Madam, – Now that recapitalisation has proven to be the ineffective solution that many of us knew it would be and interest rates are at their lowest possible level, central banks are embracing less orthodox monetary policy measures. The latest one, “quantitative easing”, is a fancy term for “printing money”.
This measure is just as doomed to failure as its predecessors, because the problem does not lie in an insufficient cash base in lenders’ reserves. Rather, higher up in the plumbing system through which money is pumped into the real economy, there is a blockage, because the balance sheets of commercial banks are infested with falsely priced assets that need to be purged.
Purging these assets requires a complete nationalisation of the entire banking sector and its reassembly, lender by lender.
One of the obstacles policymakers must overcome in order to take this step is our model of economic governance, which separates monetary from fiscal and legal responsibility to protect the currency’s integrity from political pressure.
This problem is compounded by the globalisation of the financial system, which has put the money-creation function and its commercial vehicles above the jurisdictions charged with their regulation.
However painful the solution might seem, there is no alternative. The financial system must be dismantled and rebuilt in a more robust form. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – There are strong arguments to be made on both sides of the debate about reintroducing third-level tuition fees.
Certainly, universities are drastically underfunded. On the other hand, reintroducing fees would leave many people without the option of university education, especially as the decrease in part-time jobs is squeezing their finances already.
I propose a measured reintroduction of fees based on the conviction that many people who attend university should not be doing so. I am talking about those who do very little work, attend very few classes and leave with a poor, but pass-level degree, especially in the social sciences. These people are a drain on the resources available for hard-working students.
All students should be exempt from fees for their first year of university education. After that, if they do not achieve a certain level of results, say high second-class honours, they should have fees imposed incrementally upon them. Those who are achieving only pass-level results would have to pay full fees.
In this way, underprivileged students who work hard would be in the same position they are now, while those who simply see university as a bit of fun would be required to pay for their revelry or else find another occupation, thereby relieving the taxpayer of the burden of paying for unproductive education. This model would also be an incentive for better performances. I believe even the most hardened student campaigner would find it difficult to reject this model, at least in principle. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Senator Shane Ross is quite right to point out that the Government is being both cunning and cynical in baiting a political trap for the Opposition parties by inviting them to suggest how the present economic crisis should be tackled (Seanad Report, March 5th).
It is the Government’s constitutional duty to govern. If it is unable to do so and now wishes to enter negotiations with Opposition parties on the formation of some form of Government of National Unity, it should be honest enough to say so. Otherwise, it should get on with it and stop whingeing. – Yours, etc,
Madam, – Like many others, I have no difficulty with the notion of having to pay more taxes to help dig us out of this terrible mess. My main difficulty comes from my total lack of confidence in the abilities of those charged with managing the extra revenue.
On a related note, I would like to commend U2 for relocating their business outside the country. After all, why should they fund incompetence? – Yours, etc,