State as employer of last resort


As far as I am aware Mr. Beggs remit was involved with the internal audit procedures of the Central Bank itself not the Banks falling under it's bailiwick.

I have no idea what Mr. Beggs had to say about SIPTU's stance on completing their accounts , do you ? - were SIPTU within their rights to take the course of action they did ?

To be honest I doubt if Mr. Beggs expressed any opinion - after all SIPTU are an autonomous body & are quite capable of defending their position.

Has there ever been any suggestion that Mr. Beggs behaved inappropriately in his role as a director of the Central Bank ?
 
whats with all this 'Mr Beggs'....i did'nt think the comrades referred to each other like that!
 
The first national wage agreement was a success but the agreements morphed into grand plans to cover all aspects of economic and social policy and were not costed and undemocratic as they constrained the function of the Dail. I have been very critical of Comrade Ahern, one of only two socialists on the Dail, for his role in these Chinese style grand plans so I hope you don’t include me in that group.
The agreements may have been negotiated between the unionised managers of unionised companies/ state bodies/ “commercial” semi-states etc and the unionised employees of those bodies. Then there were the unionised civil servants in the middle who had would derive a direct benefit from large pay increases.
Unfortunately the people who had to pay for the whole jamboree weren’t at the table.

Deiseblue said:
Benchmarking was of course a different matter - the reports were delivered by independent bodies.
Click to expand...
Yes, open, clear and transparent it was too. That’s why it was published along with the criteria used to decide who got what from the Benchmarking ATM. Oh no, hang on....

Deiseblue said:
I'm sure that Mr. Beggs does agree with me re the benefits of the New Deal , that makes 2 of us to your one
Click to expand...
Yep, a man who supports North Korean style job creation practices. There’s a guy to lean your economic arguments against! (is it allowed to use the same one twice?)
 
I think you will find that Mr. Beggs referred to the state as employers of last resort - he specifically referenced FDR's New Deal ( the success or lack of same is obviously something we differ on ) - any parallels with North Korea are a bit extreme I would have thought.

The electorate mandated Governments , successive Governments then decided that our economy was best sustained by entering into National Wage Agreements which guaranteed industrial harmony & thus benefited employers & provided employees with modest increases allied to beneficial tax changes.

The Government involved the social partners as being the most representative organised bodies - what other option was feasible if they felt that NWA's were the right option ?

As I said the Benchmarking bodies who delivered the various reports were independent , perhaps the criteria you seek is available via an FOI request ?

The Benchmarking reports are available online - a plethora of info is contained therein - be warned though the individual reports run to over 200 pages
 
Deiseblue said:
The electorate mandated Governments , successive Governments then decided that our economy was best sustained by entering into National Wage Agreements
Click to expand...

Governments were elected to govern, but I think it's a stretch to say that their raison d'etre was to carry out National Wage Agreements.


Now that we have 400k people on the dole would it not make sense to conduct another round of benchmarking or is it that benchmarking is like upard-only rent reviews?
 

That's a bit of a stretch - I never suggested that the Government's raison d'être ( quite a bit of French emerging in this thread ) was to implement NWA'S , I simply stated that as they felt that such Agreements were the correct option then they had the mandate to do so.

I don't think a further benchmarking exercise is a runner at the moment as currently the CPA is the only game in town.

Perhaps the fact that the last benchmarking report allowed for the benefit that is the PS pension & the fact that previous benchmarking increase have been effectively nullified by the average 15% pay cuts may be further reasons why we not see a further exercise in the short term.
 
Deiseblue said:
I don't think a further benchmarking exercise is a runner at the moment as currently the CPA is the only game in town.
Click to expand...

That's kinda handy isn't it? Ah well, sure I suppose we'll just have to continue borrowing so.


Sorry for being pedantic, but I think the relatively small contribution to such a fantastic pension scheme (compared to what most in the private sector wil get) is a deduction from pay rather than a "pay-cut". A pay cut IMO is when your salary is reduced by your employer by means of getting a letter from HR stating that your new salary will be X.
 

I would consider it a reality rather than "kinda handy " - the Croke Park Agreement guarantees no reduction in core pay & a continuing pay freeze is being imposed , a benchmarking exercise currently therefore would be an exercise in futility.

Brian Lenihan referred to the levy as a pay cut & he was the one who introduced it !
 
Deiseblue said:
Mr. Begg's role in the Central Bank has never been forensically dissected by the Irish media - not even by the Indo.

Perhaps because Mr. Beggs was on the Internal Audit committee & was not privy to the info on the Banks ?
Click to expand...

Or perhaps because a Board member in a minority of one has little chance of getting his way at a Board meeting?
 
Firefly said:
Now that we have 400k people on the dole would it not make sense to conduct another round of benchmarking or is it that benchmarking is like upard-only rent reviews?
Click to expand...

Long overdue - but the government dont have the spine to stand up to the public sector unions
 
Complainer said:
Or perhaps because a Board member in a minority of one has little chance of getting his way at a Board meeting?
Click to expand...

If any director finds himself or herself in such a position, remaining silent is NOT an option. Otherwise they become complicit in any wrongdoings. David Begg is no novice or idiot, and, as a veteran union leader and company director, should be acutely aware of this. (So, I expect, should you.)
 

There is a difference between 'wrongdoings' and disagreements of policy. To me, wrongdoings are fraud etc, and I agree that a Director either fixes it or resigns in such cases. In disagreements of policy, a minority director is in an invidious position. If they resign, they allow the others to continue on without them, and probably make things even worse. If they remain in place, they may well be able to take some actions to minimise the effects of the decisions. Neither you nor I have any real idea of what Begg said or did in his time as a Director of the bank.

It's the same arguement about being the minority party in a coalition Govt. Do you remain in place and get some bits of your policy programme implemented, or walk out and get none of your policy programme implemented?
 
Complainer said:
Or perhaps because a Board member in a minority of one has little chance of getting his way at a Board meeting?
Click to expand...

Lame and not true because...

Complainer said:
It's the same arguement about being the minority party in a coalition Govt. Do you remain in place and get some bits of your policy programme implemented, or walk out and get none of your policy programme implemented?
Click to expand...

...You've repeatedly lambasted the PDs for the policies they implemented whilst a minority party.
 
Deiseblue said:
The Benchmarking reports are available online - a plethora of info is contained therein - be warned though the individual reports run to over 200 pages
Click to expand...
But the criteria used to come up with it's findings are not given. That's always been the problem.
 
Deiseblue said:
No , that would be the New Deal that restored confidence in America's economy & dramatically reduced unemployment .
Click to expand...


Hoover's and FDR's actions turned a regular depression into the Great Depression, they did not end it. No historic facts can back up a claim that the New Deal actually made things better for the US economy and its citizens:
- Hoover introduced massive spending programs, that FDR criticized during his election campaign
- Once in power FDR expanded the policies of Hoover increasing state spending even more
- An example of the idiocy of the New Deal: it paid farmers to destroy crops and livestock in order to boost prices, while at the same time people were starving because they couldn't afford higher food prices
- From 1933 to 1940 average unemployment was 18.5%, while for the years of 1930 to 1940 the average was 17.8%
- after the first year of depression unemployment was 8.7%
- unemployment rates did not return to normal levels until 1946
- after the first year of depression GDP was down 11%
- pre depression GDP was not achieved until 1940 and then only because of a massive increase in state spending on the war
- the depression did not end until 1946 when spending was finally cut

Contrast this to the depression of 1920/21:
- after the first year of depression GDP was down 17%
- after the first year of depression unemployment was 8.7% and heading up
- unemployment rates returned to normal levels by 1923
- pre depression GDP was achieved within 3 years
- the depression was over within 18 months

So what was the difference between two depressions that started their life in very similar fashion, i.e. same employment and GDP decrease? While Hoover and FDR massively increased spending and taxation over 16 years Harding cut spending and taxation by 50% in 18 months.

What is now being advocated is exactly what caused the great Depression to last 16 years, not what solved it.

What facts do you base your opinion about FDR and the New Deal on?

Sources:
http://www.u-s-history.com/pages/h1528.html
http://www.usgovernmentspending.com...011mcn__US_Gross_Domestic_Product_GDP_History
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Depression_of_1920–21#cite_note-Vernon-2
[broken link removed]
 

But what went wrong in the Central Bank during Begg's time as director was not a mere "disagreement of policy". The Bank presided over a state of affairs that caused the utter collapse of the financial system and the wholesale impoverishment of its citizens.

It is clear to me that this involved a massive dereliction of duty, for which the directors must be accountable at least to some extent.
 
It looks like Begg did such a good job at the Central Bank that the Labour Party has broken the rules on appointments to State Agencies to get up his latest cushty role
http://www.irishtimes.com/business/...id-begg-to-chair-pensions-authority-1.2495726
The whole Pensions problem in this country will be sorted out in rapid to note.
They forgot to mention his time on the Aerlingus board...maybe they ran out of space
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register