Direct Democracy Ireland Launches Today

yore

To add to what Southsiderosie said above, "Direct Democracy" seems like something that hardcore US Republicans/Tea Partiers would be in favour of!

southsiderosie

southsiderosie wrote: »

Second, as California makes clear, direct democracy can put enormous pressure on the state's finances, as people demand fewer taxes and more services. Proposition 13 not only capped property taxes (which in the US fund schools), but also made it difficult for the legislature to pass new tax laws by requiring a 2/3 majority. Given that there is already a strong tendency in Irish politics to kick the can down the road, one can only wonder what direct democracy would actually mean for resolving long-standing problems.

Just on this note. To clarify, Proposition 30 in California passed at the last election increasing taxes.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_30,_Sales_and_Income_Tax_Increase_(2012)

People will vote not out of selfish reasons some of the time

Gotta have a bit of faith in them to do it!

southsiderosie

Deleted User wrote: »

Just on this note. To clarify, Proposition 30 passed at the last election increasing taxes.

http://ballotpedia.org/wiki/index.php/California_Proposition_30,_Sales_and_Income_Tax_Increase_(2012)

People will vote not out of selfish reasons some of the time

Gotta have a bit of faith in them to do it!

So we should take comfort in the fact that after three decades of underfunding schools that voters finally decided that a state that relies on a knowledge economy should perhaps not kill the goose that lays the golden eggs (i.e. the University of California system, which drives technology innovation)? Because, frankly, I think that is an absurd approach to public investment.

But the fact is they did it.

It would be one thing if California had never raised taxes, your argument would be fine and legitimate. But it's a pretty slim argument if it's, "Oh well, yeah, they do it NOW, but what about years ago?"

The fact is, change has to happen, but it amazes me how many people that call out for change are so afraid of it, or won't join because of one or two people that are involved.

It's actually madness to not give other people a chance. Lets be honest, we're in debt up to our eyeballs. My Kids kids could potentially still be paying our debts. Meanwhile politicians can retire on grotesque sums of money.

And you're afraid the other crowd would be worse.

"Madness is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results"


Madness.

southsiderosie

Deleted User wrote: »

But the fact is they did it.

It would be one thing if California had never raised taxes, your argument would be fine and legitimate. But it's a pretty slim argument if it's, "Oh well, yeah, they do it NOW, but what about years ago?"

The fact is, change has to happen, but it amazes me how many people that call out for change are so afraid of it, or won't join because of one or two people that are involved.

It's actually madness to not give other people a chance. Lets be honest, we're in debt up to our eyeballs. My Kids kids could potentially still be paying our debts. Meanwhile politicians can retire on grotesque sums of money.

And you're afraid the other crowd would be worse.

"Madness is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results"


Madness.

I'm not suggesting the same thing should be done - I offered an alternative. But I don't think that direct democracy is the way to do it. Taking thirty years to correct course when it comes to tax policy is insane - and in the meantime, two generations of children have paid the price.

yore

Deleted User wrote: »

It's actually madness to not give other people a chance. Lets be honest, we're in debt up to our eyeballs. My Kids kids could potentially still be paying our debts. Meanwhile politicians can retire on grotesque sums of money.

And remind me why your vote didn't count when choosing the same politicians? And why they won't/can't be removed in the next election or from public pressure? Or remind me why you are discriminated against can't run for election yourself - "is it coz I is black?"

Deleted User wrote: »

"Madness is doing the same thing over and over and expecting different results"
Madness.

Grand. Sure it'd be stupid not to at least try out an equivalent of the Greek New Dawn crowd or British BNP or even invite Kim Yong Un and his generals in to take control. It'd be madness not to.

Jonny7

Robbo wrote: »

It's a common curse of groups which pop up in Ireland, seeking to do something differently or presenting a different point of view; they'll inevitably end up hijacked or tainted by those with esoteric agendas and beliefs.

Witness how quickly Occupy Galway went from being about unfair wealth distribution to being a haven the anti-vaxxers, Freemen, etc which ended up at the end with a man of pensionable age shouting at the Gardai about chemtrails and Ulick McEvaddy's plot to rule the world.

For the record, I'd like to see the implementation of some elements of direct democracy, it's just this particular well is completely tainted by having Ben Gilroy as a figurehead.

Fools and opportunists will always bring them down.

Funniest post I've read in here in a long while, bang on as well

Am Chile

Deleted User wrote: »

First off, I am not a member and I don't fully understand what the party represents.

I think it's safe to say it's a left wing party, but other than that, would their stance on all issues be: Put it to the vote!

Where do you stand on abortion? Put it to the Vote!
Drugs? Put it to the Vote!

etc. etc.

I saw from their facebook that they're getting support from Pacub - Protest Against Cuts to Child Benefit. I would be firmly opposed to this as I personally think it should not be paid to high earners. But I suppose you can't like everything that a party stands for, and if it goes to a vote, the people would decide.

I've never belonged to a political party as I never found the right "fit". The closest philosophy that I am drawn to would be Libertarian Socialism.


www.directdemocracyireland.com

From pictures I have seen of the the launch from different facebook photos-a good few people in the photos I recognize straight away as known members of the local freemen on the land group-I won,t post any links of any photos because of possible legal issues uploading other peoples photos on a public forum-while Im strongly in favour of a direct democracy system like Switzerland and would be in favour of a similar system here-the very fact this new party has (freemen on the land members) I cast doubts over this new party.

SeanW

yore wrote: »

Good man yourself. Sure lets burn The Reichstag Leinster House while we're at it.

Godwinned in close to record time ...

Because the Swiss (who the idea of direct democracy is modelled after) are SOOO much like the Nazis ...

joe12345

Always remember that we the people own this country, not the banks or the politicians who were elected on lies and false promises!! It's time for every person in Ireland to unite together and rid Ireland of corruption. Every group, campaign or new party must realise that our only strength is our numbers so the sooner we all stand up against one cause the sooner each individual group will win it's battle.

I am however very saddened by the negative comments on here, and quite frankly some of them are defamation of the DDI leader, who I have met and is an honest and decent man, that has done a lot to help keep people in their homes all over Ireland that were facing eviction because they could not pay unsustainable mortgages to criminal bankers, that do not give a damn about the people, but only about profit.

The current system just does not work. Politicians always putting their own vested interests (pensions, etc.) and putting the banking cartel first and the people of Ireland second. It has become acceptable to tell lie after lie (e.g. 'not one more cent', etc.) and no one bats an eyelid. Hell they even tell us to 'get a life' ! I am sick of politicians that are sucking up before election time and then go back on most everything that was promised. They are really like a virus that has taken over Ireland, corrupt in every way .. look at the Supreme Court ruling last week, again showing the government to be the manipulators that they are.

I don't blame the politicians alone, but the system which is clearly broken. It's like a MAZE - it doesn't matter who you send in there after a while they are bound to either get lost or reach a dead end - in other words - it's the MAZE that has to change. That's why DDI is presenting itself a 'political system' rather than 'party'. At the moment we have a system, lets say like a production line in a manufacturing plant and a set of steps that produces a product at the end... well it's predictable isn't it? Exactly the same here, the Irish people complain about the corrupt politicians, such as Bertie, and some of the current ones, etc., but can we be surprised when we have a system that keeps producing them?

All the main political parties are just like different fingers on the same hand, all ultimately answering to their masters in Europe, puppets if you like, infact Enda Kenny got a a nice little reward for being the biggest puppet last week. And people wonder why nothing ever changes? The Mahon Tribunal Report during the summer (even though those with vested interests tried to sabotage and derail it) proved that recent Irish politics is immersed in dishonesty, corruption, cronyism and backhanders..... yet what steps have been put in place to ensure that never happens again? ..Nothing from what I can see, infact judging by the Minister Reilly fiasco a few weeks back, it's still part and parcel of Irish politics.

I just want the best for my family and the Irish people. I attended the DDI launch and there was a tremendous atmosphere there, with 200 plus people very positive that there a brighter future ahead for Ireland. And after whats gone before, and what we have at the moment, surely they deserve a fair chance? It seems people on here are unfairly condemning them for making an effort because they want a better Ireland. Sure, they have not all the answers, but in my opinion they have something that is of shortage - an empathy and understanding for the wants and needs of the Irish people. Please, for gods sake, I ask you to give them that chance

Note: I am not part of the Freeman on the Land group, or neither were the 3 people who were with me and numerous people I met. I have nothing against that group anyway. They, like me, just want what is best for Ireland and it's people. To be honest I would trust them more knowing that than if they were part of lets say the FF party!

yore

SeanW wrote: »

Godwinned in close to record time ...

Because the Swiss (who the idea of direct democracy is modelled after) are SOOO much like the Nazis ...

What have the Swiss got to do with the view expressed on here that we'd be better off without any TDs (and hence Dail/parliament) at all . Or are you trying to tell us that the Swiss have no parliament?

Just for future reference, it does no harm to read and comprehend a post before just jumping in with a picture of a cat. Because you might make yourself look very silly.

I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but if you want to talk about relationships between the Swiss and Nazis (for some reason), or pictures of cats, you should probably start a separate thread on it.

yore

joe12345 wrote: »

I am however very saddened by the negative comments on here, and quite frankly some of them are defamation of the DDI leader, who I have met and is an honest and decent man, that has done a lot to help keep people in their homes all over Ireland that were facing eviction because they could not pay unsustainable mortgages to criminal bankers, that do not give a damn about the people, but only about profit.

Nobody forced them to take out unsustainable mortgages. Letting them keep the houses is creating a new aristocracy at the expense of the less well off. You possibly only see it otherwise because you either have a mortgage, or are close to someone who does, and don't see yourself as "wealthy".

joe12345 wrote: »

The current system just does not work. Politicians always putting their own vested interests (pensions, etc.) and putting the banking cartel first and the people of Ireland second.

Again see above for explanation how this is ironic. People with mortgages they can't pay want society, including those with no property, to give them a free ride and free property wealth. And somehow they aren't putting their "vested interests" first? :rolleyes:

joe12345 wrote: »

It has become acceptable to tell lie after lie (e.g. 'not one more cent', etc.) and no one bats an eyelid. Hell they even tell us to 'get a life' ! I am sick of politicians that are sucking up before election time and then go back on most everything that was promised. They are really like a virus that has taken over Ireland, corrupt in every way .. look at the Supreme Court ruling last week, again showing the government to be the manipulators that they are.

joe12345 wrote: »

I don't blame the politicians alone, but the system which is clearly broken. It's like a MAZE - it doesn't matter who you send in there after a while they are bound to either get lost or reach a dead end - in other words - it's the MAZE that has to change. That's why DDI is presenting itself a 'political system' rather than 'party'. At the moment we have a system, lets say like a production line in a manufacturing plant and a set of steps that produces a product at the end... well it's predictable isn't it? Exactly the same here, the Irish people complain about the corrupt politicians, such as Bertie, and some of the current ones, etc., but can we be surprised when we have a system that keeps producing them?

"Unfortunately" , the system we have is democracy. So if your local politician promise you the moon and stars to vote for him, and you believe him and he goes to the Dail, then the greater democracy will overrule him. If you have a local issue go to one of your meetings, you will be meeting people who are a lot like you, in similar situation. You will get a biased opinion that your view is widespread and correct. Then you vote for some politician who promises to fix what is effectively a local vested interest. When he goes to society at large, then the greater democracy kicks in.

joe12345 wrote: »

I just want the best for my family and the Irish people. I attended the DDI launch and there was a tremendous atmosphere there, with 200 plus people very positive that there a brighter future ahead for Ireland. And after whats gone before, and what we have at the moment, surely they deserve a fair chance? It seems people on here are unfairly condemning them for making an effort because they want a better Ireland. Sure, they have not all the answers, but in my opinion they have something that is of shortage - an empathy and understanding for the wants and needs of the Irish people. Please, for gods sake, I ask you to give them that chance

We live in a democratic country. You have a"fair chance" already. "Fair chance" means you can set up and broadcast your ideas. It doesn't mean that I have to bow down to them if i think they are frankly silly and unworkable and, ironically, driven by some with vested interests at least as great as the current ones that you bemoan

billbrifinlay

Re: DDi Party. Checkout Wikipedia Switzerland and then comment !

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

.....and how would you protect minorities?

Ah Nodin, a man totally obsessed with all things minorities related. One particular set of minorities in particular.

Conjecture removed

yore wrote: »

I'm not sure what you're trying to do, but if you want to talk about relationships between the Swiss and Nazis (for some reason), or pictures of cats, you should probably start a separate thread on it.

On a number of occasions, you've thrown the "Nazi" label at people you disagree with, with references to a Fuhrer and the Reichstag Fire.

You've also tried to dismiss proponents of direct democracy with smears about "hardcore Tea Partiers"

yore wrote:

"Direct Democracy" seems like something that hardcore US Republicans/Tea Partiers would be in favour of!

I don't agree with abolishing TDs altogether, if that's what you were objecting to, but my posts' point was twofold:

1. You invoked Godwins law by making spurious "Reducto Ad Nazium" arguments.
2. Switzerland is what most people would consider the ideal example of direct democracy, yet for some reason the country isn't crawling with Nazis and Tea Partiers ...

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

Ah Nodin, a man totally obsessed with all things minorities related. One particular set of minorities in particular.

Whats that supposed to mean, exactly?

SeanW wrote: »

Let me translate that for those not familiar with you:

Please remove the quote box from around that nonsense. I never said any such thing.

SeanW

If I understood your post correctly, you oppose direct democracy on the basis that it doesn't protect minorities or whatever. Presumably you have in mind the Swiss minarent ban, which affects a minority that you have a particularly high view of.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

If I understood your post correctly, you oppose direct democracy on the basis that it doesn't protect minorities or whatever. Presumably you have in mind the Swiss minarent ban, which affects a minority that you have a particularly high view of.

...actually the first minority that came to mind was single mothers, in this instance. However its liable to affect smokers, minority sports, music interests....and yes, possibly muslims, immigrants and such like too.

For the second time - would you kindly remove the quote box from around that bit of nonsense in your post?

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

...actually the first minority that came to mind was single mothers, in this instance. However its liable to affect smokers, minority sports, music interests....and yes, possibly muslims, immigrants and such like too.

For the second time - would you kindly remove the quote box from around that bit of nonsense in your post?

Seems I misread your post. Got serious egg-on-face now. But I do recall very clearly that after the result of that referendum the reaction of the Swiss political class was "some things people just shouldn't be allowed to vote on" and I assumed (incorrectly perhaps?) that was your view too.

I stand over my view though that the will of the people should come above that of the political class. That would have made it virtually impossible for FF to piss away the wealth of the next two generations with the ruinous bank guarnatee of ~2008.

I'd also like you to explain some of your comments about:

• Smokers? If people were to decide that smoking should be actively discouraged, what could reasonably go wrong?
• Minority sports, music interests? Again what could possibly go wrong here?

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

Seems I misread your post. Got serious egg-on-face now. But I do recall very clearly that after the result of that referendum the reaction of the Swiss political class was "some things people just shouldn't be allowed to vote on" and I assumed (incorrectly perhaps?) that was your view too.

....it is my view, but it wasn't centred on muslims in regards to this state. There are other groups which receive far more flak here.

SeanW wrote: »

I'd also like you to explain some of your comments about:

• Smokers? If people were to decide that smoking should be actively discouraged, what could reasonably go wrong?
• Minority sports, music interests? Again what could possibly go wrong here?

People being banned from smoking in their own home, people being banned from playing sports because of freak accidents or joe duffyesque inspired hysteria, likewise music. A state governed by a kneejerk mob - the political class are bad enough as it is.

yore

SeanW wrote: »

On a number of occasions, you've thrown the "Nazi" label at people you disagree with, with references to a Fuhrer and the Reichstag Fire.

Eh no. I threw no labels at anyone. Stop making shit up. I don't know why you keep going on about the Swiss and Nazis. People were saying we could/should get rid of TDs and hence the Dail. If you want an example of a country that basically did away with it's functioning parliament I would give Germany as a first example. Another example I could have given would be Cuba or perhaps China or Zimbabwe. If I had used Zimbabwe would you have deduced that I was saying Swiss people were black? That makes as much sense logically as you thinking I was calling Swiss people Nazis.

SeanW wrote: »

You've also tried to dismiss proponents of direct democracy with smears about "hardcore Tea Partiers"

Why is that a smear? And yes, there are a lot of similarities from what I've seen in the video from the DDI website.

SeanW wrote: »

I don't agree with abolishing TDs altogether, if that's what you were objecting to, but my posts' point was twofold:

1. You invoked Godwins law by making spurious "Reducto Ad Nazium" arguments.
2. Switzerland is what most people would consider the ideal example of direct democracy, yet for some reason the country isn't crawling with Nazis and Tea Partiers ...

What's your obsession with the Swiss and Nazis? Yeah they still have plenty of their gold (....according to Bill Bailey ) but that's another thread. I never mentioned Switzerland. I was responding to people who supported the abolition of our Dail!

"Reducto ad bullshite"

SeanW

Nodin wrote: »

....it is my view ... a kneejerk mob

Thank you for confirming that my initial suspicions were not entirely wrong.

What you're saying is, that because people as a whole disagree with your world view (including your views on multiculturalism) they should be silenced?

Why is that a smear?

You said "Hardcore U.S. Republicans/Tea Partiers" like it was an insult, which I presume you meant it to be. It also appeared that you were speaking of direct democracy as a concept, not of DDI.

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

Thank you for confirming that my initial suspicions were not entirely wrong.

What you're saying is, that because people as a whole disagree with your world view (including your views on multiculturalism) they should be silenced?.

No, they can say what they want. I'm saying that the mob shouldn't have the final say over minorities whereby it affects their lives. Were that principle followed here post independence, there would have been divorce and contraception, for instance.

SeanW

from where? The people were ruled by the Catholic Church, and the political class had a similar view. Only a dictatorship would have yielded the desired changes.

yore

SeanW wrote: »

You said "Hardcore U.S. Republicans/Tea Partiers" like it was an insult, which I presume you meant it to be. It also appeared that you were speaking of direct democracy as a concept, not of DDI.

I looked at the video on the front if the DDI website. They talked about things like the people taking back the power from the state bodies and having the freedoms to say no to interference from the state and have more control over their way of life.................Sound very much like something a a Hardcore Republican/Tea-partier would want.

If you think that was an insult to use the comparison, then that's your interpretation of it. There are plenty of Americans proud to call themselves hardcore Republicans. It's a mainstream political belief. I just thought it was ironic as I get the impression that this DDI is driven by laminate "lefties".

Nodin

SeanW wrote: »

from where? The people were ruled by the Catholic Church, and the political class had a similar view. Only a dictatorship would have yielded the desired changes.

...or the recognition that minorities should be allowed their views.

hatrickpatrick

yore wrote: »

Nobody forced them to take out unsustainable mortgages. Letting them keep the houses is creating a new aristocracy at the expense of the less well off.

Nobody forced the bondholders to invest in unsustainable banks, forcing the entire nation to repay them for their stupidity creates a new aristocracy at the expense of everyone.

Under a participatory democracy I see zero chance of that happening.

If one deserves a bailout so does the other - particularly when it's every citizen in this country that has been forced to repay the banks' debts. I wonder if we can calculate how much percentage of the 80-odd billion we've put into the banks was paid in tax by each individual citizen, and deduct that from their mortgages? That sounds like a fair solution to me...

yore

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Nobody forced the bondholders to invest in unsustainable banks, forcing the entire nation to repay them for their stupidity creates a new aristocracy at the expense of everyone.

This is, frankly, bullshit.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If one deserves a bailout so does the other - particularly when it's every citizen in this country that has been forced to repay the banks' debts. I wonder if we can calculate how much percentage of the 80-odd billion we've put into the banks was paid in tax by each individual citizen, and deduct that from their mortgages? That sounds like a fair solution to me...

See above. Where will this money come from?

yore

yore wrote: »

This is, frankly, bullshit.




See above. Where will this money come from?

As I got warned for the above, I will expand using more appropriate language.

It is completely illogical to associate paying bondholder with "creating a new aristocracy".
Bondholders are people who lend money to an institution. They have money and they lend it out. Of course there is a chance that they don't get it back but there are pros and cons of repaying them. But they already had the money so you are not maKing an aristocracy.
Equity holders buy shares in the bank. They got no bailout (other than in the sense that their shares went to near zero as opposed to actually zero by virtue of government intervention.) If a shareholder got a massive loan, a la Sean Quinn, to buy shares and they tank, then they lose that money. This is the analogy that you are looking for for people who overborrowed to buy property.Sean Quinn should not get refunded nor have those loans reduced and neither should the people who overborrowed.
Paying back a bondholder, right or wrong, is paying owed money back. Allowing greedy eejits to keep the 10 apartments they bought-to-let on the back of their zero-qualification estate agent wages is just giving enormous wealth to someone who never did anything to justify it.

The irony is that a lot of people reading this would have lost money had these evil "bondholders" not breen repaid. Because a lot of your credit unions and pension funds might have gone bust. But of course, that is conveniently ignored by the rabble-rousing, self-serving people who feel entitled to everything for free and prefer to project an image of a "bondholder" as an evil Bond-villian-type or "lizard person" ruling the world from behind the scenes.

As for your other point, you want the equivalent of the money pumped into the banks to be given to the citizens... Do you not realise where the money comes from? Are the ECB/IMF going to hand over 60bn as a loan to give everyone a heap of "free money". That makes no sense.

KyussBishop

yore wrote: »

As for your other point, you want the equivalent of the money pumped into the banks to be given to the citizens... Do you not realise where the money comes from? Are the ECB/IMF going to hand over 60bn as a loan to give everyone a heap of "free money". That makes no sense.

Money (in a fiat currency system) comes, literally, out of nowhere; the ECB can tap digits into a computer and spew out arseloads of money if they want, and (just like the infrastructure projects they funded) they don't have to add that onto our national debt.

yore

KyussBishop wrote: »

Money (in a fiat currency system) comes, literally, out of nowhere; the ECB can tap digits into a computer and spew out arseloads of money if they want, and (just like the infrastructure projects they funded) they don't have to add that onto our national debt.

Of course. It isn't even on a computer. But there are reasons why they don't do it. It's a slippery slope to Robert Mugabe economics. We could easily "bail out" Greece by doubling the amount of Euros in circulation "for free". Only thing is that you'll pay for it through the inflation ripping your savings and wages tro shreds.

And if you want to get technical, "creating" money to pay for infrastructure is perfectly valid as the money itself is backed by society and the wealth of that society, which has been increased by that infrastructure.... Not so much so for a "bailout"

KyussBishop

yore wrote: »

Of course. It isn't even on a computer. But there are reasons why they don't do it. It's a slippery slope to Robert Mugabe economics. We could easily "bail out" Greece by doubling the amount of Euros in circulation "for free". Only thing is that you'll pay for it through the inflation ripping your savings and wages tro shreds.

And if you want to get technical, "creating" money to pay for infrastructure is perfectly valid as the money itself is backed by society and the wealth of that society, which has been increased by that infrastructure.... Not so much so for a "bailout"

Again the hyperinflation myth; as I've been repeating endlessly in threads the last week, the ECB has printed over €1 trillion thus far to fund bailouts, and this has not created hyperinflation.

Money creation does not lead to hyperinflation, that is wholly unbacked scaremongering, and there are multiple ways to manage the potential for inflation.

yore

KyussBishop wrote: »

Again the hyperinflation myth; as I've been repeating endlessly in threads the last week, the ECB has printed over €1 trillion thus far to fund bailouts, and this has not created hyperinflation.

Money creation does not lead to hyperinflation, that is wholly unbacked scaremongering, and there are multiple ways to manage the potential for inflation.

Wholly unbacked money creates inflation. Simple as.

KyussBishop

yore wrote: »

Wholly unbacked money creates inflation. Simple as.

That is falsified by the ECB's printing of over 1 trillion euro; that is simply false, proven so.

Sierra Oscar

I think the idea behind the new party is good intentioned, but I am not entirely sure if the wider electorate will embrace it.

Personally I feel that the ordinary citizen wishes to elect someone to legislate for them - they have the confidence that they will legislate on their behalf. They do not want continuous plebiscites for matters of policy. Public representatives are there to legislate on behalf of the electorate. Low turnouts in various referendums demonstrates that in my view.

Also it will be very hard for anyone to get elected. What will the platform for election be, what will they believe in? Just saying 'Oh well we will ask you to vote on those matters' will not cut it with the wider electorate. They elect you to legislate on their behalf.

yore

KyussBishop wrote: »

That is falsified by the ECB's printing of over 1 trillion euro; that is simply false, proven so.

Not quite.

http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=EUR&to=JPY&view=5Y



I didn't pick USD for the simple reason that they had their own "quantitative easing" programme.

KyussBishop

Almost every currency in the world dropped against the Yen over the last 5 years, that actually doesn't show anything at all, other than the fact that the EU is performing quite poorly.

You don't even show how that data correlates with periods of money supply expansion.

If the EU put €10 billion into a job guarantee program, how much inflation will we get? What about €100 billion, or even a trillion?

yore

KyussBishop wrote: »

Almost every currency in the world dropped against the Yen over the last 5 years, that actually doesn't show anything at all, other than the fact that the EU is performing quite poorly.

You don't even show how that data correlates with periods of money supply expansion.

If the EU put €10 billion into a job guarantee program, how much inflation will we get? What about €100 billion, or even a trillion?

http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=EUR&to=AUD&view=5Y
http://www.xe.com/currencycharts/?from=EUR&to=CNY&view=5Y


"Periods of money expansion" is a misnomer in any case. These things are factored into the market long before they become policy.

Even forget about your inflation. The ECB would be creating a huge moral hazard if it just printed extra money to give to Ireland/Greece/Spain/Portugal. This is completely separate from the DDI which this thread is about. Unless the DDI want money to be printed by the ECB for them? I didn't think that from what was said

KyussBishop

yore wrote: »

"Periods of money expansion" is a misnomer in any case. These things are factored into the market long before they become policy.

If these things are factored into the market long before they become policy, that's directly saying money creation doesn't create inflation, but that it's an effect of market perception.

yore wrote: »

Even forget about your inflation. The ECB would be creating a huge moral hazard if it just printed extra money to give to Ireland/Greece/Spain/Portugal. This is completely separate from the DDI which this thread is about. Unless the DDI want money to be printed by the ECB for them? I didn't think that from what was said

The ECB have created a huge moral hazard by printing money and giving it wholesale to the banks, bailing out bondholders and incentivizing 'too big to fail' institutions, and are undergoing morally reprehensible policy decisions through forcing people into unemployment, and creating the 'moral hazard' of rewarding the finance industry for the crisis, by pushing austerity and forcing governments into privatization programs and selling off of assets.

Since it's apparently a moral hazard for governments to, essentially, be given money, maybe tax overall is a moral hazard? What a ridiculous argument.

Was it a moral hazard for the EU to fund the various infrastructure programs across the continent? (something which would probably be a component of any job guarantee program)

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Nobody forced the bondholders to invest in unsustainable banks, forcing the entire nation to repay them for their stupidity creates a new aristocracy at the expense of everyone..

Nobody forced the entire nation to repay them. The FF government in September 2008 decided to repay them of its own accord. The repayments since then are a consequence of that guarantee. Once a sovereign government gives its word, it must keep its word.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

If one deserves a bailout so does the other - particularly when it's every citizen in this country that has been forced to repay the banks' debts. I wonder if we can calculate how much percentage of the 80-odd billion we've put into the banks was paid in tax by each individual citizen, and deduct that from their mortgages? That sounds like a fair solution to me...

We made one stupid decision in September 2008 already. Why should we make a second ridiculously stupid decision?

yore

KyussBishop wrote: »

Since it's apparently a moral hazard for governments to, essentially, be given money, maybe tax overall is a moral hazard? What a ridiculous argument.

Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying with this argument. It seems to come out of the blue and then you call it ridiculous yourself. Moral hazard occours with an asymmetric risk/return payoff. For example, if you know that you can get a loan from your friend to go down the bookies and spend the day betting it in the knowledge that if you can't pay the loan back, your friend will let you away with it and give you another one tomorrow. If you win at the bookies, you keep the winnings, and if you lose all the money, you don't lose anything. And in anticipation of your next point, no, these evil "bondholders" aren't speculative gamblers. The bondholder is the friend that lent you the money expecting it back in good faith.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Was it a moral hazard for the EU to fund the various infrastructure programs across the continent? (something which would probably be a component of any job guarantee program)

See above for an explanation of the term "moral hazard". When someone says that printing money to give to Greece for example creates a moral hazard, they don't mean the act of the printing itself is bad. It just means that it creates an atmosphere whereby people who do not follow the rules (talking about Greece here) know they can't lose and so might as well take risky gambles. I don't see any logic that could link an EU infrastructure project to "moral hazard" unless the EU were jumping in to clean up and complete private sector projects that the private sector companies messed up and were allowed to walk away from without consequences.

yore

KyussBishop wrote: »

If these things are factored into the market long before they become policy, that's directly saying money creation doesn't create inflation, but that it's an effect of market perception.

Sorry, I never addressed this part. Your conclusion is too simplisitic. To put it in basic terms printing money just for the sake of it (to devalue a currency or quantitative easing) is generally not a good thing. It's only done if it really needs to be done. So the market is not perceiving that they might decide to do this things, it is perceiving whether or not they will have to!
There are different theories on market efficiency. That means the amount of imformation known and incorporated into market prices already. But the idea is that the market is continually assessing the situation and if the market knows that the ECB is going to have to print a trillion Euros in a few months, that will be priced into things now. It does not mean that the market perception "causes inflation".
The market usually gives signals for major events/decisions in advance and there are many examples of this. If you want an example, you can think of your famous "bailout". The shares of Irish banks had tanked dramatically in the months leading up to the bailout. Yet when the Anglo boys went up to givernment buildings they gave the books to say that that it was a liquidity problem and not solvency. The market was right and the government/"expert" advisors/audited books were wrong. The market didn't cause it. It may have hastened it, but didn't cause it.

KyussBishop

yore wrote: »

Sorry, I don't understand what you are saying with this argument. It seems to come out of the blue and then you call it ridiculous yourself. Moral hazard occours with an asymmetric risk/return payoff. For example, if you know that you can get a loan from your friend to go down the bookies and spend the day betting it in the knowledge that if you can't pay the loan back, your friend will let you away with it and give you another one tomorrow. If you win at the bookies, you keep the winnings, and if you lose all the money, you don't lose anything. And in anticipation of your next point, no, these evil "bondholders" aren't speculative gamblers. The bondholder is the friend that lent you the money expecting it back in good faith.

I know what moral hazard is, and your basic argument was that 'giving governments money' is a moral hazard, which is ridiculous.
The money wouldn't even be going to government either, it would be going straight into a job guarantee program, just like EU funding an infrastructure project.

The bondholder took a risk in investing, and it is precisely a moral hazard to bail out the bondholder when his investment turns sour, because you promote risky investments by giving people the idea that they will be bailed out (just like the way 'too big to fail' banks are a moral hazard; they cause too much economic damage if not bailed out, so expect one and thus engage in more risky/destructive behaviour).

yore wrote: »

See above for an explanation of the term "moral hazard". When someone says that printing money to give to Greece for example creates a moral hazard, they don't mean the act of the printing itself is bad. It just means that it creates an atmosphere whereby people who do not follow the rules (talking about Greece here) know they can't lose and so might as well take risky gambles. I don't see any logic that could link an EU infrastructure project to "moral hazard" unless the EU were jumping in to clean up and complete private sector projects that the private sector companies messed up and were allowed to walk away from without consequences.

Right so you've just said a job guarantee (which can be synonymous with an infrastructure project, quite easily), funded by printed money, has no moral hazard.

yore wrote:

Sorry, I never addressed this part. Your conclusion is too simplisitic. To put it in basic terms printing money just for the sake of it (to devalue a currency or quantitative easing) is generally not a good thing. It's only done if it really needs to be done. So the market is not perceiving that they might decide to do this things, it is perceiving whether or not they will have to!
There are different theories on market efficiency. That means the amount of imformation known and incorporated into market prices already. But the idea is that the market is continually assessing the situation and if the market knows that the ECB is going to have to print a trillion Euros in a few months, that will be priced into things now. It does not mean that the market perception "causes inflation".
The market usually gives signals for major events/decisions in advance and there are many examples of this. If you want an example, you can think of your famous "bailout". The shares of Irish banks had tanked dramatically in the months leading up to the bailout. Yet when the Anglo boys went up to givernment buildings they gave the books to say that that it was a liquidity problem and not solvency. The market was right and the government/"expert" advisors/audited books were wrong. The market didn't cause it. It may have hastened it, but didn't cause it.

So if you weren't saying inflation was tied more to market perception than money supply, then that brings us back to this question:
If the EU put €10 billion into a job guarantee program, how much inflation will we get? What about €100 billion, or even a trillion?

yore

KyussBishop wrote: »

I know what moral hazard is, and your basic argument was that 'giving governments money' is a moral hazard, which is ridiculous.
The money wouldn't even be going to government either, it would be going straight into a job guarantee program, just like EU funding an infrastructure project.

No. I never said that. That's silly. "Giving governments money" is not a moral hazard. However having a system where a country can choose to balance it books or not when it knows that they will receive a no-strings attached lump of free printed money creates one. Giving the money itself is not a bad thing. Ireland benefitted massively from EU money, as have other countries.

I don't know where you are going with the second part because I never talked about anything like that. This started when anopther poster suggested that anyone with a mortgage should receive a discount on their mortgage proportionate to the per capita amount that the "Troika" gave us in loans.

KyussBishop wrote: »

The bondholder took a risk in investing, and it is precisely a moral hazard to bail out the bondholder when his investment turns sour, because you promote risky investments by giving people the idea that they will be bailed out (just like the way 'too big to fail' banks are a moral hazard; they cause too much economic damage if not bailed out, so expect one and thus engage in more risky/destructive behaviour).

The moral hazard is created by letting the banks getting "too big to fail" in the first place. Protecting "Too big to fail" banks was not done to protect "bondholders" in some conspiracy to keep rich people rich. It was to protect the overall system. The problem was the banks were let get into those situations in the first place. Note that the owners (shareholders) of the banks, took full hits in most of such cases. Lehmans went to the wall. Would it have been correct to let all the Irish banks go to the wall? I would not like to be in the country if that happened! If you think it is bad now, you have no understading of that scenario. As I saw one poster on here before mention, when Ulster Bank went offline for a week, there was huge trouble. imagine a scenario where there was no money in the ATMs and you could not withdraw any of your savings in any manner. That is, the fraction of your savings that you would get back. What you call "savings" is actually a loan of your money to the bank. It is like having a smaller version of a "bond". This is why senior bonds are ranked level with deposits. Burning the "bondholders" would also entail burning depositors. Of course you could have a 100k guarantee cap or something to that effect. But senior bondholders are no more gamblers than the person who tries to deposit their savings in the bank that offers them the best interest rate.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Right so you've just said a job guarantee (which can be synonymous with an infrastructure project, quite easily), funded by printed money, has no moral hazard.

No. I never mentioned a job guarantee. I said an infrastructure project is not a "moral hazard". Again that's silly.
I gave a hypothetical example of where it could theoretically be, if it was a project that was originally given to a private sector company but they were allowed to walk away scott free after messing it up. But the project itself wouldn't be gthe moral hazard, the willingness to jump in and clean up the mess of the other company would lend itself to moral hazard.

KyussBishop wrote: »

So if you weren't saying inflation was tied more to market perception than money supply, then that brings us back to this question:
If the EU put €10 billion into a job guarantee program, how much inflation will we get? What about €100 billion, or even a trillion?

I don't know? How much money is in circulation? That might be a crude estimate before ignoring multiplier effects which would increase inflation and improvement of the economy in general, which would strengthen the Euro and have a decreasing effect.
I don't even know what you mean by "job guarantee program"? What is that? One where you guarantee that employers can't sack their employees? That's a crazy idea. Sure all the employers would just say "I can't afford to pay KryussBishop his million a year....oh, but the government guarantees your job so I guess they can cover your wages and I can keep it for free". I'm only being slightly facetious here.

I never said anything about inflation being tied to market perception. You said that there had been no effect of 1trillion Euro on inflation. I gave you a graph of some FX rates. FX rates contribute to inflation. For example, for the first one I gave you, it will cost you 1.6 times the Euro amount today that it would have cost you to buy Yen about 3 years ago. On a simplistic basis, that Japanese stereo that the manufacturer charged 100 Euro (i.e 16000 Y) three years ago, will cost about 160 Euro (still 16000 Y) today. You then wanted me to point out the times that corresponded to printing the money and I said that these are factored into the market in advance of it happening. That's all. Yes, there are lots of other factors coming into play but I never stated that money supply was the only one. It would be generally accepted to be a large contributary factor. (I anticipate that you may well point to the case of the USA to offer some counter arguments but the USA is a special case given the dollars perception around the world as the global reserve currency.)

This thread isn't about macroeconomic theory. I'm not going to talk any more about this.

KyussBishop

yore wrote:

No. I never said that. That's silly. "Giving governments money" is not a moral hazard. However having a system where a country can choose to balance it books or not when it knows that they will receive a no-strings attached lump of free printed money creates one. Giving the money itself is not a bad thing. Ireland benefitted massively from EU money, as have other countries.

That's a false dilemma though; that is not a problem that exists.

yore wrote:

The moral hazard is created by letting the banks getting "too big to fail" in the first place. Protecting "Too big to fail" banks was not done to protect "bondholders" in some conspiracy to keep rich people rich. It was to protect the overall system.

Since when was protecting bondholders important for the integrity of the system? That just compounds the moral hazard even more, beyond the initial moral hazard of letting the banks get too big.

Burning the bondholders is definitely not the same as burning the depositors.

yore wrote:

I don't know? How much money is in circulation? That might be a crude estimate before ignoring multiplier effects which would increase inflation and improvement of the economy in general, which would strengthen the Euro and have a decreasing effect.
I don't even know what you mean by "job guarantee program"? What is that? One where you guarantee that employers can't sack their employees? That's a crazy idea. Sure all the employers would just say "I can't afford to pay KryussBishop his million a year....oh, but the government guarantees your job so I guess they can cover your wages and I can keep it for free". I'm only being slightly facetious here.

A job guarantee program is creating temporary jobs, through public money (in this case printed), to soak up the unemployed part of the workforce.

yore wrote:

I never said anything about inflation being tied to market perception. You said that there had been no effect of 1trillion Euro on inflation. I gave you a graph of some FX rates. FX rates contribute to inflation. For example, for the first one I gave you, it will cost you 1.6 times the Euro amount today that it would have cost you to buy Yen about 3 years ago.

The Yen isn't representative of inflation though; in fact, they are a perfect representation of market perception when it comes to currency, because Japan has a 200% debt to GDP level when it comes to public debt, showing countries can run enormous deficits and still retain a strong currency.

yore wrote:

This thread isn't about macroeconomic theory. I'm not going to talk any more about this.

Fair enough, best to leave it there as it has been brought quite off topic.

Esel

Afaik, there is a certain degree of direct democracy available at a local level.

For instance, if a majority of householders on a particular street indicate that they want the name of the street changed, the local council will implement the change.

Am Chile

A few months later after the launch of ddi they seem to have to growing fast in membership-from what I have seen on facebook they now have a good few branches in a few different areas-not bad for a new party only a few months old-there are a lot of other left parties around years that dont the same number of branches ddi presently has.

smurgen

Am Chile wrote: »

A few months later after the launch of ddi they seem to have to growing fast in membership-from what I have seen on facebook they now have a good few branches in a few different areas-not bad for a new party only a few months old-there are a lot of other left parties around years that dont the same number of branches ddi presently has.

I would be a supporter of this idea.Having lived in Switzerland and seen how the system operates it seems to give real power to the people.Even if things go wrong or are messed up the blame lies squarely on the public and there are no scapegoats.

Scofflaw

Am Chile wrote: »

A few months later after the launch of ddi they seem to have to growing fast in membership-from what I have seen on facebook they now have a good few branches in a few different areas-not bad for a new party only a few months old-there are a lot of other left parties around years that dont the same number of branches ddi presently has.

I'm in favour of direct democracy, but a little concerned about the Freeman links DDI has.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Phoebas

I don't get why we need a whole new party to try and get a single policy implemented. A political campaign / pressure group might be a better way.

Looking at their website, the idea of direct democracy is just one of their policies.
Here are a couple more:

2. Launch a full independent, international legal review of the bailout, which we hold to be an odious debt and illegal under international law.

Hardly a 'policy' at all and they don't spell out what the scope of the review would be, how the reviewers would be selected and exactly how it would be 'independent'. DDI seem to be certain that the bailout is unlawful, so I'd like to be sure that they aren't just proposing to get the state to pay for the legal advise that they want to see.

But wait...

3. Suspend all payments relating to the bailout, capital and interest, pending the results of the legal review.

They are going to default pending the result of the legal review. Isn't that pre-emptive and surely this is contrary to their central policy of direct democracy? Shouldn't they be offering a referendum on something as serious as a default if they are to remain true to their ideals?

Their policies continue in this vein - halt the sale of any state assets, halt all repossessions etc and a series of reviews of everything and anything (I suppose these are just 'holding' policies until they can get their act together).

I think I'll pass.

Robbo

Scofflaw wrote: »

I'm in favour of direct democracy, but a little concerned about the Freeman links DDI has.

cordially,
Scofflaw

In their latest missive regarding the Court of Appeal, they revert to type and refer to the "BAR" as being the enemies of lay litgants. This of course being part of the standard Freeman spiel that the entire courts system is some vague Monarchist/Maritime law conspiracy and BAR stands for British Accredited Registry.

It should be noted that the proposal they appear to be backing for dealing with the Supreme Court (the Master of the High Court's pre-hearing guilotine system) backlog would most likely result in more lay litigants being denied their day in the Supreme Court and quicker reposessions.

Were any of those here who are members polled or consulted on this line they're taking?