Update: one of the signatories to the Letter of 28 is responding to my comment here.
After a very lengthy period of navel gazing, Irish left has produced its own platform for economic policy (here). And what a marvel it is. Right out of Alice in Wonderland.
The letter of 28 social scientists published in the Irish Times is worth a read, if only to see what passes for ‘independent thinking’ in our country. Here are few pearls.
“Consumer spending has collapsed while at the same time unemployment and emigration have soared. Crucially, investment has plummeted off the chart. Not only have Government policies failed to stem this haemorrhage, they have actively contributed to this collapse.”
No one can deny these facts. But there are serious omissions here. Investment collapse in Ireland is driven foremost by the collapse in construction sector – the sector that accounted for over 70% of total private investment in this country until 2007. So no - the Government has not contributed to this.
Investment the authors have in mind is the NDP-related allocations, which are less than 50% about real capital and more than 50% about ‘soft’ investments – in equality, poverty reductions, etc (all noble objectives, but hardly affordable in current circumstances).
Note, however, that the 28 ‘leading’ policy lights do not mention draconian tax increases here as the contributing factors. Oh, no – this article is about how good more public spending would be to our country.
“The most damaging are cuts in transfers to low-income groups which, along with general tax increases on low and average pay in 2009, have reduced spending power in the economy at a time when it was most needed.”
Really? Social welfare payments were cut by 4% in Budget 2010. They were raised by 3.3% in Budget 2009, which means that in nominal terms, post-Budget 2010 our welfare recipients are only 0.83% worse off than they were in 2008. And then there was deflation – in 2009 CPI fell 4.5% and HICP declined 1.7%. Say we use HICP, since majority of those on social welfare don’t have a mortgage – their housing costs are usually covered by the taxpayers. This means that in real terms post-Budget 2010 Ireland’s welfare recipients are still 0.883% better off than they were in December 2008. Is that so deflationary, folks?
“Equally damaging have been the cuts in public investment at a time when private investment has plummeted. This has laid the foundations for a low-growth, high-debt future where unemployment will remain high and inequality endemic.”
One can relate to this statement. The problem is that while some of the cuts were to productive investment, the real error of the Government policy has been the lack of systematic approach to assessing the value-for-money of various projects and freezing or canceling outright the ones that do not yield sufficient returns. For example, parts of road building programmes relied on the outdated and often utterly unrealistic expectations of development in remote locations. Binning these ‘investments’ is ok – they are the luxury we cannot afford. Ditto for Metro North – which in its current incarnation is a White Elephant.
And how on earth cuts in public investment are going to make income inequality endemic? During the Celtic Tiger era, income inequality rose (judging by the works of some of the 28 experts), yet public investment also rose. So public investment boosts did not work then for income inequality. Any reason they should do so now?
Irony has it, the 28 ‘wise ones’ have failed to grasp the idea that far from stimulating public investment, we should be stimulating productive private investment – that is what creates sustainable jobs and growth. And to do that we need lower taxes, and less borrowing by the Exchequer, so our banks have no Government bonds to roll over at the ECB lending window.
“Budgetary policies have been short-termist and reactive. Instead of cutting real waste in the public sector by increasing productivity and efficiency, the Government has cut public services and the living standards of those who can least afford it, further reducing domestic demand and, thus, employment.”
I agree with this. The Government has wasted a golden opportunity to have real reforms in the public sector and public spending, as well as taxation. So why would the 28 'wise ones' give even more dosh to such a wasteful Exchequer?
The authors do not understand that increasing consumption – by borrowing at 5-6% per annum to give the money to our welfare system and to pay public sector’s obese wages is taking money out of investment. Instead, they seem to think that both: welfare payments increases and public sector wages can be sustained while increasing state spending on capital projects.
So do the simple additions. To maintain NDP investment at previously planned levels, on top of the current budget deficit we will need some odd €6-7 billion more. To return welfare payments to their 2009 levels, and to reverse pay cuts in the public sector and reductions in employment there, we will need additional €3.4 billion. These are all net of receipts. So the Exchequer will be borrowing some €29 billion this year - 18% of our GDP. What would the Greeks say with their current 12.7% GDP deficit and heading for 10.7%?
What would the bond markets say? Ah, here we come to the interesting part that the folks in Tasc did not care to consider. At 18% defict, Ireland Inc's bonds would rise to a yield of ca 7.5%. Ok, let us split the difference and say, 7%. Then scroll below for some calculations...
“These policies are weakening the economy’s ability to cope with growing debt levels.”
Really? Most of the non-banking debt – almost 100% of it – in this country is held by private sector firms and ordinary workers. How is paying more in welfare payments going to help deflate this debt? How is public spending on capital projects going to do the job? Oh, by the way, read further to find what the 28 think about savings (which, remember, in the long run = investment).
“We urgently need measures to tackle five key areas which require fundamental reforms: our substantial physical infrastructure deficits; our poor social infrastructure – early childhood education, ...primary and community healthcare..., housing lists..., ...Irish public transport ...; our high levels of relative poverty and income inequality; our under-performing indigenous business sector – which needs appropriate support to contribute to our export base, RD and innovation capacity; and our unsustainable reliance on carbon-heavy resources and activities.”
Well, if that is not a shopping list we’ve seen before in the Irish Times… We do need more schools, and we do need some other capital. But simply to say ‘more!’ is not enough. One must face the reality of constraints on funding. The 28 do not seem to be bothered by the fact that Irish middle classes simply cannot bear any more of their droning about the need for more ‘public sector’ stuff and shorter housing lists. We’ve got mortgages to pay, folks, never mind your housing lists. And their environmental taxes are simply a ploy to tax income even more.
The irony is - word 'reforms' is equated in the 28 minds with 'more spending'. Again, we've heard this before from some of the signatories.
The 28 also seem to not understand where our exporting capacity comes from. Far from being the domain of domestic enterprises, it is reliant on MNCs, who would flee Ireland were the 28’s ideas implemented.
“It may seem astonishing that we face such economic and social deficits after 15 years of boom but these are the consequences of pursuing a failed low-tax, low-spend model which sought short-term gains from the speculative activity of a small but powerful golden circle.”
Really? I didn’t notice a low tax, low spend economy. The Government accounted, pre-crisis for EU-average level of spending in terms of GNP, and removing the MNCs out of Ireland’s income accounting, leaves the Irish Government in control of over 60% of the entire economy. Low tax? Our taxes are now second highest in the EU at the upper margin level. All of this before you factor in some of the highest indirect taxes and charges.
But wait, to be really wise, the 28 must have done some thinking – low taxes compared to what? To the services and benefits we receive? One has to be ignorant to suggest that given the poor quality of healthcare, the abysmal quality of our transport, and pretty much every other service supplied by the State, our taxes are low. Compared to the French and the Swedes, and the Germans, we are paying through the nose for the little service we get.
“We can employ the strength of our combined public enterprises – their off-balance sheet borrowing and investment capacity to invest in our infrastructure and create new indigenous enterprises, both public and private.”
Please, help me – does anyone actually believe that our semi-state companies are that good in creating 'new indigenous enterprises’? More CIE? ESB? Bord na Mona? Aer Lingus?
“We can further employ new funding vehicles – enterprise development bonds (eg green bonds), municipal bonds and the new National Solidarity Bonds – which can leverage our current high savings ratio and international investment.”
Again, there is apparently not a single person authoring this letter who understands basic finance. At what rate would you borrow through these bonds? Current yield is 5%. Greece at 6.3%. To make these bonds attractive to anyone, you’d have to price them around 7%. Are the 28 suggesting that returns to these bonds will be in the region of 10% (to cover issuance costs and administrative margins)?
Suppose we borrow at 7% for 10 years, invest in new private (not public) enterprises. The rate of survival for start ups in Ireland is, historically, around 25-30% over 5 years. In 10 years – it will be around 15%. To get 10% return on these bonds, the state will need to invest in new ventures that will survive through 10 years slog while yielding over 22% annually! Enterprise Ireland never had this spectacular of a record, even during the boom time. Even Michael O’Leary is not that good.
But wait, the above passage is about taking our savings and spending these on public investment and state enterprises. How is that going to help our families with their debt? And how is that going to provide financing for companies and private sector in general? What effect will this expropriation of personal savings (for it will require compulsory expropriation, given that the bonds will have to be self-financing, aka priced at yields of below 2-2.5% pa - the expected rate of real growth in the economy over the next 10 years) have on consumption? The minute we start even talking about destabilizing peoples savings, all cash will flee the country and consumers will tighten even more their expenditure. Sadly, none of the 28 'leading lights' seemed to have heard of the precautionary savings motive - the one that drives our current savings ratios.
And so they conclude – having established not a single fact or provided not a single relevant statistic or estimate that: “The resources and labour to finance this modernisation drive are there. We just need the political vision and will to make it happen.”
NB: The 28 call for reforming tax system – I agree, this is needed. They are also calling for abolition of tax breaks. I agree – they unnecessarily complicate tax code and should be yielded in exchange for simple low flat tax rate on all income. But we do not need an additional tax band for higher income – we need to bring people on lower incomes into tax net to make them real stakeholders in this society. Again, this can be done by simply dropping the income tax rate and with it – the deductions.
Showing posts with label Irish Times. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Irish Times. Show all posts
Monday, March 8, 2010
Saturday, August 29, 2009
Economics 29/08/2009: Nama critics are out of touch academics?
Today’s letter in the Irish Times got me going, along with Noel Whelan’s article on the subject…
“Madam, – The professors’/doctors’ thesis was good (“Nama set to shift wealth to lenders and developers, Opinion, August 26th). To a person who has lost over 70 per cent of their entire pension fund invested over 22 years, it is nice to hear their comment from a secure pension position. It is also nice to read that they now want to confiscate the remaining part of my pension fund.”
Well, I am sick and tired of this ‘their secure pension / job position’ crap – pardon my use of vernacular here. Here, on the record:
- I have no public pension and have to rely on my own savings to generate one;
- I am in the negative equity, just as many Irish people are;
- I have no tenure in any of academic institution and am paid per each course I teach and each student I supervise, despite having brought more business to TCD than my income from TCD recovers;
- I have no PAYE earnings in Ireland;
- Most of my income comes from pure performance-based pay for private clients in Ireland and abroad;
- I know first-hand what it means to have a two-person unemployed family in this country and yet neither myself nor my spouse have ever drawn on unemployment benefits;
- I know first-hand what it means to have a child when your spouse does not qualify for maternity benefits from an employer;
- I know first hand what it means to pay for my own and my family private health insurance;
- I have no desire whatsoever to see my family income go to support this letter writer’s pension fund – private or public. Full stop!
Now, let us deal with another piece in today’s Irish Times by Noel Whelan titled “Selling Nama to sceptical public requires political will”.
Whelan simply cannot understand the basic difference between a political reform proposal (Lisbon Treaty) and public expenditure proposal (Nama) and in confusing the two reveals something very interesting about our politicians. As a senior (by tenure, if not by accomplishment) politician, Mr Whelan has no apparent idea that any public spending/ investment undertaking requires cost-benefit analysis. Factual evidence, not ‘selling to the public’ is what such undertakings are based upon. Any hard facts, Noel? Nope.
Instead, Whelan:
“In the past three weeks more time has been allocated to squabbling over issues surrounding the proposal than to shedding light on its contents.” Clearly, Mr Whelan cannot get his a***s of the chair to read this blog, or Irish Economy blog, or anything else but the Irish Times. The debate on Nama has been raging on for months now and in the last three weeks myself and others have comprehensively shredded into pulp the entire Government proposed legislation on Nama. Is there any point of repeating this again in detail in a collective letter? No, Mr Whelan, there is none.
Whelan goes on to repeat, parrot-like the ‘arguments’ against the critics of Nama produced by Mr Ahearne and by the official Government note on how to respond to critics of Nama:
“In all that noise fundamental features of the Nama project have been distorted or misunderstood. These include that Nama will buy loans rather than property, that developers will still be liable for the full amount of their loans and that the success of Nama is contingent on a modest improvement in our economy and property market over the next five to 10 years and not on a return to a bubble.”
These are virtually verbatim taken out of Alan Ahearne’s pitiful ‘letter’ to his ‘colleagues’ which itself was a poorly re-edited rendition of the official unpublished, privately circulated “Nama Q&A” note prepared by the DofF to accompany the release of the Nama legislative proposal.
Whelan has no idea what he is talking about here and is, at the very best, slides into blind repeating of the Government official lines. No serious observer has argued that Nama will buy properties, but that it will acquire properties as a collateral in the process of buying loans. No one is disputing that the developers will be liable, but the extent of liability is highly uncertain and nothing is being done to prevent them from legally shielding their properties from Nama. (Noel, perhaps, really has no clue that this can be done in this country, but hey, I am not about to start running a kindergarten Economic 0.0001 course here for him).
“What is surprising, however, is the limited and broad-brush nature of their contribution. One might have thought that such a group giving the public the benefit of its expertise could have done so in a more substantial manner than merely affixing their names to what is in effect a lengthy letter.”
Oh, Noel, please, get your head out of Biffo’s 'Ideas Bog' and read our separate numerous contributions on the ‘substantive’ aspects of Nama made elsewhere. You can start with my own contributions on this blog or with my article in the Irish Independent yesterday, or Business & Finance archives, or the Sunday Times… You can proceed to read Brian Lucey’s and Karl Whelan’s articles in the Irish Times and elsewhere.
And so, the Irish Times’ message 2 of the day: try to avoid publishing political drivel as a factually-based opinion. Unless, that is, you are doing it in a subversive manner of letting the public know just how detached from the reality can our politicos really get…
Whelan simply cannot understand the basic difference between a political reform proposal (Lisbon Treaty) and public expenditure proposal (Nama) and in confusing the two reveals something very interesting about our politicians. As a senior (by tenure, if not by accomplishment) politician, Mr Whelan has no apparent idea that any public spending/ investment undertaking requires cost-benefit analysis. Factual evidence, not ‘selling to the public’ is what such undertakings are based upon. Any hard facts, Noel? Nope.
Instead, Whelan:
- Prefers to dismiss those who provide factual arguments as some sort of ‘out of touch’ academics;
- Blabber on about political selling of Nama to the general public;
- Suggests that arguments of numerous specialists in the area of economics, finance and real estate are nothing more than a “populist card” similar to that played in Lisbon I referendum, and that we – critics of Nama – “scaremonger about its consequences or encourage an “if you don’t know, vote no” stance.”
“In the past three weeks more time has been allocated to squabbling over issues surrounding the proposal than to shedding light on its contents.” Clearly, Mr Whelan cannot get his a***s of the chair to read this blog, or Irish Economy blog, or anything else but the Irish Times. The debate on Nama has been raging on for months now and in the last three weeks myself and others have comprehensively shredded into pulp the entire Government proposed legislation on Nama. Is there any point of repeating this again in detail in a collective letter? No, Mr Whelan, there is none.
Whelan goes on to repeat, parrot-like the ‘arguments’ against the critics of Nama produced by Mr Ahearne and by the official Government note on how to respond to critics of Nama:
“In all that noise fundamental features of the Nama project have been distorted or misunderstood. These include that Nama will buy loans rather than property, that developers will still be liable for the full amount of their loans and that the success of Nama is contingent on a modest improvement in our economy and property market over the next five to 10 years and not on a return to a bubble.”
These are virtually verbatim taken out of Alan Ahearne’s pitiful ‘letter’ to his ‘colleagues’ which itself was a poorly re-edited rendition of the official unpublished, privately circulated “Nama Q&A” note prepared by the DofF to accompany the release of the Nama legislative proposal.
Whelan has no idea what he is talking about here and is, at the very best, slides into blind repeating of the Government official lines. No serious observer has argued that Nama will buy properties, but that it will acquire properties as a collateral in the process of buying loans. No one is disputing that the developers will be liable, but the extent of liability is highly uncertain and nothing is being done to prevent them from legally shielding their properties from Nama. (Noel, perhaps, really has no clue that this can be done in this country, but hey, I am not about to start running a kindergarten Economic 0.0001 course here for him).
“What is surprising, however, is the limited and broad-brush nature of their contribution. One might have thought that such a group giving the public the benefit of its expertise could have done so in a more substantial manner than merely affixing their names to what is in effect a lengthy letter.”
Oh, Noel, please, get your head out of Biffo’s 'Ideas Bog' and read our separate numerous contributions on the ‘substantive’ aspects of Nama made elsewhere. You can start with my own contributions on this blog or with my article in the Irish Independent yesterday, or Business & Finance archives, or the Sunday Times… You can proceed to read Brian Lucey’s and Karl Whelan’s articles in the Irish Times and elsewhere.
And so, the Irish Times’ message 2 of the day: try to avoid publishing political drivel as a factually-based opinion. Unless, that is, you are doing it in a subversive manner of letting the public know just how detached from the reality can our politicos really get…
Sunday, August 2, 2009
Economics 02/08/2009: An idiot's guide to tax policy
Remember that senile reply that the Irish Times has published to my conjecture that higher taxes in Irish airports will hurt Irish tourism and ultimately will cost the Exchequer? Feel free to refresh this case here and here - the original piece that caused the Irish Times editorial page implosion).
Well, don't take my word for it, or CSO's figures - these are not sufficient for our wise ex-IMF Directors. Here are the hard jobs...
"Ryanair, the World’s favourite airline, today (30 July 09) announced 20% flight cuts at its Dublin base for the coming winter schedule (09/10). Compared to winter 2008/09, when Ryanair based 18 aircraft, and operated 1,200 weekly flights, Ryanair’s Dublin schedule this winter will be cut by 22% to 14 based aircraft with 20% fewer flights at less than 1,000 each week. Ryanair estimates that its Dublin traffic this winter will decline by a further 250,000 passengers compared to last winter’s figures, as Dublin Airport loses over 2m passengers overall in 2009.
Ryanair’s decision to cut based aircraft flights at Dublin Airport is for the following reasons:
a) Dublin is one of Ryanair’s two most expensive base airports (Stansted is the other).
b) Costs at the DAA monopoly continue to increase at above inflation rates.
c) The Aviation Regulator continues to rubber stamp unjustified Dublin Airport cost increases while costs at most other UK and European airports are falling.
d) The Irish Govts €10 tourist tax makes Ireland an uncompetitive tourist destination at a time when other European Governments have scrapped their tourist taxes.
e) Traffic at Dublin airport is collapsing (down 11% or 1m fewer pax in the first half of 2009) under the weight of these high airport fees and this stupid tourist tax.
The fact that the DAA monopoly are proposing further price increases at a time when most other UK and European airports are reducing their prices, highlights the damage being done to Irish aviation and tourism by this high cost, inefficient, badly run airport monopoly. Ryanair has repeatedly called on the Government to scrap the €10 tourist tax which has had an equally devastating impact on Irish tourism. Ireland cannot grow tourism by taxing tourists. The Belgian and Dutch Governments have recently scrapped their tourist taxes, and the Spanish and Greek Governments have reduced their airport fees in some cases to zero this winter in order to reverse traffic declines.
Ryanair’s Michael O’Leary said: “...The high and rising costs at Dublin Airport, combined with an insanely stupid €10 tourist tax, are devastating tourism here in Ireland. These cuts come just one day after Ryanair announced 39 new routes to the Canaries this Winter where the Spanish Government has reduced airport fees to zero. Last week Ryanair announced 11 new routes to Oslo airports this winter where again airport fees have been substantially reduced. The response of the Government owned DAA monopoly to this 11% traffic collapse is to seek yet further price increases! The incompetent Irish Aviation Regulator has already proposed that Dublin airport charges for 2010 onwards will be “18% higher” than they would be if the DAA’s traffic was not declining. Sadly the DAA gets rewarded by the regulator with price increases for its abject failure to grow and stimulate traffic."
So how much revenue to the economy and the Irish Exchequer is being lost? May be Michael O'Leary can sum it up.
I have nothing to add, other than perhaps to ask the Irish Times editorial team to filter economically illiterate arguments out of its pages in the future - just because someone writing an article signed 'ex-director of IMF and career ex-civil servant from Ireland' doesn't mean that they actually have much to say that is valid. Quite likely, it means the opposite...
Well, don't take my word for it, or CSO's figures - these are not sufficient for our wise ex-IMF Directors. Here are the hard jobs...
"Ryanair, the World’s favourite airline, today (30 July 09) announced 20% flight cuts at its Dublin base for the coming winter schedule (09/10). Compared to winter 2008/09, when Ryanair based 18 aircraft, and operated 1,200 weekly flights, Ryanair’s Dublin schedule this winter will be cut by 22% to 14 based aircraft with 20% fewer flights at less than 1,000 each week. Ryanair estimates that its Dublin traffic this winter will decline by a further 250,000 passengers compared to last winter’s figures, as Dublin Airport loses over 2m passengers overall in 2009.
Ryanair’s decision to cut based aircraft flights at Dublin Airport is for the following reasons:
a) Dublin is one of Ryanair’s two most expensive base airports (Stansted is the other).
b) Costs at the DAA monopoly continue to increase at above inflation rates.
c) The Aviation Regulator continues to rubber stamp unjustified Dublin Airport cost increases while costs at most other UK and European airports are falling.
d) The Irish Govts €10 tourist tax makes Ireland an uncompetitive tourist destination at a time when other European Governments have scrapped their tourist taxes.
e) Traffic at Dublin airport is collapsing (down 11% or 1m fewer pax in the first half of 2009) under the weight of these high airport fees and this stupid tourist tax.
The fact that the DAA monopoly are proposing further price increases at a time when most other UK and European airports are reducing their prices, highlights the damage being done to Irish aviation and tourism by this high cost, inefficient, badly run airport monopoly. Ryanair has repeatedly called on the Government to scrap the €10 tourist tax which has had an equally devastating impact on Irish tourism. Ireland cannot grow tourism by taxing tourists. The Belgian and Dutch Governments have recently scrapped their tourist taxes, and the Spanish and Greek Governments have reduced their airport fees in some cases to zero this winter in order to reverse traffic declines.
Ryanair’s Michael O’Leary said: “...The high and rising costs at Dublin Airport, combined with an insanely stupid €10 tourist tax, are devastating tourism here in Ireland. These cuts come just one day after Ryanair announced 39 new routes to the Canaries this Winter where the Spanish Government has reduced airport fees to zero. Last week Ryanair announced 11 new routes to Oslo airports this winter where again airport fees have been substantially reduced. The response of the Government owned DAA monopoly to this 11% traffic collapse is to seek yet further price increases! The incompetent Irish Aviation Regulator has already proposed that Dublin airport charges for 2010 onwards will be “18% higher” than they would be if the DAA’s traffic was not declining. Sadly the DAA gets rewarded by the regulator with price increases for its abject failure to grow and stimulate traffic."
So how much revenue to the economy and the Irish Exchequer is being lost? May be Michael O'Leary can sum it up.
I have nothing to add, other than perhaps to ask the Irish Times editorial team to filter economically illiterate arguments out of its pages in the future - just because someone writing an article signed 'ex-director of IMF and career ex-civil servant from Ireland' doesn't mean that they actually have much to say that is valid. Quite likely, it means the opposite...
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
