"The Country is not broke the State is"

Xenophile

"The Country is not broke the State is"

This is Vincent Browne's new mantra, Mr.Browne do you want the country to be broke as well as the State?

Going on and on about Public Service workers who earn less than 30k a year. Maybe we might investigate what we Irish citizens get for this 30k. Maybe we would be better off if some of them were on the dole. The culture of work or rather that of avoiding work in some parts of the public service is a contagious disease. (Sorry to have to put it so strongly.) Having said that there are many, many dedicated very hard working people in the public service and semi state organisations who are a joy to behold in the way they go about their work in the spirit of service and these people make a magnificent contribution to many of our lives.

The IMF (international monetary fund) have now admitted that austerity does not work as well that they thought it would. One thing that will work to get a country moving in the right direction and keep it on track is to improve inefficient work practices and develop a strong work ethic which allows people to work with dignity and self respect while making a contribution to the country at large, for themselves and for others into the future.

Let those who want to work go to their workplace with a spirit of goodwill and enterprise and if other people want to interfere with that let them stay at home without feeling guilty, maybe in this way you will be doing a favour to yourself, to your colleagues and to the country.

Cookie_Monster

Xenophile wrote: »

The IMF (international monetary fund) have now admitted that austerity does not work as well that they thought it would.

well of course it doesn't when you don't have any actual austerity measures in place. Austerity would be slashing 10bn off the budget spend every year until in surplus, not a couple of dozen million here and there. 5 years into this mess and barely anything has changed, no meaningful cuts anywhere, anything less than a 5% cut anywhere is just window dressing IMO

crusher000

No matter where you work private/public there has to be an enviroment of self worth, the oppurtunity to improve yourself through education and to be able to get up the ladder. All jobs after a while just become and end to a means if the systems aren't in place for self improvement. Public sector is no different and there are peolpe doing a great job. But if they see the people above them in positions they have held for years are were given the job because well if they didn't get it they would cause grief it can be very dis heartening for those that want to make a differnce.

Scofflaw

The IMF (international monetary fund) have now admitted that austerity does not work as well that they thought it would.

No, the Irish media have said that, but the IMF have not "admitted" anything of the kind. There is a suggestion that public-sector austerity measures may do more damage to the private sector than the IMF use as a base for forecasting, but the suggestion apparently does not apply to Ireland in any case.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Xenophile

IMF heralds austerity shift
Mon, 15 Oct 2012 3:03 PM

The curtains came down Sunday on IMF and World Bank meetings that were dominated by a gathering row over whether austerity or growth should come centre stage as the world economy seeks a reboot.

The International Monetary Fund - criticised in the past for its strict prescription of the bitter medicine of deficit cuts - used the week to articulate a moderated position emphasising growth.

crusher000

Xenophile wrote: »

IMF heralds austerity shift
Mon, 15 Oct 2012 3:03 PM

The curtains came down Sunday on IMF and World Bank meetings that were dominated by a gathering row over whether austerity or growth should come centre stage as the world economy seeks a reboot.

The International Monetary Fund - criticised in the past for its strict prescription of the bitter medicine of deficit cuts - used the week to articulate a moderated position emphasising growth.

Please,please correct me but isn't this statement in contrast to it's policy ? God help us all if these are the people charged with saving the world eceonomy

Dannyboy83

The state isn't broke.

The state is running a deficit, but can leach off Germany/Europe for years to come yet.

Tipp Man

If that f####r Browne had his way he'd take every single last penny from anybody who has anything what so ever and give it to "the most vunerable in our society" who the hell are even the most vuneralbe in our society

After a very short period of time we would have a situation where the country was broke, the state was broke, and the entire population would be pennyless

How he gets away with some of the absolute garbage he spouts night after night is beyond me - its going completly unchallenged and when he does have a guest who challenges his idiotic thinking in any way he just shouts over them with "that is not the question i asked, I asked how do you feel blah blah blah

Jaysoose

Tipp Man wrote: »

If that f####r Browne had his way he'd take every single last penny from anybody who has anything what so ever and give it to "the most vunerable in our society" who the hell are even the most vuneralbe in our society

After a very short period of time we would have a situation where the country was broke, the state was broke, and the entire population would be pennyless

How he gets away with some of the absolute garbage he spouts night after night is beyond me - its going completly unchallenged and when he does have a guest who challenges his idiotic thinking in any way he just shouts over them with "that is not the question i asked, I asked how do you feel blah blah blah

The reason he feels the need to shout is he cant get a straight answer to simple questions from any politician or union official. I for one applaud vincent browne as he has the courage to ask real questions of our elected officials.

The alternative is to let Pat kenny and Miriam pander to them on rte.

Geuze

Technically, he may be somewhat correct.

The Balance of Payments is in surplus, so as a nation we are saving, not borrowing.

The Govt are running a huge deficit, yes, but there must be a surplus somewhere else.

Which there is, as private saving exceeds private investment, so the household and business sector is saving overall.

Idbatterim

If that f####r Browne had his way he'd take every single last penny from anybody who has anything what so ever and give it to "the most vunerable in our society" who the hell are even the most vuneralbe in our society

After a very short period of time we would have a situation where the country was broke, the state was broke, and the entire population would be pennyless

Nail on the head! Id agree with your point about the vulnerable, because I sure as hell reckon I and Vincent Browne would have a different opinion on who they are! They sure as hell wouldnt be the people who have popped out kid after kid, never worked a day in their lives type! Id see them as people who did their best for themselves and family, maybe lost one or both incomes, have large amounts of debt etc...

Good loser

Jaysoose wrote: »

The reason he feels the need to shout is he cant get a straight answer to simple questions from any politician or union official. I for one applaud vincent browne as he has the courage to ask real questions of our elected officials.

The alternative is to let Pat kenny and Miriam pander to them on rte.

I am not atall impressed by his 'real' questions. Most of his guests are flummoxed by his questions because he doesn't present real alternatives often because the words/terms he uses are undefined or undefinable. He usually puts this form on them 'Are you in favour of attacking the poor or xyz?' (By the way he never passes the questions onto any journalists on the panel despite always looking for a personal opinion).

The basic response to all these questions imo should be that it depends on the time horizon you're talking about.

If, for instance, all SW rates were to be INCREASED by 25% would he himself vote in favour of this proposal? And pick up the consequences thereafter?

His show, despite the garbage, is hugely influential politically.

andrew

"The country is not broke the state is." ?

What does that even mean? If the state (ie. the government) is broke, then that has a huge impact upon the country (ie. people in general) because people depend upon the state for lots of things, and are taxed in proportion to how much money the state needs. I don't see nay sort of meaningful seperation there.

Or is it just a round about way of saying that the government's expenditure is too high? I would've thought that was very very obvious.

Good loser

andrew wrote: »

"The country is not broke the state is." ?

What does that even mean? If the state (ie. the government) is broke, then that has a huge impact upon the country (ie. people in general) because people depend upon the state for lots of things, and are taxed in proportion to how much money the state needs. I don't see nay sort of meaningful seperation there.

Or is it just a round about way of saying that the government's expenditure is too high? I would've thought that was very very obvious.

You can bet your last dollar that he doesn't mean that; expenditure could never be too high for that particular individual!

He means that there are many wealthy people in the country ( he doesn't distinguish between high wealth and high income which is pretty basic) and if the State wanted to it could effect the transfer of sufficient of that wealth/income to meet all current Govt expenditure (at least). He probably thinks once this target has been reached that more and more money could be transferred so that Govt expenditure could continue to increase indefinitely.

The distinction that he draws between State and country is pointless and naive, as you indicate, as it does not further the essential debate which is
how/when/whether these transfers should occur.

Idbatterim

at least Pat Kenny on the frontline the other day though, raised the issue that if they do go after the high earners, wealthy bla bla bla :rolleyes: wouldnt it just mean they would stop cutting all the waste, overpay etc & thats exactly what the end result would be! Also I reckon vincent brown would classify anyone not receiving the dole as weathy!

Blowfish

Geuze wrote: »

Which there is, as private saving exceeds private investment, so the household and business sector is saving overall.

Actually, that is not true.

As for his overall claim, he is completely wrong on that too. Both the state and the country are broke. Attempting to lump the burden on the people instead of cutting back the state more is ludicrous.

MrMatisse

The state was forced to take a bailout to save European Banks.

Geuze

Blowfish wrote: »

Actually, that is not true.

As for his overall claim, he is completely wrong on that too. Both the state and the country are broke. Attempting to lump the burden on the people instead of cutting back the state more is ludicrous.

The existence of a BoIP surplus means that the nation is earning more income than it spends.

This is a flow measurement, not a stock.

So the nation has huge debts, of many types, but our total income now exceeds our total expenditure, so we are saving (a small amount).

Geuze

http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2012/04/16/the-household-sector-in-aggregate/

See above, and I quote:

"The household sector has swung from being in a net borrowing position to being a net lender, but as has been pointed out many times, a lot of this money is going to pay down the debt built up previously rather than accumulating deposits."

andrew

That's an incredibly inaccurate/wrong/misleading video.

"When nobody would lend to Ireland due to what they had said"

No; nobody would lend to Ireland, because we had no money, and had to nationalise the banks in order to keep the banking system afloat.

"Terms that would ensure they would earn billions from the deal"

Who would earn Billions? As far as I know the money came from the EU and IMF; neither of these are private profit making organisations.

"The reason we need to borrow billions is to pay back european banks"

No. We borrowed billions to keep the national baking system afloat, because Anglo and other banks were systematically important. It wasn't the best bailout in the world (why guarantee subordinated debt?), but it's completely misleading to say that the decision was taken solely to protect European banks.
In addition, to the extent that European banks were protected, why is that a bad thing given a systemic European banking crisis would have been catastrophic.

Idbatterim

because Anglo and other banks were systematically important.

would question anglo being systemically important, AIB and BOI were and are the major pillar banks...

andrew

Idbatterim wrote: »

would question anglo being systemically important, AIB and BOI were and are the major pillar banks...

As far as I know, Anglo is the one which was unambiguously 'too big to fail;' it was a huge bank, with many connections to AIB and BoI