• It has come to our attention that some users may have been "banned" when they tried to change their passwords after the site was hacked due to a glitch in the old vBulletin software. This would have occurred around the end of February and does not apply after the site was converted to Xenforo. If you believe you were affected by this, please contact a staff member or use the Contact us link at the bottom of any forum page.

Sutherland "State must revise fiscal strategy immediately to avert disaster"


blucey

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
366
now, I am sure the usual crowd will come out saying "sure suds is a blueshirt/banker/oilman/pro-lisbon etc etc".
however, can I ask that before they unload their bile, they read the below (taken from State must revise fiscal strategy immediately to avert disaster - The Irish Times - Tue, Feb 24, 2009) and tell us what in his analysis or prescription is actually wrong in fact as opposed to opinion. A few FF'ers slouching towards the arentwegreat-fest in CityWest, or a few Greens hanging in grimly till they get a carbon tax would be useful commentators
IRELAND FACES three intertwined crises. First, the economic crisis is severe, with falling output and sharply increasing level of unemployment a source of misery for many workers and their families.
Second, the banking crisis sees the Irish banking system facing large projected losses on ill-advised domestic property loans, with the capital squeeze contributing to a credit crunch.
Third, the projected Government deficits for 2009-2010 are well above 10 per cent of gross domestic product (GDP), raising questions about the sustainability of public finances. I could add a fourth, and not unrelated topic, the ratification of the Lisbon Treaty, but I leave comment on that for another occasion.
While the economic and banking crises are very troubling, these problems are shared to varying degrees by many countries across Europe and around the world. In addition, the scope of the banking crisis is by now well understood, with an emerging consensus on the scale of potential losses. And the Government’s strategy for handling the banking crisis is well-advanced, even if it is still to evolve in the coming months.
Rather, the key differentiating factor that has put the international spotlight on Ireland is the sustainability of the public finances. Although the European Commission has launched excessive deficit procedures against six member countries, Ireland’s projected 2009 deficit of 11 per cent of GDP far exceeds the next highest in this group (Spain at 6.2 per cent of GDP). Its projected 2010 deficit of 13 per cent of GDP is more than twice the next highest (Spain at 5.7 per cent of GDP). This has created a terrible crisis for Ireland.
Concerns about the fiscal situation are reinforced by the patterns in public spending and taxation since the crisis began. While much attention has focused on the decline in tax revenues, this is comparatively minor relative to the sharp growth in the ratio of public spending to GDP.
Again the comparison with Spain is most telling. Tax revenues actually fell more sharply in Spain than in Ireland between 2007 and 2009: from 41 per cent of GDP to 36.4 per cent of GDP in the Spanish case, versus a decline from 35.7 per cent of GDP to 33.7 percent of GDP in the Irish case. In contrast, government spending has increased from 35.7 per cent of GDP to 44.7 per cent of GDP in Ireland, but only from 38.8 per cent of GDP to 42.6 per cent of GDP in Spain. While the difference can, in part, be attributed to the sharper output contraction in Ireland, it has raised concerns about the scale of the fiscal problem.
The Government has made some progress in responding to the fiscal crisis, including the measures taken in the October 2008 budget, the attainment of agreement with the social partners as to the broad mix of policies required and the implementation of the public sector pension levy. However, the deterioration in the international financial environment in recent weeks means the gradual adjustment process it set out in the five-year fiscal strategy published in the middle of January is no longer appropriate.
In particular, there is increasing concern that the withdrawal of capital from central and eastern Europe could trigger major crises in the new member states of the European Union, which in turn could be quickly transmitted to other European economies. Among the western European economies, those that are most vulnerable include Ireland, Greece, Austria, Portugal and Spain.
Such concerns are placing upward pressure on the spreads these governments must pay to issue bonds, and increase the risk of a funding crisis, by which investors refuse to rollover maturing debt. In turn, the high spread on Irish sovereign debt raises funding costs for the banking system and for corporations, contributing to the economic slowdown and the problems in the banking sector.
At one level, it might seem far-fetched to believe Ireland may face a funding crisis. After all, Ireland entered this crisis with a low level of public debt, plus sizeable sovereign wealth in the form of the National Pension Reserve Fund. However, the very large Government deficits mean the ratio of debt to GDP is set to grow quickly: from 24.8 per cent of GDP at the end of 2007 to 68.2 per cent by the end of 2010.
More importantly, the high level of risk aversion in the international markets means many investors are unwilling to give debtors the benefit of the doubt and promises of future fiscal corrections are being heavily discounted. Moreover, the funding risk for the Irish Government is amplified by its guarantee of the liabilities of the covered banks. While even the higher end of the projected scale of losses for the banking system does not pose a threat to the solvency of the Irish Government, a substantial decline in deposits in the banking system would increase funding pressures on it.
In this fragile environment, it is imperative the Government revises its fiscal strategy within a very short time horizon. In particular, it needs to front-load the correction in the public finances, with more action taken to reduce the 2009 and 2010 budget deficits.
In line with the broad consensus across the social partners, this must include a significant increase in the tax burden. This cannot wait until the 2010 budget, as is the current wish of the Government. While the Commission on Taxation may well have good ideas for expanding the tax base, much of the adjustment involves the existing set of tax instruments, and the process of reducing tax bands and increasing tax rates can begin immediately.
The fiscal adjustment also requires that the Government move more aggressively to curb public spending. While the focus has been on current spending (and there is much to be done across the many different lines within that category), it is also time to suspend many of the larger-ticket items in the public capital programme. The priority must be to improve the financial position of the State – those public capital projects that promise high benefit/cost ratios can be restarted once fiscal stability has been restored, while a suspension also allows less worthy projects to be weeded out.
Since the upward pressure on interest rates means that the currently loose fiscal policy is not helping the recovery in the economy or in the banking sector, a fiscal retrenchment now in fact is the best move open to the Government in restoring health to the economy and banking sector. A decline in spreads will improve asset values and enable the banks to increase the provision of credit. Such factors dominate any loss in domestic demand that would be induced by a mix of higher taxes and lower spending. Moreover, domestic consumption is more likely to be boosted by increased confidence in fiscal stability than by the current situation, whereby any putative benefits from delayed fiscal adjustment are being swept away by the cloud of uncertainty dominating the economy.
If the Government responds in an agile and confident manner to the current crisis, the medium-term future for the Irish economy remains bright. However, an important characteristic of successful government is knowing when to act quickly in defence of its fiscal reputation. Now is such a time.
We must have an urgent response to the crisis notwithstanding the difficult background of likely public disquiet about any measures proposed. The alternatives are not pleasant to contemplate.
Pretty dismal stuff but nothing that the informed commentator class havent been saying for weeks and months. Meanwhile, this seems to sum up the government
 

Oldira1

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
1,467
Inother words balance the books and forget everything else. Let unemployment go through the roof,our health system collapse, our infrastructure decay,our children to be educated poorly. A lot of banal generalities but no specifics. This from a man that sat at the cabinet table as the economy tanked in the 1980s and was chairman of ........oh yeah AN INVESTMENT BANK. I would prefer to take sailing lesson from Capt Ed Smith.
 

blucey

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
366
Inother words balance the books and forget everything else. Let unemployment go through the roof,our health system collapse, our infrastructure decay,our children to be educated poorly. A lot of banal generalities but no specifics. This from a man that sat at the cabinet table as the economy tanked in the 1980s and was chairman of ........oh yeah AN INVESTMENT BANK. I would prefer to take sailing lesson from Capt Ed Smith.
So your suggestion then is? What?
 

Sensible Head

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
905
One post and one reply and we have this in a nutshell. Pretty good going for a Forum.

Yep original post was full of the cold hard facts of life. But no, ill be buggered bandy if i'll take advice from the clowns who pushed us over the edge.

Yep thinks thats it.

:D
 

HarshBuzz

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
11,935
Sutherland would make a damn good Minister for Finance
 

Mitsui

Active member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
121
I'll admit that the source doesn't fell me with glee, but in a way that just makes the analysis more depressing. As an expression of fundamentals, it just seems like realism - in terms of analysing the specific problems and their likely development, the man is simply calling a spade a spade.

He is in a way just saying 'We're ****ed', but he's saying it in a sophisticated way - i.e. 'We're ****ed in this particular fashion for these particular reasons, and unless we do x, y & z we risk being even more ****ed'.

While I doubt enormously that I'd agree with any list of measures that Sutherland might produce (I sometimes suspect he'd find targetted starvation of non-productive members of society to be an unfortunate necessity in some cases), this is still a more (potentially) useful way of framing the sentiment, but it still leaves what I think is the elephant in our parlour. When it comes to taking just about any steps in this crisis then it seems increasingly to me that we have one enormous problem that the government is simply refusing to acknowledge in any meaningful way. This is the sheer lack of trust that a large (and it seems growing) number of people have in the government, and specifically in the Fianna Fáil party. This makes it very difficult (I'd have said impossible) for them to exercise any sound authority that will be generally accepted.

There is a broad conscensus among an awful lot of people - both informed and uninformed - that the govt. was - at the very, very best - culpably stupid in allowing things to reach the point they did in the banks.

That things did reach this pass seems - from what we currently know - to have ultimately been due to longterm failures in regulation (all the bankers'/developers' fancy footwork and clever-clever paper plans would have been for naught if the regulators had acted on information which, it seems clear, was available to them at least in outline for a long time).

That these regulatory failures happened through government foolishness is, unfortunately, the best case scenario. The worst case scenario is that the government was up to its oxters in the financial "misbehaviour", and that the laxness of regulation was deliberately engineered so as to facilitate it.

I'm not championing either interpretation here, simply noting that these perceptions exist.

The government, on the other hand, continues to studiously ignore this entire idea (whether from embarrassment, fear of losing its dignity, guilt, pride or whatever) except for the occasional surly and dismissive bark. But this behaviour, If anything, serves only to strengthen and darken peoples' suspicions.

This disbelieving view of the government is, it seems to me, one of the most important causes of the public's largely negative reaction to proposed government measures, and will only get worse so long as the various questions remain unaddressed. I don't think it's exaggerating at all to say it may ultimately confound the government's entire plan - presuming (as it is increasingly difficult to do) that they actually have anything that might (except in charity) be called a "plan".

Sutherland's analysis tells us yet again what the circumstances make inevitable - that we're all going to have to take a big, big slap if things are not to go down the drain entirely. But even should the government by some utter miracle come out in the morning with a survival plan which is credible, coherent and equitable, it may well be that nobody will trust them enough to accept it.

If that were the case, I'm the very first to admit that Fianna Fáil would have been hoist with their own petard; the problem is that we'd be hoisted up right alongside them.
 
Last edited:

Mitsui

Active member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
121
Looking at my post above in cold hard print, it strikes me that I might almost be accused of liking either Peter Sutherland or Fianna Fáil. I feel obliged to note that neither is the case. I was just trying to sound fairer than I usually feel.
 
Last edited:

HarshBuzz

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
11,935
Looking at my post above in cold hard print, it strikes me that I might almost be accused of likeing either Peter Sutherland or Fianna Fáil. I feel obliged to note that neither is the case. I was just trying to sound fairer than I usually feel.
it was an excellent post I thought

look at it this way: FF are heading for extinction at the next poll, whenever that may be. What are the chances of them accepting this fate (deserved and all as it is) and deciding to put the interests of the nation ahead of themselves for once by implementing the tough policies required?

I'm not optimistic but it does strike me as an opportunity of sorts
 

goosebump

Well-known member
Joined
May 23, 2008
Messages
4,953
Inother words balance the books and forget everything else. Let unemployment go through the roof,our health system collapse, our infrastructure decay,our children to be educated poorly.
Not balancing the books will result in umemployment, not the other way around. And to be honest, letting the Health Service collapse, in order that it can be rebuilt, wouldn't be a bad thing.

I find all of this tiresome at this stage. I don't anticipate that that we will be governing ourselves by this time next year. We're basically just too thick and self-obsessed to realise that the ground is crumbling away beneath our feet.

All anyone can do now is prepare themselves and their families for the worst.
 

Squealster

Member
Joined
Feb 19, 2009
Messages
10
Oldira1 has it summarised well. "Balancing the books" is an overly simplistic idea that Maynard Keynes rubbished in the early half of the previous century and that's all this article is about.

In any case, to carry out such changes would require a far more joined-up thinking in government than they are capable of (e.g. One day: "HSE €1.1bn overspend", next day: "Consultant's increases approved").
 

sandar

Well-known member
Joined
May 26, 2007
Messages
1,854
it doesnt matter what happened in the eighties, it doesnt matter what else sutherland does fior a living, and its interesting thatt he person int ehs econd post could not offer a factual criticism.
Sutherland is nto proposing rocket science, he is simply saying that fiscal policu is out of skew with what the rest of the world are doing, every other country is tryingt o inject money into the economy to stimulate growth, lenihen is taking money ouit of the economy, and leaves ireland behind everyone else.
cuts in spending have to hasppen not because anyone wants to, but because the money isnt there to pay the bills, the bush regime in america ignored that reality for eight years and that state is almost bankrupt, reality jhas to bite sometime, and all sutherland is foig is stating that fact.
 

Mitsui

Active member
Joined
Jan 30, 2009
Messages
121
FF are heading for extinction at the next poll, whenever that may be. What are the chances of them accepting this fate (deserved and all as it is) and deciding to put the interests of the nation ahead of themselves for once by implementing the tough policies required?

I'm not optimistic but it does strike me as an opportunity of sorts
Lord, HarshBuzz, I'm 51 years old, I came of age in the Haughey years, I've had occasion to study Fianna Fáil's intimate history in some depth.

What are the chances of them putting loyalty to the country ahead of loyalty to the Party, you ask? I'd have said zilch

And it gives me no bloody pleasure to say that at all.

Goosebump commented above: We're basically just too thick and self-obsessed to realise that the ground is crumbling away beneath our feet. That about sums up the way I feel sometimes about all this.
 
Last edited:

blucey

Well-known member
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
366
Oldira1 has it summarised well. "Balancing the books" is an overly simplistic idea that Maynard Keynes rubbished in the early half of the previous century and that's all this article is about.

In any case, to carry out such changes would require a far more joined-up thinking in government than they are capable of (e.g. One day: "HSE €1.1bn overspend", next day: "Consultant's increases approved").
FFS we dont have to balance them NOW. But we cannot, repeatr CANNOT run deficits of 10% GDP plus for more than a few years. Can you not comprehend that?
 

adamirer

Well-known member
Joined
May 16, 2007
Messages
454
I'll admit that the source doesn't fell me with glee, but in a way that just makes the analysis more depressing. As an expression of fundamentals, it just seems like realism - in terms of analysing the specific problems and their likely development, the man is simply calling a spade a spade.

He is in a way just saying 'We're ****ed', but he's saying it in a sophisticated way - i.e. 'We're ****ed in this particular fashion for these particular reasons, and unless we do x, y & z we risk being even more ****ed'.

While I doubt enormously that I'd agree with any list of measures that Sutherland might produce (I sometimes suspect he'd find targetted starvation of non-productive members of society to be an unfortunate necessity in some cases), this is still a more (potentially) useful way of framing the sentiment, but it still leaves what I think is the elephant in our parlour. When it comes to taking just about any steps in this crisis then it seems increasingly to me that we have one enormous problem that the government is simply refusing to acknowledge in any meaningful way. This is the sheer lack of trust that a large (and it seems growing) number of people have in the government, and specifically in the Fianna Fáil party. This makes it very difficult (I'd have said impossible) for them to exercise any sound authority that will be generally accepted.

There is a broad conscensus among an awful lot of people - both informed and uninformed - that the govt. was - at the very, very best - culpably stupid in allowing things to reach the point they did in the banks.

That things did reach this pass seems - from what we currently know - to have ultimately been due to longterm failures in regulation (all the bankers'/developers' fancy footwork and clever-clever paper plans would have been for naught if the regulators had acted on information which, it seems clear, was available to them at least in outline for a long time).

That these regulatory failures happened through government foolishness is, unfortunately, the best case scenario. The worst case scenario is that the government was up to its oxters in the financial "misbehaviour", and that the laxness of regulation was deliberately engineered so as to facilitate it.

I'm not championing either interpretation here, simply noting that these perceptions exist.

The government, on the other hand, continues to studiously ignore this entire idea (whether from embarrassment, fear of losing its dignity, guilt, pride or whatever) except for the occasional surly and dismissive bark. But this behaviour, If anything, serves only to strengthen and darken peoples' suspicions.

This disbelieving view of the government is, it seems to me, one of the most important causes of the public's largely negative reaction to proposed government measures, and will only get worse so long as the various questions remain unaddressed. I don't think it's exaggerating at all to say it may ultimately confound the government's entire plan - presuming (as it is increasingly difficult to do) that they actually have anything that might (except in charity) be called a "plan".

Sutherland's analysis tells us yet again what the circumstances make inevitable - that we're all going to have to take a big, big slap if things are not to go down the drain entirely. But even should the government by some utter miracle come out in the morning with a survival plan which is credible, coherent and equitable, it may well be that nobody will trust them enough to accept it.

If that were the case, I'm the very first to admit that Fianna Fáil would have been hoist with their own petard; the problem is that we'd be hoisted up right alongside them.
Exccellent post. To me, the Government seems like a house seller in the current market. They still see the mantra of the last 10 years as golden and cannot adjust their thinking to the fact they need to take serious sustained action now - and not staggered. Ironically, the pension levy combined with raising the top rate of tax from 41% to say 45% may have staved off some of the union anger - at least it would have removed the 'why are we the only ones being picked on' mentality.
 

code twinkle

Active member
Joined
Jul 30, 2006
Messages
156
As someone else said - there is nothing here that hasn't been highlighted over the past weeks. Bizarrely, possibly even unprecedently, people are pretty much crying out for income tax increases and yet the Govt refuses to implement them - pretty much because they are idealogues of, frankly, a similar ilk to Mr. Sutherland. So I welcome one of 'their own' (in the economic sense) telling them to implement this corrective move immediately. He forgot to say that such increases should be done equitably and begin with addressing the issue of 'tax fugitives' as Fintan O'Toole has aptly termed the Denis O'Briens of this great little nation, and secondly by removing the many sick-and-wrong tax loopholes for our highest earners, but I think we can all agree that's what he was thinking.


The only thing that has not been emphasised as much of late is the need to cut capital expenditure. I disagree with the poster who says that this will lead to decaying infrastructure - there are certain infrastructural areas which have benefitted hugely over the past ten years and could easily take a back seat for a time - eg. motorways and large roads projects. He doesn't say cut all capital expenditure and I certainly wouldn't advocate allowing our children wait in their rotting prefabs for another few years, but can viable cuts be made in capital expenditure? Certainly.

As for the issue of current expenditure cuts - once the Government stop using the cuts against political targets such as entire the human rights infrastructure, or the sick and indigent, we're all for them...But sure they're on the right track now aren't they - what with the increase to hsopital consultants:

Harney agrees pay increase for consultants - The Irish Times - Tue, Feb 24, 2009

aren't they...aren't they?
 

HarshBuzz

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 28, 2008
Messages
11,935
Lord, HarshBuzz, I'm 51 years old, I came of age in the Haughey years, I've had occasion to study Fianna Fáil's intimate history in some depth.

What are the chances of them putting loyalty to the country ahead of loyalty to the Party, you ask? I'd have said zilch

And it gives me no bloody pleasure to say that at all.
well then they deserve their fate

what a chance to leave your mark on the history books for Cowen though; stand up and say "we are going to do the right thing for the country and will not be swayed from that course by anyone. Here is our plan and we are going to implement it. Here is my new economic advisor Peter Sutherland who will oversee that plan to cut 20bn from public spending in two years. Have a nice day" ;)
 

Mar Tweedy

Well-known member
Joined
Dec 12, 2008
Messages
625
Not balancing the books will result in umemployment, not the other way around. And to be honest, letting the Health Service collapse, in order that it can be rebuilt, wouldn't be a bad thing.

I find all of this tiresome at this stage. I don't anticipate that that we will be governing ourselves by this time next year. We're basically just too thick and self-obsessed to realise that the ground is crumbling away beneath our feet.

All anyone can do now is prepare themselves and their families for the worst.
Letting the Health Service collapse would have enormous consequences for the health of 100s of 1000s of people. It mightn't be a bad thing for those who can afford private healthcare (tho undoubtedly it would also affect them also). I'll give you the benefit of the doubt as I'm sure we all feel sometimes it would be better to knock it all down and build up afresh but that is a totally ludicrous irresponsible notion. As most sane people say in the middle of chaos and economic collapse, who are lucky enough to have good health - at least when you are in good health you can count your blessings.

Sutherland started well in drawing attention to the worst part of this crisis - the growth in unemployment and the effects that has on us as a people and in terms of cost. Unfortunately the idea that the big capital projects be suspended would immediately swell the ranks of the unemployed. However his drawing attention to the ludicrous notion of waiting until a Committee decides on where the taxes should be imposed is good. If the tax issue was addressed now, the daft levy could be, more or less, dropped and some sense of solidarity across the board could be salvaged.
 

Oldira1

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 2, 2008
Messages
1,467
it doesnt matter what happened in the eighties, it doesnt matter what else sutherland does fior a living, and its interesting thatt he person int ehs econd post could not offer a factual criticism.
Sutherland is nto proposing rocket science, he is simply saying that fiscal policu is out of skew with what the rest of the world are doing, every other country is tryingt o inject money into the economy to stimulate growth, lenihen is taking money ouit of the economy, and leaves ireland behind everyone else.
cuts in spending have to hasppen not because anyone wants to, but because the money isnt there to pay the bills, the bush regime in america ignored that reality for eight years and that state is almost bankrupt, reality jhas to bite sometime, and all sutherland is foig is stating that fact.
Specifics?..... Increase marginal rate of tax to 48%. New tax rate of 60% for incomes in excess of €150k. Return of rates for all dwellings based on based on square footage adjusted for household income. Ending of tax exile status for wealthy...if you own a residence here you are a tax resident particularly if you spend more than 30 days a year here. (Days not nights). 2% health levy for those WITHOUT health insurance. Legalise Casino gambling and take a cut...more and more US states are doing this. (Ignore nanny state crap about social ills...personal responsibility ), Cap all public sector pensions at €75k...NOBODY NEEDS or DESERVES a pension that large. End tax relief at marginal rate for private pensions,Reduce all Social Welfare payments by 5-10%. Borrow like mad for capital projects to keep employment. End mortgage interest relief for second homes. Re-introduce third level fees but charge the students and not the parents by having a student loan scheme repayable from income when they enter the work force. (Obama only finished his college loans a few years ago.), Sack 8 ministers of state.
 

Libero

Well-known member
Joined
May 22, 2004
Messages
3,000
Looking at my post above in cold hard print, it strikes me that I might almost be accused of liking either Peter Sutherland or Fianna Fáil. I feel obliged to note that neither is the case. I was just trying to sound fairer than I usually feel.
No worries, mitsui. It was a very good post because you highlighted one of the great weakness in Mr Sutherland’s plea for “fiscal adjustment”: the obvious inability of the current government to implement the kind of action he advocates, and which he advocates not only in the abstract but pleads for from the current government.

(I suspect Mr Sutherland subscribes to the school of thought that while it is appropriate for the Chairman of BP and Goldman Sachs to advocate, in veiled terms, the slashing of social welfare payments and health and education expenditure, it would be inappropriate for a person in that position to do something as vulgar and political – and possibly bad for business – as call for that country’s government to step down. But like he said about the Lisbon Treaty, I leave comment on that for another occasion.)

I want to identify another big weakness in the opinion piece: the lack of any technical rigour in its economic assumptions. This produces policy advice that is profoundly lacking in supporting evidence.

Towards the end of the piece, Mr Sutherland predicts: “domestic consumption is more likely to be boosted by increased confidence in fiscal stability than by the current situation, whereby any putative benefits from delayed fiscal adjustment are being swept away by the cloud of uncertainty dominating the economy”

Now, this is a bit controversial, so it is. The idea that a significant reduction in aggregate demand in our economy (through fiscal tightening) would somehow be offset by “increased confidence in fiscal stability”. I know what he’s getting at, and he may even be right. Certainly, the presence of continued uncertainty as to the country's solvency could greatly depress consumption and investment. But here’s the problem: in relation to that key prediction, he’s asking us to take it on trust that fiscal tightening won't extinguish vast areas of economic activity. And if Mr Sutherland is wrong in this key prediction, well, to coin a phrase, it’s not pleasant to contemplate, is it?

I appreciate that an Irish Times opinion piece is not the forum for an academic analysis of the economic effects of greater confidence in a country’s fiscal stability versus the depressing effects of higher tax and lower public spending. But Mr Sutherland has not even referred to any studies or other sources of evidence to support this opinion.

If anyone thinks I’m being a bit too picky about all this, just imagine if an executive made a big-ticket investment proposal to the board of BP or Goldman Sachs involving a similar reliance on well-worded assertion over evidence-based decision making.
 

Leftfemme22

Active member
Joined
Mar 7, 2007
Messages
216
Letting the Health Service collapse would have enormous consequences for the health of 100s of 1000s of people. It mightn't be a bad thing for those who can afford private healthcare

It would seriously affect them.

Private patients are treated in public hospitals.

It is pointless having health insurance if you have no where to be treated.
 
Top