In Search of the Popes Children

MaxFlower

greendom wrote: »

It's easy to say that now - Hindsight is a wonderful thing - it's a shame it doesn't work in reverse

I think you're confusing hindsight with common sense.

greendom wrote: »

The general chatter back then though was of a soft landing- not too many saw this cataclysm coming

Unless our (Irelands) recession turns worse, I think we are experiencing a soft landing.

In the states they are tearing down brand new estates. I have a friend in California who can look out his window and see working/middle class people who have fallen on hard times living in tents in the park.

We have a guy at work who went back to Latvia after being in Ireland for a few years. Things are so dire over there he's back here again, and happy to be.

Firetrap

Over here, there's the safety net of the state to stop you having to go live in a tent. Am I right in saying that in the USA, your dole (or whatever they call it over there) stops after a while and you're on your own, matey?

Dob74

MG wrote: »

Pope's children was originally shown on RTE. And what about George Lee? Dan O'Brien was also often on Prime Time urging caution. The IMF, the central bank, The Economist - they all said the same.

There's no point saying that there was a media bias towards positive economic news at the time. In reality there was plenty of information there to show what was coming. People don't want to face up to the reality that they just didn't want to listen to the bad news.

You only have to listen to some of the people on Pope's children to hear the hubris and the greed. If you didn't listen, tough. Those who did will prosper and deservedly so.

Richard Curran - he of the Future Shock documentary - spoke on the radio about the anger he experienced after the programme. He was consoled by his postman "People are angry because they don't want to hear what in their hearts they know to be true".

Dan O'Brien only started to be on Prime Time in the last year or so.
Until then it was McLauglin and the like. People who worked for banks, estate agents etc. Who had a clear conflict of interest but where never questioned on it.
The Pope's Children was only produced when it was too late.:mad:

A house should not be considered a luxary. It is a neccessity, the snakes in the Banks have been let off. They dont have to hand back there bonuses that where given out, based on fictitious profits.
It's the 90% of people on the bottom who are getting screwed as usual.
While the top dogs get a free lunch on our backs

ionix5891

Dob74 wrote: »

A house should not be considered a luxary. It is a neccessity,

you missed a word

owning a house is a HUGE luxury

and thats why people rent as theres a NEED for shelter

people own houses as theres a WANT to own "own" shelter but one pays a premium for that

owning a house is not a fundamental human right as some Irish people think, your earn and pay for the privilige

luxury items are WANTS, necessities are NEEDS please dont mix up the 2

Dob74

ionix5891 wrote: »

you missed a word

owning a house is a HUGE luxury

and thats why people rent as theres a NEED for shelter

people own houses as theres a WANT to own "own" shelter but one pays a premium for that

owning a house is not a fundamental human right as some Irish people think, your earn and pay for the privilige

luxury items are WANTS, necessities are NEEDS please dont mix up the 2

But the only way to afford to own your own house is to get a mortgage.
Which is just another form of renting.
Since we dont have proper laws for longterm renting and leasing.
Buying a house and having it financied by a bank, which in a sence owns the house. Is just another way of renting.

Anyway the cost of construction including labour and material, of a house is less than 100k.
So house prices where manipulated.

ionix5891

Dob74 wrote: »

But the only way to afford to own your own house is to get a mortgage.
Which is just another form of renting.
Since we dont have proper laws for longterm renting and leasing.
Buying a house and having it financied by a bank, which in a sence owns the house. Is just another way of renting.

Anyway the cost of construction including labour and material, of a house is less than 100k.
So house prices where manipulated.

its more expensive than renting as you are getting something at the end of the period

Daithinski

mike65 wrote: »

McWilliams point about gaelscoile was/is that it was part of an aspirational lifestyle choice - choices tend to be bought on credit. .

I thought that gael scoils are are free? ie something that does not need to be bought on credit.

MG

Dob74 wrote: »

Dan O'Brien only started to be on Prime Time in the last year or so.
Until then it was McLauglin and the like. People who worked for banks, estate agents etc. Who had a clear conflict of interest but where never questioned on it.

I thought he was on a few years earlier and a quick google confirms this:
http://www.rte.ie/news/2006/0413/primetime.html

Dob74 wrote: »

The Pope's Children was only produced when it was too late.:mad:

Pope's Children was shown in Autumn 2006. I sold up then so it was not too late.

The information was there, the opportunity to take action was there. People just didn't want to know and they are still in denial.

What I found amazing about re-watching The Pope's Children is that it was the people themselves who were driving it. The banks, for all their crimes, were only part of the equation.

There is an ad on Sky News at the moment for a programme by a guy called Jeff Randell. In it he says something which sums it all up:

"we're here because we spent too much in places like this" - wider angle shot of him in a shopping mall/precinct.
"Becuase it's all about debt, personal, business and now government"
"it's about time we LIVED BELOW OUR MEANS"

"To those who said we couldn't have seen this coming - Rubbish"

MG

Firetrap wrote: »

As an aside, it would be great if RTE would show Richard Curran's Future Shock programme again..now that would make for interesting viewing

Would be great if they showed it again alright, I'd love to see it again.

Hopefully they haven't all gone off and killed themselves like someone suggested at the time............

djpbarry

Dob74 wrote: »

Since we dont have proper laws for longterm renting and leasing.

I'm getting pretty sick of this line being trotted out; "renters have no rights so I had to buy". I'm starting to think that a very large number of people in this country are completely unaware of the legal protection that tenants have.

London Irish

mickd wrote: »

Anybody can predict a crash its like saying it going to rain sometime. If you watch tonight's episode he goes to Germany where he comes up with a spectacular theory that German pensioners money is being invested in Ireland as cheap credit. When the Germans pensioners want to spend their money this will trigger a recession in Ireland. ....

Wake up. For f*cks sake.

http://www.sbpost.ie/post/pages/p/story.aspx-qqqt=NEWS+FEATURES-qqqm=nav-qqqid=41786-qqqx=1.asp

Regarding the funding problems facing Ireland, Somers said that the massive foreign borrowings undertaken directly by the banks - and then recycled as property loans - were at the core of the problem.

‘‘The banking system in Ireland borrows a huge amount of money - between €100 billion and €200 billion - from outside the state,” he said. ‘‘To put it colloquially, this was borrowed from Fritz, Gunter, Heinz and so on, and now they want their money back - and this has put the squeeze on us.”

He said Germans were nervous of the money lent to Irish banks, and annoyed that their Irish government bond holdings had fallen in value.

‘‘We found ourselves in the situation where the Irish banks borrowed all the savings of Gunther, Fritz and Heinz, and Gunther, Fritz and Heinz said, ‘OK, you guys, you have had a good enough time, now we want our money back’. I was at the IMF World Bank meetings last autumn and we got quite a lot of flak, particularly from Germans who were very annoyed over the Lisbon Treaty.

KarenWallace

ionix5891 wrote: »

you missed a word

owning a house is a HUGE luxury

and thats why people rent as theres a NEED for shelter

people own houses as theres a WANT to own "own" shelter but one pays a premium for that

owning a house is not a fundamental human right as some Irish people think, your earn and pay for the privilige

luxury items are WANTS, necessities are NEEDS please dont mix up the 2

Some screwed up views there, pal.

So not being a servent to a bank or a landlord is a "LUXURY".

No, pal. It is the fundamental basis of a free society. Have you been reading too much of the communist manifesto??

djpbarry

KarenWallace wrote: »

So not being a servent to a bank or a landlord is a "LUXURY".

Eh, yeah, it is. The alternative is buying a house with your own cash - how many people have that option open to them? A privileged few? Living lives of luxury?

ionix5891

KarenWallace wrote: »

So not being a servent to a bank or a landlord is a "LUXURY".

what do you call a 30+ year 100%+ mortgages that were so popular recently?

yep thats right, DEBT slavery to the bank for the rest of your life

short of winning the lotto or inheriting a wad of money i dont see how you can afford a house in this country without signing your soul away

sneakyST

ionix5891 wrote: »

what do you call a 30+ year 100%+ mortgages that were so popular recently?

yep thats right, DEBT slavery to the bank for the rest of your life

Thats one short life there ionix :rolleyes: ......as opposed to paying rent for 50+ years........
Which ever way you look at it you are paying the bank- directly or indirectly (unless the landlord owns the house).

thebman

djpbarry wrote: »

I'm getting pretty sick of this line being trotted out; "renters have no rights so I had to buy". I'm starting to think that a very large number of people in this country are completely unaware of the legal protection that tenants have.

I have to agree. Tenants actually have pretty good rights here from what I can see.

I looked up once because people kept going on about it and because I rent. I think our renter rights aren't bad and with surplus accomodation at the moment you can always move.

ionix5891

sneakyST wrote: »

Thats one short life there ionix :rolleyes: ......as opposed to paying rent for 50+ years........
Which ever way you look at it you are paying the bank- directly or indirectly (unless the landlord owns the house).

renting is a fair bit cheaper than a mortgage (even with current low rates, wait till they go back up to their historical average) and you are not tied down with a debt rock around your neck

let me give you an example, i had to work for a year in large company in Dublin, myself and mates rented a place in a very expensive part of south Dublin for €1600/month,that was cheapest on the street since we knew the landlord well and hes after inheriting ALOT of money and this particular Georgian house

anyways the house was valued at over 2 million at time (probably still in 7 digits) and houses on the street where making headlines in the newspapers for breaking new property sale price records, do the maths at 1600 a month it would taken well over a 100 years to see a return on investment there, if this guy wasn't already loaded and had to pay a mortgage for this place, then him and his kids would be paying it off

that just shows how rediculous the property situation in this country got


not sure why this is turning into a rent vs buy debate, but theres so much uncertainty around now that im sure glad that im not tied down with a mortgage and can avail of jobs and opportunities around the world and this country, alot of people got on the property ladder thinking they will miss the boat, and prices will only go up and up, well what goes up must come down as some people are painfully learning now

sneakyST

Im not sure what you are really saying ionox. You said he inherited the house - I would doubt there would be a 2 mill mortgage on it. And if you can afford to buy a house for 2 mill you dont worry about mortgages and probably have a huge deposit anyway.

Back in the real world where houses are bought for a few hundred grand .... I notice you rented with yer mates - I dont think my wife and child would appreciate me sharing with my mates. People do like to settle down and actually own a place when they hit their forties.

I am actually leaving the country (hopefully soon) and dont see this mortgage as a rock around my neck. The house will either be sold or rented. The mortgage is 700 and I'll get 1100 for it if rented. Not bad if you ask me.

No matter where you are in the world - you still need to earn enough to put a roof over your head - if renting or "a slave to the bank".

Im not getting at you ionix I just think its rediculous at the way generalizations are made about mortgages and renters. It isnt that clear cut unfortunately , one way may suit some and the other suit others.

MG

sneakyST wrote: »

Thats one short life there ionix :rolleyes: ......as opposed to paying rent for 50+ years........
Which ever way you look at it you are paying the bank- directly or indirectly (unless the landlord owns the house).

Over the long run, whether it is cheaper to buy or rent for life is dependant on timing. If you bought low and value it during a boom, buying is better.
If you bought in the last couple of years, renting would probably have been a cheaper long term option.