Sinn Féin, the ESRI, The Unions all agree that deficit cut timeframe is wrong.

taurus

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
338
Sinn Féin are the only political party on the opposition side to reject the Fianna fail /Fine Gael/Labour 2014 timescale. They are backed by the ESRI and The trade union economic experts. The three main partys are now firmly alligned and I wonder have Labour been hoodwinked by their lust for power and a desire not to upset Fine Gael pre election. They could have hardly gone against the FF/FG concensus and alligned themselves with SF given that SF had firmly stated that its madness to take billions out of an economy in such a tight time frame !. Where did the 2014 timescale come from , ? of course the EU and the "markets". and the demand for "Concensus" the markets again. One of the main tenets of soveriegnty, that of financial independance has been sold off, Irish budgets have to be approved by those who have no interest in the well being of Irish citizens.
Are those who will post here shortly denouncing SF economic policy on this issue are automatically backing the concensus partys position. ?
 


antsrathcam

Active member
Joined
Jul 29, 2010
Messages
211
Well if the ESRI, the Shinners and the Unions all say it's wrong, that me decided.

It's right.
 

antsrathcam

Active member
Joined
Jul 29, 2010
Messages
211
So the budget deficit has to be 3% in 4 years.

But Sinn Féin say no.

They'll no doubt give us a reasoned economic case as to why it should be say 5% over 6 years.

Some hope. :roll:They'll just oppose and paint themselves as the only real opposition which will guarantee them

a) votes from the some of the uninformed poor

b) complete disdain from opinion-formers and anyone with the slightest understanding of what is going on

Which means they won't see power - and they can carry on protesting and avoiding their responsibilities to the honest poor.
 

CarnivalOfAction

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
16,393
Sinn Féin are the only political party on the opposition side to reject the Fianna fail /Fine Gael/Labour 2014 timescale. They are backed by the ESRI and The trade union economic experts. The three main partys are now firmly alligned and I wonder have Labour been hoodwinked by their lust for power and a desire not to upset Fine Gael pre election. They could have hardly gone against the FF/FG concensus and alligned themselves with SF given that SF had firmly stated that its madness to take billions out of an economy in such a tight time frame !. Where did the 2014 timescale come from , ? of course the EU and the "markets". and the demand for "Concensus" the markets again. One of the main tenets of soveriegnty, that of financial independance has been sold off, Irish budgets have to be approved by those who have no interest in the well being of Irish citizens.
Are those who will post here shortly denouncing SF economic policy on this issue are automatically backing the concensus partys position. ?
Yea, but it's not only the timescale that is wrong. It's the sheer effrontery in threatening to cut the income of less well off and their services, while leaving the wealth of the greedy gamblers who trousered €billions intact. No, that's wrong, they are giving them €200,000 of our money to maintain the style to which they have become accustomed.
 

taurus

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
338
There is an pre budget submission document that will has been independantly verified that will soon be available. Of course the likes of you won't study it. Far better to snipe and sneer. we know one thing , that those that got us into this mess can verifibly be described as economic illiterates !!!
 

TradCat

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 5, 2005
Messages
1,989
b) complete disdain from opinion-formers and anyone with the slightest understanding of what is going on
In fairness you mean the same people who distained them the last time while lauding Michael McDowell for his grasp of economics and astute policy observations like "The Government doesn't need the money from Stamp Duty"

Sinn Fein have noting to lose from being radical. They won't be in government anyway.
 

CarnivalOfAction

Well-known member
Joined
Jun 15, 2010
Messages
16,393
So the budget deficit has to be 3% in 4 years.

But Sinn Féin say no.

They'll no doubt give us a reasoned economic case as to why it should be say 5% over 6 years.

Some hope. :roll:They'll just oppose and paint themselves as the only real opposition which will guarantee them

...

b) complete disdain from opinion-formers and anyone with the slightest understanding of what is going on
aka cheer-leaders for the boom who sneered "economic illiterates" at anyone who pointed out the obvious truth that a bust was sure to follow.
 

making waves

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2010
Messages
19,410
The 3% is a totally arbitrary figure that both France and Germany breached in recent years - yet we are obliged to drive the economy into the toilet to satisfy the 'markets' and 'bondholders'.
 

cricket

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 7, 2009
Messages
13,786
The 3% is a totally arbitrary figure that both France and Germany breached in recent years - yet we are obliged to drive the economy into the toilet to satisfy the 'markets' and 'bondholders'.
Now, I'm really worried , I agree with this post :eek:
 

rockofcashel

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
8,001
Website
www.sinnfein.ie
So the budget deficit has to be 3% in 4 years.

But Sinn Féin say no.

They'll no doubt give us a reasoned economic case as to why it should be say 5% over 6 years.

Some hope. :roll:They'll just oppose and paint themselves as the only real opposition which will guarantee them

a) votes from the some of the uninformed poor

b) complete disdain from opinion-formers and anyone with the slightest understanding of what is going on

Which means they won't see power - and they can carry on protesting and avoiding their responsibilities to the honest poor.
Weren't SF the economic illiterates who said before the last election that people earning over 100,000 should be taxed at a higher rate than other workers ? Something which is now almost an article of faith amongst all the political parties when considering framing a budget.

There is a reasoned economic case why the reduction of the budget deficit should be carried out over a longer period of time. It's pretty simple in fact, if the Government, or any other putative Government attempt to cut the deficit back to 3% of GDP by 2014, they will completely wreck the economy to such n extent, that it would possibly take 10 years to actually reach the target.

Consider it like letting the air from a balloon. The bubble was not caused by SF remember, it was caused by parties who you seem to think are better able to fix the problem than SF. Even if you can't really properly explain why the eejits who caused the problem would be better able to fix it than anyone else. Anyway, you have two choices

1. the Government/FG/Labour method, which is reducing the deficit by 2014. This is akin to sticking a pin into the balloon and bursting it catastrophically, rendering the balloon useless or

2. Letting the air out more slowly, which would allow you inflate the balloon again at a more acceptable rate in the future

Which method do you think might be better ?

The funniest thing is, I have been listening to commentators all weekend talk about the FF/FG/Lab way i.e. solving the crisis by 2014, and saying "sure in all fairness, while we have to produce a plan showing we'll get it down by then, no one really believes that it's going to happen anyway, we just have to show the EU/ECB/Germans/the markets that we are intending to".. People who think like that, completely misunderstand the European/market mindset. They actually prefer clarity and truth, not spin and ************************************************.

If we can't get it down by 2014, they would prefer to be told that, and then be given a real plan of when we can solve the crisis, rather than more lies and nonsense. The market will punish us a lot harder if we try it on with them

I understand that SF don't have a huge amount of economic credibility because of Adams poor performance pre 2007, but they are a hell of a lot more credible in saying we will not solve this problem before 2014 than the main parties are in trying to fool the markets in saying we will
 
R

RepublicanSocialist1798

Well if the ESRI, the Shinners and the Unions all say it's wrong, that me decided.

It's right.
Right so if the above three organisations say don't throw yourself off a 100 meter cliff then following your logic you would jump off a 100 meter cliff.

You people are just pathetic.
 

1888bhoys

Active member
Joined
Aug 18, 2007
Messages
261
Twitter
thesuir
Weren't SF the economic illiterates who said before the last election that people earning over 100,000 should be taxed at a higher rate than other workers ? Something which is now almost an article of faith amongst all the political parties when considering framing a budget.

There is a reasoned economic case why the reduction of the budget deficit should be carried out over a longer period of time. It's pretty simple in fact, if the Government, or any other putative Government attempt to cut the deficit back to 3% of GDP by 2014, they will completely wreck the economy to such n extent, that it would possibly take 10 years to actually reach the target.

Consider it like letting the air from a balloon. The bubble was not caused by SF remember, it was caused by parties who you seem to think are better able to fix the problem than SF. Even if you can't really properly explain why the eejits who caused the problem would be better able to fix it than anyone else. Anyway, you have two choices

1. the Government/FG/Labour method, which is reducing the deficit by 2014. This is akin to sticking a pin into the balloon and bursting it catastrophically, rendering the balloon useless or

2. Letting the air out more slowly, which would allow you inflate the balloon again at a more acceptable rate in the future

Which method do you think might be better ?

The funniest thing is, I have been listening to commentators all weekend talk about the FF/FG/Lab way i.e. solving the crisis by 2014, and saying "sure in all fairness, while we have to produce a plan showing we'll get it down by then, no one really believes that it's going to happen anyway, we just have to show the EU/ECB/Germans/the markets that we are intending to".. People who think like that, completely misunderstand the European/market mindset. They actually prefer clarity and truth, not spin and ************************************************.

If we can't get it down by 2014, they would prefer to be told that, and then be given a real plan of when we can solve the crisis, rather than more lies and nonsense. The market will punish us a lot harder if we try it on with them

I understand that SF don't have a huge amount of economic credibility because of Adams poor performance pre 2007, but they are a hell of a lot more credible in saying we will not solve this problem before 2014 than the main parties are in trying to fool the markets in saying we will
Another good post Rock but way do you keep talking about Gerrys one bad performance.
 

taurus

Well-known member
Joined
Apr 23, 2009
Messages
338
Weren't SF the economic illiterates who said before the last election that people earning over 100,000 should be taxed at a higher rate than other workers ? Something which is now almost an article of faith amongst all the political parties when considering framing a budget.

There is a reasoned economic case why the reduction of the budget deficit should be carried out over a longer period of time. It's pretty simple in fact, if the Government, or any other putative Government attempt to cut the deficit back to 3% of GDP by 2014, they will completely wreck the economy to such n extent, that it would possibly take 10 years to actually reach the target.

Consider it like letting the air from a balloon. The bubble was not caused by SF remember, it was caused by parties who you seem to think are better able to fix the problem than SF. Even if you can't really properly explain why the eejits who caused the problem would be better able to fix it than anyone else. Anyway, you have two choices

1. the Government/FG/Labour method, which is reducing the deficit by 2014. This is akin to sticking a pin into the balloon and bursting it catastrophically, rendering the balloon useless or

2. Letting the air out more slowly, which would allow you inflate the balloon again at a more acceptable rate in the future

Which method do you think might be better ?

The funniest thing is, I have been listening to commentators all weekend talk about the FF/FG/Lab way i.e. solving the crisis by 2014, and saying "sure in all fairness, while we have to produce a plan showing we'll get it down by then, no one really believes that it's going to happen anyway, we just have to show the EU/ECB/Germans/the markets that we are intending to".. People who think like that, completely misunderstand the European/market mindset. They actually prefer clarity and truth, not spin and ************************************************.

If we can't get it down by 2014, they would prefer to be told that, and then be given a real plan of when we can solve the crisis, rather than more lies and nonsense. The market will punish us a lot harder if we try it on with them

I understand that SF don't have a huge amount of economic credibility because of Adams poor performance pre 2007, but they are a hell of a lot more credible in saying we will not solve this problem before 2014 than the main parties are in trying to fool the markets in saying we will
spot on post. Sinn Féin,s policies of tax the wealthiest, cut the tax reliefs on private pensions, increase corporation tax , are all the mantra of the commentariet !
 

hmmm

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
2,831
The 3% is a totally arbitrary figure that both France and Germany breached in recent years - yet we are obliged to drive the economy into the toilet to satisfy the 'markets' and 'bondholders'.
If we stopped borrowing money we wouldn't have to satisfy either. If you can suggest where you would cut 20 billion over the next year, we can go back to sneering at our friends in Europe and lecturing them about our tiger economy.
 

rockofcashel

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
8,001
Website
www.sinnfein.ie
Another good post Rock but way do you keep talking about Gerrys one bad performance.
Because at the end of the day, it is unfortunate, but it is this completely inept performance which constantly gets referenced by people who wish to hit SF with the "financial/economic illiteracy" stick.

I feel sorry for the party to be honest, because I know that contrary to what many "outsiders" think, there is a pretty good level of economic competence amongst many of the membership of SF right up to leadership level. In fact, I've asked the question here of posters, when discussing the economic needs of small businesses, who would you be inclined to listen to, a businessman and company director i.e. Arthur Morgan, or a man who has never ran a business in his life i.e Brian Lenihan, but simply because Arthur is a Shinner, people can't agree with me.

But Gerry was, and still is I believe, on the basis of another interview he did either late last year, or earlier this year on TV3, an economic illiterate. And, until the party can get a better spokesperson, with a better ability to get its economic message across, he will drag the partys economic reputation down with him.

I know there are other factors, none more so that an anti SF media commentariat who repeat the economic illiteracy charge to the point where it becomes an unfair truism, but that's what you have to contend with.

There is also a strong case for not couching every single economic argument you make in quasi-Marxist language, which is also off putting, but I do know many of the "republican socialist" wing of the party wouldn't like this development.

SF has people who are as strong as anyone else in other parties when it comes to understanding of economics. But Gerrys performance will be a millstone around their necks so long as he is there. It's a pity really, but that's how it is.
 

hmmm

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 4, 2006
Messages
2,831
Which method do you think might be better ?
You didn't mention the problem of refinancing our debt and borrowing to fund our deficit. We are at the mercy of whomever we are borrowing off - if the markets won't lend to us we will have to borrow from other Euro governments, and neither of these choices are cheap. As long as we are begging others to lend to plug our crazy deficit we don't get the luxury of choosing our economic future.
 

rockofcashel

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
8,001
Website
www.sinnfein.ie
You didn't mention the problem of refinancing our debt and borrowing to fund our deficit. We are at the mercy of whomever we are borrowing off - if the markets won't lend to us we will have to borrow from other Euro governments, and neither of these choices are cheap. As long as we are begging others to lend to plug our crazy deficit we don't get the luxury of choosing our economic future.
We do to an extent, but it can and will only be done by producing a credible economic plan which is actually deliverable.

If reducing the deficit to 3% by 2014 will destroy the economy going forward from that point, when what is the point in doing it? You are going to require an economy afterwards are you not?

It would be much better to sit down and explain to our lending partners, that it'll take longer, but will actually happen, than pretend it can be done in a shorter timeframe but not happen. That's the point I am making.

In the absolute worst case scenario remember, there is always the safety net of the EU stabilisation fund, whereupon we can borrow at 5%, a figure which would actually save us around 1.5 billion a year in interest repayments on debt without doing a thing.

The argument against that, is that we would lose our economic sovereignty. But, if we are framing our budget to suit the EU/markets in any case, do we have any economic sovereignty to lose ?
 

turdsl

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 2, 2008
Messages
26,002
Another good post Rock but way do you keep talking about Gerrys one bad performance.

Its a funny old world, Gerry has one bad performance and people use it all the time as a battering pole. Brian Lenihan has a bad day every day and people think he should be Toiseach.
 

rockofcashel

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 23, 2005
Messages
8,001
Website
www.sinnfein.ie
Its a funny old world, Gerry has one bad performance and people use it all the time as a battering pole. Brian Lenihan has a bad day every day and people think he should be Toiseach.
That's a good way of putting it, but that's the Irish media mindset for you. In fact, if people slag off SF in the media about their economic policy in future, that's exactly how they should respond to it
 


New Threads

Most Replies

Top