nama or nationalisation you decide

lucky-colm

like i said you vote


edit:
hmmm this is very embarrassing i can't seem to be able to add a poll to this thread

any mod out there able to give a little help please

Liam Byrne

Nationalisation at current (or pre-get-out-of-jail-free bailout) share values.

That way, those who screwed up don't get off scot-free (and the shareholders can take the CEOs and boards to court for screwing up so badly if they want).

Plus the public get SOME chance at getting a working banking system that works for the people and might even give them a return in the long run.

ei.sdraob

neither :mad:

mrgaa1

it has to be NAMA first and if that don't work then nationalise.

P. Breathnach

ei.sdraob wrote: »

neither :mad:

Both.

NAMA to ensure that we have a working banking system; nationalisation to ensure that the state does not, through NAMA, enrich the holders of shares that currently have no value.

If the banks are nationalised, the state should not interfere in how they are run. Directors should be appointed with a brief to run the banks on a sensible commercial basis, and they should then be left to get on with it.

ei.sdraob

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Both.

NAMA to ensure that we have a working banking system; nationalisation to ensure that the state does not, through NAMA, enrich the holders of shares that currently have no value.

If the banks are nationalised, the state should not interfere in how they are run. Directors should be appointed with a brief to run the banks on a sensible commercial basis, and they should then be left to get on with it.

hmm good points

acalmenvoy

NAMA, but at current market values, not the pie-in-the-sky fantasy football figures that the government want to pay...

ei.sdraob

acalmenvoy wrote: »

NAMA, but at current market values, not the pie-in-the-sky fantasy football figures that the government want to pay...

the banks are insolvent not handing over enough of taxpayers money to these failures would mean they will turn around and scuttle the economy

the banks are holding a shotgun to the taxpayers heads, we are being robbed in broad daylight

as i said in another thread this is akin to negotiating with terrorists (except these people kill indirectly via economics and robbery)

Yixian

NAMA for the best behaved banks, slash and burn for the worst. Nationalisation is a free ticket for scoundral bankers and requires QE which doesn't work.

Dob74

Nationalisation, we can sell the banks back to the market when the time is right. And hopefully make a little money
AIB should be disbanded, this is the second time in 25 years the government had to bail it out.
We should have more regional banks, not two all powerful banks that can bully the gov into anything they want.
Most importantly we need proper regulation.
Chances of this happening when FF are in power is nil.

dresden8

We need banks, understood.

Why do we need these banks?

RealityCheck

dresden8 wrote: »

We need banks, understood.

Why do we need these banks?

Probably because we guaranteed all deposits, loans and bonds in them, to the tune of some 450 billion. About 3 times our GDP .

Sand

Probably because we guaranteed all deposits, loans and bonds in them, to the tune of some 450 billion. About 3 times our GDP

Remove or modify guarantee...problem solved.

zootroid

NAMA is probably the lesser of two evils, but will still be hugely costly. But I don't understand why heads at the banks haven't rolled.

dresden8

RealityCheck wrote: »

Probably because we guaranteed all deposits, loans and bonds in them, to the tune of some 450 billion. About 3 times our GDP .

Indeed. Why did our trainee Minister for Finance feel the need to do that? Deposits are already guaranteed.

How much is held on deposit anyway?

ei.sdraob

dresden8 wrote: »

Indeed. Why did our trainee Minister for Finance feel the need to do that? Deposits are already guaranteed.

How much is held on deposit anyway?

the problem is that they guaranteed EVERYTHING, bonds and shares too which is stupid, investors buying these know the risks

what they should do is guarantee the savings/current accounts up to 100K (as already was the case) how many people would have more than that sitting in their savings :eek: and not being invested?

i dont see why investors are being bailed out, investing means risk for higher rewards

RealityCheck

Sand wrote: »

Remove or modify guarantee...problem solved.

Let it run out and only guarantee deposits there after.

dresden8 wrote: »

Indeed. Why did our trainee Minister for Finance feel the need to do that? Deposits are already guaranteed.

How much is held on deposit anyway?

The banks told him to :eek:.

We are guaranteeing something like 460 billion :rolleyes:. If you consider fractional reserve banking and the fact that our banks were leveraged to the last, it is probably only a percentage of it, maybe 10 or 15% so it could be about 50 billion. If things occur in a reasonable orderly fashion and people keep calm for a week or so most of that would not need be called upon.

meditraitor

dresden8 wrote: »

We need banks, understood.

Why do we need these banks?

I keep wishing someone would say this .............. we do not need these banks. let them and their bond holder crash and burn.

Other banks will step in......

RealityCheck

ei.sdraob wrote: »

i dont see why investors are being bailed out, investing means risk for higher rewards

Ah yes Capitalism :rolleyes:

ei.sdraob

another option that is never mentioned


lets say banks do collapse and depositors want their money


the government having not enough money can issue them with government bonds, redeemable at some point in future when there is money

this way people would vote in a government that better manages economy and will ensure a return of their money

also these bonds could be written of against tax or a proportion of tax owed by the taxpayer holding a bond to the state


and finally if the government has no money it might force ecb to print the money for the depositors, as not saving people who were responsible and saved up at low risk/low interest deposit accounts would send a terrible message to the rest of savers in eurozone, possibly leading to destabilization of eurozone, hence they more thank likely will act since they own the printing presses

DeVore

Poll added.

"Neither" meaning "I'd do something else"

and

"Nothing" meaning "I wouldnt do anything".


DeV.

P. Breathnach

DeVore wrote: »

Poll added.

"Neither" meaning "I'd do something else"

and

"Nothing" meaning "I wouldnt do anything".

What about "Both"?

RealityCheck

P. Breathnach wrote: »

What about "Both"?

I would say "nationalise" as it incorporates "both" temporary state ownership and NAMA .

Kev_ps3

nothing..

hedgeh0g

zootroid wrote: »

NAMA is probably the lesser of two evils, but will still be hugely costly. But I don't understand why heads at the banks haven't rolled.

+1

Count Dooku

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Both.
NAMA to ensure that we have a working banking system;

NAMA only insures that bondholders of Irish banks will be paid 88%
Nothing else

P. Breathnach wrote: »

Both.
nationalisation to ensure that the state does not, through NAMA, enrich the holders of shares that currently have no value.

nationalisation only insures that bondholders of Irish banks will be paid in full
Nothing else

MrPecanPie

Force them with your feet.

Join the march this Saturday 2pm from the Garden of Remembrance to Dáil Éireann

- Why should we refund the banks when they gave bad unregulated loans? These numerous 100% principle loans contributed to property speculation in the last 10 years making an average workers wage impossible to afford a house. The banks drove up the cost with these toxic loans and now the taxpayer is expected to once again pay when these debts can’t be repayed.
- It is said by the government that NAMA is the only way to save our banking system. They say that they have at most €90billion of tax payers money at their disposal to save the banking system in its current form. How far will this go? When Irish mortgage providers have tapped the European Central bank for 3 times that much in the last 3 months. –source irish indo 1st September 2009 pg 37. Does the exchequer have this money now? No. When will we have this money? Not for at least another 5 years.

- “Our desire to protect all bank investors is the behaviour of fanatics. By this I mean that trying to pretend we have the money and the resources to bail out the banks when we do not is the economics of Stalingrad. We are trying to throw everything we have into the banks, exhausting our resources in the process. When investors see that we are being ruled by financial fanatics, they stay miles away because they know investing is pointless.” –source David McWilliams Irish Indo 2nd September 2009 pg 29


- There can be no denying that the spinning off of the Financial Regulator from the functions of the Central Bank in 2003 has been an outright failure. This was an institution set up by a Fianna Fail government to regulate the financial system, now they have ANOTHER! With €90billion of our money and future taxpayers money to come, at their disposal. Should we trust them with it? Whatever the alternative surely it doesn’t lie with Fianna Fail.

- So what is the alternative? Is it nationalization? This is sure to happen anyway but if it is done now, we don’t gamble our €90billion. What is needed is real transparency and with nationalization the public are sure to get it. We will see for ourselves who is to blame and who should be liquidated. Another solution is to do absolutely nothing and let the chips fall where they may. This is a free market economy after all and those who take the risk with their assets are liable for the loss. Anybody that goes to a bookmaker to place a bet and loses does not expect to be refunded when their horse falls at the last hurdle.


- Simply put: On the side are the workers, carers, nurses, the disabled and the unemployed. On the other side there are the banks. Who shall we save?

Max Power1

NAMA, but it should be policed properly. Banks should not be allowed to use valuations from 06-07.

manic mailman

Max Power1 wrote: »

NAMA, but it should be policed properly. Banks should not be allowed to use valuations from 06-07.

problem is WILL it be policed properly? INama is slightly the lesser of two evils in my eyes......mabey we should try nama and if it doesnt turn out well then nationalise? mabey if they didnt give the whole 60-65 immediatly...mabey give 40 and then defer payment on the rest depending on how nama turns out?

dny123456

should be an option for both.