# Why does nobody disagree with the Fiscal Council's report?



## Brendan Burgess (11 Jun 2019)

I heard Séamus Coffey talking about the Fiscal Council's report slamming the government's approach to spending and taxation on Morning Ireland.

Why is it that there is no one from the left arguing for more spending and bigger deficits?

Why is there no economist from the Trade Unions or NERI or TASC arguing the other point of view?

The Fiscal Council will be before the Oireachtas Budgetary Oversight Committee  at 1.30 today so we might see an alternative viewpoint emerge there.(Committee Room 4)

Brendan


----------



## Purple (11 Jun 2019)

Maybe denying reality is becoming more difficult for the Socialist parties, Trade Unions or their media and information outlets (NERI, TACS etc.)


----------



## Coldwarrior (11 Jun 2019)

Seems everyone agrees with Fiscal's Council's assessments, but the government just continues to ignore them anyway


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (11 Jun 2019)

Analysis of public finance policy is hard.

TASC, trade unions and Social Justice Ireland don't have the capacity.

Only the ESRI and (kind of) NERI do.


----------



## WolfeTone (11 Jun 2019)

Arent FG left-wing?


----------



## jpd (11 Jun 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Arent FG left-wing?


----------



## WolfeTone (12 Jun 2019)

I should state that I always considered FG to be centre-right. But if they are increasing spending and running budget deficits, doesn't that resemble left-wing policy?


----------



## Purple (12 Jun 2019)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Only the ESRI and (kind of) NERI do.


NERI are the Trade Unions.



WolfeTone said:


> Arent FG left-wing?


Used to be centre-right, law and order party. Now they are a liberal centrist party but to stay in power they have to also play to the left wing populists and the powerful lobby group that is the public sector unions. That said they have done a commendable job of keeping the lid on wage increases in the State sector, relative to what happened before in the "good times".



WolfeTone said:


> I should state that I always considered FG to be centre-right. But if they are increasing spending and running budget deficits, doesn't that resemble left-wing policy?


They have always been a center left populist party, all things to all men type of party.

There are no right wing parties in Ireland, not even centre right.


----------



## Firefly (12 Jun 2019)

I really believe at this stage, that the only hope for any Irish government to spend within their means requires stricter borrowing limits from the EU. Otherwise this pro-cyclical merry-go-round will continue.


----------



## WolfeTone (15 Jun 2019)

The Irish government is spending within its means. As it stands, the economy is growing faster than levels of increased spending and borrowing. 
As long as Ireland remains on such a strategy it will not be Irish government financial management that will cause/cost a recession. 
Government policy, on the hand, may inadvertently trigger hotspots - eg. lack of suitable housing in capital centres. 
Of course Ireland is exposed to international factors but there is really nothing little old Ireland can do to circumvent the consequences, positive or negative, of trade wars between US and China, Gulf oil tensions between US and Iran etc...
But we are part of that bigger club now of Europe - in other words, if the global economy goes down, we go down with it. 
Other than that, we could drag ourselves down by our own internal policies, which despite the alarmist headlines of the capital spend on the children's hospital and broadband etc...is actually chicken feed in the lifetime of future generations.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (18 Jun 2019)

At last someone disagreeing with the Fiscal Council.

A fiscal council without regard for society is not worth the money

Well at least I think he is disagreeing with the Fiscal Council.  I usually summarise the key points of these articles, but any quote from this would be out of context as I am not sure what his point is.



Brendan


----------



## Purple (18 Jun 2019)

Brendan, I'm surprised at you. Didn't you know that not having a point has never stopped Fergus Finlay from treating us plebs to the outflowing of his superior intellect (and morals). Why would he start, or stop, now?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (18 Jun 2019)

Purple said:


> Didn't you know that not having a point has never stopped Fergus Finlay from treating us plebs to the outflowing of his superior intellect (and morals).



I had not realised that this was normal for him.   I must read him more.

Brendan


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (18 Jun 2019)

I couldn't get beyond the first paragraph. It's awful.



The Fiscal Council is part of a system of institutional checks and balances.

It is (on purpose) not their job to say what should be taxed and where spending should go. There is no shortage of opinion on that.

They are only supposed to look at the big numbers, and to provide expert, public advice. This is something I know a bit about, and I think they do a very good job.


----------



## Purple (18 Jun 2019)

I think Fergus is upset that the Fiscal Advisory Council is not ideologically driven, like the Trade Union funded Nevin Research Institute which he references. If only they operated on that higher moral plane occupied by socialists in general and smoked salmon socialists in particular. 

I read his book Snakes and Ladders, which he wrote about his time as a special advisor to Dick Spring. What I learned was that the very few mistakes Dick made while in office were as a result of not following Fergus's advice. Whatever else can be said about Fergus he doesn't suffer from low self esteem.


----------



## odyssey06 (18 Jun 2019)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I had not realised that this was normal for him.   I must read him more.



Luckily this didn't come to pass...








						Barnardos chief Fergus Finlay 'very interested' in seeking presidency if Michael D does not
					

An election is expected to be held in October, however other candidates have been put forward to date.




					www.thejournal.ie


----------



## Purple (18 Jun 2019)

odyssey06 said:


> Luckily this didn't come to pass...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


In fairness when it comes to bombast and pomposity Fergus is not in the same league as Uachtarán na hÉireann, Micky D, but then again who is?

I think Fergus Finlay is a very well meaning person who cares deeply about the people of this country. He just suffers from that awful disease called moral certainty.


----------



## WolfeTone (19 Jun 2019)

Johnathan Mills, economist - I think he writes in the Irish Times, is also critical of the Fiscal Advisory Council. 

His views were that increases in government spending should derive primarily from the rate of growth in the population, and that the tax take should be a secondary consideration as it is effectively artificial and easily manipulated. I don't have the clip to hand so I am in danger of misconstruing what he said - but his point about correlating spending increases with population growth (which I understand is growing fast) made a great deal of sense.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (19 Jun 2019)

I have searched for him and I can't find him anywhere, never mind any comments on the Fiscal Advisor Council.

It makes sense only in an abstract sense. 

It makes no sense in a country which has huge borrowing, artificially high tax receipts, and which is facing into a hard Brexit and a recession.

The IFAC advice which almost every economist agrees with, is that when the economy is roaring ahead, the government should not be fueling it further. When we do go into inevitable recession, we should be in a position to boost the economy with government spending, but we will be forced to do the very opposite.

Brendan


----------



## Baby boomer (19 Jun 2019)

Fergus Finlay is spectacularly missing the point.  The Fiscal Advisory Council is not meant to advise on WHAT the Government should spend money.  It's function is to advise on the amount that it is prudent to spend.  There are plenty of advocacy groups, special interest groups and representative bodies that will opine on how money should be spent.  There'd be no point in the Fiscal Advisory Council becoming another one.  It has a different job to do.


----------



## WolfeTone (19 Jun 2019)

Brendan Burgess said:


> I have searched for him and I can't find him anywhere



Perhaps he only wrote an article that was picked up by the IT? I heard him on a radio broadcast and I have him on my Twitter feed. 

When we go into recession we will have to borrow more at higher interest rates than we can borrow today. 
Investment today in critical infrastructure will assist in softening the longevity of future recessions. That investment is critical to support an increasing population. If we dont invest in schools and colleges, hospitals, roads, broadband, water etc...etc...today, we wont be in a position to invest in them during a recession.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (19 Jun 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> When we go into recession we will have to borrow more at higher interest rates than we can borrow today.



We have €200 billion of national debt and €300 billion of unfunded pension liabilities. 

When we go into another recession, we will not be able to borrow at any price. 

That is why we should cut our national debt now so that we would have flexibility when things do go down.

Brendan


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (19 Jun 2019)

Brendan Burgess said:


> We have €200 billion of national debt a*nd €300 billion of unfunded pension liabilities.*



This is alarmist. They will be paid for from future tax revenues. That's how governments are financed. They have the right to tax people in perpetuity, that's why markets lend to them at very low rates

Also, the latest accrued liability for public service pensions is only €115bn.


----------



## WolfeTone (19 Jun 2019)

Brendan Burgess said:


> That is why we should cut our national debt now so that we would have flexibility when things do go down.



May I ask to what extent, in monetary terms, should we cut national debt? From €200bn to where?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (19 Jun 2019)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Also, the latest accrued liability for public service pensions is only €115bn.



And how much is the social welfare pension's accrued liability? 

It's not alarmist at all. Any other employer would have created a fund. 

And we will all find out in a few years whether I am alarmist or not when the state can no longer afford to pay the contributory pension.

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (19 Jun 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> May I ask to what extent, in monetary terms, should we cut national debt? From €200bn to where?



It would depend on the size of the economy and the tax take. But I would be happier with about €50 billion.

Then when we hit the downturn, we can borrow more without going bankrupt.

Brendan


----------



## WolfeTone (19 Jun 2019)

Im sorry, but are you suggesting we cut the national debt by €150bn to €50, or cut it by €50 down to €150bn?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (19 Jun 2019)

I would be happier with a debt of €50 billion, so a cut of €150 billion over time. 

Brendan


----------



## WolfeTone (19 Jun 2019)

Unless you were contemplating 'a period of time' of several hundred years, then such a drastic reduction would herald the greatest economic crash this country has ever seen reducing our standard of living probably on par with Sierra Leone or worse. 
One of the reasons we live in a developed economy is precisely because we have borrowed €200bn (since the foundation of the State) on our way to get here. 
That is not to say keeping debt levels down or at least at increasing levels less than growth rates is a bad thing, it is not. But that is precisely what is occurring today, the debt level is increasing at a level that is less than the growth rate. 
Most of the increase in borrowing can be attributable to capital spending. Meaning, even if we spend a horrendous amount on broadband for every home and business, it will mean that our IT infrastructure is better placed than others to capitalize on advances in IT markets. When a recession occurs, Irelands IT sector will be better placed to withstand it, and recover quicker from it. 
Taking money out the economy to the extent that you have suggested would cripple the country.


----------



## odyssey06 (20 Jun 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> That is not to say keeping debt levels down or at least at increasing levels less than growth rates is a bad thing, it is not. But that is precisely what is occurring today, the debt level is increasing at a level that is less than the growth rate.
> Most of the increase in borrowing can be attributable to capital spending. Meaning, even if we spend a horrendous amount on broadband for every home and business, it will mean that our IT infrastructure is better placed than others to capitalize on advances in IT markets. When a recession occurs, Irelands IT sector will be better placed to withstand it, and recover quicker from it.



This makes no sense at an IT level, or economics level. We won't be better placed than anybody if we over spend on a broadband solution that businesses don't need (because most of the cost is for isolated once off rural homes) OR that will likely be rapidly outdated by emergent technologies such as satellite broadband OR that means we have no reserves to cope with economic downturn.
If we spend a horrendous amount on broadband, it necessarily limits what we can spend on more essential projects.
Our growth rate is temporarily artificially inflated by corporation tax receipts, this is acknowledged by virtually every commentator. Our debt rate should be matched to the level of the real economy, and those corporation tax receipts treated as a windfall - to fund a debt reduction or real investment projects. And note to the government, spending 2 billion more than you need to on broadband is not an investment, nor is HAP payments to landlords.

In the event of a downturn, the cost of delivering capital projects will be less - witness the price inflation versus 5 years ago.


----------



## Purple (20 Jun 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> One of the reasons we live in a developed economy is precisely because we have borrowed €200bn (since the foundation of the State)


Since the foundation of the State?!
We owed less than €50 billion in 2007. By 2012 that had increased to over €200 billion. 


WolfeTone said:


> Most of the increase in borrowing can be attributable to capital spending.


No, it isn't.
Of that increase of well over €150 billion a hundred billion is due to spending money on day to day things that we can't afford like public sector staff levels and pay, health services, welfare and pensions. We are like a family which re-mortgaged their house to finance doing their grocery shopping in M&S and going on foreign holidays instead of shopping in Lidl and staying at home.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (20 Jun 2019)

Brendan Burgess said:


> And how much is the social welfare pension's accrued liability?
> 
> It's not alarmist at all. Any other employer would have created a fund.
> 
> And we will all find out in a few years whether I am alarmist or not when the state can no longer afford to pay the contributory pension.



Sorry Brendan but you clearly don't know very much about economics and public finances A country isn't like a firm that has to depend on sales. It has the unlimited right to tax its citizens in perpetuity. That's why markets generally lend to governments at low rates.


Your proposal to immediately cut €150 bn off the national debt is daft. Very simply, that's €10bn less spending every year for fifteen years.

€10bn a year is approximately one of:

5 times child benefit
4 times the entire cost of police and prisons
The entire public spend on the education system
All pensions, contributory and non-contributory
Yes, you would save a bit on debt interest, but you would also throw the economy into a recession, which would also damage tax revenues.


My own view is that fiscal policy should be tighter by about €2-€3bn a year at the moment, as a buffer for shocks. Your proposal is like something out of a libertarian wish-list.

PS: Tax revenues fell by 30% 2007-2010 and the state pension wasn't cut. Yes, there are pressures from ageing, but these are maybe €4-€5bn a year in 40 years' time.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (20 Jun 2019)

Purple said:


> We are like a family which re-mortgaged their house to finance doing their grocery shopping in M&S and going on foreign holidays instead of shopping in Lidl and staying at home.



This is not true. What matters is the borrowing and lending position of the nation. This is the current account of the balance of payments, which no one talks about very much any more.

This has been in surplus for the last few years, having been in deep deficit in 2007 and 2008 when, as a nation, we were indeed living beyond our means.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (20 Jun 2019)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Your proposal to immediately cut €150 bn off the national debt is daft.



Where did I say this? 

Brendan


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (20 Jun 2019)

Brendan Burgess said:


> Where did I say this?



Here:



Brendan Burgess said:


> I would be happier with a debt of €50 billion, so a cut of €150 billion over time.



By "immediately" I mean you would have to start immediately to make any impact.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (20 Jun 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Unless you were contemplating 'a period of time' of several hundred years, then such a drastic reduction would herald the greatest economic crash this country has ever seen reducing our standard of living probably on par with Sierra Leone or worse.



This is the dilemma we face. 

We have increased our borrowing by about €130 billion over the last ten years.  

This was during a time when our economy has also been artificially inflated by artificial Corporation Tax revenues. 

So we can continue living well beyond our means until we burst or we can start to address the problem. And addressing the problem will mean cuts which will affect the economy. 

So we either do it now or else we leave the mess to our kids.

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (20 Jun 2019)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> By "immediately" I mean you would have to start immediately to make any impact.



So, you can see that I did not put a time frame on it.

But yes, we should make a start immediately.  And while we have artificially high CT and a booming economy, we should be paying down our debt.

And, as I have pointed out earlier in the thread, when we hit the next downturn, we will be able to increase our borrowing again to stimulate the economy.

Brendan


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (20 Jun 2019)

Brendan Burgess said:


> So, you can see that I did not put a time frame on it.



Seriously. If you are advocating €150bn less national debt, how would you plan to reach it (specifically which spending cuts and/or tax increases) and how soon?


----------



## Purple (20 Jun 2019)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> This is not true. What matters is the borrowing and lending position of the nation. This is the current account of the balance of payments, which no one talks about very much any more.
> 
> This has been in surplus for the last few years, having been in deep deficit in 2007 and 2008 when, as a nation, we were indeed living beyond our means.


Saying that we are not living beyond our means because we have a good balance of payments during a Corporation tax bubble while not repaying our debts is a nonsense. Did you read the link you posted?
Add to that the mounting proportion of our taxes which we must spend to fund our State pensions and we are heading for serious trouble.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (20 Jun 2019)

Here is how our national debt has evolved according to the CSO

I have updated this to reflect the cash balances held by the government.



The €180billion figure needs to be reduced by about €20 billion or so to reflect the value of our stakes in AIB, BoI and ptsb.

Brendan


----------



## Purple (20 Jun 2019)

Brendan Burgess said:


> The €200 billion figure needs to be reduced by about €20 billion or so to reflect the value of our stakes in AIB, BoI and ptsb.


In other words the net debt figure is €185 billion, of which over €150 billion is a result of living beyond our means with the balance due to the so-called bank bailout.


----------



## Brendan Burgess (20 Jun 2019)

Hi Coyote 

The "how soon" is very difficult to answer. But we must start cutting it now while we are in such a temporarily healthy economy.  It's clear that we could not get back to the €50 billion of debt we had in 2007 in ten years. 

But we should realise that we cannot continue to increase it every year because our economy is artificially growing.




NoRegretsCoyote said:


> (specifically which spending cuts and/or tax increases



This has been the problem in the debate.  Almost everyone agrees with the Fiscal Council, but no one will specify how the cuts will be made. 

I will kick off another thread on it. 

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (20 Jun 2019)

I think it works out like this in rough figures

1) Starting Debt: €50 billion
2) Net cost of bank bailout €40 billion ( €60 billion less €20 billion stake)
3) Living beyond our means over the past 12 years : € 90 billion  [Or "investing in critical infrastructure" if you prefer]
4) Net debt: €180 billion ( €200 billion - €20 billion ]

I would like to see someone actually compile the exact figures.

In round terms the bank bailout has cost about 1/3rd of the increase in debt and about 25% of our total debt.

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (20 Jun 2019)

I have updated the original graph to show the cash balances held by the government. 


Our net debt rose from about €30 billion to €160 billion (  €180 billion less our stakes in the banks)


----------



## Brendan Burgess (20 Jun 2019)

2nd update 

IFAC did a very good summary in 2013 and here is the key table. 





__





						The Government’s Balance Sheet after the Crisis: A Comprehensive Perspective – Irish Fiscal Advisory Council
					






					www.fiscalcouncil.ie
				





So we went from net financial assets of €1 billion to net borrowing of €135 billion.

So roughly €40 billion on bailing out the depositors and €100 billion in deficits.

Brendan


----------



## Brendan Burgess (20 Jun 2019)

And here is a slide from a presentation by John McHale 



Brendan


----------



## WolfeTone (20 Jun 2019)

In case there is any doubt, I am not suggesting for a minute that we are not highly indebted and that there hasnt been serious mismanagement of public funds over the decades. 
But the question is really, I guess, is how we manage the situation going forward. The FAC have offered their view, and from the perspective of financial prudence it makes sense. But in determining their views in advising fiscal prudence they are distinctly lacking in how this prudence should be applied. Conveniently for them, it is not their remit to tell government how they should go about implementing fiscal prudence. So therein lies the problem. Nobody can really argue that fiscal prudence and debt pay-down is not reasonable and responsible. 
But implementing that is a whole different ball game. So if we were to engage in a process of running budget surpluses to pay down debt, where should we extract these surpluses from? Cutting welfare, health, education budgets? Increase tax on income? On corporations? Sell off state assets? Or by some other means?


----------



## Brendan Burgess (20 Jun 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Nobody can really argue that fiscal prudence and debt pay-down is not reasonable and responsible.


Now that we have established that...



WolfeTone said:


> where should we extract these surpluses from? Cutting welfare, health, education budgets? Increase tax on income? On corporations? Sell off state assets? Or by some other means?




We have a separate thread on this here 

Proposed spending cuts and tax increases to cut the national debt


----------



## WolfeTone (21 Jun 2019)

Proposed spending cuts and tax increases to cut the national debt

Even from the handful of proposals for cuts and tax increases in the sister topic highlights the variance of opinion on how to reduce national debt. This is the dilemma for government as it is clear it would not be possible to please all of the people all time.
This is the dilemma that the FAC dont have, and why Finlays criticism is valid.

Even going through the specific proposals in the other topic, is there any that stand out that would actually have any significant impact in reducing the debt? Most appear to be nothing more than tinkering around the edges, that would raise some funds, but a drop in the ocean against the debt.
I assume the consideration is to reduce debt by some significant amount €10bn, €20bn?
It probably won't be worth the effort if say, after another 5yrs of cutting services, reducing pay, increasing taxes etc if the debt has only moved from €200bn to €198bn?
Would it?


----------



## odyssey06 (21 Jun 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Even from the handful of proposals for cuts and tax increases in the sister topic highlights the variance of opinion on how to reduce national debt. This is the dilemma for government as it is clear it would not be possible to please all of the people all time. This is the dilemma that the FAC dont have, and why Finlays criticism is valid.



It would not be possible to please all of the people all of the time.
When is such a thing ever possible in the history of governance or budgets?
If we increase borrowing or increase spending, would all people be pleased by how much was borrowed to spend on what? No.
I don't see how this is any kind of valid criticism at all on any level.



> Even going through the specific proposals in the other topic, is there any that stand out that would actually have any significant impact in reducing the debt? Most appear to be nothing more than tinkering around the edges, that would raise some funds, but a drop in the ocean against the debt. I assume the consideration is to reduce debt by some significant amount €10bn, €20bn?
> It probably won't be worth the effort if say, after another 5yrs of cutting services, reducing pay, increasing taxes etc if the debt has only moved from €200bn to €198bn? Would it?



The absolute line in the sand is to hold the line on no increase in debt.
Plus there would be wider benefits to the economy in terms of less 'heat' in an already overheated economy.
Sure let's borrow another €50 billion if it doesn't directly affect us for 5 years.


----------



## WolfeTone (21 Jun 2019)

The criticism is that the FAC dont have to decide whose benefits are cut, which services are cut, whose taxes are increased, whose schools should be under-staffed, overcrowded, which medical waiting list should be tackled first..etc...etc...
What to do with increasing homelessness? Cut pay in public sector? Why not increase tax on higher earners instead?

Faced with those decisions then it becomes trickier than just "dont increase borrowing and pay down debt".


----------



## WolfeTone (21 Jun 2019)

odyssey06 said:


> The absolute line in the sand is to hold the line on no increase in debt.



That is fine, so either stop investing in capital infrastructure or raise taxes. Or cut services....but someone has to decide and if it transpires that your taxes on your income will be increased to pay down debt, will that be ok?


----------



## odyssey06 (21 Jun 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> The criticism is that the FAC dont have to decide whose benefits are cut, which services are cut, whose taxes are increased, whose schools should be under-staffed, overcrowded, which medical waiting list should be tackled first..etc...etc...
> What to do with increasing homelessness? Cut pay in public sector? Why not increase tax on higher earners instead?
> Faced with those decisions then it becomes trickier than just "dont increase borrowing and pay down debt".



True. But that's not their role. Their job is to call out the 'fiscal space'. It is not to make hard choices or decisions, it is to be technical experts on a particular subject.
We elect governments to make those hard choices, or ideally to present a range of choices for the voters to decide - but those choices should be to operate within the space defined by the FAC.
Or the government should just be honest and disband the FAC.
So it's a mis-placed invalid criticism and shows a mis-understanding by Finlay of the role of the FAC.


----------



## WolfeTone (21 Jun 2019)

odyssey06 said:


> but those choices should be to operate within the space defined by the FAC.



Not at all. The FAC has no statutory authority to dictate to government what the fiscal 'space' is, it can only advise. 
I agree, it should be disbanded.


----------



## odyssey06 (21 Jun 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Not at all. The FAC has no statutory authority to dictate to government what the fiscal 'space' is, it can only advise.
> I agree, it should be disbanded.



Well if you're not going to listen to their advice, you should disband it.
But remember the storm clouds they warn of don't disappear just because you shoot the messengers


----------



## Purple (24 Jun 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> That is fine, so either stop investing in capital infrastructure or raise taxes. Or cut services....but someone has to decide and if it transpires that your taxes on your income will be increased to pay down debt, will that be ok?


Nonsense. The propaganda peddled by the protected sector is that we have a choice of taxing more or reducing services. The reality is that in any properly run organisation structural changes, improvements in IT, improvements in process etc all result in delivering more with the same of fewer resources. It in only in the protected sector where people can keep dipping their hands into other people's pockets to subsidise their own inefficiency. 

So please stop with the same old tired false dichotomies and ask those who deliver services on behalf of the people of Ireland to take an honest look at the organisations which they are part of and ask themselves if they could do better.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (24 Jun 2019)

odyssey06 said:


> Well if you're not going to listen to their advice, you should disband it.
> But remember the storm clouds they warn of don't disappear just because you shoot the messengers



There are literally over a hundred of NGOs and representative bodies who give advice on how to spend more and tax less. The Minister for Finance spends a couple of weeks meeting them every year before the Budget.

None of them has a useful overall view of what is sustainable at the *aggregate* level.

That's why the Fiscal Council - costing well under €1m a year - is great value.


----------



## WolfeTone (25 Jun 2019)

Purple said:


> The reality is that in any properly run organisation structural changes, improvements in IT, improvements in process etc all result in delivering more with the same of fewer resources




Of course. But that in general terms requires investment, requires spending. It may be cost efficient in the future, but I dont know how it reduces debt in the short-term. 
If we take the children's hospital for instance. I would hazard a guess that beneath all the media and political procrastination about the cost that there are sound solid arguements from experts in the medical profession that point to increased efficiencies in the delivery of healthcare for children, if not to increased efficiencies in public finances.


----------



## Purple (26 Jun 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Of course. But that in general terms requires investment, requires spending. It may be cost efficient in the future, but I dont know how it reduces debt in the short-term.
> If we take the children's hospital for instance. I would hazard a guess that beneath all the media and political procrastination about the cost that there are sound solid arguements from experts in the medical profession that point to increased efficiencies in the delivery of healthcare for children, if not to increased efficiencies in public finances.


I'm involved in change management and systems improvement through things like 5S and LEAN. The costs in dealing with work practice changes are minimal, sometimes nonexistent. They are also often the biggest savings. In my experience 5-10% improvement in productivity and so a 5-10% reduction in labour costs. Of course the big improvements in productivity, the 200%-300% improvements, they take capital investment. I work in a small organisation so the potential for cost savings in work practices are much lower than they would be in the State sector. My guess is that the State sector is overstaffed by somewhere between 20 and 30% due to process duplication, bad work practices and labour inflexibility. Fixing that would mean people wouldn't die on trolleys and the public would have the services they actually pay for. It would be cost effective and it would make the country a better place. We could reduce our debt, reduce taxes, reduce inequality and increase quality of life for hundreds of thousands of people. 

Of course it will never happen because the management within the State sector have neither the ability, the will or the mindset to do it and even if they did the Unions would stop them.


----------



## WolfeTone (26 Jun 2019)

Im not doubting that there are huge opportunities to improve processes and management of resources. Unfortunately there are two critical elements that may prevent savings to reduce national debt. 
First, eradicating duplicate, inefficient processes does not necessarily result in cost savings, rather it may result in the provision of better services. An employee who is no longer required for a particular function can be redeployed to provide functions that are not being adequately provided in the first instance. So not cost savings, just better services. 
Secondly, and more critically, political priorities can have a way of interfering in the smooth provision of services. Led by media and opposite procrastination, at the stroke of pen the best laid plans are turned upside down. 
If Im not mistaken, there are some 300,000 employed in public services, or about 18% of the workforce. By any yardstick in the developed world this is competitive - notwithstanding all the deficiencies and perceived deficiencies that permeate the media headlines, here, and in all developed countries.
That said, there will always be opportunity for cost savings, the question is, to what extent would it impact on national debt. I would estimate that the public sector not overstaffed at all, but probably 10-15% deployed inefficiently.


----------



## Purple (26 Jun 2019)

If, for example, there are 2000 people involved in payroll and associated HR functions and that number can be reduced to 1000 the surplus 1000 staff cannot be redeployed as classroom assistants or to homecare for the elderly.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (26 Jun 2019)

Purple said:


> If, for example, there are 2000 people involved in payroll and associated HR functions and that number can be reduced to 1000 the surplus 1000 staff cannot be redeployed as classroom assistants or to homecare for the elderly.



Of course, because that is not in their terms of employment.

It would be very difficult to do this in a private sector organisation either.

I wouldn't work for an organisation that reserved the right to deploy me as a refuse collector tomorrow.


----------



## WolfeTone (26 Jun 2019)

Of course, but they may be deployed elsewhere as administrative support to many other schemes or services that are understaffed.


----------



## Purple (26 Jun 2019)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Of course, because that is not in their terms of employment.
> 
> It would be very difficult to do this in a private sector organisation either.
> 
> I wouldn't work for an organisation that reserved the right to deploy me as a refuse collector tomorrow.


I agree. So there needs to be headcount reductions in some areas and new hires in others. That, of course, won't happen.


----------



## Purple (26 Jun 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Of course, but they may be deployed elsewhere as administrative support to many other schemes or services that are understaffed.


Do you really think there is a net shortage of administration staff in the State sector?
I include those directly employed by the State and those employed in organisations which are funded by the State.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (26 Jun 2019)

Purple said:


> I agree. So there needs to be headcount reductions in some areas and new hires in others. That, of course, won't happen.



People are hired all the time in the public service. Sometimes there are redundancy schemes too.

Staff are also re-deployed all the time in response to business needs, both in terms of location and job role.


I don't think you know very much about the public service at all. I'm out.


----------



## Purple (26 Jun 2019)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> People are hired all the time in the public service. Sometimes there are redundancy schemes too.
> 
> Staff are also re-deployed all the time in response to business needs, both in terms of location and job role.
> 
> ...


So those excess staff in Irish Water are gone, yes? 
No, of course not. They are still there at a cost of about €100 million a year in costs to the Irish people
. 
I don't think you  know very much about the public service at all.


----------



## Purple (26 Jun 2019)

Anyway, back on topic.
Nobody disagrees with the Fiscal Council's report but everyone knows that there is nothing the government can do about the gross waste of money in the State sector, the parish pump politicians and electorate, or the vested interest groups which actually hold the levers of power in the country.
We just nod along and admire the Emperor's new clothes.


----------



## WolfeTone (26 Jun 2019)

Purple said:


> Do you really think there is a net shortage of administration staff in the State sector?
> I include those directly employed by the State and those employed in organisations which are funded by the State.



I never said there was a shortage. I suggested that somewhere between 10-15% public sector staff are deployed inefficiently. This would include some administrative staff.


----------



## WolfeTone (26 Jun 2019)

Purple said:


> Nobody disagrees with the Fiscal Council's report



Because nobody can plausibly disagree with the concept that financial prudence, living within budgetary constraints is not sound responsible advice. 
I think we can take that it as a given.
The problems arise when we look beyond the highly constrained and the limited remit of the FAC, which is what every government faces.



Purple said:


> but everyone knows that there is nothing the government can do about the gross waste of money in the State sector



Starting with the €1m budget allocated to an advisory council that is limited in its remit as to what it can advise on, which on the face of it is nothing more than offering sound prudent financial advice that anyone can already take as a given.


----------



## Purple (27 Jun 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> Because nobody can plausibly disagree with the concept that financial prudence, living within budgetary constraints is not sound responsible advice.
> I think we can take that it as a given.
> The problems arise when we look beyond the highly constrained and the limited remit of the FAC, which is what every government faces.


If it was a given then the conversation when someone or something needs/wants more money would be where else is that money going to be cut from.
Take the existing pay claim from the non-medical people working in hospitals. If they want an increase there should be a corresponding cut elsewhere in the health service. That could mean fewer people doing more work but getting paid more or cats elsewhere.




WolfeTone said:


> Starting with the €1m budget allocated to an advisory council that is limited in its remit as to what it can advise on, which on the face of it is nothing more than offering sound prudent financial advice that anyone can already take as a given.


 As a voice against the left wing populism of RTE and the Trade Union backed establishment it is money well spent.


----------



## WolfeTone (27 Jun 2019)

Purple said:


> If it was a given then the conversation when someone or something needs/wants more money would be where else is that money going to be cut from




Or where else could could that money be raised from in tax increases.



Purple said:


> As a voice against the left wing populism of RTE and the Trade Union backed establishment it is money well spent.



You think it is money well spent, I think it is a waste of money - particularly as it now appears to be money spent "as a voice against left-wing populism..." when we all know that nobody disagrees with the Fiscal Councils report. 
So it is money spent to voice against something that doesn't exist, ie its a waste.


----------



## Sophrosyne (27 Jun 2019)

Just to set out issues faced by any Irish government.

We have a small population and a small economy.

We cannot benefit from the economies of scale in public services that countries with larger populations and economies enjoy.

We are situated on the periphery.

Sometimes people do not understand scalability, i.e., what works for small or micro firms will not necessarily work for large corporations, multinationals _or government departments._ This often leads to persistently naïve incorrect assumptions of inefficiencies.

For instance, a canoe made from fibre glass or aluminium is fine. Problems start when people cannot understand why a large ocean liner cannot be built from the same fibre glass or aluminium.

It is often self-evident that people confuse accountancy - essentially analyzing income and expenses; with economics - essentially concerned with production, consumption, and transfer of resources.

Our private sector, mostly composed of micro and small firms, when compared to large firms and multi-nationals cannot compete and provide sufficient employment or sufficiently high pay to assist our tax intake and our population is too small to buy the goods or use the services that Irish firms offer

That is our dilemma.


----------



## Purple (28 Jun 2019)

Sophrosyne said:


> Just to set out issues faced by any Irish government.
> 
> We have a small population and a small economy.
> 
> We cannot benefit from the economies of scale in public services that countries with larger populations and economies enjoy.


What economies of scale in the provision of public services do other countries enjoy that we cannot enjoy?




Sophrosyne said:


> We are situated on the periphery.


That should not increase the cost of the provision of public services. It can increase the cost of business but we generally get over that.




Sophrosyne said:


> Sometimes people do not understand scalability, i.e., what works for small or micro firms will not necessarily work for large corporations, multinationals _or government departments._ This often leads to persistently naïve incorrect assumptions of inefficiencies.


 I agree, I’ve made that point plenty of times on this site. That doesn’t justify inefficiency where it exists nor should it be used as a lazy excuse for the obvious waste and duplication of processes within large public sector organisations.



Sophrosyne said:


> For instance, a canoe made from fibre glass or aluminium is fine. Problems start when people cannot understand why a large ocean liner cannot be built from the same fibre glass or aluminium.


 That’s a very strange metaphor. Ask yourself which would cost more; a State owned company building the ocean liner or a Privately owned company building an ocean liner.



Sophrosyne said:


> It is often self-evident that people confuse accountancy - essentially analyzing income and expenses; with economics - essentially concerned with production, consumption, and transfer of resources.


 Agreed. It is also self evident that some people hide behind byzantine organisational structures and pretend that they are necessary rather than admitting that they are just badly structures organisations run by people without the skills, mindset or ability to fix them.



Sophrosyne said:


> Our private sector, mostly composed of micro and small firms, when compared to large firms and multi-nationals cannot compete and provide sufficient employment or sufficiently high pay to assist our tax intake and our population is too small to buy the goods or use the services that Irish firms offer


 We have a small open economy and, even within that SME sector, have very high levels of exports. Wealth is created through internationally traded goods and services. It is a fallacy to suggest that we need to steal taxes from other countries in order to provide the services which the public need and more than pay for.


The myopic self justification from some in the State sector for shoddy structures resulting in sub-par services is shocking. The reason people needlessly die on trolleys and children with special needs don’t get the help they deserve and need is the fault of the people who work in the HSE and nobody else. They get more than enough money but choose to waste it through their own inaction and unwillingness to fix their own organisation. The same applies to many other areas of State service provision.



The answer cannot be to just keep throwing borrowed money at the problem or increasing taxes on labour even higher in the country with the most progressive taxation system in the world.

*That* is our dilemma.


----------



## Sophrosyne (3 Jul 2019)

Purple said:


> That’s a very strange metaphor. Ask yourself which would cost more; a State owned company building the ocean liner or a Privately owned company building an ocean liner.



My analogy was not particularly about public v private sector but rather that structures and systems that work for small enterprises do not work for large enterprises.




Purple said:


> We have a small open economy and, even within that SME sector, have very high levels of exports. Wealth is created through internationally traded goods and services. It is a fallacy to suggest that we need to steal taxes from other countries in order to provide the services which the public need and more than pay for.



I agree that because our economy is small, exports are vital for economic growth.

According to CSO statistics for 2017, the latest published:

SMEs, which composed 96% of enterprises had 30% of the total value of exports.

Large enterprises, which composed 3% of enterprises had 68% of the total value of exports.

See table below.

Note: The SMEs figures are the combined figures, with some rounding, for micro, small and medium enterprises.





*Table 2.1 Exports by enterprise size 2017**€million*​*Enterprise size**Value*​*% of total*​*Number of enterprises*​*% of total*​*Micro*7,506​6​5,081​59​*Small*5,284​4​2,384​28​*Medium*23,168​19​835​10​*SMEs**35,957*​*30*​*8,300*​*96*​*Large*82,964​68​289​3​*Unknown*2,838​2​25​0​*Total**121,759*​*100*​*8,614*​*100*​_Micro (0-9 employees), Small (10-49 employees), Medium (50-249 employees), Large (over 250 employees)._




We can see that the majority of exporting enterprises (59%) are micro, but they only account for 6% of the value of exports.

Large enterprises are mostly foreign owned.


----------



## Purple (4 Jul 2019)

Sophrosyne said:


> My analogy was not particularly about public v private sector but rather that structures and systems that work for small enterprises do not work for large enterprises.


We are especially bad, by any standard. According to this report in 2014 we spent the second highest amount on healthcare per capita in the OECD with the worst outcomes. That despite having one of the youngest populations.  Hiding behind "but we are a large organisation, you just don't understand" is unacceptable. 



Sophrosyne said:


> I agree that because our economy is small, exports are vital for economic growth.
> 
> According to CSO statistics for 2017, the latest published:
> 
> ...


That tells us that our Public Service funding model is built on stealing tax revenue from other countries, many of them far poorer than us. It also shows how tenuous and fragile out tax base is (Corporation Tax is the new bubble).


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (4 Jul 2019)

Purple said:


> We are especially bad, by any standard. According to this report in 2014 we spent the second highest amount on healthcare per capita in the OECD with the worst outcomes. That despite having one of the youngest populations.  Hiding behind "but we are a large organisation, you just don't understand" is unacceptable.



Ireland does not have the worst health outcomes in the OECD. Look at the chart in the article.


----------



## Purple (4 Jul 2019)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Ireland does not have the worst health outcomes in the OECD. Look at the chart in the article.


Sorry, worst value for money, not worst outcomes.


----------



## Leo (4 Jul 2019)

That chart only shows life expectancy and mortality from heart disease, outcomes of interaction with health services goes further than that.


----------



## Protocol (4 Jul 2019)

We really should be running a 3-5bn annual fiscal surplus, given GDP and employment levels / growth rates.

Yet no politician calls for this, do they?


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (4 Jul 2019)

Leo said:


> That chart only shows life expectancy and mortality from heart disease, outcomes of interaction with health services goes further than that.




@Purple made a specific claim that Irish health *outcomes* were worst in the OECD.

This is not true.

Even the value for money claim is not obvious. Ireland has a bigger alcohol abuse problem than most countries. There is very little that health spending can do to prevent it. It also works the other way by pushing up spending as people with chronic alcohol problems need a lot of expensive treatment.


----------



## Leo (4 Jul 2019)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> @Purple made a specific claim that Irish health *outcomes* were worst in the OECD.



I wasn't responding to Purple's point, just your assertion that the chart somehow confirmed 'Ireland does not have the worst health outcomes in the OECD'.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (4 Jul 2019)

Leo said:


> I wasn't responding to Purple's point, just your assertion that the chart somehow confirmed 'Ireland does not have the worst health outcomes in the OECD'.




Would you like to point to other consistent, international measures of health outcomes that would better make your case?


----------



## odyssey06 (4 Jul 2019)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Would you like to point to other consistent, international measures of health outcomes that would better make your case?



Ireland has the worst hospital waiting lists in Europe, according to a damning new index.
Ireland scores high for giving people subsidies for drugs, and it is among the best countries now for low rates of MRSA, as well as good infant vaccination rates.
Overall, the healthcare system here ranks 22nd out of 35 countries.
The European Health Consumer Index 2018 also *puts Ireland bottom of the league for "bang for your buck"*, which measures value for money invested in the service.








						Waiting lists here are the 'worst in all of Europe'
					

Ireland has the worst  hospital waiting lists in Europe, according to a  damning new index.




					www.independent.ie


----------



## Purple (4 Jul 2019)

Protocol said:


> We really should be running a 3-5bn annual fiscal surplus, given GDP and employment levels / growth rates.
> 
> Yet no politician calls for this, do they?


No, politics is about bribing people with their own money (or their neighbours money).
There is no serious attempt at organisational excellence and value for money in the vast majority of the State funded sector, just the usual populist nonsense. The best example of this is when a hospital runs out of money it doesn't attempt to cut costs, it just cuts services to the public. Pathetic.
When a new drug that costs tens of thousands a week comes on the market all it takes is the usual emotive populist fluff piece that passes for news on RTE for the Minister for Health or some other gombeen to insist that it is provided. The conversation should be "we will need to cut X, Y or Z in order to provide this. Is that what people want?"


----------



## Leo (4 Jul 2019)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Would you like to point to other consistent, international measures of health outcomes that would better make your case?



My case that the table doesn't support your case? I'm not sure that's monitored internationally.   

To measure the outcome of health spending, you need to gather data on those the health service has interacted with and the effectiveness of treatments provided. Longevity is more influenced by wealth, and so is a poor indicator of the value for money in health spending.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (4 Jul 2019)

Leo said:


> To measure the outcome of health spending, you need to gather data on those the health service has interacted with and the effectiveness of treatments provided. Longevity is more influenced by wealth, and so is a poor indicator of the value for money in health spending.



Of course.

Your previous point seemed to confuse measures of efficiency (ratio of outputs to inputs) to outcomes.

The chain of causality runs both ways of course. As people get richer they demand more expensive treatments too.



Ireland may well have a very inefficient health service in the OECD when you look at the outputs given the inputs. But it does not have the worst health outcomes by any means.


----------



## Purple (4 Jul 2019)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Ireland may well have a very inefficient health service in the OECD when you look at the outputs given the inputs.


Thanks, that's the point I was making. This thread is about the Fiscal Council Report and why everyone agrees with it but no government spending is framed with the report in mind. 
The usual nonsense that we need to increase taxes to provide better or more  services (meaning increase marginal taxes on high earners) is trotted out by well meaning but economically illiterate commentators like Fergus Finlay but the reality is that if we just hit average OECD figures for value for money we would not have people dying on trolleys in Hospitals. 
The reason children with special needs and sick old people don't get the services they need is mainly the fault of the people working within the organisations providing the services.


----------



## WolfeTone (5 Jul 2019)

Purple said:


> The reason children with special needs and sick old people don't get the services they need is mainly the fault of the people working within the organisations providing the services.



I don't doubt that there is wide scope for improved efficiencies, but where does this fit with reducing national debt? 
It is possible to improve efficiencies without necessarily saving money. All that may happen is that waiting lists are reduced - which is a good thing, but that does not necessarily transfer into cost savings. It just means we get bang for our buck.


----------



## Purple (5 Jul 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> I don't doubt that there is wide scope for improved efficiencies, but where does this fit with reducing national debt?
> It is possible to improve efficiencies without necessarily saving money. All that may happen is that waiting lists are reduced - which is a good thing, but that does not necessarily transfer into cost savings. It just means we get bang for our buck.


There is massive pressure on the exchequer every year to keep pumping money into the leaky bucket that is our Public Services. The potential savings run into the billions. The money saved, or the future not spent, could be used to reduce our debt.


----------



## WolfeTone (5 Jul 2019)

Purple said:


> There is massive pressure on the exchequer every year to keep pumping money into the leaky bucket that is our Public Services. The potential savings run into the billions. The money saved, or the future not spent, could be used to reduce our debt.



Yes, but where do you make those savings? Do you cut jobs? - its possible, but in an inefficient system, that wont make a difference to waiting lists, people on trolleys, or child healthcare. Invariably it will add to the inefficiencies, increase waiting lists, etc
Will it reduce national debt? Maybe, maybe not. 
So the question is, how do you reduce national debt, as distinct from getting more and better services out of what is already paid?


----------



## Leo (5 Jul 2019)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Your previous point seemed to confuse measures of efficiency (ratio of outputs to inputs) to outcomes.



Which post are you referring to there? 

In health spending terms, what ratio of outputs to inputs do you mean? A ratio is the relationship between two numbers.


----------



## NoRegretsCoyote (5 Jul 2019)

Leo said:


> Which post are you referring to there?



This one.




Leo said:


> In health spending terms, what ratio of outputs to inputs do you mean? A ratio is the relationship between two numbers.



Measure such as treatments delivered per €1000 of spending.


It is easy to confuse the *outputs of the health service *with overall *health outcomes*.


When it comes to health outcomes, life expectancy for men in Lithuania is low, partially because a staggering one man in 25 dies by suicide. This is a societal phenomenon, and there is not much that more doctors and nurses can do about it.


----------



## Leo (5 Jul 2019)

NoRegretsCoyote said:


> This one.



I said 'outcomes of interaction with health services goes further than that.' Can you point out where that statement mentions efficiency?



NoRegretsCoyote said:


> Measure such as treatments delivered per €1000 of spending.



OK, but to be clear, a measure of how many X you get for € is not a ratio.



NoRegretsCoyote said:


> It is easy to confuse the *outputs of the health service *with overall *health outcomes*.



That was my point alright: 'That chart only shows life expectancy and mortality from heart disease, outcomes of interaction with health services goes further than that. '


----------



## Purple (5 Jul 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> I find that pretty bizarre, and insulting, but that is your prerogative to be so if you wish.
> The discussion will hopefully continue on topic now.


You are taking lines out of context and misrepresenting what I'm saying, thereby taking the thread further off topic.
The comment you quoted was from a post about what can happen if the system is made more productive. You presented it as if I'm suggesting cuts without improving processes and then asked me questions based on your false premise. 

How else should I take your comments?


----------



## Protocol (5 Jul 2019)

One of the reasons for the problems in the h/c system is that the price levels are so high.

The price level of hospital services is 181% of the EU average in 2011.

So even though we spend a lot, we get less, as the price level is so high.

See here:





__





						Comparing Hospital and Health Prices and Volumes Internationally
					

Health services account for a large and increasing share of production and expenditure in OECD and Eurostat countries but there are also noticeable differences between countries in expenditure per capita. Whether such differences are due to more...




					www.oecd-ilibrary.org


----------



## WolfeTone (5 Jul 2019)

Purple said:


> The comment you quoted was from a post about what can happen if the system is made more productive.



I don't think anyone disagrees with what can happen if any system is made more productive.
My point was that in making the system more productive and efficient does not always and necessarily transfer into cost savings. In the private sector it may just mean increased revenues, in the public sector it could just be better delivery of services.

It is of course possible that new processes, training, technology etc can result in cost savings in the round but in general terms they typically require investment (more spending) before the fruits of those efficiencies are borne. 
In the end, decisions have to be made as to what measures are taken to spend public money. 
As can be seen above, and from this topics sister thread about specific cuts and savings, there is a variance of opinion on what measures should be taken. 

My point is that nobody disagrees with the Fiscal Advisory Council because fundamentally what they are saying makes sense.
But the FAC has no remit, and is therefore effectively redundant on what specific measures should be taken in order to adhere to its advice.

Eg - The FAC advises
*"For 2019, the Government should stick to its existing plans as contained in SPU 2019. This means that no additional within-year increases should be introduced without offsetting measures."*

Yesterday however, the government announced a €10m package for the Defense forces. I saw no mention of offsetting this cost. The government is not adhering to the FAC advice. 
Does the FAC have advice on how or where this cost should be offset? No it doesn't. 
So should Defence forces have to make do with incomes that place its members on FIS? Or should their incomes be increased with this €10m package? If so, where should the offset occur?
I'm not asking you to answer these questions, just emphasizing the inadequacies of the FAC relative to the political issues facing the (every) government. 
In turn, to me, the FAC is a waste of resources because it offers nothing that is not already inherently understood. That it is not inherently adhered to is a consequence of political considerations far beyond its remit.


----------



## Purple (5 Jul 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> I don't think anyone disagrees with what can happen if any system is made more productive.
> My point was that in making the system more productive and efficient does not always and necessarily transfer into cost savings. In the private sector it may just mean increased revenues, in the public sector it could just be better delivery of services.


In the Public it could mean the delivery of the same services at a lower cost or, more likely, the delivery of the same services faster and therefore at a lower cost. 


WolfeTone said:


> It is of course possible that new processes, training, technology etc can result in cost savings in the round but in general terms they typically require investment (more spending) before the fruits of those efficiencies are borne.


When it comes to LEAN and the process improvements that deliver the biggest results, the low hanging fruit, it usually costs very little. Changing inefficient structures and removing layers of bureaucracy requires very little investment relative to the savings. It usually means people just taking responsibility for their own actions. 



WolfeTone said:


> In turn, to me, the FAC is a waste of resources because it offers nothing that is not already inherently understood. That it is not inherently adhered to is a consequence of political considerations far beyond its remit.


When I listen to the populist tripe spouted by Trade Unions, most of the Independent Alliance, the Shinners and many in FF it is far from a given that the message being given by the FAC is inherently understood. I know opposition politicians are populist until they are in power and have to deal with reality but in economic matters when ideology trumps reality it is very dangerous.


----------



## WolfeTone (5 Jul 2019)

Purple said:


> When I listen to the populist tripe spouted by Trade Unions, most of the Independent Alliance, the Shinners and many in FF it is far from a given that the message being given by the FAC is inherently understood.



But it is FG in power for last 6,7yrs? They are the ones making decisions....they are the ones 'not adhering' to FAC advice? They are the ones who sanctioned a €10m pay package for Defence Forces without any notably offsetting of that cost elsewhere.
So basically, across the whole political spectrum there is nobody representing the values of fiscal prudence as advised by the FAC. Would that have something to do with the remit of the FAC being wholly inadequate to appropriate effective and practical advice on fiscal matters? I would think it does. 
Abolish it.


----------



## Purple (5 Jul 2019)

WolfeTone said:


> So basically, across the whole political spectrum there is nobody representing the values of fiscal prudence as advised by the FAC.


Ah there is. Pascal in trying to keep the lid on things and, taking everything into account, is doing a good job.


----------



## Sophrosyne (5 Jul 2019)

Protocol said:


> One of the reasons for the problems in the h/c system is that the price levels are so high.
> 
> The price level of hospital services is 181% of the EU average in 2011.
> 
> ...



Interesting report @Protocol. Is that the latest available?

The amount of notes and qualifications show just how difficult it is to compare healthcare costs across countries.


----------



## Protocol (5 Jul 2019)

This seems to be a follow-up, with 2014 data?



			https://www.oecd.org/health/health-systems/International-Comparisons-of-Health-Prices-and-Volumes-New-Findings.pdf
		



2014 hosp PL is at 125% of the OECD average

2014 health PL is at 141% of the OECD average.


----------



## WolfeTone (5 Jul 2019)

Purple said:


> Ah there is. Pascal in trying to keep the lid on things and, taking everything into account, is doing a good job.



You didn't read the FAC Assessment then? (neither did I) but here is the Summary. 





__





						Fiscal Assessment Report, June 2019 – Irish Fiscal Advisory Council
					






					www.fiscalcouncil.ie
				




Its hard to equate "debt remains high"..."the Government has allowed a pattern of spending drift in recent years"...."Depsite favourable upswing...there has been no improvement in the budget balance...", with "doing a good job".
If the objective set out here is to find ways to reduce the national debt, then the Government is doing a terrible job. That said, I am of the view that trying to reduce the national debt by any significant amount (let alone by €150bn as has been mentioned) would be futile and counter-productive.
The best we can hope for is to limit the rate of increasing debt to as close to zero as possible, but absolutely below levels of economic growth.


----------



## Purple (8 Jul 2019)

Pascal has kept a relative lid on the biggest cause of our economic woes; public sector pay and pensions. 
Unfortunately the richest and most selfish group in society still get their fiver every budget.


----------



## WolfeTone (8 Jul 2019)

Purple said:


> Pascal has kept a relative lid on the biggest cause of our economic woes; public sector pay and pensions.
> Unfortunately the richest and most selfish group in society still get their fiver every budget.



Such sentiment simply demonstrates the limits, and subsequently the deficiency of the FAC.


----------

