a year since the global crisis started...

a year on from the collapse of the american markets.. lehman brothers etc. how much blame do we put on the global crisis for the situation we are in now or does most of the blame land on our own government? all i read is that it's all the property bubble and us living beyond our means.. but is that the only thing what ruined us? or was it the fact that we're a small open economy susceptible to any global downturns and upturns?


the irish media seem to have forgotten that the rest of the world is in tatters and instead, prefers to blame the developers etc. i think we have to say it's a mixture of both events.. but which one being the bigger?

peasant

To anyone with semi-open eyes it was clear over the last few years that we were heading for a collapse. Selling houses to ourselves, paying 7 euro for a breakfast roll without flinching, taking out loans left right and center for needles stuff ...be that privately or on a governement level.

That our collapse happened to co-incide with the collapse of the world around us ...well, that' just tough luck.

Sh!t happens.

Seth Brundle

If we weren't encouraged/hyped into a culture of spending borrowed money then the collapse would have had a limited effect. Also to have certain individuals telling us to kill ourselves if we predicted doom and gloom just made the descent even worse.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfjGSfuSQpA

And to those who will suggest that we weren't forced into borrowing, we weren't but you ended up living with your ma or whatever if you didn't.

SkepticOne

Our property bubble actually burst sometime in mid to late 2006, three years ago long before tightening international credit started affecting lending here.

Finance minister Lenihan likes to blame the collapse of Lehmans on problems in the property market here. I actually heard him say that there would have been a soft landing otherwise. He is ignorant of even the most recent facts.

zootroid

Given how other countries are starting to emerge from recession, while we haven't even hit the bottom, I'd say only the most naive could attempt to lay the blame on the credit crunch.

The fact is we have been uncompetitive for years, wages just exploded over the last decade. Had we kept our own house in order, we would not be in the position we find ourselves in. The recession was going to happen anyway, but because our economy over the last few years was based on construction, meant that it hit us hard. It'll take a decade for us to recover.

Captain Furball

zootroid wrote: »

Given how other countries are starting to emerge from recession, while we haven't even hit the bottom, I'd say only the most naive could attempt to lay the blame on the credit crunch.

The fact is we have been uncompetitive for years, wages just exploded over the last decade. Had we kept our own house in order, we would not be in the position we find ourselves in. The recession was going to happen anyway, but because our economy over the last few years was based on construction, meant that it hit us hard. It'll take a decade for us to recover.

Wait till you see what's going to happen mid october bud.

Front

Captain Furball wrote: »

Wait till you see what's going to happen mid october bud.

Do tell

amacca

SkepticOne wrote: »

Our property bubble actually burst sometime in mid to late 2006, three years ago long before tightening international credit started affecting lending here.

Finance minister Lenihan likes to blame the collapse of Lehmans on problems in the property market here. I actually heard him say that there would have been a soft landing otherwise. He is ignorant of even the most recent facts.

Do you actually think that though?

I don't think Lenihan is that naive or ignorant at all. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together would realise most of our problems are of our own making.

I think its obvious hes just playing the game. If he regurgitates that mantra often enough the naive and stupid portion of the electorate will believe it or start to believe it and it will ameliorate their reaction. He has to try defend his side of the house somehow. Its an indictment of how badly run certain sections of the country were that his argument is this weak imo.

SkepticOne

amacca wrote: »

Do you actually think that though?

I don't think Lenihan is that naive or ignorant at all. Anyone with two brain cells to rub together would realise most of our problems are of our own making.

I think its obvious hes just playing the game. If he regurgitates that mantra often enough the naive and stupid portion of the electorate will believe it or start to believe it and it will ameliorate their reaction. He has to try defend his side of the house somehow. Its an indictment of how badly run certain sections of the country were that his argument is this weak imo.

I think he believes it, but I'm not sure belief in someone like Lenihan is the same as belief in an ordinary person. Belief for him would be something more like holding a defensible position that furthers his aims. Whether it is "true" only enters into it to the extent that truth can be used to defend the position, i.e. by pointing to certain facts, but if he can use obfuscation or bullying to get his point across that is just as good.

Is he merely playing a game? This would mean that he has genuinely held beliefs separate to his public statements. I don't see any evidence of this. He seems to be acting (not merely saying) in accordance with the idea that the vast bulk of the problems in Ireland have an external origin in the credit crunch which Ireland can't affect but which is resolving itself. Therefore property prices will return to their norm shortly. The important thing is to prevent a fire sale. Therefore keep the developers going as much as possible so they don't dump their half-built developments.

I don't believe Lenihan has privately held views that differ substantially from his public ones. A barrister (which Lenihan once was) doesn't sit around wondering whether the person he is defending really committed the murder. His job is to create a narrative where his client is innocent. The easiest way to do this is to believe it yourself.

ghost_ie

We brought this on ourselves. Everyone could see that the property bubble wouldn't last. And when it went "bang" the whole economy collapsed. Bertie saw it coming. Why do you think he got out while the going was good?

Seth Brundle

I was under the belief that Bertie was pushed prior to Lisbon I.

amacca

SkepticOne wrote: »

I think he believes it, but I'm not sure belief in someone like Lenihan is the same as belief in an ordinary person. Belief for him would be something more like holding a defensible position that furthers his aims. Whether it is "true" only enters into it to the extent that truth can be used to defend the position, i.e. by pointing to certain facts, but if he can use obfuscation or bullying to get his point across that is just as good.

Is he merely playing a game? This would mean that he has genuinely held beliefs separate to his public statements. I don't see any evidence of this. He seems to be acting (not merely saying) in accordance with the idea that the vast bulk of the problems in Ireland have an external origin in the credit crunch which Ireland can't affect but which is resolving itself. Therefore property prices will return to their norm shortly. The important thing is to prevent a fire sale. Therefore keep the developers going as much as possible so they don't dump their half-built developments.

I don't believe Lenihan has privately held views that differ substantially from his public ones. A barrister (which Lenihan once was) doesn't sit around wondering whether the person he is defending really committed the murder. His job is to create a narrative where his client is innocent. The easiest way to do this is to believe it yourself.

Hmmm, where to start....firstly thank you for your opinion! I was curious and I certainly had'nt considered it from that angle.

I personally just don't find it credible that he believes (in the true sense of the word - ie: he would be willing to bet something of substantial personal value to himself, lets say his life for instance, that his position is correct) that the majority if not all of our problems are due to the collapse of Lehmann brothers and the subsequent global financial crisis.

However I do believe that a large part of a politicians job description is mixing truth with half truth, lying, hiding behind selected statistics etc. I think he no more believes the majority or all of our problems are due to the credit crunch than an auctioneer believes in his heart and soul that "theres value out there" - he may want to believe it as it suits his strategy/cronies but if his own personal survival/financial well being depended on his belief being correct, he would take a different bet. The same as the auctioneer above wouldnt be rushing out to buy the much talked about semi-d on the outskirts of mullingar just yet.

I think hes acting the way he does because it furthers his interests and he will cling on to and regurgitate half truths/lies/misdirection to realise his aims. I dont however think he believes the half truths/lies/misdirection himself.

If he has managed to convince himself of this nonsense then he is a very naive man and I just dont believe that to be the case.