Ireland's debt deal: What will the Left do now?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

Heads the ball wrote: »

What authority do you have to make that statement?

Logic and the English language, I suppose.

Heads the ball wrote: »

The cuts have placed financial strains (and in a lot of cases emotional strains) on every individual and business in the State - so I am calling them social costs. Sorry if you dont like it.

It's not a question of like or dislike, it's a question of cause and effect. Social costs are an effect of cuts, but the degree to which there are social costs is not something you can demonstrate by pointing to the cuts.

I'm saying that you're completely failing to support your own claims here - not that your argument is weak, or wrong, but that it's non-existent. You haven't even started to put forward evidence for the extent of the social costs the cuts are producing - instead, you're reiterating the existence of the cuts themselves.

Look at it like this - if social welfare included, say, an entitlement to free Sky Sports, would cutting that entitlement produce "massive social costs"? By your logic so far, it would be a cut, and therefore be evidence of massive social costs. Most people would probably laugh at the idea, though, and reiterating that there had been a cut would not persuade them that this was evidence of 'massive social costs'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Heads the ball

Scofflaw wrote: »

Heads the ball wrote: »

What authority do you have to make that statement?

Logic and the English language, I suppose.

Heads the ball wrote: »

The cuts have placed financial strains (and in a lot of cases emotional strains) on every individual and business in the State - so I am calling them social costs. Sorry if you dont like it.

It's not a question of like or dislike, it's a question of cause and effect. Social costs are an effect of cuts, but the degree to which there are social costs is not something you can demonstrate by pointing to the cuts.

I'm saying that you're completely failing to support your own claims here - not that your argument is weak, or wrong, but that it's non-existent. You haven't even started to put forward evidence for the extent of the social costs the cuts are producing - instead, you're reiterating the existence of the cuts themselves.

Look at it like this - if social welfare included, say, an entitlement to free Sky Sports, would cutting that entitlement produce "massive social costs"? By your logic so far, it would be a cut, and therefore be evidence of massive social costs. Most people would probably laugh at the idea, though, and reiterating that there had been a cut would not persuade them that this was evidence of 'massive social costs'.

cordially,
Scofflaw

If you cant see how cutting social welfare or hiking vat has a direct immediate impact and causes direct hardship on large groups of society I cant help you.

Citing silly examples like sky sports is off point as i cited material costs.

Do you really need me to bring up bankrupty stats, or suicide rates.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Scofflaw

Heads the ball wrote: »

If you cant see how cutting social welfare or hiking vat has a direct immediate impact and causes direct hardship on large groups of society I cant help you.

Citing silly examples like sky sports is off point as i cited material costs.

Do you really need me to bring up bankrupty stats, or suicide rates.

I don't need you to, particularly - I haven't even got around to actually arguing with your claim yet - but, yes, those are evidence of social costs which the cuts themselves are not.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Heads the ball

Scofflaw wrote: »

Heads the ball wrote: »

If you cant see how cutting social welfare or hiking vat has a direct immediate impact and causes direct hardship on large groups of society I cant help you.

Citing silly examples like sky sports is off point as i cited material costs.

Do you really need me to bring up bankrupty stats, or suicide rates.

I don't need you to, particularly - I haven't even got around to actually arguing with your claim yet - but, yes, those are evidence of social costs which the cuts themselves are not.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Well if you cant see how directly correlative (im sure i have spelt that incorrectly) the cuts I listed are to negative social issues, and how different they are to your silly sky sports analogy, i dont really need to spend my evening digging up stats to satisfy you.

If you cant engage in the discussion at that high a level its probably best that you dont engage at all.

daltonmd

Heads the ball wrote: »

What authority do you have to make that statement?

The cuts have placed financial strains (and in a lot of cases emotional strains) on every individual and business in the State - so I am calling them social costs. Sorry if you dont like it.

No, you are absolutely wrong. The "cuts" have not caused financial and emotional strains of every individual and the state.

What has caused the strain is debt - not cuts.

Now there is a section of society who have felt the brunt of the cuts, these are those who actually didn't overly benefit during the boom, like disabled people, for example, wholly dependant on the state and now suffering because of the cuts. But for the a large majority - financial and emotional strain is present because of high debts.

Oh and every department is spending less, we hae less teachers, guards, nurses? Well when, for example, 70% of the Health budget goes on salaries - protected by the Croke Park agreement then where should they make the cuts huh?

Scofflaw

Heads the ball wrote: »

Well if you cant see how directly correlative (im sure i have spelt that incorrectly) the cuts I listed are to negative social issues, and how different they are to your silly sky sports analogy, i dont really need to spend my evening digging up stats to satisfy you.

If you cant engage in the discussion at that high a level its probably best that you dont engage at all.

Well, of course, I'm famously bad at such things, but even I know that you have yet to advance any evidence of your claims, and that you apparently don't even understand why the cuts themselves aren't evidence for their own effects.

Never mind, hopefully someone will take up the cudgels on your behalf. A thread on 'the social costs of the cuts' would be interesting, and who knows, you might even get spoon-fed the evidence your position actually requires and that you apparently can't be bothered finding! Meanwhile, the fact that you managed to come to your position without such evidence is, of course, the answer to the question in the OP.

amused,
Scofflaw

Heads the ball

Scofflaw wrote: »

Heads the ball wrote: »

Well if you cant see how directly correlative (im sure i have spelt that incorrectly) the cuts I listed are to negative social issues, and how different they are to your silly sky sports analogy, i dont really need to spend my evening digging up stats to satisfy you.

If you cant engage in the discussion at that high a level its probably best that you dont engage at all.

Well, of course, I'm famously bad at such things, but even I know that you have yet to advance any evidence of your claims, and that you apparently don't even understand why the cuts themselves aren't evidence for their own effects.

Never mind, hopefully someone will take up the cudgels on your behalf. A thread on 'the social costs of the cuts' would be interesting, and who knows, you might even get spoon-fed the evidence your position actually requires and that you apparently can't be bothered finding! Meanwhile, the fact that you managed to come to your position without such evidence is, of course, the answer to the question in the OP.

amused,
Scofflaw

Thinly veiled "i just realises my persistent right wing rhetoric cant get me any further"

Never mind mate, we know the greens havent a rasher when it comes to economics.

Take care

sarumite

Heads the ball wrote: »

Thinly veiled "i just realises my persistent right wing rhetoric cant get me any further"

Never mind mate, we know the greens havent a rasher when it comes to economics.

Take care

It was so thinly veiled, I couldn't even see it.

K-9

Heads the ball wrote: »

Do you really need me to bring up bankrupty stats, or suicide rates.

I can't really see how bankruptcy statistics relate to cuts to Welfare or Public Service pay, suicide rates maybe, but as another poster said I'd say more to do with high debt, job losses and unemployment rather than cuts.

Heads the ball

K-9 wrote: »

Heads the ball wrote: »

Do you really need me to bring up bankrupty stats, or suicide rates.

I can't really see how bankruptcy statistics relate to cuts to Welfare or Public Service pay, suicide rates maybe, but as another poster said I'd say more to do with high debt, job losses and unemployment rather than cuts.

Yeah well you have just selected two costs from my list. If you read my post and the costs i listed you will see costs listed there that do relate to bankruptcy.

Count Dooku

Heads the ball wrote: »

If you cant see how cutting social welfare or hiking vat has a direct immediate impact and causes direct hardship on large groups of society I cant help you.

Citing silly examples like sky sports is off point as i cited material costs.

Do you really need me to bring up bankrupty stats, or suicide rates.

Country with high taxes such as Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark,Austria, France have much higher suicide rates than Ireland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

ardmacha

Sweden, Norway, Denmark have very similar suicide rates to Ireland. Their males suicide rates are lower, but their female ones slightly higher. This is more a reflection of greater equality between the sexes than anything else.

Not really evidence one way or the other.

poeticseraphim

Count Dooku wrote: »

Country with high taxes such as Finland, Sweden, Norway, Denmark,Austria, France have much higher suicide rates than Ireland

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

Correlation my friend not causation....:-)

Do suicide rates dip with a Tax cut??


Or is it the bad weather and dark winters along with social issues?..

Perhaps we a happier society mentally.

Yes in times of crisis suicide rates go up however ...and one may relate the rise to a change of one factor or many


However if suicide rates are generally higher .....it could just be the country..

I don't like the suicide arguement though....

Because it is a complex issue..........a tax cut is not going to reverse a trend like that ..nor is more spending in services


The private debt situation is the main pressure and employment i believe....

It is really also lack of compassion and psychological support...ok you can't bail them out ( not what i am saying but many are) but there is a coldness that has crept in...

Compassion in a society does not have to mean money ....community support can go a long way...help our friends etc....

That community support and emotional support is more effective to help depression and suicide


We need to be nicer.......

Its like there is scorn in the air sometimes..and i think THAT creates mental pressure and shame

You would need to look at mental illness trebds in those countries and addictions etc ..and separate cases where a main factor has been identified etc such as grief or something


Also what are the marriage rates and birth rates in those countries ..male suicide tends to go up when those go down...

But seriously throwing that arguement around will come back at both sides..because it is more than economicsupport it is community and emotional support and human bonding in a society that goes beyond that.

And there are things you can do that costs nothing ..but people are too selfish to do them

Count Dooku

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Correlation my friend not causation....:-)

Do suicide rates dip with a Tax cut??


Or is it the bad weather and dark winters along with social issues?..

Do you mean that weather in France is worse than in Scandinavia?

Monty Burnz

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I think this is symptomatic of people swallowing the ULA/SF propaganda line wholesale because it just chimes with what they want to hear. On another thread yesterday I was told that the poor (meaning the unemployed) had borne the brunt of austerity. I pointed out that social welfare was largely untouched and that the middle and low earners had actually borne the brunt, and asked the poster to list the social welfare cuts they were referring to more than once.

The poster started ignoring my posts.

poeticseraphim

Count Dooku wrote: »

Do you mean that weather in France is worse than in Scandinavia?

Suicide rates rise in winter in all countries.....I have a friend who is Norwegian who works as an Addiction councillor and they have many studies linking depression and winter and an aggrevation of mental illness.


You quote the most vital part of my post your self.....

Correlation not causation...


Really serious mental health issues require statistical analysis before you mae claims lie that.

How many suicides have a pre -existing mental illness or a history of or co-morbidity with depression?

And what are the rates of mental illness like?

France has a high consumption of prozac in france for clinical depression...is extremely high compared to comparable countries also somatic co-morbidity seems to present in 60% of users. This means that 60% of antidepressant users in a country with unusually high antidepressant use have a complex history of medical mental issues.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12386542


THAT is not to do with taxes...THAT is a mental health issue and really only high yield clinicians can say what a useful way of dealing with it is....

Heads the ball

poeticseraphim wrote: »

Count Dooku wrote: »

Do you mean that weather in France is worse than in Scandinavia?

Suicide rates rise in winter in all countries.....I have a friend who is Norwegian who works as an Addiction councillor and they have many studies linking depression and winter and an aggrevation of mental illness.


You quote the most vital part of my post your self.....

Correlation not causation...


Really serious mental health issues require statistical analysis before you mae claims lie that.

How many suicides have a pre -existing mental illness or a history of or co-morbidity with depression?

And what are the rates of mental illness like?

France has a high consumption of prozac in france for clinical depression...is extremely high compared to comparable countries also somatic co-morbidity seems to present in 60% of users. This means that 60% of antidepressant users in a country with unusually high antidepressant use have a complex history of medical mental issues.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12386542


THAT is not to do with taxes...THAT is a mental health issue and really only high yield clinicians can say what a useful way of dealing with it is....

All that said, its not accurate to say that the economic issues of late have not 1: been a direct cause of sucides and 2: at least exaccerbated some of the above pre existing mental issues or worries and pushed people over the edge.

It has.

Dr Galen

This being the Politics Forum, posters are required to come up with statistics and facts to back up their points.

Please bear that in mind when posting in this thread or across the wider forum

Cheers

DrG

golfwallah

Talk about horse trading at EU level, the first step, “sine qua non” in the “seismic shift” allowing the ESM to directly recapitalize the banks is implementation of “an effective single supervisory mechanism”.

Going back to antoobrien’s post #3 in the seismic shift thread (http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056686110) - the trade off to the ESM taking over the bank recapitalization piece of our national sovereign debt is more effective centralised banking supervision.

Presumably, current national supervisory arrangements are still considered too subject to national interests and hence too risky in the long term.

This key condition, of closer banking supervision, seems like another step towards a much more integrated Europe (and reduced national sovereignty), which would probably have been unthinkable without the current crisis.

As for the immediate short-term cost / benefit impact – a maximum Irish investment of €11.1 billion in the ESM gets us a large chunk of our bank bailout debt of €40.5 billion off our balance sheet and onto the weighted ESM pool of debt. Whether this also involves transfer of ownership of the banks to the centre remains to be seen – please correct me if I’ve got any of these sums wrong!

Extract from 1st paragraph of the brief Euro Area Summit statement (emphasis is mine):
“When an effective single supervisory mechanism is established, involving the ECB, for banks in the euro area the ESM could, following a regular decision, have the possibility to recapitalize banks directly. This would rely on appropriate conditionality, including compliance with state aid rules, which should be institution specific, sector-specific or economy-wide and would be formalised in a Memorandum of Understanding. The Eurogroup will examine the situation of the Irish financial sector with the view of further improving the sustainability of the well-performing adjustment programme”.
For full text see: http://consilium.europa.eu/uedocs/cms_data/docs/pressdata/en/ec/131359.pdf.

The statement goes on to say that “ECB has agreed to serve as an agent to EFSF/ESM in conducting market operations in an effective and efficient manner“ and that “Eurogroup to implement these decisions by 9 July 2012”.

Count Dooku

Heads the ball wrote: »

All that said, its not accurate to say that the economic issues of late have not 1: been a direct cause of sucides

only 13%(about 50) of them (increase between 2007 and 2011)

Heads the ball wrote: »

and 2: at least exaccerbated some of the above pre existing mental issues or worries and pushed people over the edge.

then it will be more efficient to use money for mental care rather than keeping so high benefits
Reduction on spending for maintaining road could easily cause more deaths

Heads the ball

Count Dooku wrote: »

Heads the ball wrote: »

All that said, its not accurate to say that the economic issues of late have not 1: been a direct cause of sucides

only 13%(about 50) of them (increase between 2007 and 2011)

Some would say 1% is too much

golfwallah

Count Dooku wrote: »

only 13%(about 50) of them (increase between 2007 and 2011)



then it will be more efficient to use money for mental care rather than keeping so high benefits
Reduction on spending for maintaining road could easily cause more deaths

Fair comment but I think the "Left" are more likely to cotton onto the "closer bank supervision" and "loss of sovereignty" issues than the suicide and mental health statistics (if they can reliably be produced) - which is the point of this thread.

Heads the ball

golfwallah wrote: »

Count Dooku wrote: »

only 13%(about 50) of them (increase between 2007 and 2011)



then it will be more efficient to use money for mental care rather than keeping so high benefits
Reduction on spending for maintaining road could easily cause more deaths

Fair comment but I think the "Left" are more likely to cotton onto the "closer bank supervision" and "loss of sovereignty" issues than the suicide and mental health statistics (if they can reliably be produced) - which is the point of this thread.

If the stats are difficult to reliably measure and i think they are for the following reason: if someone comits suicide there may well have been a number of contributing factors and it would surely be difficult to capture them all correctly. Again take my earlier example where a person already has a pre existing condition.or is in some other way vulnerable. How can one say with certainty what the ultimate cause was. I dint think they can be reliably estimated thats why i have been resisting scofflaws banging on the table for "stats", "proof" etc

its perfectly reasonable, at a level of first principles, that additional financial worries would lead to push some people over tge edge.

Its like saying if i mix blue and yellow paint together it wont turn green until we show proof of that.

I dont want to labour the point any further as i dont really have anything new to say on it but to deny there have beem massive social costs associated with our current economic condition is not realisic to me and it wouldnt do the discussion justice to give in to putting up stats that would be invariably dissected and disagreed with where it doesnt support a particular right wing view.

djpbarry

Heads the ball wrote: »

If you cant see...

It should be painfully obvious to you by now that no, we can’t see.

Heads the ball wrote: »

If the stats are difficult to reliably measure and i think they are for the following reason: if someone comits suicide there may well have been a number of contributing factors and it would surely be difficult to capture them all correctly. Again take my earlier example where a person already has a pre existing condition.or is in some other way vulnerable. How can one say with certainty what the ultimate cause was.

But you’re the one who brought up suicide rates?

Heads the ball wrote: »

I dont want to labour the point any further as i dont really have anything new to say on it but to deny there have beem massive social costs associated with our current economic condition is not realisic to me...

That depends on how one defines “massive”.

Heads the ball wrote: »

...and it wouldnt do the discussion justice to give in to putting up stats that would be invariably dissected and disagreed with where it doesnt support a particular right wing view.

You have repeatedly made reference to budget cuts and implied that such cuts have resulted in “massive” social costs.

Given that budget cuts have been relatively minor to date and that government spending on public services and welfare is still huge, it is not unreasonable for people to question how society has (apparently) managed to amplify minor cuts into massive costs.

Heads the ball

djpbarry wrote: »

Given that budget cuts have been relatively minor to date

This is laughable

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Heads the ball

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The discussion started by me claiming that the "steadying of the ship" came at a massive social cost.

So the cuts which are related to the current economic situation but if it would free up your time to make a meaningful contribution I would be happy to amend that post to "the stellar FG/Lab job in steadying the ship has come at a massive social cost."

Heads the ball

Can a cut not be a cost to society?

It can actually...

If you cut social welfare that is a direct financial cost on a large group in society.

If you raise VAT that is a a direct financial cost on a large group in society.

If you dissipate the pension reserve fund that is a direct financial cost (albeit somewhat deferred) on the private sector.

If you raise a household charge that is a direct financial cost on a large group in society.

ardmacha

Given that budget cuts have been relatively minor to date and that government spending on public services and welfare is still huge, it is not unreasonable for people to question how society has (apparently) managed to amplify minor cuts into massive costs.

Certain individuals may pay a massive cost, when their ambulance doesn't arrive or whatever. But for society generally these reductions came after a period of inflated increase and some of the wailing is overdone.

Because most of our current economic woes can be traced not to government cutbacks after 2008, but to the lavish spending increases before 2008,

Our current economic woes are caused by the failure of businesses in the private sector, which has driven the unemployment and consequent changes in government spending that brought social welfare transfers to their present high proportion. You can legitimately make the case that government action has aggravated these conditions, but the origin of the problem is in the private sector.

Dr Galen

You still haven't really outlined what these "massive social costs" are though?

You have talked a bit about suicide, but thats about it tbh and you haven't linked that in any meaningful way to the cuts you have previously referenced.

Going on about a Right Wing agenda is sooooo last year, expecially when some of the posters that you are claiming to be furthering this agenda are far from Right Wing, (well apart from Permabear.....no one is quite sure about him tbh, they are constructing a wing especially for him right now :P) I suggest you read people's posts more attentively.

Heads the ball

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

There is nothing particularly new or insightful in here. Your argument seems to be that some cuts had to be made. Again, not necessarily an invalid position but it doesnt support an assertion that there have been no social costs associated with it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Dr Galen

Heads the ball wrote: »

There is nothing particularly new or insightful in here. Your argument seems to be that some cuts had to be made. Again, not necessarily an invalid position but it doesnt support an assertion that there have been no social costs associated with it.

I don't see anyone arguing that there is no Social Cost in relation to any cuts made.

You chose to use hyperbolic language though in relation to the Massive Social Cost, and when asked to back that up, you couldn't/wouldn't.

Heads the ball

Dr Galen wrote: »

You still haven't really outlined what these "massive social costs" are though?

You have talked a bit about suicide, but thats about it tbh and you haven't linked that in any meaningful way to the cuts you have previously referenced.

Going on about a Right Wing agenda is sooooo last year, expecially when some of the posters that you are claiming to be furthering this agenda are far from Right Wing, (well apart from Permabear.....no one is quite sure about him tbh, they are constructing a wing especially for him right now :P) I suggest you read people's posts more attentively.

Funnily actually, I dont consider myself left wing by any stretch its just scoff moved the discussion in here from another thread so I feel if my opinions were going to be classified as the "left" those opposing it would be correctly classified as those on the "right." I hope nobody is offended!

See the moment I go down the route of saying: bankruptcy or suicide the point becomes lost.

Some examples:
- People have said they are due to DEBT not CUTS but surely people in debt are not helped when we make a further cut to them
- The suicide argument became bizarre with people claiming that "only 50" suicides can be attributed directly to financial issues
- Another person claimed that Scandanavian countries with higher tax rates than Ireland had higher suicide rates - Im not sure what he was trying to prove there but if you argue that suicide is proportional to tax - then surely VAT increases are bad

You can see how the point becomes lost cant you?

Heads the ball

Dr Galen wrote: »

I don't see anyone arguing that there is no Social Cost in relation to any cuts made.

You chose to use hyperbolic language though in relation to the Massive Social Cost, and when asked to back that up, you couldn't/wouldn't.

Sorry I would happily rephrase that to "...support an assertion that there have not been massive social costs"

Dr Galen

Heads the ball wrote: »

You can see how the point becomes lost cant you?

Absolutely,

Heads the ball wrote: »

Sorry I would happily rephrase that to "...support an assertion that there have not been massive social costs"

Ok so lets go back a bit.

What massive social costs are you talking about?

Heads the ball

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Firstly I dont accept that they have steadied the ship, but lets say for arguement that they have and you want to celebrate their acheivement. I am saying that the way they went about it had massive social costs. I am not suggesting that the steadying of the ship should not have been done (again, not conceeding FG/Lab have done so) but the methods of doing so were not without the cost.

Tipp Man

ardmacha wrote: »

Our current economic woes are caused by the failure of businesses in the private sector, which has driven the unemployment and consequent changes in government spending that brought social welfare transfers to their present high proportion. You can legitimately make the case that government action has aggravated these conditions, but the origin of the problem is in the private sector.

bloody hell - there are people who actually think this??

Tipp Man

Heads the ball wrote: »

Firstly I dont accept that they have steadied the ship, but lets say for arguement that they have and you want to celebrate their acheivement. I am saying that the way they went about it had massive social costs. I am not suggesting that the steadying of the ship should not have been done (again, not conceeding FG/Lab have done so) but the methods of doing so were not without the cost.

and how exactly do you "steady the ship" without having social costs??

ardmacha

Tipp Man wrote: »

bloody hell - there are people who actually think this??

If you believe it is incorrect you can always say why you think this.

Heads the ball

Dr Galen wrote: »

Absolutely,



Ok so lets go back a bit.

What massive social costs are you talking about?

I am aware what is going to happen now that I list them; they will be hijacked and argued that they are either marginal or that in some way they are not attributable to the cuts but here's a list from the top of my head.

Increased Bankruptcy,
Increased suicide,
The financial costs listed in post #131,
Increased emigration,
(Possibly) Increased divorce levels
If I had a reliable measure of national "morale" I would cite that
Homelessness
Increased stress levels
Increased unemployment
Reduced public services
Industrial unrest


There will be arguments that X is not attributable to cuts, but rather it is attributable to Y. Without the realisation that cuts exacerrbated Y.

I am aware that my point will now be lost by the above inevitability thats why I have resisted it for so long but I think my argument that these things are patently obvious has been certainly not disproved, nor really engaged with in a substantive manner but rather ignored by a cosy conservative element.

Dr Galen

Heads the ball wrote: »

I am aware what is going to happen now that I list them; they will be hijacked and argued that they are either marginal or that in some way they are not attributable to the cuts but here's a list from the top of my head.

Increased Bankruptcy,
Increased suicide,
The financial costs listed in post #131,
Increased emigration,
(Possibly) Increased divorce levels
If I had a reliable measure of national "morale" I would cite that
Homelessness
Increased stress levels
Increased unemployment
Reduced public services
Industrial unrest


There will be arguments that X is not attributable to cuts, but rather it is attributable to Y. Without the realisation that cuts exacerrbated Y.

I am aware that my point will now be lost by the above inevitability thats why I have resisted it for so long but I think my argument that these things are patently obvious has been certainly not disproved, nor really engaged with in a substantive manner but rather ignored by a cosy conservative element.

Ok cool,

so lets just pick one, the first one - Increased Bankruptcy.

How, in your opinion have the cuts caused increased bankruptcy? Directly or indirectly that is.

Tipp Man

ardmacha wrote: »

If you believe it is incorrect you can always say why you think this.

Our current economic woes are caused primarily by 2 things in my opinion

1) Government expenditure rocketed in the 2000's - it didn't fall like a stone which it should have from 2008 onwards. The 2 main causes of this increase were public sector costs and social welfare. Both should have been cut dramatically just as they were raised dramatically in the preceeding 8 -10 years

2) Bank lending, bank supervision, reckless borrowing by both individuals and developers. People lost the run of themselves borrowing money they should never have borrowed, banks lost the run of themselves throwing money at people they should never have lent to and the regulator just sat back and watched it all happen

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Heads the ball

Dr Galen wrote: »

Ok cool,

so lets just pick one, the first one - Increased Bankruptcy.

How, in your opinion have the cuts caused increased bankruptcy? Directly or indirectly that is.

A number of cuts (but indeed the wider policy of austerity*) followed have had the effect of further reducing demand.


* I genuinely genuinely try not to use that word as it is way overused - perhaps an economics student to could suggest a better word - i dunno fiscal conservatism or something

Heads the ball

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

See this is exactly what I was worried about - it gets hijacked with irrelevant information.

This post states that we have a lower bankruptcy level than other countries. It doesnt prove that it wasnt a serious issue to Ireland.

The comparison top NI and England can be explained by the fact that the bankruptcy "penalties" are less in these countries; but thats not a convenient fact for this poster to illuminate. Nor in fact is it on point!

I could say our starvation levels are lower than Eastern Rwanda but how would that prove we dont have a starvation problem in Ireland?!?!

Its ok - i was anticipating this

antoobrien

Tipp Man wrote: »

Our current economic woes are caused primarily by 2 things in my opinion

1) Government expenditure rocketed in the 2000's - it didn't fall like a stone which it should have from 2008 onwards. The 2 main causes of this increase were public sector costs and social welfare. Both should have been cut dramatically just as they were raised dramatically in the preceeding 8 -10 years

2) Bank lending, bank supervision, reckless borrowing by both individuals and developers. People lost the run of themselves borrowing money they should never have borrowed, banks lost the run of themselves throwing money at people they should never have lent to and the regulator just sat back and watched it all happen

I think ardmacha would be better off stating which problem that is being referred to the fiscal problem or the unemployment one. The failure of businesses is responsible for unemployment, but that's only a small part of the fiscal problem (since 2007 there's an extra €5bn in sw spending due to unemployment). But and it's a big but current spending by government departments was still higher in 2011 (€45.7bn) than it was in 2007 (€44.6bn).

The fiscal problem is exacerbated by unemployment but not caused by it. The irresponsible spending of the tax revenues that were available at the time by the government (lets be clear it's money they had) is at fault for the fiscal problem.

We were in a credit bubble and the CGT, stamp duty & VAT receipts were all overblown by cheap credit

Laminations

Heads the ball wrote: »

See this is exactly what I was worried about - it gets hijacked with irrelevant information.

This post states that we have a lower bankruptcy level than other countries. It doesnt prove that it wasnt a serious issue to Ireland.

The point 'bankruptcy is a serious issue for Ireland' whether true or not is unrelated to your assertion that 'cuts have led to increased bankruptcy'. What cuts have affected bankruptcy? Are special needs assistants going bankrupt? Are social welfare recipients going bankrupt more than before the cut in the Christmas bonus?

And the suicide point is most likely more related to debt than cuts. In fact most all your bulletpoints are likely more related to unsustainable personal or company debt