Government responsible for collapse of economy.

ei.sdraob

SkepticOne wrote: »

See post #50. where I respond to ei.sdraob when he says "the only customers Anglo had had were crooks" as justification for letting Anglo fail.

actually i was referring to the small group of "crooks" that most of their money was lend out to

obviously enough its not the depositors (of whom there wasn't that many before the nationalization, and whom would have been covered in event of failure) i was talking about, any good loans and good customers that this bank had could have been transferred to any other bank who would surely welcome more depositors and more good loans on its books

Flamed Diving wrote: »

Now I can rightly accuse you of quote mining. You are a waste of time.

you can accuse me of whatever, i highlighted using your own quotation that it was interference in markets that resulted in the great depression, and for that matter this recession, we saw interference first hand in this country and theres no denying that this was either the cause or a factor in the bubble that led to this "crisis"


economics is split into two schools keynesians and austrians, i strongly believe in the austrian in "school", but of course i could see why people would choose to believe the keynes approach

here in this country people think that the state should do everything for them such as taking care of them from birth to death, clearing arse ice for them and unfortunately controlling the economy

hence why the keynes approach with its bailouts and state sponsored interference in the markets might be seen as a reasonable choice for some.


the austrian school has a "laissez faire" approach and doesnt have these authoritarian "state must control economy" streaks, not to mention the theory is very simple > leave the markets to it

yes the state should have some (little) say in the markets such as regulation and monopoly prevention (think EU vs Microsoft or Intel) but that involvement should me minimal, do note that and in the case of Ireland regulation was non existent as our regulator did not do its job at all as per a recent primetime show

/

Flamed Diving

ei.sdraob wrote: »

you can accuse me of whatever, i highlighted using your own quotation that it was interference in markets that resulted in the great depression, and for that matter this recession, we saw interference first hand in this country and theres no denying that this was either the cause or a factor in the bubble that led to this "crisis"


economics is split into two schools keynesians and austrians, i strongly believe in the austrian in "school", but of course i could see why people would choose to believe the keynes approach

here in this country people think that the state should do everything for them such as taking care of them from birth to death, clearing arse ice for them and unfortunately controlling the economy

hence why the keynes approach with its bailouts and state sponsored interference in the markets might be seen as a reasonable choice for some.


the austrian school has a "laissez faire" approach and doesnt have these authoritarian "state must control economy" streaks, not to mention the theory is very simple > leave the markets to it

yes the state should have some (little) say in the markets such as regulation and monopoly prevention (think EU vs Microsoft or Intel) but that involvement should me minimal, do note that and in the case of Ireland regulation was non existent as our regulator did not do its job at all as per a recent primetime show

/

You are a quote miner, instead of directly addressing my post you just selectively erased certain bits and twisted it to suit your narrow agendabut you seem to like passing youself off as some kind of economics guru on here because you read the von mises site and use videos and newspaper clippings as references You haven't a clue what you are talking about. Most people on this forum can't see through that, but I can. Now, back to your quote mining.

ei.sdraob

Flamed Diving wrote: »

You are a quote miner, instead of directly addressing my post you just selectively erased certain bits and twisted it to suit your narrow agendabut you seem to like passing youself off as some kind of economics guru on here because you read the von mises site and use videos and newspaper clippings as references You haven't a clue what you are talking about. Most people on this forum can't see through that, but I can. Now, back to your quote mining.

im not the person who wrote that wiki aritcle, which thankfully has many interpretations of the cause of the great depression, i choose to follow the austrian explanation, now instead of attacking me personally you could try to address why your interpretation is better

i read the Keynesian literature too and wasnt convinced by it

perhaps you should start a separate thread on the subject

ballinatray

ei.sdraob wrote: »

NAMA and bank bailouts have opened up a pandoras box

and hence should have never been allowed to happen

now everyone and anyone wants their "bailout"

Indeed I agree it does create a difficulty but though its too late now I believe the Banks should have been permitted to go under.....The losses being sustained by them and perhaps a foreign banking structure entering the market by buying up the Stock..Keep in mind that the total market capitalisation of all the irish banks at the end was 3.5 billion....Pretty cheap in the great scheme of things....A nice bargain for a bigger inrternational entity, instead of the 54 billion we tax payers paid!!!!

ballinatray

DJDC wrote: »

The idea that Negative Equity can be removed in an act of moral fortitude is innumerate nonsense peddled by people who have no understanding of basic finance and the modern market driven capitalist model. Imagine what would happen to AIB, BOI et al. tomorrow morning if a Irish governmental press release annouced overnight that all NE on propeties sold after 2004 will be written off as bad debt. Share price would rapidly descend towards 0 as the equity in the companies become worthless in the face of massive debts.

Share price has already plummeted!!!! in 2006/07 the collective value of bank stock was (top 3) close to 60 Billion.... Today 3.5 billion...

In short, its not going to happen.

Share price has already plummeted!!!! in 2006/07 the collective value of bank stock was (top 3) close to 60 Billion.... Today 3.5 billion...

ballinatray

ei.sdraob wrote: »

anyways all of that is seriously offtopic FD

in the context of this thread

its quite clear that here in Ireland, the Government has distorted the property market and whats worse poured oil into the clearly developing fire by providing tax incentives etc

then when the bubble burst the very same government has handed publics money over to banks such as Anglo who didnt even have normal off thestreet private and business customers, the only customers Anglo had had were crooks

i asked before and i ask again, if a dead rotten tree falls in the forest (Anglo) would anyone hear it fall? the only people who would have been affected by this bankruptcy would have been galway tenter's

Well said young man ?woman....I am inclined to agree that certainly Anglo saved a lot of galway tenters and Fianna Fail gave the insurance premium with your money.....Even Charlie McGreevy had the gall to recently admonish the media for enquiring about his so called private arrangement with anglo to borrow 1.5 million....Yert he was in Cabinet and we are expected to believe it was normal transparent borrowing which did not leave him compromised in any way !!!!!!

ballinatray

mossfort wrote: »

i worked as a bricklayer on housing estates in galway and there were certain areas of the county where houses commanded way higher prices than others because people thought it was more fashionable to live there.
take oranmore for example where 4 bedroom detached houses were making 500,000 euros.
you could drive 20 miles out the road to tuam where the equivalent size house could be bought for 220,000 euros.
why should the government compensate people who wanted to live in houses which were clearly overpriced from the start.

The operative word here is clearly over valued.....But many young people were duped by our governments spin concerning long term growth....The market was criminally managed with incentives for the rich to speculate in the first place and fear of a shortage for the young alongside that....

woodseb

ballinatray wrote: »

Share price has already plummeted!!!! in 2006/07 the collective value of bank stock was (top 3) close to 60 Billion.... Today 3.5 billion...

you do realise what happens when you wipe out a bank's equity, right?

and its not....

a foreign banking structure entering the market by buying up the Stock

ballinatray

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Well you won't hear me say it, because if I were to say it I'd be lying.

Keep in mind folks that image is an extravagant display of excessive ego and manifests itself in grandiosity....Simply purchasing a home is far from grandiose....!!!!!

dan_d

fuelinjection wrote: »

I have yet to hear Irish people say ... I borrowed too much from the Banks to keep up an image with friends and co-workers.

How about this. I borrowed too much money to have somewhere to live.

Actually scratch that. I went to a mortgage broker, with a deposit, and got approved for a mortgage that was 100,000eur MORE than what I eventually drew down. I explained to the broker that half or over of my salary a month was too much to be paying in repayments. I told her I didn't want a 40 yr mortgage and I didn't want to just "get on the property ladder" I wanted something long term.

I am not going to make excuses for the fact that I bought a house in the last 2 years and I kind of resent being told that I was an idiot to want somewhere to live. I'm from Dublin and it's the curse of being a Dub....there was no point in moving out and paying rent when your family home was down the road, yet we couldn't afford a house in our own city.
So I take full responsibility for the fact that bought a house just 2 years ago. It had absolutely nothing to do with neighbours or co-workers, given that I bought a boring, ordinary 4 bed house in a boring ordinary housing estate, which I am furnishing by degrees. I don't fall under the heading of "starter homes", or someone who was "taken in" by what they were told by banks/developers or the media. I'm someone who needed a house and was as sensible as I could be when I made my purchase.The only other thing I could have done was wait another 2 years - and if I did that I'd still be waiting and have no hope of getting approval either.

The point I'm trying to make here is that there are a lot of people responsible for the current mess we're in. But at some point, it went out of the hands of the ordinary people of Ireland. It's all very well to say that there was no gun held to people's heads to buy houses - but that implies there was some other, cheaper option available Which there wasn't. Because most places to rent were just as expensive due to the property speculation. People are not going to govern themselves, they're too stupid fundamentally!At some point, a regulator or Gov should have stepped in and called a halt - it's what they're there for.

People should accept responsibility for all of this, but at the end of the day, we employ regulators and Gov officials for a reason. And they quite clearly failed miserably and can no longer be trusted. Which is the bigger worry to me, to be quite honest.

jmayo

SkepticOne wrote: »

Well they did take deposits from ordinary people.

Yeah but didn't they start their big desposit attraction schemes in 2007/2008 when they finalyl realised how exposed they were ?
Also how many mortgages to ordinary joe soaps did they ever give out ?
How many loans to industry, non construciton industry did they ever give out ?
Just interested what the figures would be like.

dan_d wrote: »

How about this. I borrowed too much money to have somewhere to live.

Actually scratch that. I went to a mortgage broker, with a deposit, and got approved for a mortgage that was 100,000eur MORE than what I eventually drew down. I explained to the broker that half or over of my salary a month was too much to be paying in repayments. I told her I didn't want a 40 yr mortgage and I didn't want to just "get on the property ladder" I wanted something long term.

I am not going to make excuses for the fact that I bought a house in the last 2 years and I kind of resent being told that I was an idiot to want somewhere to live. I'm from Dublin and it's the curse of being a Dub....there was no point in moving out and paying rent when your family home was down the road, yet we couldn't afford a house in our own city.
So I take full responsibility for the fact that bought a house just 2 years ago. It had absolutely nothing to do with neighbours or co-workers, given that I bought a boring, ordinary 4 bed house in a boring ordinary housing estate, which I am furnishing by degrees. I don't fall under the heading of "starter homes", or someone who was "taken in" by what they were told by banks/developers or the media. I'm someone who needed a house and was as sensible as I could be when I made my purchase.The only other thing I could have done was wait another 2 years - and if I did that I'd still be waiting and have no hope of getting approval either.

The point I'm trying to make here is that there are a lot of people responsible for the current mess we're in. But at some point, it went out of the hands of the ordinary people of Ireland. It's all very well to say that there was no gun held to people's heads to buy houses - but that implies there was some other, cheaper option available Which there wasn't. Because most places to rent were just as expensive due to the property speculation. People are not going to govern themselves, they're too stupid fundamentally!At some point, a regulator or Gov should have stepped in and called a halt - it's what they're there for.

People should accept responsibility for all of this, but at the end of the day, we employ regulators and Gov officials for a reason. And they quite clearly failed miserably and can no longer be trusted. Which is the bigger worry to me, to be quite honest.

I would say you are not the type of person that most people complaining about buyers taking responsibility would be on about ?

You didn't draw down the full amount the bank were offering since you had the cop on to know it was too much for your financial situation.

You also stated you are furnishing it by degrees.
To me you are old school, you know the type of person who doesn't run out and buy things they can't afford, you probably save for things like new sofa etc.
Maybe I have you wrong ?
If I am correct in above statement then again I would state you are not the reason or the type of person that has to take responsibilty.

The people that do need to take responsibility are the ones that borrwored too much, agreeing with vested interested brokers and lenders that they could talk up their earnings to get bigger loans.
These would be the ones that maxxe dout their credit cards, took credit union loans to fully furnish the place.
They might even have remortgaged to buy nice new BMW or a boat.
(It was done).

Oh and you are very right about the bankers, government and regulators.
They threw caution to the wind and just got greedy, complacent and incompetent.
Everytime I hear finance ad finishing with "regulated by IFRSA" I grimmace, because we all know how torough that can be, depending of course on who you are and who you know.

ballinatray

skearon wrote: »

Wrong, NAMA hasn't cost the tax payer a single cent, it is designed to be self financing, and if there is a shortfall the banks will pay for this via increased corporation tax

With respect, in what century do you envcisage NAMA returning a profit..
I would suggest that NAMA itself is a false market with the property being kept in coral, for a long time to create the illusion of reasonable rather than the economic certainty that if such property was released you would be faced with with a more severe drop in value....Perhaps this should really occur... I wonder!!!!

ballinatray

nipplenuts wrote: »

OP, I completely oppose the idea of a bailout for people who borrowed more than they could repay. Completely.

Negative equity only affects people trying to sell a property they bought relatively recently. Apart from this it is an empty buzzword.

The solution to the unsold units (variously 370,000/400,000/450,000 in your posts) has been mooted - demolish 75% of them. That will directly effect your negative equities and create healthy demand again. Cost less than bailing out everyone who bought a house in the last five years too!

Dear God!!!if he is still up there?```Do not even consider the option of demolition..Another false manipulation of the market...You might well be glad to find one of these vacant properties some day when the IMF finally take over at Dept of Finance..

SLUSK

dan_d wrote: »

How about this. I borrowed too much money to have somewhere to live.

Actually scratch that. I went to a mortgage broker, with a deposit, and got approved for a mortgage that was 100,000eur MORE than what I eventually drew down. I explained to the broker that half or over of my salary a month was too much to be paying in repayments. I told her I didn't want a 40 yr mortgage and I didn't want to just "get on the property ladder" I wanted something long term.

I am not going to make excuses for the fact that I bought a house in the last 2 years and I kind of resent being told that I was an idiot to want somewhere to live. I'm from Dublin and it's the curse of being a Dub....there was no point in moving out and paying rent when your family home was down the road, yet we couldn't afford a house in our own city.
So I take full responsibility for the fact that bought a house just 2 years ago. It had absolutely nothing to do with neighbours or co-workers, given that I bought a boring, ordinary 4 bed house in a boring ordinary housing estate, which I am furnishing by degrees. I don't fall under the heading of "starter homes", or someone who was "taken in" by what they were told by banks/developers or the media. I'm someone who needed a house and was as sensible as I could be when I made my purchase.The only other thing I could have done was wait another 2 years - and if I did that I'd still be waiting and have no hope of getting approval either.

The point I'm trying to make here is that there are a lot of people responsible for the current mess we're in. But at some point, it went out of the hands of the ordinary people of Ireland. It's all very well to say that there was no gun held to people's heads to buy houses - but that implies there was some other, cheaper option available Which there wasn't. Because most places to rent were just as expensive due to the property speculation. People are not going to govern themselves, they're too stupid fundamentally!At some point, a regulator or Gov should have stepped in and called a halt - it's what they're there for.

People should accept responsibility for all of this, but at the end of the day, we employ regulators and Gov officials for a reason. And they quite clearly failed miserably and can no longer be trusted. Which is the bigger worry to me, to be quite honest.

You could have been sharing with people. I spent two years in Ireland living in a crappy house and paying €270, I left Ireland with an additional €20 000 in savings, I did not make alot of money either. So please do not tell me you had to buy a house because cheaper options were not available.

ballinatray

Welease wrote: »

There is nothing "fair" about your proposal.. Recapitalising the banks is bad enough, but that needs to be done to get money flowing to business's etc (no comment on NAMA being the correct solution or not)..

Bailing out every individual who has negative equity is not affordable by this country, nor should it be desirable. Eventually that negative equity will disappear, and in the short term well people will have to live with it. If you don't want to run the risk of losing money then don't make investments.

Why should I (and everyone else) have to bail out those who overpaid for their properties? Can I also claim for the 70% loss on the shares I have? Is the government going to prop up my pension losses for the last few years also?..

Sorry to sound like a hardass, but I for one am sick of being forced to pay out for other people's dumb decisions. Mortgage payments are in most cases less than they were previously, so unless unemployment has hit (which is a separate issue), then those folks can still afford the roof over their heads. It's worth less in the short term... so what?

ok.. fair point.. but keep in mind a home is sacrosanct...and necessary not like shares which are an optional risk and one I agree has destroyed pensions and savings at a frightening rate...My sympathy's...

SkepticOne

jmayo wrote: »

Yeah but didn't they start their big desposit attraction schemes in 2007/2008 when they finalyl realised how exposed they were ?
Also how many mortgages to ordinary joe soaps did they ever give out ?
How many loans to industry, non construciton industry did they ever give out ?
Just interested what the figures would be like.

Everyone knows they were mainly a lending institution to developers. However if they had gone under it would have wiped out the savings of a lot of ordinary people.

I think it was right to nationalise that bank. However it shoudl have been done on a temporary basis. What I think was wrong was to keep it going as a business. Rather it's operations should have been transferred to other institutions at the earliest opportunity. It is true this would have cost money but probably less that what it is going to cost trying to keep Anglo running.

ballinatray

ei.sdraob wrote: »

exactly

and in a proper capitalistic system they would have been left to rot, and a harsh lesson would have been learned, theres a reason why bankruptcy exists


except someone got a bright idea to "socialise" the risks and bailout the banks :cool:

opening a pandoras box

and now every tom, dick and harry wants their NAMA bailout
:mad:

I agree with you totally....The market should have prevailed and bankruptcy followed...The assets may well have been picked off the Stock market in total like a post christmas sale for 4 billion by a foreign entity instead of taxpayer covering 69 billion plus of long term debt..!!!

ballinatray

dan_d wrote: »

How about this. I borrowed too much money to have somewhere to live.

Actually scratch that. I went to a mortgage broker, with a deposit, and got approved for a mortgage that was 100,000eur MORE than what I eventually drew down. I explained to the broker that half or over of my salary a month was too much to be paying in repayments. I told her I didn't want a 40 yr mortgage and I didn't want to just "get on the property ladder" I wanted something long term.

I am not going to make excuses for the fact that I bought a house in the last 2 years and I kind of resent being told that I was an idiot to want somewhere to live. I'm from Dublin and it's the curse of being a Dub....there was no point in moving out and paying rent when your family home was down the road, yet we couldn't afford a house in our own city.
So I take full responsibility for the fact that bought a house just 2 years ago. It had absolutely nothing to do with neighbours or co-workers, given that I bought a boring, ordinary 4 bed house in a boring ordinary housing estate, which I am furnishing by degrees. I don't fall under the heading of "starter homes", or someone who was "taken in" by what they were told by banks/developers or the media. I'm someone who needed a house and was as sensible as I could be when I made my purchase.The only other thing I could have done was wait another 2 years - and if I did that I'd still be waiting and have no hope of getting approval either.

The point I'm trying to make here is that there are a lot of people responsible for the current mess we're in. But at some point, it went out of the hands of the ordinary people of Ireland. It's all very well to say that there was no gun held to people's heads to buy houses - but that implies there was some other, cheaper option available Which there wasn't. Because most places to rent were just as expensive due to the property speculation. People are not going to govern themselves, they're too stupid fundamentally!At some point, a regulator or Gov should have stepped in and called a halt - it's what they're there for.

People should accept responsibility for all of this, but at the end of the day, we employ regulators and Gov officials for a reason. And they quite clearly failed miserably and can no longer be trusted. Which is the bigger worry to me, to be quite honest.

Glad to finally hear from one of the many finally...The true reality of the situation spoken by a " Victim " of the crime...Well perhaps its time for you to find others like you ( an estimated 6.000 people presently in arrears ) and protest in the strongest possible manner....Government and Dept of Finance are really culpable....Just like a dog will chase a cat, so too will a banker chase money but it needed proper guidance from Government but when they were all in bed together stroking each others ego , how could common sense prevail....The actual cost of NAMA in real terms is similar to one individual winning the national lottery twice a week , every week of the year for 500 years and then wasting it !!!!!!!!!That is 7 normal life spans..or 7 generations and they rattle those figures off as minimal....eg
54 Billion.. sounds smaller doesnt it..

ballinatray

SkepticOne wrote: »

Everyone knows they were mainly a lending institution to developers. However if they had gone under it would have wiped out the savings of a lot of ordinary people.

I think it was right to nationalise that bank. However it shoudl have been done on a temporary basis. What I think was wrong was to keep it going as a business. Rather it's operations should have been transferred to other institutions at the earliest opportunity. It is true this would have cost money but probably less that what it is going to cost trying to keep Anglo running.

I agree too ...perhaps I am just fickle and easily influenced....But I wonder how much of the current cabinet are tied up with Anglo Debts...

Welease

ballinatray wrote: »

ok.. fair point.. but keep in mind a home is sacrosanct...and necessary not like shares which are an optional risk and one I agree has destroyed pensions and savings at a frightening rate...My sympathy's...

Sorry but I disagree... a home is not sacrosanct.. it's bricks and mortar.. it may hold a special value to some, but you yourself are buying into this Irish myth that you are complaining about... Noone needs to own a house.. the majority of Europe seem to be content to rent their properties.

People seem to be trying to make one issue (negative equity) cover a multiple of options in this thread.. and it just doesn't work that way..

1) Just because you don't own a house, does not mean you have to live in a ditch.. You can rent, obtain council housing etc. So noone forced anyone to pay vastly inflated sums for poor properties. They chose to do so!
2) If the value of your house has declined by 50% in the last 2 years.. that does not directly effect your ability to pay your mortgage.. Your mortgage at a minimum will have been fixed or dropped over the last 2 years.. You will in most cases be paying less.. Negative equity has nothing to do with ability to pay the loan you agreed to!

Negative equity will be righted over time.. People need to deal with it.

If you can't afford the loan, my sympathies, but don't ask me to pay more taxes because you (general "you", not the OP ) don't have a fkin clue about your finances.

Liam Byrne

Welease wrote: »

Your mortgage at a minimum will have been fixed or dropped over the last 2 years.. You will in most cases be paying less.. Negative equity has nothing to do with ability to pay the loan you agreed to!

No, but being taxed extra to pay for the bailout could impact your ability to pay. As do pay cuts by businesses currently unable to get paid and/or get loans. As do job losses caused by the sudden nosedive.

Welease wrote: »

Negative equity will be righted over time.. People need to deal with it.

How, exactly ? Through simple paying off the principal bit-by-bit, or by FF's proposal to re-inflate prices to the crazy levels so that NAMA can actually work ?

Welease wrote: »

If you can't afford the loan, my sympathies, but don't ask me to pay more taxes because you (general "you", not the OP ) don't have a fkin clue about your finances.

Precisely the point, only that statement should be directed at FF and the banks, and not individuals.

Welease

Liam Byrne wrote: »

No, but being taxed extra to pay for the bailout could impact your ability to pay. As do pay cuts by businesses currently unable to get paid and/or get loans. As do job losses caused by the sudden nosedive.

The OP's proposal does nothing to solve those issues. His proposal requires us to pay even more taxes to bailout even more people. Again people are trying to mix issues.. Job loss may result in the loss of a house irrespective of price, that has nothing to do with having negative equity.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

How, exactly ? Through simple paying off the principal bit-by-bit, or by FF's proposal to re-inflate prices to the crazy levels so that NAMA can actually work ?

Through simple inflation!.. There was huge negative equity in the UK in the late 80's after the property crash. Roll forward 10 year into the 90's and all the way up to today... you would have made a killing on any "negative equity" property bought then...
We cannot be bailing out people just because they have not made an immediate profit on investments. If the property goes up 5x in the next 20 years, can those of us who had to bail you out claim the difference back from you?

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Precisely the point, only that statement should be directed at FF and the banks, and not individuals.

Bailing out the banks sucks... but there is a big difference.. they are needed to get credit flowing in the economy and to allow other companies to continue to exist.. Bailing out someone with negative equity does... well.. nothing except cost me a crap load more tax for 0 benefit.

Liam Byrne

Welease wrote: »

We cannot be bailing out people just because they have not made an immediate profit on investments.

This should apply to everything - not just property.

There are certain things that should never have been considered "investments" in terms of profit.

If you buy a car, you accept that it will be worth less a few years later. The same should apply to property.

Welease wrote: »

If the property goes up 5x in the next 20 years, can those of us who had to bail you out claim the difference back from you?

I don't know who the "you" is, since I haven't asked to be bailed out. And if property goes up 500%, then Ireland won't be worth living in due to the resulting return to non-competitiveness.

Mind you, this is the scenario required to make NAMA profitable, so FF are "banking" on this.

Welease wrote: »

Bailing out the banks sucks... but there is a big difference.. they are needed to get credit flowing in the economy and to allow other companies to continue to exist.. Bailing out someone with negative equity does... well.. nothing except cost me a crap load more tax for 0 benefit.

Which is precisely what bailing out a corrupt bank does.

Yes, we need banks; we just don't need the corrupt ones that we've had.

And there's no sign of "credit flowing in the economy"; those cesspits are using our cash to pay €600,000 a year to their managing scum that landed us in this mess.

Anyway, this is going way off-topic, the title of which is the fact that the Government are responsible for the collapse of the economy.

Welease

I think we are essentially in agreement.. The OP wants seems to want (maybe i am misreading) people bailed out because their houses are not worth what they paid for them.. I am against that.. you seem to be in agreement

fuelinjection

dan_d wrote: »

People should accept responsibility for all of this, but at the end of the day, we employ regulators and Gov officials for a reason. And they quite clearly failed miserably and can no longer be trusted. Which is the bigger worry to me, to be quite honest.

Totally agree with you. I am the last person to claim the Banks were acting like businessmen and women, and I think the Irish people will never look at a money lender the same way again. This is good.
Same thing for the Government that was basically living off stamp duty money to build motorways and stadiums.

But if everyone stopped and said "houses are at ridiculous prices" then it would have stopped. I know people need a roof over their heads but the amount of money they borrowed was part of the problem.

ballinatray

Welease wrote: »

Sorry but I disagree... a home is not sacrosanct.. it's bricks and mortar.. it may hold a special value to some, but you yourself are buying into this Irish myth that you are complaining about... Noone needs to own a house.. the majority of Europe seem to be content to rent their properties.

People seem to be trying to make one issue (negative equity) cover a multiple of options in this thread.. and it just doesn't work that way..

1) Just because you don't own a house, does not mean you have to live in a ditch.. You can rent, obtain council housing etc. So noone forced anyone to pay vastly inflated sums for poor properties. They chose to do so!
2) If the value of your house has declined by 50% in the last 2 years.. that does not directly effect your ability to pay your mortgage.. Your mortgage at a minimum will have been fixed or dropped over the last 2 years.. You will in most cases be paying less.. Negative equity has nothing to do with ability to pay the loan you agreed to!

Negative equity will be righted over time.. People need to deal with it.

If you can't afford the loan, my sympathies, but don't ask me to pay more taxes because you (general "you", not the OP ) don't have a fkin clue about your finances.

Think again....The fear factor played a part in generating this ridiculous inflation/....It is most peoples view that responsible gov seeks the best minds to guide it along its way to a Fiarer society but when those minds are sitting in bank boardrooms only then the advice is skewed....Gov manages an economy for all and not for a sectionalised few...When it fails to do that then it is a serious dereliction of its moral duty....Strangely i remember being told once that Sean Lemass who loved horse racing and punting declined to attend public race meetings after he took up office as Taoiseach because he felt it was undignified to do so as the Leader of Gov.....Such integrity , howver influenced...Clearly the offspring learned nothing....

ballinatray

Welease wrote: »

I think we are essentially in agreement.. The OP wants seems to want (maybe i am misreading) people bailed out because their houses are not worth what they paid for them.. I am against that.. you seem to be in agreement

Ok...Ok...Ok I can clearly see that the country is already dicided on helping the trapped but has now compunction about bailing out the rich...I cannot offer an alternative to NAMA, perhaps let Anglo go down and give deposit guarantees to aib,boi,tsb and let loan book float in the wilderness...that thread is going on presently titled "Nama who cares" but I am too old to have debt thankfully but I genuinely feel sorry for the thousands of young people dragged needlessly into the net...
One observer noted that other europeans are not obsessed with owning property but rent....The problem here is that there is no legislation in place to allow that option as an alternative....Todays leaders questions in Dail had the taoiseach pontificating about competitiveness....A conversion on the way to the IMF......

Welease

ballinatray wrote: »

Think again....The fear factor played a part in generating this ridiculous inflation/....It is most peoples view that responsible gov seeks the best minds to guide it along its way to a Fiarer society but when those minds are sitting in bank boardrooms only then the advice is skewed....Gov manages an economy for all and not for a sectionalised few...When it fails to do that then it is a serious dereliction of its moral duty....Strangely i remember being told once that Sean Lemass who loved horse racing and punting declined to attend public race meetings after he took up office as Taoiseach because he felt it was undignified to do so as the Leader of Gov.....Such integrity , howver influenced...Clearly the offspring learned nothing....

Thats a fine soap box speech.. but it has absolutely nothing to do with your belief that a home is sacrosanct and everyone has a right to own one, nor my response to your statement

Welease

ballinatray wrote: »

Ok...Ok...Ok I can clearly see that the country is already dicided on helping the trapped but has now compunction about bailing out the rich...I cannot offer an alternative to NAMA, perhaps let Anglo go down and give deposit guarantees to aib,boi,tsb and let loan book float in the wilderness...that thread is going on presently titled "Nama who cares" but I am too old to have debt thankfully but I genuinely feel sorry for the thousands of young people dragged needlessly into the net...
One observer noted that other europeans are not obsessed with owning property but rent....The problem here is that there is no legislation in place to allow that option as an alternative....Todays leaders questions in Dail had the taoiseach pontificating about competitiveness....A conversion on the way to the IMF......

Sorry but what are you on about? No legislation available to allow people to rent??????

People all over this country rent properties and have done so for the last 100 years..

You can continue to blame everyone and their dog.. but the simple fact is, and a lot of people need to wake up to it.. nothing that anyone did during the boom years was forced upon them.. THEY ALONE DECIDED THEIR COURSE OF ACTION... (and that goes for public sector, private sector, house owners, business owners, unemployed, government, regulators).

Liam Byrne

Welease wrote: »

nothing that anyone did during the boom years was forced upon them.. THEY ALONE DECIDED THEIR COURSE OF ACTION... (and that goes for public sector, private sector, house owners, business owners, unemployed, government, regulators).

Well, no-one forced me to say "no" when the bank offered me twice what I could afford. But I did.

However, the Government forced me to pay money to a corrupt bank, so in hindsight I may as well have gotten something out of it.

It's a downright disgrace.