NAMA - If there wer'e a referendum on it... How would you vote?

drunken_munky52

Most Clare people historically go with whatever the government tells them is right, but are the people really going to be brain washed by the government telling us this is for our benefit, when really the only people that come out un scaved are the ruling rich elite

buck65

I would vote yes on the one condidition that the government insist the banks involved would reduce the principles on mortgages on houses that were purchased since 2004 by 20%. It is only fair that if the banks are being bailed out by the taxpayer, he should also be bailed out by the bank. Well this would probably should have been done when the banks were re-capitalised.

Hawk Wing

I'd vote yes if they took these loans at the right price instead of the inflated prices they are planning to pay

Western_sean

I can't really imagine a methodology which will allow an accurate price to be calculated. I would also expect that a current market price would leave too large of a hole in bank balance sheets.

To me this suggests that the purpose of NAMA is to throw a few bob to Bank bond holders and I can't think of any reason why I would want to vote for that.

BLITZ_Molloy

We're kind of ****ed whatever we do. Everybody's going to have to pay for the way people have been living the last 10 years (mostly the people who weren't being irresponsible).

I'd rather the Fine Gael method of reform where we take the brunt of the pain in one go at the start. Let everything go to the wall and the whole country will be fecked for a couple of years and then get out of it. NAMA seems to be a recipe for dragging out the pain for 20 years.

Who can call a referendum anyway? Do the Green party have to walk out? Seems like it'd be in their interest to at this stage anyway. Look at what happened to the PD when they stuck by FF. I think FF are just going to bluster this through as usual. I'll be up in Dublin on the 12th to march anyway. I don't pretend to understand economic plans this complex (anybody who hasn't studied it for years can't) but my instincts tell me the people who got us in this mess aren't the right people to steer us out of it.

golfball37

Your actually spot on with that summary blitz.

Run_to_da_hills

Just vote NO on Lisbon

This will kick Fianna Fail out of power in a run up General Election and stop NAMA dead in its tracks.

Kill two birds with one stone.

drunken_munky52

NAMA will only serve to boost the share prices of the institutions it will be used on... thus returning the millions that have been wiped out by the fat cat elite in our ranks...

Remember the ads on the radio quote:

"The price of the shares may rise aswell as fall"

They were warned when they purchased those shares of the above fact, and now it didnt work out they way the wanted, they are effectively saying that:

"we are rich, that warning was for the commom peasent on the street, it does not apply to me... please mr cowen, give me some of the peasent's blood and sweat... im to rich to be broke"

And I quote Minister Lenihan when he was asked why does he not want to nationalise the banks instead?

He said that the "ECB" said the banks remaining un-privatised was what they would like to see. It should not take a rocket scientest to know, that they dont want the people to own such a enterprise... rather their own handful of elite.

skelliser

Nama will set a floor for property prices, its a complete scam

Fancy That

I think its time that top CFO's (chief finincial officers) were employed by Cowen and the lads to sit down and work out a way to get this country out of this mess. The so called goverment we are been led by are obviously not doing much to elliviate the problems mainly because they are in way out of there depth. Hiring CFO's worked for Obama so let them have a go here, but Cowen stay at home that day(better still have a Dail break) !!

Yes bring on Nama get rid of the toxic assets at todays values not at over inflated prices.

The share price is the banks does need to be boosted cause any lower than what it went at its lowest price and its bye bye BOI etc....where would we be then...going to ATM's and no cash...i think so..:eek:???

drunken_munky52

Primetime last night was classic:

Mark Little... legend

The waffling Lenhinin, going off on a tangent after every question he was asked, saying "we have to do this for the country", Little wouldn't let him get his rant going... just rapid fired to the next question... it was hillarious!

After all his raving, he still has not convinced anyone that the plan is a good one

Jim Martin

This country is busted, the only way to repair it is to flush it like a toilet and the only way to do that is to have an election!

Fancy That

Jim Martin wrote: »

This country is busted, the only way to repair it is to flush it like a toilet and the only way to do that is to have an election!

And what do me get then only a Labour and FG goverment who couldn't agree on the sky is blue the grass is green scenario. Idiots.

We need to take an Obama approach and get some proper advice..Hire top dogs. Its a double whammy here the banks and a recession.

BLITZ_Molloy

Hahaha. All Obama did was hire the entire staff of Goldman Sachs, who got busy bankrupting their competitors Lehman brothers and grabbed as much bailout money as they could carry. No wonder they're giving themselves record bonuses this year. They deserve it for wiping everybodys eye like that.

You won't hear the politicians or media talking about this for obvious reasons but it's the ordinary Irish people who are largely at fault for the mess we're in now. Banks and developers have always been trying to rob the ordinary consumer, most of us just let greed get the better of us and decided to pay way over the odds for property. If we'd all had a better sense of proportion about things and decided not to buy a house if the price was wrong the oligarchy wouldn't have been able to fleece us as much as they did. I bought an apartment at the height of the boom and as far as I'm concerned, it was my fault. Nobody bullied me into it.

Maybe if we have a little more personal responsibility from now on we'll start to see more responsibility further up the chain. Or at least we won't give people in positions of power as much opportunity to **** us over.

Western_sean

drunken_munky wrote:

NAMA will only serve to boost the share prices of the institutions it will be used on... thus returning the millions that have been wiped out by the fat cat elite in our ranks..

This isn't really correct. The current share prices of these institutions suggest impending nationalisation with the equity holders being largely wiped out. These share prices are really behaving more like long dated options and thinly traded ones at that. The bond holders are the ones who gain most from NAMA.

Blitz Molloy wrote:

You won't hear the politicians or media talking about this for obvious reasons but it's the ordinary Irish people who are largely at fault for the mess we're in now. Banks and developers have always been trying to rob the ordinary consumer, most of us just let greed get the better of us and decided to pay way over the odds for property.

I don't really agree with this either. Property losses are to a large degree focused on a generation of people currently between there late 20's and late 30s those younger and older are mostly unaffected. This is a very small portion of the overall population (roughly 16% at 2006 census), and to my mind coupled with the few large developers this portion of the population is responsible for the problem. - And as you have observed is no suffering most in terms of negative equity and will likely suffer again in terms of taxation, poor services, job losses etc.

Yes bring on Nama get rid of the toxic assets at todays values not at over inflated prices.

This is in effect a delayed nationalisation as doing this ensures the large banks require significant government cash to survive in the short-medium term.

Just vote NO on Lisbon

I can see some merit to this approach though not perhaps for the purpose suggested, however I do wonder who you would suggest we borrow money from when international bond markets realise we're a joke and we have given 2 fingers to the Germans in the form of a no to Lisbon?

Rujib1

Western_sean wrote: »

This isn't really correct. The current share prices of these institutions suggest impending nationalisation with the equity holders being largely wiped out. These share prices are really behaving more like long dated options and thinly traded ones at that. The bond holders are the ones who gain most from NAMA.



I don't really agree with this either. Property losses are to a large degree focused on a generation of people currently between there late 20's and late 30s those younger and older are mostly unaffected. This is a very small portion of the overall population (roughly 16% at 2006 census), and to my mind coupled with the few large developers this portion of the population is responsible for the problem. - And as you have observed is no suffering most in terms of negative equity and will likely suffer again in terms of taxation, poor services, job losses etc.



This is in effect a delayed nationalisation as doing this ensures the large banks require significant government cash to survive in the short-medium term.



I can see some merit to this approach though not perhaps for the purpose suggested, however I do wonder who you would suggest we borrow money from when international bond markets realise we're a joke and we have given 2 fingers to the Germans in the form of a no to Lisbon?

In a crisis two things always emerge.

1. Bleating sheep, who panic and make bad decisions.
2. Cool heads who think rationally and logically and lead most of the sheep out of danger with some casualties but primarily intact.

Most posters in this thread belong to the sheep category.

Western Sean and Fancy That are in the latter category. The rest of you sheep, need to follow the sheperds, or get mauled by the wolves :cool:

R1

drunken_munky52

We are dammed if we do and we are dammed if we dont!

So why do?

Dont do what they want us to do, coz if we dont, thats drags them into hell with us!

Now thats what I call EQUALITY

drunken_munky52

Rujib1 wrote: »

2. Cool heads who think rationally and logically and lead most of the sheep out of danger with some casualties but primarily intact.

Most posters in this thread belong to the sheep category.

Western Sean and Fancy That are in the latter category. The rest of you sheep, need to follow the sheperds, or get mauled by the wolves :cool:

R1

Cool heads?

Another catogoy for the likes of the above, catogorised as another member of the animal kingdom "Blind Bats", or Ostrichs with their heads buried in the sand...

Lets remember that the tax payer will be paying for this... that equates to me working my mundane 9-5 shift for LIFE and not even coming off close to pay for the greed of a handfull of ignorant grease balls in shiny Armani suits!!!

So effectively, all my life I will be working to pay off a loan to the bank I never even signed up for... another way of looking at it is MODERN DAY SLAVERY...

Get real mate... the shepards dont serve the sheep, the serve the wolves, the shepards are the wolves... dont equate this scenario to a bible story... it is far easier to understand this without reading an outdated 2000 year old human user guide

Rujib1

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Cool heads?

Another catogoy for the likes of the above, catogorised as another member of the animal kingdom "Blind Bats", or Ostrichs with their heads buried in the sand...

Lets remember that the tax payer will be paying for this... that equates to me working my shhiity 9-5 shift for LIFE and not even coming off close to pay for the greed of a handfull of ignorant grease balls in shiny Armani suits!!!

So effectively, all my life I will be working to pay off a loan to the bank I never even signed up for... another way of looking at it is MODERN DAY SLAVERY...

Get real mate... the shepards dont serve the sheep, the serve the wolves... dont dare equate this scenario to a bible story... it is far easier to understand this without reading an outdated 2000 year old human user guide

Phew

Thing is I really agree with you in terms of my anger about what has happened, why it happened and by whom it was perpetrated.

But do not kid yourself, we are in this mess and we are going to have to earn our way out. Giving the fingers to the bond markets from whom Ireland Inc needs loans to fund our hospitals and schools ets, AND giving the fingers to to Europe is one sure way to plunge ourselves and several generations into a mess which would be many times graeter than NAMA and a yes to Europe will cost.

Sad but true.

R1

Teadrinker

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Cool heads?

Another catogoy for the likes of the above, catogorised as another member of the animal kingdom "Blind Bats", or Ostrichs with their heads buried in the sand...

Lets remember that the tax payer will be paying for this... that equates to me working my mundane 9-5 shift for LIFE and not even coming off close to pay for the greed of a handfull of ignorant grease balls in shiny Armani suits!!!

So effectively, all my life I will be working to pay off a loan to the bank I never even signed up for... another way of looking at it is MODERN DAY SLAVERY...

Get real mate... the shepards dont serve the sheep, the serve the wolves, the shepards are the wolves... dont equate this scenario to a bible story... it is far easier to understand this without reading an outdated 2000 year old human user guide

Could we pause a while to clear up something about ostriches. They do not bury their heads in the sand. That is a myth. A myth that apparently originated from Pliny the Elder in AD 23 - 79, so it's time to end it. They also have three stomachs and no gallbladder and can run faster than 70 kmh. Their willies extend up to 8 inches and the male sits on the eggs at night so the females can go down the pub. So some respect, please.

Fancy That

BLITZ_Molloy wrote: »

....most of us just let greed get the better of us and decided to pay way over the odds for property. If we'd all had a better sense of proportion about things and decided not to buy a house if the price was wrong the oligarchy wouldn't have been able to fleece us as much as they did.

Its basic economics supply and demand...they kept supplying the houses to meet the demand. When this happens prices go up and up, this is the case with any product. The higher the demand the higher the price.

Why were the prices going up and up well because investors were buying up houses for the rental market. So in return us the ordinary taxpayer were been forced to pay above the odds. We didnt have much choice really...if you wanted a house you had to bite the bullet and go get it.

I guess some people lost the run of themselves and were not concious enough to know their limitations when it came to what they could afford.

I think its time we all looked a little closer to home and realised all in some way contributed to this mess. :eek:

fergusman

Run_to_da_hills wrote: »

Just vote NO on Lisbon

This will kick Fianna Fail out of power in a run up General Election and stop NAMA dead in its tracks.

Kill two birds with one stone.

How the hell does voting no to Lisbon help this country in any way given our current predicament?
Without the ECB and the european bond market where the hell are we going to borrow money to keep us afloat.
I was always a slight euro sceptic but now is really not the time to vote no or pull back from the EU it will only hasten foreign companies retranchement from ireland and make our position worse.

Voting No to punish Fianna Fail is the political equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

To just blame the banks and the developers while accurate is also a bit simplistic.
As Blitz Molloy pointed out no one was FORCED to buy anything in this country and everyone benefited from the Celtic tiger while it boomed.

The country as a whole lost the run of itself.... not just the rich developers and bankers... we as a nation became obsessed with property.

I'm not a fan of NAMA either, (Anglo should have been allowed to fail) but I havent heard a credible alternative anywhere yet.....

drunken_munky52

fergusman wrote: »

How the hell does voting no to Lisbon help this country in any way given our current predicament?

How does voting FOR Lisbon help this country in any way given our current predicament?

We have been making good arguements so far against the treaty, now its time for the YES siders like you to come up with good reasons why we should vote yes.

fergusman wrote: »

Without the ECB and the european bond market where the hell are we going to borrow money to keep us afloat.
I was always a slight euro sceptic but now is really not the time to vote no or pull back from the EU it will only hasten foreign companies retranchement from ireland and make our position worse.

Please understand that the ECB are ultimatley to blame for our current woes, as they were the root source for the credit that gave the Irish banks the ability to loan the the money to ordinary people and developers in the first place.

Why should we put our faith in such a "reckless" institution once again, when they were the ones that grossley overlent way beyond their means.

fergusman wrote: »

Voting No to punish Fianna Fail is the political equivalent of cutting off your nose to spite your face.

I agree... we must reject this treaty not to punish FF, not to punish anyone for that matter... but to reject the EU corporate elite who have deliberatly engineered this mess, by providing the banks of Europe with loans that effectively cant be repaid for decades to come.

fergusman wrote: »

To just blame the banks and the developers while accurate is also a bit simplistic.
As Blitz Molloy pointed out no one was FORCED to buy anything in this country and everyone benefited from the Celtic tiger while it boomed.

The country as a whole lost the run of itself.... not just the rich developers and bankers... we as a nation became obsessed with property.

The likes of you keep blaming our own banks and developers for losing the run of ourselves... it should be apparant by now from my above arguements... that Irish developers got LOANS from Irish banks -> The Irish banks got their LOANS from the ECB -> The ECB got its LOANS from the WORLD BANK/IMF -> That leads to the United States Federal Reserve, who are no more federal than federal express... follow the money trail and it is easy to see who has the ordinary people by the balls in this day and age... I could go on with this... but I would like to hear your view first on where this is going and answer my first question.

fergusman

[

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

How does voting FOR Lisbon help this country in any way given our current predicament?

We have been making good arguements so far against the treaty, now its time for the YES siders like you to come up with good reasons why we should vote yes.

Simple by staying closer to europe we will retain our attractiveness to multinational companies that provide FDI and jobs in Ireland.
Most of these companies would never have invested in Ireland in the days before the EU without tarriff free access to other european markets.
EU Structural funds and opening up of new markets have helped Irish businesses to grow. An easy example is Ryanair which in the days of the old flag carrier monopolies could never have happened.

Also to cut ourselves off from the ECB and access to borrowing right now would turn us into something worse than iceland.
If the **** really hits the fan here then we are really going to need help from the EU and the IMF and thats just the way it is.
Do you know of some other magical place where we can get the money to keep the country going?

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Please understand that the ECB are ultimatley to blame for our current woes, as they were the root source for the credit that gave the Irish banks the ability to loan the the money to ordinary people and developers in the first place.

Why should we put our faith in such a "reckless" institution once again, when they were the ones that grossley overlent way beyond their means.

Actually this is a very simplistic view of the capital money markets and does not reflect reality. Commercial banks dont just borrow from the ECB they also borrow from other banks and financial institutions using a variety of financial instruments. The ECB does lend money to banks and is responsible for the money supply in the Eurozone as well as interest rates etc.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

I agree... we must reject this treaty not to punish FF, not to punish anyone for that matter... but to reject the EU corporate elite who have deliberatly engineered this mess, by providing the banks of Europe with loans that effectively cant be repaid for decades to come.

this just makes me think of one thing tin hats
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tin_foil_hat

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

The likes of you keep blaming our own banks and developers for losing the run of ourselves... it should be apparant by now from my above arguements... that Irish developers got LOANS from Irish banks -> The Irish banks got their LOANS from the ECB -> The ECB got its LOANS from the WORLD BANK/IMF -> That leads to the United States Federal Reserve, who are no more federal than federal express... follow the money trail and it is easy to see who has the ordinary people by the balls in this day and age... I could go on with this... but I would like to hear your view first on where this is going and answer my first question.

Here you are just plain mistaken and misinformed.
Firstly the ECB does not borrow money from the World Bank (funding for developing countries only) or from the IMF (countries experiencing balance of payments problems).
It is financed solely from its reserves and if needed by physically printing money.
Secondly Irish (and many other counties) banks chose to offer 100% mortgages etc and to give ever increasing property loans etc.
Nobody FORCED the banks to borrow the money or give the loans.

What we should have had was tighter regulation on how much a person can borrow to purchase property. (In France for example you cant borrow more than 85%)

I admire the passion in your argument but I feel that some of your points are just hyperbolic, and lacking facts.
If youre interested, the property pin has some excellent discussions on this topic, I'm sure you'd enjoy the site, there are some very well informed people in there on both sides of the argument...

http://www.thepropertypin.com/index.php

drunken_munky52

fergusman wrote: »

[

Simple by staying closer to europe we will retain our attractiveness to multinational companies that provide FDI and jobs in Ireland.

Our low corporation tax is what attracts multinationals to Ireland. The geographic location of Ireland is ideal for the European markets. We are an English speaking, highly educated workforce and that is where our merits lie... not in the hands of a super institution in Brussels.

Nothing mushroomed in Ireland, until we devalued our currency in the early 90s and that was an internal decision, no help for Brussels.

fergusman wrote: »

Also to cut ourselves off from the ECB and access to borrowing right now would turn us into something worse than iceland.
If the **** really hits the fan here then we are really going to need help from the EU and the IMF and thats just the way it is.
Do you know of some other magical place where we can get the money to keep the country going?

What makes you think we are going to cut ourselves off from the ECB if we reject Lisbon? It does not say that anywhere... have they threatend us, (that they will not put us in even more debt), not to provided us with further loans if we do reject?

I cant see Europe as it is turning its backs on us, they have to treat us the same way they have always done, even with a two step Europe... or else they will end up in their own European Court of human rights

fergusman wrote: »

Actually this is a very simplistic view of the capital money markets and does not reflect reality. Commercial banks dont just borrow from the ECB they also borrow from other banks and financial institutions using a variety of financial instruments. The ECB does lend money to banks and is responsible for the money supply in the Eurozone as well as interest rates etc.

Ever heard of how exacty the banks create money in the first place? And no, I am not talking about the printing of money, I talking about how they pull figures out of thin air to create "New Money". It works via the "Fractional Reserve Banking System".

This is the biggest scam the world has ever seen... for paying off total DEBT can never be acheived in this system, becuase the amount of money that is owed back to the banks will ALWAYS exceed the amount of money that is in the economy... for if there was no DEBT then there would be no MONEY... mind numbing paradox or what... check out this link for more info:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fractional-reserve_banking

fergusman wrote: »

World Bank (funding for developing countries only) or from the IMF (countries experiencing balance of payments problems).
It is financed solely from its reserves and if needed by physically printing money.

Oh sorry... the World bank, WOW... nice friendly bank of the world... very gererous of them to give those HUGE loans to those poor countries... heroes.... WRONG... they give those loans to those nations knowing they cant be paid back and then when those countries default... they hold a gun to their head and ask them nicely to hand over their resources and services...

"It is financed solely from its reserves and if needed by physically printing money."

Just read that above link and you will see how those reserves are created to begin with... you would think that central banks base their reserves on gold or what not, but thats not the case... they just make up any old number they want.

Face it... going with the NAMA route, the government are just pi$sing into the wind with their eyes wide shut... they should take out the two fingers stuck in their arse and point them directly at the IMF and ECB

Warper

Yes

BLITZ_Molloy

Warper wrote: »

Yes

That would be an ecumenical matter.

fergusman

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

"Our low corporation tax is what attracts multinationals to Ireland. The geographic location of Ireland is ideal for the European markets. We are an English speaking, highly educated workforce and that is where our merits lie... not in the hands of a super institution in Brussels.

Nothing mushroomed in Ireland, until we devalued our currency in the early 90s and that was an internal decision, no help for Brussels."

I agree with all of this but having tarriff free access to other european economies is central to the above, this has only been possible through the EU.

Devaluation was a pivotal moment of the 90's, but it was nothing to do with Irelands forward thinking or a grand plan to reposition itself and more to do with the massive devaluation of the Pound which preceeded it and forced Irish Punt devaluation to restore competitiveness with the UK.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

"What makes you think we are going to cut ourselves off from the ECB if we reject Lisbon? It does not say that anywhere... have they threatend us, (that they will not put us in even more debt), not to provided us with further loans if we do reject?

I cant see Europe as it is turning its backs on us, they have to treat us the same way they have always done, even with a two step Europe... or else they will end up in their own European Court of human rights"

Yes but conversely the ECB is not under any obligation to rescue the Irish economy if it comes to it.
If we vote no on Lisbon I believe that the EU will be less inclined to bail us out, watch the credit default swaps on Irish Sovereign Debt, they will soar. The cost of borrowing for the Irish state and the Irish Banks will soar.... and then we are in even deeper ****.
If we were to default next stop is the IMF and I think we both agree that we really dont want those guys in here.

The EU and the Lisbon Treaty are far from perfect but for now I really dont think we have another path to take.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

"Ever heard of how exacty the banks create money in the first place? And no, I am not talking about the printing of money, I talking about how they pull figures out of thin air to create "New Money". It works via the "Fractional Reserve Banking System"."

Yes I am well aware of this as is anyone who ever studied even a little economics. Its not exactly news.
However I was responding to what you said which was

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

"Irish developers got LOANS from Irish banks -> The Irish banks got their LOANS from the ECB -> The ECB got its LOANS from the WORLD BANK/IMF -> That leads to the United States Federal Reserve"

which was misleading and innaccurate and sounds like its one big conspiracy, hence the tin hat reference.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

"Oh sorry... the World bank, WOW... nice friendly bank of the world... very gererous of them to give those HUGE loans to those poor countries... heroes.... WRONG... they give those loans to those nations knowing they cant be paid back and then when those countries default... they hold a gun to their head and ask them nicely to hand over their resources and services..."

I'm well aware of the shortcomings of the World Bank and IMF, I find their privatisation of water supplies in developing countries particularly abbhorent.
where did I say I was a fan of theirs?
I just pointed out that they dont loan money to the ECB which you had previously stated.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

"Face it... going with the NAMA route, the government are just pi$sing into the wind with their eyes wide shut... they should take out the two fingers stuck in their arse and point them directly at the IMF and ECB."

You could well be right but if we go ahead with NAMA and it fails then the IMF/EU arrive, if we dont the EU/IMF arrive.....
Either way we're probably ****ed for quite a few years.
Personally I'd like us to try something akin to Nama first, and try to get out of this mess on our own.
Unfortunately the calibre of our current governing politicians is scarily below what is really needed, like Mary Coughlan...jesus where the hell did they find her shes atrocious.

One thing I will say is that its a pity we cant devalue somehow within the Euro as we did in the early 90's with the punt but it looks like the ECB are intent on protecting the purchasing power of the Euro.

drunken_munky52

fergusman wrote: »

Yes I am well aware of this as is anyone who ever studied even a little economics. Its not exactly news.

You have obviously looked into this system in far too great detail then. For various banking terminolgy in it is a mere mask for what really is going on.

Fractional reserve banking is a system that allows for a great deal of debt to be accrued from a very small amount of money. Wikipedia defines it as:

...the banking practice in which banks keep only a fraction of their deposits in reserve (as cash and other highly liquid assets) with the choice of lending out the remainder, while maintaining the simultaneous obligation to redeem all deposits immediately upon demand. This practice is universal in modern banking.

This allows for large banks (such as European Central Bank) to create a system of debt that allows them to be at the top of an ever expanding Ponzi scheme.

Modern Money Mechanics, published by the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago, describes this system in great detail. The booklet is no longer in print, but is widely available on the Internet.

drunken_munky52

fergusman wrote: »

I agree with all of this but having tarriff free access to other european economies is central to the above, this has only been possible through the EU.

Devaluation was a pivotal moment of the 90's, but it was nothing to do with Irelands forward thinking or a grand plan to reposition itself and more to do with the massive devaluation of the Pound which preceeded it and forced Irish Punt devaluation to restore competitiveness with the UK.

fergusman wrote: »

Yes but conversely the ECB is not under any obligation to rescue the Irish economy if it comes to it.
If we vote no on Lisbon I believe that the EU will be less inclined to bail us out, watch the credit default swaps on Irish Sovereign Debt, they will soar. The cost of borrowing for the Irish state and the Irish Banks will soar.... and then we are in even deeper ****.
If we were to default next stop is the IMF and I think we both agree that we really dont want those guys in here.

Like I explained in the Lisbon thread, my main objections to it are in the order of:

1. Any suggestion of expanding ANY military spending, increasing the onas on countries to modernise their forces or ANY to do with the military is just a big no no for me... Im sorry... there is absolutlely no need to even promote the military anymore... if anything they should be finding ways to wind it down... I am totally oppsosed to any European treaty which makes provisions for the military, that includes Lisbon

2. The response to climate change mentioned in the treaty may as well be as useful as one of those "legal garuantees" written on a napkin. Totally lame and putting the entire world on the back foot. Back to the drawing board I say!

3. I dont trust the the ECB. Nor do I trust any bank, but I still need them for some fckd up reason! You mentioned "no obligation" for the ECB to rescue us... now I cant see what provisions are in the treaty that say, if Ireland does not vote yes, we will let you BURN... thats school yard stuff, this is different.

fergusman wrote: »

The EU and the Lisbon Treaty are far from perfect but for now I really dont think we have another path to take.

Far from perfect? How about "not far enough" in some cases and the other "perfect for big boys with big toys"

We do have another way... like I said, we gotta just let what happening play itself out first.. step back for awhile... RELAX... close your eyes and breathe... reconnect with your soul for a moment and get that money free feeling of hapiness, you know what Im on about.. now hold that thought and envolve like your should, thats natural.

fergusman

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

You have obviously looked into this system in far too great detail then. For various banking terminolgy in it is a mere mask for what really is going on.

Fractional reserve banking is a system that allows for a great deal of debt to be accrued from a very small amount of money. Wikipedia defines it as:

...the banking practice in which banks keep only a fraction of their deposits in reserve (as cash and other highly liquid assets) with the choice of lending out the remainder, while maintaining the simultaneous obligation to redeem all deposits immediately upon demand. This practice is universal in modern banking.

This allows for large banks (such as European Central Bank) to create a system of debt that allows them to be at the top of an ever expanding Ponzi scheme.

Modern Money Mechanics, published by the Federal Reserve Bank in Chicago, describes this system in great detail. The booklet is no longer in print, but is widely available on the Internet.

Wikipedia???? Really??? Youre using that as a serious source?

You've probably also read "Web of Debt" by Ellen Brown which is referenced commonly in this argument.

The main difference is that a Ponzi Scheme is an out and out lie that relies on ever increasing numbers of new investors to support existing investors. Fractional reserve banking is not a lie and is a sustainable business model.

It would not be in the bankers interest to not give depositors their money on request if he was able to. As this would lead to all depositors requesting their money back and subsequently a lack of funds available to enable the banker to carry on the lending business, resulting in the banks eventual collapse.

It’s all about risk and reward, you give your money to the bank, at the very slight risk that you may not get it back, the reward is the interest you earn on that money. A higher risk investment would be purchasing corporate bonds (basically a loan to a company) again you take the risk that the company can’t pay back the loan to you but the reward is the bond’s yield (the interest on that loan that they pay you).

The problem really arises when banks lend too high a fraction of their deposits or make too many bad loans. This is part of what we saw recently in the credit-crunch and one of the reasons why the banks are desperately trying to rebuild their balance sheets.

It doesn’t mean the model of banking in necessarily bad or wrong it just means that mistakes were made, admittedly some ****ing huge mistakes, but the fractional reserve model of banking is, as a business model, a sustainable one when run within certain parameters and regulations.

And here’s a question: if it’s two days before payday and you have no cash, but use your credit card to fill your car with petrol, is that fraud?
It’s based on the same principles that underlie fractional reserve banking. You’re making a commitment to give someone money that you don’t have, on the expectation that someone will give you money before you need to pay that person.

If, say for a second you want to replace the current system with a hard money standard, this is still not going to prevent bank runs. Banks not committing fraud will prevent bank runs. However, a hard money standard will limit the scope of any fraud by exposing it at an earlier stage, unlike what we have today.

P.S. I find it funny considering I first studied this years ago that people are now convinced it is a ponzi scheme. Nobody anywhere referred to it as a ponzi scheme until very recently when the Bernie Madoff story broke.

So assuming youre right and I'm wrong (quite possible), what system do you propose?

fergusman

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

fergusman wrote: »

Like I explained in the Lisbon thread, my main objections to it are in the order of:

1. Any suggestion of expanding ANY military spending, increasing the onas on countries to modernise their forces or ANY to do with the military is just a big no no for me... Im sorry... there is absolutlely no need to even promote the military anymore... if anything they should be finding ways to wind it down... I am totally oppsosed to any European treaty which makes provisions for the military, that includes Lisbon.


2. The response to climate change mentioned in the treaty may as well be as useful as one of those "legal garuantees" written on a napkin. Totally lame and putting the entire world on the back foot. Back to the drawing board I say!

3. I dont trust the the ECB. Nor do I trust any bank, but I still need them for some fckd up reason! You mentioned "no obligation" for the ECB to rescue us... now I cant see what provisions are in the treaty that say, if Ireland does not vote yes, we will let you BURN... thats school yard stuff, this is different.


Far from perfect? How about "not far enough" in some cases and the other "perfect for big boys with big toys"

We are now going way off topic with Lisbon, there is a separate thread for this. Incidentally I'm voting yes but I have no interest in debating it here.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

We do have another way... like I said, we gotta just let what happening play itself out first.. step back for awhile... RELAX... close your eyes and breathe... reconnect with your soul for a moment and get that money free feeling of hapiness, you know what Im on about.. now hold that thought and envolve like your should, thats natural.

Woah man can I have some of what youre smoking!!!! :p:p

drunken_munky52

fergusman wrote: »

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

We are now going way off topic with Lisbon, there is a separate thread for this. Incidentally I'm voting yes but I have no interest in debating it here.

Yes. Back to NAMA... Just heard Coglan on the radio, saying how disappointed she is to see the opposition parties not intersted in "growth".

Can I asked you one question: Why do we not nationalise the banks?

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Woah man can I have some of what youre smoking!!!! :p:p

You can have some of what the opposition are smoking today, coz thats some goooood sshh!t

And where the is your response to the fractional reserve banking statement? :cool:

fergusman

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

fergusman wrote: »

And where the is your response to the fractional reserve banking statement? :cool:

Erm.. its 2 posts up...

jenzz

Im putting my money on it now that in 5 years time when we the taxpayer are paying for another tribunal that it comes out that the developers were all allowed to buy the debt back from Nama at a discount. So Billy the builder owes AIB €300 m now & buys it back off nama for €1m next year.

fergusman

jenzz wrote: »

Im putting my money on it now that in 5 years time when we the taxpayer are paying for another tribunal that it comes out that the developers were all allowed to buy the debt back from Nama at a discount. So Billy the builder owes AIB €300 m now & buys it back off nama for €1m next year.

If Billy the Builder owes 300m and ends up going to NAMA where the **** is he going to get 1m to buy back the assets if hes bankrupt?

Western_sean

Please understand that the ECB are ultimately to blame for our current woes, as they were the root source for the credit that gave the Irish banks the ability to loan the the money to ordinary people and developers in the first place.

I think this represents a substantial part of the problem - nobody made us borrow money, we must begin to accept responsibility for our own actions as a nation in this regard before we can reach a sensible resolution to the current problem.

Secondly it appears to me that you are confusing the lax standard of Irish banking regulation with availability of credit. Just because money was available in international markets Irish banks were under no obligation to lend it on to the people. Clearly it is a matter for the Irish financial regulator to control lax lending practice in the market and that to my mind is where blame ultimately lies - though I could see valid arguments for dept of finance responsibility as well.

Why should we put our faith in such a "reckless" institution once again, when they were the ones that grossley overlent way beyond their means.

That's just incorrect the ecb has been many things but never reckless. It has followed the mandate it was given accurately and reasonably successfully. European inflation has to an acceptable degree followed its target. The problem from an Irish point of view is that the Irish economy was not moving in harmony with the continental ones at the point where we joined the euro. Our leaders subsequently choose courses of action which moved us further out of step with the larger european economies/ Now as interest rates begin to rise the price of this course of action will have to be paid by ordinary people in terms of higher loan repayments when they can least afford them. This, while unsavoury, is I think fair and reasonable as the majority of these people supported the government policies which caused their current and future problems.

Can I asked you one question: Why do we not nationalise the banks?

Excellent question this, I can see only 2 possible answers either
1 as a point of principle this government believes in nationalising losses and privatising gains
2 Sudo private banks are a requirement to access the ECB funding

Anyone know? Any other theories?

fergusman wrote: »

If Billy the Builder owes 300m and ends up going to NAMA where the **** is he going to get 1m to buy back the assets if hes bankrupt?

I think there is a point worth noting here. It is probable that the current crop of large scale development companies will not be in a position to buy anything. However this does not mean that the principles associated with these companies won't be in a position to be active in the property market.

drunken_munky52

Western_sean wrote: »

2 Sudo private banks are a requirement to access the ECB funding

Anyone know? Any other theories?

Theres that word private. The European Central Bank was quoted as saying it would prefer to see the banks in private hands. I also note the word "requirement". Does that mean its written into law? Of course not, becuase Anglo would not be owned by the tax payer now if it were a law. So its obviously a self-governing rule that the ECB have pulled out of thin air...

Why is this?
What is there to gain for this baseless "requirement"?
Are they looking out for their own interests, the interests of the market or the interests of something else?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of privitisation ond nationalisation?

Rujib1

What is not properly understood, is that no money was lost in the property boom
The money, just got transferred from one place to another. From buyer to seller. It's still out there. There are some guys sitting on serious piles of cash.

I bet ny bottom dollar that the drunk monkey is one of them :cool:

R

Western_sean

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Theres that word private. The European Central Bank was quoted as saying it would prefer to see the banks in private hands. I also note the word "requirement". Does that mean its written into law? Of course not, becuase Anglo would not be owned by the tax payer now if it were a law. So its obviously a self-governing rule that the ECB have pulled out of thin air...

I don't think what you're saying here allows us to draw the conclusion you've drawn.

Why is this?
What is there to gain for this baseless "requirement"?
Are they looking out for their own interests, the interests of the market or the interests of something else?
What are the advantages and disadvantages of privitisation ond nationalisation?

Again I think you've projected issues in to this debate which may or may not exist based on your original flawed premise - I think you need to establish a sound factual and logical base to support your theories - I appreciate that this is an emotive issue but I'm not sure your approach is constructive.

drunken_munky52

Western_sean wrote: »

Again I think you've projected issues in to this debate which may or may not exist based on your original flawed premise - I think you need to establish a sound factual and logical base to support your theories - I appreciate that this is an emotive issue but I'm not sure your approach is constructive.

OK, I can appriciate going outside of the box is too much for you to handle... you can stick to the script if you want and believe everything the modern world sets in stone

I find it amazing that people who spend their lives in economics dont ever question the system... and when they are presented with the presence of such hidden practices, they shy away from it and brand it a conspiracy theory just so they can avoid discussing it.

fergusman

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

I find it amazing that people who spend their lives in economics dont ever question the system... and when they are presented with the presence of such hidden practices, they shy away from it and brand it a conspiracy theory just so they can avoid discussing it.

I find it far more amazing that people who have never studied economics can make sweeping generalisations and judgments on the subject after reading a few articles on the internet by dubious sources with biased views.

Read and research both sides of the argument then make your judgment.
In economics rarely is there one complete answer, its a social science based on theories and is constantly evolving.
Its not like maths where youre either right or wrong.

drunken_munky52

fergusman wrote: »

I find it far more amazing that people who have never studied economics can make sweeping generalisations and judgments on the subject after reading a few articles on the internet by dubious sources with biased views.

Read and research both sides of the argument then make your judgment.
In economics rarely is there one complete answer, its a social science based on theories and is constantly evolving.
Its not like maths where youre either right or wrong.

I knew I would get a dito response like this... knock knock!

Again, side stepping my previous questions and statements and trying to make me out to be conspiracy theorist... thats your response to everyhing

I have not made any generalisations or theories in regards to the poster before you, I asked a number of questions which still have not been debated by either of you... if you can come back with an explanation or answer I will oblige

drunken_munky52

Life... whats it all about exactly?

If its all about this sh!t above then how fcukd we be!

fergusman

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

I knew I would get a dito response like this... knock knock!

Well you should have seen it coming then shouldnt you!!

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Again, side stepping my previous questions and statements and trying to make me out to be conspiracy theorist... thats your response to everyhing

What questions have I not responded to that were addressed to me?

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

I have not made any generalisations or theories in regards to the poster before you, I asked a number of questions which still have not been debated by either of you... if you can come back with an explanation or answer I will oblige

Here are some quotes from your earlier posts...

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

"they dont want the people to own such a enterprise... rather their own handful of elite."

Who are they? Who are these elite? and why?

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

NAMA will only serve to boost the share prices of the institutions it will be used on... thus returning the millions that have been wiped out by the fat cat elite in our ranks...

The government are now the major shareholders in all these banks so we share some of any upside when the banks are freed from their toxic debts.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Please understand that the ECB are ultimatley to blame for our current woes, as they were the root source for the credit that gave the Irish banks the ability to loan the the money to ordinary people and developers in the first place

This is the same as blaming McDonalds for being fat. People CHOOSE to borrow money, no one is forced to.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

to reject the EU corporate elite who have deliberatly engineered this mess, by providing the banks of Europe with loans that effectively cant be repaid for decades to come.

Sorry but this sounds like a conspiracy theory to me.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

that Irish developers got LOANS from Irish banks -> The Irish banks got their LOANS from the ECB -> The ECB got its LOANS from the WORLD BANK/IMF -> That leads to the United States Federal Reserve

This is factually incorrect. Do you accept that?

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Nothing mushroomed in Ireland, until we devalued our currency in the early 90s and that was an internal decision, no help for Brussels.

Also inaccurate, i explained why earlier.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

You have obviously looked into this system in far too great detail then. For various banking terminolgy in it is a mere mask for what really is going on.

This makes no sense, its like saying someone who has studied medicene or any dicipline that they basically know too much to know whats really going on... while someone who just read a manual on how to diagnose a disease is better placed to diagnose it.


Incidentally regarding Nationalisation of the banks, even with Nama it may still be necessary, but personally I'd like us to try something akin to Nama first, although I still have issues with some of the provisions of Nama.
Let me also say clearly, I regard NAMA as far from perfect but so far its the best show in town.
Nama will be hard enough for our limited politicians and civil service to manage, let alone the whole Irish banking system.
State run institutions dont have a good track record in this country, just look at the state of our health system and civil service. The wastage in both is horrendous.

Also regarding Fractional Reserve Banking, what system would you propose exactly? (see my previous post on the subject, which you didnt reply to)

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Life... whats it all about exactly?

If its all about this sh!t above then how fcukd we be!

AGREED!! and on that note, i'm off to bed, going surfing in the morning if theres some fecking waves!!
have a good weekend drunken monkey!!!:cool:

drunken_munky52

fergusman wrote: »

What questions have I not responded to that were addressed to me?

You answered, I did not see that post.

fergusman wrote: »

Who are they? Who are these elite? and why?

Banks have historically owned major stakes in industrial corporations. Slavery requires that slaves be housed and fed... economic slavery allows for people to feed and house themselves.

fergusman wrote: »

This is the same as blaming McDonalds for being fat. People CHOOSE to borrow money, no one is forced to.

We are raised in a environment where we just accept this as gospal, that money is faith... money is debt and debt is money... its there blackmail people for life... a mortgage is the way to ensure you work yourself to your full, thus my whole notion of modern day, hidden slavery. But I have to mention my fellow man making my clothes and shoes on less than a Euro a day, he must have it really bad...

fergusman wrote: »

This is factually incorrect. Do you accept that?

Yes. But explain to me the exact role of the Central bank?
What I am getting at is the fact that... the government want to take a loan of lets say €5 billion... the ECB goes sure, we will buy €5 billion worth of government bonds from you...

So the ECB prints a load of toilet paper and sends it over to Ireland in exchange for more toilet paper.

There you go... €5 billion added to the Irish reserves... and the fact that we handed bonds to the ECB means we are obliged to pay that money back to the ECB...

How can we ever repay money that does not even exist to begin with?
How can we rid the national debt, when the fact remains that the amount of money floating around in the world will always be less than the amount owed back to the central banks?

Another point: every €10 note in your wallet is owed to somebody by somebody... if there was not any debt in your wallet, then there would be nothing to owe... then the money wouldnt even exist...

mind numbing as it may seem, explain this....

One final question... is the money that the centralbanks come up with in the first place, based on gold or thin air? If neither, then what?

fergusman wrote: »

Also regarding Fractional Reserve Banking, what system would you propose exactly? (see my previous post on the subject, which you didnt reply to)

Resource based economics. Not a barther system just in case you think...

Économiste Monétaire

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Please understand that the ECB are ultimatley to blame for our current woes, as they were the root source for the credit that gave the Irish banks the ability to loan the the money to ordinary people and developers in the first place.

Err, you'll find that central bank lending accounted for very little of Irish bank wholesale funding until very recently. Most of it was from other banks and money market participants, very little from monetary policy operations.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

The likes of you keep blaming our own banks and developers for losing the run of ourselves... it should be apparant by now from my above arguements... that Irish developers got LOANS from Irish banks -> The Irish banks got their LOANS from the ECB -> The ECB got its LOANS from the WORLD BANK/IMF -> That leads to the United States Federal Reserve, who are no more federal than federal express... follow the money trail and it is easy to see who has the ordinary people by the balls in this day and age... I could go on with this... but I would like to hear your view first on where this is going and answer my first question.

You really have no clue what you're talking about. It looks as though you watched something like Zeitgeist and assumed a role of monetary economist/finance expert. The ECB doesn't get a loan from the IMF, and where you got the idea that the ECB got a loan from the World Bank (a bank for developing countries, by the way) I don't know. You probably saw the prefix of "World" and assumed it fitted the conspiracy.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Yes. But explain to me the exact role of the Central bank?
What I am getting at is the fact that... the government want to take a loan of lets say €5 billion... the ECB goes sure, we will buy €5 billion worth of government bonds from you...

The ECB doesn't lend money to governments, try picking up a principles of economics book. You'll see the section called 'monetary financing' and a section on the Maastricht Treaty. You'll also notice that the ECB ruled out financing NAMA at the end of its opinion paper:

3.2 Prohibition of monetary financing: It is understood that the draft law will comply fully with the prohibition of monetary financing laid down in Article 101(1) of the Treaty, read in conjunction with Council Regulation (EC) No 3603/93 of 13 December 1993 specifying definitions for the application of the prohibitions referred to in Articles 104 [now 101] and 104b(1) [now 103(1)] of the Treaty (‘Council Regulation (EC) No 3603/93’)37. In this respect, NAMA will qualify as a ‘public undertaking’ within the meaning of Article 101(1) of the Treaty and Article 8 of Council Regulation (EC) No 3603/93 as NAMA is to be established under the draft law as a ‘public undertaking’ over which the Irish State may exercise a dominant influence by virtue of its ownership of it, its financial participation therein and the rules which govern it. In particular, the Minister advances to NAMA the funds that are necessary for performance of its functions, and appoints all the members of the NAMA Board. Moreover, the Minister (after consultation with the CBFSAI Governor, acting independently) will have the power to issue written guidelines to NAMA in connection with its functions, and may give binding written directions to NAMA concerning the achievement of NAMA’s purposes. NAMA’s assets will thus be under the effective control of the Irish State. Therefore, overdraft facilities or any other type of credit facility with the CBFSAI in favour of NAMA, as well as the direct purchase from NAMA by ESCB central banks of debt instruments, will not be possible, in view of the prohibition of monetary financing under Article 101 of the Treaty.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

There you go... €5 billion added to the Irish reserves... and the fact that we handed bonds to the ECB means we are obliged to pay that money back to the ECB...

The ECB never takes ownership of the bonds. When a bank borrows from the central bank, it retains ownership of the collateral used. All coupon payments accrue to the Irish banks.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Another point: every €10 note in your wallet is owed to somebody by somebody

Currency is a liability of the central bank...

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

One final question... is the money that the centralbanks come up with in the first place, based on gold or thin air? If neither, then what?

What is money? A medium of exchange. It need not be packed by anything except confidence. A central bank increases the monetary base in line with population and productivity growth.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Resource based economics. Not a barther system just in case you think...

Haha, Jacque Fresco; how delusional. Someone watched Zeitgeist 2 and thought it was the solution to all our problems.

drunken_munky52

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

Err, you'll find that central bank lending accounted for very little of Irish bank wholesale funding until very recently. Most of it was from other banks and money market participants, very little from monetary policy operations.

So where did that money come from that was lent to the banks that lent to the Irish banks other than the ECB?

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

You really have no clue what you're talking about.

I certainly know what I am thinking, and thats good enough for me... your feable attempt at an insult just makes me cringe.

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

The ECB doesn't lend money to governments, try picking up a principles of economics book. You'll see the section called 'monetary financing' and a section on the Maastricht Treaty. You'll also notice that the ECB ruled out financing NAMA at the end of its opinion paper:

Tis all well and well they were kind enough to spoil European banks such as Irish ones for years with low interest rates... this was a direct booster to loans given out to ordinary people who could not afford it... now they are been even more kind, to effectively lower the interest rate so much that it fools us into thinking we can pay off our dues with no extra cost... for a short time anyway, until this so called "upturn" occurs, then they will jack it up again... but then again they are the "rules"

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

The ECB never takes ownership of the bonds. When a bank borrows from the central bank, it retains ownership of the collateral used. All coupon payments accrue to the Irish banks.

Ownership? you must be joking mate... tell that to the families who have lost their homes so far in this reccesion... so they maintained "ownership" of their "collateral" (their house) and the banks still reposesses it.... but the rules for banks defaulting on other banks are different... cronies take care of other cronies

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

Currency is a liability of the central bank...

As opposed to an asset??? Who has that then?

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

A central bank increases the monetary base in line with population and productivity growth.

Yeah............ inflation.......... i suppose thats good for us you think?

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

Haha, Jacque Fresco; how delusional. Someone watched Zeitgeist 2 and thought it was the solution to all our problems.

You seem like a smart guy with an understandable ignorance ... "delusional"?

Économiste Monétaire

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

So where did that money come from that was lent to the banks that lent to the Irish banks other than the ECB?

Pension funds, money market funds deposits and investments in CDs and CP from banks; Carry-trades from Japan. Prove your original point by taking a time series of central bank funding to Irish mortgage lenders over the bubble period relative to their interbank and residential deposit liabilities, or accept your point is wrong.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

I certainly know what I am thinking, and thats good enough for me... your feable attempt at an insult just makes me cringe.

You watched a couple of Youtube videos and you think you know what you're talking about; you're even rolling out the lines from the movies, about as federal as Federal Express. :rolleyes: Ever taken economics at university? Ever worked in a bank?

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Tis all well and well they were kind enough to spoil European banks such as Irish ones for years with low interest rates... this was a direct booster to loans given out to ordinary people who could not afford it... now they are been even more kind, to effectively lower the interest rate so much that it fools us into thinking we can pay off our dues with no extra cost... for a short time anyway, until this so called "upturn" occurs, then they will jack it up again... but then again they are the "rules"

This is relevant to your point that the ECB lends to governments... how? So, you cede the point?

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Ownership? you must be joking mate... tell that to the families who have lost their homes so far in this reccesion... so they maintained "ownership" of their "collateral" (their house) and the banks still reposesses it.... but the rules for banks defaulting on other banks are different... cronies take care of other cronies

This is relevant to the point that the bond payments are accruing to the ECB? Umm, no. Here's a simple example:

Bank A: Hi Mr. Central Bank, I'd like to borrow X amount of reserves.

Mr. Central Bank: OK, you can borrow X amount of reserves, the interest rate is r, and you'll repay us X(1 + r) in one weeks time. To protect us from counterparty risk, please place marketable securities [the bonds] in your securities account to the amount X.

Interest payments accrue to the commercial bank (e.g. AIB, BOI), the coupon payments are not owed to the ECB, only in the case of a default would the ECB exercise it's right to take control of the security.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

As opposed to an asset??? Who has that then?

It's your asset, currency is hardly a liability for someone holding it. :rolleyes:

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

Yeah............ inflation.......... i suppose thats good for us you think?

As opposed to dullards who yearn for the gold standard just to keep a price index constant—the mechanism by which to achieve this is deflation à la the Great Depression money supply contraction. Inflation at a constant rate of 2-3% isn't a problem, the debate around this ended 30 years ago, try looking up rational expectations and money illusion.

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

You seem like a smart guy with an understandable ignorance ... "delusional"?

You don't seem like a smart guy, just a simpleton who peddles garbage from Youtube videos.

drunken_munky52

Économiste Monétaire wrote: »

You don't seem like a smart guy, just a simpleton who peddles garbage from Youtube videos.

And your just a fat nerd who read piles of boring economic text books while idlising cut throat boardroom culture, void of feeling for the needs of people and persuing profit to satisfy greed... a computer programme, written by a profoundly sick world, thanks for your useful explanation of the term delusional :rolleyes:

fergusman

drunken_munky52 wrote: »

And your just a fat nerd who read piles of boring economic text books

Those "boring" economics textbooks form a basis for understanding how economics actually works, they might be worth you actually reading them first and then judging their content and contribution to the understanding of this debate.

Personally i think its a more reliable place to start than youtube and wikipedia.

Also this is the second person you've chastised for studying economics too much...
Do you chastise your doctor for studying medicene "too much" as well ?
Do you complain to your solicitor that he has studied law too much?

Its a ridiculous argument.