The Anti-Austerity Crowd

Bruthal

bluewolf wrote: »

I hate when they have more things than I do and someone should take their things away from them because it's just like so unfair

Or..... Look at them, they dont have much, serves them right, I worked harder than them for my millions. Lets take more off them.

Bruthal

hfallada wrote: »

They believe rich should pay more, but dont realise they pretty much pay all the taxes in society

Is that because they are so heavily taxed, or because they are so rich?

and get very little in return

Its likely on the way to getting rich, they benefited from the educated skills of others, paid for by all tax payers. They also likely have more influence in society than someone who has nothing.

L'Enfer du Nord

beardy_murphy wrote: »

the " rich " will - should pay

thats where their arguement starts and ends , their isnt anything more to it

it actually not as sophisticated as that, it's actually "someone else should pay, but not me"

"Fairness" is usually also invoked also "fault" or the lack there of,"through no fault of their own". Unfortunately the world's not fair, however it seems fair to me that people should pay to use water.

AnonoBoy

Like most sane people I believe that everyone except for me should pay a fair amount of tax.

Where's my candidate?

KyussBishop

The whole 'who to tax' line of argument really is a distraction. The problem, is the ways that wealth can be redistributed upward (from the rest of society to some of the wealthy), and this happens through fraud/corruption and legal means of gaining unearned income (such as by promoting and speculating upon, economic bubbles in various forms - among many other ways).

I don't get why people focus on the tax issue so much. Right now we're seeing a new chain of events, Property Bubble 2.0, which is probably going to lead to another upward redistribution of wealth, to the well-off folk who get rich through being involved in that - yet nobody gives at toss about that, even though it's a far more important problem than any taxes.

L'Enfer du Nord

AnonoBoy wrote: »

Like most sane people I believe that everyone except for me should pay a fair amount of tax.

Where's my candidate?

Why waste time with a candidate openly arguing your case, they may get elected but the are unlikely to be in a position of power, if they do see power real politik will dictate that they won't actually go thru with there promise to tax you less.

What you need to do is what the rich do, butter up politicians behind the scenes convince them that you are no ordinary person and that every time you take a piss it has a trickle down and has a positive effect on the rest on the economy and the govt.'s chances of reelection. in return they'll introduce tax breaks to help you, 'stimulus' packages to act as price supports for your shoddy produce, they'll even make it easier for you to be a tax exile.

The anti-austerity crowd are mostly a bunch of retail politics opportunists their only saving grace is they are a bit more out in the open than vested interest lobby groups. Also they'll probably ultimately fail, unlike the developer class who despite losing billions have still mostly managed to keep their mansions etc.

SafeSurfer

mickydoomsux wrote: »

We're very used to not paying for certain things and just take them for granted.

People go nuts when they are asked to foot the bill for a "free" service.

A "free service" like owning a home?

Cazzoenorme

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

And where does that money to pay it back come from in the first place?

The cash that customers deposit. The money is just moved around. No new money is actually created.

Cazzoenorme

KyussBishop wrote: »

The whole 'who to tax' line of argument really is a distraction. The problem, is the ways that wealth can be redistributed upward (from the rest of society to some of the wealthy), and this happens through fraud/corruption and legal means of gaining unearned income (such as by promoting and speculating upon, economic bubbles in various forms - among many other ways).

I don't get why people focus on the tax issue so much. Right now we're seeing a new chain of events, Property Bubble 2.0, which is probably going to lead to another upward redistribution of wealth, to the well-off folk who get rich through being involved in that - yet nobody gives at toss about that, even though it's a far more important problem than any taxes.

If someone takes a risk and invests in an asset to earn profit then they have earned that income imo. What is wrong with speculative trading?

KyussBishop

Cazzoenorme wrote: »

The cash that customers deposit. The money is just moved around. No new money is actually created.

If that were true, the money supply would be the same size as 14 years ago, yet it isn't.

Since the money supply has grown, where has the new money been introduced to the economy? (what is the point of entry?)

KyussBishop

Cazzoenorme wrote: »

If someone takes a risk and invests in an asset to earn profit then they have earned that income imo. What is wrong with speculative trading?

If they're helping to blow up an asset bubble - one which affects all of society negatively, such as the property bubble (helping actively, which includes lobbying, banking and government connections, not just through investing) - in order to either profit from or speculate on that, that is not earned, that is exploiting the property market to enrich a small subset of people, who can afford to speculate in it.

Mr. Incognito

KyussBishop wrote: »

If that were true, the money supply would be the same size as 14 years ago, yet it isn't.

Since the money supply has grown, where has the new money been introduced to the economy? (what is the point of entry?)

It's called quantative easing. I.e the central bank prints more money hoping to inflate the debt away

KyussBishop

Mr. Incognito wrote: »

It's called quantative easing. I.e the central bank prints more money hoping to inflate the debt away

I'm talking about money in nominal terms (i.e. not involving changes in the value of money, but in the quantity of money): Where does the new money come from, if not through bank loans? (debt wasn't even mentioned I don't think)

Cazzoenorme

KyussBishop wrote: »

If that were true, the money supply would be the same size as 14 years ago, yet it isn't.

Since the money supply has grown, where has the new money been introduced to the economy? (what is the point of entry?)

The central bank prints more money.

Cazzoenorme

KyussBishop wrote: »

If they're helping to blow up an asset bubble - one which affects all of society negatively, such as the property bubble (helping actively, which includes lobbying, banking and government connections, not just through investing) - in order to either profit from or speculate on that, that is not earned, that is exploiting the property market to enrich a small subset of people, who can afford to speculate in it.

Or they could make losses like many have.

KyussBishop

Cazzoenorme wrote: »

The central bank prints more money.

Aaannd...where does it come into the economy?

Just a reminder as well: You're in disagreement with the Bank of England.

KyussBishop

Cazzoenorme wrote: »

Or they could make losses like many have.

Right so you're justifying deliberately creating an asset bubble that exploits society (like a property bubble), right - nice.

Not just investing in one, but creating one.

Cazzoenorme

KyussBishop wrote: »

Right so you're justifying deliberately creating an asset bubble that exploits society (like a property bubble), right - nice.

Not just investing in one, but creating one.

No, I'm advocating people being allowed to invest in assets if they want. If some people want to pay stupid amounts for property or some other asset then that should simply be there problem. With education people can learn when a house is ridiculously overpriced.

Just because people are free to invest in assets doean't mean you are deliberately creating bubbles or that bubbles will be created.

KyussBishop

Cazzoenorme wrote: »

No, I'm advocating people being allowed to invest in assets if they want. If some people want to pay stupid amounts for property or some other asset then that should simply be there problem. With education people can learn when a house is ridiculously overpriced.

Now you're pretending I made a different argument, to the one I made, and you're attacking a straw-man.

I have a problem with people creating asset bubbles, that harm society, and using them to speculate and profit from - not merely with speculating.

Cazzoenorme

KyussBishop wrote: »

Now you're pretending I made a different argument, to the one I made, and you're attacking a straw-man.

I have a problem with people creating asset bubbles, that harm society, and using them to speculate and profit from - not merely with speculating.

I never justified "deliberately creating a bubble that exploits society". I believe you are strawmanning me.

KyussBishop

Cazzoenorme wrote: »

I never justified "deliberately creating a bubble that exploits society". I believe you are strawmanning me.

You're last post (before this one) is replying to me as if I had only talked about speculating, when I explicitly said I was talking about creating asset bubbles for the purpose of speculating.

If we can both agree that's bad though, then we can agree that this new starting property bubble (for example), is bad as well - as that's pretty much the whole purpose of artificial property bubbles.

littleblackDRS

I love reading these threads, you see the Dunning-Kruger effect out in full force :rolleyes:

Cazzoenorme

KyussBishop wrote: »

You're last post (before this one) is replying to me as if I had only talked about speculating, when I explicitly said I was talking about creating asset bubbles for the purpose of speculating.

If we can both agree that's bad though, then we can agree that this new starting property bubble (for example), is bad as well - as that's pretty much the whole purpose of artificial property bubbles.

Who do you believe created asset bubbles deliberately for the purpose of speculating. I believe it is illegal in many jurisdictions to manipulate the market for the purpose of profiting. It breaches integrity of capital market laws.

bumper234

Bubbaclaus wrote: »

The people that protest against austerity. How would they expect Ireland to finance a country crippling government deficit?


I don't get it. Could somebody explain? I've never heard of an alternative solution (that actually makes sense and would work better).

TAX THE RICH!!!!

Rabble rabble rabble

L'Enfer du Nord

Cazzoenorme wrote: »

No, I'm advocating people being allowed to invest in assets if they want. If some people want to pay stupid amounts for property or some other asset then that should simply be there problem.

Indeed, but recent experience shows it is everyone's problem because they spend borrowed money which ultimately the state/taxpayer ends up guaranteeing. Many of these self same people resist regulation to control credit expansion and asset bubbles. On the small scale there are quite a few strategic defaulters not paying their mortgages again the costs of this will be shared by everyone.

The govt. is at the same crap guaranteeing 95% mortgages for certain types of property! now you are liable to have a load of Ftbers fighting over new homes while not being able to buy possibly cheaper 2nd hand ones. Simple example an Ftbers with 30 grand saved could borrow 285,000 for a new home but only 120,000 for a second hand one. More Effing interference so the average young couple have to heavily indebt themselves to benefit developers.

SafeSurfer

bumper234 wrote: »

TAX THE RICH!!!!

Rabble rabble rabble

Excellent contribution.

bumper234

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Excellent contribution.

Thank you

I am most pleased that you value my input


would you like to subscribe to my most informative newsletter?

BBJBIG

Well ... unless Oireland LOSES A LOT (MOST) of the Banking Debt, we are going to have a problem for a very long time.

This unaffordable Debt is what's driving Austerity, Unemployment, Emigration, extra Taxation and Charges, Cut Backs etc etc etc

And, making our Country unviable and actually unsustainable !!! !!! !!!

ALL EFFORTS should be concentrated on removing this UNJUST DEBT from the Backs of d'Oirish people.

SafeSurfer

bumper234 wrote: »

Thank you

I am most pleased that you value my input


would you like to subscribe to my most informative newsletter?

Is it a NEWSletter or just a piece of paper that repeats the same "no alternative to austerity" mantra over and over again?

KyussBishop

littleblackDRS wrote: »

I love reading these threads, you see the Dunning-Kruger effect out in full force :rolleyes:

In what way are you seeing that?

Iwasfrozen

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Is it a NEWSletter or just a piece of paper that repeats the same "no alternative to austerity" mantra over and over again?

You get free money with every issue.

mickydoomsux

BBJBIG wrote: »

Well ... unless Oireland LOSES A LOT (MOST) of the Banking Debt, we are going to have a problem for a very long time.

This unaffordable Debt is what's driving Austerity, Unemployment, Emigration, extra Taxation and Charges, Cut Backs etc etc etc

And, making our Country unviable and actually unsustainable !!! !!! !!!

ALL EFFORTS should be concentrated on removing this UNJUST DEBT from the Backs of d'Oirish people.

Nice to see a Sinn Fein election candidate adding their opinion to the discussion.

bumper234

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Is it a NEWSletter or just a piece of paper that repeats the same "no alternative to austerity" mantra over and over again?

Maybe you could tell me your detailed alternative to austerity?

KyussBishop

Cazzoenorme wrote: »

Who do you believe created asset bubbles deliberately for the purpose of speculating. I believe it is illegal in many jurisdictions to manipulate the market for the purpose of profiting. It breaches integrity of capital market laws.

So you're denying it happens then?

SafeSurfer

bumper234 wrote: »

Maybe you could tell me your detailed alternative to austerity?

Maybe if you were interested you could read this and the other austerity thread instead of waiting to be spoon fed. You must work in the PS;)

Cazzoenorme

KyussBishop wrote: »

So you're denying it happens then?

No I'm not denying it happens, I'm curious what examples you have in mind though.

BBJBIG

bumper234 wrote: »

Maybe you could tell me your detailed alternative to austerity?

It's a little long and a small bit dated - but, if people have the time - it might be worth watching :-
(... and, to read people's comments at the bottom ...)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woPc5puM3aI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7bAfjKy5Z4

Oireland HAS to lose MOST of the Banking part of the Debt. Simple as.

KyussBishop

BBJBIG wrote: »

It's a little long and a small bit dated - but, if people have the time - it might be worth watching :-

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=woPc5puM3aI
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=q7bAfjKy5Z4

Oireland HAS to lose MOST of the Banking part of the Debt. Simple as.

I don't agree with Max, but that Kilkenomics thing with Bill Black from a while back, was very good.

KyussBishop

Predictably as well, we have the disingenuous "well what are the alternatives? " question popping up again (after alternatives have been posted in both threads, including some of my own) - where the poster doesn't actually give a toss about any alternatives put forward, other than to throw mewling dismissals at them.

bumper234

SafeSurfer wrote: »

Maybe if you were interested you could read this and the other austerity thread instead of waiting to be spoon fed. You must work in the PS;)

I am and have read these threads, i am asking for YOUR alternative to austerity, what would YOU do or change to get the country out of debt and people back working?

KyussBishop

bumper234 wrote: »

I am and have read these threads, i am asking for YOUR alternative to austerity, what would YOU do or change to get the country out of debt and people back working?

Oh so 'just any' alternative to austerity won't work, it has to be personalized mmm?

Another poster trying to send someone off on a wild goose chase, just for rhetorical effect.

bumper234

KyussBishop wrote: »

Oh so 'just any' alternative to austerity won't work, it has to be personalized mmm?

Another poster trying to send someone off on a wild goose chase, just for rhetorical effect.

Was i asking for your opinion or do you just jump into conversations when it suits you to voice your opinion? I asked HIM for HIS alternative to austerity, when i want YOUR alternatives then i will ask YOU.

KyussBishop

bumper234 wrote: »

Was i asking for your opinion or do you just jump into conversations when it suits you to voice your opinion? I asked HIM for HIS alternative to austerity, when i want YOUR alternatives then i will ask YOU.

This is a discussion thread, not a PM conversation - you have to justify why other perfectly good alternatives, are not 'valid', and why he personally has to 'make-up/present his own'.

What it is, is a really weak attempt to try and portray him as hypocritical, when you are being disingenuous, by ignoring the perfectly good alternatives already presented.

bumper234

KyussBishop wrote: »

This is a discussion thread, not a PM conversation - you have to justify why other perfectly good alternatives, are not 'valid', and why he personally has to 'make-up/present his own'.

What it is, is a really weak attempt to try and portray him as hypocritical, when you are being disingenuous, by ignoring the perfectly good alternatives already presented.

But there hasn't been "good alternatives presented" other than the usual tax the rich mantra that is always hollered from the rooftops. The fact that the country is running at a loss and we need to stop spending more money than we are taking in seems to be lost on some posters. This is what austerity is, stop spending more than you're earning. Want to guess what the biggest cost to the government is?

Want to guess how much the "anti austerity people" think that should be cut? I have already said i agree with raising tax by 2% 5% 10% but to make it fair lets cut dole and pensions by the exact same % .

L'Enfer du Nord

bumper234 wrote: »

But there hasn't been "good alternatives presented" other than the usual tax the rich mantra that is always hollered from the rooftops.

I'm not sure if it's been put forward in this tread but isn't one of the proposed alternatives some kind of high stakes poker game with the Bond holders, ECB, EU commission, Angela Merkel etc. It would be great if this came off and we had so of the debt written off. However we don't seem to have a very strong hand.

mickydoomsux

L'Enfer du Nord wrote: »

I'm not sure if it's been put forward in this tread but isn't one of the proposed alternatives some kind of high stakes poker game with the Bond holders, ECB, EU commission, Angela Merkel etc. It would be great if this came off and we had so of the debt written off. However we don't seem to have a very strong hand.

We don't have anything to hold over them at this stage and it's arguable as to whether we ever did.

They could literally have abandoned us to fend for ourselves if we didn't play ball and we'd be completely screwed then.

granturismo

L'Enfer du Nord wrote: »

I'm not sure if it's been put forward in this tread but isn't one of the proposed alternatives some kind of high stakes poker game with the Bond holders, ECB, EU commission, Angela Merkel etc. It would be great if this came off and we had so of the debt written off. However we don't seem to have a very strong hand.

What does this mean?

hatrickpatrick

Cazzoenorme wrote: »

The cash that customers deposit. The money is just moved around. No new money is actually created.

Ok, so you believe there's a fixed amount of money in the world which simply gets moved, fair enough.
1: Where do you think all that money came from in the first place? It has to have been created at some point. Who decided how much to create and how to start distributing it?
2: Do you believe this is in any way a sensible method of monetary circulation, given that the amount of people in the world, the amount of stuff we can produce, and the amount of stuff people want are all variables which fluctuate wildly over time?

(The truth is that you're wrong about money simply being moved around, but for the sake of argument I'm just wondering whether you think that would be a good way of doing things)

mickydoomsux

granturismo wrote: »

What does this mean?

Basically burn the bondholders and look for a debt writedown as far as i can tell.

A risky proposition when they can just simply leave you to fend for yourself in response and then you have to inevitably go crawling back to them to accept worse conditions on your bailout than they originally offered.

Cazzoenorme

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Ok, so you believe there's a fixed amount of money in the world which simply gets moved, fair enough.
1: Where do you think all that money came from in the first place? It has to have been created at some point. Who decided how much to create and how to start distributing it?
2: Do you believe this is in any way a sensible method of monetary circulation, given that the amount of people in the world, the amount of stuff we can produce, and the amount of stuff people want are all variables which fluctuate wildly over time?

(The truth is that you're wrong about money simply being moved around, but for the sake of argument I'm just wondering whether you think that would be a good way of doing things)

Banks don't create new money, central banks do when they print it.