Ireland in Preliminary Bailout Talks

brianthebard

OPENROAD wrote: »

Does that mean our savings are stuffed :eek: Could this happen?

Well an EU/IMF bailout is not going to pay to recapitalise the banks yet again.

amacachi

It could happen. It's a bit like how talk of a run on a bank is what causes a run, they're hoping that "guaranteeing" the savings will keep savings in and keep the banks well capitalised. Though the end of that sentence should tell ya plenty about what's actually happening. :P

Clown Shoes

Politbureau wrote: »

Guys,
I have savings certificates with An Post as part of my pension plan which I have built on over the years. Would it be adviseable for me to withdraw them as I fear all commitments to pay interest (or safeguard the capital sum) my well be off if we have to borrow from the IMF? BBC say tonight that the sum Ireland wishes to borrow is in the 50-80bn mark. Of course it could be much larger and we won't know until they decide to tell us.

I'm really worried as my partner is permanently disabled and we have to maintain our hard earned and saved finances to see us through tough times ahead. An Post require seven days notice to withdraw. If I dither we could lose everything!

My opinion.

In the greater scheme of things, it doesn´t really matter right now. If we get funds from the ESF now, we´ll recover to a modest and hopefully stable standard of living. If we wait until the Italians, spanish and portuguese ask for help (and they will), it could be too late. Capital flight will kick in, the big boys will sling their crocks of gold to another end of the rainbow and the plebs will be left with regulations that restrict us to a few crumbs. For example, you might only be allowed access or transfer $1000 a day.

Bottom line is we are small and can only do so much damage. When one of the big boys goes under, well trading butter for cheese might look quite visionary.

amacachi

Cavehill Red wrote: »

This is why we need to renege on the guarantee of anything other than deposits.

Screw Roman Abramovich and the other bondholders. They gambled and lost.

Doing that would mean savage cuts in spending and tax rises over the next while, something else people seem to be against.

OPENROAD

brianthebard wrote: »

Well an EU/IMF bailout is not going to pay to recapitalise the banks yet again.

Well many are predicting we could well have a bailout, so in that case are you saying ordinary people will lose savings?

OPENROAD

amacachi wrote: »

Doing that would mean savage cuts in spending and tax rises over the next while, something else people seem to be against.

Would it also mean that it would be highly likely we would never be able to borrow again?

brianthebard

OPENROAD wrote: »

Well many are predicting we could well have a bailout, so in that case are you saying ordinary people will lose savings?

I don't know for sure. All I know if the banks won't be given a third or fourth chance. What happens after that I have no idea.

OPENROAD wrote: »

Would it also mean that it would be highly likely we would never be able to borrow again?

No that wouldn't be the case. Look at the experiences of Argentina and Russia to see what could happen.

ligertigon

You should watch this if you think the bailout is good:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yTbdnNgqfs8

confessions of an economic hitman

windpower/oil/gas/water/fishing.... thats the payback

OPENROAD

brianthebard wrote: »

I don't know for sure. All I know if the banks won't be given a third or fourth chance. What happens after that I have no idea.

Why hasn't their been a panic run yet then? Lets be honest, we can't borrow in the markets at the current rate, now if the govt push the budget through, rates should fall.

amacachi

brianthebard wrote: »

No that wouldn't be the case. Look at the experiences of Argentina and Russia to see what could happen.

I think their huge levels of natural resources explain most of that tbh.

K-9

brianthebard wrote: »

I don't know for sure. All I know if the banks won't be given a third or fourth chance. What happens after that I have no idea.




No that wouldn't be the case. Look at the experiences of Argentina and Russia to see what could happen.

Latvia is a more recent example on how the IMF deal with countries now.

It isn't all cuts. They endorsed raising the minimum wage there (albeit very low) and have no problems with a scheme to help people in arrears.

amacachi

OPENROAD wrote: »

Why hasn't their been a panic run yet then? Lets be honest, we can't borrow in the markets at the current rate, now if the govt push the budget through, rates should fall.

The current rates are fairly meaningless, if the budget gets through the rate will probably fall back to where it was last time we sold bonds. Even with what we've already borrowed we're going to be using double digits percentages of tax revenue just to service our debt for the foreseeable future.

Cavehill Red

amacachi wrote: »

Doing that would mean savage cuts in spending and tax rises over the next while, something else people seem to be against.

Not doing it means even more savage cuts. On top of the existing savage cuts.

Continuing the guarantee = giving 60 billion to the bondholders and creditors of the gangrenous banks.

Reneging on the guarantee to all but depositors = not having to give that money to the bondholders.

I don't get bailed out when I punt and lose at Paddy Power. Paddy ain't bailing me out, neither's the government and nor is the EU. Why does Roman get his losing bets repaid out of Irish taxes?

Cavehill Red

OPENROAD wrote: »

Would it also mean that it would be highly likely we would never be able to borrow again?

Actually, taking a bailout is more likely to mean that than reneging on the bank guarantee for bondholders of the banks.
A bailout affects our sovereign ability to repay (currently poisoned by being overloaded with banking debts that aren't the Irish state's responsibility).

Hopefully most people realise that a bailout essentially means that the ship is pumped, the captain is relieved of his duties, the next budget will not be written by the Irish government. It will be written by the ECB/IMF or whomever it is that provides the money, effectivily the country loses part of it independance.

Cavehill Red

Deleted User wrote: »

Hopefully most people realise that a bailout essentially means that the ship is pumped, the captain is relieved of his duties, the next budget will not be written by the Irish government. It will be written by the ECB/IMF or whomever it is that provides the money, effectivily the country loses part of it independance.

Nail on head.

We're just about to pay for the banks in Irish sovereignty.

amacachi

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Not doing it means even more savage cuts. On top of the existing savage cuts.

Continuing the guarantee = giving 60 billion to the bondholders and creditors of the gangrenous banks.

Reneging on the guarantee to all but depositors = not having to give that money to the bondholders.

I don't get bailed out when I punt and lose at Paddy Power. Paddy ain't bailing me out, neither's the government and nor is the EU. Why does Roman get his losing bets repaid out of Irish taxes?

I'm not in favour of any bail-out, just pointing out that a lot of people seem to be against cuts or tax increases without offering realistic alternatives.

Deleted User wrote: »

Hopefully most people realise that a bailout essentially means that the ship is pumped, the captain is relieved of his duties, the next budget will not be written by the Irish government. It will be written by the ECB/IMF or whomever it is that provides the money, effectivily the country loses part of it independance.

We lost part of our independence when we decided to inflate a bubble using foreign money and continued to take it when the bubble burst.

ligertigon

amacachi wrote: »

I'm not in favour of any bail-out, just pointing out that a lot of people seem to be against cuts or tax increases without offering realistic alternatives.

We lost part of our independence when we decided to inflate a bubble using foreign money and continued to take it when the bubble burst.

Who is "we"

I didn't

amacachi

ligertigon wrote: »

Who is "we"

I didn't

That state which I assume you live in.

OPENROAD

ligertigon wrote: »

Who is "we"

I didn't

You don't live in Ireland?

ligertigon

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Nail on head.

We're just about to pay for the banks in Irish sovereignty.

See my previous post on .... how

brianthebard

amacachi wrote: »

I think their huge levels of natural resources explain most of that tbh.

That's very true. But regardless of resources its fair to say that bankruptcy had a huge impact on the lower classes of both countries and had fairly wide ranging implications for the societies as a whole.

amacachi

brianthebard wrote: »

That's very true. But regardless of resources its fair to say that bankruptcy had a huge impact on the lower classes of both countries and had fairly wide ranging implications for the societies as a whole.

Ah I dunno what to say, about 6 or 7 posts on any of these threads is about all I can manage before I get too frustrated to go on. :pac: Just such a fcuking disaster from start to finish. Sigh.

Cavehill Red

amacachi wrote: »

I'm not in favour of any bail-out, just pointing out that a lot of people seem to be against cuts or tax increases without offering realistic alternatives.

I just offered one. Amputate the gangrenous banks from the Irish exchequer.

We've done austerity like no other country in recent times and there's much more to come.

Yet the markets remain singularly unconvinced that we can put our finances in order, and this is because they suspect the bank black hole will just keep growing and growing until we can no longer pay for it and the running of the state.

Cuts are coming (again) and the public accept this and the political parties accept this (though they differ in implementation).

But cuts won't be enough to stop the banks taking us out because they're toxic beyond belief. They need to be cut loose, with deposits only guaranteed. Do that, and a 60 billion liability vanishes from the state's books immediately.

amacachi

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I just offered one. Amputate the gangrenous banks from the Irish exchequer.

We've done austerity like no other country in recent times and there's much more to come.

Yet the markets remain singularly unconvinced that we can put our finances in order, and this is because they suspect the bank black hole will just keep growing and growing until we can no longer pay for it and the running of the state.

Cuts are coming (again) and the public accept this and the political parties accept this (though they differ in implementation).

But cuts won't be enough to stop the banks taking us out because they're toxic beyond belief. They need to be cut loose, with deposits only guaranteed. Do that, and a 60 billion liability vanishes from the state's books immediately.

An overnight cut of over 30% of government spending probably wouldn't get too much support, as much as I'd tend to be in favour of letting private losses happen.

ligertigon

There is a solution.

Put Ire up for auction, the people decide the terms.

eg, how much is some scabby island worth off the west coast to Russia?
for some radars/ nuke silos etc???

And how much is it worth to the yanks because of that??

lateral thinking folks

Cavehill Red

amacachi wrote: »

An overnight cut of over 30% of government spending probably wouldn't get too much support, as much as I'd tend to be in favour of letting private losses happen.

An overnight cut of 30% wouldn't be needed if we didn't have a massive banking liability that's not rightly our debt on our books thanks to that buffoon Lenihan and his 'cheapest bank bailout ever'.

OPENROAD

Cavehill Red wrote: »

I just offered one. Amputate the gangrenous banks from the Irish exchequer.

We've done austerity like no other country in recent times and there's much more to come.

Yet the markets remain singularly unconvinced that we can put our finances in order, and this is because they suspect the bank black hole will just keep growing and growing until we can no longer pay for it and the running of the state.

Cuts are coming (again) and the public accept this and the political parties accept this (though they differ in implementation).

But cuts won't be enough to stop the banks taking us out because they're toxic beyond belief. They need to be cut loose, with deposits only guaranteed. Do that, and a 60 billion liability vanishes from the state's books immediately.

If its that easy why is no political party advocating this? Genuine question

jimmycrackcorm

Cavehill Red wrote: »

Nail on head.

We're just about to pay for the banks in Irish sovereignty.

If you want to make that point then can you back it up by telling us how the Greek sovereignty has been affected?

brianthebard

OPENROAD wrote: »

If its that easy why is no political party advocating this? Genuine question

Pretty sure Labour and Sinn Fein have, and FG have a variation on the same theme afaik.

Cavehill Red

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

If you want to make that point then can you back it up by telling us how the Greek sovereignty has been affected?

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-05-02/greece-to-cut-spending-raise-taxes-as-part-of-eu-imf-package-summary.html

amacachi

Cavehill Red wrote: »

An overnight cut of 30% wouldn't be needed if we didn't have a massive banking liability that's not rightly our debt on our books thanks to that buffoon Lenihan and his 'cheapest bank bailout ever'.

Ah right, you mean letting the banks go so we can keep borrowing to keep up our other spending?

amacachi

brianthebard wrote: »

Pretty sure Labour and Sinn Fein have, and FG have a variation on the same theme afaik.

See how quickly they'd change their minds having won an election and the EU having a quick word with them. :pac:

epgc3fyqirnbsx

My main concern is that a few weeks back Ollie Rehn suggested that it would not be possible for Ireland to maintain its low corporation tax.
Now it's not possible for anyone to demand we change our tax rates, by all treaties it is officially a sovereign matter, but the pressure applied may be enormous and our MNE's have already stated that a rise in the tax would undoubtedly lead to them finding elsewhere to set up

Like it or not, we are relying on these MNE's for the next few years at least, and corporation tax accounts for up to 20% of receipts so if this is increased, for whatever reason, we are in big trouble

All the rest we can deal with, we just really can't deal with losing more jobs. It's down to whatever government we have standing their ground and refusing to adjust corp tax if (when) asked to do so

OPENROAD

brianthebard wrote: »

Pretty sure Labour and Sinn Fein have, and FG have a variation on the same theme afaik.

I am open to correction here but from my understanding that is not the case, rather they would let those who lent more risky ones go but only those.

ligertigon

OPENROAD wrote: »

You don't live in Ireland?

I do why you ask?

Cavehill Red

amacachi wrote: »

Ah right, you mean letting the banks go so we can keep borrowing to keep up our other spending?

In principle, yes. It's not the debt of the Irish people but of banks based in Ireland. Therefore it's not the responsibility of the Irish people to guarantee those debts.

brianthebard

amacachi wrote: »

See how quickly they'd change their minds having won an election and the EU having a quick word with them. :pac:

If we got as far as an election without a bailout I don't think they would have too much direct pressure to fear from the EU. who knows tohugh.

skelliser

Just remember guys in the polling both in the upcoming election the party that has lead us to this point.

Actually pause and think a little before you make your mark.

Reflect on 13 years of
arrogance,
hypocracy,
unvouched expenses,
"dig outs",
misdirection,
no tax clearance certs,
self-entitlement,
golden circles,
chauffer driven mercedes benz's,
gov. jets,
2 referenda repeated TWICE,
carbon tax,
48+ hours on a trolley,
private hospitals,
m50 toll bridge,
fishing industry destroyed,
400m euro on contaimiated glass bottle factory,
450,000 people on the dole,
the "cheapest bank bailout" turning out to be the worst bailout i the history of the modern world!
the list goes on....


and now the final nail, needing to be bailed out!


The legacy of Fianna Fail

OPENROAD

ligertigon wrote: »

I do why you ask?

Your post suggested you didn't

brianthebard

OPENROAD wrote: »

I am open to correction here but from my understanding that is not the case, rather they would let those who lent more risky ones go but only those.

but how is that different to what cavehill red was saying? obviously any bank still in good health would and should be left to its own devices.

Cavehill Red

brianthebard wrote: »

If we got as far as an election without a bailout I don't think they would have too much direct pressure to fear from the EU. who knows tohugh.

This might be an upside for Fianna Fail actually. They get fecked out and then sit on the sidelines pointing fingers at others forced to concede sovereignty in payment for their policies.

istr that when the last British general election was over the new chancellor of the exchequer went to his new office, he found a memo form the previous chancellor saying something like " sorry all the money's gone!

amacachi

Cavehill Red wrote: »

This might be an upside for Fianna Fail actually. They get fecked out and then sit on the sidelines pointing fingers at others forced to concede sovereignty in payment for their policies.

Sure have ya heard some of the statements they've made lately along the lines of getting the party and the country through this mess, in that order.

galwayrush

Cavehill Red wrote: »

This might be an upside for Fianna Fail actually. They get fecked out and then sit on the sidelines pointing fingers at others forced to concede sovereignty in payment for their policies.

Their masterplan failed..:rolleyes:

amacachi

Deleted User wrote: »

istr that when the last British general election was over the new chancellor of the exchequer went to his new office, he found a memo form the previous chancellor saying something like " sorry all the money's gone!

Dunno about the last one but in the 70s I think it was one of them left a note saying "Sorry about the mess" and it wasn't the office he was referring to. :pac:

brianthebard

Cavehill Red wrote: »

This might be an upside for Fianna Fail actually. They get fecked out and then sit on the sidelines pointing fingers at others forced to concede sovereignty in payment for their policies.

Its definitely a possibility, as is FF blaming everything on the pd's and greens like they did in the last election. However the sustained poor polling rates for FF suggest the electorate may not let them off as easily as they have in the past. Only time can tell I guess.

ligertigon

OPENROAD wrote: »

Your post suggested you didn't

You being facetious?

amacachi

brianthebard wrote: »

Its definitely a possibility, as is FF blaming everything on the pd's and greens like they did in the last election. However the sustained poor polling rates for FF suggest the electorate may not let them off as easily as they have in the past. Only time can tell I guess.

They'll bounce back though. Dermot Ahern will most likely still top the poll here next time despite not attending meetings to save the hospital in Dundalk (not something that's particularly close to my heart but does seem to matter to a lot of others) and generally being a prick. He's done very little for the area and is just a ladder climber. I don't like parochial politics but at least there's a twisted logic for voting for JHR and the like, I cannot see why anyone would ever vote for Dermot Ahern.

Cavehill Red

amacachi wrote: »

Dunno about the last one but in the 70s I think it was one of them left a note saying "Sorry about the mess" and it wasn't the office he was referring to. :pac:

http://business.timesonline.co.uk/tol/business/economics/article7128665.ece