Fair play to Enda Kenny

Liam Byrne

the_syco wrote: »

While others can't afford to do something. Not everyone has a nice big salary like Enda.

Sorry - should probably have been more specific....I was referring to other politicians

hellboy99

Stunt or not fair play to him, the rest of the politicians should follow the same, especially FF seeing as they got us into this mess, they sure as hell didn't deserve a pay increase or their new tuck shop.

jmayo

Deleted User wrote: »

The problem with that analysis is the detail.
A majority of voters did not agree with you in last years election.
Therefore they [the FF'ers] must have cocked it up since then.

Unless all our major banks are controlled by FF and the guys in lehmans were FF members,then your analysis is just another post looking for the easy fall guys again.

Ah yes I see you are singing form the builder party hymm sheet.
It is all the fault of the Americans and their subprime markets, right ?
The fact that no one internationally will touch our banks has nothing to do with the way they have financed the massive building bubble that has now got supposedly 40,000 odd properties for sale.
Our banks problems are not American subprime but our own property bubble.
They are so in hock to the builders/developers it is scary.
BTW rumour on the street is that two of our most famous developers, both great FF men are gone.

Yeah lots of people were on boards saying how great a job FF/PDs did with the economy. Some of these are now probably unemployed or facing negative equity because of the great ff/pd government.
The problems for our economy stared back in 2001 but if you beleive that buying overpriced houses off each other with 100% mortages or borrowing to fuel the retail boom is the basis for a great economy then fire ahead :rolleyes:

Who needs exporting industries or service industries bringing in foreign cash, sure hasn't our town got 5,000 new homes and 2 new shopping complexes.
That descriptions can fit a lot of Irish towns.

jmayo

the_syco wrote: »

While others can't afford to do something. Not everyone has a nice big salary like Enda.

Biffo and the cabinet have an even bigger salaries so why can't they take a 5% cut ?

Nice to see all the FFers that have been damm quiet over the last few weeks reappearing on boards.
But I guess we won't see any for a while after the budget next week :rolleyes:

mike65

Dunno how true this is, but I heard it said this morning that Kenny announced his move off the cuff as he reckoned if he put it to the parlimentary party they would have told him to take a long walk off a short pier. I can belive that.

/off to p.ie to check

Sunday Times story

Mike

is_that_so

They are politicians. It's a gesture, a stunt of sorts and the kind of thing that can make politicians look a little less like the money grabbers some of them quite obviously are. If he was just a plain old TD then there'd be no big deal at all. Personally like it but would not hold it against any of his party for not following suit. It strikes me as the kind of thing that cannot be forced on anyone as circumstances differ but griping about it does make them look bad.

nesf

jmayo wrote: »

Ah yes I see you are singing form the builder party hymm sheet.
It is all the fault of the Americans and their subprime markets, right ?

The Sub Prime Crisis is making things a lot worse than they would be if we just had a bursting property bubble to deal with. We're not just reaping what we've sown at the moment. We'd probably be looking at a recession even if we hadn't had a property bubble you know.

jmayo

jmayo wrote: »

Ah yes I see you are singing form the builder party hymm sheet.
It is all the fault of the Americans and their subprime markets, right ?
The fact that no one internationally will touch our banks has nothing to do with the way they have financed the massive building bubble that has now got supposedly 40,000 odd properties for sale.
Our banks problems are not American subprime but our own property bubble.

I love how the word supposedly becomes suddenly fact.
No one knows how stable or unstable the main Irish banks loan books are.
What we do know is that they have been making billions in profit which means that they were by no means shakey.

Personally I couldn't give two flying fucks where stock brokers and investment managers invest.
The fact that they had to sell sell sell probably [see what I did there-you can say supposedly so I'll say probably] because they had a financial crisis of their own-they couldn't get any money and were forced to sell something.
The sell of the day , soup de jour if you like being banking stocks.
If it had anything to do remotely with Irish property or even British property,then the various guarantees given over the past few weeks would have plugged that.That lie and their rank stupidity in my opinion has been well and truly exposed.

BTW rumour on the street is that two of our most famous developers, both great FF men are gone.

Yeah lots of people were on boards saying how great a job FF/PDs did with the economy. Some of these are now probably unemployed or facing negative equity because of the great ff/pd government.

Negative equity isn't a problem if you are in a job and living in the house.
The person who bought the house made a decision that they wanted it at a certain time at a certain price.
If you have a 30 year loan and you are able to pay for the loan,and you stay working and paying for it,you aren't going to be in negative equity at t-29 or t-10 for that matter.
That would be the case for the vast majority of home owners making your anti FF rant a whole non sequitor.

The problems for our economy stared back in 2001 but if you beleive that buying overpriced houses off each other with 100% mortages or borrowing to fuel the retail boom is the basis for a great economy then fire ahead :rolleyes:

It's not but Construction is a fundamental part of a good economy.
Everyone who bought a house in the last 2 years did so I would suggest in good faith.
They made their bed and if they ignore the wishy washy rubbish paper selling sound byte of negative equity and continue to pay for their house like the vast majority of people,then they will be fine.

They'll actually be better off too,to be honest as the price of their mortgage is going down now not up and the panic fueled spending restricted recession we are in means lots of sales in the shops at the moment further helping their pocket.
Not to mention Oil down to sub $80.Thats a near 50% fall which will find its way to the pumps eventually as it's a real fall of 30% when you factor in the 20% rise in the value of the dollar in the past few weeks.
That rise by the way should be of some relief to exporters


Now theres my anti Rant.
I guess I am too positive?

Damn thats no good for the valium industry.. Guess I'll have to sell those shares.

ninty9er

jmayo wrote: »

Ah yes I see you are singing form the builder party hymm sheet.
It is all the fault of the Americans and their subprime markets, right ?
The fact that no one internationally will touch our banks has nothing to do with the way they have financed the massive building bubble that has now got supposedly 40,000 odd properties for sale.
Our banks problems are not American subprime but our own property bubble.
They are so in hock to the builders/developers it is scary.
BTW rumour on the street is that two of our most famous developers, both great FF men are gone.

So Irish banks have caused the global economy to be "on the cusp of recession" .

Reuters wrote:

"Yesterday I activated emergency procedures of the IMF to respond quickly," IMF Managing Director Dominique Strauss-Kahn told a news conference. "We are ready to answer any demand by countries facing problems," he said, adding that no country is immune from the crisis.
The IMF chief said the IMF was willing to provide financial assistance not only to emerging and developing nations, but also to Western countries.
"Nobody knows if some ... advanced economies will not also be in need of some help by the IMF," he said, adding that countries needing to borrow will face more streamlined conditionality than normal and funding will be made available quickly. "Very quickly means two weeks at most," he added.
After several years of no major crises in emerging economies, the move puts the IMF's board of member countries and staff on alert that the Fund will have to respond quickly if a country needs financial help.
It also puts the global financial firefighter more at the forefront of the current financial crisis following months of being on the sidelines.
Panic over toxic, illiquid U.S. mortgage loans has sapped confidence in financial institutions, forced governments to pledge hundreds of billions of dollars of taxpayer money and pushed Western and other central banks to deliver their first coordinated interest rate cut.
Speaking ahead of IMF and World Bank meetings of world finance leaders in Washington this weekend, Strauss-Kahn said the main task for policy-makers was to restore confidence and calm global markets.
Group of Seven finance ministers and central bank chiefs also meet in Washington on Friday to consider their options.
The IMF's emergency facility was created in 1995 as a way of speeding up the approval of loans to countries in peril.
It was first used in 1997 to help the Philippines, Thailand, Indonesia and South Korea end crushing runs on their currencies during the Asian financial crisis.
The IMF, which played a central role in the bailouts of countries in Asia and Latin America in the 1990s, relied on lending to fund its operations. But with fewer crises over the years, it had faced a growing income deficit, prompting an agreement in April to sell some of its gold stocks and invest profits in government and corporate bonds.
The IMF has about $200 billion immediately available to lend to countries in need but can tap other sources. This is small compared to the trillions of dollars central banks and governments have poured into the financial system over the past few weeks.
UNDER PRESSURE
Emerging markets are under pressure again after strains in the United States and Europe spread. Investors are fleeing their securities for safer assets, foreign banks are cutting lending and the countries' exporters are braced for weaker demand from Western consumers.
Strauss-Kahn renewed calls for more coordinated steps to calm panicky markets beyond the unprecedented simultaneous action of central banks on Wednesday to cut interest rates.
He said the global economy was on the cusp of recession but with quick and forceful action, the spreading crisis could be contained.
"All kinds of cooperation has to be recommended. All lonely acts have to be avoided, if not condemned," he said.
His calls for more coordination were backed by World Bank President Robert Zoellick who said he hoped a meeting of Group of Seven industrial nations on Friday will indicate they "are getting ahead of the curve."
He said while countries will take different actions, tailored for their own circumstances, they should coordinate beyond just the G7 members to target the same basic problems.
"The actions need to be coherent and reinforcing," he said, referring to Wednesday's simultaneous rate cut by central banks.

We're the 2nd most or most open economy on the face of the globe, you can't expect to escape this sort of international force. Property prices are main factor in the Irish crisis, causing headaches for banks and developers for whom they are current assets. Private individuals however have nothing to worry about as they are fixed assets and recession means eff all as long as you can afford your (now lower) mortgage repayment (or a good wedge of it). The value of a private individual's home has NOTHING to do with their ability to afford it. Negative equity is a financial state relating to value. It means NOTHING in relation to financial cashflow.


In relation to the builders, there are builders who donate to FG too.....I've seen the transactions on their books...it means **** all except that FG is the party of preference of the owener of the company. There's a particular FF builder who's way ahead of the possy and is now building in Poland having offloaded incomplete developments to other developers who are now close to the wayside. Being a good businessman has nothing to do with being a member or supporter of a political party.

Fianna Fáil is NOT Zanu-FF, the bankers party, the builders party or it seems, your party, but 41% of the electorate disagreed with you last year.

Fianna Fáil has been and always will be the republican party, The same way as Fine Gael is the commonwealth party and Labour is the upper middles class party, but doesn't wear the tag.

If you have an issue with the economy, I suggest you research your facts before throwing around unfounded accusations on the basis of something David McWilliams or George Lee has said on the 6-One News.

And just to re-iterate what I have already said....fair play to Enda....but Black Briar was probably dead on the money with his long walk short plank comment...as seen by the comments of Herr Hayes and Duce Flanagan.

turgon

ninty9er wrote: »

Fianna Fáil is NOT Zanu-FF, the bankers party, the builders party or it seems, your party

Your right, they are nothing, the "centralists" don't stand for anything, and are simply slaves to public opinion when there is an election to be won. Its a sad state of affairs that the largest party in Ireland don't actually stand for anything except their own self interest and keeping the public in some kind of induced contentment..

nesf

turgon wrote: »

Its a sad state of affairs that the largest party in Ireland don't actually stand for anything except their own self interest and keeping the public in some kind of induced contentment..

Eh, isn't that just a really good definition of the average politician in any of the major parties? I mean, I agree FF are a populist lot but that just seems to be par for the course in this country rather than anything unique to the party.

turgon

turgon wrote: »

Its a sad state of affairs that the largest party in Ireland don't actually stand for anything except their own self interest and keeping the public in some kind of induced contentment..

Frankly if you go to any constituency clinic of any public representative in most democracies across the world,you'll get that-despite what might be on their glossy brochure.

the_syco

Last year when they voted for their own pay increase, 3 people from Sinn Fein voted against the pay increase. The rest, including all of FG, voted for their pay increase. If they want it to look good, they should stop said pay increase. Otherwise, is that 5% less their current paycheck, or 5% less than their current paycheck(plus the 30% increase) ?

Of course, the three from SF could also be getting money off the British government, so their high horse may not be so high.

nesf

the_syco wrote: »

Of course, the three from SF could also be getting money off the British government, so their high horse may not be so high.

Or the three from SF, confident of the fact that the rest of the TDs would vote Yes and thus securing them the pay increase anyway, could vote No getting to look like they oppose it while still getting to have the pay increase. A bit like Labour could have been seen to be doing with the bank guarantee recently, even if Labour thought it was the correct action they could safely vote No and play to their base while not having to worry about their No vote actually stopping the legislation from going through. Alan Dukes was scathingly dismissive of it on Q&A for this reason (among others).

A vote where each TD actually had to publicly vote on whether they themselves received the pay increase would be far more enlightening on where people really stood on the issue, but they'd (TDs in general) never agree to doing it.

FX Meister

spadder wrote: »

FF could steal his thunder by announcing a 10% cut.

He doesn't really have any thunder to steal to be honest. Wasn't Ming the first to call for pay cuts anyway. He took a 10% cut himself.

jmayo

nesf wrote: »

The Sub Prime Crisis is making things a lot worse than they would be if we just had a bursting property bubble to deal with. We're not just reaping what we've sown at the moment. We'd probably be looking at a recession even if we hadn't had a property bubble you know.

Yep we would suffer becuase US is suffering but our recession has arrived a lot earlier than elsewhere becuase we had so much tied up in construction industry. So becuase we would have had a recession anyway are you saying we should ignore the pigs ear that the previous government's made of things ?

Deleted User wrote: »

No one knows how stable or unstable the main Irish banks loan books are.
What we do know is that they have been making billions in profit which means that they were by no means shakey.

Profit yesterday means f*** all today.
Also you should know that cash flow is what keeps a business going and cash is particularly necessary for a BANK.
If the profits were paid out in dividents, bonuses and reinvested in property through loans then they are not available to the business. What does liquidity mean ?
It matters feck all if you have money in assets that are not sellable and are decreasing in value.

Deleted User wrote: »

The sell of the day , soup de jour if you like being banking stocks.
If it had anything to do remotely with Irish property or even British property,then the various guarantees given over the past few weeks would have plugged that.That lie and their rank stupidity in my opinion has been well and truly exposed.

But why won't other banks lend to Irish banks if they are so profitable, have guarantees from the govenment etc ? It's because people reckon they are sitting on a pile of sh** loans to developers. So are all investors stupid that they are trying to get rid of bank stock :rolleyes:

Deleted User wrote: »

Negative equity isn't a problem if you are in a job and living in the house.
The person who bought the house made a decision that they wanted it at a certain time at a certain price. That would be the case for the vast majority of home owners making your anti FF rant a whole non sequitor.

... but Construction is a fundamental part of a good economy.

Negative equity becomes a major problem when you want to or rather have to move :rolleyes:
What if you lose your job as is becoming commonplace.
Even if you keep your job I don't think many people want to raise a family in a small appartment in Navan, Gorey or even Tallaght. People may want ot buy a bigger place ?

Construction became too fundamental (very common FF word I note) a part of the ecomnomy and if you can't see that from the fact that revenues are down so much and unemployment up so much, then I give up and you can believe and spout all the FF hogwash you want.

Deleted User wrote: »

They made their bed and if they ignore the wishy washy rubbish paper selling sound byte of negative equity and continue to pay for their house like the vast majority of people,then they will be fine.

They'll actually be better off too,to be honest as the price of their mortgage is going down now not up and the panic fueled spending restricted recession we are in means lots of sales in the shops at the moment further helping their pocket.

Oh FFS it's all well and good if you keep your job, or rather you and your partner's jobs, don't have kids etc.
Do you even consider the fact that people may have to move or is it the FF mindset that you made your bed so f*** you, you can stay in it for the foreseeable future.

Deleted User wrote: »

Not to mention Oil down to sub $80.Thats a near 50% fall which will find its way to the pumps eventually as it's a real fall of 30% when you factor in the 20% rise in the value of the dollar in the past few weeks.
That rise by the way should be of some relief to exporters

You know the price of oil has dropped worldwide so that helps exporters in other countries as well, hello :rolleyes:
So you reckon the dollar will stay at that level against the euro ?

ninty9er wrote: »

So Irish banks have caused the global economy to be "on the cusp of recession" .

We're the 2nd most or most open economy on the face of the globe, you can't expect to escape this sort of international force. Property prices are main factor in the Irish crisis, causing headaches for banks and developers for whom they are current assets. Private individuals however have nothing to worry about as they are fixed assets and recession means eff all as long as you can afford your (now lower) mortgage repayment (or a good wedge of it). The value of a private individual's home has NOTHING to do with their ability to afford it. Negative equity is a financial state relating to value. It means NOTHING in relation to financial cashflow.

Did I ever say Irish banks have caused worldwide recession but they have screwed up the Ireland Inc good and proper.
Private people have a lot to worry about, and if you can't see that then you will get a big reminder the next time you go canvassing.

Is that the stated position of ff, that negaitve equity is nothing to worry about and so what if the mortgage is way more than the place they call home ?
Sure it's grand if you don't have to sell in the next 10 years.
Are you guys for real, negative equity means poeple are stuck in the sh**holes they bought :rolleyes:
It means property and people will not move.

ninty9er wrote: »

Fianna Fáil is NOT Zanu-FF, the bankers party, the builders party or it seems, your party, but 41% of the electorate disagreed with you last year.
Fianna Fáil has been and always will be the republican party, The same way as Fine Gael is the commonwealth party and Labour is the upper middles class party, but doesn't wear the tag.

Would that be like the American republican party
Lets have a poll and ask posters if they believe ff are the builders party.
Remember the tent in Galway, remember what party has provided most witnesses or rather people been questioned by the tribunals ?

ninty9er wrote: »

If you have an issue with the economy, I suggest you research your facts before throwing around unfounded accusations on the basis of something David McWilliams or George Lee has said on the 6-One News.

Ps my info on property developers going under came from someone linked to ff and would have contacts high up. Maybe it is you that should check their facts.
Although I suppose the grassroots as usual are the last to see the sh** coming down

Sorry about the long post but these replies really pi** me off no end becuase it just shows the gall of FF and their people who have managed to blow the best years that this country had.
Can I ask are posters on here willing to sit and listen to the way FFers are trying to spin their way out of the fact that they helped create this mess ?
We have to listen to government ministers coming on radio/tv and tell us it is global problem and nothing to do with the way they ran the economy, as if they just arrived on the scene last week rather than 11 years ago.
Do posters see problems for the country with negative equity?
Are people happy that so much money was wasted and we are back to the 80s after all the hard work that people put in to make a vibrant economy over the last 15 odd years ?

ninty9er

jmayo wrote: »

Private people have a lot to worry about, and if you can't see that then you will get a big reminder the next time you go canvassing.

Was out last Friday week, the weather's been keeping me in since, but I only had 2 doors shut on me, one due to no semblance of English and the other because he didn't like who I was canvassing for.

jmayo wrote: »

Is that the stated position of ff, that negaitve equity is nothing to worry about and so what if the mortgage is way more than the place they call home ?
Sure it's grand if you don't have to sell in the next 10 years.
Are you guys for real, negative equity means poeple are stuck in the sh**holes they bought :rolleyes:
It means property and people will not move.

So what. My grandparents haven't moved house in 45 years...is the economy going to collapse and society going to head to hell in a handbasket?

AFFORDIBILITY of REPAYMENTS is the issue, not meaningless property valuations.

jmayo wrote: »

Ps my info on property developers going under came from someone linked to ff and would have contacts high up. Maybe it is you that should check their facts.
Although I suppose the grassroots as usual are the last to see the sh** coming down

I never said there aren't developers going under....there's one with a big deserted site in Limerick apparently gone bust, but I couldn't give a ****, more fool him for not have held back enough cash....however the other developer is a member of FF, well respected in the community, and is doing very well ta very much.:rolleyes:

Liam Byrne

Believe it or not, I'm partially with ninety9er on a few of the issues........far too many people fell for the "property ladder" rubbish, instead of deciding what THEY wanted or needed and holding tough.

On the other hand, I walked out of a bank because I heard the bank rep use that sickening phrase to someone ahead of me; I was looking for somewhere to live, not an investment that I could sell on at a profit later.

It's fine saying that the banks were peddling a fallacy / notion that suited them, but there is SOME validity in saying that it was a portion of the public that fell for it and got sucked in.

But the fact still remains that a lot of the politicians that will be landing us with extra taxes that we can ill-afford due to 10 years of 5% inflationary pressures are safe in the knowledge that they can take the hit.

The groundwork has been done for Tuesday's budget to be bad news, but if FF are to redeem themselves from the "in bed with developers", "lining their own pockets", "to hell with public services" and "pay WAY over the odds for unnecessary consultants and still get it wrong and waste money" perception / impression that they've cultivated through their own actions, then they'll have to ensure that those able to take the hit do so while those on modest wages don't get put under even more pressure...

In my book, a modest lifestyle costs about €25K a year.......so anyone over say €40K a year can afford to take a hit, and those over €100K a year - including politicians - can well afford to take a hit.

Of course, the financial "gurus" that got millions in bonuses for the last 5 years or so, while peddling 100% mortgages and fuelling the fire, should be forced to pay back those bonuses in fines and penalties......

nesf

jmayo wrote: »

So becuase we would have had a recession anyway are you saying we should ignore the pigs ear that the previous government's made of things ?

Not at all, I just think that blaming them for exactly what's going on at the moment, i.e. with the banks etc, is more political than real if you get my meaning. I'd also dispute what exactly a Government can do with an asset bubble caused mainly by external factors (i.e. cheap and easily available credit) but that's a separate issue (I don't think FF handled the situation well but I'm sceptical about claims that it could have been painlessly avoided by political action).

ninty9er

Liam Byrne wrote: »

In my book, a modest lifestyle costs about €25K a year.......so anyone over say €40K a year can afford to take a hit, and those over €100K a year - including politicians - can well afford to take a hit.

And believe it or not I'm with Liam (slightly) here. I'm doing a Tax project for college at the moment and one of the measures I'm putting to the group tomorrow is cutting lower rate tax to 19% leaving €35.4k as cutoff, cutting higher rate to 39% up to €110k regardless of single, married or whatever else there is, and imposing 48% above that.

That saves a couple on €50k €500 and costs a couple on €205k €5,550 extra. To give something back a deductable childcare charge of up to €5k meaning that the €205k couple pay €3,150 more in tax instead of €5,550 if they have a creche bill in excess of €5k whereas the first couple now save €1,450 if they spend more than €5,000 on creche care.

Completely off topic but just thought I'd share since I'm agreeing with my arch-argunemisis:D:D:D

jmayo

jmayo wrote: »

Yep we would suffer becuase US is suffering but our recession has arrived a lot earlier than elsewhere becuase we had so much tied up in construction industry. So becuase we would have had a recession anyway are you saying we should ignore the pigs ear that the previous government's made of things ?

Well I disagree that our recession has been caused by a building contraction.It's in the main caused by the credit crunch.

Profit yesterday means f*** all today.
Also you should know that cash flow is what keeps a business going and cash is particularly necessary for a BANK.
If the profits were paid out in dividents, bonuses and reinvested in property through loans then they are not available to the business. What does liquidity mean ?

You should read up a bit on this.
If you think all bank profits went out in dividends,you know nothing and desperately need to read up on this.If you think bank loans aren't a major input to the growth of an economy,you seriously do need to head to the library business and economics section.

But why won't other banks lend to Irish banks if they are so profitable, have guarantees from the govenment etc ? It's because people reckon they are sitting on a pile of sh** loans to developers. So are all investors stupid that they are trying to get rid of bank stock :rolleyes:

Bull.A UK bank took 20 Billion from the British government this morning-how much did the Irish banks need ? Zilch so far anyhow.

Negative equity becomes a major problem when you want to or rather have to move :rolleyes:
What if you lose your job as is becoming commonplace.
Even if you keep your job I don't think many people want to raise a family in a small appartment in Navan, Gorey or even Tallaght. People may want ot buy a bigger place ?

Thats a very tiny minority and hardly an immediate priority for that tiny minority given that in 3 or 4 years their property value could be different.
If they were buying a place with the intention of moving in 12 months to two years,I've no sympathy for them to be honest.

Construction became too fundamental (very common FF word I note) a part of the ecomnomy and if you can't see that from the fact that revenues are down so much and unemployment up so much, then I give up and you can believe and spout all the FF hogwash you want.

It was roughly 19% of the Workforce-thats too fundamental? Whats unfundamental about the other 80%?

Oh FFS it's all well and good if you keep your job, or rather you and your partner's jobs, don't have kids etc.
Do you even consider the fact that people may have to move or is it the FF mindset that you made your bed so f*** you, you can stay in it for the foreseeable future.

You are arguing for a tiny minority of households as if they are the vast majority and they are not.
Whats more you are making out that they MUST HAVE and continue to have that opportunity in the midst of a global downturn.

Thats a highly ridiculous standpoint.

You know the price of oil has dropped worldwide so that helps exporters in other countries as well, hello :rolleyes:
So you reckon the dollar will stay at that level against the euro ?

Don't know where It will go but I do know that it's down-meaning less commuting costs here,less heating costs just in time for the winter (I filled my tank this week actually-perhaps a tad too early but it was third cheaper than during the summer).
None of those items are affected by our government.

Gandalf23

ninty9er wrote: »

Property prices are main factor in the Irish crisis, causing headaches for banks and developers for whom they are current assets. Private individuals however have nothing to worry about as they are fixed assets and recession means eff all as long as you can afford your (now lower) mortgage repayment (or a good wedge of it). The value of a private individual's home has NOTHING to do with their ability to afford it. Negative equity is a financial state relating to value. It means NOTHING in relation to financial cashflow.

AFFORDIBILITY of REPAYMENTS is the issue, not meaningless property valuations.

This is incredible stuff from a third level business studies/accountancy student in UL.

I'm shocked by the deep level of misunderstanding of actual reality and simple economics this shows. It leads me to question whether 99'er is very very deeply deluded and actually believes what he is saying, or whether he is just simply towing the FF party line and outright telling lies.

Gandalf23

Gandalf23 wrote: »

This is incredible stuff from a third level business studies/accountancy student in UL.

I'm shocked by the deep level of misunderstanding of actual reality and simple economics this shows. It leads me to question whether 99'er is very very deeply deluded and actually believes what he is saying, or whether he is just simply towing the FF party line and outright telling lies.

I don't understand your complaint.

If you made a decision that you can afford X for a house with Y repayments,then thats that,you are grand you won't have to worry about foreclosure if you stay in your job.

It's an undeniable fact that the very vast majority of home owners are able for their repayments.

Negative equity is just a commentators favourite sound byte.They peg it out now and again to colour up their essays.
It's a real concept though but in the proper lifetime of an asset,it's a very transitory concept.

Gandalf23

Deleted User wrote: »

I don't understand your complaint.

If you made a decision that you can afford X for a house with Y repayments,then thats that,you are grand you won't have to worry about foreclosure if you stay in your job.

It's an undeniable fact that the very vast majority of home owners are able for their repayments.

Negative equity is just a commentators favourite sound byte.They peg it out now and again to colour up their essays.
It's a real concept though but in the proper lifetime of an asset,it's a very transitory concept.

Its obvious that you dont understand what I'm saying.

Your comments quoted above are ridiculously simplistic and show a deep ignorance of the situation.

Can I ask you for a reference to your claimed "undeniable fact" that the very vast majority of home owners are able for their mortgage repayments please? Where did you get this "fact", or is it just something you believe with no solid proof? Or did you just make it up?

I'm honestly not trying to insult you, but do you have any knowledge or training in economics or accountancy?

Are you really saying that we are all "grand"? I would genuinely love to know how you come to this conclusion when the vast vast majority of professional economists and academic researchers in this area would say that negative equity is a bad phenomenon, and that we are all very far from being "grand".

But you probably know better than them professional fellas right?

nesf

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Its obvious that you dont understand what I'm saying.

You're not actually saying anything other than, "you are wrong, and you can't have much training in economics or accountancy for saying what you said" from what I can see and I have formal training in economics and informal exposure to a lot of accountancy through business so your point which indicates that the issue is probably you not explaining what you mean well enough rather than them lacking in training.

Expand your points a bit better if you want people to understand them. The basic point of value is less important than ability to meet repayments for private individuals is relevant. Negative equity in nominal terms can generally be viewed as a transitory and temporary if a) the individual can meet repayments and not need to foreclose and b) they're not planning on selling in the short to medium term.

Gandalf23

Deleted User wrote: »

I love how the word supposedly becomes suddenly fact.

Irony perhaps? :D

Deleted User wrote: »

Negative equity isn't a problem if you are in a job and living in the house. The person who bought the house made a decision that they wanted it at a certain time at a certain price. If you have a 30 year loan and you are able to pay for the loan,and you stay working and paying for it,you aren't going to be in negative equity at t-29 or t-10 for that matter.

That would be the case for the vast majority of home owners making your anti FF rant a whole non sequitor.

They made their bed and if they ignore the wishy washy rubbish paper selling sound byte of negative equity and continue to pay for their house like the vast majority of people,then they will be fine.

They'll actually be better off too,to be honest as the price of their mortgage is going down now not up and the panic fueled spending restricted recession we are in means lots of sales in the shops at the moment further helping their pocket.

How do you know there wont be negative equity in t-29 or t-10? Proof or a reference please to support what you are saying. There are many examples of negative equity in t-10 and even beyond that.

What about the people who wish to trade up or sell (say, to move abroad?)? How will negative equity effect them?

How do you know that applies to the "vast majority of home owners"? Do you have a reference to some stat to support this or are you just saying words that will magically become fact (see first quote above)

You have an incredibly misguided understanding of this, and in my opinion your posts show this clearly.

Deleted User wrote: »

Not to mention Oil down to sub $80.Thats a near 50% fall which will find its way to the pumps eventually as it's a real fall of 30% when you factor in the 20% rise in the value of the dollar in the past few weeks.

Again, absolute rubbish.

The prices you are quoting are those for unrefined crude oil, and most of the heads of the major oil companies have already dismissed the correlation you have implied. The price drop you mention may never "find its way to the pumps eventually".

nesf

Gandalf23 wrote: »

How do you know there wont be negative equity in y29 or y30? Proof or a reference please to support what you are saying

Do you think it's likely that negative equity is likely to stay after 30 years of inflation eating into the nominal value?

Gandalf23

nesf wrote: »

You're not actually saying anything other than, "you are wrong, and you can't have much training in economics or accountancy for saying what you said" from what I can see and I have formal training in economics and informal exposure to a lot of accountancy through business so your point which indicates that the issue is probably you not explaining what you mean well enough rather than them lacking in training. Expand your points a bit better if you want people to understand them.

With respect, that is not what I'm saying.

Its bad form to quote me on something I didnt say.

Also, please dont assume that just because you fail to understand my point that everyone else fails to understand too. If you would like me to explain something in more detail I would be happy to do exactly that. All you have to do is ask

nesf wrote: »

The basic point of value is less important than ability to meet repayments for private individuals is relevant. Negative equity in nominal terms can generally be viewed as a transitory and temporary if a) the individual can meet repayments and not need to foreclose and b) they're not planning on selling in the short to medium term.

Thats one very very big "if".

Here are a few more "if's" for ya ...

What if you are planning to sell within the next few months? What if you are planning to trade up? What if you need to move away/abroad to work? What if you have raised a family and now wish to trade down? What if you have lost your job and now cant pay a mortgage? What are your chances of trading down in that case?

Are you saying negative equity is not a big deal for any of those "if's"?

Negative equity is potentially a very big deal for a significant amount of people, and for anyone to claim otherwise shows an ignorance of the simplest economic knowledge on their part.

Please dont hesitate to ask for any clarification of any of my points if needed. I would be happy to explain in additional detail.

Gandalf23

nesf wrote: »

Do you think it's likely that negative equity is likely to stay after 30 years of inflation eating into the nominal value?

I didnt say that, and made no such claim.

I simply asked for proof or a reference/link to support Black Briar's assertion that people "aren't going to be in negative equity at t-29 or t-10". He seems to know more than most learned economists and academics at the moment.

There are plenty of examples in many countries where negative equity lasted well into t-10.

nesf

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Its bad form to quote me on something I didnt say.

That wasn't the intention.

Gandalf23 wrote: »

Thats one very very big "if".

I fully agree, that's why the if is in my post and why I tried to highlight the two factors needed for negative equity to not be a problem. I would completely agree that there's both a sizeable minority for whom repayments are/will be a problem and another minority for whom selling in the short to medium term is very likely.

The thing is if you look at people who initially bought before 2000, which is a lot of people and probably a majority of present home owners*, then they probably don't have a problem with repayments because inflation and cost of living increases to wages have probably made those repayments a relatively small percentage of their take home pay.

*not investors