Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
FF Voters - if the next election goes wrong...
Options
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Finished ranting endlessly now? I never said that our economy was only a function of one variable; nor did I say the government can/cannot/might not/should not/did not assist the economy. In fact in my post immediately prior to yours I gave a rough estimate. About 25%. And yes, 25% is a very substantial part of our economy, but pretty much since Lemass (with the exception of FG trying Keynesian economics and then FF coming in and continuing and then slashing) all major parliamentary parties have sought the same general economic policy and, even with that, over the decades given other factors, 25% is not a huge plus point for Fianna Fáil. Definitely not worth a third term.ISAW wrote:You can not claim that the economy is totally unaffected (or just slightly tweaked) by the governemnt and dependant on world trade and also
claim government can assist the country. I mean at the exterme we are a vassal state of a homogenous world trade and should just forget about government abolish the Oireachtas and change with the wing of international markets. You do know that governments actually regulate these markets?
at the other extreme you can not claim that completly closing all trade and isolating the economy is going to give the government power.
No, of course I'm not suggesting that Germany should "forget" about manufacturing. But they're far to heavily reliant on a fairly low-value industry. En masse low value-chain industry is not really a viable long term staple diet for a country that wishes to keep up with knowledge-driven economies.So if you are not going to have your own manufacturing base you should depend on who else's base? Or are you suggesting that heavy industry and manufacturing like steel should be forgotten by Germany? I wonder what the chinese would do this year without steel?
Interconnectivity and world economic markets. The .com industry grew far far greater than 6x in 10 years in its height and it fostered other industries simply from its own success. Take the mobile phone as just one example cited by a D.U. lecturer recently. Mobile phone sales record profits in the telecommunication and technology industries, but greatly improve profits in other industries also. It's my assertion, and assertion of Prof. Ruane (who you know), that .com boom boomed the Celtic Tiger also, through its effect on the whole economy, including the pharmacuetical industry.No you are not mistaken. IT is second or third as I state. But Pharmachem is far far bigger growing from 5 billion in 1995 to over 30 billion in 2005
And the resultant bust hurt us bad. A substantial part of our economy is trade and of course that's affected by exogenous factors. That's my point. Fianna Fáíl cannot be purely blamed for the decline in our economy c. 2001; nor can they be fully congratulated for its rise.It is NOT widely understood and IT creating economy had attached myths as you pointed to in you reference to dot com speculating and the resultant bust.
You cannot claim that Fianna Fáil take praise for our growth but shrug off that we had inflation of 5% at one point, the tax on poverty that is the SSIA's and the huge wealth gap that now exists.
If FG got into power it would be no different. Yes, the economy needs to be managed but so much of the economy's growth/decline/fluctuation/stagnation is not to do with any state body or controller, specific or general.
I'm not going to disagree with you there because it's right but yet also so hopelessly off the point. Transfer prices might lie about our productivity et al but it still reaps tax rewards. If you're going to make such off-topic assertions, I'd like to point out that the high profits recorded by firms via transfer prices greatly hindered the price of mushrooms in Slovakia.Indeed one can be synical and claim that transfer pricing on products such as Windows make Ireland the largest exporter of software in the world but nobody is seriously going to claim the Ireland makes nearly as much as Microsoft windows and/or the Microsoft has much more R and D in Ireland than localisation.
Sorry, meant 12.5% But yes, it was the current alternative that brought in the 12.5% rate honey...Did they [bring in 10% corporation tax]? when? surely only for certain economic zones? Bertie brought in 12 1/2per cent for ALL Irish business!
[QUOTE=Wikipedia, source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Republic_of_Ireland_corporation_tax]During the Rainbow Government of 1994-7, Minister of Finance Ruairi Quinn reduced corporation tax to 12.5% on trading income, a policy that has been continued by subsequent Ministers of Finance. This is generally believed to have been an important stimuli for the Celtic Tiger.[/QUOTE]
Right, the Elizabeth reference was a humourous one, and whether your assertion that the BBC's post-Cold War articulation aided our economy is true or not, I doubt Bertie can claim that one.She established a print alphabet in Irish and English and was not a monoglot! But todays Hiberno English and international english is distinctly different for Shakespearian english. It was mainly (in my opinion) planning by BBC World Service and Voice of America that globalised English in the post fifties and cold war era.
Our membership of the now EU really only greatly furthered our goals through access to the markets as opposed to the funding. I think it was Paul Sweeney that says it would have been responsible for maybe 1% growth p/a. However the access to the markets that attracted firms surely accounted for subtantially more than that. If it was 1%, maybe even exponentiallyI diodnt refer to who brought us in. we joind the EEC in 1974. the Celtic Tiger began around 1992! It was the negotiation and presidency which got us substantial cohesion funding in the years of the per Tiger early nineties I am referring to.
.
Aye, debt repayments were crippling but so were tax revenues and inflation. Had they been alright the burden would have been fine anyway. And Haughey had some cheek on him tightening the belt - his personal life was one thing but bankrupting the f*cking state to win elections is another. Do you claim that that was FF policy as well?No it wasnt! Mac "the knife" Sharrys cuts were in 1987 and perceeded the Tiger by FIVE YEARS! Debt to GDP ratio was over 135 per cent. Servicing the debt was crippling possibilites for growth. Haughey was right whether or not he practiced in his personal life ewhat he preached in public. The country needed to "tighten it's belt"! That was FF policy!
Dukes did not deserve what he got. But he got that for the support which FG had at the time of his departure; and views for FG's support were too high in the post-"heydays" Fitzgerald era.It wasnt just Haughy saw the debt as fundamental. Dukes agreed with it. And look what FG did to him for that?
Sorry I thought you were refferring to the factors "small" and "open". And other small, open economies may not have similar growth for, for example, our natural ability. Or access to free markets. Or suitable location right in-between the two largest trading blocs in the world, with keen historical associations with both. Or the quality of institutions like our own to fine-tune great graduates with feck all cash. OrIf that is true than why do other open economies with similar population NOT have similar growth?
maybe it's just that we're Catholic and our prayers seeking retribution for the famine worked. Yes FF had something to do with it, but in my eyes as an economics student they cannot play the economics card again without smirking like the jokers they are.
Not really, as access to other markets helped our individual companies and ultimately our macroeconomy which threw up (for example) economies of scale that aided our trade to the UK.It has something to do with it but we still trade (about a third) with the UK which we could have maintained even outside the EU.
See above.We also trade (about 25 percent?) to third countries.
Although the CAP "needs to be looked at", it's because food is not a truly tradable good in a fragile post-war economy. We've never been hungry. I know the EU's agri-policies have ensured others have been, but we never have. Barriers are allowable for food when there's a chance of its shortage.Indeed one can argue that free trade Zones like the EU actually close markets with tariff barriers. Why for example should the state subsidise farmers who cant compete with New Zeland farmers who get nothing from the state but have to pay tariffs to get into the EU market?
Hear hear, but you cannot possibly even begin to argue that the EU has not opened our trade up. Please don't. I'll feel sorry for you.The open economists would have no trade barriers. That what G7 1/2 and Gatt are all about.
Aye, that's true. Education reforms were great, fair play to FF. But Christ, should that give Bertie a third term? I've counted that in in my ~25% figure If you're going on like that where's the governmental terms for Michael Collins' political descendents?they can but perctionism was not permanent! Education reforms in teh sixties under Hillary/Lemass/O malley caused PERMANENT change enabling educated thirty somethings in the nineties. that is the argument.
....0 -
....
It's not. At worst, it's an educated guess. Having researched in fairly fine detail about our growth, it's a fair assessment.This is a handwaving argument.
Well prior to you discovering that FG+Lab brought in the low corporation tax which you seemed to place fairly high (which it was), I think that alone helped more than the PD's have. And come on, including the Greens and Democratic Left in a tale of economic history?But accepting that figure out of the air we can also say based on the time and perparation in goverment and subsequent results that FG+Lab+GP+WP+SF+DL over the same period totalled 5% or less and the PD's got more than 5%. thats about 30% FF/PD and less than 5% for the other parties.. 0 -
Angry Banana wrote:....It's not. At worst, it's an educated guess. Having researched in fairly fine detail about our growth, it's a fair assessment.
And if FF are responsible 25 per cent of the economy what percent are other parties responsible for?
IWell prior to you discovering that FG+Lab brought in the low corporation tax which you seemed to place fairly high (which it was),
suggest you redo some of your "fairly fine detail"
http://foreignaffairs.gov.ie/Press_Releases/19971124/423.htmBertie wrote:I know that the 10% rate of corporation tax is of major importance to US investors in Ireland. I want to state clearly that the Government is committed to maintaining Ireland's pro-enterprise taxation environment.
We have decided to introduce a single low rate of corporation tax to apply across the economy. This will be phased-in over the coming years to eventually replace the current regime. The structuring and time-tabling of the changes are being actively pursued at present, in consultation with the European Commission.
Note the above meant moving tax up for certain sectors from 10 to 12.5 but moving everything else down!
Here is a bit of trivial gossip. It was eventually finalised in a meeting with only four people there. Bertie the President of the EU Commission and their two secretaries. Prodi's secetary was David o sullivan so maybe he was outvoted three to one
It could possibly be the finest economic achievement by an Irish Taoiseach in the last two decades.
http://www.heritage.org/research/features/index/country.cfm?id=Ireland
Which is why transfer pricing is anot an aside but a central issue.In January 2003, the Ahern government lowered the corporate tax rate from 16 percent to 12.5 percent—far below the European Union’s average of 30 percentI think that alone helped more than the PD's have.
But the rainbow and Quinn were not in government in 2003!0 -
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
![[Jackass]](https://w3.vanillicon.com/v2/3178d191648ad5d2fb7722b96c5c616c.svg)
Advertisement