I have in recent months attended 2 meetings of the We are Church movement. On both occasions, the meeting was very slow to warm up, but when it did, it was very exciting.
As said in a previous post, this group, and others like it in other countries, is a group of committed catholics who are questioning aspects of the catechism that seem to conflict with the central christian message. In particular they have identified 5 areas where most catholics would agree the (man-made and antiquated) catechism is wrong and contradicts the christian message.
I have been particularly impressed with one woman who said on the first occasion I was there: " the only thing I can control is myself". Last night she said, "We can't change them (the catholic hierarchy), but we can refuse to be changed by them". This woman is a great inspiration to me, a true revolutionary, using nothing but self-determination to fight the vast Roman church. The humility and confidence of a seemingly frail lady is truly awesome.
I am a little pessimistic that change will come about, but at least I want to be on the right side of the debate. I intend to go back again.
The group is holding a pentecost celebration in the Davenport hotel this Sunday at 3pm.
Tuesday, May 22, 2012
Thursday, May 17, 2012
Grid West consultation 17/5/2012
Grid West consultation 17/5/2012 -http://www.eirgridprojects.com/media/6424%20Study%20Area%20Rationale%20010512.pdf
Dear sirs/madams,
Before making my observations, I would like to express my great excitement at the proposal to develop a high quality grid infrastructure in the NorthWest. This area, for historic reasons, has been one of the poorer areas of the country, with consequently less facilities than the rest of the country. It is a constant struggle to attract industry to the West, and a stable, high capacity electricity supply is one of the most important factors for the future catch up of the region with the rest of the country. I am delighted that you are beginning this process, and I hope that it progresses quickly.
1. I would like to advocate that the connections built, be of a high capacity. The approval of power lines has become controversial in recent years, and I fear that if an inadequate grid is installed in this process, it will be even more difficult to expand it later, than it would be right now. Therefore, I would urge that the connections to Flagford and Cashla, should be of an ambitious capacity, to allow for future industrial growth, without necessitating a return to the planning process.
2. I would like to advocate that both connections be advanced simultaneously, or if this is not possible, that detailed planning and permission be sought for both. Even if there is only money for one line, I would like to see the other well planned, and disputes with local landowners ironed out in advance –so that when money does become available, the second line can proceed smoothly and quickly.
3. If only one line can progress at first, I would advocate Flagford –Bellacorick. The Cashla route already has a direct connection to bellacorick –albeit small- and building this connector will only increase capacity. Whereas, the flagford route, is not replacing a direct connection, and will therefore, not only increase capacity, but improve the robustness of the system too. Flagford seems the most beneficial of the two routes –though, obviously, both should be built.
4. I am a little sceptical of the future of massive windfarms. I suspect we are experiencing something of a bubble in this area at present. Large scale wind is only one of numerous renewable energies that will be available in future, and it is not at all clear that it will be the cheapest/most successful. I believe that the grid should be designed with the possibility of distributed generation from small scale wind/pv/hydro outfits in mind. We need a grid, capable of absorbing such distributed power sources if and when they become available. I do not have the technical expertise to comment on what would be necessary for large scale distributed generation, but I believe it is crucial we prepare for it as it is likely to become a major power source. In particular, I would like to point out, that distributed generation has a great advantage in terms of access to capital; far in excess of large scale projects. The technology already exists and simply needs to come down in price for a massive increase in this form of power being made available to the grid. We must prepare today for this.
5. Finally, I would like to point out that a new broadband connection is to land in Belmullet soon. There is scope for data centres and other connection heavy enterprises to develop in Mayo on foot of this. These centres are often very energy intensive, and the sooner this grid is developed, the sooner we can set to work attracting such high end, high profit businesses to the region. I urge that the project proceed quickly.
Wednesday, May 2, 2012
My guide to happy trails
Years ago, a good friend of mine was embarking on a big backpacking trip. He asked if I had any tips for him. Initially I couldn't think of anything, but later I wrote him an email, and once I got started I realised there are dozens of well-known maxims that are bandied about by backpackers. Here is the list I sent him, no doubt there are many more that could be added to this:
My guide to happy trails
-avoid salad (it's usually been washed in dirty water)
-don't set off with a full pack (you'll acquire some things along the way -either souvenirs or specialised clothes)
-don't trust a stranger who speaks perfect english, especially if they are trying to take you to somewhere i.e. a 2nd location, not of your choosing
-use small bags inside your backpack to divide up the various groups of things in your pack
-time spent regularly organising your pack is never wasted time (you may have to leave in a hurry; especially if it's a lawless place)
-if you're carrying dollars, try to carry small denominations. Poor people rarely have change for a 50.
-if you get into trouble, don't panic, most likely they only want your cash
-smile
-never steal from backpackers or locals, they will probably detect the crime and retribution can be brutal
-remember, tourists naturally attract some of the worst people (conmen, thieves etc.). If you have a bad experience, don't damn everyone because of it, just make sure you find some genuine people.
-avoid arriving into a new town late in the day, and especially if it will be after dark. It's harder to get accommodation and with your pack you are a target for crime.
-Dehydration is the backpackers worst enemy. Between diaorrhea, unreliable water supplies and sweating, you will be constantly under threat of dehydration. This can cause sunburn, constipation, dizzyness and a host of nasties. It's the most common pitfall.
-Guidebooks can be a lifeline when you're stuck for accommodation/food etc., however, some people cling to them so closely that they rarely do anything that's not in the guide. Don't be afraid to go pot luck and find something of your own.
-Don't fall out with your companions (sometimes easier said than done). Cabin fever, heat and exhaustion can make anyone testy.
-If you do get sick, be careful about using anti-diaorrhoea pills. Too much and you can be corked up for a week. Moderate diaorrhoea is harmless enough, constipation can slow you to a crawl. Long bus journeys don't help either.
-If you're using a map in a dodgy neighbourhood, you can step into a doorway or some other relatively concealed spot. Standing in the middle of the street looking at a map is like lighting up 'lost and helpless' in neon lights on your head. Same goes for money.
-taximen are necessary, but don't let them take you somewhere you hadn't heard of before you got into the cab; it's probably their brother's shop where you'll have to buy all sorts of rubbish to get out again. Or it could be somewhere worse.
-Don't buy cheap stuff in your first week, unless you're prepared to carry it for the rest of the trip or else are posting it home.
-No matter where you are, there is always transport nearby, you just have to find it.
-If you get off a bus/train and are besieged with drivers offering to take you somewhere, you're in trouble. They probably have an ulterior motive for driving you. They definitely want to overcharge you. This is an impossible situation; if you work out how to deal with it tell me.
-Some of the best food you can eat is in places filled with locals. It's best if you can watch them fry it. You might get sick, but Western style food outside of the West is often improperly cooked rubbish. Locals can generally cook local dishes well.
-wash your hands before you eat. You are in contact with a lot of things your body has never seen before.
-fruit that you peel is generally safe (bananas, oranges)
-you are not alone. Thousands of backpackers have gone before you. They will swap information about places, pitfalls, travel arrangements, they are your best source of information. They are sometimes interesting too (varies).
-local alcohol is fun, but don't expect to taste anything tomorrow
-Some towns have only one method of transport out of them. They are generally small and nice, but consider if they are unsafe before you put yourself in a cul de sac. Also, make sure you won't have to wait 2 days to catch the next buffalo out of town.
-take a walk in the countryside at least once
-if a place smells like shit, it probably is. It may have an open sewer nearby, you're better off avoiding it if possible. Definitely don't eat there.
-a fan in a bedroom is a simple way to keep away flies (but it can dehydrate you). Opinions differ on air conditioning, although I believe it just prevents you acclimatising.
-incence, tiger balm and other smellies are one of the easiest ways to keep away flies.
-dogs are not the same when you are abroad. they are treated differently by society and they act differently in response.
-a small padlock can be handy in some hostels where you have a locker.
-hiking boots are really heavy. Unless you're going to use them a lot -don't bring them. A pair of light shoes and a pair of sandals is my favoured combination.
-books are heavy too. There will be opportunities to swap books with other people as you go, but be prepared to end up reading slushy romance novels about alien zombies.
-If you have a guide book for one country, you may be able to swap for one about the next country with someone going the opposite direction at the border.
-The most important word in any language is 'pardon'. Even if you can't say thank you to someone who helps you, it's more important to be able to apologise to someone you rub up the wrong way.
-Check ahead to see if there are any festivals or events happening close to your route.
-blogging or regular group emails are a simple way to tell your story to everyone as you go along. It's not for everyone, but it can save you having to recount your story a hundred times when you return.
-Take pictures for your friends to see.
-if you suspect are in trouble you will always have the option of leaving town. Never forget this, as it's often the best and simplest solution to a problem and in a panic you may overlook it.
-swimming is lovely but dangerous. Leaches, water-borne diseases, currents, concealed rocks. Of course you will go swimming, hopefully a lot, but be aware that you are responsible for your own safety, especially in big rivers with fast currents. Some people think that somehow water is less dangerous because they are abroad. I myself have had several near ones by thinking that because a sign or a passing local says it's safe to swim that that means it is totally safe. Water is never totally safe.
-If some backpacker acts as if they know it all, they know nothing (that goes double for me)
You'll probably break almost every one of these rules -and be right to do it in the circumstances. You've got to have a good time in spite of all these cautions.
Talk to fellow travellers. Backpackers are often (not always) very gentle souls with modest personalities and an openness to new things. Some of them have travelled extensively. They are typically good advisers with local knowledge. They have often learnt things the hard way, so talking with them means you can learn things the easy way. They will know the problems you will face much better than anyone writing in abstract can.
Happy Trails
My guide to happy trails
-avoid salad (it's usually been washed in dirty water)
-don't set off with a full pack (you'll acquire some things along the way -either souvenirs or specialised clothes)
-don't trust a stranger who speaks perfect english, especially if they are trying to take you to somewhere i.e. a 2nd location, not of your choosing
-use small bags inside your backpack to divide up the various groups of things in your pack
-time spent regularly organising your pack is never wasted time (you may have to leave in a hurry; especially if it's a lawless place)
-if you're carrying dollars, try to carry small denominations. Poor people rarely have change for a 50.
-if you get into trouble, don't panic, most likely they only want your cash
-smile
-never steal from backpackers or locals, they will probably detect the crime and retribution can be brutal
-remember, tourists naturally attract some of the worst people (conmen, thieves etc.). If you have a bad experience, don't damn everyone because of it, just make sure you find some genuine people.
-avoid arriving into a new town late in the day, and especially if it will be after dark. It's harder to get accommodation and with your pack you are a target for crime.
-Dehydration is the backpackers worst enemy. Between diaorrhea, unreliable water supplies and sweating, you will be constantly under threat of dehydration. This can cause sunburn, constipation, dizzyness and a host of nasties. It's the most common pitfall.
-Guidebooks can be a lifeline when you're stuck for accommodation/food etc., however, some people cling to them so closely that they rarely do anything that's not in the guide. Don't be afraid to go pot luck and find something of your own.
-Don't fall out with your companions (sometimes easier said than done). Cabin fever, heat and exhaustion can make anyone testy.
-If you do get sick, be careful about using anti-diaorrhoea pills. Too much and you can be corked up for a week. Moderate diaorrhoea is harmless enough, constipation can slow you to a crawl. Long bus journeys don't help either.
-If you're using a map in a dodgy neighbourhood, you can step into a doorway or some other relatively concealed spot. Standing in the middle of the street looking at a map is like lighting up 'lost and helpless' in neon lights on your head. Same goes for money.
-taximen are necessary, but don't let them take you somewhere you hadn't heard of before you got into the cab; it's probably their brother's shop where you'll have to buy all sorts of rubbish to get out again. Or it could be somewhere worse.
-Don't buy cheap stuff in your first week, unless you're prepared to carry it for the rest of the trip or else are posting it home.
-No matter where you are, there is always transport nearby, you just have to find it.
-If you get off a bus/train and are besieged with drivers offering to take you somewhere, you're in trouble. They probably have an ulterior motive for driving you. They definitely want to overcharge you. This is an impossible situation; if you work out how to deal with it tell me.
-Some of the best food you can eat is in places filled with locals. It's best if you can watch them fry it. You might get sick, but Western style food outside of the West is often improperly cooked rubbish. Locals can generally cook local dishes well.
-wash your hands before you eat. You are in contact with a lot of things your body has never seen before.
-fruit that you peel is generally safe (bananas, oranges)
-you are not alone. Thousands of backpackers have gone before you. They will swap information about places, pitfalls, travel arrangements, they are your best source of information. They are sometimes interesting too (varies).
-local alcohol is fun, but don't expect to taste anything tomorrow
-Some towns have only one method of transport out of them. They are generally small and nice, but consider if they are unsafe before you put yourself in a cul de sac. Also, make sure you won't have to wait 2 days to catch the next buffalo out of town.
-take a walk in the countryside at least once
-if a place smells like shit, it probably is. It may have an open sewer nearby, you're better off avoiding it if possible. Definitely don't eat there.
-a fan in a bedroom is a simple way to keep away flies (but it can dehydrate you). Opinions differ on air conditioning, although I believe it just prevents you acclimatising.
-incence, tiger balm and other smellies are one of the easiest ways to keep away flies.
-dogs are not the same when you are abroad. they are treated differently by society and they act differently in response.
-a small padlock can be handy in some hostels where you have a locker.
-hiking boots are really heavy. Unless you're going to use them a lot -don't bring them. A pair of light shoes and a pair of sandals is my favoured combination.
-books are heavy too. There will be opportunities to swap books with other people as you go, but be prepared to end up reading slushy romance novels about alien zombies.
-If you have a guide book for one country, you may be able to swap for one about the next country with someone going the opposite direction at the border.
-The most important word in any language is 'pardon'. Even if you can't say thank you to someone who helps you, it's more important to be able to apologise to someone you rub up the wrong way.
-Check ahead to see if there are any festivals or events happening close to your route.
-blogging or regular group emails are a simple way to tell your story to everyone as you go along. It's not for everyone, but it can save you having to recount your story a hundred times when you return.
-Take pictures for your friends to see.
-if you suspect are in trouble you will always have the option of leaving town. Never forget this, as it's often the best and simplest solution to a problem and in a panic you may overlook it.
-swimming is lovely but dangerous. Leaches, water-borne diseases, currents, concealed rocks. Of course you will go swimming, hopefully a lot, but be aware that you are responsible for your own safety, especially in big rivers with fast currents. Some people think that somehow water is less dangerous because they are abroad. I myself have had several near ones by thinking that because a sign or a passing local says it's safe to swim that that means it is totally safe. Water is never totally safe.
-If some backpacker acts as if they know it all, they know nothing (that goes double for me)
You'll probably break almost every one of these rules -and be right to do it in the circumstances. You've got to have a good time in spite of all these cautions.
Talk to fellow travellers. Backpackers are often (not always) very gentle souls with modest personalities and an openness to new things. Some of them have travelled extensively. They are typically good advisers with local knowledge. They have often learnt things the hard way, so talking with them means you can learn things the easy way. They will know the problems you will face much better than anyone writing in abstract can.
Happy Trails
Thursday, February 23, 2012
submission to the EU affairs committee about the fiscal treaty
I would like to submit the following in response to your appeal for submissions on the EU fiscal treaty.
Broadly I welcome the treaty itself, but I am extremely sceptical it will prevent future crises and am concerned it will give a false sense of security from the very serious problems which remain in the Eurozone. These problems are I believe unsolvable unless we either leave the Euro or agree to much deeper and more unpalatable common reforms.
Firstly, a body of rules on public debt and deficits is a good idea for each individual Member State (MS). Therefore, as a framework agreement for each MS to implement such rules, the new treaty is I believe a good thing for the Union as a whole. Having sustainable public finances is unarguably a good thing.
However, the calculation of structural deficits is something less than a science, and fiscal rules proscribed by an international treaty are unnervingly inflexible. In cases of extreme adjustment, we will be dependent on our partners to allow us to exercise fiscal room for manoeuvre. I do not doubt that it will be possible to secure such consent if necessary, but it is nonetheless a power over our budget that should not be taken lightly. Implementing this treaty will pose challenges for all MSs -including those who currently enjoy benign conditions. There will undoubtedly be moments when we regret such a significant commitment and even bend the rules for expediency -but in the long run it is a good agenda.
My main problem with the treaty is that I believe it will not fix the much deeper problems of a common currency. I believe this treaty is the result of an incomplete interpretation of the source of the crisis and is addressed to some of the symptoms of the problem rather than the problem itself. It is a stricter form of the ineffective Stability and Growth Pact, which was never implemented, but which in any case would not have averted the crisis that has recently unfolded.
Without embarking on the huge task of summarising the crisis, let me make a few key observations about the crisis before examining how this treaty is likely to impact on future such crises.
This crisis was primarily the result of having a single monetary policy across a diverse union. In every MS, monetary policy was either too tight or too loose. In central Europe, where a decade of sclerotic growth prevailed in recent years, monetary policy was too tight and did not assist in generating activity. However, the problem was far more obvious in the less populated periphery countries, where an overly loose monetary policy led to a binge of debt. In Greece and Italy, this binge was primarily in the public sphere. Taxation collection slid as expenditure rose. The State had access to cheap money and used it. In Ireland and Spain, the overly loose monetary policy fed into private demand and especially construction loans.
Though these problems were different, it is important to recognise that they stem from the same problem of inappropriate monetary policy in individual MSs. The sluggish countries were reducing the capital available to themselves when they needed it most, and instead lending it to the countries that needed to reign in their borrowing -in effect the system made everyone's problems worse. This was predicted by economists long before the currency came into being and it seems their models have been tragically accurate.
As the crisis broke, credit dried up and in Greece this resulted in a crisis in the State finances. In Ireland it led to a crisis in the banks and also amongst individual borrowers who had overborrowed on the strength of a property bubble.
So how does the fiscal treaty propose to fix the problem of a one size fits all monetary policy?
Quite simply it does not. It proposes to control public borrowing only. This will prevent a future Greece. But it will in turn spawn a series of Spains and (Saints preserve us!) a string of Irelands. The fiscal treaty ignores the problem of inappropriate common monetary policy and instead focuses on the symptom of this problem in selected countries -i.e. public largesse. Meanwhile, private lending and borrowing is to be merely monitored, without further restrictions. Indeed, capital restrictions would be anathema to EU law.
The notion that more disciplined countries will not succumb to cheap money in the future when their monetary policy is inappropriately loose is naive at best -Racist at worst. The narrative of the virtuous countries versus the unvirtuous does nothing to explain the crisis and even shames us all. In reality we are fooling ourselves and setting ourselves up for a cycle of boom and bust where private debt bubbles will occur in country after country.
The fiscal treaty cannot easily be extended to cover the private sphere. MSs may agree to limit their indebtedness, but in market economies, the State does not have any useful power to bind private individuals from borrowing from or lending to one another. They can only manipulate the overall level of money available to financiers -i.e. monetary policy. But monetary policy is of little use in the Eurozone, because the money made available to sluggish countries will immediately be lent to the booming countries, making their situation worse.
Therefore, (without trying to be intentionally stark and provocative), I believe the Eurozone has only 4 options:
-A boom and bust cycle where individual MSs all endure periodic collapses, austerity and reform. No country can resist the allure of cheap money and even the "virtuous" will succumb.
-A common budget, issuing common debt and spending without regard to MS borders.
-A move by MSs to a centrally planned communist economy where all financial transactions are controlled by the State and dictated by national economic conditions.
-A dissolution of the Eurozone and a return to free floating currencies.
Given such horrific options, I must confess I favour a controlled exit at the first available opportunity. I write this as a committed Europhile and a great believer in the European project as both an instrument of prosperity and of peace. However, the Euro is not a workable currency, and this treaty does nothing to address this. The Euro is in fact going to destroy European unity and this completely inadequate treaty only serves to highlight the incomprehension of European leaders of the problems that are built in to monetary union.
In summation, I commend the treaty, but nevertheless advocate a withdrawal from the common currency at the earliest opportunity. It is particularly difficult to reach this conclusion when I am aware of how much money and sacrifice Ireland has sunk into retaining Euro membership in recent years -but the alternatives are unthinkable.
Whatever advantages the currency brings (e.g. attracting international investments, reduced transaction fees) is entirely unjustified when you consider the costs of remaining part of it. Noone will want to invest in Ireland while its currency is as inherently unstable as it is now apparent the Euro is. Noone will have faith in a currency that is doomed to boom and bust. Exit is the only sensible strategy.
sincerely
Ger
Broadly I welcome the treaty itself, but I am extremely sceptical it will prevent future crises and am concerned it will give a false sense of security from the very serious problems which remain in the Eurozone. These problems are I believe unsolvable unless we either leave the Euro or agree to much deeper and more unpalatable common reforms.
Firstly, a body of rules on public debt and deficits is a good idea for each individual Member State (MS). Therefore, as a framework agreement for each MS to implement such rules, the new treaty is I believe a good thing for the Union as a whole. Having sustainable public finances is unarguably a good thing.
However, the calculation of structural deficits is something less than a science, and fiscal rules proscribed by an international treaty are unnervingly inflexible. In cases of extreme adjustment, we will be dependent on our partners to allow us to exercise fiscal room for manoeuvre. I do not doubt that it will be possible to secure such consent if necessary, but it is nonetheless a power over our budget that should not be taken lightly. Implementing this treaty will pose challenges for all MSs -including those who currently enjoy benign conditions. There will undoubtedly be moments when we regret such a significant commitment and even bend the rules for expediency -but in the long run it is a good agenda.
My main problem with the treaty is that I believe it will not fix the much deeper problems of a common currency. I believe this treaty is the result of an incomplete interpretation of the source of the crisis and is addressed to some of the symptoms of the problem rather than the problem itself. It is a stricter form of the ineffective Stability and Growth Pact, which was never implemented, but which in any case would not have averted the crisis that has recently unfolded.
Without embarking on the huge task of summarising the crisis, let me make a few key observations about the crisis before examining how this treaty is likely to impact on future such crises.
This crisis was primarily the result of having a single monetary policy across a diverse union. In every MS, monetary policy was either too tight or too loose. In central Europe, where a decade of sclerotic growth prevailed in recent years, monetary policy was too tight and did not assist in generating activity. However, the problem was far more obvious in the less populated periphery countries, where an overly loose monetary policy led to a binge of debt. In Greece and Italy, this binge was primarily in the public sphere. Taxation collection slid as expenditure rose. The State had access to cheap money and used it. In Ireland and Spain, the overly loose monetary policy fed into private demand and especially construction loans.
Though these problems were different, it is important to recognise that they stem from the same problem of inappropriate monetary policy in individual MSs. The sluggish countries were reducing the capital available to themselves when they needed it most, and instead lending it to the countries that needed to reign in their borrowing -in effect the system made everyone's problems worse. This was predicted by economists long before the currency came into being and it seems their models have been tragically accurate.
As the crisis broke, credit dried up and in Greece this resulted in a crisis in the State finances. In Ireland it led to a crisis in the banks and also amongst individual borrowers who had overborrowed on the strength of a property bubble.
So how does the fiscal treaty propose to fix the problem of a one size fits all monetary policy?
Quite simply it does not. It proposes to control public borrowing only. This will prevent a future Greece. But it will in turn spawn a series of Spains and (Saints preserve us!) a string of Irelands. The fiscal treaty ignores the problem of inappropriate common monetary policy and instead focuses on the symptom of this problem in selected countries -i.e. public largesse. Meanwhile, private lending and borrowing is to be merely monitored, without further restrictions. Indeed, capital restrictions would be anathema to EU law.
The notion that more disciplined countries will not succumb to cheap money in the future when their monetary policy is inappropriately loose is naive at best -Racist at worst. The narrative of the virtuous countries versus the unvirtuous does nothing to explain the crisis and even shames us all. In reality we are fooling ourselves and setting ourselves up for a cycle of boom and bust where private debt bubbles will occur in country after country.
The fiscal treaty cannot easily be extended to cover the private sphere. MSs may agree to limit their indebtedness, but in market economies, the State does not have any useful power to bind private individuals from borrowing from or lending to one another. They can only manipulate the overall level of money available to financiers -i.e. monetary policy. But monetary policy is of little use in the Eurozone, because the money made available to sluggish countries will immediately be lent to the booming countries, making their situation worse.
Therefore, (without trying to be intentionally stark and provocative), I believe the Eurozone has only 4 options:
-A boom and bust cycle where individual MSs all endure periodic collapses, austerity and reform. No country can resist the allure of cheap money and even the "virtuous" will succumb.
-A common budget, issuing common debt and spending without regard to MS borders.
-A move by MSs to a centrally planned communist economy where all financial transactions are controlled by the State and dictated by national economic conditions.
-A dissolution of the Eurozone and a return to free floating currencies.
Given such horrific options, I must confess I favour a controlled exit at the first available opportunity. I write this as a committed Europhile and a great believer in the European project as both an instrument of prosperity and of peace. However, the Euro is not a workable currency, and this treaty does nothing to address this. The Euro is in fact going to destroy European unity and this completely inadequate treaty only serves to highlight the incomprehension of European leaders of the problems that are built in to monetary union.
In summation, I commend the treaty, but nevertheless advocate a withdrawal from the common currency at the earliest opportunity. It is particularly difficult to reach this conclusion when I am aware of how much money and sacrifice Ireland has sunk into retaining Euro membership in recent years -but the alternatives are unthinkable.
Whatever advantages the currency brings (e.g. attracting international investments, reduced transaction fees) is entirely unjustified when you consider the costs of remaining part of it. Noone will want to invest in Ireland while its currency is as inherently unstable as it is now apparent the Euro is. Noone will have faith in a currency that is doomed to boom and bust. Exit is the only sensible strategy.
sincerely
Ger
Thursday, February 16, 2012
quantitative easing has been happening unannounced
This blog has previously spoken in favour of Quantitative Easing in the Eurozone.
I am therefore glad to observe that since then, the ECB has embarked on a massive money printing program, lending this money to financial institutions at an ultra low 1% rate.
Though they are not calling this Quantitative Easing -that is exactly what it is, and the relative stability of the markets in the face of what seems like a strong possibility of a Greek default, is testament to the availability of liquidity in the system. This is entirely necessary for the next few years until the burden of debt has shaken down and it is clear who owns what.
I am therefore glad to observe that since then, the ECB has embarked on a massive money printing program, lending this money to financial institutions at an ultra low 1% rate.
Though they are not calling this Quantitative Easing -that is exactly what it is, and the relative stability of the markets in the face of what seems like a strong possibility of a Greek default, is testament to the availability of liquidity in the system. This is entirely necessary for the next few years until the burden of debt has shaken down and it is clear who owns what.
Letter posted to Senators prior to a debate on jobs 16/1/12
Dear Senator,
I am writing to you on the issue of jobs. I would like to see a rigorous and more determined effort to create jobs in our economy. Given that all of our budget cuts in recent years have been almost completely consumed by the increase in social welfare payments, it seems that job creation is not only vital for the unemployed, but for the country as a whole.
FORGET ABOUT RETAIL/DEMAND
The way I see it, jobs cannot come from a demand side boom. Talk of restoring old levels of consumption and investment is pie-in-the-sky, while Irish citizens are so burdened with debt and fearful of financial upheaval. I believe all fillips to the retail sector are consequently a waste of time. The sad truth is that we have all consumed and invested far more in the last decade than we were able to afford and we must pay back some of the borrowed money for this previous consumption and investment before there can be a rise in domestic demand. While there are things individual retailers can do to boost their own position, Ireland's recovery simply will not be led by retail -that is a sad but inescapable fact.
COMPETITIVENESS/EXPORTS
Instead, we must focus on competitiveness and the boosting of our ability to trade and export. Our hands are further tied in that we cannot afford to spend any money on job creation, and therefore must focus on reforming our economy (starting with legislation) and also directing our capital budget to those things which will most improve our competitiveness. By competitiveness, I do not mean (as Chambers and IBEC usually plead) lower business taxation or lower workers rights, but reforms tackling unproductive input costs including insurance premia, rents and energy.
LEGAL COSTS/INSURANCE COSTS
Reforms of legal services to reduce costs is a very good place to start as this is a significant burden on businesses, the State and the citizen at large through their insurance premia. Though I have no wish to malign any group working in the legal field, it cannot be denied that this expenditure is out of all proportion to the service provided by our judicial system. The publication of the legal services Bill is an important start, although it unfortunately delays a number of key actions while reports and further legislation is drawn up. I feel this is a mistake, we should include a mandate for the new legal services regulatory body to begin licencing educational institutions and preparing for the introduction of dedicated conveyancers immediately. Furthermore, we should look to urgently reduce the number of remand cases and the unnecessary length of delays caused by remanding of cases. Having courts sit for longer would be a good place to start.
TRANSPORT COSTS
Reforms to transport services will also do much to boost competitiveness. The excessive rents for commercial and residential properties in parts of the country (especially Dublin) is driven primarily by the absence of a good transport system. If it was possible for people to move and commute freely, the concentration of all development in the capital would be reduced and rents (and consumables) would equalise across the region. Businesses would be able to avail of a wider selection of staff and suppliers, consumers/workers would be able to avail of a wider selection of retailers/employers. This would have a dramatic effect on the costs of business and living (even larger than that of legal services). As rents gradually equalised, the spending power of businesses and consumers would rise allowing for either increased consumption, investment or debt repayments (all are to be welcomed).
For this reason, I believe we have made a mistake to refocus the capital budget on schools and construction work. Though schools are obviously necessary, their construction should not be prioritised as a job creation measure. By building schools, we may create more immediate jobs, but once this construction work is complete, the job boosting effect is lost. Whereas with a railtunnel transporting thousands into and out of the city each day, we would be reducing rents and cost of living across the Dublin region and having a long term impact on national competitiveness that would boost jobs in the long run.
I would advocate a realignment of the capital budget back to major transport projects. I would also advocate the sale of both dublin bus and bus eireann (2 profitable companies that will thrive in private ownership and which need to maintain investment levels far greater than they can manage within State ownership for the foreseeable future). I further believe that the DAA should be partially privatised to allow for some external scrutiny of their activities. It does not hurt to include more heads in evaluating major operations like the DAA.
ENERGY COSTS
Finally, I believe strongly that the electricity grid which is currently owned by ESB, but operated by Eirgrid, should be transferred wholly to Eirgrid. As we are about to sell a stake in ESB (possibly the remainder of the company in subsequent years), it is crucial that we transfer this ownership now before we lose ownership. Selling the grid as part of ESB, while retaining the operation of it in another company (Eirgrid), ensures that we will not get the full value of the asset being sold. What investor would be prepared to buy this asset at its full value when they know they will not be allowed to operate it? This is a nonsensical way to sell a grid. If we are truly committed to selling a stake in the grid (I hope not), then at least let us sell it under the ownership of Eirgrid. Selling the asset as part of Eirgrid gives us at least a fighting chance of gaining the full value of the asset -investors will hopefully be willing to pay full price for a share of the grid if they are also buying the right to operate it.
These are merely a menu of options, but I urge you to look at competitiveness as not merely the best, but quite literally the only way out of our present crisis. Restoring credit and/or demand is a fantasy in our current predicament.
I am writing to you on the issue of jobs. I would like to see a rigorous and more determined effort to create jobs in our economy. Given that all of our budget cuts in recent years have been almost completely consumed by the increase in social welfare payments, it seems that job creation is not only vital for the unemployed, but for the country as a whole.
FORGET ABOUT RETAIL/DEMAND
The way I see it, jobs cannot come from a demand side boom. Talk of restoring old levels of consumption and investment is pie-in-the-sky, while Irish citizens are so burdened with debt and fearful of financial upheaval. I believe all fillips to the retail sector are consequently a waste of time. The sad truth is that we have all consumed and invested far more in the last decade than we were able to afford and we must pay back some of the borrowed money for this previous consumption and investment before there can be a rise in domestic demand. While there are things individual retailers can do to boost their own position, Ireland's recovery simply will not be led by retail -that is a sad but inescapable fact.
COMPETITIVENESS/EXPORTS
Instead, we must focus on competitiveness and the boosting of our ability to trade and export. Our hands are further tied in that we cannot afford to spend any money on job creation, and therefore must focus on reforming our economy (starting with legislation) and also directing our capital budget to those things which will most improve our competitiveness. By competitiveness, I do not mean (as Chambers and IBEC usually plead) lower business taxation or lower workers rights, but reforms tackling unproductive input costs including insurance premia, rents and energy.
LEGAL COSTS/INSURANCE COSTS
Reforms of legal services to reduce costs is a very good place to start as this is a significant burden on businesses, the State and the citizen at large through their insurance premia. Though I have no wish to malign any group working in the legal field, it cannot be denied that this expenditure is out of all proportion to the service provided by our judicial system. The publication of the legal services Bill is an important start, although it unfortunately delays a number of key actions while reports and further legislation is drawn up. I feel this is a mistake, we should include a mandate for the new legal services regulatory body to begin licencing educational institutions and preparing for the introduction of dedicated conveyancers immediately. Furthermore, we should look to urgently reduce the number of remand cases and the unnecessary length of delays caused by remanding of cases. Having courts sit for longer would be a good place to start.
TRANSPORT COSTS
Reforms to transport services will also do much to boost competitiveness. The excessive rents for commercial and residential properties in parts of the country (especially Dublin) is driven primarily by the absence of a good transport system. If it was possible for people to move and commute freely, the concentration of all development in the capital would be reduced and rents (and consumables) would equalise across the region. Businesses would be able to avail of a wider selection of staff and suppliers, consumers/workers would be able to avail of a wider selection of retailers/employers. This would have a dramatic effect on the costs of business and living (even larger than that of legal services). As rents gradually equalised, the spending power of businesses and consumers would rise allowing for either increased consumption, investment or debt repayments (all are to be welcomed).
For this reason, I believe we have made a mistake to refocus the capital budget on schools and construction work. Though schools are obviously necessary, their construction should not be prioritised as a job creation measure. By building schools, we may create more immediate jobs, but once this construction work is complete, the job boosting effect is lost. Whereas with a railtunnel transporting thousands into and out of the city each day, we would be reducing rents and cost of living across the Dublin region and having a long term impact on national competitiveness that would boost jobs in the long run.
I would advocate a realignment of the capital budget back to major transport projects. I would also advocate the sale of both dublin bus and bus eireann (2 profitable companies that will thrive in private ownership and which need to maintain investment levels far greater than they can manage within State ownership for the foreseeable future). I further believe that the DAA should be partially privatised to allow for some external scrutiny of their activities. It does not hurt to include more heads in evaluating major operations like the DAA.
ENERGY COSTS
Finally, I believe strongly that the electricity grid which is currently owned by ESB, but operated by Eirgrid, should be transferred wholly to Eirgrid. As we are about to sell a stake in ESB (possibly the remainder of the company in subsequent years), it is crucial that we transfer this ownership now before we lose ownership. Selling the grid as part of ESB, while retaining the operation of it in another company (Eirgrid), ensures that we will not get the full value of the asset being sold. What investor would be prepared to buy this asset at its full value when they know they will not be allowed to operate it? This is a nonsensical way to sell a grid. If we are truly committed to selling a stake in the grid (I hope not), then at least let us sell it under the ownership of Eirgrid. Selling the asset as part of Eirgrid gives us at least a fighting chance of gaining the full value of the asset -investors will hopefully be willing to pay full price for a share of the grid if they are also buying the right to operate it.
These are merely a menu of options, but I urge you to look at competitiveness as not merely the best, but quite literally the only way out of our present crisis. Restoring credit and/or demand is a fantasy in our current predicament.
Letter to Ajai Chopra about the Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011
Dear Ajai,
I am writing to you again about structural reforms in Ireland's program (see my previous letter about the electricity market). This time, I am writing to you about reform of the legal profession. As part of the program, Ireland has to liberalise the system of training and accrediting legal practitioners in Ireland. In fulfilment of this obligation, the Government has published the Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011.
While there is much in this Bill which is worthwhile, unfortunately on the issue of liberalising the training and accreditation of legal practitioners I believe it comes up short. Both the Memo to the Bill and the Govt press releases alongside it suggest that it is opening up the way for competition between training centres. However, apart from requiring a report to be drawn up on legal training, the actual Bill merely says that the new Legal Services Authority is to keep the provision of training places under "review" (section 9).
This use of the word "review" is quite peculiar. I cannot recall seeing it used in this manner in Irish law before. It appears that far from the new Authority having the power to authorise and regulate the training of lawyers by new and existing institutions, its role will be a more passive one of simply monitoring this process as carried out by the existing training institutions.
This seems to contradict Ireland's commitment under the program. It seems that apart from monitoring the existing institutions, the only proactive thing the new authority will do is publish a report on regulating training -which may or may not be acted upon by later governments.
I believe, this is a mistake, and that instead of waiting for a report to be drawn up and further legislation to be published later (if ever), we should state right now, in this initial piece of legislation, that the authorisation of institutions to train accredited lawyers is to be liberalised and performed by the new authority. We must state this up front, now, to get the ball rolling on this. We have had previous reports on this topic, I see no reason to delay reform while another one is prepared.
I am writing to you again about structural reforms in Ireland's program (see my previous letter about the electricity market). This time, I am writing to you about reform of the legal profession. As part of the program, Ireland has to liberalise the system of training and accrediting legal practitioners in Ireland. In fulfilment of this obligation, the Government has published the Legal Services Regulation Bill 2011.
While there is much in this Bill which is worthwhile, unfortunately on the issue of liberalising the training and accreditation of legal practitioners I believe it comes up short. Both the Memo to the Bill and the Govt press releases alongside it suggest that it is opening up the way for competition between training centres. However, apart from requiring a report to be drawn up on legal training, the actual Bill merely says that the new Legal Services Authority is to keep the provision of training places under "review" (section 9).
This use of the word "review" is quite peculiar. I cannot recall seeing it used in this manner in Irish law before. It appears that far from the new Authority having the power to authorise and regulate the training of lawyers by new and existing institutions, its role will be a more passive one of simply monitoring this process as carried out by the existing training institutions.
This seems to contradict Ireland's commitment under the program. It seems that apart from monitoring the existing institutions, the only proactive thing the new authority will do is publish a report on regulating training -which may or may not be acted upon by later governments.
I believe, this is a mistake, and that instead of waiting for a report to be drawn up and further legislation to be published later (if ever), we should state right now, in this initial piece of legislation, that the authorisation of institutions to train accredited lawyers is to be liberalised and performed by the new authority. We must state this up front, now, to get the ball rolling on this. We have had previous reports on this topic, I see no reason to delay reform while another one is prepared.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)