Micheal Martin /Minimum Wage

[vanzandt]

Micheal Martin wants the minimum wage "looked at"now,rich coming from a pleb who will not give up his teacher's salary.

[learning irish]

Micheal Martin wants the minimum wage "looked at"now,rich coming from a pleb who will not give up his teacher's salary.

get your facts right,he has actually given up his teachers salary, its the teachers post which he has not given up and this is only fair as he can lose his job at any minute! compare this to enda kenny who drew a massive lump sum pension after teaching for only a few years.

[Rebelred]

whats wrong with looking at the mimimum wage. Everything needs to be looked at and analysed. Just because it has gone up in the past doesn't mean it can't come down again.

[Haro]

whats wrong with looking at the mimimum wage. Everything needs to be looked at and analysed. Just because it has gone up in the past doesn't mean it can't come down again.

Apart from my posts, apparently.

[irishmonkey]

Its a catch 22.
we are an expensive country because of the min wage.
Take the petrol station near my work. they had 5 people working ( good people have jobs)
but thats about €40 per hour they need to make profit after all the other bills .
all so lets face it, you have to pay irish people the min wage other nationalities will play ball and take less pay.
a drop in min wage could see a increase in irish people working.
on the other hand it will suck if companies just keep the pay cuts for them selves and not pass on the savings to consumers.

[Professor Piehead]

If they do lower the minumin wage, they will need to slash social welfare considerably. It's already a bit much to expect people t work 40 hrs for not much more than the hefty dole.:rolleyes:

Personally, I would leave the minimum wage alone and slash SW by 33.3%.:p

At least. Social welfare has risen by 90% since 2000.

Until we are out of this mess, I'd also bring in a max income of 150K. Time for those that have most to do their patriotic duty and feel a bit of pain.

Means testing of benefits is also essential. A doctor and a lawyer with four kids getting 700 euro a month child benefit, ridiculous.

[quincytwo]

get your facts right,he has actually given up his teachers salary, its the teachers post which he has not given up and this is only fair as he can lose his job at any minute! compare this to enda kenny who drew a massive lump sum pension after teaching for only a few years.

That is the biggest load of b/s that has ever been posted on this site.
If he gave up politics, he would immediately be offered extremely lucrative directorships and consultancoes.
Martin will never wprk as a teacher again and everyone knows this.
He is holding on to it for the pension that goes with it.
Its immoral - it should be illegal

He is a leech and a parasite.

[Haro]

whats wrong with looking at the mimimum wage. Everything needs to be looked at and analysed. Just because it has gone up in the past doesn't mean it can't come down again.

Here's the problem. The people "looking" at the minimum wage are incompetent and any conclusions they draw are likely to be the wrong ones. This is my problem with your attitude in these discussions. All of a sudden when the shit hits the fan, the government becomes capable of making "tough decisions". This is exactly what they want you to think so they don't get voted out.

[Haro]

If they do lower the minumin wage, they will need to slash social welfare considerably. It's already a bit much to expect people t work 40 hrs for not much more than the hefty dole.:rolleyes:

Personally, I would leave the minimum wage alone and slash SW by 33.3%.:p

Well of course you would, you're not on it. There's only so low you can practically make it. Welfare in the UK is awful. If we had that level of income, thanks to the higher cost of living here people really wouldn't manage. 33% cut and we'd be halfway there. Though don't forget the UK at least finds people council houses.

There's no reason to cut social welfare. Sweden has "more" welfare than us and you can bet they won't slash theirs to the levels you're proposing. This is just a chance to push good old catholic guilt onto people.

[Haro]

You're missing the point(shock horror!): you can't lower the minimum wage and leave SW at such ridiculously high levels, it would be fucking pointless! Even now people are less inclined to work 40 hrs a week when they can simply scrounge for the same standard of living.

Such an action would only exacerbate the problem of high unemployment.

Oh, and British people are intelligent enough to realise that having exorbitant dole isn't the best way to encourage people back to work.:rolleyes:

Do you have any statistics to back up that it works better?

Also, I'm not for dropping minimum wage, at all. Of course it should be higher than the dole. Someone working full time should get more money than someone on the dole. That doesn't mean welfare should be dropped to uncomfortable amounts. Welfare is a relatively new concept and many countries have not embraced it, and that's probably why people are so hostile towards it.

If the cost of living drops significantly, then yes, drop minimum wage and the dole. Until it does, no.

You are living proof of the systemic failure of the Irish welfare state..:p

Comments like this are pretty unnecessary.

[daithi81]

Irish minimum wage = €8.65 p/h

Work 40 hr week and wage is €346.

Has the tax-free status for min-wagers been removed? PRSI? Anyway, let's just knock 10% off that.

Net wages = 311.4

Associated cost with going to work:

Lunch = €5 per day
Transport = €3 per day

Total cost €8 per day, or €40 per week.

Net wages minus costs associated with work = €271.40

---------

Jobseekers Allowance: €204.30

Net profit to unskilled worker migrating from dole to min-wage job = €61.70 or €13.42 per working day.

[i_didnt_do_nawtin]

Well of course you would, you're not on it. There's only so low you can practically make it. Welfare in the UK is awful. If we had that level of income, thanks to the higher cost of living here people really wouldn't manage. 33% cut and we'd be halfway there. Though don't forget the UK at least finds people council houses.

There's no reason to cut social welfare. Sweden has "more" welfare than us and you can bet they won't slash theirs to the levels you're proposing. This is just a chance to push good old catholic guilt onto people.

The Cost of Living isn't set in stone, if people cannot afford something they will have to go without it until it costs less. There's no benefit to anyone in propping up artificially high prices.

[Haro]

Well, the sizable difference in unemployment between the UK(+ Europe) and Ireland is certainly one indication(Who would realistically work a min wage job when the dole is so high?). Also, the fact that one third of Ireland's budget will be consumed by welfare is another reason why the current system is unfeasible.

Do you have any statistical evidence that it doesn't work better?

You mention "uncomfortable amounts"; as a student I manage to live a perfectly comfortable lifestyle on 150 euros a week(including rent). For this reason, I have to treat your posts with the incredulity they deserve I'm afraid.

Then how is Sweden able to manage higher levels of welfare without it collapsing, smartass? You've still yet to provide any statistics either. A third?

Not everyone is able to live on that amount of money, nor should anyone really have to.

Lunch = €5 per day
Transport = €3 per day

Total cost €8 per day, or €40 per week.

Okay, now this is where things get silly. Many unemployed people may actually not sit around all day and thus afford these costs anyway.

Minimum wage isn't great in Ireland compared to our cost of living. I do agree it seems unfair for people on minimum wage that dole is hardly any less. But one thing you aren't factoring in is the "profit" of not taking the unbelievable amount of shit you'd take from people like Jesus~Roque and Piehead for being on the Dole. Work isn't just about money but social standing. Ireland's whole social stucture and economic restructure needs replanning.

[Haro]

The Cost of Living isn't set in stone, if people cannot afford something they will have to go without it until it costs less. There's no benefit to anyone in propping up artificially high prices.

Then why aren't things coming down to reflect raises these levies and cutbacks?

The thing is people still have to buy food, etc. The thing is they won't be able to buy much else after it. Tesco doesn't care if toyshops or sportshops go out of business because people can only afford food. But that's what's going to happen; "Luxury" shops aren't going to get as much business and this will be in of itself shit for the economy.

[Professor Piehead]

Then how is Sweden able to manage higher levels of welfare without it collapsing, smartass? You've still yet to provide any statistics either. A third?

Not everyone is able to live on that amount of money, nor should anyone really have to.



Okay, now this is where things get silly. Many unemployed people may actually not sit around all day and thus afford these costs anyway.

Minimum wage isn't great in Ireland compared to our cost of living. I do agree it seems unfair for people on minimum wage that dole is hardly any less. But one thing you aren't factoring in is the "profit" of not taking the unbelievable amount of shit you'd take from people like Jesus~Roque and Piehead for being on the Dole. Work isn't just about money but social standing. Ireland's whole social stucture and economic restructure needs replanning.

Higher taxes. Which people don't want to pay so you can lie in bed until three in the afternoon and still buy luxuries.

[daithi81]

Okay, now this is where things get silly. Many unemployed people may actually not sit around all day and thus afford these costs anyway.

No, you are just missing the point. I am assessing the difference between doing nothing and drawing the dole, and the incentive to getting up and working a min wage job. The costs associated with going to work are fixed costs. In otherwords, you cannot work without spending this money (and I was being generous). There are no fixed costs with being unemployed apart from the obvious spending on shelter and sustenance, which is present for both workers and the unemployed.

[Haro]

No, you are just missing the point. I am assessing the difference between doing nothing and drawing the dole, and the incentive to getting up and working a min wage job. The costs associated with going to work are fixed costs. In otherwords, you cannot work without spending this money (and I was being generous). There are no fixed costs with being unemployed apart from the obvious spending on shelter and sustenance, which is present for both workers and the unemployed.

That's not true. If you move closer to work, you can walk. If you pack a lunch, you don't need to buy lunch at work. Of course this might not be practical for everyone but it's still a possibility.

[daithi81]

That's not true. If you move closer to work, you can walk. If you pack a lunch, you don't need to buy lunch at work. Of course this might not be practical for everyone but it's still a possibility.

Ok, now we are getting silly. We must speak in generalities, Haro. Some people take the bus, some people drive a car, some people take the tram, train, etc, etc, etc. In addition, moving closer to work is not always an option, because many people work in city centres, and rent there is very expensive. If you are on the dole, and are starting a minimum wage job, this is clearly not an option. My €5 for lunch and €3 for transport was being very, very generous. You are simply nit-picking at what is a solid assessment, and it seems very desperate.

[Professor Piehead]

That's not true. If you move closer to work, you can walk. If you pack a lunch, you don't need to buy lunch at work. Of course this might not be practical for everyone but it's still a possibility.

Yeah, like you''d make your own lunch, you fackin waster.

[REMIMUFC]

if a company cant afford to pay min wage they can apply to pay less ,their accounts are looked at and if they are in bad shape they can pay less

[vanzandt]

Well, the sizable difference in unemployment between the UK(+ Europe) and Ireland is certainly one indication(Who would realistically work a min wage job when the dole is so high?). Also, the fact that one third of Ireland's budget will be consumed by welfare is another reason why the current system is unfeasible.

Do you have any statistical evidence that it doesn't work better?

You mention "uncomfortable amounts"; as a student I manage to live a perfectly comfortable lifestyle on 150 euros a week(including rent). For this reason, I have to treat your posts with the incredulity they deserve I'm afraid.

Wait until they introduce uni fees,see how comfortable you will be then,it will fuck up your backpacking for a few years.

[daithi81]

Wait until they introduce uni fees,see how comfortable you will be then,it will fuck up your backpacking for a few years.

Abercrombie & Finch will go out of business.

[i_didnt_do_nawtin]

Then why aren't things coming down to reflect raises these levies and cutbacks?

The thing is people still have to buy food, etc. The thing is they won't be able to buy much else after it. Tesco doesn't care if toyshops or sportshops go out of business because people can only afford food. But that's what's going to happen; "Luxury" shops aren't going to get as much business and this will be in of itself shit for the economy.

Because people are still living in denial. They seem to think that closing their eyes and pretending everything is ok will make everything ok. People seem to think that in a year or so things will be back to normal with stupid property prices and insane wage demands

[Proinsias]

No, you are just missing the point. I am assessing the difference between doing nothing and drawing the dole, and the incentive to getting up and working a min wage job. The costs associated with going to work are fixed costs. In otherwords, you cannot work without spending this money (and I was being generous). There are no fixed costs with being unemployed apart from the obvious spending on shelter and sustenance, which is present for both workers and the unemployed.

The costs you list are not fixed costs, they are preferences and potentially variable.
*shakes head*
Man, what's happened to you?



I've said my piece on this in a previous thread but it seems to have disappeared.

[daithi81]

The costs you list are not fixed costs, they are preferences and potentially variable.
*shakes head*
Man, what's happened to you?



I've said my piece on this in a previous thread but it seems to have disappeared.

Ok, but I'm using as simple a model as possible. If I wanted to, I could introduce rent allowance, medical cards, etc. As I see it, the representative agent would eat a lunch and needs to travel to work. Simply because, one has to eat food and cannot teleport to work. Therefore, if you take on a job, one must contend with these costs. I chose to go for an average guesstimate.

The average cost of this is surely more than €5 and €3, respectively. If people want to make it less (seriously, how much less?) then fine, I will start adding in rent allowance, at the other end.

[Hang_Sandwich]

Minimum wage here is too high in my opinion. 10 ish an hour - some grad salaries aren't much higher than that.. (for shit degrees but degrees none the less)

[Proinsias]

Ok, but I'm using as simple a model as possible. If I wanted to, I could introduce rent allowance, medical cards, etc. As I see it, the representative agent would eat a lunch and needs to travel to work. Simply because, one has to eat food and cannot teleport to work. Therefore, if you take on a job, one must contend with these costs. I chose to go for an average guesstimate.

The average cost of this is surely more than €5 and €3, respectively. If people want to make it less (seriously, how much less?) then fine, I will start adding in rent allowance, at the other end.

Your representative agent is an extrapolation of your personal circumstances. I would hazard a guess that you are not representative of the average unemployed person.

Your expenditure is dependent on your circumstances, which is why a generc representitive agent is not a valid model, if you earn less, you're almost certainly more likely to bring, rather than buy your lunch. I've made my own lunch almost every single day over the past year, something I hadn't done for 6 years before that.

Also, another flaw in your methodology is that the unemployed person does not eat for free at lunchtime. If the unemployed person makes his/her own lunch, as does the employed person, then the divide between them is merely based on transport, which is very highly variable, going from nothing if you live relatively close by or cycle, to low if you take regular public transport, to quite high if you have your own vehicle. The latter situation is less likely in the situation of someone lower paid.
In addition, those in lower paid jobs are more likely to be in that situation over the long run, unemployment is, by in large, a temporary state of affairs. Thus, you are more likely to live near your work (bringing down your transport costs, as it is a function of your rental costs) than those not on minimum wage, especially due to the high cost of transport in Ireland. It's one of the reasons (not the only one) why most cities have very poor areas within short distances of city centres.


But I digress. I've worked for less than the dole. I didn't like one bit that I earned less than the dole, but there's a great deal of our selves as social beings tied up in our working lives. There's a large social cost associated with being unemployed.

The argument that, by pushing social welfare and minimum wages, you'll reduce unemployment by push factors (SW payments) and stimulating demad for labour has been shown time and again to be overly simplistic. For example, Michigan is in big, big trouble because of these policies being taken to extremes.

In addition, people fail to recognise the cost to society of reducing both the minimum wage and the social welfare payments, especially in a downturn. These are significant. It exacerbates systematic inequality, sets in motion vicious spirals of deprivation and disenfranchises the worst off in society. Those on minimum wage are not the middle class, but the government almost always is appointed by the middle class, to reflect their needs and desires.

By extending the gap between poor and middle class, the middle class benefit through cheaper goods and services but the poor are fucked over with no recourse available. They are powerless as the political system does not represent them adequetely (there's not enough of them to gain political power through their votes).

What do powerless people do when they are being fucked over by the rest of society?

[daithi81]

Your representative agent is an extrapolation of your personal circumstances. I would hazard a guess that you are not representative of the average unemployed person.

Your expenditure is dependent on your circumstances, which is why a generc representitive agent is not a valid model, if you earn less, you're almost certainly more likely to bring, rather than buy your lunch. I've made my own lunch almost every single day over the past year, something I hadn't done for 6 years before that.

Also, another flaw in your methodology is that the unemployed person does not eat for free at lunchtime. If the unemployed person makes his/her own lunch, as does the employed person, then the divide between them is merely based on transport, which is very highly variable, going from nothing if you live relatively close by or cycle, to low if you take regular public transport, to quite high if you have your own vehicle. The latter situation is less likely in the situation of someone lower paid.
In addition, those in lower paid jobs are more likely to be in that situation over the long run, unemployment is, by in large, a temporary state of affairs. Thus, you are more likely to live near your work (bringing down your transport costs, as it is a function of your rental costs) than those not on minimum wage, especially due to the high cost of transport in Ireland. It's one of the reasons (not the only one) why most cities have very poor areas within short distances of city centres.


But I digress. I've worked for less than the dole. I didn't like one bit that I earned less than the dole, but there's a great deal of our selves as social beings tied up in our working lives. There's a large social cost associated with being unemployed.

The argument that, by pushing social welfare and minimum wages, you'll reduce unemployment by push factors (SW payments) and stimulating demad for labour has been shown time and again to be overly simplistic. For example, Michigan is in big, big trouble because of these policies being taken to extremes.

In addition, people fail to recognise the cost to society of reducing both the minimum wage and the social welfare payments, especially in a downturn. These are significant. It exacerbates systematic inequality, sets in motion vicious spirals of deprivation and disenfranchises the worst off in society. Those on minimum wage are not the middle class, but the government almost always is appointed by the middle class, to reflect their needs and desires.

By extending the gap between poor and middle class, the middle class benefit through cheaper goods and services but the poor are fucked over with no recourse available. They are powerless as the political system does not represent them adequetely (there's not enough of them to gain political power through their votes).

What do powerless people do when they are being fucked over by the rest of society?

Ok, don't have time to respond fully. So lets assume that packed lunches (which i eat, and they don't appear out of thin air for free, but nevermind) have net zero cost and that everyone walks to work.

Now, lets take the model above, and add in rent allowance.

Irish minimum wage = €8.65 p/h

Work 40 hr week and wage is €346.

Has the tax-free status for min-wagers been removed? PRSI? Anyway, let's just knock 10% off that.

Net wages = 311.4

Associated cost with going to work:

Lunch = Free
Transport = Free

Net wages minus costs associated with work = €311.40 (a bollocks figure)

---------

Jobseekers Allowance: €204.30
Rent Allowance: How much is this, on average?


Net profit to unskilled worker migrating from dole to min-wage job = ???

[Proinsias]

Net profit to unskilled worker migrating from dole to min-wage job = ???

A purely financial calculation doesn't quite cover it. There are many other externalities that, TBH, I think we'd disagree about all day and get nowhere.

In addition, I'm arguing that minimum wage should not be that much different to unemployment benefit.

Four reasons behind this (although I have many more):
1. inequalities in income create inequalities in society. Making a further divide between unemployed and employed folk undermines this.

2. It allows employers to treat employees like shit. They have significant power over their employees, whom they can (and do) explot for all they're worth as generally, the only alternative for someone on min wage (especially in a recession) is unemployment.

3. I've not seen that much evidence that reducing minimum wages creates more jobs. This is especially true in capital intensive countries, where labour costs are not the biggest factor. Maybe the service economy changes that equation, however with aggregate demand through the floor, I seriously doubt a small change in minimum wage will be enough to encourage consumer spending in services.
I'd like to be wrong about that and I'd like to see evidence that gives information on that, but I'm not convinced it would help in the Irish case. In a relatively stable, almost static economy, it mighjt have an effect, but the Irish problem is far deeper than a simple cost of labour of the bottom 3-5% of the workforce.

4. It encoruates wage deflation. Not good.

[daithi81]

I'm not arguing for reducing the min wage. I think it has little or no effect on job creation or FDI. I'm just trying to introduce the topic of disincentivisation in welfare benefits vs min wage jobs.

Excluding the 'feel good factor' that washing dishes and flipping burgers has on the soul, I really dont see why anyone would want to work a min wage job, when they can stay in bed and draw the dole, write that movie script they always wanted to, etc.

I'm not even factoring in the current economy.

[Proinsias]

I'm not arguing for reducing the min wage. I think it has little or no effect on job creation or FDI. I'm just trying to introduce the topic of disincentivisation in welfare benefits vs min wage jobs.

Excluding the 'feel good factor' that washing dishes and flipping burgers has on the soul, I really dont see why anyone would want to work a min wage job, when they can stay in bed and draw the dole, write that movie script they always wanted to, etc.

I'm not even factoring in the current economy.

It's linked to your identity and social status. The stereotypical first question at a party is "what do you do?". There's a good reason for that, what we do, on a day to day basis, defines us. Without that anchor, without something to do, self esteem tends to take a battering. Of course, that's not universally applicable, there are many people who are perfectly happy sitting around doing nothing and contributing nothing to society, happy to live on the bare minimum. That's why we will always have some level of unemployment without forced labour.

No matter how bad your job, there are greater social stigmas attached to not working than there are to working. Maybe not in some areas where a large percentage of the population are unemployed, but by in large, it's true. People are not naturally lazy.

It's why I said that a cost-benefit analysis does not cover it. In the specific situation, yes, it is important. It ignores the human side of the equation.

[Hang_Sandwich]

Meanwhile, in the real world -unemployment is becoming a severe problem in this country, and one which could manifest into financial oblivion if not addressed in an appropriate manner.

The fact of the matter is, you cannot expect people to work a 40 hr week for an equal amount to social welfare. Where is the incentive? Social status is simply not enough, I'm afraid. Perhaps in your quasi-socialistic utopia this is feasible, but it is just not realistic in the real world!

The IMF would be swiftly called upon if dimwitted socialistic fuckwits like yourself were in control of economic policy. The situation would be even more catastrophic than under the calamitous Fianna Failure regime.

Social welfare has to be slashed by 33.3%! Minimum wage should remain unscathed.

Comprende?

ummm frank is like a contractor capitalist pig.

[Proinsias]

Meanwhile, in the real world -unemployment is becoming a severe problem in this country, and one which could manifest into financial oblivion if not addressed in an appropriate manner.

The fact of the matter is, you cannot expect people to work a 40 hr week for an equal amount to social welfare. Where is the incentive? Social status is simply not enough, I'm afraid. Perhaps in your quasi-socialistic utopia this is feasible, but it is just not realistic in the real world!

The IMF would be swiftly called upon if dimwitted socialistic fuckwits like yourself were in control of economic policy. The situation would be even more catastrophic than under the calamitous Fianna Failure regime.

Social welfare has to be slashed by 33.3%! Minimum wage should remain unscathed.

Comprende?I've dealt with this argument thoroughly in the IMF thread.
http://www.peoplesrepublico fcork.com/~peoplesr/forums/showpost.php?p=27896 05&postcount=46

I've also shown many of my workings in another thread:
http://www.peoplesrepublico fcork.com/~peoplesr/forums/showpost.php?p=27977 96&postcount=133

There's two particular economic ideas that I use to back up my argument:
1. The Keynesian view of unemployment (if anyone knows a very simple link for an explanation of this, I'd be grateful):
There's a theory that unemployment is based upon an imbalance between all the demand in the economy and all the supply of goods and services in an economy. So if everything was perfectly balanced, government spending would equal taxes, savings would equal investment, imports would equal exports and consumption of goods would equal everything made in Ireland.
Each bit is dependent on the other. The more consumption, then the more taxes you get, which means government spending can rise and all the other bits n pieces change together.
So, you've got your demand for stuff (exports minus imports + government spending minus taxes + Investment minus savings + consumption). This is known as Aggregate Demand.

If this equals Aggregate Supply, then, theoretically, there is no unemployment. Everyone is providing everything needed, no more, no less.
Obviously, there are things that cause unemployment beyond this, such as changes in industries, but those are dealt with seperately.

Currently, Ireland's aggregate demand is out of whack. Consumption has dropped to fuck, savings have gone up, investment is down, tax take is down, government spending is up. Supply is way higher than demand, meaning unemployment is going to rise.

The solution to this is to raise Aggregate Demand. Bringing up consumption will raise taxes, meaning that demand goes up and unemployment goes down.

The other theory (I'll come back to 1.)
2. The multiplier effect. For every euro the government puts into the economy, they boost economic activity by so much. If the government spends €1 million, giving it to a private company, who then pay their workers and buy materials. The suppliers of those materials also employ workers and have their own suppliers and so on down the line.
All of the workers then have their own spending, as I explained in one of my previous posts.
Thus, that €1 million produces a lot more economic activity than ust the first €1 million. This is the multiplier effect. How much activity is produced gives the effectiveness of the spending. Quite a decent percentage of it will come back to the government though, up to 30% of the worker's wages, VAT and so on. So that initial €1 million isn't actually €1 million gone from the government. Done right, spending in this way can result in a large multiplier effect that brings more back to the government than it spends.

As explained in 1, we need to boost Aggregate Demand. So, with this in mind, if the governmet spends and if the multipler is high, then government spending will boost consumption and, with it, the tax take.

In addition, it's been observed that, if people perceive themselves to be richer, they spend more and save less. Comapnies invest when they feel better about the future than when they don't. As you can see, all this boosts Aggregate Demand and...decreases unemployment.

This multiplier effect for social welfare payments (and due to reasons I won't get into, the first giving of the money doesn't count) is 2 in the USA. If you give someone $1, $2 worth of other taxable income will pop up in the economy.

This is dependent on a number of things, such as the chances of you saving it.

The poorest in society don't save. The rich save, but the poor don't. They can't. So this multiplier effect tends to be more effective when you apply it to people who are poor. It's very difficult to actually measure this, so a lot of people question the effectiveness of it in getting an economy going, however there's little doubt it will halt the downward spiral in aggregate demand.

Cutting government spending propogates that downward spiral.

Also, the poor tend to get hit worse than the rich in recessions cause, well, they're poor. They've got fuck all. You don't need to be a socialist (and I consider myself a liberal social capitalist) to recognise the fact that it's poor form to kick the worst off in society when they're down.

In summary, we need higher exports, lower imports, higher consumption, higher government spending, more investment and less saving to help unemployment and stop this deflationary spiral. An excellent way of doing this is boosting government spending until sentiment turns around.

The IMF do not entirely agree with this analysis of economics, but they've fucked up so many countries over the years that I don't agree with their analysis of economics.
ummm frank is like a contractor capitalist pig.

He's studying a masters in Economics following his stint as a contractor capitalist pigdog.

He's planning on becoming a proper capitalist pigdog within the next few weeks. He's also very pleased with his capitalist pigdog return on his shares recently. A communist, I certainly am not.

[daithi81]

It's linked to your identity and social status. The stereotypical first question at a party is "what do you do?". There's a good reason for that, what we do, on a day to day basis, defines us. Without that anchor, without something to do, self esteem tends to take a battering. Of course, that's not universally applicable, there are many people who are perfectly happy sitting around doing nothing and contributing nothing to society, happy to live on the bare minimum. That's why we will always have some level of unemployment without forced labour.

No matter how bad your job, there are greater social stigmas attached to not working than there are to working. Maybe not in some areas where a large percentage of the population are unemployed, but by in large, it's true. People are not naturally lazy.

It's why I said that a cost-benefit analysis does not cover it. In the specific situation, yes, it is important. It ignores the human side of the equation.

Every equation ignores the human side. ;)

[Proinsias]

Every equation ignores the human side. ;)

Hf

[Haro]

Higher taxes. Which people don't want to pay so you can lie in bed until three in the afternoon and still buy luxuries.

Piehead, did you read that link you posted about this? As someone posted out, you don't see the Swedes complaining about this. If you actually talked to a swedish person and asked them how they felt, you might have a better understanding. Yet Irish people complain about it? And you live in the UK where Welfare is pitiful. It's not about YOUR TAX MONEY. The same system that allows you to make money to begin with also affords people welfare. The government both protects property rights, and people's right to a decent standard of living. You seem to think property rights and the market are more important than people. This is one of many reasons I judge your character as extremely negative.

Also I don't lie in bed until three in the afternoon, I go to a full time course and you have a traditionalistic definition of "luxuries". What would you rather I spend my money on? Give it all back to the government because I don't think I deserve it? What if I simply disagree and have a different ethical structure to you? You're not a very nice guy, so yours is not likely to be superior.

I only finished my college course last summer, and due to serious stress related issues as well as poor overall physical and mental health, I took a break until November. Some people take a whole year off. Then I started seeing someone for assisted employment - I had serious issues doing interviews, getting a job etc. as I'd done about 10 interviews for my second Work Placement(and no I didn't show "attitude" like on these forums and quite frankly I wouldn't hire someone with your disposition, so it's relative) and gotten nowhere.

After that I started doing a full time course up in Hollyhill and I'm still doing that. After the summer since it's driving me insane, I'm going to do another course more focused on my career path than my Computer Science degree, if I don't get in I'm either going to study the material in my own time or do some volunteer work, possibly both.

I'm sick to the teeth of these accusations of dong "Nothing". Like many other unemployed people, I don't do "nothing", I'm not even technically unemployed since I'm still in education.

Also I'm on disability, I'm ALLOWED to do nothing. If I over extend myself, I get panic attacks. Maybe if our system wasn't so unbelievably shit to people with mental illness and I'd gotten to see someone sooner, this might not be so. It's also very possible that some people are just not wired for a 40 hour 9 to 5 week. I have a hard time imagining myself in that position. It's not because I'm lazy, it's because of a myriad of difficulties I have in general with coping skills, attention span, time management and tiredness eating up all my free time.

I'm getting tired of the sleezy, bitchy attitudes towards people on welfare. People like Daithi or Piehead haven't even heard of the idea of a "strawman".

A shining example of this was when I was accused of sitting at home playing my "expensive" guitar. At no point did i mention buying a guitar without pointing out that it cost me next to nothing(under €160, a good electric guitar will normally set you back at least €500). I sourced a little known brand and bought factory direct so I got similar quality to a €500 guitar for a fraction of the price. This is what we should all be doing.

So where did expensive come from? Because accusing me of playing a cheap guitar, as is appropriate for someone on welfare, wouldn't have the same impact. That and pure right wing delusion.

Why else are people still pulling this "get a job" act in the middle of a recession? I haven't had a chance to get a job. Like I said I only finished my degree last summer, and I needed time off. I was very ill. I'm still not particularly well now. When the recession did hit, I thought it'd be better worth my time improving my chances by pursuing additional education and skills. In fact during my time off, I was learning life skills too, I had a house mate help me with this. I've actually been "getting off my ass" and doing the best I can do. Just because I have't done it in the way you might think is beneficial to society doesn't mean I have to agree with you. You're vicious minded cunts so chances are you wouldn't know what's "beneficial to society" anyway.

People don't want to hear this though. It's all one big tl;dr. The reason right wing mentalities often go hand in hand with socially conservative policies is that they're both based on not understanding individual circumstance. I'm getting tired of it.

If you ask me we should be looking at ways to work towards a 30 hour week. Our current system is based too much on "Showing face" and at the end of the day we probably spend 10 hours a week doing less than we could, and unfortunately just being at work has a tendancy to tire us out than being at work and actually doing anything. I know that from my experience working in Dell.

Also, what people are forgetting is that putting people on a higher level of welfare has the effect . Because I can afford "Luxuries", I help keep the economy running. If I was to horde the money or spend even more of it than I already do online, then that would be a problem. If it was cut any further I'd have to buy all my "luxuries" online. A higher level of welfare like we currently have is the best way to pump money in the economy. It means people can still buy things even when they loose their job.

[daithi81]

Haro, is there such a thing as 'left wing delusion'?

[Haro]

Haro, is there such a thing as 'left wing delusion'?

Are you implying I suffer for it? If I was, I wouldn't keep citing an example that actually does work. Most people seem to hold left wingers, socialists are "delusional" when in reality you find a great deal of it in the arguments needed to uphold the ethics associated with right wing economics. It relies too much on things sorting themselves out.

[daithi81]

Are you implying I suffer for it? If I was, I wouldn't keep citing an example that actually does work. Most people seem to hold left wingers, socialists are "delusional" when in reality you find a great deal of it in the arguments needed to uphold the ethics associated with right wing economics. It relies too much on things sorting themselves out.

You're like a broken record, I was merely drawing reference to your continual 'right wing delusion' term, you so love.

Tell me, is there such a thing as 'left wing delusion', to you? Is that possible?

[Haro]

What does this even have to do with the argument? Why don't you go back and actually deal with the points I raised instead of expecting me to bother this? I don't see how any answer I can give you would be of any use.

Do you even realise how immature you come across? I know you probably think I come across as an angry teenager, but I have a bunch of excuses for why that might be. You really should stop with this kind of bullshit.

[daithi81]

What does this even have to do with the argument? Why don't you go back and actually deal with the points I raised instead of expecting me to bother this? I don't see how any answer I can give you would be of any use.

Do you even realise how immature you come across? I know you probably think I come across as an angry teenager, but I have a bunch of excuses for why that might be. You really should stop with this kind of bullshit.

Thank you.

[Haro]

Thanks for the condescending little economics lesson.:rolleyes: I am positive I could find several economic theories which contradict your assertions, but that is tedious and detracts from the debate.

The simple fact is welfare payments in this country are astronomically high(you don't need an economics degree to realise this, surely?). It has been laughably raised by 67 % in real terms since the year 2000. Considering the current economic turmoil, and the immensely high unemployment levels, perhaps you can grasp why it may be necessary to slash these generous handouts? Now, I have read a few of your posts, and you suggest there should no job or welfare cuts. I am flabbergasted that someone could come to such an outrageous conclusion.

You are not a complete idiot, but you are blindly optimistic. Your vision for how society should be( near zero unemployment) is totally unrealistic in this country. What would you do when the tracksuit clad, council estate layabouts refuse to contribute? Will you form the Proinstapo?:rolleyes : Or maybe you would just supply them with exorbitant dole so they can smoke and swill alcoholic beverages to their hearts content? It definitely would boost the drink and tobacco companies profit margins.:rolleyes:

What a farcical numpty you are.

Just because they're high doesn't mean they're cut. That's ridiculous. For example Japan has no real welfare system, if they were to suddenly introduce welfare, then an recession happened, people would be going OMG AN INFINITE INCREASE IN WELFARE RATES WE MUST SCRAP IT and other such shit. It's nonsense. Ireland has a good level of welfare. And this is a good thing. I think it's perfectly fair given the cost of living. I think minimum wage if anything should be higher, but that's not really practical. Cost of living needs to come down, then welfare, then minimum wage.

It's not about it being high. It's if it's too high to be sustainable(which it's unlikely to be, given there are countries with higher rates, and we're actually not as broke as the government likes to lead us to believe). But the thing is, that keeping people on a serviceable level of welfare means they keep spending so money is pumped back into the economy. The economy is suffering in one way because people are afraid to spend. If they know a decent level of welfare is guaranteed, then they would be more likely to(though should also be responsible with their money and not pay jacked up prices). And that's what we need right now, not more cutbacks. Because of this I would say that we can't AFFORD to cut welfare in the long term.

[Haro]

Thank you.

No. If you're in any way respectable and mature, you'll deal with my actual on topic post instead of pulling this shit.

[Professor Piehead]

Just because they're high doesn't mean they're cut. That's ridiculous. For example Japan has no real welfare system, if they were to suddenly introduce welfare, then an recession happened, people would be going OMG AN INFINITE INCREASE IN WELFARE RATES WE MUST SCRAP IT and other such shit. It's nonsense. Ireland has a good level of welfare. And this is a good thing. I think it's perfectly fair given the cost of living. I think minimum wage if anything should be higher, but that's not really practical. Cost of living needs to come down, then welfare, then minimum wage.

It's not about it being high. It's if it's too high to be sustainable(which it's unlikely to be, given there are countries with higher rates, and we're actually not as broke as the government likes to lead us to believe). But the thing is, that keeping people on a serviceable level of welfare means they keep spending so money is pumped back into the economy. The economy is suffering in one way because people are afraid to spend. If they know a decent level of welfare is guaranteed, then they would be more likely to(though should also be responsible with their money and not pay jacked up prices). And that's what we need right now, not more cutbacks. Because of this I would say that we can't AFFORD to cut welfare in the long term.

Christ. If I have 2 beans and somebody gives me 2 more beans, how many beans will I have?

[Haro]

Christ. If I have 2 beans and somebody gives me 2 more beans, how many beans will I have?

Hopefully you'll attempt to swallow all 4, asphyxiate and somehow end up in coma, waking up when the world has finally progressed enough that you and your viewpoints are now completely irrelevant.

[Professor Piehead]

Hopefully you'll attempt to swallow all 4, asphyxiate and somehow end up in coma, waking up when the world has finally progressed enough that you and your viewpoints are now completely irrelevant.

Ah, you can count after all. So, as the government are borrowing 400 million euro a week, you think that as you're on benefit, you don't have to contribute anything to reduce this figure. We can just go on continually borowing money to fund your luxurious benefit payments, typical.

[Professor Piehead]

Prof, as Haro states in one of his previous posts, the dire financial situation is being greatly exaggerated by the Irish government. A 20 billion deficit is proverbial peanuts to an island with 4 million people.:lol!:

What a surprise this country is fucked; too many Haro's and not enough Jesus's.:lol!:

Heh heh heh.

[daithi81]

No. If you're in any way respectable and mature, you'll deal with my actual on topic post instead of pulling this shit.

Why? You already gave me what I wanted.

[Haro]

Why? You already gave me what I wanted.

That's not how arguments work. Seriously, grow the fuck up. I gave some good reasns to defend my case and you pull this childish bullshit. Arguments are not about you revealing stereotypes to yourself you've made up in your head. I could elect any predicted response as "What I wanted". But it would have absolutely nothing to do with anything.

So basically you're saying you're not going to deal with the argument I presented in the post?

[Haro]

Ah, you can count after all. So, as the government are borrowing 400 million euro a week, you think that as you're on benefit, you don't have to contribute anything to reduce this figure. We can just go on continually borowing money to fund your luxurious benefit payments, typical.

200 euro a week is not "luxurious". Pronsias made some good points regarding this but of course you ignored them since I'm easier to single out.

Prof, as Haro states in one of his previous posts, the dire financial situation is being greatly exaggerated by the Irish government. A 20 billion deficit is proverbial peanuts to an island with 4 million people.:lol!:

What a surprise this country is fucked; too many Haro's and not enough Jesus's.:lol!:

Again, Pronsias made some posts about this too. But right wing sociopathic pieces of shit just like to ignore what doesn't suit their agenda.

[daithi81]

But pieces of shit just like to ignore what doesn't suit their agenda.

I couldn't have put it better myself.

[Proinsias]

Thanks for the condescending little economics lesson. I am positive I could find several economic theories which contradict your assertions, but that is tedious and detracts from the debate.
It's easy to find plenty that contradict that theory, Milton Friedman's market absolutism is certainly one. It may be condescending but I have no idea if you've got any economics experience. I assume you don't, as you've never heard of Keynesian economics (or Austrian, neo-liberal or any other flavour of market capitalism). So really, I had to start at the start. Want me to go a little more complicated?



The simple fact is welfare payments in this country are astronomically high(you don't need an economics degree to realise this, surely?).
High compared to what? Where should they be? What is the impact of reducing them? You do need significant economics training to know the answer to that. It might seem simple to you, but it's not. It's really, really complicated.


It has been laughably raised by 67 % in real terms since the year 2000. Considering the current economic turmoil, and the immensely high unemployment levels, perhaps you can grasp why it may be necessary to slash these generous handouts? Now, I have read a few of your posts, and you suggest there should no job or welfare cuts. I am flabbergasted that someone could come to such an outrageous conclusion.
I have just explained my position, based on Keynesian spending. Why are the USA, China and the UK spending like crazy right now? By your logic, they should cut, cut, cut.
Why is it that the major world economies see fit to spend MORE and run up bigger debts?

You are not a complete idiot, but you are blindly optimistic. Your vision for how society should be( near zero unemployment) is totally unrealistic in this country. You didn't read my post. You don't understand what I was talking about. I may have been condescending, but it was necessary, as you had no idea what I was talking about if you think I am aiming for zero unemployment. In fact, I'm one of those people who say that a certain level of unemployment is, counterintuintively, a healthy thing for society.

What would you do when the tracksuit clad, council estate layabouts refuse to contribute? Will you form the Proinstapo?:rolleyes : Or maybe you would just supply them with exorbitant dole so they can smoke and swill alcoholic beverages to their hearts content? It definitely would boost the drink and tobacco companies profit margins.:rolleyes:

What a farcical numpty you are.
Maybe.

But you have no real knowledge behind your assertions, they're mere knee-jerk reactions that stem from a simplistic understanding of how the finances of a country is very different to how a firm or a person's finances work
Ah, you can count after all. So, as the government are borrowing 400 million euro a week, you think that as you're on benefit, you don't have to contribute anything to reduce this figure. We can just go on continually borowing money to fund your luxurious benefit payments, typical.
That last statement applies to you too.
Prof, as Haro states in one of his previous posts, the dire financial situation is being greatly exaggerated by the Irish government. A 20 billion deficit is proverbial peanuts to an island with 4 million people.:lol!:

What a surprise this country is fucked; too many Haro's and not enough Jesus's.:lol!:The €20 billion public spending deficit is pittance in comparison to the private debt.

That's why the country is fucked. The measure I suggest could turn things around.

[Haro]

I couldn't have put it better myself.

Hold on. You just ignored an entire post I made, focusing in on one point that wasn't even irrelevant. You can't say the same thing I have, don't even try.

[Matty Kiely's Apron]

Basically you're just an arrogant, ignorant twat, with the personality of a supervalu brand toaster.

You somehow think in your little head that a masters degree in economics makes you some kind of economic guru. What a simplistic imbecile you truly are! People with far more economic knowledge and/or experience have been responsible for the biggest meltdown in history, yet a totally inexperienced know-it-all such as yourself reckons he has all the answers.
Pretty much every other European nation has much lower Social Welfare than Ireland, yet they are in a much more advantageous position to deal with this downturn. :rolleyes:That pretty much defeats your argument against not reducing the ludicrously high handouts.

You mention Britain: this is a nation which will be consumed by debt (87% of GDP to be precise), thanks to that totally moronic simpleton Brown(Probably someone you admire). What a great example of economic proficiency.

Essentially, you are lacking on all levels: personality, intelligence and character.

I cannot envisage an illustrious career in economics for the likes of you.:p

Idiot!

rattled












































and badly at that

[Haro]

Basically you're just an arrogant, ignorant twat, with the personality of a supervalu brand toaster.

You somehow think in your little head that a masters degree in economics makes you some kind of economic guru. What a simplistic imbecile you truly are! People with far more economic knowledge and/or experience have been responsible for the biggest meltdown in history, yet a totally inexperienced know-it-all such as yourself reckons he has all the answers.
Pretty much every other European nation has much lower Social Welfare than Ireland, yet they are in a much more advantageous position to deal with this downturn. :rolleyes:That pretty much defeats your argument against not reducing the ludicrously high handouts.

You mention Britain: this is a nation which will be consumed by debt (87% of GDP to be precise), thanks to that totally moronic simpleton Brown(Probably someone you admire). What a great example of economic proficiency.

Essentially, you are lacking on all levels: personality, intelligence and character.

I cannot envisage an illustrious career in economics for the likes of you.:p

Idiot!

Why is it that everyone supporting the right wing side of this have this tough guy, anti-intellectual, hard knock life attitude going on? I'm getting dangerously close to ad hominem territory but I can't see how anyone who talks like this and views the world this way can make any valid judgements on things as sensitive as welfare.

[Haro]

Talk about hypocrisy! You labeling me as "right wing" is just the kind of judgmental, stereotypical behaviour which someone as conscientiously liberal minded as yourself should abhor.

Anyway, you are incorrect as usual.:D

No, not really. I have no problem making judgements on people if they're being cocks. I'm a hotblooded hippie I'm afraid.

He was actually being perfectly respectful, yet you replied with

"Basically you're just an arrogant, ignorant twat, with the personality of a Supervalu brand toaster."

I only tear into people when they're already being twats.

I don't see what's so complicated.

[Professor Piehead]

No, not really. I have no problem making judgements on people if they're being cocks. I'm a hotblooded hippie I'm afraid.

He was actually being perfectly respectful, yet you replied with

"Basically you're just an arrogant, ignorant twat, with the personality of a Supervalu brand toaster."

I only tear into people when they're already being twats.

I don't see what's so complicated.

Yep, lazy, smelly and living off welfare while at the same time lecturing taxpayers on the evils of the state. If you'd actually contributed anything to society, I might take you seriously.

Set your alarm for 2.pm today and make an effort.

[daithi81]

Hold on. You just ignored an entire post I made, focusing in on one point that wasn't even irrelevant. You can't say the same thing I have, don't even try.

There is no thing as left-wing delusion. Only right-wing delusion.

You are drowning in a sea of irony, Haro.

:lol!:







PS: Your post was utter fuckin drivel. I'm tired of having to teach as I rebut. That's why I am not responding to it. Read a fucking book on economics that doesn't have 'socialist worker' printed on it, you twat.

[daithi81]

Yep, lazy, smelly and living off welfare while at the same time lecturing taxpayers on the evils of the state. If you'd actually contributed anything to society, I might take you seriously.

Set your alarm for 2.pm today and make an effort.

Well put. You ever notice that those people who are always calling for higher and broader benefits are always the ones who are permadoled? Even during the boom these people couldn't seem to find work!

:lol!:

[How bad boy]

Basically you're just an arrogant, ignorant twat, with the personality of a Supervalu brand toaster.

You somehow think in your little head that a masters degree in economics makes you some kind of economic guru. What a simplistic imbecile you truly are! People with far more economic knowledge and/or experience have been responsible for the biggest meltdown in history, yet a totally inexperienced know-it-all such as yourself reckons he has all the answers.
Pretty much every other European nation has much lower Social Welfare than Ireland, yet they are in a much more advantageous position to deal with this downturn. :rolleyes:That pretty much defeats your argument against not reducing the ludicrously high handouts.

You mention Britain: this is a nation which will be consumed by debt (87% of GDP to be precise), thanks to that totally moronic simpleton Brown(Probably someone you admire). What a great example of economic proficiency.

Essentially, you are lacking on all levels: personality, intelligence and character.

I cannot envisage an illustrious career in economics for the likes of you.:p

Idiot!

Edit: by the way, "an bord snip"(what a fucking stupid name) are a group of economic experts. They are above you on every level when it comes to economics(you haven't even completed a measly masters degree ffs). They have outlined cuts that are necessary; by your own elitist attitude, listen to people who know more about economics than yourself.

Simpleton!So that's my personality dealt with.

Now deal with my arguments.
"Well, the sizable difference in unemployment between the UK(+ Europe) and Ireland is certainly one indication(Who would realistically work a min wage job when the dole is so high?). Also, the fact that one third of Ireland's budget will be consumed by welfare is another reason why the current system is unfeasible.

Do you have any statistical evidence that it doesn't work better?

You mention "uncomfortable amounts"; as a student I manage to live a perfectly comfortable lifestyle on 150 euros a week(including rent). For this reason, I have to treat your posts with the incredulity they deserve I'm afraid."

Perhaps you would care to respond to this wonderfully crafted post, Haro?
During the boom years, the level of unemployment benefit wasn't cited as a hinderence for Ireland's growing prosperity.

There is little statistical evidence that you can cut government spending (which is already pretty low in Ireland by european standards, BTW) to promote economic growth.

In addition, we have to think what exactly we want from society. Do we want economic growth or a better life for citizens. If you say economic growth, then piss off back to China.
There is no thing as left-wing delusion. Only right-wing delusion.

You are drowning in a sea of irony, Haro.
I say both sides can be equally deluded.
The neo-liberal economic policies got us into this mess. They have their part to play, but right now, the market mechanism isn't going to solve these problems. We're in a situation of market disequilibrium. Until that is solved, we cannot go back to using efficient market theory to solve this.
Once it's solved, then a return to Friedmanite free market (albeit with Keynesian counter-cyclical governmental spending and saving, I would argue they're not entirely incompatible in stable situations) is probably the best policy.



PS: Your post was utter fuckin drivel. I'm tired of having to teach as I rebut. That's why I am not responding to it. Read a fucking book on economics that doesn't have 'socialist worker' printed on it, you twat.I am having the same problems on the other side.

[daithi81]

I say both sides can be equally deluded.

That's exactly my point. Haro can't even fathom the possibility of this.

[How bad boy]

That's exactly my point. Haro can't even fathom the possibility of this.
Incidentally, if you want to read up on Marx's work (his esteem as an economist has risen consideribly in my estimation over the past year) then the first few chapters of Schumpeter's Capitalsim, Socialism and Democracy are brilliant. Not only does he present Marx's arguments very well, he rips them to shreds, showing exactly why they're nice but far too idealistic, with significant methodological errors.
I've found it very useful in my debates with my economics professor.

[jd26]

Seeing that you two are the resident economics heads around here, do either of you know anything about Minsky.

I read an interview with Vincent Cable yesterday and given a choice of Keynes, Minsky, Schumpeter and Marx he said Minsky was the most relevant to the crisis today. Seeing that I'm not even familiar with the name, never mind the theory, is there anything worth knowing here?

[daithi81]

Incidentally, if you want to read up on Marx's work (his esteem as an economist has risen consideribly in my estimation over the past year) then the first few chapters of Schumpeter's Capitalsim, Socialism and Democracy are brilliant. Not only does he present Marx's arguments very well, he rips them to shreds, showing exactly why they're nice but far too idealistic, with significant methodological errors.
I've found it very useful in my debates with my economics professor.

I took Schumpeters books out of the library once, but I never got round to reading it. I should give it a lash again, is it a dense read?

Marx always makes a comeback during financial crises, pay no mind. :D

[How bad boy]

Seeing that you two are the resident economics heads around here, do either of you know anything about Minsky.

I read an interview with Vincent Cable yesterday and given a choice of Keynes, Minsky, Schumpeter and Marx he said Minsky was the most relevant to the crisis today. Seeing that I'm not even familiar with the name, never mind the theory, is there anything worth knowing here?
I'd only heard of him in passing.

Having a quick look at his theories, there are a number of influential folk pushing similar theories (Soros is one whom I've read that appears to have an almost identical theory). I must admit, from an initial first reading of his theory, it sounds very sound and would tie in almost exactly with my own sentiments on the current situation.

Conveniently, the only copy of his latest book, The Emotion Machine is only available in the Oxford Union, so that's where I'm going to spend my afternoon. You're not allowed in as an external reader if the book is available elsewhere.

Sweet.

[How bad boy]

I took Schumpeters books out of the library once, but I never got round to reading it. I should give it a lash again, is it a dense read?

Marx always makes a comeback during financial crises, pay no mind. :D
It's a very dense read, TBH.

Schumpeter dismantles the theory of Surplus Value entirely. With it, Marx's entire system crumbles instantly. You can then add in Schumpeter's theories on Creative Destruction and you can clearly and coherently argue why communism won't work, without having to just dismiss it as rubbish cause the Russians and Chinese tried it and failed.
I really drove my economics professor nuts with it though, he's quite the Marxist and a believer in the scientific nature of economics. I'm neither, and so I used his argument against him, that, if Marxism is such a brilliant system and economics is a science, don't the failures in attempt to implement a Marxist system experimental failures that reveal the fundamental flaws in the system?

It's always nice to be able to debate with someone on their terms and win.


Incidentally, on the "economics is not a science" bit, I thought I'd point you to two podcasts on this that cover my position. I'd highly recommend them as they give a good insight into much of the underpinnings in economics at the very least:

http://www.econtalk.org/archives/_featuring/ed_leamer/
http://www.econtalk.org/archives/2009/01/roberts_and_han.html

[Haro]

There is no thing as left-wing delusion. Only right-wing delusion.

You are drowning in a sea of irony, Haro.

:lol!:







PS: Your post was utter fuckin drivel. I'm tired of having to teach as I rebut. That's why I am not responding to it. Read a fucking book on economics that doesn't have 'socialist worker' printed on it, you twat.

Funny how the contents of my post proved a lot of your perceptions wrong about me, and it happens to be the one you don't reply to at all.

You're a shit person and I've had enough of dealing with you for now. Some of your posts are insanely childish yet you think you're in a position to "Educate" people. Why should I listen to you over, say, Pronsias? He's also taking an "Educator" roll and does it much better. Why are you so much better than him, given you've both "read" Economics?

Yep, lazy, smelly and living off welfare while at the same time lecturing taxpayers on the evils of the state. If you'd actually contributed anything to society, I might take you seriously.

Set your alarm for 2.pm today and make an effort.

Piehead, I just pointed out how I AM actually doing something and I'm still in education, not getting up at 3pm every day. Why do you ignore this and post the same bullshit?

You're just a really bad person at the end of the day. Neither you nor Daithi care about actual human beings when it comes to these arguments.

[DogTheLangerHunter]

How's the guitar me and everyone in this thread bought you doing, Haro?

[daithi81]

Why should I listen to you over, say, Pronsias? He's also taking an "Educator" roll and does it much better. Why are you so much better than him, given you've both "read" Economics?

Because by listening to him only, it means you are only listening to what you want to hear (as usual). I deliver the uncomfortable truth. Cold and hard.

[Rebelred]

Because by listening to him only, it means you are only listening to what you want to hear (as usual). I deliver the uncomfortable truth. Cold and hard.

and that makes you a shit person daithi-Y, a shit person... why can't you be more like Santa Claus... or Bertie Ahern???

[daithi81]

and that makes you a shit person daithi-Y, a shit person... why can't you be more like Santa Claus... or Bertie Ahern???

I'm sorry, Rebely.

Here, have a free Gibson Les Paul.

Would you like to come round to my house? My wife will fix ya up something nice, and afterwards you can pop upstairs and fuck my teenage daughter.

:lol!:

[Proinsias]

Because by listening to him only, it means you are only listening to what you want to hear (as usual). I deliver the uncomfortable truth. Cold and hard.

Truth?

In predictions about the future?

[daithi81]

Truth?

In predictions about the future?

Sorry, I meant TRUTH.

I refer to my truths about living far beyond your means. We all know where that leads. If there is any truth in all of this, that is surely it.

[Proinsias]

Sorry, I meant TRUTH.

I refer to my truths about living far beyond your means. We all know where that leads. If there is any truth in all of this, that is surely it.

Tell that to Herbert Hoover.

Here's a good article on it from the Financial Times:
How the budget hole developed

By Samuel Brittan

Published: July 23 2009 21:32 | Last updated: July 23 2009 21:32

Conventional commentators have been horrified by the British government’s estimate of public sector net borrowing of 12.4 per cent of gross domestic product for this financial year. Even if you believe that the deficit will decline to 5.5 per cent by 2013-14 this will not prevent the public sector net debt from climbing to reach 76 per cent of GDP by that year, according to official projections. Never mind that the debt ratio was far higher not only after and between the two world wars, but in the supposedly virtuous mid-Victorian period. Never mind the historian Lord Macaulay’s mockery of the debt obsession. This is clearly far from what the Labour government intended when it came to office in 1997 full of talk of “prudence for a purpose”.

How has this deterioration occurred? There are two deeply unconvincing explanations. There is the opposition Conservative accusation that Gordon Brown took leave of his senses and suddenly went on an ideologically driven spending spree. Then there is the opposite plea that the British leader was virtuously delivering “Labour investment” as opposed to “Tory tax cuts” when he ran into an international financial storm.

By far the best analysis I have seen is in a paper by Giles Wilkes – A Balancing Act: Fair Solutions to a Modern Debt Crisis. It is published by Centre Forum, a Liberal Democrat-leaning think-tank, but the analysis is non-partisan. It has so far attracted attention because of its proposals for a flat rate to supplement council tax on high-value residences and for imposing capital gains tax on primary residences.

But the most valuable part of Mr Wilkes’s paper is his explanation of the rising national debt. He starts from the Treasury estimate for 2012-13 and dissects its composition. Only 4 per cent is due to increases in spending induced by the present recession, mostly due to automatic increases in benefits. Some 9 per cent is attributed to bank rescues and another 9 per cent to over-reliance on volatile bubble revenues derived from the financial markets. A sizeable but not overwhelming proportion – 16 per cent – is attributed to the government’s “failure to fix the structural deficit”, due to an overestimate of the UK’s growth potential. A greater proportion, 25 per cent, is due to revenue losses from the recession including the “temporary” cut in value added tax. This leaves 37 per cent – roughly £30bn ($49.5bn, €35bn) – which would have been there anyway and would probably have represented genuine public investment. The culpable items seem to me the structural deficit and the over-reliance on bubble revenues.

Almost alone among analysts, Mr Wilkes endorses Margaret Thatcher’s tight fiscal policies of the 1980s that were made necessary by “high real interest rates, soaring inflation and a bloated public sector”. But he asserts that a repetition of these would be a serious mistake when “interest rates are at rock bottom, inflation is threatening to turn negative and the state no longer controls swathes of nationalised industry”.

He is extremely clear that dealing with the deficit must wait for definite signs that the recession is over and should be carefully paced so as not to undermine recovery. His most interesting suggestion is that 40 per cent or more of the national debt should be put on an indexed basis. This strategy should do more than anything else to reassure market fears of a return to inflationary finance, as it would make a high rate of inflation extremely expensive for the government.

But let me explain in my own words why I am more relaxed about debts and deficits than some other commentators. First, there is no regular and predictable business cycle, just an irregular movement of activity into which clever people can read patterns with hindsight. In the 1930s it was once claimed that the difference between Friedrich Hayek and John Maynard Keynes was that what the former saw as a boom the latter saw as a slump; and in the coming years it is all too likely that some economists will be diagnosing the return of inflation while others will still be talking of lingering depression. The US New Deal recovery was turned into a mini-depression in 1937-38 because of premature action to tighten money and balance the US budget. There is now more danger of economic stimuli across the world being reversed too soon than of their being continued too long.

There is a more profound point. Writing in the 1930s, Keynes believed that world economies faced not a temporary recession but “secular stagnation” because the urge to save exceeded perceived investment opportunities; and the two were only brought into balance by depressed output and employment. In this situation there is a strong case for long-term “dissaving” by the state to offset private saving. In that case measures to stabilise national budgets would have to be put on the back burner. There is no certainty in such matters. But thinking of the vast savings of China and the oil producers it would be foolish to rule out the recurrence of such stagnation.


----------------------


The bit in bold is the key point, IMO. Yes, the deficit is bad but wait. Now is not the time for slash and burn.
I realise Ireland's situation is different to that of the UK but all the same, the same principles apply.

[daithi81]

Ok, again the issue of short-term financing comes into play. The ECB idea seems to be pie-in-the-sky at the moment. We need to borrow our 2007 GDP over the next few years, perhaps more. We should continue to spend at 2007 levels also?

We have already been over this anyway. It would be a waste of time to repeat this exercise.

In other news, I managed to stumble upon a PDF copy of Schumpeters book, last night. I will start into the section on Marx this evening. It's certainly not as dense as Keynes General Theory.

[Proinsias]

Or Martin Wolf, the FT's chief economist, who is not an insignificant figure in international economics (referring to that same report by the CentreForum):

Adapting to Britain’s mediocre prospects

By Martin Wolf

Published: July 16 2009 20:16 | Last updated: July 16 2009 20:16

If the government of the UK wishes to find a suitable motto, it should adopt the advice of a great Scot. “Great Britain should,” wrote Adam Smith in The Wealth of Nations, “... endeavour to accommodate her future views and designs to the real mediocrity of her circumstances.” Smith offers wise counsel. The country’s circumstances are more mediocre than imagined two years ago. The question is how to respond.

Three things have combined to postpone widespread recognition of the task: first, the government that was in charge when exaggerated optimism became rife is still in power; second, nobody can be sure how mediocre the country’s longer-term circumstances are going to be; and, finally, as Giles Wilkes points out in an excellent new paper for the Liberal Democrat think tank, CentreForum, with modest initial levels of public debt and low nominal and real interest rates, the UK government was right to let its borrowing take the strain.*
The result has been a “phoney war”. Hysteria over a few million pounds in expenses for members of parliament has drowned out discussion of close to £200bn ($330bn, €230bn) in annual government borrowing. But the phoney war will end. How should the UK plan to fight the real one?

It must start by making finance safer. The simple and painful truth is that another such financial shock might even bankrupt the British state. No industry can be allowed to impose such costs – comparable, in fiscal terms, to those of a major war – on a largely innocent public.

Unfortunately, while containing sensible points, the Treasury’s white paper on financial markets is imbued with what I think of as an industrial policy perspective on finance. It accepts, not least, that it should be a goal of policy to “maintain the future pre-eminence of the UK’s international financial services markets”. Alas, a competitive advantage in the supply of global “bads” is really a disadvantage.

Private parties cannot be allowed to gamble with taxpayers’ money. Letting that happen is to provide a gigantic subsidy. The right policy is to ensure that the costs imposed by the failings of finance on the rest of society are properly internalised within the sector. Then, let the market forces we are supposed to believe in decide how big the sector should be. This is why a crucial reform is a credible plan to wind up institutions when they manage to get into difficulty. It is also why higher capital requirements are needed.

Government must also deal with the fiscal legacy of the present crisis. As an immortal borrower with an excellent credit rating it was right to become borrower of last resort in the crisis. The big question is how and when to unwind these deficits.

Nobody can doubt that a huge effort at fiscal consolidation will be needed once the economy recovers. The question is how long such consolidation can be postponed if the economy does not. The danger of acting too soon is that it would deepen the recession. The danger of acting too late is that the debt accumulation might generate a vicious spiral of rising real interest rates and so explosive debt-dynamics.

My guess is that it will be impossible to postpone tightening for very many years, even if the recovery is not as strong as one might wish. But the more credible the commitment to stability, the longer it can be postponed. That can be achieved by cementing the credibility of the independent central bank and by spelling out the details and scale of the spending cuts and tax boosts that will follow recovery.

In his paper, Mr Wilkes focuses on raising taxes on property and the value added tax. The arguments for imposing heavy taxes on site values are very strong. We have just seen, in all too glorious colour, the dire results of turning a nation’s population into land speculators. If necessary, let the cash-poor but land-rich borrow their tax payments from the government, and demand repayment on death. VAT revenues must also be raised, which can be done by eliminating exemptions.

Equally important, however, will be a plan for curbing spending that does minimal damage to the country’s future. Public sector wages and pensions will have to be curbed. The former can be achieved by curbing the aggregate wage bill and letting managers decide the details. This should also drive higher public sector productivity. Beyond that, governments must protect true investment. But neither health nor education can be sacrosanct. What matters is not the overall value of such specific areas of spending, but their benefits at the margin. The UK will never have a better chance than now to rethink public sector priorities and long-term funding.

It is painful to be forced to parcel out the consequences of unforeseen losses. But these losses look permanent and so cannot be avoided. Fortunately, such crises are not all bad. They are opportunities for desirable change. In the case of the UK, change is inescapable. The party that deserves to govern is the one that recognises the pain and embraces the opportunities.


---------------------------------


Ireland cannot suffer from an interest rate shock. The debt dynamics are definitely a worry, but Ireland's level of debt is not out of control yet. Panic now and (the likely sharp) recovery will be put off even longer.
I've got another article on that from the FT yesterday, tis nice having full access!

[Proinsias]

Ok, again the issue of short-term financing comes into play. The ECB idea seems to be pie-in-the-sky at the moment. We need to borrow our 2007 GDP over the next few years, perhaps more. We should continue to spend at 2007 levels also?

We have already been over this anyway. It would be a waste of time to repeat this exercise.

In other news, I managed to stumble upon a PDF copy of Schumpeters book, last night. I will start into the section on Marx this evening. It's certainly not as dense as Keynes General Theory.

It's not, no.

When you say we will need to borrow our 2007 GDP over the next few years, could you clarify that?

I understand that it'll take 3-4 years to get to 100% debt to GDP ratio. That's high, but if cuts are instituted in 1-2 years time, not now, then that could be done in the midst of a strong recovery, rather than now, in the middle of the most painful period.

[Proinsias]

Ah, here it is. An analysis of past recoveries from yesterday's FT (Sorry for using it so much, I get it for free here...)

Animal spirits rarely stay down for long

By Paul Ormerod

Published: July 27 2009 19:03 | Last updated: July 27 2009 19:03

The fall in output in the current recession has been sharp. In the US, for example, gross domestic product fell at an annual rate of just above 6 per cent in the two most recent quarters. In Japan, GDP is down by nearly 9 per cent on its 2008 first-quarter peak. The latest UK data suggest output is nearly 6 per cent lower than a year ago, the sharpest fall since 1931.

The conventional wisdom is that the steepness of the fall means the recession will be long, and that the recovery when it happens will be anaemic. In the UK, for example, the National Institute of Economic and Social Research argued last week that GDP per head would take five years to get back to pre-recession levels. This was despite an earlier declaration by the think-tank that the UK has been moving out of recession since output reached a trough in March.

The UK government projects a fall in GDP of 3.5 per cent for 2009, followed by a rise of 1.25 per cent in 2010 and a 3.5 per cent upswing in 2011. But these official forecasts have been widely criticised as too optimistic.

In the US, the consensus among forecasters is that growth at or near trend will not resume until the second half of 2010 and that the 2008 second-quarter peak level will not be regained until the first half of 2011.

As late as the autumn of 2008, economic forecasters in general were far too optimistic about 2009. Are these same forecasters now too pessimistic about recovery? The historical evidence reveals a typical pattern of recession and recovery that suggests this may be so. Very few recessions last longer than two years. And most recoveries, once they start, are strong.

Since the late 19th century, there have been 255 recessions in western economies. Of these, 164 have lasted just one year and only 32 have lasted for more than two years. In other words, two-thirds of recessions last a single year, and only one in eight lasts more than two years. If we strip out the peculiar circumstances at the end of the two world wars, 70 per cent of all recessions last just one year.

The pattern of duration is virtually identical regardless of the size of the initial shock. Even when the initial fall in output has been more than 6 per cent, 70 per cent of recessions have lasted just one year. Even in the 11 examples where the initial fall in GDP was more than 8 per cent in a year, eight recessions only lasted that single year. This does not of course guarantee that the current recessions in western economies will be short-lived, but, equally, the speed of the fall does not imply they will be long.

An analysis of recessions since the second world war shows that those lasting one year or less typically end more abruptly. The average growth rate in the year after such a recession was 3.5 per cent, and in the subsequent year 3.8 per cent. This is compatible with the view that short recessions are essentially inventory cycles. Once inventories are reduced to satisfactory levels, normal production levels resume, and fixed capital investment expenditures postponed during the recession are carried out.

The 4.8 per cent GDP growth rate projected by the UK government from 2009 to 2011 has been criticised as too optimistic. It is in fact rather modest in this wider context.

Recovery was rapid even after the Great Depression. The nature of the economic catastrophe that started in 1929 varied enormously across countries, both in size and duration. The UK escaped relatively lightly with a 6 per cent fall in output spread over two years. In Japan, Denmark and Norway the recession lasted only a single year. But in Germany, Austria, Canada and the US, the cumulative fall in output was between 25 and 30 per cent, with the recession lasting four years in the latter three countries and three in Germany.

However, once the recovery began – in different calendar years in different countries – the average rate of growth was strong. GDP growth in the first year after the Great Depression averaged 4.7 per cent, followed by 4.6 per cent in the second and third years.

The caveat to all this is that the current circumstances are unusual. But so was the Great Depression. There is some evidence to suggest that, after recession has reached a certain size or duration, recovery is then harder and more sluggish. Keynes’ animal spirits become depressed. But it takes an awful lot to depress them for more than a couple of years. Capitalism seems a pretty resilient beast.

The writer is author of ‘Why Most Things Fail’ and a director of Volterra Consulting



------------------------------

Yet another reason to make this recession be as short as possible in Ireland.

[daithi81]

When you say we will need to borrow our 2007 GDP over the next few years, could you clarify that?

Well, it depends on the scenario that pans out. But the NAMA project and projected deficit spending will be the major players. I think it all depends on NAMA, imo. It could end up costing anything between €60-100bn, when you include banks outside of BOI/AIB, and the fact that NAMA may purchase Irish-based foreign bank assets. People keep pointing to Sweden, but the Swedish tend to run things in an efficient manner... and the two projects are not comparable, according to some.

http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2009/07/28/not-too-late-for-a-different-approach-to-the-banking-crisis/

Add into this the 'projected' (it will be higher) €20bn per year borrowing, and 100% of 2007 GDP is not so difficult.

Oh, and I forgot to add the potential re-re-capitalisation of banks.

[markinmanc]

Sounds like mary Harness is unhappy with the minimum wage as it affects here dining experience.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/ireland/2009/0803/1224251929488.html?d igest=1

THE MINIMUM wage in Ireland is not as generous in relative terms compared to other countries when it was adjusted to reflect purchasing power based on the cost of living here, according to new EU research.
A new report on minimum wage levels throughout Europe drawn up by the European Commission’s statistical office, Eurostat, shows the minimum wage in Ireland in January 2009 was €1,1462 per month.
This was second only to Luxembourg in the league table of minimum wage levels. In Luxembourg the minimum wage level was €1,642 gross per month.
A number of Cabinet Ministers recently highlighted the fact that Ireland had the second highest minimum wage level in Europe in the controversy that followed comments by Minister for Finance Brian Lenihan who said this might have to be examined if it was seen as an impediment to job creation.
However, according to the new Eurostat report when adjustment is made for purchasing power in different countries, the position of Ireland falls to sixth in the league table.
When purchasing power is taken into account the minimum wage is Ireland is calculated at €1,152 per month. This places Ireland behind Luxembourg, the Netherlands, Belgium, France and the UK. The Eurostat report says that when expressed in purchasing power terms the Irish minimum wage is €2 per month behind the level in the UK of €1,154. For France the figure is €1,189, for Belgium €1,254, for the Netherlands €1,336 and for Luxembourg €1,413.
The report also says that in terms of minimum wage levels as a percentage of the average gross monthly earnings in industry and services Ireland is also in sixth place in the league table .
It says that based on 2007 data the minimum wage in Ireland was 43 per cent of the average gross monthly earnings in industry and services.
Mr Lenihan caused considerable controversy last month when he said: “The minimum wage issue has been under debate in recent months.
“Clearly if the minimum wage becomes an impediment to job creation the Government has to look at it”.
“It’s not that clear, by the way, that the minimum wage in general poses an obstacle to job creation but there is a danger that, if it poses an obstacle to particular sectors of the economy, it will have to be addressed in that context.”
Minister for Foreign Affairs Micheál Martin said that there was no proposal “as of now” to cut the minimum wage, but that its future should be open to discussion.
Minister for Health Mary Harney said that we had to be mindful of the consequences the level of the minimum wage had for the generation and maintenance of jobs. In the services sector, she said, many small restaurants were finding it very difficult to hire staff and make a return on the wage levels they have to pay.