The causes of the Irish economic miracle have been much analysed; less so its effects. John Murray Brown’s cover story in the new issue of Prospect looks at the new breed of Irish rich: the men—and they do seem to be almost exclusively male—who have profited from Ireland’s long economic boom and particularly its leap in property prices. These men represent the first big, indigenous moneyed class in Ireland, and they are having a profound effect on the way the Irish see themselves.
Interestingly, despite the fact that the extraordinary enrichment of Ireland has started to have an effect on the British economy—as Murray Brown says, in London, few big property deals get done these days without some form of Irish involvement—British media and politicians have largely ignored it. But as Ireland gets richer and more confident—its GDP per capita is now comfortably ahead of Britain’s—it is starting to care less about what its larger neighbour thinks.
Let us know what you think of the piece below.
Britain’s financial services sector is booming, as everyone knows. It generates jobs, provides vast amounts of tax revenue, contributes a surplus of nearly £20bn to the trade balance and helps make London one of the most vibrant, cosmopolitan cities in the world.
But the runaway success of the City also means that Britain is increasingly dependent on a largely foreign-owned sector, that London is experiencing explosive house price growth, and that income inequality is on the rise, despite this government’s redistributive measures.
There seems to be something in the air. In recent months we have seen the usually secretive heads of private equity firms given a rough ride in the Commons, papers like the Telegraph and the Mail issuing objections to the tax privileges granted to the super-rich, and increasing calls for a rise in capital gains tax. In the new issue of Prospect, editor David Goodhart and economic consultant Harvey Cole explain why the super-rich pay so little tax, and explore some of the options for squeezing more out of them without frightening them away from Britain.
We will be posting key primary documents that have shifted the parameters of public debate, so that you can read the real thing here. First up is the Stern review on the economics of climate change, published in October 2006. The review showed how little it would cost to cut emissions sharply, and made the business case for acting now. The full executive summary is here. For the review, background and commissioned research, and reflections and responses since its publication, visit the treasury website.
For more analysis, read Adair Turner’s article which argues that the Kyoto protocol remains the best way to address climate change. And David Strahan on what Stern got wrong.
Latest Comments
RSS