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.'"

34 of 809 comments (clear)

  1. Defaulting is worse! by Kensai7 · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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"
    1. Re:Defaulting is worse! by hairyfeet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      That is why I figure the USA will default in 5 years, 10 tops. The only thing really keeping us afloat is the Fed printing money as fast as the presses will run and using it to buy our debt, basically making the money worthless. Then figure in the retiring boomers, huge masses of working poor that are only kept afloat by social programs, and the cost of two endless wars? Yeah I give it a decade tops. Enjoy it while you can folks, because from the looks of it another worldwide great depression will soon be upon us. The only question is whether we will learn from our mistakes and put heavy regulations on the banks like we did during the last one, or if those that believe in the free market fairy will win out. Without control free markets quickly end up corrupted when too much ends up in the hands of too few, just as we have now.

      --
      ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
    2. Re:Defaulting is worse! by khallow · · Score: 4, Insightful

      That is why I figure the USA will default in 5 years, 10 tops. The only thing really keeping us afloat is the Fed printing money as fast as the presses will run and using it to buy our debt, basically making the money worthless. Then figure in the retiring boomers, huge masses of working poor that are only kept afloat by social programs, and the cost of two endless wars? Yeah I give it a decade tops. Enjoy it while you can folks, because from the looks of it another worldwide great depression will soon be upon us. The only question is whether we will learn from our mistakes and put heavy regulations on the banks like we did during the last one, or if those that believe in the free market fairy will win out. Without control free markets quickly end up corrupted when too much ends up in the hands of too few, just as we have now.

      So what part of that list of woes is due to "free markets"? The Fed printing money? Retiring baby boomers? Social programs? Two "endless" wars (one which is in the process of ending, I might add)? None of those items are due to free markets. Four words describe globally the bank/real estate problem: "private profit, public risk". It's not a free market when you can pass on risk of your investments to the public.

      Having said that, I don't know if you're accurate in your prediction of default. The US is a big train and there's still a window for improvement of US government finances both in the next two years and in the presidential term after that. Still, if we get another G.W. Bush or Obama, I'd have to consider default in the next ten years a real possibility.

    3. Re:Defaulting is worse! by freedom_india · · Score: 3, Insightful

      In a fiat money economy, the US does not need to default. It just needs to inflate itself out of debt.

      --
      "Doing what i can, with what i have." ~ Burt Gummer
    4. Re:Defaulting is worse! by MrHanky · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Four words describe globally the bank/real estate problem: "private profit, public risk". It's not a free market when you can pass on risk of your investments to the public.

      Sounds like the only possible "free market" is in a classless Marxist utopia, then. Since in any society dependent on investments from rich capitalists, the latter will manage to make deals like in Ireland: No, either you pay, or I take my investment somewhere else. Which is, of course, the kind of market people usually refer to when talking about free markets.

    5. Re:Defaulting is worse! by rbarreira · · Score: 4, Insightful
      --

      The AACS key is NOT 0xF606EEFD628B1CA427BEA93A9CA9773F
    6. Re:Defaulting is worse! by Vaphell · · Score: 4, Insightful

      moving the capital around has everything with free markets, but exclusive deals, special treatments and subsidies for the chosen do not. Bailouts are such cases. Some failing bank or a car manufacturer gets bailed out, but your favorite bakery at the corner does not. Free market is a fair judge, treats all the same and the winners and losers are decided only by their merits, not by who they know.

    7. Re:Defaulting is worse! by Foobar+of+Borg · · Score: 5, Insightful

      moving the capital around has everything with free markets, but exclusive deals, special treatments and subsidies for the chosen do not. Bailouts are such cases. Some failing bank or a car manufacturer gets bailed out, but your favorite bakery at the corner does not. Free market is a fair judge, treats all the same and the winners and losers are decided only by their merits, not by who they know.

      The back and forth in this thread really just shows that a "free market" is an illusory concept. It is useful to a limited degree, but you have to keep in mind that it is not possible in real life.

      Once you throw government into the mix, you necessarily limit the freedom of the market. But, without a government, you don't have the structure to set up anything resembling a "free market".

      The other point that seems to have been missed is that, although you are right in saying that the Irish situation is not due to a real "free market", the term "free market" is what is thrown about to keep the proles in line.

    8. Re:Defaulting is worse! by DavidTC · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The back and forth in this thread really just shows that a "free market" is an illusory concept. It is useful to a limited degree, but you have to keep in mind that it is not possible in real life.

      It's not a very useful concept when used to argue we should remove trade barriers, which it is used all the time to do so.

      That, right there, is the real problem. It's not that corporations can make special deals with governments, there is functionally no way for any country to stop other countries from doing that. There is no way to solve that problem, ergo, that can't really be the problem. If houses you build keep falling down, the problem to investigate is not gravity.

      The solvable problem is that they then can continue to operate and sell in the US while not paying any taxes here.

      We need to get rid of the idea of 'corporate' taxes where profit can mysteriously move from place to place and they pay taxes somewhere we've never heard of. (And they're way to easy to avoid altogether.)

      We should tax them when they pay workers, in the location those workers are. We should tax them when they sell goods, in the location those goods are sold. (Or, easier, when those goods are imported.) We should tax their capital and real estate, in the location that capital and real estate is. We should tax their corporate dividends, in the location that stockholders live.

      Fuck asking where the company, an entity that is an artificial creation, 'lives'. Tax the things that physically exist where they actually are and tax the money going in and out where it's actually going in and out.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
    9. Re:Defaulting is worse! by tmosley · · Score: 4, Insightful

      You do realize that what you have described is the opposite of a free market, right?

      I swear, 99% of arguments against free markets are really arguments against fascism (a form of socialism, where profit is appropriated by corporations rather than ruling party members), which is the OPPOSITE of a free market. It's like saying how terrible a color white is because it is so dark and nasty, and it absorbs all the light. When anyone points out that they are describing the color "black" then they say, oh, well, there is no such thing as white anyways, so we should start off with a baseline grey, which apparently won't change color and turn black like white does, except that in reality, it is closer to black, so it will get that way much faster.

      If you want white, pick white, and keep it as clean as you can. Just because you can never get it perfectly clean doesn't mean that the concept or idea of the color is any less valid. It is the same way with the free market. Sure, it is never going to be absolutely free, but it is far better than ANY other system, which is by definition NOT free. Understand that free markets are not just about removing regulations, they are about removing SUBSIDIES as well. Those evil banks that everyone loves to hate so much are totally dependent on subsidies at this point. A free market will wash them all down the toilet, with the fittest honest bank now able to step up and place the highest bid on thier capital, and expand. If they become corrupted, then they will fall, and others will step up to take their place. This is the way it was in the US right up through 1913, and that principle took us from desolate backwater devoid of rich resources other than lumber and fish to industrial superpower. Any nation which followed any other path wound up like any of the South American or African nations.

    10. Re:Defaulting is worse! by bsDaemon · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Borrowing from social security to pay for non-social-security-related expenses is like borrowing from your kid's college fund to pay for a new deck. Yes, you've increased your wealth in terms of material assets, but it's not like you can liquidate the deck to pay back the college fund later. So, the government has to borrow to pay back the cookie jar. The debt isn't reduced, it just gets muddled.

      As to your response re: teachers, you seem to harp on one part of a list to try and make the person you're replying to sound dumb. Soldiers, civil servants at various levels, etc, can start at 18 and retire after 20 years. And not all of those soldiers get shot at. Desk clerks, supply sergeants, etc, can all retire after never having seen action. Of course, there is a chance they could be made to if the situation were dire enough.

      Federal dollars do go to the states to pay for education, so teacher salaries are going to be a part of that. However, it's likely not statistically significant, but to say that its not at least a little bit related is just being sloppy at best.

      Frankly, this country has been on an unsustainable path since Andrew Jackson was President. We've finally reached the breaking point because we can't expand anymore. We've propped up all the countries we could expand into in order to get cheap labor and a new market without having to spend on infrastructure or let them vote, but they're realizing that they don't really need us anymore. We've spent too much, borrowed too much and let it get out of control.

      It's gotten to the point where no one on the left or the right really has the will to do anything about it, or a plan that's worth a damn if they do. Combined with lowered standards in education (my mother is a public high school teacher and has been for the last 15 years or so. New requirements that all students graduate in 4 years have created a situation where now teacher's aren't allowed to give any grade lower than a 40 and grades have been readjusted to a 10-point scale, making it practically impossible to fail no matter what. She's so angry about it she's about ready to just give up and go find a new job that doesn't suck (AB from an ivy league school and a MA in her subject, she's not going to be hurting to find work)), this is pretty much the death knell of America.

    11. Re:Defaulting is worse! by DavidTC · · Score: 3, Insightful

      1) Payroll taxes

      Um, no. Unemployment insurance is about it, and that's capped at $434 a year, so isn't that impressive a tax. A tax of $1.19 a day is probably less than what the employee wastes in going to the bathroom.

      2) Sales and use taxes

      The Federal government does not collect sales tax or use tax.

      3) Import/export duties/tariffs

      We have almost no import and tariffs, and none at all on companies that are 'outside the US', but somehow manufacture all their stuff here, like Microsoft.

      4) Income tax

      Foreign businesses that employ Americans do pay income tax, correct.

      Your score: 1/4.

      Better luck next time.

      Any tax dinged against a business MUST be passed along to the consumer,

      No it doesn't. The price that customers are charged has NO BEARING on the taxes assessed against it.

      You have no clue how supply and demand works, do you? Businesses charge the amount they can. If they can charge more and make the same profit, they will, if they have to charge less to make a profit (by selling more), they will.

      In your universe, apparently, businesses sit there going 'Well, we're making 10% profit, and even though we could raise prices 5% more and make 15% profit, we're not going to....Oh no, they just raised taxes 5%, we better raise prices 5% to get back to our 10% profit.'

      Do you have even the simplest grasp of how businesses operate? Businesses do not pick a 'profit level' and operate there, moving up and down in response to costs.

      That is just insane. It's not even a simplified version of economic theory. It's an economic theory designed by a second grader.

      Income tax on dividends hurts mainly small investors relying on it for their retirement, who hold (per the last figures I saw) over 90% of stocks.

      If you want to assert that that's a bad idea, I will not object.

      --
      If corporations are people, aren't stockholders guilty of slavery?
  2. People would protest against raising corp. tax by zoney_ie · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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...
    1. Re:People would protest against raising corp. tax by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

      These companies provide our jobs.

      If all the jobs in your country, or even a significant majority of them, are provided by international megacorporations and conglomerates that can and will move them elsewhere if it benefits them, and use them as blackmail material to get the laws they want, then you've got bigger problems than whether to lower taxes or not.

    2. Re:People would protest against raising corp. tax by zoney_ie · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually education is being given more preferential treatment in cuts being minimised compared to even healthcare.

      It's likely to be relatively unaffected by the cuts in government spending. Admittedly that means kids still going to school in rotting >century old buildings and temporary pre-fabs, but the level of people's education is not likely to drop. Quite the reverse given the fear of joblessness.

      --
      -- *~()____) This message will self-destruct in 5 seconds...
    3. Re:People would protest against raising corp. tax by OneMadMuppet · · Score: 5, Insightful

      The problem isn't the multinationals that provide jobs - they will stay. Intel can't move a FAB overnight. The issue is with the shells like Microsoft Licensing - that employ 5 lawyers, 5 accountants and a janitor - and that do nothing but funnel profits. THESE companies will up and leave in a heartbeat, because an extra 2% on $62BN is ENORMOUS. At the moment the corp tax income on these companies is E110bn - and the IMF money is nowhere near that. Raising the corp tax rate might mean losing 50-100 jobs, mostly accountants and lawyers (not exactly going to get a sympathy vote from most people), but could leave the country more than E50bn a year down - not really an option right now.

  3. It's not the country's debts. by dackroyd · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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
  4. Luck of the International Bankers continues by vorlich · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
    1. Re: Luck of the International Bankers continues by Black+Parrot · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Should be the more appropriate headline here.

      Yeah, in the USA we bailed out the banks. Could have bailed out the homeowners and thereby saved both them *and* the banks, But no, we only look after the big boys here.

      --
      Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
  5. Re:Default? Really? by igreaterthanu · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  6. Corporations are Assholes. by Arancaytar · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  7. If you really want to know, from The Economist by PolygamousRanchKid+ · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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!
  8. Re:This is why by MachDelta · · Score: 5, Insightful

    According to whom?

    Surely it's not the workers, because when Big'n'Big Co pulls up their tent pegs and moves shop, all the workers are suddenly unemployed.

    It's probably not the consumer, because when Big'n'Big Co finds a way to half their cost of production, it's not guaranteed to drive prices down. Why bother cutting prices and taking a bigger market share when you can just shovel up a pile of cash big enough to buy your competitors (or a controlling interest in their stock)? Hell, why not just collude with your competitors to keep prices artificially inflated - then everyone's happy!

    Surely then, it is the desperate - those poor starving people in $Third_World_Nation who desperately need employment of any sort. Except that, after their standard of living starts to rise, Big'n'Big Co just moves on to the next shithole and leaves the desperate unemployed too.

    Well fuck, if it's not the middle class or the lower class, who the hell is left?
    Oh, right, the bourgeois. Well, as long as they're doing all right, everything is just peachy! Hurray for Capitalism! :P

  9. Not so fast... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

  10. Re:Why it won't affect the companies.. by rtb61 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  11. Re:Why it won't affect the companies.. by Sique · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    --
    .sig: Sique *sigh*
  12. Re:Why it won't affect the companies.. by Teun · · Score: 5, Insightful
    And because the Irish pay so little tax other Europeans have to raise €85,000,000,000.- to bail them out.

    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."
  13. Re:Default? Really? by TheRaven64 · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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
  14. Re:A parable on taxing the rich by Dr_Barnowl · · Score: 3, Insightful

    What it fails to mention is that most of the other 9 guys in the bar work for the 10th guy, and provided the labour that made him his riches. So he's magnanimous enough to pay about 60% of their bar bill, when all his riches came from the sweat on their backs?

    The other guys should say "Hey, how come you can afford to pay more than half of our bar tab, when we are the guys doing all the work? Why the fuck are we lining your pockets when you work no harder than us?", and then kick him out of the bar and find another drinking buddy who will do the same job (managing their labour) for a fair wage, allowing them to split the $60 fairly between them, making them all significantly more wealthy.

  15. Tell that to the Irish who will have to emigrate by fantomas · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  16. Germany is not paying Europe's bills by rbarreira · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Germany Is Tired of Paying Europe's Bills.

    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
  17. Re:Default? Really? by Vaphell · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.

  18. buddy, you don't know what you are talking about by notionalTenacity · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

  19. Re:Default? Really? by dkf · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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'!"