Fine Gael Mad NewERA Plan

[meriwether]

Any chance you might address the honest criticisms of the New Era proposal instead of trying to distract attention from its failings?


The Greens will happily provide any future FG/Lab Government with ready to go, fully thought out, policies across a range of subjects, and will throw in two and a half experienced Ministers to teach them how Government works.

All FG & Labour have to do is win enough seats to be able to take up the offer.

..
.

*giggles*

There's an air of the Skibbereen eagle about this.

[An Gilladaker]

Point number 2 is very silly.
Because money has been squandered in the past does not mean we should not invest in the future. It means we should invest it more wisely in the future.

Now that Alan Dukes is well established in Anglo Irish investment in the future will be easy

[culbair]

Lets wait and see what the NAMA haircut turns out to be, shall we?

The baseline figure when I made my forecast was €104 million, and that is before any interest roll-up in the intervening period.

Compare and contrast with the Fine Gael alternative that Karl Whelan dismissed as "a recipe for chaos".

Fine Gael couldn't organise the proverbial beer-up in a brewery - and that is before Comrade Gilmore gets the veto over FG Policy.


Mary White counted nine zeroes on the calculator instead of eight when she was having a hypothetical discussion.

Big swinging dicky!


You try telling the dairy sector that there will be no diesel for the silage harvest in May 2015 because Simple Simon f**ked up his sums.

A small mistake with a Text Tax vs no fodder for the dairy herd.

(and that's before we discuss no fuel for ambulances, bread vans, grain dryers, combine harvesters, fire engines, ESB line maintenance vehicles, etc., etc., ad infinitum)

..
.

SPN is a Green Party flat earther.

[caulfield-the-yank]

Okay, I have read the thing.

Good points about it:

It seems to proceed from the premise that, since public or quasi-public companies control such major sectors of the economy, and since the economy as a whole has natural "stimulus" robbed from it if the players in major sectors do not make the investments that would have been made in a free market -- in which the discipline of both risk and reward was imposed by investors, lenders, producers, and consumers, rather than politics -- these companies should be caused or encouraged to "invest" in a way that mimics the investments they would have made in a free market, by being made responsive to market forces.

Weak points:

(1) Still no "moral hazard", as the companies still have a call on the taxpayer if they make the "wrong" investments.

(2) As I understand it, the amount to be raised is determined first, regardless of the cost of raising it (whether very low or very high). It should be the other way around. If the projects are so worthy in the eyes of lenders and investors that 18.4 bn could be raised for less than the going rate, then obviously MORE than 18.4 bn in "investment" should and could be made, and with no harm to other economic palyers competing for the same capital. But conversely, at the point at which the govt-run entities must offer more than the going rate to attact capital, it has then raised and "invested" ENOUGH and should STOP, or else it will, in the long run, depress the economy, by depleting capital from the private sector, and needing to resort to the taxpayer (the ultimate engine of the economy) to pay for projects that cost too much and/or that the consumer is unwilling to pay for in amounts sufficient to repay lenders and investors.

(3) What about powerful political constituencies for projects that cannot pay their way? Who will enforce the market discipline that the plan aspires to? A new overarching super-bureaucracy called the New Era Ltd? Color me skeptical. That will probably just make the public sector more entrenched and jealous of its power. The Taoiseach who is supposed to oversee the New Era Ltd? Ah, maybe that's the ticket! An Taoiseach would be impervious to powerful political constituencies and the importunings of coalition partners. Whom do you suggest for that job?

But to return to the world of practical politics -- though I will do so only on a tourist visa -- the plan does, as I say, start from what appears to be a correct premise. If public and quasi-public companies do not invest as their private counterparts would have done, then entire sectors of the economy become dead weights, and are actually one cause of recession. Therefore, short of thoroughgoing privatisiation and the short-term dislocations that might entail -- the only viable solutioin is for therese companies to try to mimic what they would have done anyway, if they had turn been put under the government's yoke to begin with.

[Edo]

Okay, I have read the thing.

Good points about it:

It seems to proceed from the premise that, since public or quasi-public companies control such major sectors of the economy, and since the economy as a whole has natural "stimulus" robbed from it if the players in major sectors do not make the investments that would have been made in a free market -- in which the discipline of both risk and reward was imposed by investors, lenders, producers, and consumers, rather than politics -- these companies should be caused or encouraged to "invest" in a way that mimics the investments they would have made in a free market, by being made responsive to market forces.

Weak points:

(1) Still no "moral hazard", as the companies still have a call on the taxpayer if they make the "wrong" investments.

(2) As I understand it, the amount to be raised is determined first, regardless of the cost of raising it (whether very low or very high). It should be the other way around. If the projects are so worthy in the eyes of lenders and investors that 18.4 bn could be raised for less than the going rate, then obviously MORE than 18.4 bn in "investment" should and could be made, and with no harm to other economic palyers competing for the same capital. But conversely, at the point at which the govt-run entities must offer more than the going rate to attact capital, it has then raised and "invested" ENOUGH and should STOP, or else it will, in the long run, depress the economy, by depleting capital from the private sector, and needing to resort to the taxpayer (the ultimate engine of the economy) to pay for projects that cost too much and/or that the consumer is unwilling to pay for in amounts sufficient to repay lenders and investors.

(3) What about powerful political constituencies for projects that cannot pay their way? Who will enforce the market discipline that the plan aspires to? A new overarching super-bureaucracy called the New Era Ltd? Color me skeptical. That will probably just make the public sector more entrenched and jealous of its power. The Taoiseach who is supposed to oversee the New Era Ltd? Ah, maybe that's the ticket! An Taoiseach would be impervious to powerful political constituencies and the importunings of coalition partners. Whom do you suggest for that job?

But to return to the world of practical politics -- though I will do so only on a tourist visa -- the plan does, as I say, start from what appears to be a correct premise. If public and quasi-public companies do not invest as their private counterparts would have done, then entire sectors of the economy become dead weights, and are actually one cause of recession. Therefore, short of thoroughgoing privatisiation and the short-term dislocations that might entail -- the only viable solutioin is for therese companies to try to mimic what they would have done anyway, if they had turn been put under the government's yoke to begin with.

Cauflield -thanks for the considered response - I'd give ya serious positive rep if I could - but abuse by the kids and hacks around here makes that impossible - but, in lieu, please accept my sincerest thanks and applause for giving the doc a read and giving it your honest appraisal - if more of this kiind of thing happened around here - it would transform this site.

As an FG member - thanks for your comments and I'll be back to you regarding the very legitimate issues you raise.

Edo