NAMA-Why do we take it lying down?

dunsandin

thebman wrote: »

Don't the banks pay back any losses nama makes?

And isn't nama funding not being added to our national debt?

Not our debt? are the Chileans going to pay it back? If the banks wont or cant pay for their losses now, why would they in the future? Janey mack...

K-9

dunsandin wrote: »

Not our debt? are the Chileans going to pay it back? If the banks wont or cant pay for their losses now, why would they in the future? Janey mack...

This goes back to the operational profit point.

When the bad debts are cleared of the books and NAMA will largely deal with this, the banks should post operational profits.

Even NAMA haters should see this.

Dividends should eventually be given to shareholders.

dunsandin

What [EMAIL="fe@kin"]fe@kin[/EMAIL] operational profits are you on about-they are loosing their [EMAIL="b@ll@cks"]b@ll@cks[/EMAIL], what bit of that do people not get?????????????????????

jmayo

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

At the time of its nationalisation Anglo was Irelands third largest bank,with a balance sheet size of €100bn.

Yes but how was that broken down.
I remember fitzpatrick the scumbag claiming that their loan book was not majorly property related when it was.
It was ahsma of a bank as we now know and the CB/IFSRA knew enough about them to have been able to demand they be rmeoved form the guarantee.
Oh but wait there aim was not to protect the system, but protect their friends, the ones in the system.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

...
You may not have seen riots in Iceland yet, but wait until they are forced to pay back the overseas liabilities of their banks, or are made to give away their natural resources for a song.
...

Wouldn't that make them Ireland then ?

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Well in every post jmayo makes a derisive reference to the Fianna Fail party. I find it hard to read constant criticism, without even bothering to even glance at the merits of what the government is trying.

Ah ya poor pet.
Imagine how hard I find to read the posts of ffers trying to dump, not alone the cost of this mess, but also the blame for this mess on people like me.

Well when I see things I call them as I see it.
You better get used to the constant criticism, I don't like getting screwed over and unlike most of the subservenient voters I shout and scream.
Maybe someday I will be taking it to a new level now that Enda is talking about a revolution.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

No foreign bank would take on our banks at the moment as they have a large debt to capital ratio. We would have to pump in €25bn just to make them saleable for a nominal sum. We would never have a chance of seeing the €25bn again. This approach is the one suggested by Prof. Lucey.

Essentiall he thinks we should take the €25bn hit on the chin and just put it down to experience. At least with NAMA there is a chance we can get our money back, eventually.

Good lad, now you're getting the picture, praise the lord.

NAMA will be too drawn out, it won't start the lending agin since they all also need recapitalisation.
Pumping money into Anglo is a waste, it will never lend again and when it did it's borrowers were a small sector of the economy.

We are going to have to rescue AIB, BOI anyway so nationalise them NOW.
This should have been done initially when Anglo was dumped.
They won't get any money through rights issues or bond sales, especially if ratings agencies change the ratings mechanism.

thebman wrote: »

Don't the banks pay back any losses nama makes?

And isn't nama funding not being added to our national debt?

He he he.
Where do you think the banks are going to get this money to pay back the losses ?
They will be owned by us before end of NAMA, since they will be nationalised eventually as part of recapitalisation.
Also hasn't is crossed your mind that all they will do is stop lending and up customer charges to gain more revenue and improve their balance sheets ?

K-9 wrote: »

This goes back to the operational profit point.

When the bad debts are cleared of the books and NAMA will largely deal with this, the banks should post operational profits.

Even NAMA haters should see this.

Dividends should eventually be given to shareholders.

Ehhh excuse me if NAMA buys the loans at anything below book value then aren't the banks facing a loss, yes ?
Thus after NAMA buys the loans at discounted values, the banks are still facing bad debt writeoffs and they still need capital injecitons to be actually solvent, yes ?

So at this stage how much of these banks will we own ?
Do we get the dividends then ?
BTW won't the dividends come from the profits they make dealing with and charging their customers i.e. us ?

Let me get this straight, we pump in 70 or 80 billion over next couple of years, we might lose anything upto 30 billion of this, but then banks are solvent and make profits by probably upping their charges to us for their services, they will pay us back a dividend of a couple of hundred million.

Jeeze this sounds so sweet, I have been so blind to what a good deal we are getting. :rolleyes:

K-9

dunsandin wrote: »

What fe@kin operational profits are you on about-they are loosing their b@ll@cks, what bit of that do people not get?????????????????????

Sorry, NAMA gets rid of the bad debts, leaving operational results. All you have to do is look at the results published today, a profit, except for bad debts. Go on, prove me wrong, with figures, not Grrr in a dramatic style.

Can you reply in a rational fashion?

MaceFace

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Lovely......make it look like I had a choice. :rolleyes:

I worked at making a living, fair wage for fair work, and never bothered going mental either (a) ripping people off or (b) taking out massive loans.

I've already documented on boards how I "could have" borrowed beyond my means, having been offered it, so if that rejection of mine can be interpreted as rejecting "the increase in living standards", then I suppose you're right.

Mind you, I'd prefer to think of it as rejecting being stupid. I - in my naievity - thought that I'd be responsible for my own borrowings, and that by not borrowing too much that I'd be able to pay that back, not realising that mismanagement and bailouts for others would hammer my income by 30%.

Personally, I think I was earning the most and best off about 14 years ago.

Definitely true to say that I'm barely getting by at the moment.

Mr Byrne, I don't want to pry into your private life, but there are very very few people who would be in a position where their earnings were at their highest 14 years ago. I would be thinking people like farmers or similar careers that can't compete on the world stage. Even these people benefited enormously from the Celtic Tiger. Leaving aside the whole set of improvements to the infrastructure, health, education etc, anyone in receipt of social welfare (child benefit, dole, pension, government handouts) got a hell of a lot more than they would otherwise have.

I would also like to know how the bank bailouts affected anyones income, especially as you claim to the tune of 30%.


The fact is that 99% of the population revelled in the excesses of the Tiger and by spending our new found wealth (through property, increased incomes, borrowings), we all contributed to the problems that exist today.

Liam Byrne

MaceFace wrote: »

Mr Byrne, I don't want to pry into your private life.....

Then don't, and don't suddenly start using "Mr" as if you're being respectful.

MaceFace wrote: »

...... but there are very very few people who would be in a position where their earnings were at their highest 14 years ago.

Well there are apparently 2 already in this thread, judging by a reply already :rolleyes:.

And I know loads of qualified people whose wages have been cut, or whose hours have been cut back or have been let go or whatever.

"Three day week vs the dole" in today's environment ? I know what most people would say.

Even those who still do have jobs are having to scrape by, because people are not spending as much.

MaceFace wrote: »

we all contributed to the problems that exist today.

You essentially said that you know nothing about my circumstances earlier, right ? Well then don't patronisingly and incorrectly ignore that statement in order to include me in the blame.

I was offered too much by a bank, and I declined due to cop-on.

If I'm unique, then wow.......but I don't think I am.

MaceFace

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Then don't, and don't suddenly start using "Mr" as if you're being respectful.

Boy, does someone have a chip on their shoulder. Pardon me for trying to be nice and understand a bit more about how the Celtic Tiger passed certain people by. Maybe from the attitude you are showing, I should not be surprised.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Well there are apparently 2 already in this thread, judging by a reply already :rolleyes:.

And I know loads of qualified people whose wages have been cut, or whose hours have been cut back or have been let go or whatever.

"Three day week vs the dole" in today's environment ? I know what most people would say.

Even those who still do have jobs are having to scrape by, because people are not spending as much.

I have not asked how difficult times are today for you, or anyone else. I am well aware of the difficult times we are living in. I enquired as to who exactly did not benefit from the Celtic Tiger. You claim your earnings were at their highest 14 years ago (before the Celtic Tiger started) and unless as I said you are in an industry that can not compete on the world stage, or there are personal circumstances that you may have, I find it hard to believe anyone who claims they did not benefit from the Celtic Tiger.
Can you please enlighten me as to examples of people who fall into this category?

I really don't think you understand what happened over the last 10 years in this country. Our entire system was based on cheap credit and maybe if we were more sensible as a country you would not have had the 30% more pay that you claimed to have had during the boom.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

You essentially said that you know nothing about my circumstances earlier, right ? Well then don't patronisingly and incorrectly ignore that statement in order to include me in the blame.

I was offered too much by a bank, and I declined due to cop-on.

If I'm unique, then wow.......but I don't think I am.

Just because you turned down that big cheque from the bank to overpay on property does not make you blameless of where we are today.

I didn't take that big cheque either but I am honest enough to know that I contributed by feeding the credit cycle that existed by overpaying with my hard earned cash on everyday items.

How about you take a chill pill and try and explain how anyone didn't benefit from the good times this country had?

BrownianMotion

MaceFace wrote: »

The fact is that 99% of the population revelled in the excesses of the Tiger and by spending our new found wealth (through property, increased incomes, borrowings), we all contributed to the problems that exist today.

MaceFace wrote: »

How about you take a chill pill and try and explain how anyone didn't benefit from the good times this country had?

These are two seperate and very different matters. Everyone benefited, but everyone did not contribute.

Anyway I don't see how this has anything to do with the proposed solutions to the problem.

MaceFace

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Then don't, and don't suddenly start using "Mr" as if you're being respectful.



Well there are apparently 2 already in this thread, judging by a reply already :rolleyes:.

And I know loads of qualified people whose wages have been cut, or whose hours have been cut back or have been let go or whatever.

"Three day week vs the dole" in today's environment ? I know what most people would say.

Even those who still do have jobs are having to scrape by, because people are not spending as much.



You essentially said that you know nothing about my circumstances earlier, right ? Well then don't patronisingly and incorrectly ignore that statement in order to include me in the blame.

I was offered too much by a bank, and I declined due to cop-on.

If I'm unique, then wow.......but I don't think I am.

BrownianMotion wrote: »

These are two seperate and very different matters. Everyone benefited, but everyone did not contribute.

Anyway I don't see how this has anything to do with the proposed solutions to the problem.

It is very much important to the proposed solutions.
There is one side of society which takes no responsibility for the problems we are in today and want a personal get out of jail card.
Then there are those that realise that everyone has to accept responsibility and we all have to therefore share the pain that fixing the situation entails.

BrownianMotion

MaceFace wrote: »

It is very much important to the proposed solutions.
There is one side of society which takes no responsibility for the problems we are in today and want a personal get out of jail card.
Then there are those that realise that everyone has to accept responsibility and we all have to therefore share the pain that fixing the situation entails.

The best solution is the one which fixes the problem with least cost to the taxpayer/damage to the economy. Unfortunately there is no get out jail card and each option has a terrible cost.

Can you explain what scenario leads to a personal get out of jail card for someone in Liam Byrne's situation? Otherwise I'm not sure what your point is?

Liam Byrne

MaceFace wrote: »

There is one side of society which takes no responsibility for the problems we are in today and want a personal get out of jail card.

:mad: And you wonder why I had a problem with the tone of your earlier post ?

Tell me this : why do I need a "get out of jail card" ?

Why, for that matter, do you assume that should be "in jail" ? As I said, I didn't buy into the "boom" mentality and I didn't borrow to excess.

I know it's only a phrase, but what happened to "innocent until proven guilty" ?

MaceFace

BrownianMotion wrote: »

The best solution is the one which fixes the problem with least cost to the taxpayer/damage to the economy. Unfortunately there is no get out jail card and each option has a terrible cost.

Can you explain what scenario leads to a personal get out of jail card for someone in Liam Byrne's situation? Otherwise I'm not sure what your point is?

Please reread my post. I have not said there is a get out of jail free card for anyone. It will involve pain by everyone and people have to accept that.

There are too many people who still don't understand that we are all to blame for the mess we are in (well, 50% of the blame is with the public and 50% with the government which we chose).
Until people accept this responsibility, they will continue shouting down any solution that results in hardship for them.

There are claims here that "the mismanagements and bailouts" have affected ones salary by 30%. I am assuming they are talking about NAMA as this is the thread the post is in, and I would like to know the bailout has so far affected anyone.

MaceFace

Liam Byrne wrote: »

:mad: And you wonder why I had a problem with the tone of your earlier post ?

No, not at all. I posted a single reply to your previous mail, addressing you in a courteous manner, and your opening statement is to jump down my throat without giving me fair hearing.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Tell me this : why do I need a "get out of jail card" ?

Why, for that matter, do you assume that should be "in jail" ? As I said, I didn't buy into the "boom" mentality and I didn't borrow to excess.

I know it's only a phrase, but what happened to "innocent until proven guilty" ?

Is this the same innocent until proven guilty that all property developers, bankers and government officials have been afforded?

You say you didn't buy into the boom mentality, but my point (which I believe is quite reasonable) is that you could not avoid it:
The inflation rate in Ireland was running at about 5% during the last few years of the Tiger. Everyone was being ripped off, and the reason we were being ripped of is because we all allowed ourselves to be.

People overpaying for property is no different than people overpaying for their cornflakes.

I have already asked you to explain a claim you made previous of how the bailouts and mismanagement affected your salary by 30%.
Instead though you seem to just want to shout me down.

Liam Byrne

MaceFace wrote: »

I have already asked you to explain a claim you made previous of how the bailouts and mismanagement affected your salary by 30%.

I'm not going into details on a public board, particularly considering that I am posting under my own name and not hiding behind a username.

But pay cuts and reduced time are the norm across the board.

And in a way I'm "lucky" because similarly-qualified friends of mine have been laid off completely, so they're obviously down a lot more than 30%.

That's the real world.

MaceFace wrote: »

Is this the same innocent until proven guilty that all property developers, bankers and government officials have been afforded?

I never tarred everyone with the same brush; there are many upstanding construction workers who behaved reasonably and got hammered too.

But anyone whose irresponsible actions have led to the current scenario does deserve criticism.

MaceFace

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I'm not going into details on a public board, particularly considering that I am posting under my own name and not hiding behind a username.

But pay cuts and reduced time are the norm across the board.

And in a way I'm "lucky" because similarly-qualified friends of mine have been laid off completely, so they're obviously down a lot more than 30%.

That's the real world.



I never tarred everyone with the same brush; there are many upstanding construction workers who behaved reasonably and got hammered too.

But anyone whose irresponsible actions have led to the current scenario does deserve criticism.

Hey, I accept totally that your income may be down this amount.
Let me be clearer in my point:

There are plenty of people (I think you are one of them) that their income has been decimated by the recession.
I put it out there that the boom was all a facade and therefore the increase in incomes was also not real.
A more realistic way of viewing where we are is to compare where we are in relation to 2000 when the real boom ended.
The increase in incomes during 2000-2007 was mostly build on credit and and the hit we have had to our income from the peak in 2007 was mearly a realigning of pay scales along a more realistic line.

Probably a controversial point that no one will want to accept, but I think it is the truth and should be something we take into consideration when we come to pay whatever costs are due for running NAMA.

I am still hoping though that NAMA will break even, so maybe it won't cost us anything.

Laminations

MaceFace wrote: »

Please reread my post. I have not said there is a get out of jail free card for anyone. It will involve pain by everyone and people have to accept that.

Everyone accepts that we all 'benefitted' from the boom (because you have reduced the qualification to simply living in the country during those years as 'benefitting') but the benefits were not spread equally. And now that everyone must 'take the pain', the pain should also not be evenly spread. This is the issue.
What does taking the pain mean? Where is the pain for David Drumm or Derek Quinlan? And there are countless others who should be shouldering far more of this mess.

And people continue with this line 'anger is not a policy'
Do you understand what anger is?
It is an emotional response to a perceived threat or injustice.
So fix the injustice and you fix the anger.

oppenheimer1

BrownianMotion wrote: »

These are two seperate and very different matters. Everyone benefited, but everyone did not contribute.

Anyway I don't see how this has anything to do with the proposed solutions to the problem.

buying into the boom wasn't about borrowing it was about consumption. The consumption mas mainly fuelled by borrowing. Some individuals may not have borrowed personally, but somewhere up the food chain it probably was. Anyone who partook in the €5 pint, drove on new roads, or bought anything in the country in general must carry a proportion of the blame. Did anyone turn down wage increases, even though they knew it would fuel inflation and make us more uncompetitive? No... people were enjoying their imported lifestyle spending their strong euros in China and the USA.

Collectively we worked up ourselves into a buying frenzy, the wheels only really came off when people refused to lend to fuel our consumption because of the credit crunch, but the cracks were visible from post 2006. Personally I was asked to participate in a development in late 2006 which I refused as I thought the market had peaked. Without my input the development did not go ahead which left some at the time disappointed. When I look at the location now and the glut of unsold and what would have been better houses that are there, we are glad it never went beyond planning. We didn't borrow, but just like everyone else we were part of the problem.

Thats where we came from, it has little to tell us about what to do now, apart from prudence. Despite NAMA it is likely the banks will end up in majority ownership by the government sometime in the next few years. This is not necessarily a bad thing, with the bad loans off their books it means they will be much more saleable sooner, for more, in the future.

Outright nationalisation at this moment would leave us permanently guaranteeing the €440bn of liabilities on all the banks balance sheets, rather than for a further 1 year which has even got a lot of peoples backs up on this forum. Not to mention job losses as BoI and AIB would be merged into StateBank. At least there is some, albeit quite weak competition in the market at the moment.

oppenheimer1

Laminations wrote: »

Everyone accepts that we all 'benefitted' from the boom (because you have reduced the qualification to simply living in the country during those years as 'benefitting') but the benefits were not spread equally. And now that everyone must 'take the pain', the pain should also not be evenly spread. This is the issue.
What does taking the pain mean? Where is the pain for David Drumm or Derek Quinlan? And there are countless others who should be shouldering far more of this mess.

And people continue with this line 'anger is not a policy'
Do you understand what anger is?
It is an emotional response to a perceived threat or injustice.
So fix the injustice and you fix the anger.

If those two individuals made personal guarantees on their loans and they can't pay well then they should be chased up personally for every penny they owe. However if they were chairmen of limited liability companies, well as the name suggests, their liability is limited to the amount of capital invested in the company.

You would think that most developers would belong to the latter, however during the boom many were operating as sole traders effectively, with unlimited liability, as it meant they didnt have to file accounts at the end of the year. Many though did move over to the LTD protection as the boom collapsed. What this means for their debts I'm unsure though.

Should there be a witch hunt of every lLtd director of whom their companies go bust? Would any company ever set up in such a hostile commercial environment?

BrownianMotion

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Thats where we came from, it has little to tell us about what to do now, apart from prudence. Despite NAMA it is likely the banks will end up in majority ownership by the government sometime in the next few years. This is not necessarily a bad thing, with the bad loans off their books it means they will be much more saleable sooner, for more, in the future.

Outright nationalisation at this moment would leave us permanently guaranteeing the €440bn of liabilities on all the banks balance sheets, rather than for a further 1 year which has even got a lot of peoples backs up on this forum.

That was my point, this has no bearing on the solution.

From a strictly economic point of view I'd agree with your post, however it is somewhat blinkered to claim an individual who did not over-consume but did over-pay is in some way culpable. There was no choice involved in day to day living expenses, and in order to blame someone I'd consider it reasonable for them to have made an incorrect decision at some point.

I'd agree that nationalisation is not a good option for us, but the choices extend to beyond that and NAMA.

Liam Byrne

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

buying into the boom wasn't about borrowing it was about consumption. The consumption mas mainly fuelled by borrowing. Some individuals may not have borrowed personally, but somewhere up the food chain it probably was. Anyone who partook in the €5 pint, drove on new roads, or bought anything in the country in general must carry a proportion of the blame. Did anyone turn down wage increases, even though they knew it would fuel inflation and make us more uncompetitive?

OK - there's some validity in those points.

But the fact is that once this "boom" started, there was no option to turn down wage increases, as it took on a life of its own and you had to earn more to get by.....inflation was ridiculous!

So the above is a chicken and egg scenario; people had no choice if they wanted to survive.

But FF viewed "inflation" as equating to a "growing economy". They still do, talking about how NAMA will work "when the market recovers".......the market prices are CURRENTLY about right, IMHO - they have RECOVERED from the silly figures......but FF want us to go back there again!

Would I have preferred to live in a country where the price of everything was halved ? Of course. And I'd gladly have halved my charges / wages in that scenario, because that would have made us competitive with Poland and China and India or wherever else.

And probably the most sickening aspect is that people were - at one stage - charging over twice what I would have been happy to charge; so on NO FRONT did I "buy in" to this rip-off culture - either in borrowing or work; but I'm still impacted on by the "one size fits all" sledgehammer approach and opinion.

oppenheimer1

BrownianMotion wrote: »

That was my point, this has no bearing on the solution.

From a strictly economic point of view I'd agree with your post, however it is somewhat blinkered to claim an individual who did not over-consume but did over-pay is in some way culpable. There was no choice involved in day to day living expenses, and in order to blame someone I'd consider it reasonable for them to have made an incorrect decision at some point.

I'd agree that nationalisation is not a good option for us, but the choices extend to beyond that and NAMA.

You do make a good point I will admit. It is very difficult to get value when others around you don't mind paying over the odds.

The vast majority of all goods and services were (and indeed are) overpriced in Ireland. For essentials like food, the blame lies more at a society level, there is very little the individual can do if everywhere is overpriced. Discretionary spending, where much of consumer demand was is altogether different imo. Anyone who paid €100 to see a concert that was £40 in London was contributing to the problem. At an individual level I find it hard to believe there is no one in Ireland who bought something, and at the time knew they were being ripped off, continued with the purchase. This applies from houses, to plasma tvs and cups of coffee.

As regards the topic of this thread The only other alternatives to nama or nationalisation is a managed failure/unwinding or sale to foreign bank. What other ideas are floating about?

Scofflaw

Laminations wrote: »

Everyone accepts that we all 'benefitted' from the boom (because you have reduced the qualification to simply living in the country during those years as 'benefitting') but the benefits were not spread equally. And now that everyone must 'take the pain', the pain should also not be evenly spread. This is the issue.
What does taking the pain mean? Where is the pain for David Drumm or Derek Quinlan? And there are countless others who should be shouldering far more of this mess.

And people continue with this line 'anger is not a policy'
Do you understand what anger is?
It is an emotional response to a perceived threat or injustice.
So fix the injustice and you fix the anger.

So if I am angry because I perceive it as unjust that I'm not Taoiseach, that "injustice" should be fixed?

amused,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

So if I am angry because I perceive it as unjust that I'm not Taoiseach, that "injustice" should be fixed?

That's not quite the same, Scofflaw, and I reckon you know it.

a) Your "not being Taoiseach" leaves you exactly where you were.
b) Someone leaving you less well off because of their injust behaviour does not.

I'd extrapolate your example as follows:

a) if you never had a TV, it's not "unjust" that you don't have one now....you're not entitled to be angry, and there's nothing to be fixed

b) if you had a TV and someone steals it from you ( or their actions somehow cause you not to have it ), then you're entitled to be angry, and there's an injustice to be fixed

Please compare like with like; doing otherwise is beneath you, tbh.

dunsandin

It struck me earlier today, the real point of this thread is now totally lost - the question was "why are we taking it lying down?" i.e, why is it that those of us who are opposed fundamentally to NAMA, are not up in arms and out protesting on the streets en-mass. For us to be here waffling about our own personal theories as to how "we" would better formulate a plan to improve nama is a waste of time. Why are we not protesting? Why is it that we just passively accept what is being done?What is the fundamental difference between us and the French, who I imagine would be erecting barricades at this stage? Are we just too bet down to even bother raising our voices? I dont need a reply from nama lovers asking well what would I do differnt then, this is aimed squarely at fellow nama haters.

jmayo

MaceFace wrote: »

...
I find it hard to believe anyone who claims they did not benefit from the Celtic Tiger.
Can you please enlighten me as to examples of people who fall into this category?

I really don't think you understand what happened over the last 10 years in this country. Our entire system was based on cheap credit and maybe if we were more sensible as a country you would not have had the 30% more pay that you claimed to have had during the boom.

Just because you turned down that big cheque from the bank to overpay on property does not make you blameless of where we are today.

I didn't take that big cheque either but I am honest enough to know that I contributed by feeding the credit cycle that existed by overpaying with my hard earned cash on everyday items.

How about you take a chill pill and try and explain how anyone didn't benefit from the good times this country had?

So are you saying that people who had to overpay for household items necessary for living, you know things like food, are to blame for this mess ?

Are you seriously saying that, becuase it has to be the most idiotic summation of where blame lies in this whole sorry saga.

What was the choice, please tell us how you could buy everyday items with your hard earned cash without as you claim feeding the credit cycle.

I know I shopped around and imported consumer goods at cheaper prices, but I found it damm hard to do with milk, bread, bog roll, and the other necessities that also went up in price.

MaceFace wrote: »

...
Is this the same innocent until proven guilty that all property developers, bankers and government officials have been afforded?

Do you fall into one of these grouping, particularly the first two ?

MaceFace wrote: »

...
You say you didn't buy into the boom mentality, but my point (which I believe is quite reasonable) is that you could not avoid it:
The inflation rate in Ireland was running at about 5% during the last few years of the Tiger. Everyone was being ripped off, and the reason we were being ripped of is because we all allowed ourselves to be.

Frankly IMHO that is condescending and stretching it totally.
You are basically saying that you are guilty of fueling the boom by just living here.

MaceFace wrote: »

...
People overpaying for property is no different than people overpaying for their cornflakes.
...

I would think there is a big order of difference or else you must have found some damm cheap property or some very special cornflakes.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

buying into the boom wasn't about borrowing it was about consumption. The consumption mas mainly fuelled by borrowing. Some individuals may not have borrowed personally, but somewhere up the food chain it probably was. Anyone who partook in the €5 pint, drove on new roads, or bought anything in the country in general must carry a proportion of the blame. Did anyone turn down wage increases, even though they knew it would fuel inflation and make us more uncompetitive? No... people were enjoying their imported lifestyle spending their strong euros in China and the USA.

Yeah I knew i should only have gotten drunk once i left the country, after all it was cheaper.
Feck sake driving on the roads now means you are to blame for wrecking the country.
Who would have thought that ould Jimmy Devins driving on the Charlestown bypass on his ould MF 35 would help sink Anglo, drag the banking system to ruin and cuase a jump to over 400,000 odd unemployed ? :rolleyes:

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Collectively we worked up ourselves into a buying frenzy, the wheels only really came off when people refused to lend to fuel our consumption because of the credit crunch, but the cracks were visible from post 2006. Personally I was asked to participate in a development in late 2006 which I refused as I thought the market had peaked. Without my input the development did not go ahead which left some at the time disappointed. When I look at the location now and the glut of unsold and what would have been better houses that are there, we are glad it never went beyond planning. We didn't borrow, but just like everyone else we were part of the problem.

Yes people bought things, often with borrowed money, but you are skimming over big differences and doing a good job for the ffers who would want us believe that we are all at fault for the mess.
The banks are not bust because Wille bought a new 50" TV or Mary bought a new car.
They are bust because they lent huge enormous amounts to a select group of individuals who along with the banks, the builders, the estate agents, the lawyers, the media, the auctioneers, the government, the dept of finacne and the regulators fueled an insane property love fest.



The people you and the other poster above allude to are indeed to blame, but only for their own private messes and they are carrying the can for those decisions.
They can't easily walk away from those messes and rightly so.

But do not dare lump the banking/development/government led mess on their heads or indeed on those of us who did not get into a buying frenzy funded by cheap credit.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Outright nationalisation at this moment would leave us permanently guaranteeing the €440bn of liabilities on all the banks balance sheets, rather than for a further 1 year which has even got a lot of peoples backs up on this forum. Not to mention job losses as BoI and AIB would be merged into StateBank. At least there is some, albeit quite weak competition in the market at the moment.

Pray tell us why we guaranteed the entire balance sheets of all the banks ?
Why didn't we let Anglo go under, guarantee it's and other smaller ones depositors and immediately nationalise the big two AIB & BOI ?
Yes it would have cost us money, but a lot less than the NAMA/recapitalisation hole the governmnet have dug us into.

It is very obvious that the "Lehman brothers are to blame" line is not working and since now that NAMA has arrived to be shouldered by the taxpayers a new line has to be preached.
And that is folks that we, the ordinary people of this country, are the ones to blame for the mess.
It's our fault.

Ever heard the slogan used by Harry S Truman, "the buck stops here" ?

jmayo

dunsandin wrote: »

It struck me earlier today, the real point of this thread is now totally lost - the question was "why are we taking it lying down?" i.e, why is it that those of us who are opposed fundamentally to NAMA, are not up in arms and out protesting on the streets en-mass. For us to be here waffling about our own personal theories as to how "we" would better formulate a plan to improve nama is a waste of time. Why are we not protesting? Why is it that we just passively accept what is being done?What is the fundamental difference between us and the French, who I imagine would be erecting barricades at this stage? Are we just too bet down to even bother raising our voices? I dont need a reply from nama lovers asking well what would I do differnt then, this is aimed squarely at fellow nama haters.

I would love to see the country being brought to a standstill.
And this time everyone out, students, pensioners, farmers, selfemployed, PAYE, public, private, those working and those unemployed.
We are just too sectional and happy to look after our own patch and shag anyone else.

But it ain't going to happen unless something really special is done to totally drive everyone to do so.
ff know this and thus carry on as per usual.
I would love if Kenny and Gilmore said take to the streets.
But they won't since they would always feel they might unleash something they mightn't be able to put back in it's box.

So much for having a Shamrock Revolution ?

Of course the ffers would complain we were all being negative whingers and we would have one of them sopping on the 61 news with Dobson and begging us to stop since we were wrecking the good name of the country.

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

That's not quite the same, Scofflaw, and I reckon you know it.

a) Your "not being Taoiseach" leaves you exactly where you were.
b) Someone leaving you less well off because of their injust behaviour does not.

I'd extrapolate your example as follows:

a) if you never had a TV, it's not "unjust" that you don't have one now....you're not entitled to be angry, and there's nothing to be fixed

b) if you had a TV and someone steals it from you ( or their actions somehow cause you not to have it ), then you're entitled to be angry, and there's an injustice to be fixed

Please compare like with like; doing otherwise is beneath you, tbh.

In fact, you have neatly elucidated the point of my question - which is that while we all agree that an injustice should be remedied, the question here is whether an injustice is being done, and if so, to whom.

Most of us, of course, feel that an injustice is being done, and to us - but, as you can see, the question is actually arguable. If we all benefited from the boom, then we all share the pain. If some people benefited more than others, we may well feel that those people should bear more of the pain - but you need to show that the people who did benefit more are also sharing less of the pain before you can really claim an injustice. You also need to show that that's not just accident - or indeed, good fortune or good planning on their part. Should we punish someone who cashed out of the housing market in early 2007, solely for doing so?

It's not sufficient to say "well, people are angry, therefore an injustice must be being done", because it's perfectly possible for people to be wrong - nor does public support for such a view prove anything either, since people are angry, and angry people want to blame someone.

I appreciate that seems a little academic and out of sympathy with the anger of the times, but the reason anger is "not a policy" is because anger itself just wants to lash out - it doesn't care until too late whether it's lashing out in the right direction.

If people agree that the Irish system is broken, then they need to fix the system. Punishing popular targets is not fixing the system - it's alleviating the anger by treating the symptoms.

cordially,
Scofflaw

dunsandin

I think in general Irish people are too divided, and so are easily conquered. We tolerate everything fed down our necks, and as the song goes - if we tolerate this, then our children will be next. Well, our childrens futures are being thoroughly jeopardised, by our bankers shenannigans, in connivance with our govt, -raised once again for export, but thats ok our govt says, because it reduces the number on the live register. I suppose only time will tell fully on Nama, but a few years ago, Bertie said those forcasting recession should go and commit suicide. Now FF says those who forecast that nama will fail are idiots and have no other plan to offer, and so should shut up. When I discussed an impending recession with other contractors I was working with, I was told it would never happen in Ireland. Now I am being led to believe that Nama will save our banking system and economy. I predict it will save our bankers skins for a year or two, but will lead to economic disaster. And bottling up anger is unhealthy, leading to insanity and depression in many cases. Better to let it out Scoflaw.

MaceFace

jmayo wrote: »

So are you saying that people who had to overpay for household items necessary for living, you know things like food, are to blame for this mess ?

Well, yes, but I also would say that we did not have to overpay for the household items necessary for living. Take Tesco as an example - they charged us something like 20% more than they would if we were in the UK. We, as a nation, accepted that.
You can say we had no choice, but we did - we did not have to buy from shops that were so blatantly ripping us off (I am talking about the ones where we knew they were overcharging because the Sterling price could be on the label as well as we still made the purchase).

jmayo wrote: »

Are you seriously saying that, becuase it has to be the most idiotic summation of where blame lies in this whole sorry saga.

Well, you are quite entitled to your opinion.
I put it to you that if we demanded lower prices, the shops of this country would not have been able to pay the huge costs requested by their landlords (or landowners). Remember, Grafton Street was at one point the fifth most expensive street in terms of rent in the entire world. It only got that way because the Irish people gladly went in to the shops there and paid way in excess for items that they should have been paying.
Still sound idiotic?

jmayo wrote: »

What was the choice, please tell us how you could buy everyday items with your hard earned cash without as you claim feeding the credit cycle.

I know I shopped around and imported consumer goods at cheaper prices, but I found it damm hard to do with milk, bread, bog roll, and the other necessities that also went up in price.

Well, I guess you done what the rest of us done - let someone else worry about the bigger picture while we looked after number one.

jmayo wrote: »

Do you fall into one of these grouping, particularly the first two ?

Nope - just a simple private sector worker who does not like what happened over the last decade but realise that NAMA is going ahead, there are no alternatives that stand up to the test of scrutiny and am sick of people whose only input appears to be No No No (and I am not saying you are one of these)

jmayo wrote: »

Frankly IMHO that is condescending and stretching it totally.
You are basically saying that you are guilty of fueling the boom by just living here.

Probably - yes.

jmayo wrote: »

I would think there is a big order of difference or else you must have found some damm cheap property or some very special cornflakes.

As I said, there is no difference between people who over paid on a house and those who over paid on their cornflakes.
Your (and mine) overpayment fed the extra money into a system which eventually made its way up the foodchain to fill the wallets of the landowners.

jmayo wrote: »

Ever heard the slogan used by Harry S Truman, "the buck stops here" ?

That should go for us all.
I also heard two others:
"Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country".
"Those who say it can't be done should step aside for those that are doing it". (I think this is the wording but perhaps someone could correct if wrong).

People are so quick to hold the Swedish model up as the way to do things. I wonder what the Swedes thought of it at the time, and I also wonder in 10 years time if other countries in a similar situation to our own may demand that their governments follow the solution adopted by the Irish in 2010 (but with more haste than our shower).

So, why are we taking it down - for many reasons, but I think the main one is that there is yet to present an alternative which stands up to scrutiny which people can rally behind.

SkepticOne

MaceFace wrote: »

As I said, there is no difference between people who over paid on a house and those who over paid on their cornflakes.
Your (and mine) overpayment fed the extra money into a system which eventually made its way up the foodchain to fill the wallets of the landowners.

I don't think the problem was ever high rents. commercial yields at the height of the boom were extremely low if I remember correctly. In the residential sector it was also far cheaper to rent than to buy.

The actual problem was an irrational bubble, where it was the perception of future growth rather than the attractiveness of yields that drove prices. Developers got in on the act and produced vast numbers of units thereby helping bring the bubble to an end.

It is loans to these developers that are now causing problems for the banks. The underlying assets are only worth a fraction of what they paid and most of the developers themselves are close to bankruptcy. Since the market won't touch these loans (quite rightly) the public are being forced to buy them at inflated prices from the banks.

Blaming ordinary people because they were being charged high prices for cornflakes is stretching it a bit. You can't endanger a bank by overpaying for something unless you took out a loan to buy it and now can't pay it back. Property developers are one such group. There are others but not people who were overcharged on groceries. If anything these are the victims of the boom not the beneficiaries of it and should not be penalised further.

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

If we all benefited from the boom, then we all share the pain. If some people benefited more than others, we may well feel that those people should bear more of the pain - but you need to show that the people who did benefit more are also sharing less of the pain before you can really claim an injustice. You also need to show that that's not just accident - or indeed, good fortune or good planning on their part. Should we punish someone who cashed out of the housing market in early 2007, solely for doing so?

Firstly, the "if" at the start of that is a major part of the injustice. Those who support NAMA claim that everyone benefitted from the boom with a massively improved lifestyle, and there are also claims that "everyone" got greedy and bought into the fiasco, borrowing too much.

I beg to differ.

I'm not complaining about that, because I made choices to make a fair living and live within my means, no rip-off or get-rich quick (to me, money is a means to an end, not a commodity in itself).

But I am complaining about being asked to foot the bill for those who did get greedy, and I am complaining about those who fuelled the fire being the ones who claim that NAMA "is the only option"; they proved themselves untrustworthy already (telling those warning them of the facts to.....well, that's famous enough to avoid a red herring of a misquote).

As for genuine mistakes....yes, they happen, and I don't believe in punishing people for that.

But the first/worst of loans through NAMA are the ones who used loans as collateral for other loans, or had other shady deals, etc......so that is no "accident" - it's a deliberate approach fuelled by greed.

But we're paying for it, and paying more than it's worth based on some fictional future value.

And that is CERTAINLY unjust.

If I go belly-up in the morning, there would be a liquidation sales (and that might be no fault of mine); people would buy stuff at CURRENT values, with no reflection on what they MIGHT be able to get by selling those in 20 years time.

Can I claim that my computer will be an antique in 200 years time and might be worth millions ? No I can't.

Sandvich

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I don't honestly know. I wish I did.

But apparently - according to the weekend poll - shafting the country in the long-term and committing to an over-inflated future housing price model (the only way NAMA can "recoup" the "discounts" and "work" on some level) is OK by at least 25% of the population, with most of the rest of us too stunned and sickened to know how best to fight against this injustice.

Given how many people thought the last budget was GREAT it's a bit tough to try and get Irish people to make a real fuss about anything these days.

dunsandin

Scofflaw wrote: »

Should we punish someone who cashed out of the housing market in early 2007, solely for doing so?

Nama is not bailing out those clever people who bailed in early 2007, its bailing the greedy slow ones who failed to bail in 2007, but instead were foolish enough to buy in in 2007. Why are we paying for the errors of slow greedy fools?

K-9

dunsandin wrote: »

Nama is not bailing out those clever people who bailed in early 2007, its bailing the greedy slow ones who failed to bail in 2007, but instead were foolish enough to buy in in 2007. Why are we paying for the errors of slow greedy fools?

Clever? I'd say just lucky.

They still played a part in the pyramid scheme.

Scofflaw

dunsandin wrote: »

Scofflaw wrote: »

Should we punish someone who cashed out of the housing market in early 2007, solely for doing so?

Nama is not bailing out those clever people who bailed in early 2007, its bailing the greedy slow ones who failed to bail in 2007, but instead were foolish enough to buy in in 2007. Why are we paying for the errors of slow greedy fools?

I'm not suggesting that NAMA and people who cashed out in 2007 are the same - I'm just pointing out that someone who "benefited from the boom" is not automatically therefore someone who should "suffer more pain".

If it comes down to it, can someone who is in hock to the banks for hundreds of millions, and whose assets consist of nearly worthless property, really be described as someone who deserves a lot of pain? Why, exactly? What more pain should they suffer than having to pay back the loans? Aren't they in exactly the same position as many others, just writ larger? What difference is there between someone who borrowed and bought a larger house than they could really afford in the hopes of selling at a profit, and someone who borrowed and bought half of Leitrim in hopes of selling at a profit - except scale?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

can someone who is in hock to the banks for hundreds of millions, and whose assets consist of nearly worthless property, really be described as someone who deserves a lot of pain? Why, exactly? What more pain should they suffer than having to pay back the loans? Aren't they in exactly the same position as many others, just writ larger? What difference is there between someone who borrowed and bought a larger house than they could really afford in the hopes of selling at a profit, and someone who borrowed and bought half of Leitrim in hopes of selling at a profit - except scale?

The difference is probably the "Ltd" after their company name.

€200,000 of company assets seized = company closed. No more cash to recover.

You and I, however, lose our house home.

Scofflaw

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The difference is probably the "Ltd" after their company name.

€200,000 of company assets seized = company closed. No more cash to recover.

You and I, however, lose our house home.

In either case, the value of the retreivable assets may not match the value of the loan, so from the point of view of the damage done to the economy, what's the difference bar scale?

cordially,
Scofflaw

dunsandin

I do not accept that bailing out at the peak of a boom is lucky - it is just market aware. I bailed from the British economy just prior to the collapse in the late 80's, not by luck, but by design. I invested in the Irish market because I believed it was about to rise - it did. I liquidated my exposure to Irish property in 2006-2007, when the dogs in the street were buying into the market, because I foresaw a collapse - why should I pay for the folly of those who did not? By the way, none of my investments involved any borrowings - I funded my purchases with my own money, so I say sod the bankers - they made their bed, they can lie in it.

Liam Byrne

Scofflaw wrote: »

In either case, the value of the retreivable assets may not match the value of the loan, so from the point of view of the damage done to the economy, what's the difference bar scale?

cordially,
Scofflaw

The limits aren't about scale. They're about the protection that the corrupt irresponsible gamblers get, while those of us who bought homes in good faith are going to be hit on the double to make up for same gamblers (and the banks' own stupidity) with NAMA and with interest rate hikes.

oppenheimer1

jmayo wrote: »

Pray tell us why we guaranteed the entire balance sheets of all the banks ?
Why didn't we let Anglo go under, guarantee it's and other smaller ones depositors and immediately nationalise the big two AIB & BOI ?
Yes it would have cost us money, but a lot less than the NAMA/recapitalisation hole the governmnet have dug us into.

It is very obvious that the "Lehman brothers are to blame" line is not working and since now that NAMA has arrived to be shouldered by the taxpayers a new line has to be preached.
And that is folks that we, the ordinary people of this country, are the ones to blame for the mess.
It's our fault.

Ever heard the slogan used by Harry S Truman, "the buck stops here" ?

I have explained this often enough, Anglo, Irelands third largest bank would have had loans from other irish institutions, and other Irish institutions wuld have had funds deposited within it. A collapse for Anglo could have dealt a severe blow to these other institutions and they all could collapse. The government guarantee let the banks use Irelands AAA credit rating (at the time) to allow them to refinance their debts and thus prevent collapse.

Got it yet?

hinault

I have no sympathy with the banks/bankers.

I can understand the line about havingn a functioning banking system - but I am a loss as to why the govt insist that the two main banks remain in Irish ownership (either State ownership or private sector Irish ownership).
The banks should be subject to the capitalistic avarice that they preach.

I do not buy the line that the Irish banking system would have imploded on 30th Sept 2008.
The banks, would have been acquired by another banking group, if they were in trouble.
This happens all the time.
Why the govt decided to step in to protect them has not been explained to the extent that it (savings the banks) was the correct option.

It is now becoming clear that with the economy deteriorating, that the loan books of the banks will get worse because defaults will increase.
And secondary debt such as non-secured loans/credit cards etc has to hit the banks balance sheets.
So the gap in their respective balance sheets is probably a lot bigger than we are being told.

This is the problem with saving the banks in sept 2008 : either you save them or you let them go.
Having committed in Sept 2008 : the govt has no choice but to commit further.

Instead the banks should have been allowed fail : nationalise them and then sell them.
Plenty of foreign banks would be prepared to buy either BOI and AIB if the govt had allowed them to fall.

MaceFace

dunsandin wrote: »

I do not accept that bailing out at the peak of a boom is lucky - it is just market aware. I bailed from the British economy just prior to the collapse in the late 80's, not by luck, but by design. I invested in the Irish market because I believed it was about to rise - it did. I liquidated my exposure to Irish property in 2006-2007, when the dogs in the street were buying into the market, because I foresaw a collapse - why should I pay for the folly of those who did not? By the way, none of my investments involved any borrowings - I funded my purchases with my own money, so I say sod the bankers - they made their bed, they can lie in it.

The dogs on the street were buying since the turn of the decade. The bust could equally have happened in any of the years before you decided to jump ship, so sorry, there was a lot of luck to it.

Liam Byrne wrote: »

The limits aren't about scale. They're about the protection that the corrupt irresponsible gamblers get, while those of us who bought homes in good faith are going to be hit on the double to make up for same gamblers (and the banks' own stupidity) with NAMA and with interest rate hikes.

I take a completly different approach and actually absolve many developers from the blanket demonisation which they are victim of.
They set up a company and sold a product. They charged the highest price for their product that the market would tolerate. They reinvested their profits into exapanding their business. Their business plan proved flawed as soon as the credit that we lived on dried up.
That is not just the business model of developers, but of many businesses in Ireland.
Also, a huge number "of us who bought home in good faith" also gambled because we believed that there would not be a fall in house prices, nor that we would lose our jobs.

hinault wrote: »

I have no sympathy with the banks/bankers.

I can understand the line about havingn a functioning banking system - but I am a loss as to why the govt insist that the two main banks remain in Irish ownership (either State ownership or private sector Irish ownership).
The banks should be subject to the capitalistic avarice that they preach.

Being a capitalist, I totally agree, but I also see that if they did fail, Ireland would have collapsed and our unemployment rate would be multiples of what it is today.

hinault wrote: »

I do not buy the line that the Irish banking system would have imploded on 30th Sept 2008.

Well, I am afraid you are on your own with this one. I don't think I have heard anyone, even those staunchly against NAMA have claimed that the banks would have folded within 24 hours if the guarantee was not put in place.

hinault wrote: »

The banks, would have been acquired by another banking group, if they were in trouble.
This happens all the time.

Brian Lucey this very week suggested this as a solution, but he also said that we would have to pump in €25b to clean the banks up before anyone would go near them.
Would you be willing to do that?

hinault wrote: »

Why the govt decided to step in to protect them has not been explained to the extent that it (savings the banks) was the correct option.

They very much did in the months after the guarantee was put in place but as it was widely accepted that it had to be done, the debate fizzled out.

hinault wrote: »

It is now becoming clear that with the economy deteriorating, that the loan books of the banks will get worse because defaults will increase.
And secondary debt such as non-secured loans/credit cards etc has to hit the banks balance sheets.
So the gap in their respective balance sheets is probably a lot bigger than we are being told.

This is the problem with saving the banks in sept 2008 : either you save them or you let them go.
Having committed in Sept 2008 : the govt has no choice but to commit further.

Instead the banks should have been allowed fail : nationalise them and then sell them.
Plenty of foreign banks would be prepared to buy either BOI and AIB if the govt had allowed them to fall.

Are you saying nationalise or let them fail and have someone else buy them?
The government can not just walk into a company and nationalise at the drop of the hat. They have to actually pay for the priviledge.
Again, if you had let them run their natural course, the banks would have simply gone out of business. How and where would you have got your deposits?
There is a thread discussing the implications of the failing of the Irish banking system that you should raise these questions in, but just look at the problems between Iceland and the UK and Holland over Icesave.

jmayo

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I have explained this often enough, Anglo, Irelands third largest bank would have had loans from other irish institutions, and other Irish institutions wuld have had funds deposited within it. A collapse for Anglo could have dealt a severe blow to these other institutions and they all could collapse. The government guarantee let the banks use Irelands AAA credit rating (at the time) to allow them to refinance their debts and thus prevent collapse.

Got it yet?

Ehh would these inter bank deposits include the 7 odd billion deposit form IL&P which technically wasn't a deposit but a deposit so that there deposit base looked ok ?

But they haven't refinanced their debts.

Oh and the real kicker is ...
WE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE GOING TO REFINANCE THEM AT ANY COST !

Got that yet ?.

They are still insolvent and have actually had our money poured into them to just keep them afloat.
We are going to be pouring massive amounts more in over the coming years.

It is a slow drawn out death by a thousand cuts, where the Irish economy and the Irish taxpayers are bled to death so that the vampire banks survive.

ei.sdraob

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

I have explained this often enough, Anglo, Irelands third largest bank would have had loans from other irish institutions, and other Irish institutions wuld have had funds deposited within it. A collapse for Anglo could have dealt a severe blow to these other institutions and they all could collapse. The government guarantee let the banks use Irelands AAA credit rating (at the time) to allow them to refinance their debts and thus prevent collapse.

Got it yet?

i asked for it in another thread

any figures at all to backup this statement of yours (and FF)

or are we blindly trusting the word of the bankers here??

MaceFace

jmayo wrote: »

Ehh would these inter bank deposits include the 7 odd billion deposit form IL&P which technically wasn't a deposit but a deposit so that there deposit base looked ok ?

No, that deposit had no bearing on the rating of the banks at any time, but is actually important. It demonstrates that one business' competitor was willing to lend them money. Understanding why shows how intrinsicatly linked the banks really were.

jmayo wrote: »

But they haven't refinanced their debts.

Sorry, but they have. The entire banking system of the Western World is based on constant refinancing. The banks have loans that are due for repayment on regular basis. They pay of these loans by getting out new loans. Its how the whole system works.
Without the banks being able to rely on Irelands rating, the cost of the new loans to pay off the old ones would have been either extremely expensive or non existent.
Here ya go:http://tinyurl.com/ycdkxa5

oppenheimer1

jmayo wrote: »

Ehh would these inter bank deposits include the 7 odd billion deposit form IL&P which technically wasn't a deposit but a deposit so that there deposit base looked ok ?

But they haven't refinanced their debts.

But they have, and do all the time. Its beginning to become clear now that you don't actually understand how the banking system works.

Oh and the real kicker is ...
WE ARE THE ONES THAT ARE GOING TO REFINANCE THEM AT ANY COST !

Got that yet ?.

They are still insolvent and have actually had our money poured into them to just keep them afloat.
We are going to be pouring massive amounts more in over the coming years.

It is a slow drawn out death by a thousand cuts, where the Irish economy and the Irish taxpayers are bled to death so that the vampire banks survive.

All anger and no alternative proposed, personally I cannot see that as useful or helpful. Yes no one likes the position we're in. I would love if NAMA had never ever had to come about, and if we had to borrow the money that it be put into infrastructure and developing new industries. However that is not the world we live in. Through our mistakes as a society, and hands off regulation as a policy as well as circumstances outside our control (the availability of cheap credit post 2001, followed by the credit crunch) have led to where we are today. Had those terrorist attacks not taken place there would have been no building boom and we'd have entered recession in 2001/2.


Other solutions are just as expensive or will do more harm than good. This is not about saving the banks, its about saving the economy.

Jmayo, please present us with a credible alternative.

MaceFace wrote: »

No, that deposit had no bearing on the rating of the banks at any time, but is actually important. It demonstrates that one business' competitor was willing to lend them money. Understanding why shows how intrinsicatly linked the banks really were.


Sorry, but they have. The entire banking system of the Western World is based on constant refinancing. The banks have loans that are due for repayment on regular basis. They pay of these loans by getting out new loans. Its how the whole system works.
Without the banks being able to rely on Irelands rating, the cost of the new loans to pay off the old ones would have been either extremely expensive or non existent.
Here ya go:http://tinyurl.com/ycdkxa5

About time at least someone finally gets it.

jmayo

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

All anger and no alternative proposed, personally I cannot see that as useful or helpful. Yes no one likes the position we're in. I would love if NAMA had never ever had to come about, and if we had to borrow the money that it be put into infrastructure and developing new industries. However that is not the world we live in. Through our mistakes as a society, and hands off regulation as a policy as well as circumstances outside our control (the availability of cheap credit post 2001, followed by the credit crunch) have led to where we are today. Had those terrorist attacks not taken place there would have been no building boom and we'd have entered recession in 2001/2.

Nice of you acknowledge all the usually trite ff explanations for the problems.

oppenheimer1 wrote: »

Other solutions are just as expensive or will do more harm than good. This is not about saving the banks, its about saving the economy.

Jmayo, please present us with a credible alternative.

So unless one has a credible alternative then one is not allowed comment on the disaster in the making ?

I don't know what can be done now since we are tied to the banks, but by God I can tell you this NAMA is a disaster waiting to happen.

Let me ask you something as by way of analogy.
Do you know a good car from a bad car ?
Would you spend the same amount of money on a Lada as a Mercedes S class ?
I know I wouldn't.
Funny thing is, I don't know how to build a complete car, I am not an automotive design engineer, but guess what I can still tell the difference between a good one and a bad one.

Likewise I can tell the difference between a reasonably ok deal and a bad deal in economics and NAMA with it's hoels falls into the latter cateogry.
There are too many assumptions about positive trends in property which any eejit can see is grade A horse***e.
There is just one underlying principle behind NAMA and that is that all the banks must be saved no matter what the cost.
There is assumption that if we save them everything will follow, the economy will recover because they will be lending again.
Funny how some major expert economists don't hold that view. :rolleyes:

Now have you got it yet ?

The government have affectively bought a Lada for the money that would buy two S class mercedes.
And even worse the government are pedalling sh**e that we expect to sell the Lada in future for as good as the same money.

Laminations

Scofflaw wrote: »

In either case, the value of the retreivable assets may not match the value of the loan, so from the point of view of the damage done to the economy, what's the difference bar scale?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yes its the same for a default on a house or a default on half of Leitrim - the taxpayer (including me) pays in the event the person cannot. The difference is that some defaulters end up homeless (e.g. the ones who borrow for homes) and others default on company loans of billions while retaining their personal assets - I dont think its fair that I pay for Liam Carrolls mistakes and mismanagement while he and his family live in a mansion and have suffered no real change in their quality of living. Very wealthy individuals paid themselves massive salaries and directors fees from companies that they ran into the ground, now we are expected to stump up? You cant get blood from a stone, so squeeze all the wealth out of these people, leave them high and dry and what ever debts are left, I'll happily (well more happily than presently) contribute to paying the remainder. Oh, and ban them from any future directorships of companies and blacklist their credit ratings - this is what would happen to normal defaulters

MaceFace

jmayo wrote: »

Nice of you acknowledge all the usually trite ff explanations for the problems.



So unless one has a credible alternative then one is not allowed comment on the disaster in the making ?

I don't know what can be done now since we are tied to the banks, but by God I can tell you this NAMA is a disaster waiting to happen.

Let me ask you something as by way of analogy.
Do you know a good car from a bad car ?
Would you spend the same amount of money on a Lada as a Mercedes S class ?
I know I wouldn't.
Funny thing is, I don't know how to build a complete car, I am not an automotive design engineer, but guess what I can still tell the difference between a good one and a bad one.

Likewise I can tell the difference between a reasonably ok deal and a bad deal in economics and NAMA with it's hoels falls into the latter cateogry.
There are too many assumptions about positive trends in property which any eejit can see is grade A horse***e.
There is just one underlying principle behind NAMA and that is that all the banks must be saved no matter what the cost.
There is assumption that if we save them everything will follow, the economy will recover because they will be lending again.
Funny how some major expert economists don't hold that view. :rolleyes:

Now have you got it yet ?

The government have affectively bought a Lada for the money that would buy two S class mercedes.
And even worse the government are pedalling sh**e that we expect to sell the Lada in future for as good as the same money.

Three points:

1. When making an argument against something, it is generally more persuasive to justify your opinion with some reasoning.

2. Just because a person holds the same view as FF on a subject does not mean the view is wrong. Don't just take the opposite view of FF because you dislike them.

3. What exactly is the Mercedes S class solution that you refer to?