Has the GAA made Ireland Less United?

Does anyone else feel the GAA have made Ireland less united? Which of course defeats one of their original (unstated) purposes. Because of Republican factions (Tyrone particularly opposed Adams constitutional shift in the eighties) Tyrone already feel estranged from "nationalist leaders". And its hard to imagine Kerry people would have the same sense of separateness and parochial identity withoutthe help of one of Irelands most enduring, secretive and changeless organisations (the GAA). Actually I will have a wager, with the rise of popularity in Munster rugby and the recession inevitably going to hit rural Ireland disproprotinatly, I will witness the rise of "Munster nationalism" in my lifetime. For goodness sake people, the boys from Co. Tyrone are your brothers.

Kenny's Comments in Davos

The remark "(Irish) went mad borrowing" is completely true, the only problem is it is too generalised. Who are these "Irish"? Politicians for one reason or another like to speak to a united community, which is itself delusional. Also, I always thought the attraction of money was power and prestige. I think it has very little to do with "greed" a such. The most venally "greedy" people I know are unemployed alcoholics. Not the kind of people who run or borrow mega big from banks. Money for them is always a means. But for the Celtic Tiger elite money was a kick in itself.

The Pursuit of Unhappiness?

For all you apparently struggling Irish people; There is no scientific evidence to suggest an equivalence between happiness and money. This is after  you have secured a basic level of subsistence. By which I mean able to adequately nourish yourself, keep a roof over your head and not be one payment away from the debt courts. And, of course, if you are not securing that basic level of subsistence,  by all means ignore whats to follow. There is a concept in sociology called the "hedonic treadmill", which is used to explain data that indicates that rather than income increase elevating happiness and general well being,  the more money you get the more you raise the bar of what you consider happiness. Unfortunately it means we are more determined by social conditioning than humanists like myself would care to admit. If all our friends pass the time smoking Gauloises, playing chess and drinking rum and coke then you will automatically say to yourself  "I need to make money that will enable me to smoke Gauloises, play chess and drink rum and coke." However, in the process of seeking advancement, you may get a better job, move to a different place and meet new people, people who rather than smoking, playing chess and drinking rum and cokes, like landscape gardening, skiing, sitting on Quangos and only drink wine bought in gourmet food shops. So in the process of social advancement the person has found it has made him no less satisfied, in fact since higher income levels are more difficult to attain it has made him more dissatisfied,. They are still people whose wealth, status and securities  he envies even though he has surpassed his erstwhile enviable peers.  This is called the "hedonic treadmill", that so called social mobility is just one hot, sweaty effort to keep up with the social game. And the best lesson to be learned is live your life the way you want to live it, not how the gossiping Jones tell you how to live it, or like politicians who have become like gossiping Jones' to keep the retail industry going. Still the remarkably prevalent human tendency to follow the mob, bow to social pressure and live by borrowed wisdom and creeds, is, as misanthropes like me have to remind everyone, endemic.

Are the ULA's Budget Proposals Really Such a Fantasy?

For many the United Left Alliance(ULA) of Joe Higgins and Richard Boyd Barrett are playing a difficult political balancing act, on the one hand they fundamentally oppose capitalism, dropping vague hints about full democratic control of resources and the anarchic nature of private markets, all while strangely avoiding the politically marginialising S word (socialism) and at the same time behaving like opposition TDs, condescending to propose something as mundane as a costed alternative budget. And because ULA people seem to have personality, something very rare in politics, it is very easy to laugh at them. In Richard Boyd Barrett you have a an upper middle class Trot, someone you can't help imagining loitering around University campuses wearing charity shop clothes in a protest against consumerism and in Joe Higgins, with that bespectacled scowling visage, who can't remove him from the rainy council estate in Grimsby during the miners strike.

Still their budget proposals are very interesting and they have infused life and ideas into otherwise deadbeat and conformist budget commentaries. After rooting around the internet I eventually found the document but strangely enough not in the ULA website, but the presumably redundant People Before Profit Alliance. UCL Budget Statement December 2011.

Have a read of the document for youself, its quite short, it beats automatically dismissing them and sticking to that parroted media cliche that the ULA are "living in fantasy land". I have however, for your convineance, summarised the main points below.

1. They propose introducing an asset tax on people in the top 5% wealth bracket. They allege this would raise 10 billion.

2.Increse the effective rate of income taxes to raise 5 billion. Details are fussy but they mentioned that for those earning over 300 thousand a year the effective rate will be raised to about 60%.

3.They would abolish the universally reviled Universal Social Charge.

4.They would invest the 5.5 billion in the National Pension Reserve fund into creating 150 thousand public sector jobs. (Which interestingly is only 50 thousand more than the government proposals.)

5. It also proposes to impose penalties on tax fugitives. These would include an assent tax on global wealth and income tax on incomes exceeding 200,000 euro. The document doesn't outline how these taxation levies would be imposed, such as withdrawal of citizenship and so on.

By far the most controversial proposal is the 10 billion raised from 5% wealth tax on the top 5%. This of course involves calculating exactly how much is owned (both financial and non-financial assets) by the top 5%, how much is left after liabilities (such as debts and taxation) and how much can be effectively taxed in a country where wealth is mobile and the economy is considerably open. The calciulations for this figure are outlined in a footnote in the bottom right hand corner of the second page:

"Credit Suisse estimates that financial assets make up 47 percent of total assets (Table 2-4 on page 71 in Credit Suisse Report). This means that there is €311 billion in financial assets and €351 billion in non-financial assets for a total of €662 billion (using latest CSO data). After financial liabilities of €194 billion, total net wealth is €468 billion. As 28.1% of net wealth is held by the top 1%, they hold 131.5 billion of total net wealth. As 46.85% of net wealth is held by the top 5"

Despite the fact that I've heard people dismiss the ULA's findings as fantasticalCredit Suisse is not some radical Marxist think tank, in fact it doesn't even have vaguely progressivist, social justice biases, it is in fact a Swiss bank, and its findings are well qualified and considered quite reputable. The Credit Suisse Wealth Report 2011 is available online and is worth reading. Particularly in a period of growing europhobia it is revealing to see satistical confirmation that European countries like France are more equal than countries like Ireland andBritian, who are now quick to blame Europe for their own indigenous economic idiocies.

Take for instance France, debt per household is only 12% of assets, the proportion of households with over 100,000 dollars is double the world average while virtually no French household has under 1,000. France is not as equal as some European countries but it is still considerably more equal that Britain, whose Gini Coefficient of economic inequality has steadily rose since the 50's and 7.1% of households have assets of under 10,000 dollars.

The one country that surprised me was South American neo-liberal, Celtic Tiger wannabees Chile (remember Bertie Ahern was a welcome feature on the wine and cheese business conference circuit) who despite having a Gini rating of 78 it seems the bulk of the population occupies a comfy middle of between 10-100,000 assets per household. Although the Suisse group acknowledges the bulk of the data comes from household surveys which are of course far from a perfect science.

I could find nothing about Ireland's financial assets in the Wealth Report though, the figure the ULA document is referring to actually comes from The Credit Suisse Global Wealth Databook, which is a completly differett document and is also available online. Nor is Ireland mentioned on pg 71 (as the ULA aledge) ireland's financial and non-financial wealth per adult is documented on page 68 of the PDF I linked above. They estimate total financial assets at134,223 and non-financial assets at 118, 540. The ULA document however amateurishly gets the figures mixed up, the 47% they cite obviously refers to the figue of 118,540, but this is the estimate of non-financial assets not financial assets.

This still could be a reasonable way of calculating what out the 662 billion CSO figure is financial and non-financial assets. Although keep in mind that CSO figure dates from pre-crash 2009. Also it doesn't seem implausible that the top 5% own 46.85% of the wealth. Obviously its easy to sneer at such pots at calculating something as fluctuating and clandestine as wealth.

But none of this is as unreasonable or as fantastical as some of our hacks make out, its not at all farfectched that the top 5% own 46.85% of the wealth or that it amounts to somewhere in the region of 200 billion. After all its supported by a generally reputable Swiss financial institution and stats machines not the Comintern international. Even accounting for error margins, the inevitable changes in the CSO results and the undeniable fact that much of this pot is mobile corp wealth I think its reasonable to assume there is stagnant untaxed billions in Ireland.

Perhaps the real fantasists are the Fine Gael and Labour government who when presented with such unsettling reality that a realitively plentiful pot of untaxed wealth does exist prefer to feed us the same tried old anecdotes about struggling tax loaded small business owners forced into closing or laying people off, failing to acknowledge the fact that struggling small business man of right wing lore doesn't occupy the top 5%, or is one of the non-financial corporations whose profits rose by 2.6 billion between 07 and 10. (Although of course that wealth is quite mobile). Its one of those occasions simple minded anecdotes should be replaced by hard data; "Between 2009 and 2010 profits of non-financial corporations rose by €2.6 billion to €37.8 billion"