Slashdot Mirror
The Luck of the Irish Runs Out
theodp writes "Looks like threatening to take their ball and leave paid off for US tech firms. The Irish government announced plans this week to tap the welfare state and working class for much of the $20B in savings they've pledged to find over the next four years, but the austerity measures will not touch large businesses like Microsoft, Intel, Google, HP, Facebook, LinkedIn, and Pfizer, which created jobs and fueled exports in Ireland after being lured by low corporate tax rates. More than 100,000 Dubliners took to the streets to protest the bailout plan, calling for the Irish government to default on the country's debts, and demanding an immediate election. 'We should default,' said a retired union worker, 'the idea that the workers of this country should pay for the gambling of the billionaires is disgusting.'"
Going default will be a short-lived remedy. The country will go back to 1990 in terms of market appeal and productivity. And yes, if the big tech companies leave, the hope of reacquiring a high-tech knowledge industry will go away as well.
"Sum Ergo Cogito"
the mobility of capital is a good thing.
'We should default,' said a retired union worker, 'the idea that the workers of this country should pay for the gambling of the billionaires is disgusting.
Yes, the "billionaires" lead the whole pack, and all that. However - not many of the proles stop to look around and wonder what brings the semi-dream around them while it lasts - but they do enjoy it. And cherish promises.
That doesn't go only for the Irish of course.
One that hath name thou can not otter
Look, left-wing parties are likely to do well in our next election, but no-one sensible here, left or right, wants to raise the corporation tax rate. These companies provide our jobs.
If a raise would be announced, ordinary people here would really start to protest.
-- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
It's the private bank's debts.
For some unknown reason the Irish government decided to guarantee all debts by banks in Ireland including banks that are owned and run by people who are not Irish or based in Ireland. These debts were not sovereign debts until the Irish government decided to unilaterally back them without any good cause. They did this back in 2008 and it's only now that they massive amount that they've basically handed over to private investors is becoming apparent.
It's pretty nuts that private investors had hoped to make money by investing in Irish banks - but now that they're actually facing losses the people of Ireland are going to step up and cover all these debts. So for the private investors it's a case of head I win, tails you lose - where there is no risk of the private investors losing any money - and no chance for the public to get a share of the profits that banks were making in the good times.
"Free software as in beer, copy protection as in racket" - Telsa Gwynne
Should be the more appropriate headline here.
Posts, MyBio or Sig, may contain satire, sarcasm, bolded nouns be sardonic or even witty & be Church of SD
Government debt is also a useful tool (such as borrowing to buy infrastructure) but like any tool there are ways to abuse it. I wouldn't be so quick to throw it away.
As for making a balanced budget, that is the responsibility of the citizens to vote for reasonable candidates.
I dream of a nation where a man is not judged by his skin color but by an number assigned by a credit rating agency.
As usual, many people are quick to defend these pricks, saying that if it weren't for them, everyone would be out of a job. Yes, the economy is in their power. Calling that a mutually beneficial relationship sounds like Stockholm syndrome.
If your very survival depends on receiving a living wage from a corporation that can simply choose to go away if it is asked to pay for the infrastructure it also uses, then you are not living a "dream" generously provided by altruistic corporations, but in slavery to organizations who can let you starve if they wanted to. Not only workers, even governments are forced to debase themselves before these corporations, lowering their living standard, their wage expectations, cutting their social system and their taxes bit by bit to compete with other countries that are forced to do the same.
Ireland, and the entire European Union at that, should make a stand against this and play hardball. The fact is that while corporations can move their production elsewhere, they do have to sell something eventually. A high-tech market requires a high-tech industry to flourish: If corporations leave the country, the economy goes to shit and nobody can afford the flashy gizmos these corporations are selling. Standardize the tax hike over all EU states, accompany it with an import tariff on technology not produced inside the country, and suddenly paying a little more corporate tax will seem like a much better alternative. The workers are not only their slaves, but also their customers.
http://www.economist.com/node/17577107
I watched a German documentary this morning about how the Euro was bad (German is not my mother tongue, but I am fluent and could understand everything). Some of the stuff in that was political dynamite: I don't think that politicians in Europe understand the powder keg that they are sitting on.
From the The Economist article,
The most concerned onlooker is Germany, which sees its credit lying behind the entire euro area. As ever, Europe’s biggest tabloid, Bild, captured the mood this week, asking “First the Greeks, then the Irish, thenwill we end up having to pay for everyone in Europe?
Oh, let's piss off the Germans . . .grand idea . . . in Europe, that always ends in tears.
Schroedinger's Brexit: The UK is both in and out of the EU at the same time!
Why are they broke in the first place? Isn't it the welfare state's massive spending? Doesn't sound like billionaires gambling to me.
Going default will be a short-lived remedy. The country will go back to 1990 in terms of market appeal and productivity. And yes, if the big tech companies leave, the hope of reacquiring a high-tech knowledge industry will go away as well.
The main problem is the fact that big companies now are so powerful that they can hold entire tax systems hostage... they can play countries out against each other.
But instead of having a single EU corporate tax system (which imho would make sense), we have all kinds of other silly EU rules... and corporate taxes keep dropping in a futile attempt to lure more big business.
Governments should realize that big companies won't leave overnight. It'll take a little while to move people and offices.
At the same time, a lot of countries are suffering from the crisis - so if the Irish increase their tax together with a number of other countries, to give a clear signal, then they might get away with it... Shareholders and investors in stock markets should pay a part of the crisis too - they are at the root of its cause.
No one ever 'generates' a lot of money, certainly the government mints print it but for every one else making s lot of money is all about being greedy. Paying very little for something and then putting a huge markup on it and selling (importing cheap junk), employing people where you have to capital to buy equipment and they do no and basically selling they're labour for much more than you pay for it, inheriting large sums of money and buying up all the income produce property you can, gambling with other peoples money at financial institutions, oh wait, they is always prostitution they certainly do generate money with their assets but they are the only ones (Psychopath pimps still take the lions share, hmm, much like the rest of the economy).
Human society is a function of all humanity, those that profit most by it should pay the most for the benefit they gain, of course being greedy, they just want more. You neither read, write nor even speak without the support of the rest of humanity. It is time to put a stop upon preying upon the rest of human society and start working together for mutual benefit.
Chaos - everything, everywhere, everywhen
Who would ever lend Ireland money ever again?
Who would ever lend insolvent banks money again? It's not Ireland that went bust, it's Irelands banks. The Irish government just got suckered into backing them.
The answer is, of course, the next sucker. Which we have a financial system full of, as if anyone loses their money lending to bums, the taxpayers will get to pay for it...
But really, would you feel safer lending money to someone who will probably default in the near future as they carry unmaintainable debt than you would lending money to someone who'd restructured their debt to manageable levels? Neither would be very palatable in a sane system, but that's not what we have, and you as a taxpayer will not get a say in whether to lend or not.
A parable on taxing the rich: http://gregmankiw.blogspot.com/2007/03/barstool-tax-policy.html
To be honest, during the golden 60ies in the U.S. the top tax rate was 91%, and the country was wealthy and strong.
To be able to earn such a big income means that there are lots of external factors you can make use of, as in a stable society, a well maintained infrastructure, a strong military and low crime. And the more money you make, the more you use this infrastructure. People at the top easily forgot how much the country is supporting them, they live under the surreal impression that somehow they pay for everthing themselves.
Most of that money comes from countries where income tax is well above 50% (or even 72% in Denmark).
Yes even the Danes that don't use the Euro have pledged a substantial guarantee.
In the mean time two of the countries with the highest taxes, Denmark and The Netherlands, have the lowest unemployment of the Union, around or even below 5%.
The implied claim high taxes destroy the economy is yet to be proven.
"The likes of Facebook and WhatsApp are free to those whose privacy is of zero value."
Debt is not intrinsically bad. Anyone who believes this should spend some time playing Transport Tycoon - the best strategy in that game is to borrow right up to your limit, because a well run company will make much more profit from the capital investment than the cost of the interest. It's a very simplified economic model, but the point still stands. If a government borrows $n, has to repay $n+20%, and invests the money in infrastructure that generates $n+50% in tax revenues, this is a sensible and responsible thing for the government to do. This is why most companies have outstanding loans - they are making more money from the investment than they are losing from the interest payments, so repaying the loan would be a net loss.
The problem is not debt, but debt without a plan for repayment.
I am TheRaven on Soylent News
Tell that to the people who will have to emigrate from Ireland in search of work. A bit of a sore point I believe because of history.
100 years ago, they travelled to the USA. Now they'd probably not be allowed entry because the USA frowns upon economic migrants.
You make compelling, but misguided statements regarding the view of the "business man". Certainly there is value in what you say about the inventor and scientist. I even agree that a businessman is important for the building of order from chaos in the beginning steps of a market. You I miss in your statement is that the society does not hate the business man for making money, he/she angers the populous when greed is applied to the model.
Most people would like to be rich, to have wealth. Many work such that they can provide a good life. When business leaders makes decisions that not only benefit the very few at the top of the wealth pyramid, but do so at the expense of the middle and lower foundations of wealth, they hurt all parties including themselves in the long term. For the USA, in the late 50 and 60s there was one of the highest tax rates on the rich, yet the country prospered. In times of lowered taxes in this country the only group that benefited were the top few percent leaving he rest with increased debt and redcued services. Raising taxes on the rich is not meant as a punishment, it is meant to stabilize their own growth, even as it helps stabilize a society.
Sadly, at this juncture in the world economy, I feel that most governments will or cannot effect change upon the rich as many of the leaders are either in the pocket of, or have an attitude and wealth account that drives them more towards greed, and less towards help the general society. To put it another way, a happy society is less likely to revolt. History has shown time and time again that when the gentry gains too much wealth they can wind up on the sharp end of a pike or guillotine and the society runs amok for a long time. Axa final thought, Warren Buffet himself says that he does not pay enough taxes, but that the system is rigged such that he needs to take the loop holes.
Life is a great ride, the vehicle doesn't matter
This is over-simplified. Germany might appear to be paying for Europe's bills, but how much of this "bailout" is going right back to German/US/etc. banks which would go bankrupt if the IMF / EU wasn't "bailing out" Ireland?
Follow the money, don't think just one move ahead. These bailouts are nothing more but the partial enslavement of Irish taxpayers in order to rescue foreign banks and governments.
The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
in democracy with deficits allowed you are doomed to wreck your economy, because in order to win the elections you got to promise a shitload of 'freebies' (which are not free at all), otherwise someone else who promises a lot will win. Sanity and economic soundness are not valued by the average voter so it's the race to the bottom.
as Tocqueville said
The American Republic will endure until the day Congress discovers that it can bribe the public with the public's money.
Or was it a universal feeling of entitlement while living in a welfare state?
I am very small, utmostly microscopic.
You clearly know nothing about the situation, or our country, and just have a free-market axe to grind. Well buddy, I'm a believer in free enterprise, and I'm Irish, so let me give you a summary of what's going on. The billionaires referred to are the large investment institutions and the high net worth individuals that took bonds in the Irish banks. The argument is that they were paid interest for the bonds, in return for risk (thats how investment usually works, the reward is in return for the risk). The banks became insolvent (partly due to the global banking crisis, partly due to irresponsible behaviour, partly due to the low EU rate of interest (which suited the larger economies) providing cheap credit). The comment in the summary is referring to the fact that the bonds of the investors, who took the risk, are being guaranteed by the Irish state. Supposedly to avert a banking crisis, due to the systemic importance of the banks. Only we seem to have gotten a banking crisis anyway; which has made the billions poured into the banks seem like a bad use of money... As such, the losses of the bondholders (the 'billionaires' of the summary) are being socialised. This is what pisses people off. Irish people are very pro enterprise, pro business, and pro building shit. That's why so many companies invest here. We have a low rate of corporation tax, true, which is a big part of things; but we've also got a creative culture, and its a good business environment here. People like to have the craic; but they also like to work hard, and have a healthy disrespect for authority that helps them innovate. Now, sure, there is social welfare for the poor, and free health care, which maybe you are referring to. And its probably a little on the high side, these days. But Ireland doesn't have a culture of entitlement. The history of the people of Ireland is not one of entitlement, and its not in our psyche. Sure, some of the kids in the boom recently may be a little entitled - but thats because of the free money they had, not because of the welfare state. If anything, there isn't enough entitlement in Ireland. We didn't really know what to do with the money because it was the first time we ever had it; people couldn't believe how good it was, couldn't believe it could last, and that economic prosperity could come to us... ...and so didn't ask enough questions about whether it was being managed right, whether the politicians were properly serving us etc.
And as regards the parts of a welfare state we have being so bad...
Well, I remember spending a summer in Boston. Lived in cambridge, beside Harvard, MIT.
I'll never forget walking past a really awful looking woman, sitting on harvard square. She was clearly pregnant and had a sign saying 'please help, pregnant with AIDS'. And she looked it.
I've worked in the valley too - great tech culture, great enterprise culture. But walking around palo alto, past the homeless crazy guys on the street, asking for money, with nowhere to go...
Well, no, Irelands not perfect; but there's aspects of a welfare state I'll take over the 'fsck the poor' attitude any day.
Don't believe the false dichotomy - you can have a great culture of enterprise, without stepping over broken people on the way to work.
If we can figure some way out of the bank bailout here, maybe we'll get there yet.
Debt is intrinsically bad when it's gov't debt, because gov't is not supposed to be a business.
That sounds like you've bought into that position as an a priori assumption. While I'd agree that governments aren't businesses, to say that all government borrowing is therefore bad is foolishness. The purpose of good borrowing is so that investment can be made so as to increase income in the future that will repay the debt and ensure more money to do other things with. When applied to a government, the purpose has got to primarily be to invest in steps that will lead to increased total tax take in the future, generally through increasing overall economic activity in some way.
This is all independent of how wisely governments in your locale are spending, taxing or borrowing. If you're going to make an argument, it helps to start out from an intellectually-sound basis, which saying that "government borrowing is bad" is not. Reality just doesn't allow for such simple distinctions, and any sane policy must be at least grounded in reality.
"Little does he know, but there is no 'I' in 'Idiot'!"
None of gov'ts business, it's not what the gov't is for - creating factories/hospitals/etc. I can't believe this is even an argument.
Gov't is a monopolistic structure by default, which is incapable of any sort of competition and thus does not follow the rules of price discovery through trade.
Gov't funding in itself is anti-competitive in nature, as gov't gets its funding by force. You can't build anything of use if it's all dictated by gov't, gov't cant't build independent structures in the market that are not profit motivated, and profit driven motivation system is the only sound economic system we have to date, it ensures market level price discovery through trade, it ensures nearly correct market saturation levels with various products/services at the prices that the market is willing to bear.
You don't want gov't to deal with economy, it's a big mistake to allow a monopolistic, non-profit driven, income ensured, bureaucratic, ever growing, anti-competitive, money printing system to set economic rules, it will inevitably crash the society by imposing itself all over the economy.
Gov't is supposed to be just a cost, it's a cost of having minimum military for protection and a cost of having a working justice system to look after criminal and contract laws.
Leave the individuals to take care of market requirements, leave the individual choices for price/quality discovery, leave the market to set interest rates, do not allow gov't to borrow, do not allow gov't to tax production, keep it on a short consumption financed leash, otherwise it will destroy the economy and society, because it has no boundaries.
You can't handle the truth.