# Ireland's Unemployment problem is solved



## Sunny (28 Sep 2010)

Fair play to FF. I knew they would get us out of this mess. 

http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0928/economy.html


----------



## thedaras (28 Sep 2010)

Yipee.. sorted lads..


----------



## Firefly (28 Sep 2010)

Would now be a good time to buy an investment property?


----------



## thedaras (28 Sep 2010)

100% mortgage anyone??


----------



## Purple (28 Sep 2010)

Governments can't create jobs in the private sector, they can only improve the environment that allow other to create them . Any strategy that does not improve competitiveness will fail. Tax breaks aimed at particular sectors will cause the economy to develop in a direction that is not market driven and so will not be sustainable in the long term. Therefore any changes should be across the board.


----------



## z107 (28 Sep 2010)

> The plan aims to boost exports by a third and will involve the establishment of a Foreign Trade Council bringing together all relevant agencies to help implement it.



Article summary:
Cowen is going to create yet another quango called the 'Foreign Trade Council'. Loads of money will be spent on it. In three or four years we'll read FÁSeque headlines, and a few years after that it may be dissolved.


----------



## Firefly (28 Sep 2010)

umop3p!sdn said:


> Article summary:
> Cowen is going to create yet another quango called the 'Foreign Trade Council'. Loads of money will be spent on it. In three or four years we'll read FÁSeque headlines, and a few years after that it may be dissolved.


 
Any jobs going?


----------



## z107 (28 Sep 2010)

You can be sure of it firefly. Are you friends with anyone in FF?

Nice big wages too.


----------



## csirl (28 Sep 2010)

From article:
"The trade council will develop new 'brand Ireland' initiatives, as well as making the most of St Patrick's Day and trade missions."

So looks like loads more expensive foreign junkets for our politicians and quango leaders.


----------



## RMCF (28 Sep 2010)

Good luck to them trying to sell "Brand Ireland".

We hardly have the best reputation at present. 

I do think our food has a good rep, but if they really want to get 8m visitors back into the country, then they have to address the rip-off prices here. Its a great country if it was cheaper.


----------



## csirl (28 Sep 2010)

Promoting Ireland through St Patrick’s Day​Each year, St Patrick’s Day offers a unique opportunity to raise Ireland’s profile abroad, deliver
marketing messages, and strengthen relations with other countries. Government Ministers regularly
travel abroad to take part in St Patrick’s Day events in other countries and to promote intergovernmental
relations, trade and tourism. The decisions on where the Ministers go for St Patrick’s
Day will be based on strategic considerations, and these decisions will be taken as early as possible,
so that embassies and State agencies can take maximum advantage of the opportunities presented
by the visit.​


----------



## TarfHead (28 Sep 2010)

I saw this story on the Irish Times website, above another story that Irish bond yields had hit a record high.

You couldn't make it up.


----------



## Yorrick (28 Sep 2010)

Whats all the doom and gloom about ?
Sure wont the " Vote Yes for Lisbon" jobs be kicking in soon ?


----------



## Mucker Man (28 Sep 2010)

Thanks for the laugh Yorrick. I needed it!!!!


----------



## RMCF (28 Sep 2010)

As much as I think that the total figures are a bit 'pie in the sky', I was also disappointed to see the immediate derogatory comments from the opposition.

All the opposition does now is knock everything.

Time for a national Gov. All the negativity is getting us nowhere.


----------



## shnaek (28 Sep 2010)

RMCF said:


> Time for a national Gov.


How does that work? Do all parties have to agree before policies are implemented? Do all parties get ministers? I have heard the term bandied about a bit, but I wonder how it would work in practice?


----------



## TarfHead (28 Sep 2010)

shnaek said:


> How does that work?


 
Simple answer is .. it doesn't.


----------



## RMCF (28 Sep 2010)

worth a go though, sure the current one doesn't seem to be getting much right.

I think its more a gathering of ideas, instead of FF just shooting down everything from the opposition cos they can. Plus it would put an end to the endless, pointless bitching between parties.

If the opposition can sit back everytime the Gov tries something and say "thats not going to work", then lets hear their ideas.


----------



## csirl (28 Sep 2010)

A national government formed without a general election will not work as (a) it will not solve the huge issue of lack of confidence in Cowan, (b) it incorporates those who made the mistakes in the first place i.e. no moral hazard and most importantly, (c) it does not have the support of the electorate.

I wouldnt mind a national government being formed to get us thru this mess, but only AFTER a general election.


----------



## Purple (28 Sep 2010)

I thought this had been announced before but the IDA are talking about  all of the . The HSE will also be moving their HQ to the site. Strangely they are suggesting that this will result in the creation of 450 jobs during construction (so far so good) and 1100 jobs when completed. How is it possible that not only are there no efficiencies achieved by putting all of the DIT facilities in one place but they actually need more people?


----------



## Firefly (28 Sep 2010)

RMCF said:


> Time for a national Gov.


 
We all know FF made a mess of things. With a national government, each party would blame the others for any mistakes.


----------



## Sunny (28 Sep 2010)

Purple said:


> I thought this had been announced before but the IDA are talking about all of the . The HSE will also be moving their HQ to the site. Strangely they are suggesting that this will result in the creation of 450 jobs during construction (so far so good) and 1100 jobs when completed. How is it possible that not only are there no efficiencies achieved by putting all of the DIT facilities in one place but they actually need more people?


 
They have been talking about that for years and announced the 450 jobs a few weeks back. Of course most of the project doesn't have funding and is to be done over at least 10 years or something!


----------



## PetrolHead (28 Sep 2010)

Sunny said:


> Fair play to FF. I knew they would get us out of this mess.
> 
> http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0928/economy.html





OMG...

I've never seen a press release so dripping in desperation...

With those muppets at the helm we're headed straight for the rocks...

Lads... I'm off to the bar to get Taoiseach'd... who's with me...???


----------



## censuspro (28 Sep 2010)

Yorrick said:


> Whats all the doom and gloom about ?
> Sure wont the " Vote Yes for Lisbon" jobs be kicking in soon ?


 
[broken link removed] is the link to lisbon.ie, it lists out the consequences if we vote no, but its actually an uncanny description of our current situation.



> Whilst nobody can be certain what will happen if we vote no ,we believe that from an Irish perspective alone , it is reasonable to assume the following:
> 
> 
> On the world stage there will be uncertainty over Ireland’s political future
> ...


----------



## Sunny (28 Sep 2010)

However bad things are, they would be a lot worse if we voted no.


----------



## thedaras (28 Sep 2010)

PetrolHead said:


> OMG...
> 
> I've never seen a press release so dripping in desperation...
> 
> ...



.If your getting Taoiseach'd,count me in..


----------



## censuspro (28 Sep 2010)

Sunny said:


> However bad things are, they would be a lot worse if we voted no.



How so???


----------



## micmclo (29 Sep 2010)

PetrolHead said:


> Lads... I'm off to the bar to get Taoiseach'd... who's with me...???



Is this new phrase going to get used everywhere and maybe get into the dictionary 

Can't wait for the weekend, gonna hit the town and get Taoiseach'd!


----------



## Sunny (29 Sep 2010)

censuspro said:


> How so???



We would have been toast well before now. Only reason we have been able to borrow and still have a banking system is because of the ECB and the fact that we have access to a €750 billion stability fund if needed. Europe doesn't want to leave Ireland to the wolves. If we had voted no, I don't think the germans would give a damn about us. Voting yes to Lisbon didn't get us into this mess. It does give us a chance if surviving it though.


----------



## censuspro (29 Sep 2010)

Sunny said:


> We would have been toast well before now. Only reason we have been able to borrow and still have a banking system is because of the ECB and the fact that we have access to a €750 billion stability fund if needed. Europe doesn't want to leave Ireland to the wolves. If we had voted no, I don't think the germans would give a damn about us. Voting yes to Lisbon didn't get us into this mess. It does give us a chance if surviving it though.


 
With all due respect, that is just your opinion and it sounds like the type of scare tactics that came out of the yes camp during the Lisbon debate. I don't remember anything in the Lisbon treaty preventing us from borrowing if we voted no and we havent touched the stability fund so both those arguements don't stack up. In relation to the banking system, Icelands banking system went bang and they are currently paying less interset than us on their Government bonds.

My initial point was, and if you take a look at my previous post, nearly every one of the consequences listed for voting no to the Lisbon treaty are happeing to us right now.

We were told that if Irish banks failed our credibility would damaged and we would not be able to raise money in the international markets and who the whole ethos was that we couldn't let what happened in Iceland happen here.  Iceland is now paying less interest on their government bonds than we are which means that the markets have more confidence in Iceland than in Ireland.


----------



## shnaek (29 Sep 2010)

censuspro said:


> In relation to the banking system, Icelands banking system went bang and they are currently paying less interset than us on their Government bonds.



I don't think Iceland are in a better position that us though. Take a look at their economy.


----------



## censuspro (29 Sep 2010)

shnaek said:


> I don't think Iceland are in a better position that us though. Take a look at their economy.


 
Tak a look at ours.


----------



## shnaek (29 Sep 2010)

censuspro said:


> Tak a look at ours.



I'm going to be shot for quoting wiki - but here goes:

"On 28 October 2008, the Icelandic government raised interest rates to 18%, (as of August 2010, it is 7%) a move which was forced in part by the terms of acquiring a loan from the IMF. After the rate hike, trading on the Icelandic króna finally resumed on the open market, with valuation at around 250 ISK per Euro, less than one-third the value of the 1:70 exchange rate during most of 2008, and a significant drop from the 1:150 exchange ratio of the week before. Iceland has appealed to Nordic countries for an additional €4 billion in aid to avert the continuing crisis.

Thousands of Icelanders have moved from the country after the collapse and about half of those moved to Norway. In 2005, 293 people moved from Iceland to Norway, while in 2009 this figure was 1,625 Icelanders to the same country."

Imagine what it would be like here if we had to devalue our currency to 1/3 of what it is today? Or if we had interest rates of 18%? Also, Iceland have already called in the IMF.


----------



## Sunny (29 Sep 2010)

censuspro said:


> With all due respect, that is just your opinion and it sounds like the type of scare tactics that came out of the yes camp during the Lisbon debate. I don't remember anything in the Lisbon treaty preventing us from borrowing if we voted no and we havent touched the stability fund so both those arguements don't stack up. In relation to the banking system, Icelands banking system went bang and they are currently paying less interset than us on their Government bonds.
> 
> My initial point was, and if you take a look at my previous post, nearly every one of the consequences listed for voting no to the Lisbon treaty are happeing to us right now.
> 
> We were told that if Irish banks failed our credibility would damaged and we would not be able to raise money in the international markets and who the whole ethos was that we couldn't let what happened in Iceland happen here. Iceland is now paying less interest on their government bonds than we are which means that the markets have more confidence in Iceland than in Ireland.


 
We don't have to be touching the stability fund. The presence of the fund and the fact that the ECB can buy Irish bonds means that as bad as things are, they could be a lot worse than they are if we didn't have European support. 

People keep using Iceland as an example but no offence but that is amateur economics. Show me the last funding deal a Icelandic bank did in international markets.


----------



## Chris (29 Sep 2010)

Purple said:


> Governments can't create jobs in the private sector, they can only improve the environment that allow other to create them . Any strategy that does not improve competitiveness will fail. Tax breaks aimed at particular sectors will cause the economy to develop in a direction that is not market driven and so will not be sustainable in the long term. Therefore any changes should be across the board.


This is absolutely true. In addition to that, the focus shouldn't be on "job creation". This is much too simplistic a view. If all we needed to do was create jobs then the easiest thing would be for the state to employ half the unemployed to dig ditches, and the other half to fill them up again. What we need is productive jobs, and the it is impossible for the state to provide productive jobs.
What is needed is capital investment in productive and competitive industries. What these are should not be decided by governement, the market is well capable of showing what is needed. If the government were serious about encouraging employment in the private sector, then it would scrap the minimum wage, reduce employer PRSI contributions, and reduce/abolish corporation taxes. All these would make Ireland more competitive for domestic and foreign investment.



Yorrick said:


> Whats all the doom and gloom about ?
> Sure wont the " Vote Yes for Lisbon" jobs be kicking in soon ?


HAHAHAHAHA



Purple said:


> I thought this had been announced before but the IDA are talking about  all of the . The HSE will also be moving their HQ to the site. Strangely they are suggesting that this will result in the creation of 450 jobs during construction (so far so good) and 1100 jobs when completed. How is it possible that not only are there no efficiencies achieved by putting all of the DIT facilities in one place but they actually need more people?


This is typical of government, and why its size should be restricted. I'm sure the reason for the additional jobs is going to be something like "extra services", but all it is is additional, unnecessary and damaging bureaucracy. I don't recall the numbers, but when the regional health boards were merged into the HSE, the number of especially managerial staff went through the roof.
Great system, where when you run an inefficient service way over budget, you get rewarded with extra money. Why on earth would they not increase their staff numbers?!?!?!




Sunny said:


> We would have been toast well before now. Only reason we have been able to borrow and still have a banking system is because of the ECB and the fact that we have access to a €750 billion stability fund if needed. Europe doesn't want to leave Ireland to the wolves. If we had voted no, I don't think the germans would give a damn about us. Voting yes to Lisbon didn't get us into this mess. It does give us a chance if surviving it though.



What got us into this mess is government at domestic and EU level and the ECB. Giving these institutions more power is making things worse, not better. If the Lisbon treaty had been designed to restrict the powers of the EU then it would have been a good thing. But increasing one of the largest and most wasteful bureaucracies on earth, and giving it powers that reduce/restrict economic and personal liberties will provide zero benefit.
The ECB was a central culprit in this mess, and Ireland would be better off if it were forced to restructure its debts now rather than later.


----------



## Chris (29 Sep 2010)

Sunny said:


> We don't have to be touching the stability fund. The presence of the fund and the fact that the ECB can buy Irish bonds means that as bad as things are, they could be a lot worse than they are if we didn't have European support.



But you are assuming that there would be no support from the EU or ECB if Ireland had voted no. If anything the events of the past year, especially involving the way Greece seriously fudged its books on levels that can only be described as fraud, show that no matter what you do as a country you will be bailed out. It is complete fiction to suggest that anything else would have happened if Ireland had voted no.


----------



## Sunny (29 Sep 2010)

Chris said:


> What got us into this mess is government at domestic and EU level and the ECB. Giving these institutions more power is making things worse, not better. If the Lisbon treaty had been designed to restrict the powers of the EU then it would have been a good thing. But increasing one of the largest and most wasteful bureaucracies on earth, and giving it powers that reduce/restrict economic and personal liberties will provide zero benefit.
> The ECB was a central culprit in this mess, and Ireland would be better off if it were forced to restructure its debts now rather than later.


 
No, we got ourselves in this mess. What other European country under the ECB has managed to allow a banking crisis almost destroy their economy. What other Country allowed something like Anglo happen under noses, fueled the bubble by pouring tax breaks into an already heated property market, allowed the public finances become so unbalanced and relaint on one sector in the economy etc etc.

We can blame other people if we want but the fault lies 100% with us. Not the ECB, not the EU and not the Lisbon Treaty.


----------



## Sunny (29 Sep 2010)

Chris said:


> But you are assuming that there would be no support from the EU or ECB if Ireland had voted no. If anything the events of the past year, especially involving the way Greece seriously fudged its books on levels that can only be described as fraud, show that no matter what you do as a country you will be bailed out. It is complete fiction to suggest that anything else would have happened if Ireland had voted no.


 
Do you fancy Merkel's chances of presuading the German parliment to bailout Ireland and overpaid workers if we had said no to Lisbon. Supporting Greece will probably cost her the next election as is.


----------



## Chris (29 Sep 2010)

Sunny said:


> Do you fancy Merkel's chances of presuading the German parliment to bailout Ireland and overpaid workers if we had said no to Lisbon. Supporting Greece will probably cost her the next election as is.


The German public, along with the French public, were not in support of the Lisbon treaty. Even Sarcozy said that France would have voted no if it had been put to the people. So your argument here is actually confirming the matter that the Lisbon vote would have made zero difference on a possible direct bail out.



Sunny said:


> No, we got ourselves in this mess. What other European country under the ECB has managed to allow a banking crisis almost destroy their economy. What other Country allowed something like Anglo happen under noses, fueled the bubble by pouring tax breaks into an already heated property market, allowed the public finances become so unbalanced and relaint on one sector in the economy etc etc.
> 
> We can blame other people if we want but the fault lies 100% with us. Not the ECB, not the EU and not the Lisbon Treaty.



I never said that Ireland was not to blame, it certainly needs to carry most of it. But what you are ignoring is that the ECB is in charge of the money supply and interest rates, and the individual member central banks collectlively control the ECB. 
You say that banks lent too much and too risky, but where does that money come from? The central bank!!! So any reason you apply to the commercial banks here and their involvement in the mess are equally transferrable to the ECB which provides the money in the first place. 
Every single country in Europe, even Germany, is in the midst of a banking crisis, this is not an isolated phenomenon to Ireland. But Ireland also has a personal debt crisis and a state budget crisis which is why the markets believe that Ireland is less likely to repay its debts than other countries and therefore makes Ireland's situation worse.
The point is that the solution to problems rooted in too much government interference is not to increase governments' size and power.


----------

