Printable View
It is actually 12,000 yen, which is about 90 euros.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost
And the Japanese aren't too thrilled about it.
http://www.japantoday.com/category/l...a-japanese-say
Also, it will be sending millions and millions of euro directly into the hands of the Yakuza.
Didn't the Americans already do something similar with a big tax rebate for everyone?
Wouldn't matter whether you gave people 100, 1000 or 10k to spend, the majority would save it. Lots of evidence the savings rate is rocketing after a decade of credit growth. De-leveraging ( at a personal level as well as amongst banks) is an inevitable, necessary and unfortunately painful consequence of what's gone on.
Does de-leveraging mean borrowing less?
If the money went straight into peoples pockets instead of directly to the banls they would get it back through savings accounts?Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
2 things...Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
1) Because it's worked so well everytime they've done it before? Part of the reason we're in a poor position to compete is because our telecoms infrastructure has been asset stripped, and drasticly underinvested in because of privatisation and profit maximisation.
2) Even if you think losing control of assets is a good thing, why on earth would you sell at the bottom of the market? That only suits the buyers (such as O'Reilly who made millions out of eircom - no surprise his papers have pushed the sale of others), not the state or the public.
The ESB could easily be sold as long as we keep the infrastructure in state control. The Eircom mistake was selling the infrastructure.
The reason to sell is we are broke as a country. We don't have luxury of waiting to sell at the top of the market.
Yes, but it would be on the other side of the banks' balance sheets - ie a liability not an assetQuote:
Originally Posted by pete
But the ESB makes a profit so it actually contributes to reducing our need to borrow? It'd be very short term thinking to sell state assets, never mind profitable ones.Quote:
Originally Posted by pete
Australia did it. Handed out nearly $300 per head.Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
Yeah. I was right though, the US did it a year ago:Quote:
Originally Posted by superfrank
http://www.usatoday.com/money/perfi/...3-17-irs_N.htm
US$600 per person, $300 per child.
No idea whether it's considered to have done any good.
Generally viewed as a complete and utter failure for the reasons I quoted above.Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/...ailure-of.html
I can belive that. It sounds like a crap solution with a decent PR upside for the government.
If you could force the people to spend the money it would have a positive effect undoubtedly, but short of issuing people gift vouchers its almost impossible to do this.Quote:
Originally Posted by John83
In the US case it was a desperate effort by a government on its last legs.
Certainly worth a try, compared to the tax, tax, tax attitude of our government.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
Not much point in having a Celtic Tiger and wage increases in a boom, when the government intends to take it all back from you when the rainy day comes.
But as long as JC Trichet is happy, everything's fine. :rolleyes:
The definitive piece on the Japanese experience of the 90s is by Nomura economist Richard Koo, called "The Holy Grail of Macro Economics". In this book he coins the phrase "balance sheet recession". He makes exactly your point. In fact he goes on to discredit one of the really simple and most accepted axioms underpinning classical economic theory, namely that firms seek to maximise profit. Far from it in a deep post-bubble recession, Koo argues, it's more like firms seek to maximise likelihood of survival as their main motivating factor.Quote:
Originally Posted by OneRedArmy
That's exactly where we are now, both corporates & consumers.
The same book contains a very oriental analysis, a really descriptive "ying phase" and "yang phase" diagram, the upshot being that, as usual, economies will self heal but it gives no timescale.
Yes, it's paying down your debt until it becomes more manageable.Quote:
Originally Posted by Bald Student
The situation ORA describes is what I think is called a "liquidity trap". It's the situation that Keynes likened to "pushing on a piece of string" - i.e., no matter how hard the authorities try to stir activity by pumping in money it'll have no impact.
That's why I can't comprehend the 2.5% reduction in VAT in the UK. What a moronic gesture that was.
The only difference it made is to give retailers up and down the country a pain in the hole because they had to adjust the price of every single item for sale, and restaurants all had to pay to have their menus reprinted and so on...
Thanks,Quote:
Originally Posted by Stuttgart88
I agree with you. I think the country has followed the business model of the LoI and we'll just need to get used to having less money. Since money is getting scarcer, the people hardest hit will be those who borrowed to buy stuff at yesterdays' prices but will have to pay that back with tomorrows' earnings.
The real plus side of all this is seeing twits who have borrowed stupid money now down on their knees. Ha! Ha! Now they know what it felt like for those of us who never made any money during the so called Boom. If they choose to take a short time view and live beyond their means and are now suffering I'm glad. That will teach them a valuable lesson.
It was actually their cut tax, cut tax, cut tax attitude that has us in the bloody crapper in the first place. Only right that it's the same idiots that have to reverse their own brainless policies.Quote:
Originally Posted by mypost