Logic is not a strong point

Tom Leonard says:
October 4 2017 at 4:23 pm
So where do you stand on state aid as a matter of principle?

Should the state be able to aid selected private businesses nor not? Would you have a different view if Lux here (or Ireland on the Apple case) if they had given a straight out subsidy, if, say, jobs were threatened?

I would have thought an a pro-state person like yourself would be on the side of more state aid rather than less.

Richard Murphy says:
October 4 2017 at 7:03 pm
I am wholly in favour of state aid

But it has to be accountable, transparent and openly won

This case involved none of those things

There must be level playing fields


I get to give aid to my favourites but others don’t to their.

13 thoughts on “Logic is not a strong point”

  1. “Accountable”. To whom? How measured?

    And how could you develop a doctrine of State Aid that somehow manages to exclude the widespread.public support for tax.competition (including state.aid) across the Irish nation?

  2. @ MC
    A level playing field would be one where the state aid balanced (neither more nor less) the unfair advantages given to a competitor e.g anti-dumping duties, Tax cannot do this as it bites on the profit remaining after the impact of the unfair (dis)advantage. Juncker’s tax breaks are ipso facto unfair – they were also neither transparent nor openly won. Ireland’s are at least transparent and open for anyone to see. Bermuda’s tax rules give reinsurers a fair and level playing field – strangely we never hear anything about Bermuda when he’s talking level playing fields.

  3. He doesn’t understand even the basics of what state aid is. This is from a professor of political economy with books on the Curajeus State or whatever bollocks.

    There are 4 elements of state aid – one of which is that there must be selective aid. The state helps X but not Y. There is nothing ‘hard won’. It is one giant back scratch.

    So he says he is in favour of something, then says he doesn’t like it.

  4. The ‘open’ process for getting State aid would be interesting. Interested parties must tender a bid detailing how big their losses are and how unlikely they are to sell their products. Extra points for being heavily unionised and resistant to innovation and change.

  5. Bloke in North Dorset

    “Surely there can’t be ‘level playing fields’ with regard to state aid, almost by definition?”

    State aid is acceptable where there has been market failure and it is possible to make it a level playing field.

    The Mobile Infrastructure Project I worked on was based on the premise that the mobile operators had failed to provide 2G coverage to certain areas, defined as Not Spots, where there wasn’t service from any MNO. Government provided the Capex for sites to be built and paid for the MNO Capex. This deal was open to all the MNOs.

    In practice we cajoled the all MNOs to occupy the sites, which they pre approved, to bring down Opex, which they had to pay.

  6. BiND: your example is not technically a market failure but more a case of spending other peoples money to provide a service to people that do not want to pay for it in order to score political points.

    They also suffer from a timing issue (i.e. the market may had solved the issue itself by the time government did – the recent Italia rural broadband state aid scheme is a perfect example)

  7. He’s getting into a muddle on state aid on that thread.

    He likes the state getting involved in distorting markets but doesn’t like it done behind closed doors to possibly unsavoury characters like Nissan.

    Oh yes.

  8. @ Diogenes
    I have done my blood pressure no good by going to TRUK to find out and the actual response was not just rude (so I get 1 out of three) but also an irrelevant comment which was a blatant lie.

  9. Agreed, John77, it is just a wild swing in the dark. It is difficult to find any evidence of thought, meaning or relevance in it

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *