Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Why am I getting it in the ass??
Options
Comments
-
Let Anglo die, let the developers who over stretched go bankrupt and let the market self correct. The only reason we are blinking now is that its the government's mates who will suffer. Well tough sh*t mate, no one bailed me out when my first company went spang.
Is this a free market economy or not?
DeV.
I've been arguing from the off that the banks should have been left to go their own way. With €54 billion, I imagine the government could start off its own bank which would appear to be fairly well capitalised from the start, and bring in experienced bankers to run it, and lend to businessess and individuals, on a competitive basis, with the existing banks.
As to the question of whether or not we are a free market economy, the answer must be, like the curates egg, that parts of the economy are free market, and other parts are not.
Our problem is that, because the government is interfering in the market and artificially propping up parts of it, the correction will take longer to happen and thus longer to rectify. The one lesson the government seems to have not learnt is that you can't buck the market, even with €54 billion of someone elses's money.0 -
Yes.
The argument put forward by the govt. was that the banking system was under systemic threat in Sept 2008.
Personally I have my doubts as to the veracity of the govts stance : I would argue that banks like Anglo were not systemic (ie. Anglo was not BOI and AIB).
I would also suggest that if any of the systemic banks (BOI and AIB) did go bust, a foreign bank would come in and buy it.
This happens abroad - there is no reason why it would not happen here too.
What was not articulated by this govt is that it (the govt) decided that one or both of the banks could not be allowed to fall in to foreign ownership.
Retail banking in this country is the most profitable banking industry in Europe.
AIB and BOI make profits higher than most other retail banks in Europe.
Both banks would have been snapped up if they failed.0 -
You say that, but you are just saying that. I see no reason why the first half of what you say causes the second half.
You think a bank hasn't gone out of business before? You think some other bank wouldnt step in and buy the assets (no matter how toxic) for 1 million? 1 billion? 10 billion? If they are supposedly worth 57 billion... someone will buy them.
Let Anglo die, let the developers who over stretched go bankrupt and let the market self correct. The only reason we are blinking now is that its the government's mates who will suffer. Well tough sh*t mate, no one bailed me out when my first company went spang.
Can you give me any logic as to why letting anglo crash would be so terrible? People with savings of less then 101k are insured by the way, under the Central Bank liquidity systems, so I'm not sure you actually know what you are talking about.
None of which answers my question which is, I would not have seen any of the profits them so why should I bail them out.
Is this a free market economy or not?
DeV.
I dont think the odds of another bank stepping into buy a very dodgy bank in the middle of a world recession are that high. In that case it would fall on the shoulders of the government to take over the bank anyway. Who do you think will pay the 101k insurance if it came to that ? What about businesses and investors with more than that amount ?
I think its fair to say you dont know what your talking about if you think its a reasonable course of action.0 -
You think its bad now? give it 3 years when were all completely upto our eyeballs paying off the planned 13billion in cuts via increased taxes and what not, couple that with some homeowners who bought into the bubble finding it very difficult to make repayments when interest rates return to what the should be from their current artificially low rate.
Ive completely lost faith in this place, never gained anything from the celtic tiger only increased cost of services and prices, never bought into the bubble, yet the celtic tiger was supposed to be the good times, eh?
I see a very painful 10 years ahead for anyone living here, whats completely insane is the politicians living the high life and not willing to budge an inch, in fact the same attitude prevails country wide from dole heads, to min wage earners to private and public sector. A me fein attitude and screw everyone else. The only people we can relate to regarding the current circumstances is those only in our group, no national pride just one person trying to do the next person as much as possible as per the housing bubble.
I wouldnt return if i was abroad and had the option.0 -
If the banks were left to die nobody would get it in the ass more than the people who have savings with the banks instead of loans (and if you have it under the matress you`ll still have a country in absolute ruin to deal with), I`m always puzzled by people who say this, as letting a bank die really is the practical example of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
i think if AIB and BOI were the only banks which were bailed out , thier would be not the same outrage over NAMA0 -
Advertisement
-
Join Date:Posts: 29920
Ok mate, you havent a clue, I'm sorry. You know nothing about banking.I dont think the odds of another bank stepping into buy a very dodgy bank in the middle of a world recession are that high. In that case it would fall on the shoulders of the government to take over the bank anyway. Who do you think will pay the 101k insurance if it came to that ? What about businesses and investors with more than that amount ?
I think its fair to say you dont know what your talking about if you think its a reasonable course of action.
I worked as a consultant to the banking sector for nigh on 6 years.
Let me explain: To be a bank you need to deposit whats called "liquidity" with the central bank. It used to be something around 30% of your loans,(that was then, not sure what the % is now). So, basically, in case a bank went out of business they had to "save" a big chunk of their money with the central bank, who, in the case of bankruptcy, step in and divvy up that cash.
So, the answer to your question is "the Central Bank". They would step in and pay the people who are savers their money back. you cant just set up a stall outside your house and become a bank you know, there are regulations to be met.
Look I dont mean to be rude but frankly, read up about what you are writing about before you start talking like you know something because if you dont know that you need to read Banking 101.
To answer you first question second: A debt has a risk associated with it, I a debt is 100M euros and has a risk of non repayment is 50% then its worth 50M euros and will be traded as such. (It's more complex then that but thats the basics).
So, If I offer you a 100M euro debt with a risk of 50% for 40M euro, you better believe another bank is going to snap that up. Or at 30M euro or 25M it just gets tastier as you drop the price. Its a fire sale, but its not a crash, someone buys it.
DeV.0 -
Consultant, Owning your own business, Minimum wage......Ok mate, you havent a clue, I'm sorry. You know nothing about banking.
I worked as a consultant to the banking sector for nigh on 6 years.
Let me explain: To be a bank you need to deposit whats called "liquidity" with the central bank. It used to be something around 30% of your loans, not sure what the % is now. So, basically, in case a bank went out of business they had to "save" a big chunk of their money with the central bank, who, in the case of bankruptcy, step in and divvy up that cash.
So, the answer to your question is "the Central Bank". They would step in and pay the people who are savers their money back. you cant just set up a stall outside your house and become a bank you know, there are regulations to be met.
Look I dont mean to be rude but frankly, read up about what you are writing about before you start talking like you know something because if you dont know that you need to read Banking 101.
DeV.
You've had a very varied career path....0 -
Join Date:Posts: 29920
You dont know the half of it mate.
Add these to the list:
18 months as a professional poker player,
2 years as a poker journalist
qualified shoe repairer
keysmith
10 years as a programmer/dba/project manager
and next year I hope to launch a professional acting career if sh*t works out for me in Dublin (in which case Malta becomes a holiday home and I go back to eating baked beans in Rathmines).
DeV.
ps: I'm a third through a bottle of whiskey and its very moreish.0 -
You say that, but you are just saying that. I see no reason why the first half of what you say causes the second half.
You think a bank hasn't gone out of business before? You think some other bank wouldnt step in and buy the assets (no matter how toxic) for 1 million? 1 billion? 10 billion? If they are supposedly worth 57 billion... someone will buy them.
Let Anglo die, let the developers who over stretched go bankrupt and let the market self correct. The only reason we are blinking now is that its the government's mates who will suffer. Well tough sh*t mate, no one bailed me out when my first company went spang.
Can you give me any logic as to why letting anglo crash would be so terrible? People with savings of less then 101k are insured by the way, under the Central Bank liquidity systems, so I'm not sure you actually know what you are talking about.
None of which answers my question which is, I would not have seen any of the profits them so why should I bail them out.
I have to say I think seclachi is quite correct - no bank would currently buy another bank's possibly toxic assets. That's the reason for the credit crunch, which was largely a dry-up in interbank lending, because banks no longer knew who had good assets and who had toxic assets. The idea that even though they were afraid to lend based on the risky assets they'd nevertheless have happily bought the same assets doesn't stand up.
The reason the government are "paying" over the odds for the NAMA assets (and they're not actually paying - the ECB is making credit available) is to inject liquidity back into the system. Yes, there's moral hazard, but not really with the developers, who would probably be delighted if the banks that held their loans collapsed, since the liquidators would probably accept a knock-down valuation - indeed, the developers could probably get away with handing over the assets behind the loans instead. As it is, the developers don't get a write-down through NAMA, it's the banks that take a write-down, but gain by having those toxic loans removed.
As to whether we the taxpayer will wind up taking the hit - I accept that the risk of default on those loans has now moved from the banks to the taxpayer, and in the final analysis if 100% of the NAMA loans defaulted, we'd be left with only the property assets that backed the loans - probably currently worth, what, 10% of the loan value if you tried to sell them all in one go? If none of them default, then those loans are worth €71bn (plus interest). Over a longer time-frame, even the property assets might yet be worth 40-50% of their original value, which would mean that NAMA has allowed the government to inject €54bn of ECB liquidity into Irish banks without compromising further our GDP/debt ratio, while at an outside bet making a good bit of money on the deal, and even in a worst case scenario losing no more than 21 months of current government deficit.
Where does the money come from if the Central Bank bails people out?Is this a free market economy or not?
It's a mixed economy, and certainly not simply an unregulated free-for-all. Nor, I think, would we want it to be, particularly given the problems that a lack of regulation has caused. The market is just a machine, a machine for matching supply and demand, but finance, once you allow credit instruments, isn't really part of the market or driven primarily by market mechanisms - it's fundamentally a casino.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Join Date:Posts: 29920
You are fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of risk. 57Bn worth of dodgy assets being sold for 10M will sell like hot cakes. Its a good bet, thats all it is. Its a numbers game. There is a price at which the market will become uninterested, the equilibrium point. Lower then that, they will sell.
But with all due respect, your logic is flawed Scofflaw and someone DOES want to buy those 57Bn euros worth of dodgy assets.
Apparently that someone, is us.
DeV.0 -
Advertisement
-
You are fundamentally misunderstanding the nature of risk. 57Bn worth of dodgy assets being sold for 10M will sell like hot cakes. Its a good bet, thats all it is. Its a numbers game. There is a price at which the market will become uninterested, the equilibrium point. Lower then that, they will sell.
But with all due respect, your logic is flawed Scofflaw and someone DOES want to buy those 57Bn euros worth of dodgy assets.
Apparently that someone, is us.
We're buying it for non-market 'systemic' reasons, though - the argument against it being that it's a bad buy. If anyone else had wanted it - or indeed any of the individual loans - they could, and would have made an offer for them. I don't recall any talk of offers for those loans, even at bargain basement prices.
Essentially, all we're doing is attempting to inject an amount of liquidity into the system, plus a stimulus (admittedly a credit stimulus) package, but to buy something with it. Since we couldn't in a blue fit afford a real stimulus package (we'd have to borrow it, and we can't), this is our alternative version - and, to be fair, the taxpayer is taking less of a hit here than they would with a straight stimulus package.
Part of the problem with the loans involved in NAMA is that they could no longer be 'priced' by any normal means - and unpriceable risk is something no-one wants to buy in a normal market. It would be like asking you to bet not just on a hand that you hadn't seen, but to bet on the equally unseen bet made by the unknown player holding that unseen hand - what's a rational price for that?
Don't get me wrong - I'm as annoyed as you at having to bail out a bubble, and at the short-sighted stupidity of the last couple of governments. However, despite having a work history surprisingly similar to yours, I don't think it's fair to say I haven't benefited from the stupidity of the last decade. The combination of lower corporation tax, low CGT, and low income tax has actually made an entrepreneurial/self-employed lifestyle far more supportable over the last decade than has often been the case. Yes, I'm appalled that public services don't reflect our tax take, and that the last decade's wealth has been squandered, leaving a huge hangover, but I also suspect that if you looked at the balance of tax and services for my family, it might well work out that over the last 10 years I'm a net beneficiary. And that's not right, and was never sustainable, however enjoyable it was. Nor does it really put me in a position to complain if I have to spend the next 10-15 paying more than I get. I didn't vote for Fianna Fáil, but that doesn't excuse me from responsibility for those bought elections, since the 'benefits' extended to me as well.
So, while I won't answer for you, I know why I'm getting it in the ass - because at this stage I probably owe it to the country. Yeah, maybe I didn't have as much fun as the guys dosing themselves up with Moet in the VIP enclosure, or maybe even as much as the plebs knocking back the cheap foreign bubbly in the stalls, but I was at the party too, and got served at the free bar. So I'll reckon I'll be sticking around, gritting my teeth, bending over and thinking of Ireland.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
Let Anglo fail, proof is in the pudding already. http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/business/8314087.stm , http://dutcheconomist.blogspot.com/2009/10/dsb-bank-failure.html
A Dutch bank recently failed. Now did the Dutch banking system fall apart? A big fat NO.
I too have been prudent throughout the years. Did you know that if you lose your job, your savings count towards means testing?
If you overborrowed yourself into thousands of euros of debts, find yourself out of a job, well, you are classified as 'in need of help' more via benefits rather than the prudent person.0 -
Ok mate, you havent a clue, I'm sorry. You know nothing about banking.
I worked as a consultant to the banking sector for nigh on 6 years.
Let me explain: To be a bank you need to deposit whats called "liquidity" with the central bank. It used to be something around 30% of your loans,(that was then, not sure what the % is now). So, basically, in case a bank went out of business they had to "save" a big chunk of their money with the central bank, who, in the case of bankruptcy, step in and divvy up that cash.
So, the answer to your question is "the Central Bank". They would step in and pay the people who are savers their money back. you cant just set up a stall outside your house and become a bank you know, there are regulations to be met.
Look I dont mean to be rude but frankly, read up about what you are writing about before you start talking like you know something because if you dont know that you need to read Banking 101.
To answer you first question second: A debt has a risk associated with it, I a debt is 100M euros and has a risk of non repayment is 50% then its worth 50M euros and will be traded as such. (It's more complex then that but thats the basics).
So, If I offer you a 100M euro debt with a risk of 50% for 40M euro, you better believe another bank is going to snap that up. Or at 30M euro or 25M it just gets tastier as you drop the price. Its a fire sale, but its not a crash, someone buys it.
DeV.
Yep, Im a punter really, but I`m of the opinion that prevention is better than cure. I`ll happily admit I`m no expert, so if you can correct me so much the better, heres a few more points I`ve seen other people make.
Would a bank collapse (and selling out at bargin prices) not cause our credit rating to tank and effect other banks ability to get loans on the market, after all doesnt most our credit come from the international markets ?
What of buisnesses with more than 100k sitting in there accounts, it would surely kill off a fair few of them. Not to mention people who may have saved all there lives. Does the 30% the central bank cover the 100k guarentee ?
I`m aware of the idea of buying debt, but not the specifics, if a bank has 50 billion in loans and sells them for 10 billion, what happens with the 40 billion ? Does it fall on the banks shoulders, or the insitutions that loaned to the bank itself ?
Debt is an asset of sorts, so is it not a bad thing to have it taken from an irish owned company at a knockdown rate and sold to an international company, effective removing investment from ireland (and possible tax revenue ?)0 -
You think its bad now? give it 3 years when were all completely upto our eyeballs paying off the planned 13billion in cuts via increased taxes and what not, couple that with some homeowners who bought into the bubble finding it very difficult to make repayments when interest rates return to what the should be from their current artificially low rate.
Ive completely lost faith in this place, never gained anything from the celtic tiger only increased cost of services and prices, never bought into the bubble, yet the celtic tiger was supposed to be the good times, eh?
I see a very painful 10 years ahead for anyone living here, whats completely insane is the politicians living the high life and not willing to budge an inch, in fact the same attitude prevails country wide from dole heads, to min wage earners to private and public sector. A me fein attitude and screw everyone else. The only people we can relate to regarding the current circumstances is those only in our group, no national pride just one person trying to do the next person as much as possible as per the housing bubble.
I wouldnt return if i was abroad and had the option.
Ah now come on. The Celtic tiger was there for all to suck on.
You didnt have to buy a house or anything to benefit from it.
You just had to play the game and pad your nest while the sucking was good.
If people didnt pad out their savings accounts and increase their salaries and career prospects while there was a boom, they have only themselves to blame.
Similarly when the milk runs dry (for most it hasnt yet, for some it has) you should be ready to change the tit you suck on. None of us can go blaming any others for our own lack of ability to grab the celtic tit with both hands and suck for all we are worth.
There are other milky tits out there. Go to them. Whether any will come back to Ireland, we wont know for a few years yet, but be ready when you see another one, or fall off again, only to cry because you didnt fill up when the feeding was good.0 -
I too have been prudent throughout the years. Did you know that if you lose your job, your savings count towards means testing?
Buy yourself an X5 as soon as you know your cards are marked.
That will show em!
Seriously tho, punishing people who were prudent and save is absolute nonsense.
This country will never learn.0 -
-
I take yours and DeVores point but we live in probably the singularally most selfish country in the world.donegalfella wrote: »This post has been deleted.
Most people aren't penny wise,they're just wanting more and more.
I don't know,nobody knows, what nama will end up costing us.
We are probably better off with at least 2 indigenous banks though rather than depending on foreign banks.
We *should* learn our lesson though going foward with better regulation and a more responsible personal lending structure.
In life inmost cases mistakes have to be made to get anywhere.
If it were up to me,I'd prioritize frontline pay in hospitals and the gardaí but it would be sink or swim for everything else-it can either be afforded or not.
As for the point in the title of the thread-why have those with nothing to do with the problem have to pay for the problem?
Well it's called community.
Enough people in this country were greedy enough to make it go the road it went.It costs,it's as simple as that.
Theres no half price membership of this country.
I heard a teacher on pat kenny this morning saying she'd be better off on the dole than teaching with the pay cuts proposed and done.
Now theres the nub of it,I'd suggest.
That made me so angry.
A supposedly intelligent person coming out with a statement like that...and a benefit system that recently in the irish times was exposed as paying €42,000 to a family with 2 kids on the dole when you include all the entitlements they can claim.
It's the cause in the main for the mess we are in.Greed and selfishness.
In my book,you work and enjoy the fruits of that work and if you are able to get more fruits than the next person because you work harder,make better decisions or are more qualified..then fair play to you.
It sounds to me though that some eejits in this country mostly unions just don't get that concept properly and continue to pull against the rest of us not with us.0 -
Join Date:Posts: 29920
That attitude is precisely what got us into the mess in the first place and is exactly why its going to happen again in 15 years time.Ah now come on. The Celtic tiger was there for all to suck on.
You didnt have to buy a house or anything to benefit from it.
You just had to play the game and pad your nest while the sucking was good.
If people didnt pad out their savings accounts and increase their salaries and career prospects while there was a boom, they have only themselves to blame.
Similarly when the milk runs dry (for most it hasnt yet, for some it has) you should be ready to change the tit you suck on. None of us can go blaming any others for our own lack of ability to grab the celtic tit with both hands and suck for all we are worth.
There are other milky tits out there. Go to them. Whether any will come back to Ireland, we wont know for a few years yet, but be ready when you see another one, or fall off again, only to cry because you didnt fill up when the feeding was good.
DeV.0 -
Ah now come on. The Celtic tiger was there for all to suck on.
You didnt have to buy a house or anything to benefit from it.
You just had to play the game and pad your nest while the sucking was good.
If people didnt pad out their savings accounts and increase their salaries and career prospects while there was a boom, they have only themselves to blame.
Similarly when the milk runs dry (for most it hasnt yet, for some it has) you should be ready to change the tit you suck on. None of us can go blaming any others for our own lack of ability to grab the celtic tit with both hands and suck for all we are worth.
There are other milky tits out there. Go to them. Whether any will come back to Ireland, we wont know for a few years yet, but be ready when you see another one, or fall off again, only to cry because you didnt fill up when the feeding was good.
I find your post disturbing for two reasons.
1. Your locust like attitude.
2. Your Freudian obsession with nipples.0 -
We are probably better off with at least 2 indigenous banks though rather than depending on foreign banks.
Why?
i would have rather we offered the whole shebang to HSBC for £1. They could then guarantee deposits and handle the bad debt.0 -
Advertisement
-
-
Well do you agree that we all should have benefited from the Celtic Tiger and that if anybody didnt its their own fault for not grasping it?
Depends on what you mean by this.
Some people wanted INSTANT benefits, while some of us tried to plan ahead and make the savings, etc, last; offering sustainable products and services at decent prices and not a "cut and run".
Unfortunately, those who wanted to make a killing and have now lost everything are being bailed out by those of us who were aiming for the long run, and as a result of the downturn the money and prospects that those of us who planned ahead are being robbed from us to bail out the short-sightedness....
....so basically our "long term" gain and view is no good to us.
And THAT is sickening, because the net result is that we haven't gained, despite being sensible and wanting to spread the benefit, rather than make a short-term temporary killing.0 -
Deleted User wrote: »I take yours and DeVores point but we live in probably the singularally most selfish country in the world.
Most people aren't penny wise,they're just wanting more and more.
I don't know,nobody knows, what nama will end up costing us.
We are probably better off with at least 2 indigenous banks though rather than depending on foreign banks.
We *should* learn our lesson though going foward with better regulation and a more responsible personal lending structure.
In life inmost cases mistakes have to be made to get anywhere.
If it were up to me,I'd prioritize frontline pay in hospitals and the gardaí but it would be sink or swim for everything else-it can either be afforded or not.
As for the point in the title of the thread-why have those with nothing to do with the problem have to pay for the problem?
Well it's called community.
Enough people in this country were greedy enough to make it go the road it went.It costs,it's as simple as that.
Theres no half price membership of this country.
I heard a teacher on pat kenny this morning saying she'd be better off on the dole than teaching with the pay cuts proposed and done.
Now theres the nub of it,I'd suggest.
That made me so angry.
A supposedly intelligent person coming out with a statement like that...and a benefit system that recently in the irish times was exposed as paying €42,000 to a family with 2 kids on the dole when you include all the entitlements they can claim.
It's the cause in the main for the mess we are in.Greed and selfishness.
In my book,you work and enjoy the fruits of that work and if you are able to get more fruits than the next person because you work harder,make better decisions or are more qualified..then fair play to you.
It sounds to me though that some eejits in this country mostly unions just don't get that concept properly and continue to pull against the rest of us not with us.
did it occur to you that , that teacher on the radio might have been telling porkys , every second public servant interviewed on the radio theese days is borderline destitute it seems0 -
-
Liam Byrne wrote: »Depends on what you mean by this.
Some people wanted INSTANT benefits, while some of us tried to plan ahead and make the savings, etc, last; offering sustainable products and services at decent prices and not a "cut and run".
Unfortunately, those who wanted to make a killing and have now lost everything are being bailed out by those of us who were aiming for the long run, and as a result of the downturn the money and prospects that those of us who planned ahead are being robbed from us to bail out the short-sightedness....
....so basically our "long term" gain and view is no good to us.
And THAT is sickening, because the net result is that we haven't gained, despite being sensible and wanting to spread the benefit, rather than make a short-term temporary killing.
That's a good point - one of the few pleasures of having kept prices down to build a sustainable business is knowing that the chancers and fly-by-nights charging a fortune for shoddy goods go out of business quickly. Having to then bail them out is a bit of a stretch.
consideringly,
Scofflaw0 -
Liam Byrne wrote: »Depends on what you mean by this.
Some people wanted INSTANT benefits, while some of us tried to plan ahead and make the savings, etc, last; offering sustainable products and services at decent prices and not a "cut and run".
Unfortunately, those who wanted to make a killing and have now lost everything are being bailed out by those of us who were aiming for the long run, and as a result of the downturn the money and prospects that those of us who planned ahead are being robbed from us to bail out the short-sightedness....
....so basically our "long term" gain and view is no good to us.
And THAT is sickening, because the net result is that we haven't gained, despite being sensible and wanting to spread the benefit, rather than make a short-term temporary killing.
If you plotted your career, took any opportunities that might get you a higher paying job and opportunities to get experience and training you had a good leg up. These opportunities were extremely plentiful during the boom.
If people looked after their prospects properly then they would also be mobile now if needed. And they would be very marketable, even now. They would have saved heaps of money and be in a position to use that money to go abroad if necessary.
People who havent secured their financial and career positions while the going was good - well they just wasted what the celtic tiger was giving.
People who got themselves into serious debt - they just didnt understand how boom/bust works. No sympathy.0 -
I agree with alot of what is being said on this thread. First the government were blaming Lehman's for the recession, now they are shoving the burden on everyone. Let the market dictate who falls and who survives.
Dev did you vote in the last election?0 -
Originally Posted by seclachi View Post
I find your post disturbing for two reasons.
1. Your locust like attitude.
2. Your Freudian obsession with nipples.
Kooli`s response :Tough titty.
That just HAS to be the riposte of the day ? Men, it has been well said, think in herds; it will be seen that they go mad in herds, while they only recover their senses slowly, and one by one.
Charles Mackay (1812-1889)
0 -
If you plotted your career, took any opportunities that might get you a higher paying job and opportunities to get experience and training you had a good leg up. These opportunities were extremely plentiful during the boom.
Life is not about "higher paying jobs"; it's about getting by, saving a little, and being comfortable enough in the long-term. It's also about actually having a life.....families who ship kids off @ 6am so they commute for 3 hours, only to collect them again at 9pm is not "living", in my book.If people looked after their prospects properly then they would also be mobile now if needed. And they would be very marketable, even now. They would have saved heaps of money and be in a position to use that money to go abroad if necessary.
Who would have "saved heaps of money" ? I had decent savings and bought a modest house and renovated it. No massive crib because I bought it to live in, not as a rung on a fictional "ladder", but I've now almost zero savings.
And I'm being shafted by the Government, too. Now that I can't afford to change the car on which I've already paid VRT, the Government want to tax me AGAIN for that car; likewise with the stamp duty/property tax proposal; likewise with the proposed septic tank tax - loads of EXTRA charges that people who weren't screwing others simply can't afford, while those on €100K + expenses are laughing because their disposable income is twice or three times our TOTAL income.People who havent secured their financial and career positions while the going was good - well they just wasted what the celtic tiger was giving.
Bull. You could have a top career in - say - construction; where are those jobs now ? You could have studied to be a teacher and been let go. You could have been working in Dell. You could have offered IT or training services or delivery services on contract to someone else and now find that the clients that you had are gone kaput.
Hell, you could be tipping away and surviving at the moment, with enough business to tick over, and still find that cashflow difficulties are screwing up your day-to-day operations, as your clients wait for other people to pay them.People who got themselves into serious debt - they just didnt understand how boom/bust works. No sympathy.
I'll agree with you for the most part on that. Mind you, when Ahern was pooh-poohing anyone who was being realistic, it's hard to blame them - he was convinced that it wasn't a "boom/bust".
That said, anyone who ever believed a word out of his mouth should be shot, but that's another argument.
Bottom line is that if you were charging bull**** rates of €750 a day, or overcharging and screwing people to make a killing (and one look at the prices of TVs and computers and furniture now shows how much we were being ripped off - stuff is down by 50% - 60% of previous prices) you should have enough saved.
But if you weren't, and were always charging reasonable rates, then you're screwed.
Of course, while some of the current prices are desperation sales, if the prices for stuff had been even halfway between then and now, we'd all have gotten through it without some people hanging themselves and ourselves with crippling debt.0 -
Advertisement
-
![[Deleted User]](/applications/dashboard/design/images/defaulticon.png)
Advertisement