Balancing your books isn't austerity, it's prudence

bleg

I have to say I'm a bit annoyed about how quickly the budgetary adjustments are being called "austerity." We are currently running at a ~10% deficit year on year. Balancing our books is the prudent thing to do and is not austerity.

Cookie_Monster

Obviously. I really just don't understand why it isn't the done thing anyway. Put surplus aside, use it for times line these as well as making the required cuts everywhere to restore the balance. Borrowing such huge sums constantly is madness

Dirk Gently

sounds about right tbh

In economics, austerity is a policy of deficit-cutting, lower spending, and a reduction in the amount of benefits and public services provided.[1] Austerity policies are often used by governments to reduce their deficit spending[2] while sometimes coupled with increases in taxes to pay back creditors to reduce debt.[3] "Austerity" was named the word of the year by Merriam-Webster in 2010.[4]

Icepick

agreed, but the sense of entitlement is strong in this country

AlekSmart

Icepick wrote: »

agreed, but the sense of entitlement is overpoweringly strong in this country

Icepick......Modified your post just a teeny-weeny bit....;)

Dannyboy83

http://www.ronanlyons.com/2011/04/26/%E2%80%9Cslash-and-burn%E2%80%9D-anything-but-the-need-for-realism-in-budget-2012/
In three short years, capital spending has been halved.

If the same scale of cuts had been made in health, education and social welfare, the government would have saved €20bn!

Instead, spending in those three areas this year will be €2bn higher than in 2008.

The depressing conclusion is that, three tough Budgets later, all the “low-hanging fruit” has been picked, leaving just the more painful cuts needed to close the deficit.

Austerity me bollix, we wouldn't know austerity if it leapt up out of the toilet bowl and gnawed our eyes out.

The Corinthian

In reality it's both.

Prior to the financial crisis in 2008, we saw one of the longest periods in history of low interest rates. This meant that governments, especially, could essentially borrow for 'free'. This meant we could live beyond our means and the interest payments on the ever growing mountain of debt was small. Bonds would mature and we'd just issue new bonds to keep the whole thing going.

Then interest rates increased and those payments weren't small anymore. Suddenly sovereign states found themselves at the mercy of their creditors and, more importantly, those financial institutions that the creditors looked to, such as the debt ratings agencies.

They looked at the debts of the sovereign states and realized that they were so huge that even tiny increases in interest rates might make them unpayable - they were, after all, in recession, and tax revenues (that pay the interest) were down. Investors read these reports, that rated the various sovereign states and began to shy away from buying.

In response the interest paid on bonds increased so that people would actually buy them. Not ideal, but better than no one actually buying your bonds, because then you've no money to pay for anything.

Unless we decide to default on all this debt, in which case you will be on a par with the developing World where it comes to places where people want to put your money in, you have to pay it back and regain the confidence of your creditors, so that in turn the interest you offer can also be decreased.

And, unfortunately austerity - cutting costs as much as you can so you can do this - is the only realistic option we have to do this.

In short, because we were not prudent when we did not need austerity, we now need austerity to achieve that belated prudence.

We won't balance the books. Well, to be more precise the books will end up getting balanced, but not as a result of the EU/IMF/whatever programme of cuts and tax increases. Anyone who genuinely believes that stuff will balance the books is a bit naive, IMO.

Cool Mo D

The Corinthian wrote: »

In reality it's both.

Prior to the financial crisis in 2008, we saw one of the longest periods in history of low interest rates. This meant that governments, especially, could essentially borrow for 'free'. This meant we could live beyond our means and the interest payments on the ever growing mountain of debt was small. Bonds would mature and we'd just issue new bonds to keep the whole thing going.

Completely irrelevant to Ireland though, as the government ran a budget surplus for nearly the whole of the 10 years up to 2008, and did not borrow at all for day-to-day spending.

The problem in Ireland was simply that billions of euro were coming into the treasury from stamp duty, allowing the property boom to bankroll huge public spending increases. Now that that has dried up, we have to start borrowing at high interest rates, or savagely cut spending. Since the government was getting so much money from property in the good times, they were hardly likely to try and pop the bubble. Now we are living with the consequences.

The Corinthian

Cool Mo D wrote: »

Completely irrelevant to Ireland though, as the government ran a budget surplus for nearly the whole of the 10 years up to 2008, and did not borrow at all for day-to-day spending.

Neither did we pay off the debt we had already ran up or put money aside for a future financial crisis or even recession:

So it's quite relevant in that despite running a surplus during those years we did not use that surplus prudently.

golfwallah

Icepick wrote: »

agreed, but the sense of entitlement is strong in this country

The problem we have (in Ireland and most of the West European democracies except, perhaps, Germany) is that citizens, encouraged by the politics of promise (that they themselves demand from politicians) have an overdeveloped sense of entitlement and want to forget their obligations.

Germany, on the other hand has become the most successful and economically strongest member of the EU, based on a well structured, social, political and economic working relationship framework.

Experience of war, hyperinflation and post war re-construction has taught the Germans that democracy is isn’t a one-way street – citizens and government acting on their behalf have responsibilities as well as rights.

Governments don’t create wealth, they create the environment for wealth creation and then re-distribute wealth created by the productive parts of the economy.

In the boom Irish banks borrowing from foreign investors and lending on to Irish speculators funded the property bubble.

This isn’t a one way street either. The state has taken over these private bank loans to preserve the country’s financial reputation as regards paying its debts. Now these loans plus the loans propping up government overspending have to be paid back.

Citizens have conveniently lost sight of their responsibilities and that there is no such thing as a free lunch – hence the saying that “in democracy we get the government we deserve”. If anything good is to come from having to live with the consequences of the property bubble, it is that we should shun politicians who emphasise the sense of entitlement, promising to spend money we don’t have and offering loan default as a way out.

Peanut

golfwallah wrote: »

...we should shun politicians who emphasise the sense of entitlement, promising to spend money we don’t have...

How do you convince the average punter of this though?

It seems there's a long way to go if the article referenced in a thread today about FF is any indication:

Cumann chairman Patrick McDonnell said that Mr Flynn had represented Mayo effectively and vigorously during his years in government, and had ensured that his native county was given its fair share of Government investment during that time.

The Corinthian

golfwallah wrote: »

Germany, on the other hand has become the most successful and economically strongest member of the EU, based on a well structured, social, political and economic working relationship framework.

Experience of war, hyperinflation and post war re-construction has taught the Germans that democracy is isn’t a one-way street – citizens and government acting on their behalf have responsibilities as well as rights.

This concept of 'social responsibility' is something that you'll find far more in Germanic and/or protestant nations. So you'll naturally find it in Germany, Austria, Switzerland, the Scandinavian countries (although many in the latter will complain that it has been eroded by the generous social welfare system) and Holland.

One thing that you will find is that there is a stigma twoards being unemployed that exists in such countries, as well as against anti-social behaviour, the definition of which would be stretched well beyond what your average Irishman would consider anti-social. Additionally, the acceptance or even near adulation of 'cute hoors' that you will get in Ireland (or in Mediterranean countries) simply does not exists; for them such people are seen as acting against the community, while we tend to perceive them as acting against some higher power that we are subject to, and thus almost rebellious heroes.

Ireland still suffers from a post-colonial mentality to a great extent. We may have independence, but government is still identified with something imposed upon us, foreign and thus to be circumvented. Added to this, decades of economic mismanagement and an economy that used emigration as a means to keep down unemployment, is still in our psyche; unemployment is an alternative way of life, even though we briefly began to think otherwise for a few brief years during the Tiger.

However, it would be inaccurate to suggest that there is no sense of entitlement in these countries either or that things are otherwise rosy. For example, where it comes to economic prudence the Germans were actually no better than us. If you look at their fundamentals, they're actually amongst the worst, in terms of debt, etc. What keeps them out of the cross-hairs of the debt agencies is simply that they have a few percentage points more in GDP, allowing them to continue servicing that debt. So lack of prudence was not simply an Irish or 'Mediterranean' problem, but one that affected all of the West.

Nonetheless, there is definitely a greater feeling of being in it together and having to collectively roll up one's sleeves to fix the problem in these countries than in Ireland. Instead we have always been obsessed with blaming others; the British ('800 years of oppression'), the Catholic Church and now bankers, property developers and (Fianna Fail) politicians are typically cited as the sole cause of all our woes.

And feeling less like a community, because we feel no responsibility or connection to our government and consider many of our fellow citizens to be the cause of our problems, we are more likely to behave in terms of self rather than collective interest.

The support garnered to corrupt politicians who play the parish pump game well is an excellent example of this, as is the present trend twoards strategic mortgage defaults, as people hope that in doing so they will be able to sufficiently play the poor mouth that someone will bail them out.

Unfortunately, we won't change in a hurry. Even I'll have to admit that I could see the bubble bursting and a recession on the way back in early 2008 and looked after number one - I emigrated a few months before the financial crisis hit (thank God). So Ireland will likely muddle its way through this, in the end, but only whenever self and community interests align.

golfwallah

The Corinthian wrote: »

Additionally, the acceptance or even near adulation of 'cute hoors' that you will get in Ireland (or in Mediterranean countries) simply does not exists; for them such people are seen as acting against the community, while we tend to perceive them as acting against some higher power that we are subject to, and thus almost rebellious heroes.

Ireland still suffers from a post-colonial mentality to a great extent. We may have independence, but government is still identified with something imposed upon us, foreign and thus to be circumvented. Added to this, decades of economic mismanagement and an economy that used emigration as a means to keep down unemployment, is still in our psyche; unemployment is an alternative way of life, even though we briefly began to think otherwise for a few brief years during the Tiger.

Nonetheless, there is definitely a greater feeling of being in it together and having to collectively roll up one's sleeves to fix the problem in these countries than in Ireland. Instead we have always been obsessed with blaming others; the British ('800 years of oppression'), the Catholic Church and now bankers, property developers and (Fianna Fail) politicians are typically cited as the sole cause of all our woes.

And feeling less like a community, because we feel no responsibility or connection to our government and consider many of our fellow citizens to be the cause of our problems, we are more likely to behave in terms of self rather than collective interest.

The support garnered to corrupt politicians who play the parish pump game well is an excellent example of this, as is the present trend twoards strategic mortgage defaults, as people hope that in doing so they will be able to sufficiently play the poor mouth that someone will bail them out.

Unfortunately, we won't change in a hurry. Even I'll have to admit that I could see the bubble bursting and a recession on the way back in early 2008 and looked after number one - I emigrated a few months before the financial crisis hit (thank God). So Ireland will likely muddle its way through this, in the end, but only whenever self and community interests align.

The majority of people in Ireland aren’t stupid, “cute hoors” or selfish – at least not all of them all of the time. Nor do they lack a sense of social responsibility, regardless of the 800 years of British rule and their learned dislike for authority. What they lack is Leadership.

Leaders are people who can reflect back an image of where we are, paint a picture of a better future, negotiate and agree on a way out and then bring people along until we get there. Leaders are not afraid to do things differently, to try new things. They can build on our strengths and minimise our weaknesses. At the same time they have the ability to inspire people to feel they can do anything and perform way above their normal expectations.

We have plenty examples of good leadership in the country, albeit, not all politicians. Michael O’Leary, Denis O’Brien, Tony O’Reilly, Bobby Kerr and others from Dragons Den are examples from business. Kevin Heffernan, Mickey Harte, Declan Kidney and Brian Cody are names from the world of sport. Daniel O’Connell, Charles S Parnell, Michael Collins and Sean Lemass from the world of politics.

With all the talent available, why don’t more of them come into politics? After all, politics is “the people's business — the most important business there is” (Adlai Stevenson).

Maybe talented leaders shy away from politics in Ireland because of the way politics has worked here for such a long time? Our small population has made it almost parochial in nature, demanding 24 hour attention from pot holes to matters of National importance and expecting politicians to deal with small things normally handled by public officials. And then there’s the abuse that goes with the job.

But, heck politics has similarities everywhere. It’s up to the leaders to shape the job and decide how they want to do it, changing the business model, if that’s required (e.g. by creating clear lines of authority and delegating the small stuff).

We had great expectations from Enda and Co., when we elected them just over a year ago – even if many people voted for them, simply because they weren’t Fianna Fail.

It’s getting time for them to show more leadership and deliver on the job they put themselves forward to do.

The Corinthian

golfwallah wrote: »

The majority of people in Ireland aren’t stupid, “cute hoors” or selfish – at least not all of them all of the time. Nor do they lack a sense of social responsibility, regardless of the 800 years of British rule and their learned dislike for authority. What they lack is Leadership.

I never suggested anyone in Ireland was stupid, or that the majority are cute hoors. Nor did I suggest that we are devoid of social responsibility, purely selfish or doomed to always be at odds with authority.

All I said was that these are general trends in the Irish psyche, overwhelmingly more commonplace than you would find in countries such as Germany, which on balance shape our country and economy on an aggregate level.

But ironically, suggesting that the solution to this is the right leadership proves my point; it's not our fault, it's just that we don't have the right leadership and it was simply poor leadership that caused all our ills.

The answer apparently is not that we should just roll up our sleeves and get on with it, as you get in these other countries, but that a messiah will come and lead us to a promised land. I don't know; maybe the concept of social responsibility on this level is too foreign for us to comprehend.

golfwallah

The Corinthian wrote: »

I never suggested anyone in Ireland was stupid, or that the majority are cute hoors. Nor did I suggest that we are devoid of social responsibility, purely selfish or doomed to always be at odds with authority.

All I said was that these are general trends in the Irish psyche, overwhelmingly more commonplace than you would find in countries such as Germany, which on balance shape our country and economy on an aggregate level.

But ironically, suggesting that the solution to this is the right leadership proves my point; it's not our fault, it's just that we don't have the right leadership and it was simply poor leadership that caused all our ills.

The answer apparently is not that we should just roll up our sleeves and get on with it, as you get in these other countries, but that a messiah will come and lead us to a promised land. I don't know; maybe the concept of social responsibility on this level is too foreign for us to comprehend.

Couldn't agree more, with one exception, I believe that more general acceptance of the concept of social responsibility can also be brought about, given good leadership.

I'm still going with the people we've got and hoping they eventually pull it off. What other choice have we right now?

After all, Abraham Lincoln, who turned out a great leader, had a very shaky start and a lot of ups and downs along the way.

The Corinthian

golfwallah wrote: »

Couldn't agree more, with one exception, I believe that more general acceptance of the concept of social responsibility can also be brought about, given good leadership.

I'd consider it a 'nice to have', but don't believe you need it and would be weary that we would end up using leadership as an excuse. On balance, because of the latter reason, I would consider a 'leadership' orientated solution to be a bad idea for Ireland.

After all, Abraham Lincoln, who turned out a great leader, had a very shaky start and a lot of ups and downs along the way.

West Germany had some competent leaders, but did not have an Abraham Lincoln after WW2. Even the old DDR did pretty well (relative to the other Eastern bloc nations it was the most successful) without really having exceptional leaders.

Indeed, leaders are not always what they're cracked up to be; Germany had one before and during WW2, and see where that led them.

Dannyboy83

I think the leadership point is a good one.
Ireland is run as a democratically elected dictatorship, so the only hope the people ever have of changing anything, is for a new Strong Man to come along.

The system in Ireland produces the same outcome among German, French, Polish people who reside here as it does amongst Irish people.
I think this is an interesting symptom of a much larger problem. And not a problem with Irish people, but of the system.

One of the common trends I've noticed among Ireland and the more backward countries, is the sheer lack of direct democracy.
It's always "those bastards in Dublin".

The people don't get a chance to participate, their wishes are never considered.... even when they become actual TDs. You can be a TD and never know any more than your constituent in Kerry, or Donegal, or what you read in the paper.
The Rubber-stamp Parliament simply do what the cabinet and Chieftan tells them to do.

Could we imagine Icelandic or Swiss style people power in Ireland? No, of course not.
It's incongruous with our political system.

And the fact that taxes are never ringfenced.
And there is no trail, no explanation of what your taxes are used for. This would be utterly unacceptable in France for example.
In France, your pay cheque is about 3 A4 pages, with a long list of the various taxes you have paid and what that money goes toward.

A French couple I know said they would never pay the household charge in Ireland as they do in France, because they have no indication here as to what the money will be used for.
It's common to see French and German ministers driving Citreon, Peugot, Opel etc.
While Ireland had the highest population per head or Luxury BMWs up until about 2009.


You cannot produce Olympic Swimming Champions without the necessary ingredients.
And if you do, it's a fluke or maybe a cheat.
But you won't be able to do it consistently.
Same goes for anything.
Irish residents will never adopt the social responsibility of the Nordic coutnries as long as the political system remains unchanged in my opinion.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Mr.Wemmick

Yes, agreed, re: taking responsibility as a country, but you have to start somewhere and it needs to be the Government that pulls it sleeves up first. You can not expect Joe Blogs on the street to get eagerly stuck into austerity when the salaries of our politicians are not fitting for the times.. if we have had the mentally that every man is out for himself then that has been learned directly from those in charge - what's good for goose and all that.. The corrupt nature of things and our ineffective sense of self goes back a long ways -- responsible, effective leaders that gain the trust of the public are in short supply.

Having lived in Switzerland for many years, the CH Government know how to lead, manage the country, locally and nationally, and are trusted. So much so, when the country has a referendum and are told by the Governemnt what outcome is needed, the public oblige and vote accordingly. But then the Swiss Government and local councils put sound systems in place and plan for the long term, don't short change people in crucial areas: education, special needs, local services, community support, transport etc. So Swiss folks taking their lead from a responsible, sound thinking Government, follow suit and get stuck in during their free time with all areas of the Community (e.g Fire Brigade is community organised and fire fighters are trained local free volunteers)

We, in Ireland, have to start somewhere and this idea that we have a Government we deserve is a self fulfilling prophecy and suspends any desire we might have to change them. I would be happy to see them pressured into treating the irish public with more honesty and respect, now that would be a good start..

The Corinthian

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

Yes, agreed, re: taking responsibility as a country, but you have to start somewhere and it needs to be the Government that pulls it sleeves up first. You can not expect Joe Blogs on the street to get eagerly stuck into austerity when the salaries of our politicians are not fitting for the times.. if we have had the mentally that every man is out for himself then that has been learned directly from those in charge - what's good for goose and all that.. The corrupt nature of things and our ineffective sense of self goes back a long ways -- responsible, effective leaders that gain the trust of the public are in short supply.

And what will everyone be doing while waiting for this leadership to arrive? There lies your likely problem.

I agree that it has to start from somewhere, but I can see us turning this into another excuse rather than a solution.

Having lived in Switzerland for many years, the CH Government know how to lead, manage the country, locally and nationally, and are trusted. So much so, when the country has a referendum and are told by the Governemnt what outcome is needed, the public oblige and vote accordingly. But then the Swiss Government and local councils put sound systems in place and plan for the long term, don't short change people in crucial areas: education, special needs, local services, community support, transport etc. So Swiss folks taking their lead from a responsible, sound thinking Government, follow suit and get stuck in during their free time with all areas of the Community (e.g Fire Brigade is community organised and fire fighters are trained local free volunteers)

Switzerland is not a good example in this regard as it has a system of government which differs hugely from everyone else. Germany, while it has local government in a federal sense, is nowhere near the Swiss model (a German Gemeinde is much closer to an Irish county council than a Swiss Gemeinde) and yet they appear to be better at social responsibility than the Irish - as do the Dutch, the Austrians and the Swedes, none of whom share the Swiss system.

I also can't see the Swiss model being adopted in Ireland in a hurry also because the economic demographics are far more skewed; too many county Juras, not enough county Zürichs.

Mr.Wemmick

The Corinthian wrote: »

And what will everyone be doing while waiting for this leadership to arrive? There lies your likely problem.

The Corinthian wrote: »

We should be dealing with what we have: encourage our politicians to focus on changes that will improve our lives for the better. We have to pay back our debt, that is clear; however, changes in many places would effectively help households out with their expenditure. For example: stop schools expecting parents to cover the cost of new books year after year. Start a pool of second hand books to be passed down the years and a one off cheaper fee at the start of the scholl year to keep the book pool going. Secondary school books are very expensive for parents with one or more children, and have a negative impact on household budgets;
A Government led scheme to share car journeys/commute/school run to work to cut down on travel costs for many families, this could be set up by local on line council sites or through schools, place of work etc.
I could go on..

It's time the Government asserted itself in a helpful/supportive/encouraging role as opposed to the current negative one: delivering austerity measures.

Transparency is a huge problem though, as as Dannyboy83 has written, being honest and above board about expenditure, taxes and true costs of running our country is not readily available. The surreptitious way the government, nationally and county councils locally, go about their business is rather disconcerting. Journalists here tend to tread carefully around politicians whilst in the UK if a member of Parliment was caught fiddling the books at the cost of the tax payer, he/she is shamed by being front page news the very next day.

The Corinthian wrote: »

I agree that it has to start from somewhere, but I can see us turning this into another excuse rather than a solution.

Switzerland is not a good example in this regard as it has a system of government which differs hugely from everyone else. Germany, while it has local government in a federal sense, is nowhere near the Swiss model (a German Gemeinde is much closer to an Irish county council than a Swiss Gemeinde) and yet they appear to be better at social responsibility than the Irish - as do the Dutch, the Austrians and the Swedes, none of whom share the Swiss system.

I also can't see the Swiss model being adopted in Ireland in a hurry also because the economic demographics are far more skewed; too many county Juras, not enough county Zürichs.

I agree that we are not the CH nor never will be. It would be beneficial however, if we were to learn from other countries as some systems could easily slot in and would have a positive impact here.

The Corinthian

Mr.Wemmick wrote: »

We should be dealing with what we have: encourage our politicians to focus on changes that will improve our lives for the better.

I completely agree. My fear is that if we focus on bad leadership, it'll just become another scapegoat, just like the British, the bankers and the Church, and give us another excuse not to do anything about it. You'll have to admit that we do have a history of doing this.

It's time the Government asserted itself in a helpful/supportive/encouraging role as opposed to the current negative one: delivering austerity measures.

I also agree. Austerity was as much a panic reaction designed to principally calm the markets, however by itself, it's unlikely to solve anything.

Journalists here tend to tread carefully around politicians whilst in the UK if a member of Parliment was caught fiddling the books at the cost of the tax payer, he/she is shamed by being front page news the very next day.

Journalism is a bit of a joke in Ireland TBH. Any journo with an ounce of talent I've ever known left for the UK as soon as they could, leaving us with the mediocre and incompetent to rise through the ranks back home.

I agree that we are not the CH nor never will be. It would be beneficial however, if we were to learn from other countries as some systems could easily slot in and would have a positive impact here.

I agree, but ultimately unless we also change our attitudes no system change will make a difference.

I'm reminded of the old gag; if the Dutch and Irish where to exchange countries, Ireland would be covered in tulips and Holland would be covered in water.

Geuze

Geuze

And here are the various measures of our fiscal deficits:

antoobrien

Geuze wrote: »

Interesting set of figures. A couple of questions:
what is intermediate consumption (under expenditure)?
what is the source of this information?

Suryavarman

antoobrien wrote: »

Interesting set of figures. A couple of questions:
what is intermediate consumption (under expenditure)?
what is the source of this information?

I'm assuming intermediate consumption is what the government consumes such as medical supplies, uniforms, electricity and other things along those lines.

Geuze

Yes, intermediate consumption is purchases of goods and services, from a humble paper clip upwards, excl. capital.

Source is the blog of Seamus Coffey, UCC.

http://economic-incentives.blogspot.com/2012/05/general-government-accounts.html

His sources are official data.

His tables are great.

golfwallah

The Corinthian wrote: »

I'd consider it a 'nice to have', but don't believe you need it and would be weary that we would end up using leadership as an excuse. On balance, because of the latter reason, I would consider a 'leadership' orientated solution to be a bad idea for Ireland.

West Germany had some competent leaders, but did not have an Abraham Lincoln after WW2. Even the old DDR did pretty well (relative to the other Eastern bloc nations it was the most successful) without really having exceptional leaders.

Indeed, leaders are not always what they're cracked up to be; Germany had one before and during WW2, and see where that led them.

There are plenty of examples of bad leadership, in countries where dictators have manipulated their populations for short term gain or to favour the select few. That is not the kind of leadership I am talking about.

Good leadership and management are about providing the environment, processes, systems and management support to enable the changes necessary to get us out of our current crisis.

W. Edwards Deming understood this. He was the US Management guru, who played a key role in transforming the Japanese economy in the 1950s: “A manager of people needs to understand that all people are different”. “He needs to understand that the performance of anyone is governed largely by the system that he works in, the responsibility of management” (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/W._Edwards_Deming).

It’s just the same for Government. Government is responsible for the system we all work and live in. It’s up to them to make the system work for the citizens by helping to stimulate economic activity.

Government have a responsibility to govern – they have the information and resources available to them to do this, so why the delay? Sure there will be problems / risks and you can’t please everyone – but that’s the job!

For example, to help the innovation and new business required for growth we need focused infrastructure investment (e.g. Broadband), removal of systemic barriers (e.g. excessive bureaucracy), more government tax incentives / grants / equity investment for high potential start ups, etc., etc.

Our current crisis situation stems from a failure of leadership – both from the previous Government and opposition, who wanted even more of the same. Apart from a few minor changes, the Government formed in March 2011 has only continued with the economic policies as set out in the EU / IMF memorandum of Understanding just before their predecessors left office.

I accept that it takes time to develop and implement policies but why so long to see significant new ideas being implemented? People become concerned when they see headlines in a Sunday Newspaper that Government have no plans and are in react management mode. In fairness to SIPTU’s Jack O’Connor, he is coming up with growth stimulus proposals. If he can come up with constructive ideas, why not Government?

The system won’t change itself – it’s time for our Government to get the finger out and get on with the job.

The Corinthian

golfwallah wrote: »

Our current crisis situation stems from a failure of leadership – both from the previous Government and opposition, who wanted even more of the same.

Our current crisis stemmed from a combination of factors; incompetent government, greedy developers, incompetent and greedy bankers, the international credit crisis and greedy, self-serving Joe Bloggs who wanted to jump on the property ladder, regardless of how little sense it made.

Some are more to blame than others, but all share some measure of blame.

The system won’t change itself – it’s time for our Government to get the finger out and get on with the job.

Do you not see the irony of saying that system won't change itself then effectively calling on the government, which is core part of that system, to change itself?

golfwallah

The Corinthian wrote: »

Our current crisis stemmed from a combination of factors; incompetent government, greedy developers, incompetent and greedy bankers, the international credit crisis and greedy, self-serving Joe Bloggs who wanted to jump on the property ladder, regardless of how little sense it made.

Some are more to blame than others, but all share some measure of blame.

I don't disagree that we all have to share some measure of blame, but most of that blame belongs to those in power and to those to who had significant delegated authority / responsibility in the economy (like the Financial Regulator).

We gave power to the current Government to fix things - that's their mandate. The ordinary folk can't change the system - Government can. And although they can't fix stuff outside their control, there is plenty they can do.

Unfortunately, they seem stuck, "blinded by the headlights" of international events outside their control and unwilling / unable to put forward significant change, communicate these changes with significant stakeholders / the general public and then get on with the job.

It's not that hard to identify the issues and put forward solutions. The hard bit is implementing them.

The Corinthian wrote: »

Do you not see the irony of saying that system won't change itself then effectively calling on the government, which is core part of that system, to change itself?

I don't regard the Government as part of the system. That's like holding the workers responsible for bad management or holding the lunatics responsible for running the asylum.

Someone has to be in charge. Unfortunately for us, the people elected to lead are very slow in implementing the changes required to move the economy forward, which is the job they were elected to do.

Churchill had his staff buzzing with productive activity within hours of taking office in the crisis of 1940. 14 months after taking office .... where is the leadership, here? And lets not blame the system - Government have the power to change it and bring as many people as they can along with them - if only they want to do it badly enough.

Loire

Dannyboy83 wrote: »

Austerity me bollix, we wouldn't know austerity if it leapt up out of the toilet bowl and gnawed our eyes out.

According to your graph, we are already spending nearly the same amount of money servicing debt as we spend on education :mad:

Idbatterim

I don't disagree that we all have to share some measure of blame, but most of that blame belongs to those in power and to those to who had significant delegated authority / responsibility in the economy (like the Financial Regulator).

I thought the current regulators suggestion, that in future all regulators should be foreign, for obvious reasons, was a good idea...

The Corinthian

golfwallah wrote: »

I don't disagree that we all have to share some measure of blame, but most of that blame belongs to those in power and to those to who had significant delegated authority / responsibility in the economy (like the Financial Regulator).

I don't regard the Government as part of the system. That's like holding the workers responsible for bad management or holding the lunatics responsible for running the asylum.

I find what you're saying quite confusing. On one level you distance 'us' from those in power, then at the same time you claim that they are not part of the 'system' and not detached from us. There appears to be some contradiction.

Churchill had his staff buzzing with productive activity within hours of taking office in the crisis of 1940. 14 months after taking office .... where is the leadership, here? And lets not blame the system - Government have the power to change it and bring as many people as they can along with them - if only they want to do it badly enough.

The danger I feel, as I said earlier in this thread, with such sentiments is that it places far too much emphasis on a messiah figure; a leader who will be able to lead us to a promised land and without whom, we cannot do anything about our fate.

And so we won't do anything and instead we will await the messiah's arrival - and there lies the problem.

Dan_Solo

The only EU wide referendum I'd really be interested in voting yes for would ban all member states from guaranteeing bank deposits. Yes, ALL bank deposits. And I say this as someone with a bit in the bank.
It's anti-competitive and clear interference in private sector business.

squod

Dan_Solo wrote: »

The only EU wide referendum I'd really be interested in voting yes for would ban all member states from guaranteeing bank deposits. Yes, ALL bank deposits. And I say this as someone with a bit in the bank.
It's anti-competitive and clear interference in private sector business.

Meh, the guberment would just pay the fine.........