Bertie the champion of the world

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Interesting concept. Any chance you could get the banks to abide by it so that we don't have to pay for bank shares in incompetent banks that no-one wants ?

I wish it were that simple . . I wish that we could allow the debts to sit with the banks and bankers; Unfortunately, we have an economy to consider. .

Liam Byrne wrote:

As for the "make a quick buck" - yet AGAIN you're ignoring all of the many, many people who just wanted a home, myself included.

Come on Liam, I don't ignore you guys . . I've said it a thousand times on here . . Of course there were those who 'just wanted a home'. . but there were many who 'just wanted a bigger home' or 'just wanted a nicer car' or 'just wanted a foreign holiday' . . . Collective, doesnt mean everyone (Deja vu ?)

paddyland

Red_Marauder wrote: »

You seem unable to let go of this idea of 'deserving' something. People don't automatically deserve to own their own homes, they are entitled to purchase them as long as they have the money.

People deserve to LIVE IN a home. Whether that be by buying or renting is another thing. The logical consequence of this FF led speculator market was a) house prices go up and nobody could afford to buy, and then b) rent prices also go up, and nobody can afford to rent either. You seem to suggest that people who can't afford to buy should be held to ransom to pay exorbitant rents to speculators who were just fortunate enough to have a bit more money, get in early, and make a killing. The more the speculators get control of the market, and push prices ever higher, the more ordinary people get screwed, and the more the gap between rich and poor gets wider. I'm not saying there should never be rich or poor, but where does the wedge stop pushing?

A sound government would keep some modicum of control over things, keep it all in perspective. You seem to suggest no, the market should be let run out of control, let people ruin themselves. In case you hadn't noticed, the result of that thinking is the recession we are in now. It is a brutal check to a system that shouldn't have needed such a check.

Do you suggest the people of Haiti don't deserve to own their own homes either, that they should be at the complete whim of whichever unscrupulous developer might move in there to make a killing on a captive market?

There's nothing wrong with renting in civilised European countries where the government probably put in place regulation to control the worst excesses of the market. There is everything wrong with renting in an Ireland run by a corrupt and dysfunctional FF who would do nothing to protect hapless ordinary people from unscrupulous elements in the market, who know which pockets to line.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Eat apples.

That sounds disconcertingly like 'Let them eat cake...'

Laminations

This thread has gone way off track, can we bring it back to Bertie. If he did some good, state what that was and post links. If he did some bad, again state what exactly with references (see Biggins earlier posts). Finally without having to list everything good and bad try and weigh up his legacy and give a verdict.

The nitty gritty of divvying out responsibility for the over borrowing and lending can be done elsewhere. But here is my opinion briefly. Overborrowing joes are liable to the banks (they'll be taken to the proverbial cleaners), the banks are regulated by a government appointed regulator (supposed to regulate to prevent crises such as the current one) and the government are answerable to the joes. Your 'holy collective' is indeed partly responsible for returning the government so many times, some hypocritically note this as a fault of the past but still recommend its repeated in the future. Also the consequences of indebtedness seem to differ based on level of wealth. Overall the product of this recession, debt, is being handled very unfairly by government and banks.

IrishTonyO

hallelujajordan wrote: »

The reality is they didn't care because they believed they were going to make a quick buck . . and that's ok . . as long as you are willing to take responsibility for the consequences when it doesn't work out.

Exactly so why should I pay for the banks making quick and massive bucks. Let them take responsibility as well. Why should I pay for their mistakes, you reckon they would pay for mine?

hallelujajordan

IrishTonyO wrote: »

Exactly so why should I pay for the banks making quick and massive bucks. Let them take responsibility as well. Why should I pay for their mistakes, you reckon they would pay for mine?

Great . . in theory . . Now, please explain how you retain the responsibility (i.e. the toxic debt) with the banks and still keep the economy afloat . .

In any other business I would agree with you . . the business owners and decision makers should take responsibility for their deeds / misdeeds . . . however the taxpayer / government / economy requires a stable banking system so this just cannot work ... The government are not supporting the banks for the banks' sake . . they are doing it for the sake of the economy.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Great . . in theory . . Now, please explain how you retain the responsibility (i.e. the toxic debt) with the banks and still keep the economy afloat . .

In any other business I would agree with you . . the business owners and decision makers should take responsibility for their deeds / misdeeds . . . however the taxpayer / government / economy requires a stable banking system so this just cannot work ... The government are not supporting the banks for the banks' sake . . they are doing it for the sake of the economy.

FG suggested it. Set up a new, clean bank. Let the gamblers rot.

It's finally been admitted that FF were warned that NAMA wouldn't provide credit.

Why didn't FF embed this in the rules for the bailout ?

AIB have a Polish subsidiary that makes profits, and yet expect us to bail them out. Why ?

And under whose watch did individual banks become "too important to fail" ?

If FF - say - privatised the water services, and then that company screwed up royally, would we then have to bail them out (despite initially having no choice but to pay their charges and add to their profits) ?

The FF-appointed Financial Regulator did not do their job to safeguard this "resource".

FF were happy to base the economy on finite transactional taxes, and put no money away for the future (because it might have been FG or Labour that got to spend it).

No competence, planning or thoughts of the good of Ireland whatsoever.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

FG suggested it. Set up a new, clean bank. Let the gamblers rot.

It really isn't that simple . . .

Karl Whelan, professor of economics at UCD can explain why better than I . .

http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2009/05/15/thoughts-on-fine-gael%E2%80%99s-bank-plan/

I'll leave you to read the rest but he summarises thus ..

"I’m sympathetic to what FG want to achieve here but the plan strikes me as potentially a recipe for chaos if adopted."

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

It really isn't that simple . . .

Karl Whelan, professor of economics at UCD can explain why better than I . .

http://www.irisheconomy.ie/index.php/2009/05/15/thoughts-on-fine-gael%E2%80%99s-bank-plan/

I'll leave you to read the rest but he summarises thus ..

"I’m sympathetic to what FG want to achieve here but the plan strikes me as potentially a recipe for chaos if adopted."

Strange, that. Because that's my reaction to NAMA and its required future inflated prices and uncompetitiveness.

And it's very odd that you're resorting to quoting Karl Whelan NOW, despite your party ignoring his previous observations :

http://ideas.repec.org/p/ucn/wpaper/200914.html

In this paper, I provide a selective review of Ireland’s economic performance of the last 20 years, from the early days of the Celtic Tiger, through to the housing boom and the recent slump, and then attempt to draw a few lessons from the period. I argue, based on a range of observations, that a substantial slowdown was looming for Ireland by 2007, independent of what was going to happen in the global economy, and much of this evidence was ignored in the implementation of economic policy.

The result was a range of policies based on an unwarranted over-optimism which left Ireland terribly exposed to the international downturn. Policy failures in the fiscal and banking are are discussed, as well as some common criticisms of policy that have less justification.

Any comment on why he's suddenly credible in your eyes ?

Or maybe he's just one of these who's bound to be right "the odd time" ?

Laminations

This excerpt from a few years ago sums Ahern up for me

Just as the Northern scene was already set for the final denouement when Bertie arrived, so too the preconditions for our prosperous economy were already in place, fortunately for Bertie, when he came to power in 1997. Accordingly, he nurtured -- and took credit for -- the booming economy rather than creating it. All that is now drawing to a close and the question must be asked: Did Ahern, in his 11 years of power, make the most of this unprecedented prosperity for the public benefit? The answer can hardly be positive, given the present state of health, education and infrastructure, generally.

He was a manager and a very bad one at that, and he took credit for the hard work of other people.

oh well , okay

hallelujajordan wrote: »

It really isn't that simple . . .

Karl Whelan, professor of economics at UCD can explain why better than I . .
."

My last word on NAMA I swear , apologies to laminations for being off topic

Karl Whelan ya say .....

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0417/1224244902514.html

Twenty of Ireland’s leading academic economists argue that the Government has got it badly wrong. Nama is not the way to clean up the banking mess created by the property bubble: temporary but full-blooded nationalisation of the banks is the only way

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0826/1224253267074.html

Nama set to shift wealth to lenders and developers
Forty-six academic economists and lecturers in business think the Government has got it wrong on the National Asset Management Agency. Here, they explain why

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/1217/1224260833035.html

The Government repeatedly assured us the banks would use bonds given to them by Nama to secure loans from the European Central Bank (ECB), and these funds would be lent to Irish businesses and households.
The truth is that Nama was never likely to get credit flowing, and this has now been confirmed by the recent appearances of AIB and Bank of Ireland executives before an Oireachtas committee.
Perhaps by the spring, we’ll all be told that nationalisation is The Only Game in Town

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0813/1224252497177.html

OPINION: The Carroll judgment is very good news for the taxpayer: the cat is out of the bag as to why the banks are cosying up to Nama, writes KARL WHELAN

The Carroll case revealed the latest, and most disturbing, aspects of the unholy banker-developer alliance. Justice Peter Kelly concluded that the survival plan put forward by the Carroll group was "fanciful" and "lacking in reality" and he was supported in this assessment by the Supreme Court.
However, despite the reality that Carroll’s business simply could not be saved, all the Irish banks involved, apart from ACC, actively supported this survival plan, allowing Carroll to continue rolling up interest and also taking the highly unusual step of providing the funds to pay off unsecured trade creditors.
Why would the banks do this? Why would they extend further money to a clearly failing developer with a fanciful survival plan? The only possible answer is these banks were determined to maintain the illusion Carroll would one day pay back the money he owed. And the reason for this illusionist act? Nama.
With Nama apparently determined to put an optimistic spin on all loan purchases, viewing them through the rose-tinted spectacles of "long-term economic value", the incentive for the participating banks has been to maintain that loans such as Carroll’s are good and to then sell them to Nama for far more than they will ever repay.

Red_Marauder

paddyland wrote: »

People deserve to LIVE IN a home. Whether that be by buying or renting is another thing.

Exactly.
If you can't afford to buy - then do like other Europeans, rent, or lease. Home ownership is a choice.

The logical consequence of this FF led speculator market was a) house prices go up and nobody could afford to buy, and then b) rent prices also go up, and nobody can afford to rent either.

So where did people live?
The fact is that they did rent, and they did buy.

You seem to suggest that people who can't afford to buy should be held to ransom to pay exorbitant rents to speculators who were just fortunate enough to have a bit more money, get in early, and make a killing.

People who purchase property for the purpose of their own habitation are investing in an asset as well as a family home.

If these investors, just like developers, chose not to pay above a property's reasonably value, then property market prices would have been sustained. They make up the vast bulk of property market investors, and they chose not to hold back on their investmenets.

The net result was substantial rise in property prices.

You seem to suggest no, the market should be let run out of control, let people ruin themselves.

People should have the common sense not to ruin themselves.

I was a University student throughout the later years of the celtic tiger. I was offered relatively generous student loans with an interest free period that I could only have afforded to the cost of my studies, so I didn't take them. It seems to be lost on some people that just bacause a bank offers you money, you automatically take it or that it means you will be better off with it.

Take personal responsibility.

Do you suggest the people of Haiti don't deserve to own their own homes either, that they should be at the complete whim of whichever unscrupulous developer might move in there to make a killing on a captive market?

You seem to think 'making a killing' involves exactly that - going out and threatening people for money.

You make a profit when there is demand for a product or service that you can provide for a price that is higher than your initial costs.

People weren't throwing money at estate agents or builders with funds they had found under their pillow - they were funds they actively went out and sought themselves - often foolishly.

Don't blame a builder for that.

There's nothing wrong with renting in civilised European countries where the government probably put in place regulation to control the worst excesses of the market.

"Probably"? Like what? Don't kid yourself. Irish people didn't veer away from long term leases because of worries about property legislation - too many just wanted to own their own homes for no good reason - or because they actually themselves saw it as a financial asset, and were in becoming that, the investor you so dislike.

There is everything wrong with renting in an Ireland run by a corrupt and dysfunctional FF who would do nothing to protect hapless ordinary people from unscrupulous elements in the market, who know which pockets to line.

Why should it be a business mans job to protect "hapless ordinary people"?
You seem to have very little confidence in the renting or buying public. You seem to think they are easily tricked, you call them "hapless".

Maybe people like that have no business making adult decisions in the first place and should stay at home living in the safety of their parents homes if they don't want to engage with the real world.

Red_Marauder

Liam Byrne wrote: »

FG suggested it. Set up a new, clean bank. Let the gamblers rot.

Any chance you could get the banks to abide by it so that we don't have to pay for bank shares in incompetent banks that no-one wants ?

You do realise that it is Fine Gael policy to re-capitalise the banks?

And that this money could as easily be used to fund people like failed developers or property investors in their new business ventures as any other entrepreneur?

I vote Fine Gael, I just don't see how you consider the current rescue plan and the current approach to "gamblers" as being so different.

Liam Byrne

Red_Marauder wrote: »

It seems to be lost on some people that just bacause a bank offers you money, you automatically take it or that it means you will be better off with it.

Take personal responsibility.

To be fair, there is a lot of truth in what you say in relation to those who went mad, or who invested, or took second mortgages and thereby put their main home at risk.

The issue is that taking responsibility is well and good, but when you are forced to "take responsibility" and bail out the gambling low-lifes through your tax and a lower standard of living, you are bound to complain.

If everyone who made bad decisions - FF, the bankers, the developers AND (some of) us - now had to live with the consequences of their decisions, then fair enough.

If everyone who made good decisions made a small profit or put enough aside to survive, then fair play to them.

But that is not the case. We got none of the bank or developers profits and are now expected to absorb their losses, despite the fact that many of us made reasonably good decisions.

And that is the main issue.

Liam Byrne

Red_Marauder wrote: »

You do realise that it is Fine Gael policy to re-capitalise the banks?

And that this money could as easily be used to fund people like failed developers or property investors in their new business ventures as any other entrepreneur?

I vote Fine Gael, I just don't see how you consider the current rescue plan and the current approach to "gamblers" as being so different.

How do you reckon that a bank would agree to fund someone who was proven to be incompetent and reckless ?

I would assume that a proper "social" bank would be driven by a proper, sustainable and balanced combination of small profit and social need.

Anyway, we should discuss this elsewhere.

This thread is about Ahern, and he didn't even use banks for his "somehow-gotten" gains.

Red_Marauder

Liam Byrne wrote: »

How do you reckon that a bank would agree to fund someone who was proven to be incompetent and reckless ?

Banks on the ground are going to have to be realistic.

There is an extraordinary amount of default out there, all being recorded by credit agencies when it reaches that level. This issue exists both at personal level and at commercial level.

Banks will not be able to ignore people with poor credit history or people whose business suffered as a result of the economic crash in the same way they did in the past. If they did, the country would be facing total shutdown.

You have to lend to entrepreneurs. Even if they have messed up in the past. If the banks were to turn down every personal business and personal customer who was "reckless" throughout the boom, they would probably be turning down most of their repeat loan applicants.

The whole point behind Fine Gael's plan to help out SMEs through bank recapitalisation is to help SMEs who have gotten into trouble. This cannot logically exclude all of our property investors and developers.

I would assume that a proper "social" bank would be driven by a proper, sustainable and balanced combination of small profit and social need.

I think that's the wrong party, maybe ask Joe Higgins.

Liam Byrne

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Banks on the ground are going to have to be realistic.

There is an extraordinary amount of default out there, all being recorded by credit agencies when it reaches that level. This issue exists both at personal level and at commercial level.

Banks will not be able to ignore people with poor credit history or people whose business suffered as a result of the economic crash in the same way they did in the past. If they did, the country would be facing total shutdown.

You have to lend to entrepreneurs. Even if they have messed up in the past. If the banks were to turn down every personal business and personal customer who was "reckless" throughout the boom, they would probably be turning down most of their repeat loan applicants.

The whole point behind Fine Gael's plan to help out SMEs through bank recapitalisation is to help SMEs who have gotten into trouble. This cannot logically exclude all of our property investors and developers.

It can - and should - logically exclude all of the seriously reckless ones.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I think that's the wrong party, maybe ask Joe Higgins.

Hold on a second, now. The banks want / need OUR money. We're entitled to make the rules.

jmayo

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Banks on the ground are going to have to be realistic.

There is an extraordinary amount of default out there, all being recorded by credit agencies when it reaches that level. This issue exists both at personal level and at commercial level.

Banks will not be able to ignore people with poor credit history or people whose business suffered as a result of the economic crash in the same way they did in the past. If they did, the country would be facing total shutdown.

You have to lend to entrepreneurs. Even if they have messed up in the past. If the banks were to turn down every personal business and personal customer who was "reckless" throughout the boom, they would probably be turning down most of their repeat loan applicants.

The whole point behind Fine Gael's plan to help out SMEs through bank recapitalisation is to help SMEs who have gotten into trouble. This cannot logically exclude all of our property investors and developers.
I think that's the wrong party, maybe ask Joe Higgins.

Developers and investors who have lost serious amounts on property should not be in receipt of a single penny of new loans from banks.
In fact since some of them are bankrupts who will have dumped their debts on the taxpayers they shouldn't be in charge of any business.
I believe in second chances for people who tried to create successful businesses that added to our exports or to cutting our imports, but no way do I beleive gombeens that just thought building cr** quality over priced houses shoudl get a second chance.

Why do we need developers at the present time, we have chronic over supply of property both residential and commerical so why do developers need loans ?

I believe if the government had let Anglo go it would have proven a valuable incentive to the others to toe the line.
As it is they saw that lenihan and the government led by the muppet supremo blinked first and now they get their own way as was shown by the new ceos who are really all part of the old guard.

The only meaningful symbolic change at CB/IFSRA was bringing in Honohan, but I beleive not fully backing him for proper bank enquiry has affectively shown the banks he is going to be neutered.

Thus we will have business as usual.

If anyone wants a luagh or maybe a cry see what the overview of the role of IFSRA states on their website.
Pity they didn't bother carrying out this role 8 odd years ago.

http://www.financialregulator.ie/about-us/role/Pages/default.aspx

Red_Marauder

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Hold on a second, now. The banks want / need OUR money. We're entitled to make the rules.

I'm responding to you issue of "social need". I'm saying if you think thats the basis upon which the banks are to be recapitalised, then you would be better off voting red.
Banks should ideally be recapitalised directly proportional to the magnitude whereby they help business people generate disgustingly large profits. This is capitalism, and it is healthy, and it is necessary.

Originally Posted by jmayo
Developers and investors who have lost serious amounts on property should not be in receipt of a single penny of new loans from banks.

It depends on what you mean by serious amounts.

Personally I don't like the idea of any defaulter being entertained again.

But the reality is there are a huge amount of businesses struggling out there, and they are being reported to the credit agencies, or they are in trouble with their banks. these are the very people that Fine Gael is trying to protect - and rightly so - not least because they are keeping people in work and off the Dole.

So if a small time newsagent employing ten people invested in a few bedsits in Ranelagh and has made a loss, or an architecture firm employing six people has lost money on a new office suite they had to release at a loss - they need financial support.

If a property developer who has been a successful business man in a variety of different fields over 30 years has lost everything because of a shared culpability in the property market, and now wants 70k to fund a new business in selling pet products, then I'd be all for that to be honest.

These might be people who have failed in the past, but they are also the people who got up and went out and were as aggressive as possible in making a buck and hiring new staff and turning a profit. We don't need an inflated property market, but we need entrepreneurs, and we cannot exclude everyone who has been involved in that game in the past.

Liam Byrne

Red_Marauder wrote: »

If a property developer who has been a successful business man in a variety of different fields over 30 years has lost everything because of a shared culpability in the property market, and now wants 70k to fund a new business in selling pet products, then I'd be all for that to be honest.

How has he lost everything ?

Where are the cumulative profits ? Where's the money put aside ? Where's the surplus that he didn't gamble ?

If he built up something, then recklessly gambled everything and lost, then tough. He's a gambler, not a businessman.

If he's in difficulty but has reneged on a small fortune, hammering the taxpayer, then tough.

Answer me this ? If we indirectly fund this entrepreneur, who gets the new profits, us or him ?

Small businesses tipping away and having cashflow issues are NOT comparable to those who have gambled millions on a "house of cards".

I wouldn't hang most of them, but I wouldn't go running to give them more money either.

On the other hand, anyone who has created a generally-sustainable business, tipping away nicely, and hasn't gambled their profits or speculated ridiculously SHOULD be supported.

P.S. Maybe I should - as you put it - "vote red". I do believe that work should be rewarded, but likewise I believe that everyone is entitled to be able to make a basic living if they do work. And I believe that money is a necessary evil - it's needed because bartering didn't work.

But it's not a means to an end, and ruining lives just in order to get a profit is something I want to part of......that's an 80s A-Team plot-line and has no place in modern society.

Anyway, that's definitely my last comment on this, because this thread is about Ahern, and diverting that discussion lets that little toe-rag off the hook.

Red_Marauder

Liam Byrne wrote: »

How has he lost everything ?

Where are the cumulative profits ? Where's the money put aside ? Where's the surplus that he didn't gamble ?

Many did have extra funds, but it's all been washed up in debts since business ceased.

If he built up something, then recklessly gambled everything and lost, then tough. He's a gambler, not a businessman.

You didn't necessarily recklessly gamble everything simply because you've gone bankrupt in property investment.
It's not just the rug that's been pulled out from under the market, it's the entire foundation. Everybody in property has lost out big time.

If he's in difficulty but has reneged on a small fortune, hammering the taxpayer, then tough.

You seem to think this immediately falls back on the taxpayer.

These people still owe the same money even post-NAMA. They are still liable for every last cent whether it's to AIB or a National Recovery Bank or Liam_Byrne Finance.
Even in limited property companies many debtors have personally guaranteed their funds long after the business stopped making profits around 2007, and are personally liable for such debts through their home, their car, and their belongings right down to the kitchen sink. They face bankruptcy, leaving them in a financial wasteland into the future.

You might think that's fair - I won't necessarily argue. But please don't protest that these people are somehow being treated better than Joe and Josephine up the road who equally saw their half a million quid shoebox as an investment on the property ladder themselves.

Answer me this ? If we indirectly fund this entrepreneur, who gets the new profits, us or him ?

Him. He is the one taking out a 70k business loan, he is the one getting up and brushing himself off, and taking on new staff, and making a go of things again.

Someone once made the remark that in the USA failrure is like a badge of honour. People boast that they failed 10, 20, maybe 30 times before making their millions and becoming industry leaders and large employers.

Here, failure is a financial death sentance out of which we seek to draw absolutely no positives from whatsoever.

He gets the profits. People like him - failing, trying again even more vigourously, then generating profits, is what will drive this economy out of the mire. Guffawing at ambition for wealth will only drive this country backwards.

Liam Byrne

Red_Marauder wrote: »

But please don't protest that these people are somehow being treated better than Joe and Josephine up the road who equally saw their half a million quid shoebox as an investment on the property ladder themselves.

Yet again, you're skewing my point.

I have no problem with people who bought something as an "investment" losing out. They took a chance.

I have a problem with people who bought a home losing out.

And my criteria would be whether that person ever used the disgusting phrase "property ladder".

Now can we please get back on topic re the con-man mentioned in the title ?

Feel free to set up a new thread to discuss rampant, greedy capitalism and all its ills.

Red_Marauder

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I have no problem with people who bought something as an "investment" losing out. They took a chance.
I have a problem with people who bought a home losing out.

Why?
They took a mortgage?
Then they took a chance, just like an investor.

Now can we please get back on topic re the con-man mentioned in the title ?

Feel free to set up a new thread to discuss rampant, greedy capitalism and all its ills.

Well this does relate to policy from his time in office. As it happens, you seem to be the one with a problem about capitalism. I don't see any ills in capitalism in itself, only those who have abused it - including a huge chunk of private homeowners who have suddenly realised they can't pay their mortgages.

Liam Byrne

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Why?
They took a mortgage?
Then they took a chance, just like an investor.

Incorrect, on two counts.

1) They didn't take it in order to make money or to prevent someone else buying it

2) If they made a choice within their means and budget and now that budget has been hammered by extra taxes and bailing out the banks, then they are not at fault

Finally, for someone who is so pro-capitalism, it's amazing that you're not objecting to the subversion of capitalism that has allowed incompetent businesses - the banks themselves - to NOT fail based on their chosen path and the market.

paddyland

To pull this back to Bertie, I have a huge worry about the future. There are two prestigious jobs imminent, both of which it has been suggested Bertie might tip his hat to, President of Ireland, and Mayor of Dublin.

I think Bertie is too damaged to try for the Park, I think he would fear the public backlash, as he is a coward at heart. The President of Ireland has always been a position that commands huge respect, and each of the previous eight incumbents have at least had the respect of most of the Irish people, and carried the office with dignity. There is a long country mile between those people and Bertie Ahern in terms of reputation and respect.

However, if Bertie tries instead for the Mayor of Dublin, I greatly fear that there is every chance he COULD take that position. Dublin is his heartland, and the Mayor's job will be a more hands on, practical position than the essentially ceremonial President's position. For God's sake, John Gormley even suggested Bertie might take the job. He is still a 'man of the people' in some people's eyes, too many of whom are highly influential.

What will be the effect if Bertie runs for, and gains, the new Mayor's seat? I despair at the thought. The man ran the Taoiseach's office as his own personal department of special favours, and there is every presumption he will see the Mayor's seat as just the same. Dublin needs a Mayor who will visit important issues on their own merit, not as opportunities towards a new office of corruption and cronyism.

Besides which, too many people have been lavishly rewarded for tenures of epic failure in political, financial and regulatory spheres. It would be beyond comprehension that the daddy of them all would be rewarded with anything approaching a position of prestige and influence. If there were any moral accountability, he should be in jail.

IrishTonyO

God I dread the day that Bertie would become mayor of Dublin. At least George Hook on Newstalk has vowed that if Bertie runs for the Aras or mayor he will run against him

Tommy Bateman

I must say i'm looking foward to Bertie been elected mayor. If he brought peace to NI and an economic boom to the Republic, imagine what he can do for Dublin. No better man for the job than Bertie, and the good people of Dublin know this. Bless em.

hinault

paddyland wrote: »

To pull this back to Bertie, I have a huge worry about the future. There are two prestigious jobs imminent, both of which it has been suggested Bertie might tip his hat to, President of Ireland, and Mayor of Dublin.

I think Bertie is too damaged to try for the Park, I think he would fear the public backlash, as he is a coward at heart. The President of Ireland has always been a position that commands huge respect, and each of the previous eight incumbents have at least had the respect of most of the Irish people, and carried the office with dignity. There is a long country mile between those people and Bertie Ahern in terms of reputation and respect.

However, if Bertie tries instead for the Mayor of Dublin, I greatly fear that there is every chance he COULD take that position. Dublin is his heartland, and the Mayor's job will be a more hands on, practical position than the essentially ceremonial President's position. For God's sake, John Gormley even suggested Bertie might take the job. He is still a 'man of the people' in some people's eyes, too many of whom are highly influential.

What will be the effect if Bertie runs for, and gains, the new Mayor's seat? I despair at the thought. The man ran the Taoiseach's office as his own personal department of special favours, and there is every presumption he will see the Mayor's seat as just the same. Dublin needs a Mayor who will visit important issues on their own merit, not as opportunities towards a new office of corruption and cronyism.

Besides which, too many people have been lavishly rewarded for tenures of epic failure in political, financial and regulatory spheres. It would be beyond comprehension that the daddy of them all would be rewarded with anything approaching a position of prestige and influence. If there were any moral accountability, he should be in jail.

Bertie has been exposed by the tribunals.
His alibis have not stood up to scrutiny.

If he gets in to office, it is because the people of this City/Country are too stupid to vote him in to office.
Remember its the people who decide.

paddyland

Tommy Bateman wrote: »

I must say i'm looking foward to Bertie been elected mayor. If he brought peace to NI and an economic boom to the Republic, imagine what he can do for Dublin. No better man for the job than Bertie, and the good people of Dublin know this. Bless em.

Well, any man who would climb every tree in north Dublin for a friend must be a great friend indeed...

Biggins

Tommy Bateman wrote: »

I must say i'm looking foward to Bertie been elected mayor. If he brought peace to NI and an economic boom to the Republic, imagine what he can do for Dublin. No better man for the job than Bertie, and the good people of Dublin know this. Bless em.

LOL Good one. :pac::pac::pac:

hallelujajordan

oh well , okay wrote: »

My last word on NAMA I swear , apologies to laminations for being off topic

Karl Whelan ya say .....

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0417/1224244902514.html


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0826/1224253267074.html



http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/1217/1224260833035.html


http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2009/0813/1224252497177.html

So, Karl Whelan doesn't agree with NAMA or FG's Good bank proposals . . What's your point ? I'm not pinning my colours to Karl Whelan by any stretch . . merely using his analysis to point out that the good bank proposal of FG is not as simple as Liam Byrne would propose . . .

Anyway, enough of NAMA . . back to Bertie . .

jmayo

paddyland wrote: »

To pull this back to Bertie, I have a huge worry about the future. There are two prestigious jobs imminent, both of which it has been suggested Bertie might tip his hat to, President of Ireland, and Mayor of Dublin.

What will be the effect if Bertie runs for, and gains, the new Mayor's seat? I despair at the thought. The man ran the Taoiseach's office as his own personal department of special favours, and there is every presumption he will see the Mayor's seat as just the same. Dublin needs a Mayor who will visit important issues on their own merit, not as opportunities towards a new office of corruption and cronyism.

This leads me onto something that lots of people forget.
Another disasterous decision made, which I would reckong definetly involved bertie behind the scenes, is the siting of the new national childresn hospital at the Mater.
This would be bertie's old employer, the employer of his sister and in the heart of his constituency.
Maybe conincidence ?

Anyway whoever thought it was a good idea to put national childrens hospital in the heart of a city with cr** public transport and very very little car parking was definetly up to something.
Oh and AFAIK a private sector individual offered to provide alternative site out near M50 which has road network linking the country and public transport linking the city centre.

Of course it will be argued that this was all a HSE decision :rolleyes:
Anyway just thought since we are talking about all things bertie should add this in.

IrishTonyO wrote: »

God I dread the day that Bertie would become mayor of Dublin. At least George Hook on Newstalk has vowed that if Bertie runs for the Aras or mayor he will run against him

Remember he will also run against him for dog catcher

Tommy Bateman wrote: »

I must say i'm looking foward to Bertie been elected mayor. If he brought peace to NI and an economic boom to the Republic, imagine what he can do for Dublin. No better man for the job than Bertie, and the good people of Dublin know this. Bless em.

Are you on mid term break ?

hallelujajordan wrote: »

So, Karl Whelan doesn't agree with NAMA or FG's Good bank proposals . . What's your point ? I'm not pinning my colours to Karl Whelan by any stretch . . merely using his analysis to point out that the good bank proposal of FG is not as simple as Liam Byrne would propose . . .

Anyway, enough of NAMA . . back to Bertie . .

Whenever I think of bertie I think of his legacy, one of which is NAMA. :mad:
Whenever I despair about NAMA, I think why we have it and guess what it makes think of bertie. :mad:

paddyland

jmayo wrote: »

This leads me onto something that lots of people forget.
Another disasterous decision made, which I would reckong definetly involved bertie behind the scenes, is the siting of the new national childresn hospital at the Mater.
This would be bertie's old employer, the employer of his sister and in the heart of his constituency.
Maybe conincidence ?

Anyway whoever thought it was a good idea to put national childrens hospital in the heart of a city with cr** public transport and very very little car parking was definetly up to something.
Oh and AFAIK a private sector individual offered to provide alternative site out near M50 which has road network linking the country and public transport linking the city centre.

Of course it will be argued that this was all a HSE decision :rolleyes:
Anyway just thought since we are talking about all things bertie should add this in.

This is at the heart of it. It's not just that Bertie and his ilk were pulling strokes for each other. It's that they were playing political games with fundamental issues that affect people's LIVES, for God's sake.

The siting of a children's hospital is so crucial with regard to ease of access and prompt response. To think that children's health would be just another pawn in a political game, to be used to bolster votes, with no regard for the little lives being compromised.

Public health, education, transport, justice, planning, all of these were mere playthings, to be shuffled around on a chessboard at a whim, to suit a small few political careers and jobs for a few ass kissers. The sheer lack of respect for the voting public, for the essential structures of people's livelihoods, for the gravity of ministerial responsibility, beggars belief.

Bertie has SO MUCH to answer for, the tribunals are not a fraction of it. The subversion of the entire country for generations to come, I fear is something only the history books will be able to deal with adequately.

Red_Marauder

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Originally Posted by Red_Marauder
Why?
They took a mortgage?
Then they took a chance, just like an investor.

Incorrect, on two counts.
1) They didn't take it in order to make money or to prevent someone else buying it
2) If they made a choice within their means and budget and now that budget has been hammered by extra taxes and bailing out the banks, then they are not at fault

Read the post. I'm saying that people who took out personal mortgages during the Ahern era took a chance when they took out a mortgage, just like developers take chances with finance.

I'm not saying they always had the same investment goals, though many would have had. But what they all had in common was a form of a gamble - whether the end result was a family house to pass onto future generations, or to sell on to future clients, whatever.

Finally, for someone who is so pro-capitalism, it's amazing that you're not objecting to the subversion of capitalism that has allowed incompetent businesses - the banks themselves - to NOT fail based on their chosen path and the market

Saving the banking system from collapse does not subvert capitalism - it endorses capitalism because of the influence the sector has on private industry and commercial activity.

There is a certain assuaging of the public going on here.

The Government and business leaders have an undeniable culpability in this recession. But it is the media in particular who does not seem to question the third elephant in the room - the consuming public.

The media have a special interest in not censuring the public over our part since we, effectively, are in charge of their success.

Elements of the public, particularly in countries like Greece and Ireland, are acting like some sort of spoilt, insolent prince, refusing to acknowledge our own responsibilities, haughtily assured of our virtues by venerating courtiers.

paddyland

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Elements of the public, particularly in countries like Greece and Ireland, are acting like some sort of spoilt, insolent prince, refusing to acknowledge our own responsibilities, haughtily assured of our virtues by venerating courtiers.

But sure that's human nature, you can't deny that. Still comes back to my point that the job of government is to MANAGE the worst excesses of that. Not to stand back and ignore it, or worse, like Bertie, actively join in and whip it up out of all proportion.

Red_Marauder

paddyland wrote: »

But sure that's human nature, you can't deny that.

You seem to dismiss all public repsonsibilties with excuses. We were 'forced' to buy houses, 'tricked' into things, and oh well failing to acknowledge our reponsibilities is just "human nature". That isn't good enough.

Still comes back to my point that the job of government is to MANAGE the worst excesses of that. Not to stand back and ignore it, or worse, like Bertie, actively join in and whip it up out of all proportion.

Who is saying the Government did a perfect job? Who is slapping the banks on their backs. The point is there is a third party who is not acknowledging any blame, and therefore refusing to learn from the lessons of this recession. And that third party is the ordinary, selfish, consuming public.

IrishTonyO

paddyland wrote: »

But sure that's human nature, you can't deny that. Still comes back to my point that the job of government is to MANAGE the worst excesses of that. Not to stand back and ignore it, or worse, like Bertie, actively join in and whip it up out of all proportion.

Agree totally

Shea O'Meara

Tommy Bateman wrote: »

I must say i'm looking foward to Bertie been elected mayor. If he brought peace to NI and an economic boom to the Republic, imagine what he can do for Dublin. No better man for the job than Bertie, and the good people of Dublin know this. Bless em.

All of my family, friends and I are from Dublin...we think he's a c***.

Liam Byrne

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Read the post. I'm saying that people who took out personal mortgages during the Ahern era took a chance when they took out a mortgage, just like developers take chances with finance.

Massive difference.

Most people would be able to afford their personal mortgage if they did not have to pay extra taxes and levies now, or if they hadn't lost their jobs due to mismanagement of the economy.

So they were affected by OTHERS; not by their own greed.

Some got greedy, and I've already said "tough" to them too; but you insist on lumbering those two sets together - the set that I have sympathy for and the set that I don't.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I'm not saying they always had the same investment goals, though many would have had. But what they all had in common was a form of a gamble - whether the end result was a family house to pass onto future generations, or to sell on to future clients, whatever.

Yet again, you're listing ONLY longer-term goals. Where is "to live in" in that sentence ? That is what a house is for, y'know (or at least, a few of us still believe that).

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Saving the banking system from collapse does not subvert capitalism - it endorses capitalism because of the influence the sector has on private industry and commercial activity.

Oh, so the core part of capitalism - make decisions, make a profit or die - doesn't apply to banks, then ?

So why do you apply all the other aspects of capitalism to them ?

You can't have it both ways, saying that it does apply when they get greedy but that you can't apply it because of the influence.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

There is a certain assuaging of the public going on here.

The Government and business leaders have an undeniable culpability in this recession. But it is the media in particular who does not seem to question the third elephant in the room - the consuming public.

The media have a special interest in not censuring the public over our part since we, effectively, are in charge of their success.

And you're ignoring the fact that not everyone bought into this "property ladder" bull****, and those people are paying for the scum that dragged us into the ****.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Elements of the public, particularly in countries like Greece and Ireland, are acting like some sort of spoilt, insolent prince, refusing to acknowledge our own responsibilities, haughtily assured of our virtues by venerating courtiers.

And of course, FF with their repeated mention of "international factors" and "Lehman Brothers" are acknowledging their responsibilities ?

I've said it a million times at this stage. We'll accept our responsibilities and pay a proportional price when those who had the spectacular failures and greed do so first.

Wanting a roof over your head is completely different to wanting to make a million. And it's not a "gamble".

Do you view someone who buys food to eat as an "investor", equating them to someone who buys it in order to make a killing and a profit by hoarding it until the price goes up ?

Maybe - God forbid - they splashed out on steak instead of mince once in a while.

But feck it, it's still somehow their fault....

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Oh, so the core part of capitalism - make decisions, make a profit or die - doesn't apply to banks, then ?

So why do you apply all the other aspects of capitalism to them ?

You can't have it both ways, saying that it does apply when they get greedy but that you can't apply it because of the influence.

. . and you can't ignore the fact that if the banks die, they drag down the economy with them . . . That is why, all over the world (not just in Ireland!!) banks are being bailed out, recapitalised or nationalised . .

. . So yes, the "make a profit or die" part of capitalism does not and can not apply across the board within the banking sector . .

paddyland

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Who is saying the Government did a perfect job? Who is slapping the banks on their backs. The point is there is a third party who is not acknowledging any blame, and therefore refusing to learn from the lessons of this recession. And that third party is the ordinary, selfish, consuming public.

And THAT comes back to the very genesis of your spatting with me. You said you admired Fianna Fáil. I disputed that anyone could admire FF. And thereafter, every post I make, you come up with all kinds of reasons as to why everything else I type must be wrong by default. My, my, you don't take criticism kindly.

I don't think anyone, anywhere, said specifically that the general public didn't take a share of the blame. Quote it if it was. The point of the thread is a criticism of Bertie Ahern's handling of the whole crisis. When somebody comes on and says they 'admire' FF, well they had better make a bloody good case for that. Blaming the general public for their own behaviour is one thing. But blaming the general public for the behaviour of FF is another.

If you want to start another thread about your antagonism towards ordinary people, start one. This one is about the abject failures of Bertie Ahern.

Red_Marauder

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Most people would be able to afford their personal mortgage if they did not have to pay extra taxes and levies now, or if they hadn't lost their jobs due to mismanagement of the economy.

I have emboldened the last bit to highlight your short sighted reasoning.

Based on that statement you imply that we are in trouble because of economic mismanagement and no other factors. Now if that is not your opinion, and you have left out the other important players, then fair enough, but at least be clear.

We are in serious economic trouble because a number of factors, all inter-related. Economic mismanagement and poor corporate governance are the two well documented ones. The third is no less important (I personally would argue it is more important) and that is a lack of personal responsibility and due care at the individual level.

So they were affected by OTHERS; not by their own greed.

No. You are wrong. This is not some linear equation in which the doomed mortgage holder is some sort of hapless by-product.
There was a complex dynamic at work whereby economic growth touched everybody, and it spurred an awful lot of consumers into a sort of credit euphoria.

It reminds me of the term 'to be as brave as ones brandy'. These investors - whether they were investing in private homes or in developing houses - were not financially sober. Government, industry and private citizens were all at the party, they were all drunk on wealth.

Like a group of drunks, they rouse one another while the party's roaring, and they blame one another for their hangovers the next day.

Some got greedy, and I've already said "tough" to them too; but you insist on lumbering those two sets together - the set that I have sympathy for and the set that I don't.

You said that you differentiate the two groups based on whether they use the term "property ladder", and if they do, you don't have sympathy. Isn't that a little unreasonable?

We should encourage those who do choose to purchase properties to see them as assets or possibly investments - that is perfectly fine.

But someone was dumb enough to take out a 100% mortgage on a property they could not afford deserves no more mercy than a developer who mortgaged what he couldn't afford.

Yet again, you're listing ONLY longer-term goals. Where is "to live in" in that sentence ? That is what a house is for, y'know (or at least, a few of us still believe that).

Yes, that's what a house is for. But you only purchase it when you can afford it.

You can't have it both ways, saying that it does apply when they get greedy but that you can't apply it because of the influence.

Yes, in fact, I can, and most people do.

In these circumstances, it is perfectly acceptable to rescue the banks based on our own long term recovery needs.

You suggest letting them go? Or that letting them go would be a more capitalist or clever move? That's total nonsense to be honest.

And you're ignoring the fact that not everyone bought into this "property ladder" bull****, and those people are paying for the scum that dragged us into the ****.

No I'm not ignoring that. So much of what I've written so far is how the property consumers caused a lot of this economic mess - all property consumers.

And of course, FF with their repeated mention of "international factors" and "Lehman Brothers" are acknowledging their responsibilities ?

They are factors, but they don't excuse the Government's mistakes.
I certainly am not arguing the Government's corner on this one, I just don't want to dig my head in the sand about it either and most people in Fine Gael wouldn't either.

I've said it a million times at this stage. We'll accept our responsibilities and pay a proportional price when those who had the spectacular failures and greed do so first.

That reminds me of the petty Coughlan vs O Leary "no, you ring me first" debacle.

Everybody needs to take responsibility and learn from past stupidity. Government and commercail failures have been acknowledged, it is time for the public to step up to the mark on this as well.

Wanting a roof over your head is completely different to wanting to make a million. And it's not a "gamble".

Taking a 300,000 euro mortgage on a cardboard cut out in Lucan is indeed a gamble - whether you are a schoolteacher or a property developer.
It doesn't matter if you want to sell the house, or live in it, or breed ponies in it. A gamble is a gamble is a gamble.

Do you view someone who buys food to eat as an "investor", equating them to someone who buys it in order to make a killing and a profit by hoarding it until the price goes up ?

Yes, you are investing in a product for a known benefit.

And if you buy a hoard of food to sell on at another known benefit (in that case, presumably, profit), then you are an investor as well and perfectly entitled to do so. You are what the retail outlets would call a "supplier" and you should be quite glad these people exist.

Red_Marauder

paddyland wrote: »

And THAT comes back to the very genesis of your spatting with me. You said you admired Fianna Fáil.

Paddyland I am convinced you don't actually read anything on here bar your own posts. I did not say that I admire FF, I don't.

This is what i already said, the last time you suggested I "admired" Fianna Fáil.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

No, that isn't my point. Read the post.

I'm saying that I personally admire some of Fianna Fáils positive influences on our standard of living and I personally wish that Fine Gael had had the same opportunities to positively affect economic growth in such an actve manner. I didn't say anything as simplistic as the boom is a reason to admire Fianna Fail.

In general, I don't admire that party nor many of their ideologies, if they can be given so generous a term.

Also

Red_Marauder wrote: »

We have failed to learn from past failures by continuously voting Fianna Fáil. We have to reflect upon ourselves for that and learn from it. It's the constant barstool and taxicab whining... and insisting that Joe Public never saw a celtic tiger... that I am talking about.

Liam Byrne

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I have emboldened the last bit to highlight your short sighted reasoning.

Based on that statement you imply that we are in trouble because of economic mismanagement and no other factors. Now if that is not your opinion, and you have left out the other important players, then fair enough, but at least be clear.

I was perfectly clear, so less of the misrepresentation please.

I said that if someone was perfectly capable of repaying and NOW CANNOT REPAY DUE TO ADDITIONAL TAXES IMPOSED TO BAIL OUT THE BANKS then that is NOT THEIR FAULT.

Those taxes are required due to economic mismanagement.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

These investors - whether they were investing in private homes or in developing houses - were not financially sober. Government, industry and private citizens were all at the party, they were all drunk on wealth.

Absolutely and utter bull****, and I object to this blanket generalisation. I have repeatedly pointed out that I was offered too much by the bank, and declined it. I did not take out a 100% mortgage or anything close to it.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

You said that you differentiate the two groups based on whether they use the term "property ladder", and if they do, you don't have sympathy. Isn't that a little unreasonable?

We should encourage those who do choose to purchase properties to see them as assets or possibly investments - that is perfectly fine.

I'm not sure what you're getting at here; I merely suggested that we treat them differently because they had a different purpose - one a necessity (a roof over our heads) and one jumping on the bandwagon as an "investment" - and all investments carry a risk attached.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

But someone was dumb enough to take out a 100% mortgage on a property they could not afford deserves no more mercy than a developer who mortgaged what he couldn't afford.

One point that we agree on, at least. But do not lump everyone into that category.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Yes, that's what a house is for. But you only purchase it when you can afford it.

Yes. But when the government - through their mismanagement - then impose extra taxes and levies on you, and you then can no longer afford it, it is not your fault.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Yes, in fact, I can, and most people do.

In these circumstances, it is perfectly acceptable to rescue the banks based on our own long term recovery needs.

You suggest letting them go? Or that letting them go would be a more capitalist or clever move? That's total nonsense to be honest.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

No I'm not ignoring that. So much of what I've written so far is how the property consumers caused a lot of this economic mess - all property consumers.

An investor is not a consumer. Investors who want short-term profits by abusing the markets and buying things to hoard them - be it through oil or property or whatever - are leeches.

Anyone who adds value to something is entitled to a return.

Anyone who is greedy and just wants money should not be.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Government and commercail failures have been acknowledged, it is time for the public to step up to the mark on this as well.
Taking a 300,000 euro mortgage on a cardboard cut out in Lucan is indeed a gamble - whether you are a schoolteacher or a property developer.
It doesn't matter if you want to sell the house, or live in it, or breed ponies in it. A gamble is a gamble is a gamble.

It is not a gamble if you could afford it and wanted it as a home.

If you never planned to sell it, then the negative equity is somewhat irrelevant, because you still have the home that you wanted.

HOWEVER, my point is that if those who manipulated the property market in order to ensure you had to pay extra are now being bailed out, and as a result of that bailout you now are hard-pressed to pay for it, while those who bolloxed things up still get their €600,000 a year, then that is 100% unfair.

They've proved their incompetence, and you still have to pay for them, while you are still trying to pay the monies that you budgetted for in good faith.

And it also skews the capitalism model where those who take educated and informed risks are rewarded, while those who are reckless and gamble fail.

Red_Marauder

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I said that if someone was perfectly capable of repaying and NOW CANNOT REPAY DUE TO ADDITIONAL TAXES IMPOSED TO BAIL OUT THE BANKS then that is NOT THEIR FAULT.

Those taxes are required due to economic mismanagement.

That is one reason why these taxes are required. The others are corporate foolishness and individual foolishness at the personal level - that is what you do not seem to grasp. It isn't all about the Government.

we treat them differently because they had a different purpose - one a necessity (a roof over our heads) and one jumping on the bandwagon as an "investment" - and all investments carry a risk attached.

Explain please. When did buying a house become a necesity.

These people deserve no special treatment - incidentally, they are getting it.

An investor is not a consumer. Investors who want short-term profits by abusing the markets and buying things to hoard them - be it through oil or property or whatever - are leeches.

You seem to have some totally warped view of why people invest. If people see an opportunity to make money through investing in commodities, they will. they don't do it to "hoard".

This again goes back to the mistaken belief that there is something wrong with investing because it raises a product's value. That kind of rubbish runs totally contrary to both common sense and the idea behind the free market.

Anyone who adds value to something is entitled to a return.
Anyone who is greedy and just wants money should not be.

What do you propose, some sort of morality test to decide who deserves a profit?

This is Europe, not Pyongyang.
It is 2010, we live in a capitalist society.
The cold war is over.

HOWEVER, my point is that if those who manipulated the property market in order to ensure you had to pay extra are now being bailed out

Property developers are not being bailed out. Nobody "ensured you had to pay extra" because nobody was forced to buy one single property, nobody was forced to actively go and seek 300k from their bank.

paddyland

Red_Marauder wrote: »

All I'm saying is that personally, I look at the Celtic Tiger period with a certain degree of admiration for Fianna Fáil - that is not an easy thing for a FGer to admit. I would have loved to have been part of a party that oversaw that era - mot only because I think FG could have done it better, but because of what an exciting and confident time it was for the Irish nation.
I don't overlook Fianna Fáil transgressions, but to be quite honest with you, I see them as small apples in the scheme of things. I appreciate that everyone doesn't agree with that, that's perfectly understandable.

That's what you said. Admiration for Fianna Fáil. If you want to argue that you meant it in a different context, fair enough. I am just transcribing exactly what you posted.

Besides that, you see FF transgressions as small apples (potatoes?) - I see them as bloody great apples, fundamentally culpable for the dysfunction in our society. Humans will be humans. Humans will act as humans act. The difference in Ireland is we have had generations of FF government who stood back and let the country and it's people run wildly out of control, interested only in feeding off the cream of the frenzy for themselves, and to hell with the long term consequences. We may as well not have government at all. At least it would be cheaper.

And there we differ.

Laminations

Here you go lads, now get off my thread

anymore

The ongoing debate about Minister Wille O Dea ceratinly has something to say about Bertie Ahern's ethical contribution to Irish political life. :


http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/0216/odeaw.html

The Dáil is to debate a motion of no confidence in Defence Minister Willie O'Dea next week.
Fine Gael leader Enda Kenny announced he was putting down the motion after the Minister read an explanation of the circumstances surrounding his admission that a sworn statement to the High Court was untrue.

Happily there will be no mention of horses in this particular deabte !

Biggins

anymore wrote: »

...Happily there will be no mention of horses in this particular deabte !

Well I won't quite say that!
The whole bunch are our night-mares!

anymore

Biggins wrote: »

Well I won't quite say that!
The whole bunch are our night-mares! [/QUOTe
Touché

Lots of nagging to be expected though !

Biggins

anymore wrote: »

Biggins wrote: »

Well I won't quite say that!
The whole bunch are our night-mares!

Touché

Lots of nagging to be expected though !

Hee-haw Hee-haw, haw-hee would be turning in his grave! Nay?