TONIGHT With Vincent Browne

Tomohawk

Anyone know the viewership figure on TWVB?

Flimbos

Did Pat Carey indicate that the budget would include a reduction in pay and perks for TDs?

They might as well reduce pay for ministers as it will only affect them for a few weeks anyway

Agonist

Where did all the red ties go? What was all that about?

AOwannabe

Here we go again, rubbish figures

JonathanAnon

Flimbos wrote: »

Did Pat Carey indicate that the budget would include a reduction in pay and perks for TDs?

I heard somebody alluding to the fact that they MAY introduce cuts for TDs / Ministers as a softening blow on budget day... but they wont announce it until the actual budget day for emphasis...

JonathanAnon

AOwannabe wrote: »

Here we go again, rubbish figures

yeah, I'm lost now.. Was Brian Lucey right or wrong??

AOwannabe

JonathanAnon wrote: »

yeah, I'm lost now.. Was Brian Lucey right or wrong??

At this stage I don't know who to believe. If I'm bored tomorrow I might actually do some research myself into the debt figures and get back to ye.

hotmail.com

The figures that were mentioned last night were backed up tonight.

SB-08

Tomohawk wrote: »

Anyone know the viewership figure on TWVB?

Depends but I have read several times it attracts over 300,000 viewers a night. Basically if it was on RTE VB would be on several times the salary he is on with TV3. That must annoy him a lot.

Vinny seems to be getting the same guests on all the time lately - most of these guests have already been on this or last week. I often wonder why Ruauri Quinn is never on VB? I'd like a debate between him and Vinny.

Wasn't the total debt over 300 billion last night? Now it's 240 billion?

scargill

SB-08 wrote: »

Wasn't the total debt over 300 billion last night? Now it's 240 billion?

either figure is staggering. servicing the interest on that will kill us (even at an optimistic 5%).

JonathanAnon

This is getting embarrassing for Vincent... Basically saying that the whole show last night was based on a false premise... a wrong calculation by his TWO experts...

Sir Oxman

scargill wrote: »

either figure is staggering. servicing the interest on that will kill us (even at an optimistic 5%).

That's the point to bear in mind.
I believe Lucey's figures were well off and Somerville basically said so (his was 220bn or so)

The fact remains the overall figure is not sustainable and Ireland has a very small window of time to stand up and tell the EU that.

Sir Oxman

JonathanAnon wrote: »

This is getting embarrassing for Vincent... Basically saying that the whole show last night was based on a false premise... a wrong calculation by his TWO experts...

Somerville was in the correct ballpark

hotmail.com

JonathanAnon wrote: »

This is getting embarrassing for Vincent... Basically saying that the whole show last night was based on a false premise... a wrong calculation by his TWO experts...

I don't think he said that at all.

JonathanAnon

Sir Oxman

JonathanAnon wrote: »

LOL!:D

Idbatterim

my head is spinning! the growth figures are so overstated, the cuts not enough, the interest rates if at 6% or so, too high. I really wonder would FG or Labour realize the inevitable, and just tell Europe we cant afford to repay everything Tough ****. These debts for a small country are enormous, but if you burn bondholders for say 50% or so, who are based in multiple countries (who have cities with bigger populations than here), surely it wouldnt be the end of the world, but then I wonder would the Greek, Portuguese etc hop on the "well they defaulted, so will we". Of course its not nice to burn bond holders, but they much more than we can afford to bear it.

Sad Professor

Re: the figures

I'm not too sure, but if I recall correctly, Lucey said 240bn, but Gurdgiev and Somerville say 220bn. Then there's the question about whether the 100+ billion short-term liquidity (Gurdgiev suggests it's more) that the ECB have been providing to Irish banks should be included or not. If it is it brings the total debt to well over 300bn. However, Lucey cautioned Vincent about including that in the total figure.

JonathanAnon

Sad Professor wrote: »

Re: the figures. I'm not too sure, but if I recall correctly, Lucey said 240bn, but Gurdgiev and Somerville say 220bn.

okay well I've looked back on my synopsis from last nite.... The figure that they estimated in relation to our interest payments was 6.5%, which they said would be 16 Billion Euro interest per annum ... that would be, of course, in addition to our present deficit of 19 Billion.. They guys said that this would NOT be possible, and the country would effectively be insolvent. ...

So (16 Billion Euro / 6.5%)*100% = 246 Billion Euro... So this does fit in with the initial figure of 240 Billion......

JonathanAnon

Just heard McCarthy there lads... he said that Lucey had been counting the i) money that we would have acquired from the bond markets (which we now have removed ourselves from), AND ii) money which we are receiving from the ECB...

Lucey added them together, but it's an either/or situation..... we are NOT taking the money from the bond markets anymore having withdrawn from the market after the bond rate hit 8.5%/9% earlier this month, so that money will be provided INSTEAD by the ECB..

MaceFace

JonathanAnon wrote: »

Just heard McCarthy there lads... he said that Lucey had been counting the i) money that we would have acquired from the bond markets (which we now have removed ourselves from), AND ii) money which we are receiving from the ECB...

Lucey added them together, but it's an either/or situation..... we are NOT taking the money from the bond markets anymore having withdrawn from the market after the bond rate hit 8.5%/9% earlier this month, so that money will be provided INSTEAD by the ECB..

I addressed this here

I can't give my opinion on a certain economist from a certain university as I might get banned.

What surprises me is that people see these lads talking about things they don't understand and think they are Gods.
Economists on TV are no different than Chefs on TV - I don't think anyone thinks Jamie Oliver or Ainsley Harriot are really great chefs.

JonathanAnon

well I think the economists should be far more responsible. At least the chef can only burn himself..... I got a call yesterday asking me was there a run on the banks.. there was a rumour going round San Francisco that the banks were not working in Ireland... It wouldnt take much to start a run with a further piece of (similar) irresponsible commentary..

Shane10

Jonathan what does that mean a run on the banks?(they have run out of money?)

AOwannabe

JonathanAnon wrote: »

... The figure that they estimated in relation to our interest payments was 6.5%, which they said would be 16 Billion Euro interest per annum ..

That interest rate they are basing their calculations on is definitely wrong.

Our national debt as of today is €90.9 billion. This was financed at an interest rate of roughly 4.5%.

The IMF/EU bailout will be in the region of €85bn to €90bn. Let's say the interest rate on this will be 5.5% (That would be the higher end of the scale seeing as how Greece are charged 5%.)

That means the average interest rate on the entire debt would be 5%.

AOwannabe

Here are the debt servicing figures according to the four year plan:

2011 - €4.725 billion - That equates to 15% of total tax revenue
2012 - €6.171 billion - 17% of tax revenue
2013 - €7.448 billion - 19% of tax revenue
2014 - €8.4 billion - 20% of tax revenue

Now these figures are predicated on a growth rate of 2.75% which is very optimistic but as you can see they come nowhere near the €16 billion a year figure Constantin was coming up with.

DeepBlue

AOwannabe wrote: »

2011 - €4.725 billion - That equates to 15% of total tax revenue
2012 - €6.171 billion - 17% of tax revenue
2013 - €7.448 billion - 19% of tax revenue
2014 - €8.4 billion - 20% of tax revenue

Alas those figures are coming from the Govt. and their credibility has been shot all to hell.
If Brian Lenihan told me it was raining I'd check myself first before taking his word on it.

The independent economists are getting traction because the Govt. has been shown to be misleading, over-optimistic or outright liars.

MaceFace

AOwannabe wrote: »

Here are the debt servicing figures according to the four year plan:

2011 - €4.725 billion - That equates to 15% of total tax revenue
2012 - €6.171 billion - 17% of tax revenue
2013 - €7.448 billion - 19% of tax revenue
2014 - €8.4 billion - 20% of tax revenue

Now these figures are predicated on a growth rate of 2.75% which is very optimistic but as you can see they come nowhere near the €16 billion a year figure Constantin was coming up with.

Word of the day: Obfuscate
Use: FF produced a plan that obfuscated the size of the problem. It did not address the banking issue.

Think about it: We are still in (ahem) "negotiations", so how can they plan for the result when the result is not known.

As for the interest rate we will pay - that is not just some figure that is "negotiated" - there is a formula that applies and for Greece it worked out at 5% and for us it could be over 7%. See here

Without being over dramatic - just because one economist has made some serious mistakes in his calculations does not mean all economists are unable to count.

Make no mistake about it - there is simply no way we can not burn the bondholders. Any deal that is done in the next week that makes it look that way will simply be delaying the inevitable. Remember - keep an eye on the bond yields - that will tell you what the market thinks (and they are the ONLY people who count).

JonathanAnon

Shane10 wrote: »

Jonathan what does that mean a run on the banks?(they have run out of money?)

Wiki has a good definition..
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bank_run

A bank run (also known as a run on the bank) occurs when a large number of bank customers withdraw their deposits because they believe the bank is, or might become, insolvent. As a bank run progresses, it generates its own momentum, in a kind of self-fulfilling prophecy (or positive feedback): as more people withdraw their deposits, the likelihood of default increases, and this encourages further withdrawals. This can destabilize the bank to the point where it faces bankruptcy

AOwannabe wrote: »

That interest rate they are basing their calculations on is definitely wrong.

Well tbh, I'm not arguing with with your figures.. I was just using what Sommerville and Lucey were suggesting would be the rate... They were saying that such a high interest rate would certainly be sustainable, and that we need somebody in there who can seriously negotiate with these guys to get that interest rate down to something manageable.... I take no responsibility for whether the figures these economist's quote are right or wrong..

Mr Tim Buktoo

Where does vinny the sly dog get these hot ladies from. another one on tonight.

can someone tell me who are these mysterious bondholders and where do they get their money from?

AOwannabe

No Irish economists on tonight thank God, 3 foreign journalists on instead telling us the view of Ireland from outside.