Protesters storm the Dail??

Princess Consuela Bananahammock

kuntboy wrote: »

There are also HUGE social pressures on people to live beyond their means. The media is telling everyone that if you don't have the appearance of success, you are a loser. That means you MUST have a nice car, nice house, holidays, big TV etc. If you don't have these things, or aspire to have them, you are ostracised.

Sorry, but this is a pathetic excuse. I managed to keep a lot of friends from all backgrounds dispite not going mad with the expoenses and managing to not run up a debt. you're got to be extremly ignopratn or weak or both to let that be an excuse.

And anyone who looks down on people for not having these things is an even bigger loser.

eightyfish

kuntboy wrote: »

That means you MUST have a nice car, nice house, holidays, big TV etc. If you don't have these things, or aspire to have them, you are ostracised.

I own a nice apartment and a 32" TV, but I commute on a bicycle. Where does that leave me?

Fuhrer

eightyfish wrote: »

Where does that leave me?

Out of the Beautiful peoples club for starters.

Wicklowrider

Diageio_Man wrote: »

don't know if it's been posted already hever some footage of it. http://vimeo.com/11668031

Why didn't the gardai close the gate?
On a separate note don't the protesters realise there are armed soldiers inside the dail grounds?

eightyfish

Wicklowrider wrote: »

Why didn't the gardai close the gate?

They did close the gate, once they got a chance to after being charged at by a bunch of thugs.

dan_d_lion

kuntboy wrote: »

There are also HUGE social pressures on people to live beyond their means. The media is telling everyone that if you don't have the appearance of success, you are a loser. That means you MUST have a nice car, nice house, holidays, big TV etc. If you don't have these things, or aspire to have them, you are ostracised.

While this is a very, over–simplified way of looking at things it does touch on something that has truth in it. First of all you have to give people the credit that they are not completely brainwashed TV/Media junkies and are capable of forming their own intelligent opinions.

However, since the death of a feudal system where people were literally classed –> lords peasants etc, material possessions are now how people attempt to distinguish themselves from those they perceive to be "below" them as it were.

We are all guilty of this, and advertising and the media play on our natural desire for upward mobility. To think you exist outside these influences is just as foolish as it is to think that the media etc created these desires.

Is this materialism pointless and stupid? yes.

"Gross materialism and the search for material wealth are not the only things in life"
David Attenborough.

dyl10

Arguments blaming the average man for living beyond his future income is ridiculous.
The average person isn't a junior economist and the responsibility isn't theirs to speculate on property crashes, market failures and falling future incomes.

Markets were not regulated the way they should have been, government did not make the effort to enforce consumption control, they actually promoted consumption.

There is a difference between riskily over-extending yourself and reasonably extending yourself on the basis of today.

prinz

dyl10 wrote: »

The average person isn't a junior economist and the responsibility isn't theirs to speculate on property crashes, market failures and falling future incomes..

People took that responsibility unto themselves, backfired, tough luck. You played the game, you lost. You might as well argue that the bookies shouldn't keep your stake if you lose your bet because you didn't have a good enough knowledge of horses.

dyl10 wrote: »

There is a difference between riskily over-extending yourself and reasonably extending yourself on the basis of today...

Continually living beyond your means is riskily over-extending yourself.

ixoy

dyl10 wrote: »

Arguments blaming the average man for living beyond his future income is ridiculous.
The average person isn't a junior economist and the responsibility isn't theirs to speculate on property crashes, market failures and falling future incomes.

Up to a point I'd agree. However, people were treating mortgages too lightly. The average consumer should not be willing to place themselves 400k+ in debt on the mere belief it'll be profitable - that's an insane gamble. You owe it to yourself to try and make sure that it's a reasonably sound investment and that, given the payment is over decades, that you can cope with abrupt changes in circumstances. It's what should have been common sense.

MagicSean

the_rovers_one wrote: »

Next time we get around 1000 people to storm the gates. See how strong the Gardaí are then. Pr*cks.

They'll probably be overrun. Of course you will probably be shot by the soldiers inside. There are certain places you shouldn't really storm. Government buildings, garda stations and army barracks are to name but a few. The people guarding these places don't care who you are or what you are doing other than the fact that you are committing an offence under the Offences Against the State Act. I hope the gardaí follow up this incident with public order arrests.

Wicklowrider wrote: »

Why didn't the gardai close the gate?
On a separate note don't the protesters realise there are armed soldiers inside the dail grounds?

If you watch one of the videos on youtube you can see one of the gardaí going to the doorman to get what I guess is the key to lock the gate. Brecause they closed it after that.

And in answer to your other question. They weren't protesters. The genuine protesters were watching and trying to calm the situation. The ones who charged at the gardaí were just stirring. Probably the same people who started the orange march riots.

dyl10

prinz wrote: »

You played the game, you lost. You might as well argue that the bookies shouldn't keep your stake if you lose your bet because you didn't have a good enough knowledge of horses.

No, because in an effectively regulated country, business outside of speculating shouldn't really be gambling.

Of course there were plenty who did speculate and deservedly got stung, but there's plenty who did what people have always done and got crippled trying to live a relatively normal lifestyle, logically based on a decade of good employment.

dyl10

ixoy wrote: »

It's what should have been common sense.

I would agree, but the flaw in that, is that once negative equity is brought into the picture and then added to a downturn/unemployment, there's not much anyone can do about it.

A young person buying a house, then getting sacked and the house halving in value is not a reasonable estimation for an ordinary person to be able to factor in.
If people thought they needed that consideration in mind, business would never get done in Ireland again.

My point is that many people did make reasonable assumptions, were acceptable cautious but due to bad regulation and market failure, were hit hard. All of this is normal enough, but to generally blame people for over-consumption is misplaced blame in my opinion

Playboy

Morlar wrote: »

There was undoubtedly corruption, take a look at anglo shuffling the money in and out of accounts left and right. No thanks I won't be joining a communist country just yet. Why do you assume criticism of the role of the financial sector can only come from the left ?

Greed is a tricky one, where it is rampant greed leading to recklessness then - yes the banks are not off the hook using the 'michael douglas' excuse of greed is good. Irresponsible, reckless out of control greed for the short term gain is good for the greedy but not for the country or the economy as a whole.

Sorry I was thinking of bigger picture crash rather than what went on Ireland. I havent lived in Ireland for a number of years so I'm thinking more about the British & American Banks. So in the Irish case you are probably right .. there was a lot of corruption .. I know some real brainless cowboys who got millions out of Anglo Irish! I have no idea what was going on in that Bank but from the little I heard it wasnt a pretty picture in terms of how the exec board conducted themselves. And I wasnt saying that criticism of the financial sector can only come from the left .. I was just pointg out that capitlism doesnt work without greed ..its the main driving force! You cant live in a capitalist system and blame greed for anything imo ... its like going to a concert and complaing about the noise. The basic idea of capitalism is that markets will regulate themselves and determine a fair price based on availability of resource / skills. Obviously this doesnt work so we need regulation to level the playing field and protect consumers. The problem is though that modern financial markets and trading is so complex and the markets can be easily manipulated to the benefit of a few due to high frequency trading that it extremely difficult to regulate.

goat2

eightyfish wrote: »

I own a nice apartment and a 32" TV, but I commute on a bicycle. Where does that leave me?

on yer bike

Playboy

dyl10 wrote: »

I would agree, but the flaw in that, is that once negative equity is brought into the picture and then added to a downturn/unemployment, there's not much anyone can do about it.

A young person buying a house, then getting sacked and the house halving in value is not a reasonable estimation for an ordinary person to be able to factor in.
If people thought they needed that consideration in mind, business would never get done in Ireland again.

My point is that many people did make reasonable assumptions, were acceptable cautious but due to bad regulation and market failure, were hit hard. All of this is normal enough, but to generally blame people for over-consumption is misplaced blame in my opinion

But at the same time is it the Banks that are to blame? I dont think anyone is 'to blame'! There were a lot of mistakes made and we need to learn from them and use this as an opportunity to regulate correctly so it doesnt happen again. I think people are getting carried away with blaming governments and banks .. the fact is that everyone is just as much to blame as them. Time to move and try and rectify the situation without doing foolish things like trying to storm the dail.

prinz

dyl10 wrote: »

No, because in an effectively regulated country, business outside of speculating shouldn't really be gambling.

If that was the case we'd all be millionaires :rolleyes: Business for everyone, no chance of losing out. Success guaranteed!

dyl10

prinz wrote: »

If that was the case we'd all be millionaires :rolleyes: Business for everyone, no chance of losing out. Success guaranteed!

So you don't think your government/society should put conventions in place where a normal working person in their 20s-30s can work, buy a house and start a family with reasonable satisfaction that they won't be homeless in 6 months?

There's a difference between necessity living and 'doing business' :rolleyes:

hinault

Irrational exuberance is term used by the bankers and politicians to explain away the credit bubble.

It is the duty of a bank and bankers not to be irrationally exuberant.
The banks job is to coldly assess the circumstances of each loan applicant be they a developer or a mortgage applicant.

The banks provided far too much credit to the developers and the banks provided too much credit to the mortgage applicants.


As for people being put under pressure to conform to a standard.
Yes pressure was applied through the media.

prinz

dyl10 wrote: »

So you don't think your government/society should put conventions in place where a normal working person in their 20s-30s can work, buy a house and start a family with reasonable satisfaction that they won't be homeless in 6 months?

Somewhere in the middle. You can't regulate for common sense unfortunately.

dyl10 wrote: »

There's a difference between necessity living and 'doing business' :rolleyes:

Very few people are in serious financial trouble because they spent the last decade 'necessity living'.

dyl10

prinz wrote: »

Very few people are in serious financial trouble because they spent the last decade 'necessity living'.

Actually, I think you'll find a lot first time house buyers in the 5 years prior to the crash are in/heading for serious trouble.

prinz

dyl10 wrote: »

Actually, I think you'll find a lot first time house buyers in the 5 years prior to the crash are in/heading for serious trouble.

I made it through the last 5 years without buying a house Again this preoccupation with buying property.

eightyfish

Playboy wrote: »

But at the same time is it the Banks that are to blame? I dont think anyone is 'to blame'! There were a lot of mistakes made and we need to learn from them and use this as an opportunity to regulate correctly so it doesnt happen again.

Agreed. The banks and the government are both partially (mostly) to blame, but not just them. This view of the population divided up into the guilty and the victims is simplistic. The unions, for example, are also to blame.

As much as I usually disagree with John Waters, he wrote a good opinion piece about this in the Irish Times recently.

gollem_1975

hinault wrote: »

It is the duty of a bank and bankers not to be irrationally exuberant.
The banks job is to coldly assess the circumstances of each loan applicant be they a developer or a mortgage applicant.

but you must agree that there is a great deal more responsibility on the part of the person taking out the loan.

the person taking out the loan has much more to lose than the bank official processing their loan application.

my bank (AIB) wouldn't give me enough to buy a shoebox during our nations period of irrational exhuberence aka celtic tiger part 2.

now on the other hand..the people in the banks who were doing the so-called valuations on the property before loan approval was given...whoa didn't they get it wrong

dyl10

prinz wrote: »

I made it through the last 5 years without buying a house Again this preoccupation with buying property.

Judging by your profile, the 5 years in question had you at 18-23 (roughly), buying a house wouldn't be entirely applicable to you in this case

Again the simplistic view on the change of social norms.

eightyfish

gollem_1975 wrote: »

now on the other hand..the people in the banks who were doing the so-called valuations on the property before loan approval was given...whoa didn't they get it wrong

Not really. The value of something it the price it is selling for at that time. If 5 in the row of 10 houses went for €500,000 on Monday, then €500,000 is the true value of a house on that street on Tuesday.

The following Friday, however...

kuntboy

dan_d_lion wrote: »

First of all you have to give people the credit that they are not completely brainwashed TV/Media junkies and are capable of forming their own intelligent opinions.

Alas you seem to have more faith in humanity than I. People will believe whatever they are told, and their options are limited within the boundaries of social acceptance and various forces, real and hidden. For many their precious "own" opinion is merely what they read in their last book. They might believe it to be their own, and consider an attack on it to be an attack on their identity, as they have bought it hook, line and sinker.

eightyfish

kuntboy wrote: »

People will believe whatever they are told

Do you?

prinz

dyl10 wrote: »

Judging by your profile, the 5 years in question had you at 18-23 (roughly), buying a house wouldn't be entirely applicable to you in this case

So just at what age does it suddenly become an absolute necessity to buy a house?

kuntboy

eightyfish you are only reading this because I told you to. Now do as you're told and make a smart reply, like a good boy.

dyl10

eightyfish wrote: »

Do you?

I was told the world is round and I believe it, but I've no hard proof.

I was also told that eating more than 1 egg per week was bad for you, look how that turned out