Quantcast

So Mitt's policies would make us like Ireland?

Carol 2012/06/20 19:04:24
You!
Add Photos & Videos
In Ireland, a Picture of the High Cost of Austerity
Eoin O'Conaill for the International Herald Tribune

The planned headquarters of the now nationalized Anglo Irish Bank along the North Quays of Dublin’s docklands. The shell lies abandoned after the bank cratered from excessive lending to property developers, and the government infused it with 22 billion in taxpayer money. More Photos »

By LIZ ALDERMAN
Published: June 28, 2010

DUBLIN — As Europe’s major economies focus on belt-tightening, they are following the path of Ireland. But the once thriving nation is struggling, with no sign of a rapid turnaround in sight.

Multimedia
Slide Show
The Celtic Tiger Struggles
Graphic
Paying the Price

Related

Readers’ Comments

Readers shared their thoughts on this article.

Nearly two years ago, an economic collapse forced Ireland to cut public spending and raise taxes, the type of austerity measures that financial markets are now pressing on most advanced industrial nations.

“When our public finance situation blew wide open, the dominant consideration was ensuring that there was international investor confidence in Ireland so we could continue to borrow,” said Alan Barrett, chief economist at the Economic and Social Research Institute of Ireland. “A lot of the argument was, ‘Let’s get this over with quickly.’ ”

Rather than being rewarded for its actions, though, Ireland is being penalized. Its downturn has certainly been sharper than if the government had spent more to keep people working. Lacking stimulus money, the Irish economy shrank 7.1 percent last year and remains in recession.

Joblessness in this country of 4.5 million is above 13 percent, and the ranks of the long-term unemployed — those out of work for a year or more — have more than doubled, to 5.3 percent.

Now, the Irish are being warned of more pain to come.

“The facts are that there is no easy way to cut deficits,” Prime MinisterBrian Cowen said in an interview. “Those who claim there’s an easier way or a soft option — that’s not the real world.”

Despite its strenuous efforts, Ireland has been thrust into the same ignominious category as Portugal, Italy, Greece and Spain. It now pays a hefty three percentage points more than Germany on its benchmark bonds, in part because investors fear that the austerity program, by retarding growth and so far failing to reduce borrowing, will make it harder for Dublin to pay its bills rather than easier.

Other European nations, including Britain and Germany, are following Ireland’s lead, arguing that the only way to restore growth is to convince investors and their own people that government borrowing will shrink.

The Group of 20 leaders set that in writing this weekend, vowing to make deficit reduction the top priority despite warnings fromPresident Obama that too much austerity could choke a global recovery and warnings from a few economists about the possibility of a much sharper 1930s style downturn.

“Europe is in a tough bind,” said Kenneth S. Rogoff, a former chief economist at the International Monetary Fund and now a Harvard professor. “If you want to escape default, the Irish path is the only way to go. But the Ireland experience points to the profound challenges that the current strategy implies.”

Politicians here have raised taxes and cut salaries for nurses, professors and other public workers by up to 20 percent. About 30 billion euros ($37 billion) is being poured into zombie banks like Anglo Irish, which was nationalized after lavishing loans on developers.

The budget went from surpluses in 2006 and 2007 to a staggering deficit of 14.3 percent of gross domestic product last year — worse than Greece. It continues to deteriorate. Drained of cash after an American-style housing boom went bust, Ireland has had to borrow billions; its once ultralow debt could rise to 77 percent of G.D.P. this year.

“Everybody’s feeling quite sick at what happened because things were going so well for Ireland,” said Patrick Honohan, the Irish central bank governor. “But we don’t have the flexibility to do a spending stimulus now. There’s no one who is even arguing for it.”

Mr. Honohan predicts growth could revive to a rate of about 3 percent by 2012. But that may be optimistic: Ireland, as one of the 16 nations in Europe that has adopted the euro as its common currency, is trying to shrink the deficit to 3 percent of G.D.P. by 2014, a commitment that could weaken its hopes for recovery.

These troubles sting many Irish, given the head start Ireland has on most members of the euro club. Its labor market is one of Europe’s most open and dynamic. After its last major recession in the 1980s, it lured knowledge-based multinationals like Intel and Microsoft — and now Facebook and Linked-In — with a 12.5 percent tax rate, giving Ireland one of the most export-dependent economies in the world.

Now, the government is pinning nearly all its hopes on an export revival to lift the economy. Falling wage and energy costs, and a weaker euro, have improved competitiveness.

Turning statistics into jobs, however, will be a herculean task. “Exports alone don’t drive a significant number of jobs,” said Paul Duffy, a vice president at Pfizer in Ireland.

Wage cuts were easier to impose here because people remembered that leaders moved too slowly to overcome Ireland’s last recession. This time, Mr. Cowen struck accords swiftly with labor unions, which agreed that protests like those in Greece would only delay a recovery.

But pay cuts have spooked consumers into saving, weighing on the prospects for job creation and economic recovery. And after a decade-long boom that encouraged many from the previous years of diaspora to return, the country is facing a new threat: business leaders say thousands of skilled young Irish are now moving out, raising fears of a brain drain.

Add a comment above

Sort By
  • Most Raves
  • Least Raves
  • Oldest
  • Newest
Opinions

  • Kern 2012/06/21 00:08:53
    Yes
    Kern
    +1
    Have you ever noticed that they never ask themselves to participate in their austerity practices? While the middle class gets to pay for the mistakes of the unregulated banks, the Republicans wants to lessen the tax burden of the upper crust. See, less revenue equal growth. Unlike the rest of the universe, the Republican economy is driven by supply. "If you build it, they will buy it." That's the Republican motto.

    However, in reality, we all know that the people first need money to buy things. Only when the guy making stuff can't keep up with his current productions rate will he start to hire more workers. He won't hire people because he got a tax break.

    Has anyone asked Romney how many private sector jobs he created with his Bush tax cuts?
  • DavidK Kern 2012/06/21 01:22:16
    DavidK
    Has anyone asked Obama how many private sector jobs he created? After all, he's the President!!!!
  • Kern DavidK 2012/06/21 02:08:28
    Kern
    +1
    According to Republicans, government doesn't create jobs. However, if you are asking how many private sector jobs were created under President Obama, we could have to go with 3 to 4 million. Unemployment could be improved but when you have Republican governors firing 600,000 people, it's hard to get any traction.

    How many private sector jobs did Bush create? LOL 1 million. Even if you don't count the last year he was averaging less than 90,000 jobs a month. Pretty pathetic.
  • DavidK Kern 2012/06/21 05:54:43
    DavidK
    Well GM has tons of government employees now. You like Obama's ways so bad that you have to blame Bush still?!?!? You can't be that naive.........or can you?
  • Kern DavidK 2012/06/21 16:07:04 (edited)
    Kern
    I was merely making a point. Bush had a much better economy and only created on average 85,000 jobs a month. If you count the last year, it goes down to 45,000 jobs a month. The point is Republican policies don't create jobs they just move the money to the top without any benefit to the country or the economy.

    The employees of GM are making things and paying taxes. If Willard had his way, 95% of those people would be unemployed. The people in the supply chain would be unemployed. In other words, our economy would be in much worse shape.

    No one is blaming Bush here, I'm only comparing what Republicans will accept from another Republican, but not from a Democrat. Obama is a doing a better job than Bush and he doesn't have any Republicans on his side.

    Now, what was your point again; to change the subject, to ignore the obvious, or just to spew nonsensical statements because you can't think of anything of significance to say?
  • Carol Kern 2012/06/21 16:45:30
    Carol
    +1
    I think you stated your point perfectly, thank you and have a great day.
  • Kern Carol 2012/06/21 16:55:30
    Kern
    +1
    Thank you.
  • DavidK Kern 2012/06/22 05:34:42
    DavidK
    Well obviously if you believe Obama is doing ANYTHING right, you're not paying attention. Please convince me that you are not that naive. Tell me how Obama has spent 5 trillion dollars in a useful manner. Where has it gone? Who has benefited from it? Whats his goal? After all, he said if he can't turn things around he would only be a one term President. Whats better since he took office? If you can't answer any of these questions, I question your judgement and character.
  • Kern DavidK 2012/06/22 16:43:43
    Kern
    +1
    We area not losing 750,000 jobs a month so that's better. The auto industry in this country is profitable again, so that's a good thing. Mitt would have let them go bankrupt, and less you forget, the banks weren't lending money so they would not have gone into bankruptcy. That would have costed about 3 million jobs. And that is better too.

    The 5 trillion dollars Obama has spent was paying the bill you Reich wingers rang up. How much has Obama increased government spending since being in office? 1.4%. That's all. So, with no new spending going on, I wonder where the money is going? Hmmm let's think for minute. If he's only increased spending by 1.4% then the obvious answer is he is paying off the bills rung up tby he Republicans.

    We are taking in less money because the Republicans destroyed the economy. That means we have the same amount of bills but we have less money to pay those bills. Using logic we come to the conclusion that we have to spend more than what we are taking in just to keep up. Thanks Republicans. How convenient for them that they are all for accountability after they destroyed the economy and ran up trillions in debt.

    Had the Republicans not destroyed the economy and had the Republicans developed the mindset to pay for the wars like they want to pay for everything now, we wouldn't be in the mess we are in now. To blame this on President Obama shows vey little critical thinking on your part.
  • DavidK Kern 2012/06/23 04:57:56
    DavidK
    You are totally wrong on your thinking and facts. You live in a cave? Please stay away from the poll booths in November. You are just another commie/libtard without a clue...............
  • Kern DavidK 2012/06/23 15:13:33
    Kern
    +1
    I guess you'll be happy to name the all of the new programs President Obama is spending the money on. Give us the numbers, now much more is President Obama spending than Bush? Give us a list of the programs that are eating up so much money.

    You won't be able to do it because all he is doing is paying the bills left by the Republicans. You can handle the truth so you cry.
  • Carol Kern 2012/06/23 16:28:06
    Carol
    +1
    When you hit them with facts, thats when the name calling starts. Guess David isn't coming back. Have a nice day.
  • Carol Kern 2012/06/23 16:26:42
    Carol
    +1
    That sounds about right.
  • Carol Kern 2012/06/21 16:42:48
    Carol
    Thanks!
  • Carol Kern 2012/06/21 16:42:03
    Carol
    Great point.
  • BigFig#9 2012/06/20 21:57:30
    No
    BigFig#9
    +1
    Our economy might flounder but we wouldn't have any better beer....
  • Carol BigFig#9 2012/06/21 16:47:10
    Carol
    With Mittens nothing will be better, except the one percent.
  • BigFig#9 Carol 2012/06/21 17:09:38
    BigFig#9
    +1
    1%ers short term---long term not so much.... Actually we really DON'T NOT KNOW what Mittens would do given his failure to communicate any cogent and consistent agenda - but to be sure the Repubs in congress (and they aren't going away) are going to keep pushing their social conservative, cut taxes for the rich, build the military, cut everything else agenda no matter who sits in the oval office. The 1% have bought those politicians fair and square and they aren't inclined to spend money foolishly even if all they did was inherit it.
  • Carol BigFig#9 2012/06/23 16:29:45
    Carol
    Unfortunately, I think that is correct. Thank you.

See Votes by State

The map above displays the winning answer by region.

News & Politics

2013/05/25 16:02:14

Hot Questions on SodaHead
More Hot Questions

More Community More Originals