Why am I getting it in the ass??

Amhran Nua

dresden8 wrote: »

I'm sure the Germans and French who had to listen to Bertie and co banging on about how successful we were, Europe's best economy and all that crap, are allowing themselve just a smidgeon of schadenfreude at the mo.

They can smile away to their hearts content, but their economies were just as dependent on the crazy lending in the anglosphere for the last ten years - where else were they going to export to?

DeVore wrote: »

Right now the mainstream media is either from Montrose (who are waaay too scared of p*ssing off their political masters, eg: the Cowen picture) or Fleet street, who have their own pay-masters agenda to push.

A painful truth, have you noticed how the media generally has become more sunny in its stories over the last few months? Even these floods are a godsend as far as they are concerned.

DeVore wrote: »

1. I have 0 confidence in our politicians and in our political system. Any of them. I dont have a great deal of hope for the future under their governance.

So why don't you get involved? Every citizen of this country has the potential to change the system and the politicians, if they can convince enough others to stand up. Make a noise! And if people don't want to get involved in politics, its their own lookout when things go pear shaped.

If they can't be bothered, they can't expect much pity.

oscarBravo wrote: »

It's hard to avoid the conclusion that the government's entire strategy revolves around re-inflating the bubble, because at least when we had a bubble we didn't have to worry about how to pay our (national) bills.

Exactly. They want to stop the deflation as quickly as possible and reinflate the bubble - the falls over the last while are merely viewed as the minimum growth they can look forward to when NAMA starts up, in their world.

Scofflaw wrote: »

Don't get me wrong - I'm as annoyed as you at having to bail out a bubble

We don't have to bail out the bubble. There are numerous alternatives that have been put forward and roundly ignored.

_Kooli_

Liam Byrne wrote: »

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.



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.



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.



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.

Everybody "has a life". Why do people think hat anyone who did well out of the Celtic tiger "had no life". Stupid argument tbh.
Look.
At the end of the day, all you had to do was take care of your life during the boom. Set yourself of for the inevitable bust that will follow. Not let it run away with the rest of the idiots borrowing all they could. I wanted to buy a house myself. Still do. But i was waiting until i had at least 50% of the price to pay up front. That would have been my maximum imaginable debt, so for that reason i hadnt bought a house.
We only change our cars when we have enough to buy them outright. No debts please.

I was working ridiculous hours in a factory for less than £10k a year in 1996. I had had enough of it, so wanted a change. I took every opportunity that came my way since then. Always looking to improve and always looking at least 5 years ahead. I have a great life - apart from a broken leg the last few weeks.

I for one am not going to complain about the Celtic tiger been and gone. It was here, i milked it. Only people who missed out are those who sat back and complained about it passing them by - even professional dole collectors benefited from it.

If you want just to "get by" and "save a little" during a BOOM, you are missing out on serious opportunities to bed yourself in for the BUST that is always going to follow.

ei.sdraob

Amhran Nua wrote: »

They can smile away to their hearts content, but their economies were just as dependent on the crazy lending in the anglosphere for the last ten years - where else were they going to export to?

dependent yes, but to a much lesser degree

and they dont have all their eggs in one basket and still have a diverse industry/economy

theres a reason why German bonds are in high demand, they are the safest of a bad bunch

Amhran Nua

ei.sdraob wrote: »

and they dont have all their eggs in one basket and still have a diverse industry/economy

They can start smiling again when their own exports recover.

DublinWriter

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Freaky! Right down to the age of the OP, I could have written the original post!

Maybe there was some cop-on being dished out in 1970!

Amen Brother. I'm a 1970 child myself - do you now find that slippers actually make sense and that buying a motorbike finally seems like an interesting thing to do?

NAMA to me is like a Rubik Cube. I've looked at it this way and that way, I can't make sense of it and now all I want to do is smash it on the ground in frustration.

The concept of NAMA is flawed beyond sense - it'll only work IF THERE'S ANOTHER PROPERTY BUBBLE!

Fetch the straight jacket and lock me in a padded cell - NAMA can't work and won't work.

The Government are living in la-la-land if they think that NAMA will make the banks suddenly relax their collective sphincter and start issuing credit to small businesses again. It won't and they won't.

NAMA is only the soundtrack to a country slowly imploding in on itself as private sector turns against public sector, the rich against the poor and the native against the immigrant.

But...at last! We are truly a nation! We have a disaster of our own making that we can't blame the Brits for!

Forget the Tricolour, the new national flag should be the image of a toilet...with your money being flushed down it.

Ally Dick

We should be rerunning the Nuremberg trials with Bertie Ahern in the dock, to explain his crimes against humanity. He's the real architect of the mess we are currently in.

DublinWriter

Ally Dick wrote: »

We should be rerunning the Nuremberg trials with Bertie Ahern in the dock, to explain his crimes against humanity. He's the real architect of the mess we are currently in.

Ein Volk, ein Reich, ein Taoiseach.

Ger the man

Ally Dick wrote: »

We should be rerunning the Nuremberg trials with Bertie Ahern in the dock, to explain his crimes against humanity. He's the real architect of the mess we are currently in.

French revolution would be more fun, throw John O'Donoghue and Rody Molloy onto the chopping block first!

ei.sdraob

Ger the man wrote: »

French revolution would be more fun, throw John O'Donoghue and Rody Molloy onto the chopping block first!

all depends depends on your heads point of view

DublinWriter

Ger the man wrote: »

French revolution would be more fun

NAMA - let them eat cak.

biko

I'm like Devore, during the good years I didn't go crazy spending it all on cars and houses and therefore I'm not in debt now. Also like him I'm leaving Ireland because I'm won't pick the tap up after the fat cats and FF buddies have chomped off more than they could chew.
You can be damn certain they "the fat cats and FF buddies" already have funnelled out as much as they can to discreet accounts abroad for pensions and whatnot.

Magnus

Magnus wrote: »

You can be damn certain they "the fat cats and FF buddies" already have funnelled out as much as they can to discreet accounts abroad for pensions and whatnot.

Facts please.

biko

Comment withdrawn

DublinWriter

DublinWriter wrote: »

The concept of NAMA is flawed beyond sense - it'll only work IF THERE'S ANOTHER PROPERTY BUBBLE!

You'd have to define what you mean by work.
Property prices quadrupled and more in 5 or 6 years...if that happened again it would be like Nama discovering oil on one of the properties.It's obviously highly unlikely.

It's not unreasonable to expect property to grow by 10 or 20% over a 10 year timeframe though.
A third of the property Nama is taking over is abroad and a lot in the UK.
Another percentage is performing.
So I guess it boils down to whats paid for the rest and if enough of it makes a profit over the 10 years to contain the losses on some of the rest of it.
There are public interest directors on the boards of our two biggest banks and frankly the last thing those banks want to be doing now is lending irresponsibly to the property industry during Nama's remit.
Ergo,if builders go bust in the future , it's unlikely to be with government funding or bank funding.

I'm not too happy with the aroma around this concept myself but we are where we are,lets see.
There is legislation to levy the banks future profits if Nama makes a loss.
I don't share any view that banks here won't return to very healthy profits after Nama has taken their challenged or toxic loan portfolios.

The prudent thing for joe public to be doing in the next 3 years would be to lobby politicians to ensure that any levy if needed is set up in such a cast iron way that it cannot be passed on to the public.

Amhran Nua

Deleted User wrote: »

It's not unreasonable to expect property to grow by 10 or 20% over a 10 year timeframe though.

Its also not unreasonable to expect it to drop by a similar amount instead.

j1974

hi,

im in agreement with you on this. im sick of people moaning about how they didnt cause the problems alive and swelling the economy today. I know loads of people who took huge mortgages that they could not sustain, had two new cars in the drive, on hire purchase and all the trimmings made possible by the bad lending practices of the banks. not theyre stuck with the high mortgages, and multiple car repayments because only one person is working in the family.

I drive a 99D astra, have done for the last 5 years. I live with my girlfriend in an overpriced 210,000.00 one bedroom apt and we're both private sector workers. we've also been pragmatic, not greedy, payed our taxes and always lived within our means. I was on 34,000.00 last year and in april I had to accept a % cut in wage, not 5%, not 7%, try 13%. plus the budget penalties as we call them, came in. And im going into 2010 with fierce apprehension as to whether i'll have a job next year.

My point is, stay in malta, where the weather is as warm as the people and as sunnier then the dark climate of fear which currently resides over ireland.

I personlay cant see why the Gov cant cut wage by 1% for every 10,000 earned in the civil service and also add tax the private sector with a similar system, it means you pay more cos you earn more and that's how it is. But the taking extra should only start if you make over 55 grand or there abouts, I dunno, Im not an economist but it sounds ok to me, or fair.

Amhran Nua

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Its also not unreasonable to expect it to drop by a similar amount instead.

Well I suppose so but not as likely as the former over that type of time frame.
You'd be expecting total Stád in the economy for a decade.
I don't share that kind of deep pessimism.
The love affair between the irish and the mortar will return to a reasonable extent except with a lesson in economics learned I think.
Banks won't anymore be handing out the moolah to developers to be increasing the property inventory much over at least the next half of that decade either unless they have guaranteed customers.

But anyhow..

Amhran Nua

Deleted User wrote: »

Well I suppose so but not as likely as the former over that type of time frame.

Why not, it went up by a lot more than that for a similar time frame.

Deleted User wrote: »

The love affair between the irish and the mortar will return to a reasonable extent except with a lesson in economics learned I think.

The "love affair" amounts to nineteenth century tenant legislation making it impractical to rent for long periods.

Deleted User wrote: »

Banks won't anymore be handing out the moolah to developers to be increasing the property inventory much over at least the next half of that decade either unless they have guaranteed customers.

Which should be just enough to clear the overhang, once houses start selling again.

asdasd

Well unless we tear down houses. Which might happen.

Amhran Nua

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Why not, it went up by a lot more than that for a similar time frame.

Theres always an equilibrium somewhere in demand and supply.
As I said,proposing that property doesn't rise somewhat [10 to 20% is a lot less that 100 to 300%] over the next decade also supposes that our economy stagnates for 10 years with no growth in the workforce and no demand for housing.
In theory possible but very unlikely.
Nobody has a crystal ball on that one except we are where we are.
We'll see as the fellah says.

asdasd wrote: »

Well unless we tear down houses. Which might happen.

I can see that happening in a lot of unfinished estates in bally go backwards representing the most toxic of the clump of loans no doubt.

asdasd

doesn't rise somewhat [10 to 20% is a lot less that 100 to 300%] over the next decade also supposes that our economy stagnates for 10 years with no growth in the workforce and no demand for housing.

The problem is that you are not factoring in future reductions in house prices between then and now. A 10% increase from now seems reasonable, a 120% from bottom increase if property falls another 50% first seems unreasonable.

50% may be too much. But do the maths with more "reasonable" percentage drops. You need higher percentages on the way up. Thats the nature of percentages :-)

EDIT:

A 25% drop from now would need close to a 50% rise from the bottom, to get nominal prices up to 110% of where they are now for instance.

Amhran Nua

Deleted User wrote: »

As I said,proposing that property doesn't rise somewhat [10 to 20% is a lot less that 100 to 300%] over the next decade also supposes that our economy stagnates for 10 years with no growth in the workforce and no demand for housing.

Ah but here you are equating a growth in the economy with a rise in property prices - that doesn't neccessarily follow at all, especially if that growth is directed where it should be, enterprise and export based industries. Likewise the labour force growth, economic migrants don't come here to buy houses.

jmayo

sparklepants wrote: »

This...

...and this...

It's clear that you subscribe to the former approach and not the latter, which doesn't exactly put you in a positive light from where I'm standing. You've chosen to take up residency in Malta because it's what you believe best suits you. You choose to walk away rather than contribute here. That's fine of course, but it does undermine your argument that you have to "shoulder the burden" of what's gone wrong in the Irish economy. With the title of this thread you portray yourself as a victim, yet your admission that you've no debts and no ties exposes your victimhood as phoney, and has made it clear that you've no understanding of the difficulties currently facing people who are less fortunate than you.

To me you appear to be a confused little bunny who's lost his way. Perhaps a little time in that sunny apartment bought for you by your parents will help you sort out what it is you're so unhappy about and what you're really running away from.

He never said he was a victim, but I would say he like a lot of us have a cold feeling that we are going to be victimised, not just to bail out the major banks (some of which should not have been saved), but also to shoulder the debts of ordinary citizens who overspent in wreckless abandonment when cheap credit was flying about.

It is you that is confused and stop some of this sh**e about "understanding of the difficulties currently facing people who are less fortunate than you"
A lot of the ones on the media crying about how they can't afford the mortgages, how the credit card company is chasing them, etc overspent wrecklessly and now are leading the moaning.
One eejit in Waterford remortgaed the house to do it up and clocked up 15,000 on his credit card, because after all that was the limit they gave him.
People lived for today, get big mortgage, get big car loan, get multiple credit cards, get creit union loans. Sure the next pay cheque will see us through.

These were the ones, as donegalfella alluded to, who had to have big flash weddings, designer gear for the babies, flash cars, latest gadgets, all new funiture in their new pads, a few weekends away in Europe, shopping in New York, sking and summer hols.
Why the f*** should those of us who didn't blow all the money that was being fired at us, who actaully put money aside for a rainy day now have to pay extra to bail out the above ?

The only ones i have pity for are the poor bastards who didn't go overboard on the spending, bought within their means and due to bad luck are now out of work.

seclachi wrote: »

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.

Bull.
Some banks had to be saved, but Anglo was a bank for the Quinns, McKillens, McNamaras of this country now the ordinary joe soaps.
Now we are expected to give them over 7 billion in recapitalisation and take anything upto 30 billion in the most toxic of loans to save them.
Why the ch*** are we recapitalising a bank that only really lent to property developers and some very prominent high net worth individuals ?

Deleted User wrote: »

You'd have to define what you mean by work.
Property prices quadrupled and more in 5 or 6 years...if that happened again it would be like Nama discovering oil on one of the properties.It's obviously highly unlikely.

It's not unreasonable to expect property to grow by 10 or 20% over a 10 year timeframe though.

A third of the property Nama is taking over is abroad and a lot in the UK.
Another percentage is performing.
So I guess it boils down to whats paid for the rest and if enough of it makes a profit over the 10 years to contain the losses on some of the rest of it.
There are public interest directors on the boards of our two biggest banks and frankly the last thing those banks want to be doing now is lending irresponsibly to the property industry during Nama's remit.
...
There is legislation to levy the banks future profits if Nama makes a loss.
I don't share any view that banks here won't return to very healthy profits after Nama has taken their challenged or toxic loan portfolios.

The prudent thing for joe public to be doing in the next 3 years would be to lobby politicians to ensure that any levy if needed is set up in such a cast iron way that it cannot be passed on to the public.

You have to be ffer with an outlook that even mentioned proeprty prices increasing over the next 10 years.
All of your arguments read like the standard government NAMA drivel.
Some of the loans are for property that is abroad, only 3-5% is for US property, British property is also way down and their country face huge problems
Legislation to levy the banks if NAMA makes a loss.

What are you on ?
The banks are basket cases, AIB and BOI need more recapitalisation thus making de facto nationalised in the future thus making them as good as state owned, Anglo is already state owned, so we will be levying ourselves. :rolleyes:

Yeah that's neat idea. :rolleyes:

Oh BTW speaking of property recovering after a bubble bust.
Why don't you look up the growth in Japanesse property over the last 17/18 years ?
Then come back to us with the 10-20% growth over 10 years

Amhran Nua

Amhran Nua wrote: »

Ah but here you are equating a growth in the economy with a rise in property prices - that doesn't neccessarily follow at all, especially if that growth is directed where it should be, enterprise and export based industries. Likewise the labour force growth, economic migrants don't come here to buy houses.

No I'm not.
I'm applying the rules of supply and demand.

asdasd wrote: »

A 25% drop from now would need close to a 50% rise from the bottom, to get nominal prices up to 110% of where they are now for instance.

In fairness,there is no market out there now for houses/property so deciding a view is near impossible.
I take the point though that it equates to the worst scenario possible for nama to be doing a reckoning.

asdasd

I'm applying the rules of supply and demand.

No, you're not. There is no guarantee that Ireland's population will even be what it is now in ten years. my bet is it wont be. It will be less.

Amhran Nua

Deleted User wrote: »

I'm applying the rules of supply and demand.

With a natural demand of maybe 35,000 units a year, and an overhang of perhaps 200,000 units, I make it around 5 years before we ever need to build another house, and we're still building them, at around 10,000 a year last time I checked. So ten years of depreciation, or even more, is entirely likely by supply and demand.

thebman

Amhran Nua wrote: »

With a natural demand of maybe 35,000 units a year, and an overhang of perhaps 200,000 units, I make it around 5 years before we ever need to build another house, and we're still building them, at around 10,000 a year last time I checked. So ten years of depreciation, or even more, is entirely likely by supply and demand.

With the energy rating systems coming in, most current stock will be worthless in a few years without major expenditure not to mention a house with nobody in it will fall apart and need maintenance too.

Stock won't stay good forever, it is just silly to believe that would be the case. The only value is the land value on many of the properties that will end up in NAMA.

We may just end up taking excess stock into public ownership and having crap loads of land and property developers will be building houses actually worth something and selling them to people.

dan_d

Why are we even considering the recovery of the property market??
Have we STILL not learned that lesson?????????????
You CAN'T maintain an economy on the construction industry OR a property market. So let's drop this whole concept of "the house prices will go back up at some point, so let's all just wait". It did not work the last time. It will not work this time. Negative Equity.It's here to stay. Can we please drop this idea that property is everything, and you can have a life based on the earnings you make from owning a house??? Forget the stupid property market!!!!!!
Okay, so got that off my chest! Anyway, deVore I see what you're saying. I'd be interested to know the rough age profile of all the people on here saying they saved money, and didn't buy because they knew it couldn't last? The reason being that a lot of what went on ( It seems to me) was fuelled by our parent's generation (I'm 27). They bought 2nd and 3rd homes for their kids, and tried to sell them on at a profit - circumstances allowed this. They priced family homes through the roof - it wasn't the thirty-somethings of the country selling 15yr old 4 bed houses in places like Dun Laoghaire/Templeogue/Raheny for anything between 700,000 and 1 million euro. At some point the media copped on to what was happening and started whipping the frenzy. But (and I don't like saying it, but it's a theory), our parents generation essentially priced their own kids out of a market. And a generation in between - I suppose in their early to mid thirties now - are now paying for their parent's profits, being locked into huge mortgages. And all of our kids are going to pay for this through their taxes for decades to come.
Why would any of us stay here??

herya

dan_d wrote: »

(and I don't like saying it, but it's a theory), our parents generation essentially priced their own kids out of a market. And a generation in between - I suppose in their early to mid thirties now - are now paying for their parent's profits, being locked into huge mortgages. And all of our kids are going to pay for this through their taxes for decades to come.

There's a book by David McWilliams called "The Generation Game" and this is a perfect summary of it. Nothing surprising really, it's there for everybody to see, very clear when you think about it. The phenomenon manifests itself everywhere - think about those senior public sector staff who are unsackable yet they send young temporary teachers out in the rain to protest while it'll be last in first out when it comes to this.

Some of the lucky thirtysomethings will at least inherit some of those assets in the years to come!

thebman

dan_d wrote: »

Why are we even considering the recovery of the property market??

We aren't, our government on the other hand (and invested interests)...