A Conspiracy I believe in, and it is happening right now!

Yitzhak Rabin

profitius wrote: »

If you read that last year would you have believed it?

Probably would have believed it, but thought it was exaggerated for effect.

This time last year I was in the thick of it, reading papers and writing essays in college about it. However it was very detached and analytical, and for some reason it didn't 'click' with me like it has in the last 4-6 months.

Tbh, now nothing surprises me about the actions of our government. I suppose back then I chalked a lot of it down to ineptitude. Now I think its more a case of willful disregard for the taxpayer.

joebucks

Just came across this site here..some old and new articles from a range of papers like Examiner, Indo and letters to editor in IT on it that a few of ye might be interested in

http://www.soldiersofdestiny.org/robthepoor.htm

The level of corruption in Fianna Fail really is staggering. But again the question must be asked, are they just puppets for a more sinister cabal? Bilderberg?

Also interesting to see Sutherland involved in this

http://www.soldiersofdestiny.org/thestardustcoverup.htm

So why was nobody prosecuted? Why was the only charge from the disaster against John Keegan, who lost two daughters in the Stardust, for assault on Butterly, in his understandably frustrated state? (With Nial McCarthy {a future Supreme Court judge} and Peter Sutherland {the future Attorney General] at his (Butterlys) side for the Tribunal, what chance did any of the families have in achieving justice.? Besides they were all from a working class area in North Dublin-albeit one nurtured and generously endowed with pork barrel politics largesse (Beaumont Hospital) from Berts old mentor C.J.H..
"We were all Fianna Failers" Butterly said in his memoirs.

K-9

joebucks wrote: »

Just came across this site here..some old and new articles from a range of papers like Examiner, Indo and letters to editor in IT on it that a few of ye might be interested in

http://www.soldiersofdestiny.org/robthepoor.htm

The level of corruption in Fianna Fail really is staggering. But again the question must be asked, are they just puppets for a more sinister cabal? Bilderberg?

Also interesting to see Sutherland involved in this

http://www.soldiersofdestiny.org/thestardustcoverup.htm

Sutherland would be a known FG'er, common knowledge, FG appointed AG and Euro Commissioner.

caseyann

I believe EU has been letting us borrow so we do lose the power over our own Decisions and soon Irish people will have no right in anything that happens here.
Country is been raped for the benefits of others countries.A legal sneaky take over.

caseyann

K-9 wrote: »

Plenty say it.

Ireland, Greece and leaving the euro

Oh one can only pray,EU is falling apart at sems

Just finished reading that,that is disgusting,How the hell did our government allow for us to be so dependent on other countries for money.Bunch of sell outs.

joebucks

K-9 wrote: »

Sutherland would be a known FG'er, common knowledge, FG appointed AG and Euro Commissioner.

Yes one of Garret Fitzgerald's proteges. Fitzgerald another Bilderberger. What I am wondering is, Is political party irrelevant as the Bilderberg group control whoever is in charge?

Does anyone here have much knowledge of the occult festivals? Stardust happened on Feb 14. That is a day of significance to the 'Illuminati' right?

humanji

caseyann wrote: »

I believe EU has been letting us borrow so we do lose the power over our own Decisions and soon Irish people will have no right in anything that happens here.
Country is been raped for the benefits of others countries.A legal sneaky take over.

In fairness, it's the Irish who f*cked up Ireland. If it wasn't for Europe we'd have been sold off by our politicians years ago. It would be in the EU's best interests to just kick Ireland out and save themselves a hell of a lot more trouble.

profitius

humanji wrote: »

In fairness, it's the Irish who f*cked up Ireland. If it wasn't for Europe we'd have been sold off by our politicians years ago. It would be in the EU's best interests to just kick Ireland out and save themselves a hell of a lot more trouble.

They did sell off the country years ago.. to the EU! Remember the EU was originally set up for economic reasons so it'd boost trade between countries but the sneaky plan was to create more and more laws and take over that way. I believe one of the founding members of the EU boasted about it.

caseyann

humanji wrote: »

In fairness, it's the Irish who f*cked up Ireland. If it wasn't for Europe we'd have been sold off by our politicians years ago. It would be in the EU's best interests to just kick Ireland out and save themselves a hell of a lot more trouble.

Not if they own everything,and what interest does Ireland pay back(is there one)
Ofc they would EU wants a one world government and EU is beginning of this.
But the normal people think they benefit from it but they now owe for how many generations,due to the fact EU didnt say no sort out your rubbish and we aren't giving you anymore.Because it suits them to gain control of all finances in this country and spending decisions.

gizmo

profitius wrote: »

They did sell off the country years ago.. to the EU! Remember the EU was originally set up for economic reasons so it'd boost trade between countries but the sneaky plan was to create more and more laws and take over that way. I believe one of the founding members of the EU boasted about it.

Rubbish. If that was true then why can we leave at any time we wish? You are right though, there are certain monetary benefits to joining the EU and we took advantage of them to an incredible extent.

caseyann wrote: »

Not if they own everything,and what interest does Ireland pay back(is there one)
Ofc they would EU wants a one world government and EU is beginning of this.
But the normal people think they benefit from it but they now owe for how many generations,due to the fact EU didnt say no sort out your rubbish and we aren't giving you anymore.Because it suits them to gain control of all finances in this country and spending decisions.

More rubbish, how is the EU the beginning of a "one world government" when it doesn't include three of the most important nations in the world - USA, Russia and China? The UN would be the closest thing to that and even they have proven to be massively ineffectual to the point that considering them as the big bad NWO is simply laughable.

And on a final note, the EU won't be controlling our finances, if anything it'll be the IMF.

humanji

profitius wrote: »

They did sell off the country years ago.. to the EU! Remember the EU was originally set up for economic reasons so it'd boost trade between countries but the sneaky plan was to create more and more laws and take over that way. I believe one of the founding members of the EU boasted about it.

caseyann wrote: »

Not if they own everything,and what interest does Ireland pay back(is there one)
Ofc they would EU wants a one world government and EU is beginning of this.
But the normal people think they benefit from it but they now owe for how many generations,due to the fact EU didnt say no sort out your rubbish and we aren't giving you anymore.Because it suits them to gain control of all finances in this country and spending decisions.

It's exactly like all the people who bought into the bubble and never realised they could possibly lose out. The government saw the EU as a golden goose and didn't think that it could ever end. But it did.

And please keep in mind that Ireland has a say in those laws. We brought them in. They were never forced on us. And also keep in mind that several times now the EU has had to stop the Irish government f*cking up out civil liberties. We've got corrupt gobsh*tes running this country for their own gains. God help us if the EU wasn't at least trying to stop them.

K-9

caseyann wrote: »

Not if they own everything,and what interest does Ireland pay back(is there one)
Ofc they would EU wants a one world government and EU is beginning of this.
But the normal people think they benefit from it but they now owe for how many generations,due to the fact EU didnt say no sort out your rubbish and we aren't giving you anymore.Because it suits them to gain control of all finances in this country and spending decisions.

Where you worried about this 3 years ago when we had the second lowest Government debt in Europe?

It's amazing that you complain that the EU didn't say "No, sort out your own rubbish" (they did, but lacked teeth and McCreevey was too smug) and then complain when the EU has a little more power and has told us to sort it out.


We can't go on borrowing the way we are, it took us a generation to get over the huge debt of the 80's. Everybody knows this, hell the EU wants countries to have well run countries. It isn't in their interest to have basket case economies.

profitius

gizmo wrote: »

Rubbish. If that was true then why can we leave at any time we wish? You are right though, there are certain monetary benefits to joining the EU and we took advantage of them to an incredible extent.

If you want to trap an animal you use food to lure it into the trap. For a little bit of food you now have a whole animal which you can use to feed the family.

In this case Ireland was the dozy animal chasing after food only to be lured into a trap. germany threw us a few crumbs and now they have us caged and can milk us for whatever we have. Brilliant! And when we were on the spending spree half the population were buying BMW's and Mercedes. Those crumbs they threw to us went a long way.

gizmo wrote: »

More rubbish, how is the EU the beginning of a "one world government" when it doesn't include three of the most important nations in the world - USA, Russia and China? The UN would be the closest thing to that and even they have proven to be massively ineffectual to the point that considering them as the big bad NWO is simply laughable.

And on a final note, the EU won't be controlling our finances, if anything it'll be the IMF.

IMF, tri lateral commission, G8, Bilderberg group etc etc. They're all run by the same people and designed to make a few people very wealthy. Modern day kings.

profitius

humanji wrote: »

It's exactly like all the people who bought into the bubble and never realised they could possibly lose out. The government saw the EU as a golden goose and didn't think that it could ever end. But it did.

And please keep in mind that Ireland has a say in those laws. We brought them in. They were never forced on us. And also keep in mind that several times now the EU has had to stop the Irish government f*cking up out civil liberties. We've got corrupt gobsh*tes running this country for their own gains. God help us if the EU wasn't at least trying to stop them.

You're right. The government did agree to those things but the last Lisbon treaty proved that they've little choice. Remember the fear in their eyes when we voted no. Remember the threats coming from the EU.

profitius

K-9 wrote: »

Where you worried about this 3 years ago when we had the second lowest Government debt in Europe?

It's amazing that you complain that the EU didn't say "No, sort out your own rubbish" (they did, but lacked teeth and McCreevey was too smug) and then complain when the EU has a little more power and has told us to sort it out.


We can't go on borrowing the way we are, it took us a generation to get over the huge debt of the 80's. Everybody knows this, hell the EU wants countries to have well run countries. It isn't in their interest to have basket case economies.

In a video I saw, Max Keiser, one of the few experts who can see whats going on in the world was talking about Greece. He said Germany would love it if Greece failed and the Euro's value went down because Germany is one of the worlds biggest exporters. The Piigs countries are only a small part of the world.

K-9

profitius wrote: »

In a video I saw, Max Keiser, one of the few experts who can see whats going on in the world was talking about Greece. He said Germany would love it if Greece failed and the Euro's value went down because Germany is one of the worlds biggest exporters. The Piigs countries are only a small part of the world.

So, why didn't they, when they had the perfect opportunity? The € has rallied and is back to pre Greek crisis levels.

gizmo

profitius wrote: »

If you want to trap an animal you use food to lure it into the trap. For a little bit of food you now have a whole animal which you can use to feed the family.

Except the money that we received from Europe is completely disproportionate to what they could theoretically get out of us so the analogy doesn't hold up.

profitius wrote: »

IMF, tri lateral commission, G8, Bilderberg group etc etc. They're all run by the same people and designed to make a few people very wealthy. Modern day kings.

All organisations which are completely different from each other with totally different mandates. It's like you're thrown a bunch of conspiracy theories into a blender and come out with that.

As for the Max Keiser reference, you do know he'd love to see nothing more than Ryanair, an Irish company who employs a huge number of people, destroyed via his Karmabanque? Hardly someone to look up to at a time like this...

humanji

profitius wrote: »

You're right. The government did agree to those things but the last Lisbon treaty proved that they've little choice. Remember the fear in their eyes when we voted no. Remember the threats coming from the EU.

What fear? What threats? Never saw any of that. I remember the government using the constitutional powers that we allowed them to run a second vote due to mass ignorance of the issue. And I remember being free to choose what way to vote. And I remember Lisbon giving Ireland a means to quit the EU if we wanted. What did I miss?

K-9

Rabble Rabble wrote: »

Plenty is one. Leaving the euro would be a diaster now but we should never have joined. I am not anti-Eu just anti-Euro.

Ach, that was one I had in my bookmarks. There are other arguments too for not leaving it, a big one being it is now our biggest market, bigger than the UK and the US. 90% or so of our exports are by multi nationals and they have taken full advantage of it, indigenous industry hasn't, I suppose selling houses to each other was more profitable!

caseyann wrote: »

Oh one can only pray,EU is falling apart at sems

Just finished reading that,that is disgusting,How the hell did our government allow for us to be so dependent on other countries for money.Bunch of sell outs.

Sure we were dependent on the UK before the EU and unless you want a DeVelera dancing at the crossroads country, we'll always be dependent on other countries.

Good pieces on it here, especially the point that with no Euro, we'd just have far more currency crises to worry about.

The Euro is a success; Free lunch yet to be invented

Ireland and leaving the Euro: 10 questions for pub-stool economists

joebucks wrote: »

Yes one of Garret Fitzgerald's proteges. Fitzgerald another Bilderberger. What I am wondering is, Is political party irrelevant as the Bilderberg group control whoever is in charge?

Does anyone here have much knowledge of the occult festivals? Stardust happened on Feb 14. That is a day of significance to the 'Illuminati' right?

Fair enough, just pointing out Sutherland was no FF'er.

sbsquarepants

Firstly, i'm no economist, in fact i don't even believe it's a real science - they always seem to be explaining why their previous prediction didn't come true and how this one is different - BUT... if these bonds are being traded on whatever market they trade on, at a substantial discount (70 to 80% i think) why do the government not buy the fecking things and tear them up? No default and it's supposed backlash but also no enormous bailout, or at least a less enormous bailout.
Is it stretching the realms of probability to suggest that the answer lies in certain people prefering to be paid 100% of the value rather than 20%. I don't think so. Maybe i'm being paranoid but i personally think a published list of these bond holders would reveal a few familiar names and provide a bit more clarity on why we are so insistent that the country prostrate itself at their feet.
We are being screwed, no doubt about it. History shows that it is precisely times like this when the worlds real fortunes are made, not the nice house nice, car fortunes, i mean the empires, the dynastys. We are being fleeced to build such dynastys right now. We know by who, the question is for who?

gizmo

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Firstly, i'm no economist, in fact i don't even believe it's a real science - they always seem to be explaining why their previous prediction didn't come true and how this one is different - BUT... if these bonds are being traded on whatever market they trade on, at a substantial discount (70 to 80% i think) why do the government not buy the fecking things and tear them up? No default and it's supposed backlash but also no enormous bailout, or at least a less enormous bailout.
Is it stretching the realms of probability to suggest that the answer lies in certain people prefering to be paid 100% of the value rather than 20%. I don't think so. Maybe i'm being paranoid but i personally think a published list of these bond holders would reveal a few familiar names and provide a bit more clarity on why we are so insistent that the country prostrate itself at their feet.
We are being screwed, no doubt about it. History shows that it is precisely times like this when the worlds real fortunes are made, not the nice house nice, car fortunes, i mean the empires, the dynastys. We are being fleeced to build such dynastys right now. We know by who, the question is for who?

With what?

Mahatma coat

I dunno, its a fairly valid point tho, and an accurate picture of the history of these events.

Why dont we tell the anglo etc... bond holders that little thing that ya get at the end of all Financial ads, Value of Investment may go DOWN as well as up ?????????????

Yitzhak Rabin

Mahatma coat wrote: »

Why dont we tell the anglo etc... bond holders that little thing that ya get at the end of all Financial ads, Value of Investment may go DOWN as well as up ?????????????

Because for some reason beyond my comprehension, Minister Lenihan believes that to let private investors suffer for a bad investment would be bad for our international reputation.

How on earth this is the case I have no clue what so ever. I would have thought that being seen as a country, that will recklessly waste taxpayers money to pay back a private gamble, potentially bankrupting us, would be seen as bad for our international reputation.....

....it also seems that the international bond markets agree, given that they are charging us 7% interest on government bonds.

joebucks

There was an interesting court case in the US last year regarding disclosure of details of recipients of TARP funds.

A couple of journalists working for Bloomberg brought a case against the Federal Reserve under Freedom of Information Act to disclose details of recipients.

http://www.wlf.org/Upload/legalstudies/legalopinionletter/102309Fleschert_LOL.pdf

The exemptions are of interest to us

The test for whether information is “confidential” turns on whether disclosure would cause
substantial harm to the borrowers’ competitive position. The Board maintained that disclosure of the
information would indeed cause substantial competitive harm to the borrowers by triggering a public
stigmatization of those institutions, a plummet in stock prices, a loss of confidence by market analysts, and
ultimately runs on the banks and collapse of some of the nation’s leading financial institutions.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=a7CC61ZsieV4

One of the reporters, Mark Pittman, has unfortunately passed away shortly after the age of 52.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=alcABq2uaBOc

fontanalis

profitius wrote: »

If you want to trap an animal you use food to lure it into the trap. For a little bit of food you now have a whole animal which you can use to feed the family.

In this case Ireland was the dozy animal chasing after food only to be lured into a trap. germany threw us a few crumbs and now they have us caged and can milk us for whatever we have. Brilliant! And when we were on the spending spree half the population were buying BMW's and Mercedes. Those crumbs they threw to us went a long way.



IMF, tri lateral commission, G8, Bilderberg group etc etc. They're all run by the same people and designed to make a few people very wealthy. Modern day kings.

Why the hell would anyone want a small country liek Ireland with it's sh1t load of debt?
So much for the knowledge economy.

K-9

sbsquarepants wrote: »

Firstly, i'm no economist, in fact i don't even believe it's a real science - they always seem to be explaining why their previous prediction didn't come true and how this one is different - BUT... if these bonds are being traded on whatever market they trade on, at a substantial discount (70 to 80% i think) why do the government not buy the fecking things and tear them up? No default and it's supposed backlash but also no enormous bailout, or at least a less enormous bailout.
Is it stretching the realms of probability to suggest that the answer lies in certain people prefering to be paid 100% of the value rather than 20%. I don't think so. Maybe i'm being paranoid but i personally think a published list of these bond holders would reveal a few familiar names and provide a bit more clarity on why we are so insistent that the country prostrate itself at their feet.
We are being screwed, no doubt about it. History shows that it is precisely times like this when the worlds real fortunes are made, not the nice house nice, car fortunes, i mean the empires, the dynastys. We are being fleeced to build such dynastys right now. We know by who, the question is for who?

The other side of it is, he may well be considering doing a deal with the bondholders but publicising it would make the markets worse, make the hit longer as it creates uncertainty.

As Yekahs pointed out though, we are kind of snookered anyway as we pay extra on our bonds because of the extra borrowing needed to bail out the banks.

Bondholder debt in Anglo is quite a small part of the debt. Deposit holders, inter bank lending and loans from the Irish and European Central Banks make up the vast majority of the debt.

caseyann

gizmo wrote: »

More rubbish, how is the EU the beginning of a "one world government" when it doesn't include three of the most important nations in the world - USA, Russia and China? The UN would be the closest thing to that and even they have proven to be massively ineffectual to the point that considering them as the big bad NWO is simply laughable.

And on a final note, the EU won't be controlling our finances, if anything it'll be the IMF.

Not yet that would refer to me saying the beginning.

humanji wrote: »

It's exactly like all the people who bought into the bubble and never realised they could possibly lose out. The government saw the EU as a golden goose and didn't think that it could ever end. But it did.

And please keep in mind that Ireland has a say in those laws. We brought them in. They were never forced on us. And also keep in mind that several times now the EU has had to stop the Irish government f*cking up out civil liberties. We've got corrupt gobsh*tes running this country for their own gains. God help us if the EU wasn't at least trying to stop them.

No i didnt bring them i voted against them,Thanks
Ofc it was going to burst,if someone such as myself can see it bursting 8 years ago.They did also.Or else they are thick and not fit to be in positions they are in (None of them) They were warned and they ignored it over and over again.
They will take that step and it will only effect the normal joe and mary no one else,so therefore the rich are not in slightest bit bothered how much they are slapped on wrist.

K-9 wrote: »

Where you worried about this 3 years ago when we had the second lowest Government debt in Europe?

It's amazing that you complain that the EU didn't say "No, sort out your own rubbish" (they did, but lacked teeth and McCreevey was too smug) and then complain when the EU has a little more power and has told us to sort it out.


We can't go on borrowing the way we are, it took us a generation to get over the huge debt of the 80's. Everybody knows this, hell the EU wants countries to have well run countries. It isn't in their interest to have basket case economies.

I was worried about this 8 years ago,could see it like a grey cloud floating in direction carrying a amazon storm.:p
They didnt stop lending because it suited them not to.

sbsquarepants

K-9 wrote: »

The other side of it is, he may well be considering doing a deal with the bondholders but publicising it would make the markets worse, make the hit longer as it creates uncertainty.

As Yekahs pointed out though, we are kind of snookered anyway as we pay extra on our bonds because of the extra borrowing needed to bail out the banks.

Bondholder debt in Anglo is quite a small part of the debt. Deposit holders, inter bank lending and loans from the Irish and European Central Banks make up the vast majority of the debt.

Well, i did say i was no economist! Ha
But as a general principle i can't see the problem with bond holders taking a hit, they invested in a risky product, the risk was priced into the investment from day 1. The theory that they'll somehow hold a grudge against us is nonsense. Each investment they make is seperate to all the others, if they feel there is money to be made they will invest, the notion that they will say i'm gonna turn down this money making opportunity to teach Ireland a lesson is plainly ridiculous!
They gambled, they lost, f'uck them!

K-9

caseyann wrote: »

I was worried about this 8 years ago,could see it like a grey cloud floating in direction carrying a amazon storm.:p
They didnt stop lending because it suited them not to.

The EU and ECB was with you then, as it warned about it numerous times. Wasn't very popular though as FF "told the man" where to go.

K-9

Appears a deal is being sought out but naturally, they are resisting:

Markets News Thursday: Wall Street Journal says group of Anglo Irish Bank bondholders fiercely resisting 'haircut' on debt; USD/EUR rate close to $1.41

The Wall Street Journal says a group of Anglo Irish Bank bondholders is fiercely resisting government efforts to agree a 'haircut' discount that would offset the bank's bailout, complicating Ireland's already fractious banking-system rescue.

The Journal says investors holding roughly €500m of Anglo Irish's riskiest bonds - - about one-fifth of such debt - - are challenging the government's position this week in meetings being run by investment bank Houlihan Lokey, according to a person involved in the efforts.
Another group of investors holding debt of nationalized Irish Nationwide Building Society is also trying to mobilize in order to secure a stronger bargaining position ahead of any negotiations with the government over losses. Irish Nationwide has €184m in risky "subordinated" debt.
The Journal says Ireland's treatment of bond investors could set a precedent for future debt restructurings of bonds issued by nationalized banks. Dublin officials hope to reduce their bank-bailout costs by getting holders of Anglo Irish's subordinated bonds to voluntarily sell their €2.4bn of debt back to Ireland at a hefty loss, resulting in a multibillion-euro gain for the government. However, a protracted stand-off with creditors could end up further tarnishing Ireland's reputation as a global capital magnet.
Anglo Irish's subordinated bonds are trading at a fifth of their original value, indicating investors' own hopes are low.

Considering they are only worth 20% of their original value, you'd think it's a no brainer?

Yitzhak Rabin

There's a blogger runs a site called Namawinelake. He's pieced together a list of people, and associates involved in NAMA. It makes for an interesting list.

Some of the names that stand out are;

Ivor Callely, Michael Martin, Bertie Ahern, Charlie McCreevy, Frank Fahey, Bono, Gay Byrne

It might go some way to explaining why we are being sold down the swanney by Lenihan, and why there is zero transparency involved in the NAMA process.

Mahatma coat

I'm surea lot of us here know a few more names that should be on that list, I can think of at least 2 Local developers from where I come from in Wexford that have major interests n some of the projects there, FS One of them named a Development after himself and isnt Listed, Cute Hoorisim right there.

Also Jim Corr is on the list:(

So its alright to invest in the same corupt system that you rail against??????

K-9

yekahs wrote: »

There's a blogger runs a site called Namawinelake. He's pieced together a list of people, and associates involved in NAMA. It makes for an interesting list.

Some of the names that stand out are;

Ivor Callely, Michael Martin, Bertie Ahern, Charlie McCreevy, Frank Fahey, Bono, Gay Byrne

It might go some way to explaining why we are being sold down the swanney by Lenihan, and why there is zero transparency involved in the NAMA process.

Had a quick glance at that (it's late), think Fahey is in the bottom list, not to be transferred, so too Noel Dempsey, FF TD. Even FF wouldn't pull that stunt.

Mohammed Al Fayed is in it!

To be fair to NAMA, they seem to be taking a tough line with the developers. They also aren't taking over as many loans as initially planned due to the sheer volume of work.

squod

Anglo Bondholders List Leaked

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056062201

Yitzhak Rabin

squod wrote: »

Anglo Bondholders List Leaked

http://www.boards.ie/vbulletin/showthread.php?t=2056062201

Don't know if it is legit.

Here is the list:


WHY ARE WE PROTECTING THESE INVESTORS?

squod

yekahs wrote: »

Don't know if it is legit.

Here is the list:


WHY ARE WE PROTECTING THESE INVESTORS?

Funny handshake brigade IMO.

derry

squod wrote: »

Funny handshake brigade IMO.

Note the biggest and baddest devil worshiping Illumunate is there in the list
Goldman Sachs Asset managment

Its a who who of the top most evil companies in the planet who do bankrupting well to do countries for breakfast using economic SCAMS and often includes large kick backs to goverments of the victim countries .Failing that its a bullet in the head before the airplane crash if they are like the last Polish government who would not play ball


Derry

gizmo

Why are we protecting them? The imposition of a haircut on said bondholders shows we're not.

Not letting Anglo fail has been explained countless times, continuing to go on about it shows that either you're not listening or you don't understand it, neither of which are particularly valid excuses.

squod

gizmo wrote: »

Why are we protecting them? The imposition of a haircut on said bondholders shows we're not.

Not letting Anglo fail has been explained countless times, continuing to go on about it shows that either you're not listening or you don't understand it, neither of which are particularly valid excuses.

People are listening and do understand it. The fact remains only a madman or a bad man woulda bailed Anglo. A bank with debts equal to half our GDP (then) gets bailed during a recession.

The argument that it was needed for the system to survive is a nonsense. We're already bailing every other bank in the bluddy system. A poxy little bank with huge private debt getting bailed by Joe public is an act of treason.

gizmo

squod wrote: »

People are listening and do understand it. The fact remains only a madman or a bad man woulda bailed Anglo. A bank with debts equal to half our GDP (then) gets bailed during a recession.

The argument that it was needed for the system to survive is a nonsense. We're already bailing every other bank in the bluddy system. A poxy little bank with huge private debt getting bailed by Joe public is an act of treason.

Well whether you want to accept it or not, letting Anglo fail would have caused a run on AIB and Bank of Ireland. If you either can't admit that or understand how catastrophic that would have been, then there's little point in carrying on the debate.

squod

gizmo wrote: »

Well whether you want to accept it or not, letting Anglo fail would have caused a run on AIB and Bank of Ireland. If you either can't admit that or understand how catastrophic that would have been, then there's little point in carrying on the debate.

Humour me. Tell me why people with a similar views to me and every second economist I hear speaking on the subject are wrong. Poxy little banks like Anglo fail often enough in different countries around the world.

gizmo

squod wrote: »

Humour me. Tell me why people with a similar views to me and every second economist I hear speaking on the subject are wrong. Poxy little banks like Anglo fail often enough in different countries around the world.

In the first case, a possible lack of economic knowledge or a desire to have more reasons to knock the government despite there being plenty of other valid ones to use in it's stead.

In the economists case, well like many topics in here, for every expert you find which supports your opinion, there will be other equally notable experts which do not. The difference is, these economists will actually debate the issue rationally, as they did around the time the bank guarantee was issued, rather than labeling the government in such hyperbolic terms as "treasonous" and, in worse cases as shown in that ridiculous AH thread, calling for them to be overthrown and/or murdered.

squod

gizmo wrote: »

In the first case, a possible lack of economic knowledge or a desire to have more reasons to knock the government despite there being plenty of other valid ones to use in it's stead.

In the economists case, well like many topics in here, for every expert you find which supports your opinion, there will be other equally notable experts which do not. The difference is, these economists will actually debate the issue rationally, as they did around the time the bank guarantee was issued, rather than labeling the government in such hyperbolic terms as "treasonous" and, in worse cases as shown in that ridiculous AH thread, calling for them to be overthrown and/or murdered.

This is all BS. Reread the OP

The last time I checked there was a harp on the front of my passport, not a picture of Michael Fingleton

The debate is over this is what's happening now. Whether you want to accept it or not. Politicians broke the news to the people gently, piece by piece over time as politicians do. The result of it all is that we now own a sh1t load of private debt when we clearly shouldn't. If you can't admit that to yourself, too bad.

gizmo

squod wrote: »

This is all BS. Reread the OP

I did read it, I even agreed with much of it and replied to it, receiving a thanks from the OP along the way. This was followed up by an exchange in which we agreed on some points and clearly disagree on others. The disagreement was based on the CT that we were deliberately being sold out by the government and at the center of this was that Anglo should have been let fail. This has been pointed out by many to be untrue by many people which is what we're now debating. While it is, technically speaking, economic debate, it's no different than discussing the structural integrity of the WTC as part of the 9/11 CT.

constance tench

constance tench

FEES PAID by the Government and the Financial Regulator to outside consultants for advice sought since the banking crisis began in the autumn of 2008 have risen to well in excess of €17 million.
The Department of Finance has disclosed that some €1.4 million has been paid to investment bank NM Rothschild this year for financial advice on resolving the problems within the banking sector.

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0629/1224273558461.html

Defaulting on Anglo bonds not an option, says Goldman Sachs chairman

http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/defaulting-on-anglo-bonds-not-an-option-says-goldman-sachs-chairman-2010-09/

gizmo

constance tench wrote: »

http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/frontpage/2010/0629/1224273558461.html


http://businessetc.thejournal.ie/defaulting-on-anglo-bonds-not-an-option-says-goldman-sachs-chairman-2010-09/

My only issue in all of this is the clear conflict of interest with Goldman Sachs in all of this. Due to their actions on behalf of their clients, their services should not be retained by the government for advice, no matter how experienced they are.

Mahatma coat

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/12697/64796

A Decent article about Goldman Sachs, tis a bit odd alrite init, Bailing out the people who caused he mess, that'd be the advice y'd get :rolleyes:

Yitzhak Rabin

gizmo wrote:

Not letting Anglo fail has been explained countless times, continuing to go on about it shows that either you're not listening or you don't understand it, neither of which are particularly valid excuses.

gizmo wrote:

Well whether you want to accept it or not, letting Anglo fail would have caused a run on AIB and Bank of Ireland. If you either can't admit that or understand how catastrophic that would have been, then there's little point in carrying on the debate.

Maybe its neither a case of people not listening or not understanding. Perhaps people just disagree with you. Comparing it to the 9/11 conspiracies is daft as well. There are economists who I greatly respect, who hold the same view as me re: Anglo. Joseph Stiglitz is one such economist. A nobel prize winner, and former vice chairmain of the world bank.

Read what he has to say about Anglo. While you are at it read people such as Dr Morgan Kelly of UCD, former Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development chief economist Simon Johnson, world-renowned international financier George Soros, economists David McWilliams and Constantin Gurdgiev. What do all those people have in common, apart from their opposition to the way the government is dealing with Anglo, and the NAMA process. They were also the same economists who were warning us of the impending crash, and were dismissed as begrudgers and trying to "talk down the economy".

So don't be so arrogant as to assume that your opinion is the only one to hold, and anyone who disagrees, is either ill-informed, or just not listening to you. Perhaps, they are just divided on the issue, like the entire economic academic community.

As for the run on the banks. Why do you think a guarantee of BOI, AIB, and Anglos depositer would not have prevented a run on the banks in the same way as a guarantee that includes the senior bondholders of Anglo?

gizmo

yekahs wrote: »

Maybe its neither a case of people not listening or not understanding. Perhaps people just disagree with you. Comparing it to the 9/11 conspiracies is daft as well. There are economists who I greatly respect, who hold the same view as me re: Anglo. Joseph Stiglitz is one such economist. A nobel prize winner, and former vice chairmain of the world bank.

Read what he has to say about Anglo. While you are at it read people such as Dr Morgan Kelly of UCD, former Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development chief economist Simon Johnson, world-renowned international financier George Soros, economists David McWilliams and Constantin Gurdgiev. What do all those people have in common, apart from their opposition to the way the government is dealing with Anglo, and the NAMA process. They were also the same economists who were warning us of the impending crash, and were dismissed as begrudgers and trying to "talk down the economy".

So don't be so arrogant as to assume that your opinion is the only one to hold, and anyone who disagrees, is either ill-informed, or just not listening to you. Perhaps, they are just divided on the issue, like the entire economic academic community.

My bad, I didn't mean to ignore the possibility of logical disagreement, my beef is more those people who don't even consider it. The above professionals are able to give an accurate assessment about why it may not have caused the run and that's fair enough. On the other hand there are those who simply scream conspiracy and that the government were out to save the bankers skin without even considering the side effects. That kind of baseless ranting helps no one unfortunately.

yekahs wrote: »

As for the run on the banks. Why do you think a guarantee of BOI, AIB, and Anglos depositer would not have prevented a run on the banks in the same way as a guarantee that includes the senior bondholders of Anglo?

Well historically senior bonds have always considered to be on the same level as deposits, hence their inclusion in the guarantee. There is still the question of those senior bonds which were not included and I fully expect Lenihan to eventually agree that they should have to take a hit too. As for whether it this will cause a run, no I don't think so. Only fully reneging on the guarantee would come close to that level of damage, of course that didn't stop Moody's from downgrading them a few weeks ago.