The Lie of the Free Market and the Death of the Middleclass

soubresauts wrote:

youngdan wrote:

My family would have been FG but I am particularly dissappointed with them and therefore think little of them. In what way are they different to FF...

I think a lot of people would be thinking along those lines.

What's needed is a FF-FG coalition. We need to bang their heads together. They wouldn't clash much on policy, so why should petty rivalries and the remains of civil war hatred keep them apart?

Why is FG the only party not willing to talk about forming coalition with FF?

Such a grand coalition would be a stable government and the smaller parties could carry on constructive opposition, to the benefit of all.

BTW, FF seem to have no policies at all. Look at their website. It doesn't even offer you the Programme for Government.

I'm bumping this thread from April, because Soubresauts raised the question of coalition, and I have heard the word said several times this week.

As the possibility of a forced early election and possible loss of power confronts FF, would they look for coalition with FG as a lesser evil ?

Would a coalition offer a better option, or would it pin us down under a diabolical cross-party consensus that would serve the interests of the haves against the have nots?

cactus flower wrote:

Would a [FF-FG] coalition offer a better option, or would it pin us down under a diabolical consensus that would serve the interests of the haves against the have nots?

Do we not think that the have-nots will be in the majority?

BTW, consensus means everyone in agreement.

soubresauts wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Would a [FF-FG] coalition offer a better option, or would it pin us down under a diabolical consensus that would serve the interests of the haves against the have nots?

Do we not think that the have-nots will be in the majority?

BTW, consensus means everyone in agreement.

Thanks for that Soubresauts - I've added the words "cross-party" in front of consensus to make my meaning clearer. Yes, the haves are an ever-shrinking number of people and the have nots will increasingly be the majority, if the basis of this thread is right.

The current budget is historic for Fianna Fail - imo they have crossed the line under the pressure of the economic crisis. If you take the Bank Bail Out and the Budget together, there is a clear abandonment of the middle class and lower income FF supporters in favour of the Plate Dinner and helicopter end of the FF spectrum. This is not a vote winning strategy. Imo a coalition the idea of coalition could become attractive to them as it would remove opposition and would weld together FG and FF in support of big business and finance. The rest of us would be expected to pay to keep them in the style to which they are accustomed.

As I remember, only Labour voted against the Bail Out.

cactus flower wrote:

These figures are a lot to do with how angry the whole Bertie carry on made me feel, as there was a deliberate choice under his watch in favour of regressive taxation to create and benefit a "golden circle" and he couldn't even be satisfied with what he got out of that

These figures are also quite imprecise. They are based on counting the people who earn 60% or less of the average income. Now that's an example of relative poverty but not absolute poverty. If you and I live on Ailesbury Road and earn only €3.6 million a year while the neighbours earn €6 million, then in these terms we would be counted as being in, "poverty", yet we could still afford 5 holidays a year to our 3 holiday homes, Bentleys, monthly spa treatments and shopping sprees at BTs and Harvey Nicks.

The fact is that many of the people in "poverty" in this country have Sky Digital, the children all have pricey mobile phones, decked out in expensive clothes, go off to Spain on the summer holidays and have a very comfortable life in general. And in any case, personal responsibility comes into this as well. We can't be continually blaming, "the Government" for the woes of society. People have to look to themselves and see how they can contribute to an improvement in their own living condition. The Government can lavish all the funding they want at anti-poverty strategies but until people themselves make the decision to do something about their situation, most of that funding is wasted.

And there is no "lie" to the Free Market. The Free Market is the best system for the creation of substantive and sustainable improvements in people's social and economic status. You talk about the US, UK and Ireland all facing economic turbulence in which some of the gains made in the past two decades are taken away. That may be true but that(inadvisedly imo) forgets the huge advance made over the past two decades. The US had it continued under the sane economic and political policies of a Clinton would have joined with the UK and Ireland in experiencing an enormous improvement in people's living standards. Compare Ireland of 2008 to 1988 and you cannot deny that embracing free market principles has left Ireland as a worse place. The UK enjoyed the longest boom in its economy ever between 1995 and 2008 and it would take some disaster to wipe out those enormous gains there. It is particularly encouraging considering the profound crisis in which the UK economy found itself in the 1970s (which was mostly the fault of a socialist Labour government).

The crises of capitalism come and go, they occur about every 25-30 years as Brandubh said, but it emerges from every one. It is a vital, resilient and altogether powerful vehicle through which gains can be made. Once this crisid abates, a recovery will ensue and we will go on to even stronger and better standards of living. It has happened after the dotcom bust, the LTCM/Asian Tigers crisis, the 1987 Crash and so on. Capitalism is a renewable system unlike socialism which is lost before it even begins because it eliminates the incentives for work, risk-taking, investment, creativity and entrepreneurialism. These are essential in any society to provide the animating spirit necessary to keep it going faster, higher and stronger.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

These figures are a lot to do with how angry the whole Bertie carry on made me feel, as there was a deliberate choice under his watch in favour of regressive taxation to create and benefit a "golden circle" and he couldn't even be satisfied with what he got out of that

These figures are also quite imprecise. They are based on counting the people who earn 60% or less of the average income. Now that's an example of relative poverty but not absolute poverty. If you and I live on Ailesbury Road and earn only €3.6 million a year while the neighbours earn €6 million, then in these terms we would be counted as being in, "poverty", yet we could still afford 5 holidays a year to our 3 holiday homes, Bentleys, monthly spa treatments and shopping sprees at BTs and Harvey Nicks.

The fact is that many of the people in "poverty" in this country have Sky Digital, the children all have pricey mobile phones, decked out in expensive clothes, go off to Spain on the summer holidays and have a very comfortable life in general. And in any case, personal responsibility comes into this as well. We can't be continually blaming, "the Government" for the woes of society. People have to look to themselves and see how they can contribute to an improvement in their own living condition. The Government can lavish all the funding they want at anti-poverty strategies but until people themselves make the decision to do something about their situation, most of that funding is wasted.

And there is no "lie" to the Free Market. The Free Market is the best system for the creation of substantive and sustainable improvements in people's social and economic status. You talk about the US, UK and Ireland all facing economic turbulence in which some of the gains made in the past two decades are taken away. That may be true but that(inadvisedly imo) forgets the huge advance made over the past two decades. The US had it continued under the sane economic and political policies of a Clinton would have joined with the UK and Ireland in experiencing an enormous improvement in people's living standards. Compare Ireland of 2008 to 1988 and you cannot deny that embracing free market principles has left Ireland as a worse place. The UK enjoyed the longest boom in its economy ever between 1995 and 2008 and it would take some disaster to wipe out those enormous gains there. It is particularly encouraging considering the profound crisis in which the UK economy found itself in the 1970s (which was mostly the fault of a socialist Labour government).

The crises of capitalism come and go, they occur about every 25-30 years as Brandubh said, but it emerges from every one. It is a vital, resilient and altogether powerful vehicle through which gains can be made. Once this crisid abates, a recovery will ensue and we will go on to even stronger and better standards of living. It has happened after the dotcom bust, the LTCM/Asian Tigers crisis, the 1987 Crash and so on. Capitalism is a renewable system unlike socialism which is lost before it even begins because it eliminates the incentives for work, risk-taking, investment, creativity and entrepreneurialism. These are essential in any society to provide the animating spirit necessary to keep it going faster, higher and stronger.

Ard Taoiseach - you've a much better head for figures than I have. What is 60% of average income?

cactus flower wrote:

Ard Taoiseach - you've a much better head for figures than I have. What is 60% of average income?

60% of $35,000 which is $21,000 which itself is higher than most average incomes of the EU. We have one of the highest average incomes in the world therefore "poverty" means something different than "poverty" in the France, Spain etc.

Ard-Taoiseach wrote:

cactus flower wrote:

Ard Taoiseach - you've a much better head for figures than I have. What is 60% of average income?

60% of $35,000 which is $21,000 which itself is higher than most average incomes of the EU. We have one of the highest average incomes in the world therefore "poverty" means something different than "poverty" in the France, Spain etc.

Our cost of living is much higher than in France and Spain and our public services much less good.

This is a useful short piece on poverty in Ireland from 2005. http://www.irish-association.org/archives/papers/helen_johnston.pdf

What seems to have happened is that Ireland had very high levels of consistent poverty (involving deprivation of basics) up to the late 1990s: with economic growth and higher employment, the numbers experiencing deprivation/consistent poverty dropped, and the numbers who experienced "relative poverty" increased, as wages went up.

Our levels of benefits were raised from 2005-6 onwards and this resulted in people being moved out of consistent poverty. With a big contraction of GDP being predicted, our tax base shrinking and oil and food prices still high we are going to have to decide whether or not to try to protect the vulnerable or let poverty increase again.

The budget proposes to tax people who are on very low incomes. It may well tip the balance as to whether they can afford to go to work. There was an item on RTE radio today about thousands of people in Australia queuing in a line for food charity. That isn't the way I'd like to see things go here.