The urgent need to reduce the cost of labour in Ireland.

realitykeeper

Yourself isit wrote: »

We tried organically. Under Dev.

QE isn't an irish thing. The bailouts have worked although the burden is too high on middle income groups.

If you are referring to the trade war, that was not organic economic growth. It only happened because the depression forced Dev to stop payments for our land.

QE and it`s consequences will impact the entire EU. Ireland is in the EU.

The bailouts have been a disaster, you just don`t know it yet.

Jawgap

realitykeeper wrote: »

If you are referring to the trade war, that was not organic economic growth. It only happened because the depression forced Dev to stop payments for our land.

QE and it`s consequences will impact the entire EU. Ireland is in the EU.

The bailouts have been a disaster, you just don`t know it yet.

No, it was more than the Economic War - it was effectively Ireland's economic policy up until Ken Whittaker's "Grey Book" (First Programme for Economic Expansion) in the mid-1950s......

......protectionism didn't exactly do a whole lot for the country then, why would it be any different in future?

Yourself isit

realitykeeper wrote: »

If you are referring to the trade war, that was not organic economic growth. It only happened because the depression forced Dev to stop payments for our land.

QE and it`s consequences will impact the entire EU. Ireland is in the EU.

The bailouts have been a disaster, you just don`t know it yet.

No by organically I mean Dev concentrated on agriculture and building local Irish industry as a substitute for imports. He also "reduced the costs of labour" - so we got poorer.

realitykeeper

Jawgap wrote: »

No, it was more than the Economic War - it was effectively Ireland's economic policy up until Ken Whittaker's "Grey Book" (First Programme for Economic Expansion) in the mid-1950s......

......protectionism didn't exactly do a whole lot for the country then, why would it be any different in future?

Nobody other than Donald Trump is advocating protectionism. To be fair to Dev, economics was even less understood back then than it is now.

realitykeeper

Yourself isit wrote: »

No by organically I mean Dev concentrated on agriculture and building local Irish industry as a substitute for imports. He also "reduced the costs of labour" - so we got poorer.

Dev advocated protectionism which is the opposite to what I favour, i.e. being competitive.

realitykeeper

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

Ha! The common good - beginning with your own good.

You could prove me wrong if you are in either if the group's who's wages you want to slash (minimum wage and civil servants)

You are questioning my integrity. It would be stupid to argue in favour of my own personal interests over those of everyone else and I assure you I am not doing that. My concern is that everyone (especially those with wealth) will lose if the coming economic crash is as bad as I fear. The wealthy will lose because the government and/or the masses will simply take what they can from wherever they can get it in order to survive.

It need not be that bad if some of the pain can be front-loaded.

Owryan

realitykeeper wrote: »

You are questioning my integrity. It would be stupid to argue in favour of my own personal interests over those of everyone else and I assure you I am not doing that. My concern is that everyone (especially those with wealth) will lose if the coming economic crash is as bad as I fear. The wealthy will lose because the government and/or the masses will simply take what they can from wherever they can get it in order to survive.

It need not be that bad if some of the pain can be front-loaded.

But you are advocating we take the pain for something that might happen, how many years have you been predicting it now?

Jawgap

realitykeeper wrote: »

Nobody other than Donald Trump is advocating protectionism. To be fair to Dev, economics was even less understood back then than it is now.

Actually, the economic policy from that era is very well understood, especially in the context of the mid-1950s transition. For example......



What makes you think it's not?

Jawgap

realitykeeper wrote: »

You are questioning my integrity. It would be stupid to argue in favour of my own personal interests over those of everyone else and I assure you I am not doing that. My concern is that everyone (especially those with wealth) will lose if the coming economic crash is as bad as I fear. The wealthy will lose because the government and/or the masses will simply take what they can from wherever they can get it in order to survive.

It need not be that bad if some of the pain can be front-loaded.

Then it just becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

This crash you've been predicting for how many years now.......I won't ask when it will happen because you just keep rolling the date forward, but I will as what is the probability of it happening......

......in the next 12 months?

......in the next 5 years?

......in the next 10 years?

.....in your assessment.

PCX

realitykeeper wrote: »

My concern is that everyone (especially those with wealth) will lose if the coming economic crash is as bad as I fear. The wealthy will lose because the government and/or the masses will simply take what they can from wherever they can get it in order to survive.

It need not be that bad if some of the pain can be front-loaded.

So pain will be inevitable and should be front loaded. Of course some people should be insulated from experiencing any of this pain or indeed should benefit from its side effects.

So who should the winners and losers be in this brave new world?

Well obviously the wealthy should win as their current wealth is an obvious sign of their intrinsic superiority as human beings.

The 'masses' have proven their unworthiness by virtue of the fact they have not done the only thing that matters in life and makes you worthy - amassed wealth (it goes without saying that government employees are naturally unworthy people regardless of current wealth status and should have any removed).

It is the natural role of the masses to work (and they should be made work hard). The purpose of the masses is to generate wealth for the worthy. If they work hard enough then they should be given adequate food and shelter to enable survival - but only as long as they prove useful as tool of wealth generation for worthy people.

It's a zero sum game - the suffering of the many is a nessasary fact as the worthy few must be allowed to enjoy the best lifestyles and get wealthier while doing so.

That about sum it up? Or have I missed something?

El_Duderino 09

realitykeeper wrote:

You are questioning my integrity. It would be stupid to argue in favour of my own personal interests over those of everyone else and I assure you I am not doing that. My concern is that everyone (especially those with wealth) will lose if the coming economic crash is as bad as I fear. The wealthy will lose because the government and/or the masses will simply take what they can from wherever they can get it in order to survive.

Ah here. Is it just total coincidence that you wouldn't be affected by the first wave of cuts? And is it just coincidence that other people should totally collapse their wages to avert the collapse of your wage?

realitykeeper wrote:

It need not be that bad if some of the pain can be front-loaded.

Front loaded by those who can afford it, or by those can't?

You're talking about an uncommon economic collapse but only want to use tho most common and mundane lever to avert it - reduce wages of the poorest. If you're talking about a extraordinary economic damage, then why does it not merit an extraordinary solution - start by reducing the pay of those who can take the drop without dropping out of society, then work your way down the pay scale from here.

The reason you're not interested in that is because it's easier to talk about reducing other people's pay than your own. It's not big, and it's not half as clever and innovative as you thinking is. Its the oldest story ever told.

realitykeeper

Owryan wrote: »

But you are advocating we take the pain for something that might happen ...

I believe it will happen.

realitykeeper

Jawgap wrote: »

Actually, the economic policy from that era is very well understood ...

Other countries were engaging in trade disputes during the depression of the thirties. Like I say, economics was not understood properly just like it is not understood today. Before this year is out, you will agree with me because the greatest depression in human history will start in a matter of months.

El_Duderino 09

Owryan wrote:

But you are advocating we take the pain for something that might happen

Not quite accurate. The poster is advocating pain for other people to shield themselves from pain.

Jawgap

realitykeeper wrote: »

I believe it will happen.

You don't seem the understand the difference between possibility and probability.

I believe a big rock will hurtle from the sky some day and put an end to humanity's existence on this planet some day (over an epoch it's a fairly high probability event) but it doesn't mean I want the government to tax me to the hilt to fund an international sky guard project.

As per my previous question - would you care to put a probability on the economic collapse you've been forecasting for the last number of years?

EDIT: I note that you have, in fact, stated that have indicated a probability in the sense that you the collapse will start in a matter of months. I take it that means by the end of 2017?

Jawgap

realitykeeper wrote: »

Other countries were engaging in trade disputes during the depression of the thirties. Like I say, economics was not understood properly just like it is not understood today. Before this year is out, you will agree with me because the greatest depression in human history will start in a matter of months.

OK, to be clear, you are saying that during the 30s economics was not well understood?

......or let me put it this way - you are saying that during the period when Keynes was in his pomp (when he published both his Treatise on Money and his General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money) and engaged in debate with Hayek, that "economics was not understood properly"?

Up next, Pasteur and the lack of understanding of the causes of disease :rolleyes:

realitykeeper

Jawgap wrote: »

You don't seem the understand the difference between possibility and probability.

I believe a big rock will hurtle from the sky some day and put an end to humanity's existence on this planet some day (over an epoch it's a fairly high probability event) but it doesn't mean I want the government to tax me to the hilt to fund an international sky guard project.

As per my previous question - would you care to put a probability on the economic collapse you've been forecasting for the last number of years?

EDIT: I note that you have, in fact, stated that have indicated a probability in the sense that you the collapse will start in a matter of months. I take it that means by the end of 2017?

Correct

realitykeeper

Jawgap wrote: »

OK, to be clear, you are saying that during the 30s economics was not well understood?

......or let me put it this way - you are saying that during the period when Keynes was in his pomp (when he published both his Treatise on Money and his General Theory of Employment, Interest and Money) and engaged in debate with Hayek, that "economics was not understood properly"?

Up next, Pasteur and the lack of understanding of the causes of disease :rolleyes:

If economics were understood, the economist Keynes would have been in broad agreement with Hayek. In fact they were poles apart. Even today, mainstream economists think Kaynes was right. He wasn`t. Hayek was right and how right!

Jawgap

realitykeeper wrote: »

If economics were understood, the economist Keynes would have been in broad agreement with the Hayek. In fact they were poles apart. Even today, mainstream economists agree with Kaynes. They are wrong. Hayek was right and how right!

So economics is not understood or it is understood?

If it's not understood how do you know Hayek is correct? Is he simply correct because his ideas/interpretations suit your worldview? And that being the case then why can't Keynes be correct given plenty would see his ideas as consonant with their respective worldviews?

Jawgap

realitykeeper wrote: »

Correct

Sounds like you are going to be very wealthy......


......I only say this because you are convinced the economic collapse will happen within a "matter of months"?

.....and gold futures are at a near five year low price with a bearish outlook - I assume that if you genuinely believe this to be true you're buying up as much gold as you can - after all come the economic apocalypse it'll likely be the only 'currency' in the barter economy

dar100

realitykeeper wrote: »

There also would be natural downward pressure on above average private sector salaries as the cost of living falls. However, can`t imagine a law that says you cannot pay your employee more than X amount.

Your private sector salaries will be hit as those who actually put net into the economy, I.e those on low and middle wages, will have no money to spend,

<SNIP>

El_Duderino 09

Jawgap wrote:

.....and gold futures are at a near five year low price with a bearish outlook - I assume that if you genuinely believe this to be true you're buying up as much gold as you can - after all come the economic apocalypse it'll likely be the only 'currency' in the barter economy

No no no. You misundstand. This is about putting other people's money where the OP's mouth is. It's about specifically avoiding their own finances bring affected.

If the OP was serious about the biggest economic collapse of our time, they would advocate everyone reducing their pay. It they were serious about any kind of fairness being involved, they would encourage the most wealthy to lead the charge and cut their pay.

It's not about either of those things, it's a simple 'The poor are too rich, cut their pay'

Wanderer78

interesting article by jim rickards:

http://jimrickards.blogspot.ie/2017/03/trump-about-to-declare-currency-war.html

maybe the op is onto something!

realitykeeper

Jawgap wrote: »

So economics is not understood or it is understood?

If it's not understood how do you know Hayek is correct? Is he simply correct because his ideas/interpretations suit your worldview? And that being the case then why can't Keynes be correct given plenty would see his ideas as consonant with their respective worldviews?

The point is both economists had profoundly opposing perspectives. If I asked a couple for directions, and they began arguing with each other about which way I should go, I would either disregard both. This analogy is admittedly slightly off target, because it assumes no bias whereas in the economic debate, I do ascribe to the Hayek perspective.

Jawgap

realitykeeper wrote: »

The point is both economists had profoundly opposing perspectives. If I asked a couple for directions, and they began arguing with each other about which way I should go, I would either disregard both.

Except you said, not that they were both wrong and should be disregarded......you said Hayek was right.......

realitykeeper wrote: »

If economics were understood, the economist Keynes would have been in broad agreement with Hayek. In fact they were poles apart. Even today, mainstream economists think Kaynes was right. He wasn`t. Hayek was rightand how right!

......so if economics are beyond understanding, and were beyond understanding, how can you say Hayek was right?

Honestly, maybe try a bit harder to put up a cogent set of ideas rather than jump all over the place.

Btw, do you still maintain the futures markets are wrong? What are they not pricing in yo their calculations.

realitykeeper

El_Duderino 09 wrote: »

If the OP was serious about the biggest economic collapse of our time, they would advocate everyone reducing their pay. It they were serious about any kind of fairness being involved, they would encourage the most wealthy to lead the charge and cut their pay.

Fairness has nothing to do with it. If you lifted weights in the gym all day, that is hard work but nobody is going to pay you to do that. Your work must be worth something to the buyer. Private sector employers who pay above the minimum wage, do so because they prize the value of the employees work higher than the minimum price they are required to pay.

Public sector people are not living in the real world where market competition dictates the value of work. It should therefore be assumed their work is worthless, after all, why else would they be afraid of competition.

Jawgap

realitykeeper wrote: »

Fairness has nothing to do with it. If you lifted weights in the gym all day, that is hard work but nobody is going to pay you to do that. Your work must be worth something to the buyer. Private sector employers who pay above the minimum wage, do so because they prize the value of the employees work higher than the minimum price they are required to pay.

Public sector people are not living in the real world where market competition dictates the value of work. It should therefore be assumed their work is worthless, after all, why else would they be afraid of competition.

Really, you need to get out and get some real world experience......both my wife and myself are ex-public servants. We both now work in the private sector having been actively "seduced" away......

.......if our work, for example, had no value why would anyone seek to "head hunt" us away.......and a number of my colleagues.

.....and if experience in the Public Service is so valueless, how do you explain the "revolving door" phenomenon?

realitykeeper

Jawgap wrote: »

Except you said, not that they were both wrong and should be disregarded......you said Hayek was right.......

And if you finish the part of the quote you excluded, you have your answer.

Jawgap

realitykeeper wrote: »

And if you finish the part of the quote you excluded, you have your answer.

Which part did I exclude?

I bolded part and excluded nothing......so, again, if econonomics is not understood, how can you conclusively say "Hayek was right and how right"?

realitykeeper

Jawgap wrote: »

......so if economics are beyond understanding, and were beyond understanding, how can you say Hayek was right?

Honestly, maybe try a bit harder to put up a cogent set of ideas rather than jump all over the place.

Btw, do you still maintain the futures markets are wrong? What are they not pricing in yo their calculations.

I did not say economics is beyond understanding. Hayek understood economics as do a few contemporary economists who ascribe to the Austrian Economics viewpoint. The fact that today`s mainstream economists think Kaynes was right (when he isn`t) proves to me that economics is not understood by mainstream economists.

realitykeeper

Jawgap wrote: »

Which part did I exclude?

I bolded part and excluded nothing......so, again, if econonomics is not understood, how can you conclusively say "Hayek was right and how right"?

Quote the full quote and you will see the pointlessness of your question.

Wanderer78

realitykeeper wrote: »

economics is not understood by mainstream economists.

i do agree with this statement but probably differ in your understanding of it, i do agree with those that say conventional economics, i.e. neoclassical theory is effectively a load of tripe. i also agree with those that say all this supply and demand, and market equilibrium is also a load of tripe.

realitykeeper

Jawgap wrote: »

Really, you need to get out and get some real world experience......both my wife and myself are ex-public servants. We both now work in the private sector having been actively "seduced" away......

.......if our work, for example, had no value why would anyone seek to "head hunt" us away.......and a number of my colleagues.

.....and if experience in the Public Service is so valueless, how do you explain the "revolving door" phenomenon?

Politicians have been known to take bribes under the guise of professional or consultancy services. So corruption is one possible answer, I am sure there are others.

realitykeeper

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i also agree with those that say all this supply and demand, and market equilibrium is also a load of tripe.

Do you think "supply and demand, and market equilibrium is a load of tripe" in itself or is the tripe the fact that government interferes with these natural processes, thereby preventing "supply and demand, and market equilibrium" from happening.

Jawgap

Ah go on with yourself, on the one hand you're saying.....

realitykeeper wrote: »

I did not say economics is beyond understanding. Hayek understood economics as do a few contemporary economists who ascribe to the Austrian Economics viewpoint. The fact that today`s mainstream economists think Kaynes was right (when he isn`t) proves to me that economics is not understood by mainstream economists.

But before you said......

realitykeeper wrote: »

Other countries were engaging in trade disputes during the depression of the thirties. Like I say, economics was not understoodproperly just like it is not understood today. Before this year is out, you will agree with me because the greatest depression in human history will start in a matter of months.

....and you made no mention of Hayek until I made a passing reference to him in my rebuttal to yet another of your facile statements......you are, what my Dad would describe, quite the character

Jawgap

realitykeeper wrote: »

Quote the full quote and you will see the pointlessness of your question.

The post is quoted in full. What hit did I leave out?

Jawgap

realitykeeper wrote: »

Politicians have been known to take bribes under the guise of professional or consultancy services. So corruption is one possible answer, I am sure there are others.

.....and again demonstrating the limitations of your knowledge/experience :rolleyes:

Wanderer78

realitykeeper wrote: »

Do you think "supply and demand, and market equilibrium is a load of tripe" in itself or is the tripe the fact that government interferes with these natural processes, thereby preventing "supply and demand, and market equilibrium" from happening.

i suspect you have been deluded along with many of our politicians about the (not so) free market. its a scam, well debunked at this stage, theres nothing natural about it at all. neoclassical theory is a train wreck of an economic theory, and we re slowly watching it along with things such as the free market and neoliberalism all failing, which will probably have catastrophic effects on all our economies.

realitykeeper

Jawgap wrote: »

The post is quoted in full. What hit did I leave out?

The full quote was:

realitykeeper wrote: »

The point is both economists had profoundly opposing perspectives. If I asked a couple for directions, and they began arguing with each other about which way I should go, I would either disregard both. This analogy is admittedly slightly off target, because it assumes no bias whereas in the economic debate, I do ascribe to the Hayek perspective.

... but you cut out the last sentence.

realitykeeper

Jawgap wrote: »

.....and again demonstrating the limitations of your knowledge/experience :rolleyes:

Are you seriously suggesting such things have not happened and will not happen in the future?

realitykeeper

Wanderer78 wrote: »

i suspect you have been deluded along with many of our politicians about the (not so) free market. its a scam, well debunked at this stage, theres nothing natural about it at all. neoclassical theory is a train wreck of an economic theory, and we re slowly watching it along with things such as the free market and neoliberalism all failing, which will probably have catastrophic effects on all our economies.

While I am not a fan of labels, I agree the markets are heading for catastrophe but that is because of political interference in natural market forces. The credit crunch of 2008 should have been allowed to happen without bailouts of any kind. Political interference guarantees a repeat crisis but on a far larger scale.

relax carry on

realitykeeper wrote: »

Politicians have been known to take bribes under the guise of professional or consultancy services. So corruption is one possible answer, I am sure there are others.

So you assert that Public Sector workers had no value and provide a reason for public sector workers moving into the private sector is because politicians take bribes? What a truly strange world exists in your mind.

Jawgap

realitykeeper wrote: »

The full quote was:



... but you cut out the last sentence.

Sorry, but I did not. I note however the post was edited. When I quoted it, it was quoted as is, without the ninja edit.

Jawgap

realitykeeper wrote: »

Are you seriously suggesting such things have not happened and will not happen in the future?

No, I'm suggesting you haven't got the first clue when it comes to discussing the revolving door phenomenon when it comes to pricing decisions about the value of public service work to the private and ngo sectors.....as evidenced by your Pavlovian response to my raising it.

realitykeeper

Jawgap wrote: »

Ah go on with yourself, on the one hand you're saying.....


But before you said......



....and you made no mention of Hayek until I made a passing reference to him in my rebuttal to yet another of your facile statements......you are, what my Dad would describe, quite the character

What about the boy who cried "wolf?" He knew the wolf was about to attack the sheep so the wolf attack was known. But did the villagers believe him? No. The flock was slaughtered despite the fact that the pending attack was a known certainty. Why? Because the villagers did not know. Therefore the lack of knowledge caused the flock to be killed.

realitykeeper

Jawgap wrote: »

Sorry, but I did not. I note however the post was edited. When I quoted it, it was quoted as is, without the ninja edit.

Excuses are unbecoming.

realitykeeper

Jawgap wrote: »

No, I'm suggesting you haven't got the first clue when it comes to discussing the revolving door phenomenon when it comes to pricing decisions about the value of public service work to the private and ngo sectors.....as evidenced by your Pavlovian response to my raising it.

I have discussed the medical profession in other threads. I certainly do not want to open that can of worms here.

Jawgap

realitykeeper wrote: »

Excuses are unbecoming.

Did you not edit it? Because the footer on the post suggests otherwise..

And still it doesn't take away from the fact you only brought Hayek into your argument after I mentioned him......and said he was right after you said no one understood economics then or now.

You're like the guy at the end of the bar who says he knew Barcelona were going to win all along

Jawgap

realitykeeper wrote: »

You are making excuses so button your lip and we`ll say no more about it.

No, not at all. I think everyone who reads the thread will see the truth if the matter......how you said economics was not understood (at a time when 2 of the great heavyweights were active).....then when that was pointed out......you suddenly deputised Hayek into your argument (after I mentioned him)......and now you seem to have reversed yourself......that economics can, in fact be understood......how else can you conclusively state Hayek was right??

You are, as they would say, a gas man

realitykeeper

Jawgap wrote: »

And still it doesn't take away from the fact you only brought Hayek into your argument after I mentioned him......and said he was right after you said no one understood economics then or now.

If you did not want Hayek mentioned, why did you bring him up in the first place?

I did not say "no one" understood. I said it was generally not understood.