The publics role in the economic crisis

whynotwhycanti

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Why is it futile ? We still have a huge amount of FDI in Ireland and very attractive corporate tax rates. . We will, of course lose out to lower cost economies like Poland and India in the same way as every other Western country is losing out to the emerging nations who have extremely low cost bases and a growing and educated workforce.

The government did a wonderful job in attracting FDI to Ireland and are now working to shift the investment to a higher skilled (less easily replaced) workforce.

I think it is futile because of our current situation. During the property bubble, we grew at an unprecedented rate, and since the recession have fallen back at an unprecedented rate. I believe it was futile because we attracted a huge amount of manufacturing into this country and it is now pretty much dead

I don't think the government planned to shift away from this type of investment, that almost implies that they had a plan. The lower skilled investment that provided jobs to thousands has up and gone because of the governments policies. They drove them away, simple as. Are you saying that the government had planned to get rid of these investments either way? There are far less jobs available in these higher skilled areas, such as R and D and not nearly enough to employ all the people who are out of work.

As much as Poland entering the EU had some influence, you cannot say that that is the reason manufacturing companies and other foreign investments have left. There are/were more foreign companies in Ireland than Dell even though I know they are just an example.

whynotwhycanti

hallelujajordan wrote: »

So, it has nothing to do with Poland joining the EU and offering huge (and legally questionable) incentives to attract DELL away from Ireland ?

You almost sound like one of our own politicians. Oh, Poland is the cause of foreign investment leaving Ireland, it was nothing to do with ourselves and our own actions. The recession was caused by the global economic crisis, we could have done nothing about it.

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Right here on Planet Ireland. .

http://www.taoiseach.gov.ie/attached_files/BuildingIrelandsSmartEconomy.pdf

Our strategy is to:
• address the current economic challenges facing the Irish economy by stabilising the public finances, improving competitiveness, assisting those who lose their jobs, and supporting Irish business and multinational companies;
• invest heavily in research and development, incentivise multinational companies to locate more R&D capacity in Ireland, and ensure the commercialisation and retaining of ideas that flow from that investment;
• implement a ‘new green deal’ to move us away from fossil fuel-based energy
production through investment in renewable energy and to promote the green
enterprise sector and the creation of ‘green-collar’ jobs;
• develop first-class infrastructure that will improve quality of life and increase the competitiveness of Irish business.

Supporting Irish Business : not done, unless that business is a bank

Invest in R&D ? Who ? The Government ? They can't even research dodgy payments without spending billions and having their own leaders waste a tribunal's time

"New Green Deal" - great incentives, paid for by further taxes and charges (e.g. water charges, sepic tank charges, etc)

Develop first-class infrastructure.....****e and overpriced broadband, no motorways between cities, overpriced trains, abandoning flights in and out of Shannon (despite being shareholders), charging extra taxes to make flights more expensive.

I got through 3 pages of that waffle, and I had to laugh at the caveat / disclaimer at the start of it :

This Framework does not seek to outline all the reforms or measures which will be required across the economy. Instead, it sets out a clear direction which the Government intends to pursue and some of the specific actions we will take in the short-term to help us get there.

Neither does the Framework address all of the policy challenges which arise from the interdependence of economic and social policy issues as set out in Towards 2016, reflecting the important work of the NESC in this area. The primary objective of this document is to outline a pathway forward which acknowledges the severe short-term economic challenge,
while focusing on how we can return to sustainable growth in the medium-term.

You said they were working; not commissioning more pointless waffle and reports.

We need action, not waffle.

del_c

whynotwhycanti wrote: »

We are an example to the world of how not to do things

Take heart: I heard them bring up Ireland on the german news the day before yesterday as an example of how to deal with huge deficit problems in the context of a discussion on greece....the perception of us is definitely improving, as we show we can tough it out.

The only question is is we can get back on a growth path before the economy is wrecked, there is vast man/womanpower in the economy we need to get moving fast.

whynotwhycanti

i meant it more in the context of the policies that led us to our current situation and ongoing problems that we still face. NAMA in itself is a gamble, if it pays off happy days, if not, who knows?

Red_Marauder

del_c wrote: »

I still cannot and accept the point that a house to live in is an investment and not consumption.

Lets just clear this up for once and for all.

I think both sides agree that a house for habitation is not always necessarily a financial investment.

However, it is undeniable - and only fair - that it is often viewed as a financial asset, whereby cost of purchase is offset somewhat by the cessation of rent expenditure. It, as an asset, can be used for long term security "in case of emergency". In that respect, it does always have some element of investent.

But what I am saying is that purchasing a private home is typically an investment of sorts in that it is an optional, luxury purchase for which the consumer has identified some non-financial benefit - social status, legal benefit, security, personal pride, enthusiasm for growing tomatoes - whatever. The "investor" identifies a return benefit.

Red_marauder; You are totally rooted in an irish/english experience of capitalism, formed by the property boom of the last 15 years...a german introduced the CEO of Rolly Royce to a conference a couple of years ago, with the introduction "Mr. Rose will now explain to us how you can base an economy on buying and selling houses to each other" cue tittering teutons.....Rose himself later used this quote as being symtomatic of a get rich quick mentality which had taken root in British culture (what you would call capitalism)

What a bizarre paragraph, I had to read it twice to extract a point from it.

The first and most obvious thing to say, is that I would not encourage basing an economy on property investments or transactions. I think the Government have done a woeful job in their own duty of preventing this from occuring, to everybody's cost.

All I am saying is that they are not the only people who were silly enough to inflate this bubble.

You've conveniently used a House Price Index from 2008 at the end of a worldwide asset price bubble to demonstrate that house prices are bound to go up. This is not really fair, is it.

No, that's just the data that was available. 2009 is just finished and such a broad range of rHPIs are not readily available yet.

Since you mention it, I'm not trying to demonstrate that house prices are bound to go up. I wish they would not. I'm trying to demonstrate that they have gone up across the board, in real terms when corrected for inflation. You made an erroneous claim to the contrary.

I was correcting you and would again ask you to explain and defend this statement:

del_c wrote: »

In Germany and most other developed countries, when people buy a house, they EXPECT it to be worth less a couple of years later

I'm telling you that we should adapt the pro-tenant German model. But do not fool yourself. That property market is not widely replicated in the developed world - to our cost.

"If you have every worked for private industry, you can either directly or indirectly thank cold blooded opportunism and the world of business for getting your pay cheque"
Actually I am a self employed consultant, who gets his pay cheque because of the value I add every day to the business I work for

You are self employed but you illustrate my point well when you appendix it with "the business I work for". You work for and rely on a business world of opportunism which cannot afford to rely on conscience and morality. People need to wake up to that reality.

Opportunism pays your broadband bill while you write on here lamenting it.

Laminations

Red_Marauder wrote: »

All I am saying is that they are not the only people who were silly enough to inflate this bubble.

But they were the ones in charge of regulating/managing/directing the bubble, no? I'm still not sure what you are looking for here. A collective statement from the irish public saying 'we were greedy, we are sorry'. Collective responsibility is a sham, its socialising the blame. Individual responsibility is whats needed and it doesn't necessarily need acknowledgement - I dont feel like haranguing the friends of mine who bought houses at prices far above their capacity to pay. There are checks and balances here - the banks - that will ensure individual responsibilty for those individuals. You still haven't defined going bust. Developers are not living in rented accommodation, they spread their wealth amongst family members and maintain a very good standad of living.

Indeed you suggest we refinance them? How is this different from suggesting we re-elect FF?

Red_Marauder

Laminations wrote: »

But they were the ones in charge of regulating/managing/directing the bubble, no?

Yes. Don't you understand I'm saying they deserve blame?

If I were explaining the property crash to my five year old niece, I'd say it was like an overflowing bath.
You had the Governement, who failed to pull the plug.
Then you had the financiers and commercial vendors who failed to switch off the taps.
But then, you have the person whose bath it was, who sat there soaking it all up. The public. The public cannot just expect to sit idly by, weeping with self pity and taking another sip of Moët-et-Chandon until it's all fixed. That point leads invariably to to the next issue - recourse:

I'm still not sure what you are looking for here. A collective statement from the irish public saying 'we were greedy, we are sorry'.

No. Firstly, I am responding to those in this thread who seek to diminsh (short of all denial of) the magnitude of public culpability.

On a real scale, I would like to see the abandonment of aid for mortgage holders unless it is to the state's longterm economic benefit. I would also like to see an end to the legal moratorium on taking action against mortgage defaulters. I would like if we could accept that we all have had to to take cuts, and may have to take further cuts, to cut public spending.

But most importantly of all - and this is critical - each individual needs to reflect on consumer behaviour during the period of rapid economic growth. Examine what led us to inflate the prices on luxury goods regardless of what the Government did. Why did people like Liam_Byrne as he said himself, disregard things as supposedly menial as real values and pay inflated prices for houses

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I paid a price that I'm happy with, because it's a home. What some auctioneer tells me that it's supposedly worth is irrelevant.

We need to move away from this kind of thinking.

Liam Byrne

Red_Marauder wrote: »

But what I am saying is that purchasing a private home is typically an investment of sorts in that it is an optional, luxury purchase for which the consumer has identified some non-financial benefit - social status, legal benefit, security, personal pride, enthusiasm for growing tomatoes - whatever. The "investor" identifies a return benefit.

And all I am saying is that buying a roof over your head - within your means, suitable for your needs - NOT YOUR WANTS - is by no means a luxury purchase!

Those who did this are not to blame.

Those who bought bigger or better for status or whatever might well be, but those who bought within their - then - means before the Government walloped us with extra levies and taxes ARE NOT TO BLAME.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Why did people like Liam_Byrne as he said himself, disregard things as supposedly menial as real values and pay inflated prices for houses

Oh FFS! :mad: The point I was making is that what an auctioneer or banker tells me a house is "worth" is irrelvant, because they were fuelling the boom and inflating prices for their commission!

If you can't see - or choose to misrepresent me like - that then go spout your nonsense elsewhere!

I did not say the above and if you're going to misrepresent or misquote me, I'm taking no further part in this discussion!

You deliberately and explicitly claim above that I paid "more than it was worth", while knowing well that my point was that the monetary worth IS NOT THE POINT. I mean, you don't even know if I paid less than some auctioneer claimed it was worth, so your claim above is 100% rubbish and Willie O'Dea style conjecture and bull**** - and, for the record - 100% wrong.

So butt out of personalising this! :mad: You know NOTHING about me and are filling in the blanks with bull**** to suit your argument.

You seem to like people selling stuff that no-one needs, and claim that that's capitalism, but when people look at what they need, and evaluate accordingly - IN REAL, NON-MONETARY TERMS, you dismiss them with snide digs.

Elsewhere, you claimed that "part of capitalism" isn't to necessarily sell something at a fair price, and you ridiculed the notion of doing that. You were wrong then too.

You claimed that my wages were dependent on someone who sold stuff at inflated prices. You were wrong then too.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

We need to move away from this kind of thinking.

We need people to evaluate what something is worth.

A tout's ticket is worth the price printed on it, not the price they want you to pay. So you don't buy it.

A car that you'd use once or twice a year is NOT worth - to you - the price printed on the windscreen. So you don't buy it.

Quit trying to imply that evaluating what something is "worth to you" automatically means paying more!

And stop filling in the blanks with made-up rubbish that you might like to be true in order to support your argument. You don't know me, you're getting it wrong every time, and you're making yourself look foolish.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

Supporting Irish Business : not done, unless that business is a bank

Invest in R&D ? Who ? The Government ? They can't even research dodgy payments without spending billions and having their own leaders waste a tribunal's time

Oh, come on . . gimme a break. If you want to learn more about government investment in R&D read this The government have and are continuing to make huge investments in R&D . . . At least try to be objective in your criticism.

Liam Byrne wrote:

Develop first-class infrastructure.....****e and overpriced broadband, no motorways between cities, overpriced trains, abandoning flights in and out of Shannon (despite being shareholders), charging extra taxes to make flights more expensive.

I'm writing this from a recently upgraded 30MB internet connection that costs me less than E50 per month . . the motorway network in Ireland has improved significantly over the last 10 years and there is a lot more to come . . flights into Shannon are disappearing because of a decline in demand and its absolutely appropriate to tax air travel . . if for no other reasons than to mitigate against the environmental effect . .

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I'm writing this from a recently upgraded 30MB internet connection that costs me less than E50 per month

I take it that you're in a city, so.....probably Dublin ?

hallelujajordan wrote: »

. . the motorway network in Ireland has improved significantly over the last 10 years and there is a lot more to come . .

OK, definitely Dublin if you're claiming that.

There is no "motorway network" - just motorways from Dublin to other cities.

When the remaining ones come on-stream, they'll be tolled, reducing usage. This despite the VRT, road tax and additional taxes and levies on petrol.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

flights into Shannon are disappearing because of a decline in demand

Bull. There was plenty of demand for the flights that Aer Lingus pulled. They had less passengers on the Belfast route.

Nowadays, of course there's less demand; people are anxious about the future due to FF & The Greens mismanagement, and they are also being taxed - sorry "levied" :rolleyes: more.

DAA still controls Shannon, despite Government promises prior to the last election - conflict of interest abounds in that regard.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

and its absolutely appropriate to tax air travel . . if for no other reasons than to mitigate against the environmental effect . .

So the environment is suddenly an issue ? Funny, that, because if roads and housing were planned properly, if the property bubble hadn't been fuelled forcing people to commute long distances, and if there were proper public transport, people could avoid using their cars and more than offset the pollution.

But unless you're in Dublin, none of the above is an option. Even the local shop near me closed last year due to the recession, which of course means that I now have to drive to the nearest one - 3 miles away.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I take it that you're in a city, so.....probably Dublin ?

OK, definitely Dublin if you're claiming that.

No, Kildare.

Liam Byrne wrote:

There is no "motorway network" - just motorways from Dublin to other cities.

and we have to start somewhere. . motorways have been built where there is the greatest need and as I said before, we have come a long way in a short amount of time.

Liam Byrne wrote:

Bull. There was plenty of demand for the flights that Aer Lingus pulled. They had less passengers on the Belfast route.

Nowadays, of course there's less demand; people are anxious about the future due to FF & The Greens mismanagement, and they are also being taxed - sorry "levied" :rolleyes: more.

Aer Lingus made a commercial decision based on their commercial forecasts . .

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Aer Lingus made a commercial decision based on their commercial forecasts . .

A decision which, if you were to believe FF, their biggest shareholder could do nothing about.

Valuable slots go outside the country to the most competitive and well-served route within the islands.

Commercial genius, that!

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

A decision which, if you were to believe FF, their biggest shareholder could do nothing about.

Valuable slots go outside the country to the most competitive and well-served route within the islands.

Commercial genius, that!

Or maybe its something to do with the fact that Belfast has a popn of 500,000 . . . more than 5 times the size of Limericks . .

BTW, if it wasn't a commercial decision, why did AL pull out of Shannon ? ?

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Or maybe its something to do with the fact that Belfast has a popn of 500,000 . . . more than 5 times the size of Limericks . .

BTW, if it wasn't a commercial decision, why did AL pull out of Shannon ? ?

You'd have to ask their shareholders that......you could start with the one who disgraced us this week, because his idea of "representing Limerick" is voting against us in the Dáil - yet again, putting the FF party's interests ahead of those he's meant to be representing.

Red_Marauder

Liam Byrne wrote: »

And all I am saying is that buying a roof over your head - within your means, suitable for your needs - NOT YOUR WANTS - is by no means a luxury purchase!

I cannot think of one single situation where someone needs to buy a house as opposed to renting on an annual review basis or taking out a long term lease.
Any examples there might be, such as for the physically disabled, would be the extreme minority of cases.

Otherwise house purchase is a choice, not an imperitive. Coupling that fact with the inflated costs people chose to pay, I would insist it it most definitely a luxury item.

Those who bought bigger or better for status or whatever might well be, but those who bought within their - then - means before the Government walloped us with extra levies and taxes ARE NOT TO BLAME.

And you could say the same for people who bought cars. Indeed, I would suggest car purchases are often more necessary that house purchases, particularly outside of larger urban settings.

Oh FFS! :mad: The point I was making is that what an auctioneer or banker tells me a house is "worth" is irrelvant, because they were fuelling the boom and inflating prices for their commission!

No, you were discussing the fact that you chose to purchase a property and the question I asked you was whether or not you paid the real value for this property or whether you chose to pay an inflated value.

If you chose to pay a price higher than its real value, that's your affair. But if anybody wilfully did this, they must live with the consequences, even if that now means losing their home.

As an aside, I would question your reference to the incomes and levies.

We have been in a period of deflation for some time now, and this has cut down on household expenditure. And given that about 85% of mortgage holders have seen ECB interest rates slashings cut the cost of their repayments, I just wonder how much the income levy and the health levy have actually been offset for householders as it is.
If a person took out a mortgage and levies have now disrupted their repayments so as they now strugge with repayments... and taking the lower interest rates into account... well I think that raises serious serious questions about their decision to borrow even in the good times when they were probably financially fragile.

but when people look at what they need, and evaluate accordingly - IN REAL, NON-MONETARY TERMS, you dismiss them with snide digs.

I am not dismissing anybody, and there are no snide digs. What I am saying is merely that these people who took out mortgages for hundreds of thousands of euro for a luxury item deserve no special treatment. Even when they do get special treatment, they often dismiss it and revert to type, accusing everyone else of getting special treatment.

Elsewhere, you claimed that "part of capitalism" isn't to necessarily sell something at a fair price, and you ridiculed the notion of doing that. You were wrong then too.

No. Read the post.

Responsibility lands at the consumer's door.
It is reasonable and fair that a vendor will sell an item at a price which the consumer will reasonably pay.
I wouldn't ridicule the vendor for doing that - doing so makes him an astute business man. Neither would I necessarily ridicule the consumer, since the customer is always right as we know. But between you and I, I wouldn't credit him with the same business acumen as the vendor.

You claimed that my wages were dependent on someone who sold stuff at inflated prices. You were wrong then too.

Did I? Oh, where?

I myself thought I said that I can almost guarantee that, indirectly, or directly, your salary is effected by the cold blooded opportunism that pervades the business world for a very good reason. There is realistically no doubt about that unless you work in the public sector.

We need people to evaluate what something is worth.

But not an auctioneer right, since you don't listen to them. Goodness knows how many morality checks such an individual would have to undertake before you'd entertain their views. I suspect it would be someone along the lines of a red-flag bearing, unkempt Bolshevik with a severe aversion to large profits and recently graduated with a degree in clay pottery.

A tout's ticket is worth the price printed on it, not the price they want you to pay. So you don't buy it.

Precisely.

So why did foolish mortgage holders routinely pay the prices quoted on estate agent's property prospectuses?

Liam Byrne

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I cannot think of one single situation where someone needs to buy a house as opposed to renting on an annual review basis or taking out a long term lease.

There is no safeguard in Ireland in terms of long-term renting. Do you really want to uproot a family, or not be able to improve a house, that you could be kicked out of after a year ?

Red_Marauder wrote: »

And you could say the same for people who bought cars. Indeed, I would suggest car purchases are often more necessary that house purchases, particularly outside of larger urban settings.

Well stop the lights! Something we actually agree on!

Red_Marauder wrote: »

No, you were discussing the fact that you chose to purchase a property and the question I asked you was whether or not you paid the real value for this property or whether you chose to pay an inflated value.

If you chose to pay a price higher than its real value, that's your affair. But if anybody wilfully did this, they must live with the consequences, even if that now means losing their home.

You assumed that I did, and you were wrong.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

We have been in a period of deflation for some time now, and this has cut down on household expenditure. And given that about 85% of mortgage holders have seen ECB interest rates slashings cut the cost of their repayments, I just wonder how much the income levy and the health levy have actually been offset for householders as it is.

Only mortgage rates have changed. Other loan rates have not. Again, you have made assumptions about individual circumstances which may or may not be true.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

If a person took out a mortgage and levies have now disrupted their repayments so as they now strugge with repayments... and taking the lower interest rates into account... well I think that raises serious serious questions about their decision to borrow even in the good times when they were probably financially fragile.

Assuming that you can avail of the "lower rates". If not, then you are hit by both.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

What I am saying is merely that these people who took out mortgages for hundreds of thousands of euro for a luxury item deserve no special treatment.

Again, that's based on YOUR assumption that it's a "luxury item". I have said that I'd agree if someone went OTT with "wants" rather than needs, but otherwise we will agree to disagree....a basic roof over your head is not a luxury item.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I myself thought I said that I can almost guarantee that, indirectly, or directly, your salary is effected by the cold blooded opportunism that pervades the business world for a very good reason. There is realistically no doubt about that unless you work in the public sector.

Yet again you repeat this, and yet again you are wrong. You obviously haven't read my posts, where I have outlined what I do and how I treat clients.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

But not an auctioneer right, since you don't listen to them.

I don't listen to Xposé style bimbos either, who reckon a pair of shoes are "worth" €500 or a branded good is worth €200 because Tiger Woods was booked to pretend that he uses it.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Goodness knows how many morality checks such an individual would have to undertake before you'd entertain their views. I suspect it would be someone along the lines of a red-flag bearing, unkempt Bolshevik with a severe aversion to large profits and recently graduated with a degree in clay pottery.

Pathetically wrong, and TBH after that bull**** I'm going to click the ignore button, because the above is arrogant and dismissive in the extreme.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

So why did foolish mortgage holders routinely pay the prices quoted on estate agent's property prospectuses?

The foolish ones did....we agree on that.

Those who looked at what they NEEDED and bought within their budget did so in good faith and with sense.

Anyways, as I said, given the above bull**** that you came out with, this is my last reply to you.

Just because you disagree with some or part of my points does not give you a right to ridicule my views as only receiving approval from the "a red-flag bearing, unkempt Bolshevik with a severe aversion to large profits and recently graduated with a degree in clay pottery."

And while the above is - yet again - a 100% incorrect observation from you I will admit that it's a much preferable option to having wealthy con-men abandon their massive debts like pathetic failed cowards and saddle the country with them.

Like most normal people, I believe there's a happy medium that could be found. And I'd be interested in discussing things to help find that.

But the arrogance and dismissiveness that you showed with the above pathetic stereotype proves that you are incapable of having a proper, reasoned discussion about it.

I'll leave you with a recap.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I am not dismissing anybody, and there are no snide digs.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Goodness knows how many morality checks such an individual would have to undertake before you'd entertain their views. I suspect it would be someone along the lines of a red-flag bearing, unkempt Bolshevik with a severe aversion to large profits and recently graduated with a degree in clay pottery.

I rest my case, and will now hit the ignore button.

Red_Marauder

Liam Byrne wrote: »

There is no safeguard in Ireland in terms of long-term renting.

Incorrect. Just look at the commercial world. There are safeguards for long term renting, in that landlords must honour rent agreements for the period set out in the contract. There is no reason for residential leases to be any different. I know of a company who has long term residential leases on properties in Dublin for a number of senior employees... that company is acting effectively a private tenant, and duly protected under the law.

Do you really want to uproot a family, or not be able to improve a house, that you could be kicked out of after a year ?

Three words. Long Term Lease.

You assumed that I did, and you were wrong.

You mention you have clients. These people pay your bills. You cannot possibly argue that the income they generate to pay you is ethically derived. Therefore you are an indirect or a direct benefactor of filthy rotten capitalism, as you might see it.

Assuming that you can avail of the "lower rates". If not, then you are hit by both.

Like I said, 85% of mortgage hoilders have seen significant rate cuts. I would just wonder how much of the income and health levies are offset by that, I suspect it is a significant offset.

Of course, many people have taken additional pay cuts, especially in the private sector. But you did specifically mention the Government and their levies, so that is what I am referring to.

Again, that's based on YOUR assumption that it's a "luxury item".

There's really no question about it.

And while the above is - yet again - a 100% incorrect observation from you I will admit that it's a much preferable option to having wealthy con-men abandon their massive debts like pathetic failed cowards and saddle the country with them.

How can you say I've got your position wrong if you find the Communist option the preferable one, as above.

danman

I'm sorry but I haven't read the entire thread yet and it getting late.

I just want to comment on this posters opinion, I think it was Liam;-

Firstly, I said that IF people viewed houses like that - or even a little like that - they wouldn't have been conned into paying far too much.

let me give an example of where this is so wrong.

I bought my house in 2005.
At the time, the house was in an estate that was still being developed, there were still 17 out of the 40 houses for sale.

The seller of my house had occupied my house for 2 1/2 years. He needed to sell for personal reasons.

the house was on the Market for 2 months before we viewed it. He dropped the price by €55,000 by the time we came upon it.

He couldn't sell, even at the lower price of €55,000 less than the new homes, simply because people wanted to be able to pick their own kitchens or a similar reason.

To this day, 5 years later, I cannot understand why my house wasn't snapped up before I bought it.

Explain to me how the price of the houses in my estate was artificially inflated by anyone else, other than my neighbours?

They had ample opportunity to buy a cheaper house, the exact same building, but decided to pay the higher price. No one forced them to do this, it was their own free will.

No developer kidnapped their children and no banker forced money down their throats to buy these houses, they made individual decisions.

Now it's always some elses fault in this country, no one takes individual responsibility. That is the essence of what is wrong with this country.

Scofflaw

Keep it civil, please.

moderately,
Scofflaw

del_c

Red_Marauder wrote: »

How can you say I've got your position wrong if you find the Communist option the preferable one, as above.

I'd be interested in knowing what you do for a living Red Marauder, because you sound like someone who thinks they know about what business is all about, but only really knows about it from the papers (maybe from Irish Independent Property section)or from Dragons Den. Anyone who is in business knows, that while there is an ELEMENT of opportunism about capitalism, the vast amount of money made in private enterprise accrues from the value that an enterprise generates. Sort of 10% inspiration and 90% perspiration.

This is what I am trying to drive at; "Investing in Property" is something which everyone was having a crack at, but this caused us to completely lose focus on what made us successful in the first place, and it sucked up a lot of our best brains for the last 15 years, caused a huge deterioration in our cost base, was catastrophic for our quality of life and ultimately exploded in our faces.

Hopefully this addiction will remain buried forever, even if the success of NAMA is acutally dependent on reviving the monster....I would prefer to see prices remain low, so that normal people on normal salaries can afford a house again....and end to the lionisation of property investors as heroes of capitalism. Michael O'Leary is a hero of capitalism, Liam Carroll is not, and never was.

Liam Byrne

danman wrote: »

I'm sorry but I haven't read the entire thread yet and it getting late.

I just want to comment on this posters opinion, I think it was Liam;-

let me give an example of where this is so wrong.

OK, I'm beginning to think that I'm speaking a different language to some of ye.

I said that if people thought that way then we'd be better off. And your example seems to agree with me.

As for the other rubbish that's still being spouted

danman wrote: »

How can you say I've got your position wrong if you find the Communist option the preferable one, as above.

First of all, there's a difference between communism and socialism.

And secondly, I said that I prefer it to corrupt and rampant greedy capitalism, where rich are bailed out by the taxes of the poor, not to fair and ethical capitalism.

Of course, seeing things as black or white would again prevent you from seeing the middle ground, and that's about the 10th time in this thread that you've assumed that just because I don't like black, it means I love white.

So I'll say it one last time : I don't like corruption and unethical, irresponsible and greedy capitalism.

I don't like Communism.

I'm not gone on 100% socialism.

But here in the real world a combination / middle ground would be the fairest and best option.

But you probably already know that, considering you chose to ignore earlier "middle ground" comments.

You make it impossible to have a reasoned discussion with you by assuming the extremes every single time a single thing is mentioned.

I mean, it's like a "you don't like FF, so you must automatically be FG", childish-style argument.

Anyways, I'm sticking to my guns this time around and bowing out of this whole thread, because it's almost surreal the way things I say are being twisted or not coming across, and ridiculous assumptions being made to fill in the blanks.

Red_Marauder

del_c wrote: »

I'd be interested in knowing what you do for a living Red Marauder, because you sound like someone who thinks they know about what business is all about, but only really knows about it from the papers

As it happens, I think some of the best educational advice I was ever given from an academic, was to read the papers every day. Inasmuch as it is even relevant, yes I do know something of the property industry and private enterprise having been in employment in both at different times (at the same time, at that).

Please be more specific in your criticism - nothing I have said here on these issues is factually incorrect. In fact I believe it was you I corrected when you said that in most developed countries (and gave examples) people expected property resale values to be lower than initial cost. You still haven't explained that one, despite being asked to.

Anyone who is in business knows, that while there is an ELEMENT of opportunism about capitalism, the vast amount of money made in private enterprise accrues from the value that an enterprise generates.

I am not sure where you think my posts have indicated otherwise, perhaps you might insert some quotes to clarify. I am pointing out to a poster, Liam Byrne, that successful businesses are not run on ethics and conscience. Furthermore, this thing of small profits good, big profits bad, is ludicrous.

This is what I am trying to drive at; "Investing in Property" is something which everyone was having a crack at, but this caused us to completely lose focus on what made us successful in the first place, and it sucked up a lot of our best brains for the last 15 years, caused a huge deterioration in our cost base, was catastrophic for our quality of life and ultimately exploded in our faces.

I would just correct you on one smaller point, that is to say that our cost base was feeding into the property bubble itself as opposed to being a direct or sole consequence of it. A lot of our problems with property have to do with wage inflation.

For the umpteenth time, I have constantly repeated the woes of investing in a property bubble in this thread, I have said that financiers and state regulatory bodies have failed us, and so have commercial enterprises. However, it would be remiss of us to leave the private consumer out of this, and to ignore his repsonsibilities in fixing the economy that he too had his hand in.

I would prefer to see prices remain low, so that normal people on normal salaries can afford a house again....and end to the lionisation of property investors as heroes of capitalism. Michael O'Leary is a hero of capitalism, Liam Carroll is not, and never was.

I am not really disagreeing with you. I think that property as a whole cannot be written off as a valid sector of the economy, however, but certainly it needs to be less weighted. Anyway I look forward to viewing those quotes, as per the beginning of this post.

Red_Marauder

Liam Byrne wrote: »

First of all, there's a difference between communism and socialism.

Of course there is, however, I did specifically mention the Bolsheviks.

And secondly, I said that I prefer it to corrupt and rampant greedy capitalism, where rich are bailed out by the taxes of the poor, not to fair and ethical capitalism.

Well these "rich people" are also bailed out under the policies of the party that we both - quite frighteningly - support using the taxes of the lower paid and those on the AIW.
Give me a corrupt and greedy business man any day over a Communist.

So I'll say it one last time : I don't like corruption and unethical, irresponsible and greedy capitalism.

I don't like Communism.

It's a question of preferences, not likes or dislikes.

patmar

The blame game has become a right pain in the neck. We had a fabulous 10 years of feel good and the vast majority of us enjoyed it all. Who ever dreamt this country could have it so good ? Even now despite the downturn we are a hundred times better off than a hundred years ago. Those looking for scapegoats should take a look in the mirror and ask what role he/she played in the fun we all had for the 10 years

Liam Byrne

Red_Marauder wrote: »

the policies of the party that we both - quite frighteningly - support using the taxes of the lower paid and those on the AIW.

OK, I'll bite. In my defence I was at a computer that wasn't logged in earlier and so my ignore list wasn't applied, and I saw this latest revelation.

What party would that be, exactly ? Because I don't support any party, and have no party allegiance.

It seems like I learn something new about myself with every post of yours that I read; either that, or you still haven't stopped making stuff up.

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Give me a corrupt and greedy business man any day over a Communist.

Scaremongering at its best.

Why are you making out that it's an either/or choice ?

What about honest businessmen with integrity, and a government to match ?

Red_Marauder wrote: »

It's a question of preferences, not likes or dislikes.

Well, I'll tell ya what. If you can stop the greedy businessmen ripping us off (which is, I'll admit, partially a case of us telling them to go f**k themselves) but ALSO stop the government socialising their losses and making us all pay, then I'll shut up and let you run riot with your "preference" of greedy businessmen.

But I'm damned if I'll sit by and watch people who ruined the economy (including a Taoiseach who - when people started to say "hang on a sec - there could be trouble ahead - wrote off their concerns and hoodwinked [some of] them into thinking that they were mistaken) take not only their greedy profits, but also our taxes.

Did you notice the news re Bank of Ireland ? That we're not getting the return on OUR capital injection ? No dividend for keeping them in business ?

Is that still capitalism ?

Because if it is, it's a joke. And it's not funny.

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

OK, I'll bite. In my defence I was at a computer that wasn't logged in earlier and so my ignore list wasn't applied, and I saw this latest revelation.

What party would that be, exactly ? Because I don't support any party, and have no party allegiance.

Come on Liam, tell the truth . . you never really clicked ignore

You have stated pretty regularly on here that although you have no party allegiances under the current circumstances you will support FG, just like Red Marauder . . I'll dig out the comments and quote you if you need me to . .

Liam Byrne wrote:

Did you notice the news re Bank of Ireland ? That we're not getting the return on OUR capital injection ? No dividend for keeping them in business ?

Is that still capitalism ?

Because if it is, it's a joke. And it's not funny.

Your views on the banking crisis are bizarre . . You criticise but offer no sensible alternative . . . Guess what, we didn't get our dividend because it didn't make sense to take capital out of the bank right now, if we had then we would have given it back again in a couple of months . . much better to take shares in the bank that will pay back the state over the longer term . .

But hey, if you have a better idea, please share !

Liam Byrne

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Come on Liam, tell the truth . . you never really clicked ignore

I've never once lied on here, and I'm not going to start now.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

You have stated pretty regularly on here that although you have no party allegiances under the current circumstances you will support FG

Incorrect. I have said I will consider them, because they don't condone corruption as much as FF. But I've also said that they shot themselves in the foot re O'Donoghue, and Gilmore handled that well, so therefore Labour are also a consideration.

I'll go find the relevant posts if you like, but they're there for all to see.

So - I'll say it again - I do not support any political party.

To be honest, none of them are quite good enough to actually "support", but for the moment the "best of a bad lot" will have to do, and that's either FG or Labour.

So I'd appreciate if you both would stop putting words in my mouth and jumping to conclusions; you've seen where that got Willie O'Dea.

Mind you, if I can get an unwarranted or unjustified €100,000 payoff from my buddies on the back of it, fire away!

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I'll dig out the comments and quote you if you need me to . .

Feel free. Just make sure you don't do so selectively in support of your argument.

Because you could easily find ones suggesting FG were in the running and ignore the ones that suggested Labour as a viable option, and that would be misrepresenting yet again, not telling the whole story.

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Your views on the banking crisis are bizarre . . You criticise but offer no sensible alternative . . . Guess what, we didn't get our dividend because it didn't make sense to take capital out of the bank right now, if we had then we would have given it back again in a couple of months . . much better to take shares in the bank that will pay back the state over the longer term . .

WOW! A bare-faced contradiction of the facts published in today's paper - that the EU prevented this from happening. With Lenihan quoted as saying that this was also a possibility.

So which is it ? For someone supposedly connected, I'm amazed that your "explanation" is so at odds with the facts as reported in the Examiner!

Or is it like an Ahern testimony, where the story changes to suit the discussion and there isn't a real answer ?

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

I've never once lied on here, and I'm not going to start now

Today @ 1:09

Liam Byrne wrote:

Anyways, as I said, given the above bull**** that you came out with, this is my last reply to you.

Today @ 11:36

Liam Byrne wrote:

Anyways, I'm sticking to my guns this time around and bowing out of this whole thread, .

Today @ 20:19

Liam Byrne wrote:

OK, I'll bite. In my defence I was at a computer that wasn't logged in earlier and so my ignore list wasn't applied, and I saw this latest revelation.

:D:D

Red_Marauder

Liam Byrne wrote: »

What party would that be, exactly ? Because I don't support any party, and have no party allegiance.

I'm not talking about any committed level of support, allegiance or membership. As hallelujajordan mentioned you have frequently referred to supporting Fine Gael, whether as the best of a bad lot or whatever reason the case may be. You have actually posted this numerous times.

Why are you making out that it's an either/or choice ?

I'm not. It isn't. You said you'd take a Bolshevik over a greedy and corrupt capitalist, remember? I'm just replying that I'd be the opposite.

What about honest businessmen with integrity, and a government to match ?

What planet are you living on? Integrity is all well and good but you can't seriously expect business to run on conscience.. sometimes conscience needs to go out the window when youre dealing with figures.

Did you notice the news re Bank of Ireland ? That we're not getting the return on OUR capital injection ? No dividend for keeping them in business ?

Yes, and a way is being found around that. It's not ideal but it's a response to European intervention unfortunately, it isn't the state's choice to receive shares and the bank don't want to do so either. However, the only people losing out on this for the moment are BoI shareholders, who will see their shares devalued,but they have little to lose as it is.

And yes, what exactly is your alternative then?

Liam Byrne

OK, so - LIKE I SAID - there was a reply to the whole thread.

However you took at least one of those out-of-context, because it was a comment that I couldn't be arsed replying to one individual who repeatedly misrepresented me.

But since when did people telling lies bother you ?

I mean, your party passes votes of confidence in them!

And now I am bowing out of the thread 100%, because the thread is gone pathetic due to ridiculous claims and incorrect assumptions, selective out-of-context quoting, and downright blatant misrepresentation.

It's probably what ye both wanted, but it's gone so pathetic at this stage that I don't care anymore.

Ye can enjoy planet unethical capitalism and corrupt cronyism all to yourselves from now on. :rolleyes:

hallelujajordan

Liam Byrne wrote: »

OK, so - LIKE I SAID - there was a reply to the whole thread.

However you took at least one of those out-of-context, because it was a comment that I couldn't be arsed replying to one individual who repeatedly misrepresented me.

And then replied to that same individual . . There is nothing quoted out of context . . .

Liam Byrne wrote:

But since when did people telling lies bother you ?

Who said it bothered me ? I'm not the one who is on here painting myself as whiter than white !!

Liam Byrne wrote:

And now I am bowing out of the thread 100%, because the thread is gone pathetic due to ridiculous claims and incorrect assumptions, selective out-of-context quoting, and downright blatant misrepresentation.

It's probably what ye both wanted, but it's gone so pathetic at this stage that I don't care anymore.

It certainly isn't what I wanted but you know what, this drama-queen-bowing-out-of-threads act is a little childish IMO . . I had it on another thread where another poster decided he was going to ignore me so instead of responding to me he went back and edited his older posts with 'extra' information . .

If you don't want to respond, don't . . . but don't make a big song and dance about it !

BTW, and I know I'm wasting my time here but you have been asked twice in this thread and countless times in others to post your alternatives to how the banking crisis is being managed . . .

You have criticised the governments handling many times and you have told us what you wouldn't do but lets here what you would do . ?

stepbar

Just read this thread from start to finish. One thing is clear. If this thread represented a tag team fight between Red Marauder &Hallelujajordan vs Liam Byrne & the collective rest; RM & H would win by KO and probably wonder how the hell did the opposition get to the 12th round....

Laminations

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Please be more specific in your criticism - nothing I have said here on these issues is factually incorrect.

No its just pointless. If i waste my money, my disposable income, its none of your business, and it certainly doesn't give those who i trust with managing my money an excuse to waste it on my behalf. If everyone in the country is wasting their money this doesn't mean the goverment can waste their taxes. In fact i'd think if everyone was being wasteful with their money the government should step in to curtail wasteful spending, possibly by reducing disposable income- ya know, taking real tough decisions for the good of the country not to buy an election. People (some people, a majority) definately wasted their money (read the Davy stockbrokers report), overspent and got greedy. What can we do about that? It certainly doesn't mean we cant hold the government to account for their wastage (again read the Davy report)

danman

I wouldn't say that the last few budgets were a case of buyng votes. In fact, quite the opposite.

Laminations

Talking about collective responsibility or individual responsibility just deflects from government responsibility. That Davy report shows there was a complete under investment in infrastructure and an over investment in housing, what they call an unproductive asset. What are you looking for? What form of acknowledgement? Is me acknowledging it enough? I'm sure the people on 40yr mortgages realise their responsibility. All people want here is fairness. As with pay cuts, home repossession/debt collection should start at the top. No one should be out of their 'luxury' home until seanie fitz, mcnamara, david drumm, twink and all the others who have more money and owe more money are in council houses. Anyone who owes pays- apply it across the board and from the top down. And always keep to the fore the governments hand in all this because this is an area where we can affect change.

Laminations

danman wrote: »

I wouldn't say that the last few budgets were a case of buyng votes. In fact, quite the opposite.

Are you talking about the budgets since 2007 after the party ended? Read the Davy report. The government wasted the boom, so did the people. You cant elect the people unless you wanna transplant the germans in here. Observational learning, see someone behaving responsibly and it may rub off on you. The government were not setting a good example FULL STOP

hallelujajordan

Laminations wrote: »

What can we do about that? It certainly doesn't mean we cant hold the government to account for their wastage (again read the Davy report)

I don't think anyone on here is suggesting that we shouldn't hold the government and the banks to account for their wastage. . . Of course we should . . .

What Red Marauder has pointed out several times (and what I personally believe is beyond argument) is that there is a third party (you guys call him Joe!) who need to take a level of responsibility for the crisis . . not to the exclusion of the government but alongside them.

irishh_bob

danman wrote: »

I wouldn't say that the last few budgets were a case of buyng votes. In fact, quite the opposite.

they were a case of buying time for the country with the international powers that be

Red_Marauder

Laminations wrote: »

No its just pointless. If i waste my money, my disposable income, its none of your business

Individual case by case instances are not being discussed here. We are talking about patterns in private expenditure, which can actually be very much of public concern, as we have seen in the property market.

and it certainly doesn't give those who i trust with managing my money an excuse to waste it on my behalf.

Who said otherwise?

I think you are making rash assumptions. Blame is shared, and is not limited to the private mortgage holder. But the private mortgage holder is a significant part of the problem and needs to pay for financial mistakes where they were made, as well as contribute to economic recovery.

imme

Of course people have to bear responsibility for decisions that they make themselves. Is that not self evident?????

But I can't take any responsibility for decisions taken by an irresponsible government, by a recalcitrant Central Bank, by drunken developers.

Try as I might I can't take any responsibility for the DDDA's role in the purchase of the Glass Bottle site in Ringsend, Dublin, a site that was purchased for the €412m, that's now worth around €60m.

Laminations

Red_Marauder wrote: »

Individual case by case instances are not being discussed here. We are talking about patterns in private expenditure, which can actually be very much of public concern, as we have seen in the property market.

This is my point, how people spend their money is nobodies business UNTIL spending certain ways becomes a public trend - 'we are talking about patterns'. Then its not only of public concern but it should very much be of government concern

Red_Marauder wrote: »

I think you are making rash assumptions. Blame is shared, and is not limited to the private mortgage holder. But the private mortgage holder is a significant part of the problem and needs to pay for financial mistakes where they were made, as well as contribute to economic recovery.

Who is suggesting they dont pay for financial mistakes? There are people who will be paying for the next 40years for houses they couldnt afford and shouldnt have bought. Now if there were mass numbers of people purposely defaulting, throwing their hands in the air and running to austrailia then I'd agree with you but people are genuinely trying to pay, they are for the most part taking responsibility. And if people are not, they should be weeded out (and turfed out of their homes if necessary) BUT from the top down. I find it very hypocritical that people want to share the blame and 'acknowledge' government waste and incompetence but then see responsibility fo the government meaning them staying on in power where responsibility for similar mismanagement mistakes )FAS, financial regulator) means resigning, though it should be sacking.

Laminations

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I don't think anyone on here is suggesting that we shouldn't hold the government and the banks to account for their wastage. . . Of course we should . . .

You yourself are suggesting holding them to account be keeping them in government and re-electing them

hallelujajordan wrote: »

What Red Marauder has pointed out several times (and what I personally believe is beyond argument) is that there is a third party (you guys call him Joe!) who need to take a level of responsibility for the crisis . . not to the exclusion of the government but alongside them.

How? and how are they not? People just dont want to take responsibility for the governments mistakes - FF voters expecially. People dont want to be burdened by developers mistakes or bankers mistakes. And dont get me wrong I dont wanna be burdened with mortgage takers mistakes.

There are very specific ways responsibility can be taken in government and private industries (banks, developers) - sackings and bankruptcy. Neither of which has happened to a sufficient level. Now how are you suggesting the mortgage holder pays? with the 40year noose around their neck, they are effectively bankrupt. And what is the point in focusing on it? you cant change the people, it just deflects from things we can change. Indeed I started this thread because this topic was deflecting from discussing the reign of Bertie

hallelujajordan

Laminations wrote: »

You yourself are suggesting holding them to account be keeping them in government and re-electing them

Yes, as I have said before . . As a member of Fianna Fail I believe that the most appropriate way to take responsibility for the situation is to work within government to improve it. I also believe that the alternative to a FF led government (i.e. a FG-Lab coalition) are too ideologically disparate to form an effective government. I think they have demonstrated through their failure to work together in opposition that they could not work together in government and I believe as a partnership they would be unable to make the required difficult decisions.

Laminations wrote: »

How? and how are they not? People just dont want to take responsibility for the governments mistakes - FF voters expecially. People dont want to be burdened by developers mistakes or bankers mistakes. And dont get me wrong I dont wanna be burdened with mortgage takers mistakes.

There are very specific ways responsibility can be taken in government and private industries (banks, developers) - sackings and bankruptcy. Neither of which has happened to a sufficient level. Now how are you suggesting the mortgage holder pays? with the 40year noose around their neck, they are effectively bankrupt. And what is the point in focusing on it? you cant change the people, it just deflects from things we can change. Indeed I started this thread because this topic was deflecting from discussing the reign of Bertie

I'm not sure what you want me to say to this. . you started this thread to talk about the publics role in the crisis ? It now appears you are accepting the publics role ?

Personally, I believe it is critical that we, as a nation understand that we are where we are today due to three factors :

1. Ineffective government policy that wasn't focused on the longer term
2. A lack of effective regulation within the banking industry
3. A consumer-led drive to bleed the celtic tiger for all its worth - a drive that both put increased pressure on the poorly regulated banking industry and reinforced/supported short term government policy.

If we address #1 & #2 but learn nothing from #3 then it is only a matter of time before we end up in the same place again . . .

Laminations

hallelujajordan wrote: »

I'm not sure what you want me to say to this. . you started this thread to talk about the publics role in the crisis ? It now appears you are accepting the publics role ?

I started this thread because the subject was deflecting another but from the start I accepted the public has a role

Laminations wrote: »

Based on this subject derailing another thread I thought I'd start this one to discuss the role of the public in the financial melt down. What views have you on individual responsibility?

I think people who overborrowed, overextended themselves with 100% mortgages have to share some of the responsibility, but only a small amount.

....but I believe the governments role supercedes this and can be dealt with in more concrete terms than the ones you use for the publics 'acknowledgement'. I'm still waiting to hear what form this acknowledgment takes?

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Personally, I believe it is critical that we, as a nation understand that we are where we are today due to three factors :

1. Ineffective government policy that wasn't focused on the longer term
2. A lack of effective regulation within the banking industry
3. A consumer-led drive to bleed the celtic tiger for all its worth - a drive that both put increased pressure on the poorly regulated banking industry and reinforced/supported short term government policy.

If we address #1 & #2 but learn nothing from #3 then it is only a matter of time before we end up in the same place again . . .

So the publics responsibility is to understand their role? What does the emboldened part mean? how would you know it if you saw it? I'm acknowledging #3 but realise that this 'increased pressure' would have been handled by poorly well regulated banking industry and reinforced/supported short term long term competent government policy

This thread started as a deflection and remains a deflection.

Finally, its not the case that you state in the last line. 'Patterns of spending' like Red_Marauder says, is completely within the governments remit to control. The only way we'd end up back here is not learning from the governments mistakes. I'm quite sure the people burdened with debt for the next 40years wont be splurging on property again any time soon

hallelujajordan

Laminations wrote: »

....but I believe the governments role supercedes this and can be dealt with in more concrete terms than the ones you use for the publics 'acknowledgement'. I'm still waiting to hear what form this acknowledgment takes?

In my view, this acknowledgement will come when we (the general public) . .

1. Recognise our role in the crisis and stop blaming the government for everything . . .

2. Look to the future and recognise that the issues of the past are a) as much our fault as the governments and b) in the past - and have no bearing on the future. . .

3. Begin to vote responsibly and put in place the government who has the best long term vision as opposed to electing a government based on short term success or (worse) based on the past. . If, in 2012 the country puts in place a FG/Lab government because they have the strongest economic policies, vision and people then fine, I will happily accept that. . but if we put FG/Lab in place because we want to punish FF for sins of the past (at the cost of long term economic security) then I am afraid we will be making the same mistakes all over again.

danman

But this requires rational thought.

"De People" are so angry right now, rational thought doesn't come into it.

Laminations

hallelujajordan wrote: »

In my view, this acknowledgement will come when we (the general public) . .

1. Recognise our role in the crisis and stop blaming the government for everything . . .

2. Look to the future and recognise that the issues of the past are a) as much our fault as the governments and b) in the past - and have no bearing on the future. . .

3. Begin to vote responsibly and put in place the government who has the best long term vision as opposed to electing a government based on short term success or (worse) based on the past. . If, in 2012 the country puts in place a FG/Lab government because they have the strongest economic policies, vision and people then fine, I will happily accept that. . but if we put FG/Lab in place because we want to punish FF for sins of the past (at the cost of long term economic security) then I am afraid we will be making the same mistakes all over again.

1. Ok what does #1 mean? how will you know it whan you see it? does it require some form of national statement? its hard for me to recognise a collective role for a collective that i wasnt a part of. Those in that collective recognise their role with every mortgage payment they make for their overpriced purchase. I recognise I didnt save as much as i should have and my credit card maybe took a few too many hits but thats none of your business.

However when the spending splurges became macro, national trends the role to curtail this fell back to the government.

2. Complete nonsense a) the blame should NOT be evenly shared between 'us' and the government and b) in one breath you are saying we should learn from the past

hallelujajordan wrote: »

If we learn nothing from the consumer-led drive to bleed the celtic tiger for all its worth then it is only a matter of time before we end up in the same place again . . .

but when it comes to government behaviour we should only look to the future? Cough..hypocrite.

3. This suggests that people who currently want an alternative will not vote responsibly. I think from the above demonstration of you ignoring the past, you are the irresponsible one.

hallelujajordan

Laminations wrote:

but when it comes to government behaviour we should only look to the future? Cough..hypocrite.

3. This suggests that people who currently want an alternative will not vote responsibly. I think from the above demonstration of you ignoring the past, you are the irresponsible one.

Look, its common sense that when electing a government for the future, we should judge parties based on their current people, policies and vision, regardless of the past. . If I am managing a football team I will pick the people who have the best current form and are most likely to win the match regardless of their form last season.

I never said that people who want an alternative will not vote responsibly. . .

But, I do believe that if people vote for a FG/LAB government in an attempt to punish FF for the fact that they are now burdened with a huge mortgage based on their own personal choices. . . then they will be behaving just as irresponsibly as they were when they took out the mortgage. . .

If they vote FG/LAB because they genuinely believe they are a better governance option then (as I said before) I will fully accept that. . .

paddyland

hallelujajordan wrote: »

Yes, as I have said before . . As a member of Fianna Fail I believe that the most appropriate way to take responsibility for the situation is to work within government to improve it.

But the Fianna Fáil 'government' will NOT take responsibility for ANYTHING. It is everybody else's fault except FF. The human race is flawed. Everybody makes mistakes. That includes FF. But FF can never, EVER, admit to making one single mistake. Brian Cowen ties himself in absurd knots trying to explain and excuse and justify the most squalid and demeaning and destructive carry on among his beloved party.

Can I ask you this question, please. HOW are you going to work 'within government' to improve anything, given a gallery of horrors such as Brian Cowen, Mary Coughlan, Noel Dempsey, Martin Cullen, Willie O'Dea, John O'Donoghue, Batt O'Keefe, Dermot Ahern, Conor Lenihan, Eamon O'Cuiv, Martin Mansergh, Micheal Martin, Mary Hanafin, will I go on? All the luminaries of the Fianna Fáil 'club.' Who among any of them will EVER admit that there might be problems, that the party might need to 'improve' anything? It is simply justification after justification, no matter how outrageous or incredible. But NEVER the slightest admission of being less than perfect. Like the pope, they are 'infallible.'

I see on the Fianna Fáil website, they are advertising for a Director of Communications. That's all Fianna Fáil are ever about. How can we spin it? How can we sell a sow's ear and make it look like a silk purse? How can we fool them all again for a fourth time? It doesn't matter what sewer you dig a rancid old rag out of, a bit of orange and green paint and you can wave it like a bloody flag.

The general public might be responsible for a lot of things, but if too many of them are guilty of anything, it is guilt of being human, of being weak, and falling every time for any line of SH1TE spun by an increasingly desperate Fianna Fáil party, willing to sell the soul of the country to the devil for another four years of gluttony.