Bailout megathread.

ninty9er

mike65 wrote: »

The homes we are in now will be, for most part, the homes we get carried out of.

As will most Europeans, what's the point being made? That's a positive really. All the moving about of the past 20 years has destroyed communities all over the country.

serfboard

Although their website doesn't say it, their TV news is firming up more on this, by dropping the word "preliminary".

Was just watching it there and Constantin Gurdgiev was on by phone from Kilkenny where he's at the econmics/comedy gig. Anyway, he says that we are insolvent and that it's a mistake to keep borrowing more. The only solution for us is to re-negotiate our debt - public, private and corporate.

Funnily enough, maybe it's the "Green Jersey" agenda, but he was a lot less negative then he usually is - maybe it's because now that we're finally being honest about how broke we are, that we can then figure out what to do about it.

The spinning and lies that have come from the government in the last 2 years is really sickening, though. And counter-productive too, as I presume the motivation was not to spook the (bond) markets. It has resulted in the markets making their own minds up and believing nothing we say - in that way we're not that much different from the Greeks.

Scofflaw

LookingFor wrote: »

If it weren't for those pesky banks they arguably would still have something to admire

The property collapse took out the banks and the construction sector. The collapse of the construction sector took a lot of secondary businesses with it, the collapse of property and the construction sector took a lot of tax with it, the collapse of inflated property valuations meant the banks' assets were worth an unknown but small fraction of their book value, and that the banks were well outside their allowable asset-to-loan ratios. It also meant a lot of people who had been, on paper, wealthy through their property assets, suddenly became poor overnight, while people who had leveraged property valuations to buy other properties found their positions completely unravelled.

Uncertainty over the banks' assets meant that banks stopped lending to each other. So shares in the banks plummeted, rates for lending to banks soared, bank lending contracted sharply, and, in turn, viable businesses couldn't access short-term credit, while businesses that were only viable because of the inflation in the property sector and the feeling of wealth that generated went to the wall rather quicker. That in turn meant further falls in tax take, to the point where we have a €20bn a year hole in the public finances.

And the collapse of the property bubble was inevitable - and no bubble has ever landed softly.

The 'miracle' of the Irish economy post-2001 was a mirage. We can blame the banks for recklessly lending, but who was recklessly borrowing? And who was supposed to be regulating the banks, and ensuring they were being 'prudent'? And who was supposed to be holding their government accountable?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Blackjack

Scofflaw wrote: »

We can blame the banks for recklessly lending, but who was recklessly borrowing? And who was supposed to be regulating the banks, and ensuring they were being 'prudent'? And who was supposed to be holding their government accountable?

cordially,
Scofflaw

"Not me guv" I think would be how many would respond, and herein lies a problem in its own right.

hatrickpatrick

...have been blatantly lying through their arses for God knows how long, it would seem.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-11750676

I'm absolutely disgusted. Screwing up the country is one thing. Lying to us all about it is another, and is absolutely unforgivable in my book. In a proper democracy this would be completely transparent.

I genuinely believe some form of revolution is now required. Electing a different government is not enough, we must change the entire system of how any potential government will operate, so that this type of secrecy and pulling the wool over everyone's eyes is simply not legally possible.

In any case, what will such a bailout mean? Would it be worse than the €15 adjustment we're already facing or about the same, regardless?

1966

Tbh we as Irish people have been lied to so often by our government that we no longer know what to believe.

Last yr we were told after budget day that that years budget was the toughie - look at us now a yr later.

Absolutely sickening!

hatrickpatrick

Scofflaw wrote: »

And who was supposed to be holding their government accountable?

cordially,
Scofflaw

Are you suggesting it was us, the people?
Because I don't want to start any drama here, Scofflaw, but back during the Lisbon Treaty debates you seemed to be of the adamant opinion that democracy was simply "you pick the PEOPLE you want to run your country and then for 5 years you have no say whatsoever in how the run it, and this is as it should be as opposed to the country actually being run by the people."

Therefore, by your previous Lisbon-era logic, we don't hold our government accountable. In our system, it isn't possible. The government, once in office, is safe until their term runs out. There is no mechanism for the people to get rid of them if they aren't doing their job or are doing the opposite of what we asked them to do when we gave them a mandate.

hatrickpatrick

1966 wrote: »

Tbh we as Irish people have been lied to so often by our government that we no longer know what to believe.

Last yr we were told after budget day that that years budget was the toughie - look at us now a yr later.

Absolutely sickening!

Brian Lenihan: "The worst is definitely over" -- This quote is circa late 2009, I believe?

But how is this possible in a democracy? Should we not have a law which simply states that all press statements must be made under oath, and that if it can be proven that a politician directly lied (as opposed to giving false information which they genuinely believed or had been told was true, which is excusable sometimes), they will be immediately booted from office and a bye election will be promptly set up?

This of course, to go hand in hand with "a seat in the Dail must not be left vacant for more than one month without announcing a date for a bye election."

Honestly, we have so few safeguards in this country it's ridiculous. This is NOT a democracy we're living in, not when scandal after scandal is allowed to take place with absolutely zero responsibility taken by any of the politicians who caused it.

Mr.Micro

IF ITS true that Ireland is in talks for a massive EU bailout what is the point of this disgraceful Government staying on to waste any such bailout on their cronies and idiotic policies? Its a sad day if the EU has to come to our rescue and FF/Greens have destroyed our country and left us bankrupt and the loss of our sovereignty. There should be general election if the EU come in before any budget. FF/Greens and those disgusting independents should hold there heads in shame for running the country into the ground.

The Anglo is a bottomless pit that this Government saw fit to bail out at the expense of the nation, dare i say the nation sacrificed to fund this disgusting bank of corruption and its golden circle. I hope that the voters remember this in future.

Mr.Micro

Lenihan et al have not had the decency once to come clean about anything. He just talks with that stare in a sort of mocking and arrogant manner like talking to children. Rehn was not here for his holidays but to discuss what was best for the EU.

hatrickpatrick

^^^^ Well that actually raises an interesting question: Do you think our government have been any more honest with the EU about the situation than they have been with us?

RonMexico

FF should cease to exist as a political party. The opposition aren't much better either.

Mr.Micro

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

^^^^ Well that actually raises an interesting question: Do you think our government have been any more honest with the EU about the situation than they have been with us?

I think perhaps it is because of Rehn in that he looked at the figures and told clueless Biffo no way can you ride it out without help, and the EU does not want a run on the Euro if we default so perhaps Rehn's visit precipitated this and on a Saturday no Dail, I am conspiracy mad. Speculation but maybe?

If it happens then IMO this Government should resign immediately.

Poly

Mr.Micro wrote: »

The Anglo is a bottomless pit that this Government saw fit to bail out at the expense of the nation, dare i say the nation sacrificed to fund this disgusting bank of corruption and its golden circle. I hope that the voters remember this in future.

I hope the jury remember this if they are ever brought to trial

Fratton Fred

Three days ago Brian Lenihan guaranteed that Ireland would honour its debts.

His position must now be untenable

LookingFor

Fratton Fred wrote: »

Three days ago Brian Lenihan guaranteed that Ireland would honour its debts.

His position must now be untenable

There's little risk of default here, is there? We'll honour our debts, by taking on more (as every country seems to do) - be it from the market, or from a stability fund. Whatever.

My question is - what benefit is it to Ireland to have a 'premature' bailout?

Assuming what we're told is correct - that there's money in the bank to see us well into next year etc. - why take money now?

Or would we be doing it to satisfy concerns around other factors? To try and remove uncertainty over the whole situation for the benefit of the euro, or other countries like spain and portugal who may need to go to the market sooner, and who could benefit from said certainty on the Irish situation?

If taking a bailout now vs later would be really more for the benefit of others, all I can say is that I hope we get a good rate. Or is there a benefit to us in doing that?

alang184

BBC news reporting that Ireland "has had talks" about a bailout.

So BBC, Reuters, Bloomberg and RTE all reporting that talks are going on. Yet the department of Finance denies that talks are taking place. (http://www.rte.ie/news/2010/1113/economy.html)

It just disgusts me. The level of secrecy just disgusts me. Not only do many citizens suspect these kind of things when they are happening, but now, international media are all reporting that something is happening, and the government denies it. It just makes me sick; these clowns were elected to work for the people, but as usual, it's as if we are the opposition to them.

I just can't stand the dishonesty.

murphaph

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Are you suggesting it was us, the people?
Because I don't want to start any drama here, Scofflaw, but back during the Lisbon Treaty debates you seemed to be of the adamant opinion that democracy was simply "you pick the PEOPLE you want to run your country and then for 5 years you have no say whatsoever in how the run it, and this is as it should be as opposed to the country actually being run by the people."

Therefore, by your previous Lisbon-era logic, we don't hold our government accountable. In our system, it isn't possible. The government, once in office, is safe until their term runs out. There is no mechanism for the people to get rid of them if they aren't doing their job or are doing the opposite of what we asked them to do when we gave them a mandate.

But we had 3 opportunities to remove FF since the real boom started going pear shaped. When exactly was the last time FF didn't top the polls? Unless I'm reading it wrong it was 1927!!

Wtf is wrong with the Irish electorate?

SkepticOne

LookingFor wrote: »

There's little risk of default here, is there? We'll honour our debts, by taking on more (as every country seems to do) - be it from the market, or from a stability fund. Whatever.

Merkel suggested that bond holders might be required to take a hit, in which case it could be considered a partial default. In any case, once you get a bailout you are dependent on the kindness of others who are now subsidising your borrowing rather than the open market.

serfboard

Mr.Micro wrote: »

If it happens then IMO this Government should resign immediately.

Except that if they haven't resigned yet with all the sh1t that's being going on, they won't resign for this either.

They'll have to be forced out. Come on Donegal! (And I can't wait to see what size of vote FF will get there).

cavedave

hatrickpatrick

I'm absolutely disgusted. Screwing up the country is one thing. Lying to us all about it is another, and is absolutely unforgivable in my book. In a proper democracy this would be completely transparent.

The things a government is generally allowed lie about are
1. National security issues
2. Currency/banking issues

In both cases you are in a game theory where what the other side thinks effects the result. So if you lie about cancer care "We have the new drug to stop leukemia". Cancer does not care and when you lie people die.
When you lie about these two you might spook the other side into backing down. "we have nuclear submarines we never mentioned before" is an allowable security lie. "We will never devalue the punt is safe" is allowable if is scares off speculators.

Now there is a question of what lying in the face of the obvious is allowed. And blaming telling truth tellers they should go commit suicide has to annoy anyone. But still in issues of confidence and brinkmanship some lying, as happened when the punt devalued in 1993, is generally allowed. I think this lying is so bad it that excuse cannot be used anymore. But you should be ready to defend against the "I had to say that to ensure confidence" excuse.

Scofflaw

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Are you suggesting it was us, the people?
Because I don't want to start any drama here, Scofflaw, but back during the Lisbon Treaty debates you seemed to be of the adamant opinion that democracy was simply "you pick the PEOPLE you want to run your country and then for 5 years you have no say whatsoever in how the run it, and this is as it should be as opposed to the country actually being run by the people."

Therefore, by your previous Lisbon-era logic, we don't hold our government accountable. In our system, it isn't possible. The government, once in office, is safe until their term runs out. There is no mechanism for the people to get rid of them if they aren't doing their job or are doing the opposite of what we asked them to do when we gave them a mandate.

As so often, that's a nice straw man. There are really quite a lot of mechanisms available to help keep a government on the straight and narrow - since even the government is aware that they have to face the electorate in five years - but they all require giving a toss in the first place, and giving the impression that at the end of the five year mandate, the electorate will actually act on your record.

They seem to manage it in other places.

Blackjack wrote:

"Not me guv" I think would be how many would respond, and herein lies a problem in its own right.

You didn't have to wait long for that to be demonstrated!

cordially,
Scofflaw

LookingFor

SkepticOne wrote: »

Merkel suggested that bond holders might be required to take a hit, in which case it could be considered a partial default.

On debt issued after 2013.

One way or the other, we won't be 'allowed' default. As mentioned anyway, we don't even have an opportunity to default for another year. So I still wonder why the talk of a bailout before Xmas for example.

meditraitor

"bailout" my arse...... people have to get over this nonsense. We have a young population and a good manufacturing sector in comparison to other old Europe countries so in effect we are a good bet.
Any money the ECB/IMF sub us will be paid back.... we are good for it.

If we were'nt they wouldnt bother.

SkepticOne

meditraitor wrote: »

"bailout" my arse...... people have to get over this nonsense. We have a young population and a good manufacturing sector in comparison to other old Europe countries so in effect we are a good bet.
Any money the ECB/IMF sub us will be paid back.... we are good for it.

If we were'nt they wouldnt bother.

Its a bailout if our borrowing is being subsidiesed by others, i.e., if the market rate is 8% and we're getting it for 5%. Moreover, it's got to be on better terms than the 5% offered to Greece if there's to be a realistic chance of paying it back according to Morgan Kelly.

meditraitor

SkepticOne wrote: »

Its a bailout if our borrowing is being subsidiesed by others, i.e., if the market rate is 8% and we're getting it for 5%. Moreover, it's got to be on better terms than the 5% offered to Greece if there's to be a realistic chance of paying it back according to Morgan Kelly.

Morgan kelly is a chancer(very little of what he has said in tha past 5 years is relevent when he says it)......... we are very likely the best bet of the troubled countries in the EU.

Any money subbed to us by the EU will be at ECB rates.... at present 1%

Scofflaw

LookingFor wrote: »

On debt issued after 2013.

One way or the other, we won't be 'allowed' default. As mentioned anyway, we don't even have an opportunity to default for another year. So I still wonder why the talk of a bailout before Xmas for example.

It's odd - there's a strange lack of solidity to the proposition being made that we need one right now. I'm not saying we won't need one at some point, and I'm not saying that it's impossible that the government might not be talking about one, or looking at the structure of one, in advance - indeed, it would be irresponsible not to plan such a thing in advance on at least a contingency basis. It's just that there doesn't seem to be any compelling reason to go for one now. Nearest state debt repayment is late next year, and the state-guaranteed banks aren't even back on the markets yet to any serious degree - they're still tapping the ECB.

The most obvious reasons for people being willing to take rumours as hard facts seem to me to be either that people truly believe the state's position is very very much worse than it's stated to be - I don't mean a bit worse, but our debts are multiples of what they're stated to be - or that it's emotionally satisfying to say that the sky is falling.

On the latter option, I can't help but notice that many of the doom-mongers on these forums are the same people who were sure Lisbon would be the end of the world.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Scofflaw

SkepticOne wrote: »

Its a bailout if our borrowing is being subsidiesed by others, i.e., if the market rate is 8% and we're getting it for 5%. Moreover, it's got to be on better terms than the 5% offered to Greece if there's to be a realistic chance of paying it back according to Morgan Kelly.

Sure - Greece's bailout was actually a large loan at preferential rates, not a big gift. There's no other form an Irish bailout would take - nobody's simply going to give us a cheque for umpteen billion and say "there you go kid, have fun".

cordially,
Scofflaw

ArtSmart

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's odd - there's a strange lack of solidity to the proposition being made that we need one. I'm not saying we won't need one, and I'm not saying that it's impossible that the government might not be talking about one, or looking at the structure of one, in advance - indeed, it would be irresponsible not to plan such a thing in advance on at least a contingency basis.

The most obvious reasons for people being willing to take rumours as hard facts seem to me to be either that people truly believe the state's position is very very much worse than it's stated to be - I don't mean a bit worse, but our debts are multiples of what they're stated to be - or that it's emotionally satisfying to say that the sky is falling.

On the latter option, I can't help but notice that many of the doom-mongers on these forums are the same people who were sure Lisbon would be the end of the world.

cordially,
Scofflaw

any of the above.

it could also be that Europe is looking upon Ireland as a dangerous domino and therefore they may well be inclined to ensure we can handle the situation

i would have imagined though they'd do it quietly through the ECB - as they've pretty much being doing. (through lending to the banks)

LookingFor

Scofflaw wrote: »

It's odd - there's a strange lack of solidity to the proposition being made that we need one. I'm not saying we won't need one, and I'm not saying that it's impossible that the government might not be talking about one, or looking at the structure of one, in advance - indeed, it would be irresponsible not to plan such a thing in advance on at least a contingency basis.

The most obvious reasons for people being willing to take rumours as hard facts seem to me to be either that people truly believe the state's position is very very much worse than it's stated to be - I don't mean a bit worse, but our debts are multiples of what they're stated to be - or that it's emotionally satisfying to say that the sky is falling.

On the latter option, I can't help but notice that many of the doom-mongers on these forums are the same people who were sure Lisbon would be the end of the world.

cordially,
Scofflaw

Yeah, I think contingency plans make all the sense in the world, and that may be all that's going on.

But then some say that the uncertainty over Ireland is putting pressure on Portugal/Spain. Better to deal with Ireland one way or the other sooner rather than later so that these other countries have a chance at staying in the bond markets?

It could be difficult for people here to accept us being 'forced' into a early bailout just to help other countries though.

OTOH, if it's cheaper money than what we could get elsewhere maybe there's no harm...unless it came with specific negative stipulations attached. Other than wounded pride.