering news and there's no need to continue telling everyone about your new-found knowledge. Every student in 1st year finance degrees knows how banking works, and knows the advantages and disadvantages of that system. No the system is not as simplistic as these 4 minute youtube videos make out, and no you don't understand the implications of shutting down the present system. The same way people shouting about "derivatives are bad" are equally naive and clueless about the real benefits.

May I just say that as sadly not everyone has had the pleasure of having been a 1st year finance student studying for a B.A.. Consequently we failed utterly to gain an understanding of the deep down nitty gritty of the noble art of banking so a few simple guides may be of benefit to us unfortunates.

edanto

No the system is not as simplistic as these 4 minute youtube videos make out, and no you don't understand the implications of shutting down the present system.

Yes, the system is that simple. Yes, the transition from the current system to a better one has a lot of complicated implications.

One of them being that condescending people who have done some economics classes might discover they don't know as much as they think they do.

If you are trying to say that our current system doesn't need changing, then can you please defend the actions of global finance in creating our current circumstances?

Chucky the tree

Bannasidhe wrote: »

To my way of thinking the Right - in the form of the PDs - and the Centre -FF/FG/ LP/GP have managed between them to create a right balls up of the country - so I find it strange that people are berating the Left which has not had a sniff of political power in recent decades.

No left- Wing party brought in light touch regulation.
No left-wing party introduced benchmarking.
No left-wing party introduced the bank bail out.
No left-wing government flung money around like snuff at a wake.
No left-wing party was involved in the Croke Park agreement.

This is not to say the Left is the answer, or presenting a genuine and viable alternative at the moment, I just find it strange that they are being so persistently attacked when they had no involvement in the running of this country and the mess we are in was not created by the Left but by slightly centre of Right parties.

Most of the policies you've outlined are left wing policies though. Only the light touch regulation could be considered a right wing policy. The reason they are being so persistently is attacked is because the last thing people want is more benchmarking with higher rates of pay, more money flung at social welfare, more agreements with the Public sector trade unions.

Whatever money gets changed to in this utopian future it will still be money! Be it credits or cyberbux or whatever you're having, there'll always be some lad down the road willing to give you ten this week when you're stuck as long as you pay him back 11 the next week.



There is a reason we use money in its current format.

Bannasidhe

Rojomcdojo wrote: »

Whatever money gets changed to in this utopian future it will still be money! Be it credits or cyberbux or whatever you're having, there'll always be some lad down the road willing to give you ten this week when you're stuck as long as you pay him back 11 the next week.



There is a reason we use money in its current format.

who is saying we should get rid of money? We are saying the financial system needs to be reformed and regulated and that banks should not be in a position to bring a country's economy down.