How freaky is this video:
This message makes me less afraid of China then of the confrontational mindset that is clearly growing in US political circles. "America has problems, and they are China's fault!"
However, frightening though the above video is, the below parody by liberal group Campus Progress is actually more terrifying:
Chinese Professor from Campus Progress Action on Vimeo.
For while the "Yellow Horde" fears betrayed in the first video are what one would expect from the Right in America, that a liberal, and I would presume left-wing, group would also bang the China-fear drum shows how entrenched such a negative view of the PRC has become in American society.
Ironically, such an opinion is probably more dangerous now, while China's military strength is considerably below that of the US, then I suspect it will be in coming decades when many expect the two nations to reach parity in terms of military might. After all, economic fears can quickly give rise to military action, and a more belligerent US might be tempted to put China in its place before its too late, leading to significant loss of human life.
If you are American, and wish to combat China hatred in the US, might I suggest you do the following:
1. Buy a Mao suit
2. Acquire a copy of the "Little Red Book".
3. Wear said suit to work/college/church, while waving the LRB, loudly proclaiming that "Chairman Mao is the red sun in our hearts".
I feel certain the above steps will calm fears of China in the US, and lead to more harmonious relations.
Snicker.
Wednesday, October 27, 2010
I'm Sure America Is Ecstatic at the Mere Possibility...
A new front has opened up in Ireland's ongoing war with reality, with the otherwise generally sane Mike Soden (former Bank of Ireland chief and member of the Central Bank Commission) suggesting that we simply become the 51st state of the United States. Budgetary problem solved - simples!
After all, seceding from the EU should be relatively straight forward, and I'm sure that heavily indebted, bouncing-along-the-bottom America would welcome Ireland (and its skewed public finances) with open arms. Considering how easy it is to become an American citizen, and how readily the US opens its borders and doles out Green Cards (wasn't there a film about that? Didn't Gerard Depardieu simply arrive on a plane, settle in America, and end his days as an insurance salesman in Des Moines, with no conflicts or challenges to overcome? That was the story, right?) actually becoming part of the US must be a breeze!
Ireland just doesn't get it - we are not that desirable. No one wants to pay our bills, or let us join their club, or be nice to us, no matter how much fun we are, or how much craic we have. Time to grow up, realise that we need to be big boys and girls now, and face the mistakes we made. I don't want the Fed or the ECB fixing our problems - I want us to do it. Because if we are going to rely on charity, or on our innate importance and brilliance, to get us out of this mess, then we will be waiting a long time.
While we are casting around, looking for someone to pay our bills, so that we can escape a cut in our living standards and go on pretending we all live in a slightly drizzly episode of Sex and the City, the rest of the world is getting on with tackling their problems. For once, the Government seems ready to face reality with its recognition that we need €15bn in cuts if we are to get going again. That's why Mr. Soden's suggestions are so dangerous - there is no one who can, or will, bail us out. We've got to face our medicine by ourselves.
After all, seceding from the EU should be relatively straight forward, and I'm sure that heavily indebted, bouncing-along-the-bottom America would welcome Ireland (and its skewed public finances) with open arms. Considering how easy it is to become an American citizen, and how readily the US opens its borders and doles out Green Cards (wasn't there a film about that? Didn't Gerard Depardieu simply arrive on a plane, settle in America, and end his days as an insurance salesman in Des Moines, with no conflicts or challenges to overcome? That was the story, right?) actually becoming part of the US must be a breeze!
Ireland just doesn't get it - we are not that desirable. No one wants to pay our bills, or let us join their club, or be nice to us, no matter how much fun we are, or how much craic we have. Time to grow up, realise that we need to be big boys and girls now, and face the mistakes we made. I don't want the Fed or the ECB fixing our problems - I want us to do it. Because if we are going to rely on charity, or on our innate importance and brilliance, to get us out of this mess, then we will be waiting a long time.
While we are casting around, looking for someone to pay our bills, so that we can escape a cut in our living standards and go on pretending we all live in a slightly drizzly episode of Sex and the City, the rest of the world is getting on with tackling their problems. For once, the Government seems ready to face reality with its recognition that we need €15bn in cuts if we are to get going again. That's why Mr. Soden's suggestions are so dangerous - there is no one who can, or will, bail us out. We've got to face our medicine by ourselves.
Friday, October 22, 2010
The Aitor McDonagh Aircraft Carrier Index (Patent Pending)
Following my post below on the Royal Navy's cutbacks, and a far better researched and thought out contribution by Starbuck over on Wings Over Iraq (damn you and your edumucation!), I am reminded of one of the few examples of original thought in which I engaged in college - the Aitor McDonagh Aircraft Carrier Index (Patent Pending). In effect, the thesis behind the Aircraft Carrier Index is that the political intentions and aspirations of a nation can be measured by its acquisition of aircraft carriers, and inversely its decline is signalled by its relinquishment of aircraft carrier forces.
So, "big deal!", you say. As countries get richer they build bigger militaries, as they grow poorer, they reduce their military expenditure. But aircraft carriers are about more than mere defensive concerns, or the desire to project power. Aircraft carriers are about a nation's image of itself, and of its place in the world. As a start, consider that most mighty of naval powers: Canada.
You might think that this is sarcasm; it is not. At the end of WWII, Canada had the third largest navy in the world, with three aircraft carriers flying the Canadian colours. Canada looked to be on the cusp of playing a major military role in world affairs - subsequent involvement in the Korean conflict seemed to confirm this. Yet as the twentieth century progressed, and as Canada slipped from Britain's orbit, the need for aircraft carriers seemed to diminish - more importantly, Canada's own view of itself as an important military power also disappeared (hence key projects such as the Avro Arrow were cancelled).
Similarly, Australia commissioned three carriers between 1944 and 1945, with the last of these, HMAS Melbourne, only leaving service in 1982. Again, a fading power realised it could no longer justify a carrier force. But what is more significant is recent suggestions that Australia might get back in the carrier game. While it would seem that these dreams have faded since John Howard left office, they do signal that an Australia facing a newly resurgent East Asia, and with a booming economy of its own, the ability to project power is once more a sought-after tool - but more importantly, Australia sees itself once again as "one of those nations that have aircraft carriers", i.e. a regional power. Canada, Australia and the Netherlands all sacrificed their carriers after the Second World War - but only Australia has seen fit to consider bringing carriers back into its fleet.
Nowhere has the carrier as a focus of national ambitions been more clear than in South America. Argentina, which once strutted the Latin American stage as the preeminent power, acquired a carrier in 1959, and continued operations with its most recent ship the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo until 1999. Then, the economy took a tumble, and Argentina realised it couldn't run with the big boys anymore. But just to the north, Brazil has now adopted the mantle of regional big shot, and has bought a new(ish) carrier off the French - the old Foch becoming the Sao Paolo.
Most importantly, you must remember just how useless most of these carriers are - Argentina was flying ancient Super Etendard jets off its ship until decommissioning, while the Brazilian's were making do with prop-powered anti-sub aircraft until very recently (they now use the hardly-cutting edge A4 Skyhawk). This indulging in maritime fantasies isn't just an emerging power thing either - who did the French think they were fooling flying F-8 Crusaders iin the year 2000? The only thing more antiquated than an F-8 is an actual Crusader (like, a guy in mail on horseback)!
But of course, carrier ownership isn't about operational ability. It's about running with the big boys. And that's why, if you want to know who feels like a big shot, see what they have as a flag ship. And that goes doubly for seeing who thinks their glory days are behind them.
So, "big deal!", you say. As countries get richer they build bigger militaries, as they grow poorer, they reduce their military expenditure. But aircraft carriers are about more than mere defensive concerns, or the desire to project power. Aircraft carriers are about a nation's image of itself, and of its place in the world. As a start, consider that most mighty of naval powers: Canada.
You might think that this is sarcasm; it is not. At the end of WWII, Canada had the third largest navy in the world, with three aircraft carriers flying the Canadian colours. Canada looked to be on the cusp of playing a major military role in world affairs - subsequent involvement in the Korean conflict seemed to confirm this. Yet as the twentieth century progressed, and as Canada slipped from Britain's orbit, the need for aircraft carriers seemed to diminish - more importantly, Canada's own view of itself as an important military power also disappeared (hence key projects such as the Avro Arrow were cancelled).
Similarly, Australia commissioned three carriers between 1944 and 1945, with the last of these, HMAS Melbourne, only leaving service in 1982. Again, a fading power realised it could no longer justify a carrier force. But what is more significant is recent suggestions that Australia might get back in the carrier game. While it would seem that these dreams have faded since John Howard left office, they do signal that an Australia facing a newly resurgent East Asia, and with a booming economy of its own, the ability to project power is once more a sought-after tool - but more importantly, Australia sees itself once again as "one of those nations that have aircraft carriers", i.e. a regional power. Canada, Australia and the Netherlands all sacrificed their carriers after the Second World War - but only Australia has seen fit to consider bringing carriers back into its fleet.
Nowhere has the carrier as a focus of national ambitions been more clear than in South America. Argentina, which once strutted the Latin American stage as the preeminent power, acquired a carrier in 1959, and continued operations with its most recent ship the ARA Veinticinco de Mayo until 1999. Then, the economy took a tumble, and Argentina realised it couldn't run with the big boys anymore. But just to the north, Brazil has now adopted the mantle of regional big shot, and has bought a new(ish) carrier off the French - the old Foch becoming the Sao Paolo.
Most importantly, you must remember just how useless most of these carriers are - Argentina was flying ancient Super Etendard jets off its ship until decommissioning, while the Brazilian's were making do with prop-powered anti-sub aircraft until very recently (they now use the hardly-cutting edge A4 Skyhawk). This indulging in maritime fantasies isn't just an emerging power thing either - who did the French think they were fooling flying F-8 Crusaders iin the year 2000? The only thing more antiquated than an F-8 is an actual Crusader (like, a guy in mail on horseback)!
But of course, carrier ownership isn't about operational ability. It's about running with the big boys. And that's why, if you want to know who feels like a big shot, see what they have as a flag ship. And that goes doubly for seeing who thinks their glory days are behind them.
Monday, October 18, 2010
The Silent Service Obviously Needs to Speak Up.
In a development that can only add to the confusion within me between the red-blooded Irish nationalist and the military history geek fascinated by the heritage of our nearest neighbour's armed services, the Financial Times had quite an interesting little article in its weekend magazine on Saturday in which Matthew Engel goes aboard the frigate HMS Kent.
As Engel makes clear, the Royal Navy is clearly feeling the pinch under Britain's current defence review, and is suffering from the effects of what the article terms "sea blindness" among the UK's population. For a nation whose existence was once so clearly tied to the sea, Britain now tends to forget that it is an island, assuming that airlinks and the internet will keep it safe from blockade should a worst-case scenario ever arrive. Similarly, the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are not, in the eyes of the public, "naval wars", and the Royal Navy's contributions to these operations are overlooked (despite the fact that the Royal Marines have suffered considerably in both theatres, and are part of the navy. Similarly, the Fleet Air Arm has contributed to Britain's air operations in Afghanistan). So overlooked has the RN been, that there are dark mutterings that some are calling for its disbandment under the current defence review.
While I suspect that such a fate will be avoided, I do find a certain sadness in the Royal Navy's current predicament. After all, while the British Army has, over the course of Britain's imperial history, been on the frontline of colonial enforcement (or oppression, depending on how you look at it), the Royal Navy has tended to have less complicated, more readily heroic image. Spared from being placed in the sort of positions that led to Amritsar or Bloody Sunday, the Royal Navy finds itself with a more positive heritage, from association with Trafalgar to the anti-slavery operations of the 19th century. Indeed, even in the relatively complicated politics of the late 20th century, the RN steered clear of controversy (with the possible exception of the sinking of the General Belgrano).
The Royal Navy will survive these cuts, that is fairly certain, but what emerges on the other side of the slashing of budgets will be a much truncated service. Indeed, it seems a growing likelihood that Britain's most prestigious and impressive naval assets, aircraft carriers and the warheads on sub-launched ballistic missiles, will be jointly operated with France. A sad, and disappointingly low-key, fate for the Silent Service.
As Engel makes clear, the Royal Navy is clearly feeling the pinch under Britain's current defence review, and is suffering from the effects of what the article terms "sea blindness" among the UK's population. For a nation whose existence was once so clearly tied to the sea, Britain now tends to forget that it is an island, assuming that airlinks and the internet will keep it safe from blockade should a worst-case scenario ever arrive. Similarly, the current conflicts in Iraq and Afghanistan are not, in the eyes of the public, "naval wars", and the Royal Navy's contributions to these operations are overlooked (despite the fact that the Royal Marines have suffered considerably in both theatres, and are part of the navy. Similarly, the Fleet Air Arm has contributed to Britain's air operations in Afghanistan). So overlooked has the RN been, that there are dark mutterings that some are calling for its disbandment under the current defence review.
While I suspect that such a fate will be avoided, I do find a certain sadness in the Royal Navy's current predicament. After all, while the British Army has, over the course of Britain's imperial history, been on the frontline of colonial enforcement (or oppression, depending on how you look at it), the Royal Navy has tended to have less complicated, more readily heroic image. Spared from being placed in the sort of positions that led to Amritsar or Bloody Sunday, the Royal Navy finds itself with a more positive heritage, from association with Trafalgar to the anti-slavery operations of the 19th century. Indeed, even in the relatively complicated politics of the late 20th century, the RN steered clear of controversy (with the possible exception of the sinking of the General Belgrano).
The Royal Navy will survive these cuts, that is fairly certain, but what emerges on the other side of the slashing of budgets will be a much truncated service. Indeed, it seems a growing likelihood that Britain's most prestigious and impressive naval assets, aircraft carriers and the warheads on sub-launched ballistic missiles, will be jointly operated with France. A sad, and disappointingly low-key, fate for the Silent Service.
Friday, October 15, 2010
Why I Won't Vote David Norris for President.
Following on from my awkward post which looked at racism in Ireland (in an embarassed, shuffling sort of a way), I will examine yet another question of bigotry today by looking at homophobia, gay rights in Ireland, and how this will impact on David Norris's campaign to be President. More specifically, let me tell you why I won't vote for David Norris, and why if he does become President, it will represent a shallow, pyrrhic victory for Ireland's gay population.
Off the bat, let me state that I think Norris is a pretty decent guy. He believes in things. He fights for things. He stands up for things. The only problem is, he is about as out of touch with everyday life in Ireland as you can get. Born in the Belgian Congo, Norris himself now represents Trinity College Dublin (yes, that bastion of the common man) in the Senate. Norris is also a Joycean scholar of note, and every Bloomsday can be found strolling about Sandycove in a straw boater.
None of the above is typical of everyday life in Ireland. More to the point, none of the above is typical of everyday life in Ireland if you are gay. What I have learned from the handful of gay relatives, friends and colleagues that I have known well over the years is this - they are broadly just like me, only they are gay. They have the same worries about the economy, the same fears about our crappy health service, and the corruption in this country drives them as mad as I do. They grumble about taxes, they hate to see wastage of public funds, and they just want someone to provide us with some bloody leadership.
True, unlike me, they have to put up with small-minded bigots and bullies. But for the most part, unlike (with all due respect to him) Mr. Norris, they have to face these tribulations in far less supportive environments than Dublin academia. Coming out must be incredibly difficult even in relatively liberal Trinity - imagine what it must be like in rural Monaghan. That's not to suggest that rural areas are any more homophobic - but if you do face bigotry, the sparser population means your support network is smaller and more widely dispersed. A sense of isolation develops far more easily.
So the fact is that Mr. Norris neither reflects the views of the wider population nor, I feel, the typical experience of a gay person in Ireland. Is he committed? Undoubtedly. Does he have strong morals, a strident voice, and the desire to work for what he believes - quite certainly. But at a time when there is widespread feeling among the Irish population as a whole that politics and the institutions of the State are out of touch, Mr. Norris would only reinforce these views. He has never worked in business, never worked for "the man", and his experience outside the Seanad is limited to Trinity. He is, in the nicest possible way, one of the elite - but more importantly, he cannot bridge the gap between the elite and the ordinary fella (i.e. me).
What's more, Norris should not want to be President - he can achieve much more outside the Aras than within. Part of the job description of President is to, basically, keep your mouth shut. You are a figurehead, and hence can't really stand up for what you believe. In a recent interview with Ivan Yates on Newstalk, Norris couldn't promise that as President he would stay silent if something cropped up that he didn't agree with. What if there is another NAMA, or if Mr. Norris disagrees with social welfare cuts, or refuses to meet his opposite number from China/Iran/Turkey because of concerns over human rights? He may be right in all these circumstances not to hold his tongue - but that's an argument for a reform of our political structures, to produce a more active President, and not why he should run now.
Which is preciselt why Norris should continue fighting for what he believes in via the Seanad, and should not hamstring himself by running for the Aras. In the Seanad he can address every issue that is dear to him, from questions of social justice to the demand for greater respect for human rights. What's more, President Norris would not really represent the triumph of the gay community over bigotry, nor could he speak to the nation as a whole on the issues arising from our descent into economic chaos. Worst of all, he would be prevented from standing up for what he believes in. And while I don't always agree with him, his is a voice I would not like to see silenced.
Off the bat, let me state that I think Norris is a pretty decent guy. He believes in things. He fights for things. He stands up for things. The only problem is, he is about as out of touch with everyday life in Ireland as you can get. Born in the Belgian Congo, Norris himself now represents Trinity College Dublin (yes, that bastion of the common man) in the Senate. Norris is also a Joycean scholar of note, and every Bloomsday can be found strolling about Sandycove in a straw boater.
None of the above is typical of everyday life in Ireland. More to the point, none of the above is typical of everyday life in Ireland if you are gay. What I have learned from the handful of gay relatives, friends and colleagues that I have known well over the years is this - they are broadly just like me, only they are gay. They have the same worries about the economy, the same fears about our crappy health service, and the corruption in this country drives them as mad as I do. They grumble about taxes, they hate to see wastage of public funds, and they just want someone to provide us with some bloody leadership.
True, unlike me, they have to put up with small-minded bigots and bullies. But for the most part, unlike (with all due respect to him) Mr. Norris, they have to face these tribulations in far less supportive environments than Dublin academia. Coming out must be incredibly difficult even in relatively liberal Trinity - imagine what it must be like in rural Monaghan. That's not to suggest that rural areas are any more homophobic - but if you do face bigotry, the sparser population means your support network is smaller and more widely dispersed. A sense of isolation develops far more easily.
So the fact is that Mr. Norris neither reflects the views of the wider population nor, I feel, the typical experience of a gay person in Ireland. Is he committed? Undoubtedly. Does he have strong morals, a strident voice, and the desire to work for what he believes - quite certainly. But at a time when there is widespread feeling among the Irish population as a whole that politics and the institutions of the State are out of touch, Mr. Norris would only reinforce these views. He has never worked in business, never worked for "the man", and his experience outside the Seanad is limited to Trinity. He is, in the nicest possible way, one of the elite - but more importantly, he cannot bridge the gap between the elite and the ordinary fella (i.e. me).
What's more, Norris should not want to be President - he can achieve much more outside the Aras than within. Part of the job description of President is to, basically, keep your mouth shut. You are a figurehead, and hence can't really stand up for what you believe. In a recent interview with Ivan Yates on Newstalk, Norris couldn't promise that as President he would stay silent if something cropped up that he didn't agree with. What if there is another NAMA, or if Mr. Norris disagrees with social welfare cuts, or refuses to meet his opposite number from China/Iran/Turkey because of concerns over human rights? He may be right in all these circumstances not to hold his tongue - but that's an argument for a reform of our political structures, to produce a more active President, and not why he should run now.
Which is preciselt why Norris should continue fighting for what he believes in via the Seanad, and should not hamstring himself by running for the Aras. In the Seanad he can address every issue that is dear to him, from questions of social justice to the demand for greater respect for human rights. What's more, President Norris would not really represent the triumph of the gay community over bigotry, nor could he speak to the nation as a whole on the issues arising from our descent into economic chaos. Worst of all, he would be prevented from standing up for what he believes in. And while I don't always agree with him, his is a voice I would not like to see silenced.
Wednesday, October 13, 2010
The Tullamore-Beijing Axis
It may be the case that finally, FINALLY, the Irish Government is beginning to recognise that China has had a wee economic miracle over the last few decades, and that Beijing now has some moolah to spare. Coming fast on the heels of Biffo's meeting with Chinese propaganda chief and Politburo number 5, Li Changchun, our man Brian met with Premier Wen Jiabao in Brussels last week.
According to Pravda, the Biffmeister recognised that this summit (on the 4th and 5th of October):
The only person at this event that really mattered was Wen. Everyone else was either representing a waning power (helloooo France, Germany and Japan!) or a developing power that has not quite made the grade - yet (i.e. India, South Korea). Time was, however, that our leadership would have still wasted time chatting to the dusty old Europeans, rather than cutting to the chase and going to kiss-up to the big boys.
We need to raise our China game - and for once, it may seem that the Government has copped on to this reality. C'mon boys - take the next step and expand the IDA's office network in the PRC, and let's see what we can offer the next superpower by way of opportunities in Europe.
P.S. And before anyone brings up human rights etc. - who are the Chinese most likely to listen to? Former European colonial powers who were telling the Qing how cool free trade was in the 1840s, just before screwing China for all it is worth? Or a small, China-friendly, freedom loving bunch like ourselves, who are offering China a gateway to the EU? We can show China why human rights will make their nation stronger - and they will believe us, because we do not threaten them, and because we work with them.
According to Pravda, the Biffmeister recognised that this summit (on the 4th and 5th of October):
"provided an excellent opportunity to meet in the margins with a number of Heads of Government of participating countries, including Premier Wen Jiabao of China."This may seem like a minor point, but at least the Taoiseach is recognising that during the coffee break at this European shindigs he now needs to be offering Premier Wen the last digestive biccy, rather than listening to Nicholas blather on about his insanely hot wife, or trying to stammer apologies to Angela for all the bailing-us-out she has had to do.
The only person at this event that really mattered was Wen. Everyone else was either representing a waning power (helloooo France, Germany and Japan!) or a developing power that has not quite made the grade - yet (i.e. India, South Korea). Time was, however, that our leadership would have still wasted time chatting to the dusty old Europeans, rather than cutting to the chase and going to kiss-up to the big boys.
We need to raise our China game - and for once, it may seem that the Government has copped on to this reality. C'mon boys - take the next step and expand the IDA's office network in the PRC, and let's see what we can offer the next superpower by way of opportunities in Europe.
P.S. And before anyone brings up human rights etc. - who are the Chinese most likely to listen to? Former European colonial powers who were telling the Qing how cool free trade was in the 1840s, just before screwing China for all it is worth? Or a small, China-friendly, freedom loving bunch like ourselves, who are offering China a gateway to the EU? We can show China why human rights will make their nation stronger - and they will believe us, because we do not threaten them, and because we work with them.
Tuesday, October 12, 2010
Blame Ye Not the Nurses or the Teachers - Blame the Snooty Children
Picking over the ruins of long dead civilisations, archaeologists often ask themselves "What went wrong?" A similar question is on the lips of the Irish these days, as we wonder how we managed to blow our economic boom so completely that we are now spending €18 billion a year more than we are taking in. It's not unsual to be feckless with money, it's just unusual to be that feckin' feckless.
Many will point to the banks, understandaby, while others will point the finger at giveaway budgets. Any suggestion that Ireland's public spending is a wee bit out of control inevitably ends in a row, however, amid hilarious bouts of name-calling. On the one hand, Thatcherite puppy-killers (i.e. me) begin claiming that ALL public servants are lazy, and they should ALL be fired, and "I knew someone once whose sister worked in a hospital, and her only job was to count pens, and she was able to phone in sick to work for 10 years, and she was given a bonus. Also, she got free biscuits with her tea."
On the other hand, we have the smugly self-righteous socialists (who love assonance, apparently) claiming that they know a teacher who is working 20 hour days, every day, for 5 years, and whose pay has been cut by 90%, and who is paying a breathing levy imposed by the government, and is having to use her own blood as ink in the classroom, while her classmates (who, gasp, didn't even go to college!) are working for a bank now, and drive a gold Ferrari powered by €500 notes and caviar.
Enjoyable though contests of hyperbole are, they distract from the fact that we are wasteful with public money, and that there is a massive need to trim the fat. And my God, what fat! Before we go anywhere near the exhausted teachers, knife-dodging guards, or even possibly-surplus administrative staff, why don't we examine the necessity of this little service:
That's right - an ad, starring children, telling us that we need to exercise and eat nice foods if we want to be healthy. Breaking news indeed. Pity that, as well as having a blindingly self-obvious message, the ads themselves are so incredibly ineffective.
Now, maybe they thought that by having children act as snooty, Green Party-voting, philosophy graduates who have part time jobs in Art Galleries as they try to break through into the burgeoning haiku-writing scene, that the whole irritating pantomime would be cute or funny. It is not. It is merely irritating and annoying.
Perhaps the two (yes two!) quangoes involved in producing this ad thought that, by using kids, they could convince young people to "be cool and eat right!". Only problem, children at the stage of those in the ad eat what they are given by their parents. Children older than those in the ads are going to think any message supplied by younger kids is inherently wrong and uncool. So a big fail there then, as well.
I don't know how much this cost, but if the wastage in FAS is anything to go by, we may be picking up the tab for a cool half mill. €500 k for something that tells me I'm fat, and I need to eat healthy. I'm married, I don't need this ad. So next time someone says we need to trim the budget, don't look at the guards, don't look at the teachers, don't look at the nurses. Start looking at the bleedin' obvious - or at least advertising budgets aimed at promoting the same.
Many will point to the banks, understandaby, while others will point the finger at giveaway budgets. Any suggestion that Ireland's public spending is a wee bit out of control inevitably ends in a row, however, amid hilarious bouts of name-calling. On the one hand, Thatcherite puppy-killers (i.e. me) begin claiming that ALL public servants are lazy, and they should ALL be fired, and "I knew someone once whose sister worked in a hospital, and her only job was to count pens, and she was able to phone in sick to work for 10 years, and she was given a bonus. Also, she got free biscuits with her tea."
On the other hand, we have the smugly self-righteous socialists (who love assonance, apparently) claiming that they know a teacher who is working 20 hour days, every day, for 5 years, and whose pay has been cut by 90%, and who is paying a breathing levy imposed by the government, and is having to use her own blood as ink in the classroom, while her classmates (who, gasp, didn't even go to college!) are working for a bank now, and drive a gold Ferrari powered by €500 notes and caviar.
Enjoyable though contests of hyperbole are, they distract from the fact that we are wasteful with public money, and that there is a massive need to trim the fat. And my God, what fat! Before we go anywhere near the exhausted teachers, knife-dodging guards, or even possibly-surplus administrative staff, why don't we examine the necessity of this little service:
That's right - an ad, starring children, telling us that we need to exercise and eat nice foods if we want to be healthy. Breaking news indeed. Pity that, as well as having a blindingly self-obvious message, the ads themselves are so incredibly ineffective.
Now, maybe they thought that by having children act as snooty, Green Party-voting, philosophy graduates who have part time jobs in Art Galleries as they try to break through into the burgeoning haiku-writing scene, that the whole irritating pantomime would be cute or funny. It is not. It is merely irritating and annoying.
Perhaps the two (yes two!) quangoes involved in producing this ad thought that, by using kids, they could convince young people to "be cool and eat right!". Only problem, children at the stage of those in the ad eat what they are given by their parents. Children older than those in the ads are going to think any message supplied by younger kids is inherently wrong and uncool. So a big fail there then, as well.
I don't know how much this cost, but if the wastage in FAS is anything to go by, we may be picking up the tab for a cool half mill. €500 k for something that tells me I'm fat, and I need to eat healthy. I'm married, I don't need this ad. So next time someone says we need to trim the budget, don't look at the guards, don't look at the teachers, don't look at the nurses. Start looking at the bleedin' obvious - or at least advertising budgets aimed at promoting the same.
Monday, October 11, 2010
Am I Racist?
I was back in Dublin over the weekend there, and while walking up O'Connell street a little incident occurred that taught me a lot about how the human mind works - or at least how my mind works. For those of you who don't know, O'Connell Street is the "Main Street" in Dublin, sort of like the Irish Champs Elyseé - although I don't think the Champs has an Ann Summers outlet, or Supermacs. In other words, O'Connell Street is where the ridiculously grandiose rubs shoulders with greasy tack.
It was realtively early on Saturday morning, but there was a fair smattering of people walking about, looking in the shops etc. About five metres in front of me, an old woman was shuffling along, wearing one of those all-enveloping blue rain-coats beloved of Irish grannies. As said granny struggled along the footpath, she passed a young Roma woman, babe in arms, whose free hand was extended to each passing pedestrian in turn, begging them for spare change (I know, I know, can I really be sure she was a Roma? Isn't that just a tired stereotype, the Roma beggar? Maybe she was an investment banker who begs as a hobby on the weekend? For the purposes of this post, just take my word for it in any event.)
When this young woman caught sight of the shuffling granny, she made a bee-line for her. Nothing strange there, she attempted to intercept everyone who passed her by. But not only did she ask the granny for money - she began to follow her, pulling on her sleeve, and traipsing after her for a good 10 metres along the path. Remember, this granny was not hugely agile, it took her a long time to cover those 10 metres! And all the while, she had the beggar in tow.
Eventually, the pensioner ground to a halt and, defeated by the harassment, produced a purse from her handbag, ready to offer up a few coins in exchange for some peace. I contemplated stepping in or telling the beggar off - but I'm ashamed to say, my middle-class mind was immediately seized both by a ridiculous sense of liberal guilt (after all, why should I feel any guily? I had no problem with the race of the beggar - merely the harassment to which she subjected said granny) and by the usually intense Irish middle class fear of causing a scene (what if people start looking?!).
While I was wrestling with my own moral cowardice, a young woman stepped in, placed her hand gently on granny's shoulder, and quite politely told the beggar to go away. I applaud her dignified, quiet heroism, and am frankly still ashamed of the lack of backbone I displayed. As I retreated from the scene of my defeat, I began wondering how things would have played out had the aggressor not been Roma - would I have intervened if the beggar had been just another homeless Irish person? Would I have stepped in if the beggar had been an Irish Traveller?
The issue is clouded by the fact that, pathetically, I really do not like making a scene. But it does raise the question of what is racism, and what are the legitimate demands that we place on immigrants? After all, is it not racist to give immigrants a carte blanche to engage in begging , a fundamentally dependant act from which they will most likely never wean themselves, and which represents the destruction of ambition? I do not think begging is of benefit to an Irish person - why should I accept that a foreigner can settle for it as an activity? And by refusing to stand up to bad behaviour from one individual from this immigrant's background, am I not tacitly accepting and furthering a stereotype that all Roma will behave badly?
These issues are becoming more pertinent now, as our own economic crisis deepens, and the likelihood of Ireland's default increases. It is not only the native Irish who are caught up in this disaster - the many thousands of immigrants who came here during the boom, who joined our communities, worked beside us, dated us, married us, and raised children with us; they are suffering too. How will we handle our immigrant population now, without the grease of money to ease any friction between immigrants and the wider community? Can we accept that the dole, social welfare and other state supports are not only for those born on this island - but for all who contributed to our good times, and are now suffering with us in the bad? Will we also have the bravery to admit that, if this nation is to survive, we must all display a sense of responsibility and self-sacrifice as citizens of this Republic - and that goes equally for those not born here?
Ah, the smug middle classes - what difficut moral questions we tangle with.
But then I, loike, went and had the, oh-my-god, best latté ever, and I, loike, totally forgot all about racism.
It was realtively early on Saturday morning, but there was a fair smattering of people walking about, looking in the shops etc. About five metres in front of me, an old woman was shuffling along, wearing one of those all-enveloping blue rain-coats beloved of Irish grannies. As said granny struggled along the footpath, she passed a young Roma woman, babe in arms, whose free hand was extended to each passing pedestrian in turn, begging them for spare change (I know, I know, can I really be sure she was a Roma? Isn't that just a tired stereotype, the Roma beggar? Maybe she was an investment banker who begs as a hobby on the weekend? For the purposes of this post, just take my word for it in any event.)
When this young woman caught sight of the shuffling granny, she made a bee-line for her. Nothing strange there, she attempted to intercept everyone who passed her by. But not only did she ask the granny for money - she began to follow her, pulling on her sleeve, and traipsing after her for a good 10 metres along the path. Remember, this granny was not hugely agile, it took her a long time to cover those 10 metres! And all the while, she had the beggar in tow.
Eventually, the pensioner ground to a halt and, defeated by the harassment, produced a purse from her handbag, ready to offer up a few coins in exchange for some peace. I contemplated stepping in or telling the beggar off - but I'm ashamed to say, my middle-class mind was immediately seized both by a ridiculous sense of liberal guilt (after all, why should I feel any guily? I had no problem with the race of the beggar - merely the harassment to which she subjected said granny) and by the usually intense Irish middle class fear of causing a scene (what if people start looking?!).
While I was wrestling with my own moral cowardice, a young woman stepped in, placed her hand gently on granny's shoulder, and quite politely told the beggar to go away. I applaud her dignified, quiet heroism, and am frankly still ashamed of the lack of backbone I displayed. As I retreated from the scene of my defeat, I began wondering how things would have played out had the aggressor not been Roma - would I have intervened if the beggar had been just another homeless Irish person? Would I have stepped in if the beggar had been an Irish Traveller?
The issue is clouded by the fact that, pathetically, I really do not like making a scene. But it does raise the question of what is racism, and what are the legitimate demands that we place on immigrants? After all, is it not racist to give immigrants a carte blanche to engage in begging , a fundamentally dependant act from which they will most likely never wean themselves, and which represents the destruction of ambition? I do not think begging is of benefit to an Irish person - why should I accept that a foreigner can settle for it as an activity? And by refusing to stand up to bad behaviour from one individual from this immigrant's background, am I not tacitly accepting and furthering a stereotype that all Roma will behave badly?
These issues are becoming more pertinent now, as our own economic crisis deepens, and the likelihood of Ireland's default increases. It is not only the native Irish who are caught up in this disaster - the many thousands of immigrants who came here during the boom, who joined our communities, worked beside us, dated us, married us, and raised children with us; they are suffering too. How will we handle our immigrant population now, without the grease of money to ease any friction between immigrants and the wider community? Can we accept that the dole, social welfare and other state supports are not only for those born on this island - but for all who contributed to our good times, and are now suffering with us in the bad? Will we also have the bravery to admit that, if this nation is to survive, we must all display a sense of responsibility and self-sacrifice as citizens of this Republic - and that goes equally for those not born here?
Ah, the smug middle classes - what difficut moral questions we tangle with.
But then I, loike, went and had the, oh-my-god, best latté ever, and I, loike, totally forgot all about racism.
Friday, October 8, 2010
Then the Revolution Died - How the Unions Have Betrayed Their Roots.
There is a sad irony to the fact that, just after Joe Duffy's campaign to have James Connolly named "The Greatest Irish" person, there are growing revelations about how SIPTU have failed to live up to the legacy of one of Ireland's first and most noted socialists. That Union officials may or may not have misused public funds to go on jollies and junkets abroad is certainly depressing; what is more depressing however, is that such a revelation is not surprising.
However you view the Unions (and I, being a foaming at the mouth right-winger, am clearly no fan) there was always a certain romantic allure to the revolutionary red in which they clad themselves. That there is injustice in this world is not in question, nor can their be any doubt that the owners of capital exploit the worker, that the rich grow wealthier at the expense of the poor. What has always been in question, for me anyway, is whether socialism and stultified, regulated labour markets are the best way to combat this inequality. The Unions, rather than making the case for the organised labour, have through their actions over the last 10-15 years actively betrayed the weakest and most vulnerable in society, and developed the sort of hunger for filithy lucre usually displayed by the fat cats. They have undermined the case for the left through their hypocrisy and their aping of the actions of the elite.
Today, the sight of Jack O'Connor or David Begg before Leinster House protesting against this cut or that cut to wages or allowances is not uncommon, and the Unions seem more than ready to march or strike to protect the status quo. Yet where was this revolutionary fervour during the good times? After all, even in the days of plenty there was much to fight for - our children were being schooled in portacabins, patients were lying on hospital trolleys in our Accident and Emergency wards, and our public transport was ineffective and poorly ran. But the Unions did not strike for better conditions then - they seemed happy to settle for the wage increases the Government kept offering under social partnership.
My understanding of a Union is that it is there to better the plight of its workers - not simply raise their wages. Giving teachers better classrooms, nurses emptier casualty wards and bus workers newer, cleaner buses would lead to better conditions and a healthier working environment for all. But pay raises kept the Union membership happy, and the government were glad to pay out - after all, higher wages means more votes. And if the public at large suffered from cramped classrooms, less than hygenic hospitals and little to no public transport - too bad. Social justice wasn't in the Unions remit.
Now, the Union's stance is having a serious impact on social justice. Listen, the rich will never suffer from lack of investment in social services - they can send their kids to private schools, visit private hospital consultants, and don't need to take public transport. But there are many in Ireland who have to rely on public services, and the Union's obsession with pay over all else during the boom years is now directly hitting the most vulnerable, and those who have to depend on the state. The Government is cutting back on services because the Unions cannot countenance any reduction in the national wage bill. So the service user suffers.
Similarly, we see graduates leaving Ireland in their droves, including many newly-qualified nurses, teachers, physiotherapists and other key service workers. Because of the Union's "pull up the ladder behind us" attitude to state employment, these young people will never find work in the State. Instead, the Unions protect the rights of existing public workers over all else - and not just those state servants who do their job honestly and well. The Unions also feel that the incompetent, the lazy, the corrupt and the greedy have the right to a job for life - so long as they work for the State, and are a member of a union. So get on those planes, graduates.
The revolution is dead, and in case you need to ask - the Unions killed it.
However you view the Unions (and I, being a foaming at the mouth right-winger, am clearly no fan) there was always a certain romantic allure to the revolutionary red in which they clad themselves. That there is injustice in this world is not in question, nor can their be any doubt that the owners of capital exploit the worker, that the rich grow wealthier at the expense of the poor. What has always been in question, for me anyway, is whether socialism and stultified, regulated labour markets are the best way to combat this inequality. The Unions, rather than making the case for the organised labour, have through their actions over the last 10-15 years actively betrayed the weakest and most vulnerable in society, and developed the sort of hunger for filithy lucre usually displayed by the fat cats. They have undermined the case for the left through their hypocrisy and their aping of the actions of the elite.
Today, the sight of Jack O'Connor or David Begg before Leinster House protesting against this cut or that cut to wages or allowances is not uncommon, and the Unions seem more than ready to march or strike to protect the status quo. Yet where was this revolutionary fervour during the good times? After all, even in the days of plenty there was much to fight for - our children were being schooled in portacabins, patients were lying on hospital trolleys in our Accident and Emergency wards, and our public transport was ineffective and poorly ran. But the Unions did not strike for better conditions then - they seemed happy to settle for the wage increases the Government kept offering under social partnership.
My understanding of a Union is that it is there to better the plight of its workers - not simply raise their wages. Giving teachers better classrooms, nurses emptier casualty wards and bus workers newer, cleaner buses would lead to better conditions and a healthier working environment for all. But pay raises kept the Union membership happy, and the government were glad to pay out - after all, higher wages means more votes. And if the public at large suffered from cramped classrooms, less than hygenic hospitals and little to no public transport - too bad. Social justice wasn't in the Unions remit.
Now, the Union's stance is having a serious impact on social justice. Listen, the rich will never suffer from lack of investment in social services - they can send their kids to private schools, visit private hospital consultants, and don't need to take public transport. But there are many in Ireland who have to rely on public services, and the Union's obsession with pay over all else during the boom years is now directly hitting the most vulnerable, and those who have to depend on the state. The Government is cutting back on services because the Unions cannot countenance any reduction in the national wage bill. So the service user suffers.
Similarly, we see graduates leaving Ireland in their droves, including many newly-qualified nurses, teachers, physiotherapists and other key service workers. Because of the Union's "pull up the ladder behind us" attitude to state employment, these young people will never find work in the State. Instead, the Unions protect the rights of existing public workers over all else - and not just those state servants who do their job honestly and well. The Unions also feel that the incompetent, the lazy, the corrupt and the greedy have the right to a job for life - so long as they work for the State, and are a member of a union. So get on those planes, graduates.
The revolution is dead, and in case you need to ask - the Unions killed it.
Thursday, October 7, 2010
African Immigrants in China
Interesting little article in The Guardian dealing with the plight of African immigrants in China, focussing on their experience in the city of Guangzhou. As a former resident of Guangdong's capital city, the article brought back memories of my own period wandering around Shamian Island and Tianhe, and in particular it reminded me of just how large the African and Middle Eastern communities in the city are.
When I first moved to Guangzhou, I had expected the locals to react to foreigners in a similar vein to the citizens of other Chinese cities I had lived in or visited. As any foreigner who has been to China, from two-week tourists to long-time residents, will tell you, being stared at in the street is not uncommon, even in places as cosmopolitan as Beijing. Similarly, even in Shanghai I did, on occasion, hear mutters of "laowai" (literally "old foreigner") as I walked down the street. But in Guangzhou, the local populace is basically indifferent to foreigners - at least to those from the West.
So close to Hong Kong, and with so many foreign owned factories and enterprises in Guangdong, the presence of "da bizi" ("big noses") is now very common. But what is quite unique to Guangzhou is the large number of immigrants from Africa and the Middle East- sadly, they are not greeted with the same acceptance shown to, well, white people.
Even the best educated and worldly of my Chinese colleagues could be quite spectacular in their casual racism, towards Africans in particular, and I was solemnly informed that while Europeans and Americans who visited China tended to be decent and hard-working, most Africans were not to be trusted. Inevitably, such distrust leads to reinforcing patterns of behaviour, with the locals reluctant to lease apartments to Africans, consequently resulting in these immigrants concentrating in less salubrious areas with landlords who are not too picky, effectively creating ghettoes. Similarly, the fact that immigrants from Africa find it so hard to get visas to work in China means that some, by necessity, have to turn to less legitimate forms of work - around the Garden Hotel, for example, the drug dealers catering for Western visitors were predominantly African.
True, the immigrants themselves sometimes engage in behaviour that does not endear them to the locals. As someone who, with typical Irish Catholic guilt, cannot miss mass even when living in a state with atheism as its official faith, I regulalry attended mass in the Sacred Heart Cathedral near the banks of the Pearl River. The English language service was organised and mainly attended by African immigrants, with the ushers being entirely drawn from the immigrant community. These ushers could take quite a dictatorial line when ordering people to their seats, or when kicking people out for being improperly clad (i.e. wearing shorts) or committing similarly abominable acts. But they seemed to take a particular delight in ordering Chinese massgoers about (some of whom were merely curious locals, eager to see what actually took place in the cavernous building, but many were genuine Chinese Catholics, trying to practice their faith). At times, the racial tension between African and Chinese Catholics was palbable.
What is clear, though, is that China cannot afford to treat African immigrants as a problem - the influx of migrants from the continent is a by-product of China's investment there, and a beneficial one to boot. Almost all of the immigrants are of a commercial bent, and offer economic bonuses not only to friends and family at home, but also to the local Chinese with whom they trade. As China grows to play a more dominant role in Africa, such migration, and the bonuses associated, will only increase. China needs to learn to smooth out any problems or tensions that result. Furthermore, in days to come when China's interest in Africa extends beyond the merely commercial, and develops further along diplomatic lines, the PRC's own African community will be able to serve as an invaluable intermediary.
When I first moved to Guangzhou, I had expected the locals to react to foreigners in a similar vein to the citizens of other Chinese cities I had lived in or visited. As any foreigner who has been to China, from two-week tourists to long-time residents, will tell you, being stared at in the street is not uncommon, even in places as cosmopolitan as Beijing. Similarly, even in Shanghai I did, on occasion, hear mutters of "laowai" (literally "old foreigner") as I walked down the street. But in Guangzhou, the local populace is basically indifferent to foreigners - at least to those from the West.
So close to Hong Kong, and with so many foreign owned factories and enterprises in Guangdong, the presence of "da bizi" ("big noses") is now very common. But what is quite unique to Guangzhou is the large number of immigrants from Africa and the Middle East- sadly, they are not greeted with the same acceptance shown to, well, white people.
Even the best educated and worldly of my Chinese colleagues could be quite spectacular in their casual racism, towards Africans in particular, and I was solemnly informed that while Europeans and Americans who visited China tended to be decent and hard-working, most Africans were not to be trusted. Inevitably, such distrust leads to reinforcing patterns of behaviour, with the locals reluctant to lease apartments to Africans, consequently resulting in these immigrants concentrating in less salubrious areas with landlords who are not too picky, effectively creating ghettoes. Similarly, the fact that immigrants from Africa find it so hard to get visas to work in China means that some, by necessity, have to turn to less legitimate forms of work - around the Garden Hotel, for example, the drug dealers catering for Western visitors were predominantly African.
True, the immigrants themselves sometimes engage in behaviour that does not endear them to the locals. As someone who, with typical Irish Catholic guilt, cannot miss mass even when living in a state with atheism as its official faith, I regulalry attended mass in the Sacred Heart Cathedral near the banks of the Pearl River. The English language service was organised and mainly attended by African immigrants, with the ushers being entirely drawn from the immigrant community. These ushers could take quite a dictatorial line when ordering people to their seats, or when kicking people out for being improperly clad (i.e. wearing shorts) or committing similarly abominable acts. But they seemed to take a particular delight in ordering Chinese massgoers about (some of whom were merely curious locals, eager to see what actually took place in the cavernous building, but many were genuine Chinese Catholics, trying to practice their faith). At times, the racial tension between African and Chinese Catholics was palbable.
What is clear, though, is that China cannot afford to treat African immigrants as a problem - the influx of migrants from the continent is a by-product of China's investment there, and a beneficial one to boot. Almost all of the immigrants are of a commercial bent, and offer economic bonuses not only to friends and family at home, but also to the local Chinese with whom they trade. As China grows to play a more dominant role in Africa, such migration, and the bonuses associated, will only increase. China needs to learn to smooth out any problems or tensions that result. Furthermore, in days to come when China's interest in Africa extends beyond the merely commercial, and develops further along diplomatic lines, the PRC's own African community will be able to serve as an invaluable intermediary.
Wednesday, October 6, 2010
Corporation Tax - The Deal Breaker?
Recently, much fevered and fearful discussion has taken place over the seeming suggestion by Olli Rehn, European Commissioner for Economic and Monetary Affairs, that Ireland might have to relinquish its relatively low corporation tax rate of 12.5%, and adopt a more continental tax rate. This, it is claimed, will scare away many of the foreign Multi-National Corporations (MNC) which have established in Ireland.
Despite the fact that, as Central Bank Governonr Patrick Honohan noted on Vinnie B's show on Monday, Ollie Rehn never actually threatened our corpo tax rate ("Ireland can no longer be a low tax economy" does not mean higher corpo tax- he may be referring to the inevitable rise in our income tax) the kerfuffle that ensued following Rehn's comments did give me pause for thought - would we really be screwed if we raised the corpo tax rate?
Jaysus, would we ever! By way of illustration, let me tell you about a certain US MNC, operating in a realtively high-tech sector, which I am dealing with as part of my day job. Currently, I'm "on safari" at their facility in the southwest of the country, and being on the ground with the exporting economy has been very revealing. Business for this MNC is flying - they have just hired a whole new bunch of people, and they are planning to seriously refurbish their premises. But what's astonishing is the make-up of their workforce - 75% of the staff employed in their facility are East European.
At first, I assumed this was purely a result of Poles, Slovaks and Czechs being prepared to work for less. But today, in a coffee break conversation with the Chief Financial Officer, I was told that this preference for labour from beyond the Carpathians is about more than merely sourcing low-cost workers. The fact is, there just aren't that many Irish people who are able to do the work - we don't tend to have the right skill set. So, when people hear about Irish jobs (like in Dell in Limerick) heading off to Eastern Europe, it isn't just about the hourly pay rates in a given industry - it's also about the fact that the Irish have not been studying the right subjects or learning the right skills.
In this context, it's clear just how vital our low corpo tax rate is - we don't beat the competition in cost, nor in skill-sets; we can only offer foreign direct investors in Ireland a low tax rate that won't eat into their profit. At the moment, large chunks of the native Irish workforce can't get into the exporting sector - but at least the Poles who earn their money in Limerick, Clonmel or Leixlip spend their money in Irish shops, rent Irish houses, and save in Irish banks. If our corporation tax is raised we can kiss even these secondary benefits of exports goodbye.
Despite the fact that, as Central Bank Governonr Patrick Honohan noted on Vinnie B's show on Monday, Ollie Rehn never actually threatened our corpo tax rate ("Ireland can no longer be a low tax economy" does not mean higher corpo tax- he may be referring to the inevitable rise in our income tax) the kerfuffle that ensued following Rehn's comments did give me pause for thought - would we really be screwed if we raised the corpo tax rate?
Jaysus, would we ever! By way of illustration, let me tell you about a certain US MNC, operating in a realtively high-tech sector, which I am dealing with as part of my day job. Currently, I'm "on safari" at their facility in the southwest of the country, and being on the ground with the exporting economy has been very revealing. Business for this MNC is flying - they have just hired a whole new bunch of people, and they are planning to seriously refurbish their premises. But what's astonishing is the make-up of their workforce - 75% of the staff employed in their facility are East European.
At first, I assumed this was purely a result of Poles, Slovaks and Czechs being prepared to work for less. But today, in a coffee break conversation with the Chief Financial Officer, I was told that this preference for labour from beyond the Carpathians is about more than merely sourcing low-cost workers. The fact is, there just aren't that many Irish people who are able to do the work - we don't tend to have the right skill set. So, when people hear about Irish jobs (like in Dell in Limerick) heading off to Eastern Europe, it isn't just about the hourly pay rates in a given industry - it's also about the fact that the Irish have not been studying the right subjects or learning the right skills.
In this context, it's clear just how vital our low corpo tax rate is - we don't beat the competition in cost, nor in skill-sets; we can only offer foreign direct investors in Ireland a low tax rate that won't eat into their profit. At the moment, large chunks of the native Irish workforce can't get into the exporting sector - but at least the Poles who earn their money in Limerick, Clonmel or Leixlip spend their money in Irish shops, rent Irish houses, and save in Irish banks. If our corporation tax is raised we can kiss even these secondary benefits of exports goodbye.
Tuesday, October 5, 2010
Ehhhhh, Seriously Bertie.
So the Wall Street Journal has noticed Bertie's "News of the World" advert.
Note the use of the word "squats".
Thanks Bertie - now the world can happily resume assuming the Irish are all drunken, wife-beating, Lucky-Charms eaters. Those few years when we had a great economy (I'm talking 1992-2000 by the way, not the "economic growth" of the bubble years) will be written off as a fluke by the rest of the world.
Just a real super job there, Bert.
You bastard.
P.S. Isn't it a delightful coincidence that the Taoiseach who allowed BSkyB to enter the Irish marketplace now has a column with a paper owned by Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Sky? And his daughter's publishers are also owned by Murdoch! Murdoch must have a lot of faith in the Ahern family. As we all do, by the way. They've earned every penny, every position, and every opportunity that has come their way.
Note the use of the word "squats".
Thanks Bertie - now the world can happily resume assuming the Irish are all drunken, wife-beating, Lucky-Charms eaters. Those few years when we had a great economy (I'm talking 1992-2000 by the way, not the "economic growth" of the bubble years) will be written off as a fluke by the rest of the world.
Just a real super job there, Bert.
You bastard.
P.S. Isn't it a delightful coincidence that the Taoiseach who allowed BSkyB to enter the Irish marketplace now has a column with a paper owned by Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Sky? And his daughter's publishers are also owned by Murdoch! Murdoch must have a lot of faith in the Ahern family. As we all do, by the way. They've earned every penny, every position, and every opportunity that has come their way.
Monday, October 4, 2010
Ganley - Back in the Saddle?
It seems that you can't keep a Glenamaddy man down - Declan Ganley, a politician who achieves the seemingly impossible feat of being both conservative and revolutionary at the same time, may be considering a return to public life in some way. In an article in TheJournal.ie, Ganley sets out his view of how Ireland has suffered over the last year, how little Europe has been able to do for us, and the failure of our political class to provide any meaningful leadership. There is also the hint that Ganley is feeling out support for a new party: "we can embrace an alternative."
Following the disappointing performance of Libertas during the June 2009 European elections, some will wonder if Ganley is flogging a dead horse if he does return to the political arena - will the Irish people ever warm to a man who has been accused of being a CIA front to undermine the EU, who has been roundly attacked by all sectors of the Irish political mainstream, and who speaks with an English accent (let's face it, people are small-minded)?
Perhaps they should. I think Ganley would do well to forget the Lisbon Treaty, accept that Ireland voted Yes, and realise that there is little that can be done to change that now. He also needs to recognise that the EU is the only thing keeping us afloat, and that, if we will (as Ganley points) each be paying back around €50k each in debt over our lifetimes bcause of this mess, it has nothing to do with Europe. That debt is their because of domestic Irish policies (and if the EU stepped in to stop us from financially self-harming, I assume Ganley would have screamed blue murder).
Europe, and Ireland's role in it, is a dead issue. Where Ganley would stand to gain serious political ground is by offering a centre-right, business friendly alternative to the current crop of parties. If Ganley was prepared to stand up and say our public spending needed to be tackled, our government system reformed, and the expenses and perks for our elected reps cut down to size - that's a message a large chunk of the Irish people would respond to, and it's a message they are not getting from any other party.
So Declan, forget about Europe - that battle is lost. Now, you need to fight on the home front.
Following the disappointing performance of Libertas during the June 2009 European elections, some will wonder if Ganley is flogging a dead horse if he does return to the political arena - will the Irish people ever warm to a man who has been accused of being a CIA front to undermine the EU, who has been roundly attacked by all sectors of the Irish political mainstream, and who speaks with an English accent (let's face it, people are small-minded)?
Perhaps they should. I think Ganley would do well to forget the Lisbon Treaty, accept that Ireland voted Yes, and realise that there is little that can be done to change that now. He also needs to recognise that the EU is the only thing keeping us afloat, and that, if we will (as Ganley points) each be paying back around €50k each in debt over our lifetimes bcause of this mess, it has nothing to do with Europe. That debt is their because of domestic Irish policies (and if the EU stepped in to stop us from financially self-harming, I assume Ganley would have screamed blue murder).
Europe, and Ireland's role in it, is a dead issue. Where Ganley would stand to gain serious political ground is by offering a centre-right, business friendly alternative to the current crop of parties. If Ganley was prepared to stand up and say our public spending needed to be tackled, our government system reformed, and the expenses and perks for our elected reps cut down to size - that's a message a large chunk of the Irish people would respond to, and it's a message they are not getting from any other party.
So Declan, forget about Europe - that battle is lost. Now, you need to fight on the home front.
Sunday, October 3, 2010
And for the Main Course, China Will Have - Ireland
China is now making its move to gain a foothold (both politically and commercially) in Europe by offering to buy Greek bonds. As Al Jazeera notes, the real benefit for China is not so much the acquisition of debt (although this will help shore up the Eurozone, an obvious market for Chinese exports), but rather the foothold it will give China in key European industries and facilities, such as ports and infrastructure. Not only will this potentially provide yet more markets for Chinese firms that specialise in infrastructure development, it will also ensure China receives considerable political capital for its investment.
After Greece, I feel it is inevitable that China will look to Ireland - if not for economic opportunities (which are, as we sadly know, thin on the ground) then the immense political capital investment in Ireland offers. As with Greece, China has the opportunity to get into European infrastructure at low, low prices - but Ireland offers ports and airports much nearer the key European economies of France, Germany and the UK than Greece does.
More to the point, however, is what China stepping-in to save Ireland would say about China and its place in the world. Investing in a country like Greece, a non-English speaking economy with considerable socialist characteristics, is not a serious departure from China's existing investment efforts in Africa and Asia. All that is new is that the target of investment is in Europe. But investing in Ireland, an English-speaking nation smack bang in the Anglo-American axis, which for the last 10 years has been a poster-child for laissez-faire capitalism - that says China has arrived, and is now a force for the whole world (developed nations included) to reckon with. In effect, China will go from winning economically with a home team advantage (i.e. its spectacular domestic performance), to winning the away leg in front of hostile fans (gaining a global commercial presence).
It is, as I have said, inevitable - so how does Ireland handle it? Do we simply pretend like its not possible, or do we seize the Chinese opportunity with both hands. Are cash-rich shareholders with strategic vision such a bad thing?
After Greece, I feel it is inevitable that China will look to Ireland - if not for economic opportunities (which are, as we sadly know, thin on the ground) then the immense political capital investment in Ireland offers. As with Greece, China has the opportunity to get into European infrastructure at low, low prices - but Ireland offers ports and airports much nearer the key European economies of France, Germany and the UK than Greece does.
More to the point, however, is what China stepping-in to save Ireland would say about China and its place in the world. Investing in a country like Greece, a non-English speaking economy with considerable socialist characteristics, is not a serious departure from China's existing investment efforts in Africa and Asia. All that is new is that the target of investment is in Europe. But investing in Ireland, an English-speaking nation smack bang in the Anglo-American axis, which for the last 10 years has been a poster-child for laissez-faire capitalism - that says China has arrived, and is now a force for the whole world (developed nations included) to reckon with. In effect, China will go from winning economically with a home team advantage (i.e. its spectacular domestic performance), to winning the away leg in front of hostile fans (gaining a global commercial presence).
It is, as I have said, inevitable - so how does Ireland handle it? Do we simply pretend like its not possible, or do we seize the Chinese opportunity with both hands. Are cash-rich shareholders with strategic vision such a bad thing?
Saturday, October 2, 2010
Investors' View of Ireland in Their Own Words - "Dive! Dive!"
Just picked this up from politics.ie, via the poster "clytaemnestra" - an article in The Daily Telegraph detailing the chaos that ensued while our Minister for Finance, Brian Lenihan, was giving an address via conference call hosted by Citigroup. Apparently, someone forgot to ensure that the address would only work one way, allowing those listening in on Lenihan's speech to respond. According to the Telegraph,
Now, even within the most liberal of modern Irish people beats the red-blooded heart of a nationalist, so I will admit that my initial reaction to this article was "Feckin' Brits! Looking down on us again, all superior!" But on mature reflection, I realise that this incident can't be blamed on haughty British superiority, whether real or imagined. Ireland has left itself vulnerable to that tiny minority of people in the UK, continental Europe and the US who assume we are all drunken leprechauns; we are vulnerable because of this incompetent government and its unceasing desire to protect the connected and the wealthy from facing the downside of capitalism.
Fianna Fail, the Republican Party, has not only brought our independence into question, it has even done its best to prove every "Darby O'Gill and the Little People" style stereotype about the Irish as true, much to the delight of our detractors everywhere.
It's not "feckin' Brits" I need to rail against, but "feckin' traitors".
"Between 200 and 500 investors are understood to have been on the call, and as they realised their lines were not muted many began to heckle Mr Lenihan.
Some traders began making what one banker on the call described as "chimp sounds", while another cried out "dive, dive". A third man said "short Ireland" before adding "why not short Citi too?"As the call descended into chaos, with one participant heard to say "this is the worst conference call ever", Citigroup officials shut down the line."
Now, even within the most liberal of modern Irish people beats the red-blooded heart of a nationalist, so I will admit that my initial reaction to this article was "Feckin' Brits! Looking down on us again, all superior!" But on mature reflection, I realise that this incident can't be blamed on haughty British superiority, whether real or imagined. Ireland has left itself vulnerable to that tiny minority of people in the UK, continental Europe and the US who assume we are all drunken leprechauns; we are vulnerable because of this incompetent government and its unceasing desire to protect the connected and the wealthy from facing the downside of capitalism.
Fianna Fail, the Republican Party, has not only brought our independence into question, it has even done its best to prove every "Darby O'Gill and the Little People" style stereotype about the Irish as true, much to the delight of our detractors everywhere.
It's not "feckin' Brits" I need to rail against, but "feckin' traitors".
Friday, October 1, 2010
Bertie - A Man Devoid of All Shame
I must ask the Americans who sometimes read this blog - has any former leader of yours every turned up in a kitchen press? Do former Presidents regularly become tabloid sports columnists?
No?
It's a real mystery why our economy is in the state it's in.
Doesn't Anyone Read Marx Anymore?
As part of the fallout from the economic revelations of the last few days, attention has now firmly focused on the upcoming "hairshirt budgets", with even Labour's Pat Rabbitte on Vinnie B last night saying that some Public Sector workers need to be made redundant (i.e. voluntarily). Considering how desperately Ireland needs to wrangle in its public spending, I am totally in favour of this. So long as Mrs. Aitor (a health worker) can keep her job. And my parents (also health workers). And my parents-in-law (ditto). And my sisters-in-law (also ditto). The rest of the Public Sector workers need to be cut - just not the workers I know, please.
The brewing conflict's battlelines were drawn further with the President's comments (eh hello, President? This isn't America - you just look dignified and occasionally say uplifting things) on the need for the Government to rigorously crack-down on "lazy public servants". The Government is clearly setting out its plan of attack - the tried and trusted (and generally unsuccessful) approach of suggesting that the Public Sector is lazy. This strategy will fail, and the reason why is hinted at above - even I, an arch-capitalist, right-wing demagogue and free-market buccaneer (YAARRGH!) know that not all public sector workers are lazy, nor should we cut their numbers and wages because they deserve punishment. Rather cuts must happen because of the cold hard economic truth that budget slashing is the only way to keep this country afloat. This is the line that the Government needs to be pushing now - I will never accept that Mrs. Aitor will get the axe for being lazy, because she's not; but if she needs to lose her job to ensure the survival of the nation, that's painful, but necessary.
Of course, on the other side of the divide, the Unions are not exactly revealing themselves to be grand strategists either. When the Unions lay out their vision for the future of Ireland, they point north to Scandinavia, in particular Denmark and Sweden with their high-tax, total welfare approach to society.
The Unions argue that because the Swedes and Danes have high taxes and happy societies, ergo high taxes lead to happy societies. Therefore, instead of cutting public spending, Ireland just needs to raise taxes, and we will all be happy, and shop at Ikea. There is a slight flaw in that plan, however, which can be summed up in this video clip:
The Unions are forgetting how the Nordic welfare states came into being. They did not spring into life fully formed, they developed broadly along the lines suggested by Marx - which makes it so ironic that the Unions don't understand how we cannot hope to raise taxes one evening, and in the morning wake up surrounded by blue-eyed blondes (that's their aim, right?).
I have done some work in Scandinavia, and what struck me was what a long history these nations had of wealth creation and prosperity before they jumped to a Social Democratic model. They built up industry, developed businesses, and created the core level of financial wealth needed to support a switch to a robust welfare state before they began transforming their society. In Ireland, if we try to build a high-tax welfare economy from our current industrial base, we will only succeed in killing off business and driving wealth out of the country - we do not have sufficient indiginous wealth to support a welfare state.
The brewing conflict's battlelines were drawn further with the President's comments (eh hello, President? This isn't America - you just look dignified and occasionally say uplifting things) on the need for the Government to rigorously crack-down on "lazy public servants". The Government is clearly setting out its plan of attack - the tried and trusted (and generally unsuccessful) approach of suggesting that the Public Sector is lazy. This strategy will fail, and the reason why is hinted at above - even I, an arch-capitalist, right-wing demagogue and free-market buccaneer (YAARRGH!) know that not all public sector workers are lazy, nor should we cut their numbers and wages because they deserve punishment. Rather cuts must happen because of the cold hard economic truth that budget slashing is the only way to keep this country afloat. This is the line that the Government needs to be pushing now - I will never accept that Mrs. Aitor will get the axe for being lazy, because she's not; but if she needs to lose her job to ensure the survival of the nation, that's painful, but necessary.
Of course, on the other side of the divide, the Unions are not exactly revealing themselves to be grand strategists either. When the Unions lay out their vision for the future of Ireland, they point north to Scandinavia, in particular Denmark and Sweden with their high-tax, total welfare approach to society.
The Unions argue that because the Swedes and Danes have high taxes and happy societies, ergo high taxes lead to happy societies. Therefore, instead of cutting public spending, Ireland just needs to raise taxes, and we will all be happy, and shop at Ikea. There is a slight flaw in that plan, however, which can be summed up in this video clip:
The Unions are forgetting how the Nordic welfare states came into being. They did not spring into life fully formed, they developed broadly along the lines suggested by Marx - which makes it so ironic that the Unions don't understand how we cannot hope to raise taxes one evening, and in the morning wake up surrounded by blue-eyed blondes (that's their aim, right?).
Marx claimed (from what I vaguely remember from that Political Theory class I dozed through in college) that Communism was the sixth stage in human economic development (yes, yes a Wiki link. So sue me if I don't have Das Kapital to hand), with our path to communal utopia running like this:
1. Primitive Communism
2. Slave society
3. Feudalism
4. Capitalism
5. Socialism
6. Communism
I guess the Nordics are at stage 5, or perhaps between 4 and 5. The Unions think we can jump from 4 to 5. Slight problem - Ireland isn't at 4, it's at 3. We are still a feudal society. Power is concentrated in the hands of those who hold land, and political power resides with a narrow band of the elite, and is regularly (indeed usually) passed on as inheritance. We aren't capitalist yet, as those with money and power in Ireland don't own the means of production. We have no "means of production", because we have no industry. And because we have no domestic industry to speak of, the proletariat can't sell their labour. When jobs are available, the proles can't move to where the jobs are, as they are committed (usually via massive mortgages) to remaining in place, they are tied to the land. They are serfs.
I have done some work in Scandinavia, and what struck me was what a long history these nations had of wealth creation and prosperity before they jumped to a Social Democratic model. They built up industry, developed businesses, and created the core level of financial wealth needed to support a switch to a robust welfare state before they began transforming their society. In Ireland, if we try to build a high-tax welfare economy from our current industrial base, we will only succeed in killing off business and driving wealth out of the country - we do not have sufficient indiginous wealth to support a welfare state.
That's why all of us, even the lefties, need to be rooting for Ireland to choose capitalism. Once our economy has recovered, then let's have the Nordic debate.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
