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

Michael Soden

Options
  • 14-01-2010 1:50am
    #1
    hinault
    Registered Users Posts: 5,932 ✭✭✭


    I hope that this is the correct thread.

    What is he up to?
    Heard him this morning saying "get the construction industry back up and running" on Pat Kenny.
    Tonight with Vincent Brown, asked about how to restore our economy when (if) the banks start lending, now that NAMA has come to their rescue, he said "if you put a billion in to the construction sector - through bank loans/financing - this would translate in to jobs more quickly, than putting loand/finance given to other sectors"

    Why is the ex-BOI chief trying to get the construction industry up and running?
    We have an oversupply of houses.
    We have an economy where there is no spare cash - because banks are not lending.

    Why is he hell bent on construction?

    Rant over


Comments

  • Options
    #2
    SkepticOne
    Closed Accounts Posts: 6,718 ✭✭✭SkepticOne


    hinault wrote: »
    Why is he hell bent on construction?
    Here's an article from last October.
    The single biggest sector that requires investment is construction and property. This sector is on its knees and is parched for liquidity. It is the sector we all blame for the poor state we are in today. Having experienced the massive downside of the excessive losses associated with this sector, we must ask ourselves can the economy recover to an acceptable level within a specified time frame (four to five years) without reinvesting in construction and property. The construction industry is reported to have lost 150,000 jobs over the past two years and the likelihood of recovery in this sector without investment is remote.
    The argument seems to be that because construction once employed a lot of people and is now devastated by the downturn, it therefore in the interest of the country that it be helped recover. No mention, of course, of gross oversupply.

    My guess is that he's over extended in property investment and that he wants stimulation of demand so prices rise again, to the detriment of the country.


  • Options
    #3
    SLUSK
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,156 ✭✭✭SLUSK


    We have already seen how unsustainable an economy based on increasing property value is. I am by no means an expert in economy but I can say going down that road again is probably a bad idea.


  • Options
    #4
    dny123456
    Closed Accounts Posts: 431 ✭✭dny123456


    There are things other than houses, that people could construct. Why do 'we' assume houses when a pundit speaks of construction? Perhaps he meant construction of infrastructure? A few rail corridors. Power stations, hospitals, schools, colleges, swimming pools, football stadia.

    Even if they are not needed, there is economic benefit from the activity of their creation. The old, one group of people digging holes and another group filling them, argument.


  • Options
    #5
    jdivision
    Registered Users Posts: 4,260 ✭✭✭jdivision


    I would assume he meant infrastructure investment. Water would be a good one to invest in you'd think!


Advertisement