Take a hike

JONJO THE MISER

Could this be the 2011 elections new catchphrase telling the E.R and I.M.F to take a hike and we will not repay any debts.

biko

Let's hope so.

FreudianSlippers

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Could this be the 2011 elections new catchphrase telling the E.R and I.M.F to take a hike and we will not repay any debts.

Good thought... so how do we pay to run the country then?

Mr Benevolent

If we renege we'll just go deeper into the shit. The IMF aren't as friendly as MABS.

ejmaztec

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Good thought... so how do we pay to run the country then?

Kidnapping, prostitution, drug-running and extortion.

Agricola

ejmaztec wrote: »

Kidnapping, prostitution, drug-running and extortion.

Racketeering? Can we do some of that? I love the cool names of these criminal activities. Reminds me of my favourite movies.

AnonoBoy

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Could this be the 2011 elections new catchphrase telling the E.R and I.M.F to take a hike and we will not repay any debts.

Ah we really have to repay some of our debts. Otherwise we won't get invited to play with the other countries any more.

Not all..... but definitely some.

FreudianSlippers

Michael Noonan was on the news at 1 today (think it was him) and he outlined the position of FG in regards to the IMF/EU bailout and in comparison with the Labour point of view (or lack thereof) it makes logistical sense. We need the EU bailout, but I think we can legitimately knock down our interest rate significantly.
With regards to the IMF, I'm not sure if we've actually taken any money from them yet, but we should definitely renegotiate with EU and see if we can remove the IMF element if not fully to a large extent.

I do think that Michael Noonan also made a great point about how although we should be repaying our debts, we need to make the "betting" individual bondholders assume more responsibility and we need the ECB to take responsibility as well.

JONJO THE MISER

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Could this be the 2011 elections new catchphrase telling the E.R and I.M.F to take a hike and we will not repay any debts.

Hurts my head..

martic

I wonder had the IMF a forward thinking plan in action when they were offering the terms of the bailout, kind of like what someone selling something does.
For example a second hand car dealer has a car worth E10k so he puts a price of E10.5k on it knowing Joe Soap is more than likely going to haggle him down on the price and when he gets it for E10k he walks away thinking he got some deal.Put this now in the shape of the IMF bailout,they know that the current government will not be in power for much longer and will accept anything so they offer them the money with very high interest rates knowing more than likely a new government will be formed and top of their agenda will be to renegotiate the terms of the loan,leaving them that they can come down a few percent and everyone walks away happy.

DB10

JONJO THE MISER wrote: »

Could this be the 2011 elections new catchphrase telling the E.R and I.M.F to take a hike and we will not repay any debts.

Only one party will do it

They also take industrial wages by principal

Ruu_Old

Maybe if we pretend that no agreement was made, it'll all go away. "What money?"

flyton5

I say we take the IMF bailout money and put it all on black. No wait!!! All on red...

sensibleken

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Michael Noonan was on the news at 1 today (think it was him) and he outlined the position of FG in regards to the IMF/EU bailout and in comparison with the Labour point of view (or lack thereof) it makes logistical sense. We need the EU bailout, but I think we can legitimately knock down our interest rate significantly.
With regards to the IMF, I'm not sure if we've actually taken any money from them yet, but we should definitely renegotiate with EU and see if we can remove the IMF element if not fully to a large extent.

I do think that Michael Noonan also made a great point about how although we should be repaying our debts, we need to make the "betting" individual bondholders assume more responsibility and we need the ECB to take responsibility as well.

yeah but theyre saying that they are going to use the carrot of have a constitutional amendment that they cant be more than 3% in deficit. thats complete nonsense. what are they going to do, if there is a sudden crash again theyll just cut spending over night without proper wind down? theyll fine themselves? we already have targets liek that from the EU. their method is BS

iPlop

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Michael Noonan was on the news at 1 today (think it was him) and he outlined the position of FG in regards to the IMF/EU bailout and in comparison with the Labour point of view (or lack thereof) it makes logistical sense. We need the EU bailout, but I think we can legitimately knock down our interest rate significantly.
With regards to the IMF, I'm not sure if we've actually taken any money from them yet, but we should definitely renegotiate with EU and see if we can remove the IMF element if not fully to a large extent.

I do think that Michael Noonan also made a great point about how although we should be repaying our debts, we need to make the "betting" individual bondholders assume more responsibility and we need the ECB to take responsibility as well.

I agree ,but what I can see happening is ,in return for a lower interest rate ,the hiking of corporate tax.Let's face it ,it's a big one for them.France and Germany have lower services costs compared to us so if we have the same corporate tax level ,the multinationals will flock there (over time)rather than here

FreudianSlippers

Well, the IMF are contributing €22.5bn at 5.8% interest.

I think that we have a better chance of getting more money at a lower interest rate from the EU than the IMF.

fontanalis

Over a Barrel might be more realistic.

ejmaztec

Agricola wrote: »

Racketeering? Can we do some of that? I love the cool names of these criminal activities. Reminds me of my favourite movies.

We've already had that, which is why there's an election coming up.

On the subject of gangster movies, the "Untouchables" in Ireland's case are the high-rollers that have gotten away with it.

Snakeblood

DB10 wrote: »

Only one party will do it

They also take industrial wages by principal

Hiding bodies by habit?

FreudianSlippers

sensibleken wrote: »

yeah but theyre saying that they are going to use the carrot of have a constitutional amendment that they cant be more than 3% in deficit. thats complete nonsense. what are they going to do, if there is a sudden crash again theyll just cut spending over night without proper wind down? theyll fine themselves? we already have targets liek that from the EU. their method is BS

I would tend to agree with that, but after researching the issue and listening to the party statements today - I can say that while some FG policies are odd at best, the overall legitimacy of their policies compared to Labour is far greater.

Labour have some good policies, but to me, their overall policy(ies) don't make economic sense to me.

Sink The Banana wrote: »

I agree ,but what I can see happening is ,in return for a lower interest rate ,the hiking of corporate tax.Let's face it ,it's a big one for them.France and Germany have lower services costs compared to us so if we have the same corporate tax level ,the multinationals will flock there (over time)rather than here

That is possible, but what Noonan said today is that European banks were reckless in lending to Irish banks and they should take some responsibility for it too.
I think a small corporate tax increase wouldn't be detrimental to this country - once we're still lower than the other countries I think the companies will stay.
A small increase in corporate tax coupled with a MUCH lower interest rate would be in the mid-term interest of the country.
I do accept the point that it may not be in the long-term interest, but this country is begging for the right now at the moment with little thought to the consequences of the future.

I mean, just look at the OP of this thread. Absolutely no sense in the statement and zero thought into anything but the right now.

fontanalis

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I would tend to agree with that, but after researching the issue and listening to the party statements today - I can say that while some FG policies are odd at best, the overall legitimacy of their policies compared to Labour is far greater.

Labour have some good policies, but to me, their overall policy(ies) don't make economic sense to me.


That is possible, but what Noonan said today is that European banks were reckless in lending to Irish banks and they should take some responsibility for it too.
I think a small corporate tax increase wouldn't be detrimental to this country - once we're still lower than the other countries I think the companies will stay.
A small increase in corporate tax coupled with a MUCH lower interest rate would be in the mid-term interest of the country.
I do accept the point that it may not be in the long-term interest, but this country is begging for the right now at the moment with little thought to the consequences of the future.

I mean, just look at the OP of this thread. Absolutely no sense in the statement and zero thought into anything but the right now.

The portion that is used to pay off foreign bond holders (champions of the markets) should be interest free.
What the f*** was Lenihan on?

FreudianSlippers

fontanalis wrote: »

The portion that is used to pay off foreign bond holders (champions of the markets) should be interest free.
What the f*** was Lenihan on?

That's why I was very shocked/excited to hear from Noonan today that FG is planning on holding European banks and bondholders responsible for more of the debt.

I think the jist of what he was saying is that Ireland should pay back the majority of its legitimate debts, but gambling bondholders cannot be realistically expecting to get paid back.
I think he also said he believed the EU/IMF came in with a list of demands which FF signed with no questions asked... he said "the EU/IMF said jump and FF said how high?"

squod

Everyone is aware we can't afford the bail-out, right? I don't want to start argueing with some pie in the sky nonsense FF/FG copy pasta. I'll say this, there's an election due. It's your choice whether you want to take on the debts of gamblers and career criminals or not.

FreudianSlippers

squod wrote: »

Everyone is aware we can't afford the bail-out, right? I don't want to start argueing with some pie in the sky nonsense FF/FG copy pasta. I'll say this, there's an election due. It's your choice whether you want to take on the debts of gamblers and career criminals or not.

What does this actually mean?

How can we not afford the bail out? I say we can't not afford the bailout.
I also see no copypasta.

fontanalis

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's why I was very shocked/excited to hear from Noonan today that FG is planning on holding European banks and bondholders responsible for more of the debt.

I think the jist of what he was saying is that Ireland should pay back the majority of its legitimate debts, but gambling bondholders cannot be realistically expecting to get paid back.
I think he also said he believed the EU/IMF came in with a list of demands which FF signed with no questions asked... he said "the EU/IMF said jump and FF said how high?"

Or they said to themselves what's a jump? What's the old saying; never attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity.
I believe having people in charge who were so out of their depth it would be hilarious if it weren't tragic, played a part.

squod

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What does this actually mean?

How can we not afford the bail out? I say we can't not afford the bailout.
I also see no copypasta.

How exactly do you intend paying back ~€100billion while the country is in the worst recession ever? Should we just send the bill to you?

FreudianSlippers

squod wrote: »

How exactly do you intend paying back ~€100billion while the country is in the worst recession ever? Should we just send the bill to you?

You know that's not how it works, right? Like... we don't just pay it back tomorrow.

You are taking the piss right?

DB10

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You know that's not how it works, right? Like... we don't just pay it back tomorrow.

You are taking the piss right?

So thanks to FF/FG

We will pay it back for the next 80 years.

Brilliant.

fontanalis

If there was no bailout where does the money come from again?

squod

fontanalis wrote: »

If there was no bailout where does the money come from again?

We've had no problem previously borrowing money to run the country. If people imagine that taking on an unmanageable debt will endear us to the markets, they're wrong. Investors are as aware as anyone of the fraud this government are committing.

''Let me quote Mr Rehn's admirably frank reminder: "We need to recall that sovereign debt has not been at the origin of the crisis. Rather, private debt has become public debt. The financial sector has misallocated resources in the economy and then stopped working."

Separating this private debt is absolutely necessary, we simply can't afford it.

Snakeblood

fontanalis wrote: »

If there was no bailout where does the money come from again?

It's quite simple. We have enough money for the rest of the year unless something else goes wrong, then at the end of the year we go back to the markets and borrow money from the people we told to get ****ed now, assuming that they have the same grasp of economics that we do.

FreudianSlippers

DB10 wrote: »

So thanks to FF/FG

We will pay it back for the next 80 years.

Brilliant.

32, but yeah.

iPlop

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

I would tend to agree with that, but after researching the issue and listening to the party statements today - I can say that while some FG policies are odd at best, the overall legitimacy of their policies compared to Labour is far greater.

Labour have some good policies, but to me, their overall policy(ies) don't make economic sense to me.


That is possible, but what Noonan said today is that European banks were reckless in lending to Irish banks and they should take some responsibility for it too.
I think a small corporate tax increase wouldn't be detrimental to this country - once we're still lower than the other countries I think the companies will stay.
A small increase in corporate tax coupled with a MUCH lower interest rate would be in the mid-term interest of the country.
I do accept the point that it may not be in the long-term interest, but this country is begging for the right now at the moment with little thought to the consequences of the future.

I mean, just look at the OP of this thread. Absolutely no sense in the statement and zero thought into anything but the right now.

Only if it's under 15%.France are at 33.3% and Germany is 15.825 % (federal) plus 14.35 % to 17.5 % (local CPT).If they got it over 20% for us ,the country will be decimated over 10 years maybe.MNC's would be able to setup on the continent and a lot of things like shipping would come down.The big thing we have going for us is the loophole or "Double Irish" as a strategy for limiting taxes, method is very common at the moment, particularly with companies with intellectual property.

squod

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You know that's not how it works, right? Like... we don't just pay it back tomorrow.

You are taking the piss right?

I presumed you were. Now that I know you're not I fear for my future quite frankly.

fontanalis

squod wrote: »

We've had no problem previously borrowing money to run the country. If people imagine that taking on an unmanageable debt will endear us to the markets, they're wrong. Investors are as aware as anyone of the fraud this government are committing.

''Let me quote Mr Rehn's admirably frank reminder: "We need to recall that sovereign debt has not been at the origin of the crisis. Rather, private debt has become public debt. The financial sector has misallocated resources in the economy and then stopped working."

Separating this private debt is absolutely necessary, we simply can't afford it.

But can it be seperated now that the dunces committed the country?
I'm not justifying paying for the losses of professional gamblers but a lot of this money is required to pay for Irelands very own champions of industry and even the property losses are gargantuan.

FreudianSlippers

Sink The Banana wrote: »

Only if it's under 15%.France are at 33.3% and Germany is 15.825 % (federal) plus 14.35 % to 17.5 % (local CPT).If they got it over 20% for us ,the country will be decimated over 10 years maybe.MNC's would be able to setup on the continent and a lot of things like shipping would come down.The big thing we have going for us is the loophole or "Double Irish" as a strategy for limiting taxes, method is very common at the moment, particularly with companies with intellectual property.

Yeah, we're at 12.5% for trading now. We could easily raise to 13.5-14% and be safe.

squod wrote: »

I presumed you were. Now that I know you're not I fear for my future quite frankly.

You didn't answer the question. Obviously you have no idea what you're on about.

FreudianSlippers

fontanalis wrote: »

But can it be seperated now that the dunces committed the country?
I'm not justifying paying for the losses of professional gamblers but a lot of this money is required to pay for Irelands very own champions of industry and even the property losses are gargantuan.

The FG position is that it could be separated. I'm not so sure it's going to be that easy, but if we can continue the small growth we have in certain areas at the moment and we can stabilise our income/expenditure, we could theoretically lower our market rates.

If that is the case, then we need to re-enter the markets.

It seems that what some other people don't understand that we are borrowing either way, either from the IMF and/or the EU or the bond markets.

fontanalis

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

The FG position is that it could be separated. I'm not so sure it's going to be that easy, but if we can continue the small growth we have in certain areas at the moment and we can stabilise our income/expenditure, we could theoretically lower our market rates.

If that is the case, then we need to re-enter the markets.

It seems that what some other people don't understand that we are borrowing either way, either from the IMF and/or the EU or the bond markets.

I hope they can.
My worry about the whole fiasco is that somehow all Irelands problems will be portrayed as the fault of the EU/IMF with Ireland being the poor underdog, with all the nonsense that went on internally being forgot about and no lessons being learned.

squod

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You didn't answer the question. Obviously you have no idea what you're on about.

oh jaysus :rolleyes:

FreudianSlippers

squod wrote: »

oh jaysus :rolleyes:

You obviously have very clever retorts here, but you're clearly shying away from any substantial contribution.

How do we intend on paying back €100bn? Over time, just the same way we pay back money we borrow from elsewhere.
I don't see your point.

What do we do without €100bn? How do we pay the Gardaí and turn on the lights and keep the water running? FÚCKING MAGIC?

You can make stupid asinine comments all day about whatever you want... but unless you want to contribute then gtfo.

fontanalis wrote: »

I hope they can.
My worry about the whole fiasco is that somehow all Irelands problems will be portrayed as the fault of the EU/IMF with Ireland being the poor underdog, with all the nonsense that went on internally being forgot about and no lessons being learned.

I think we need to be clear that there is a systematic failure in the international banking system. We have outstanding debts that we need to repay, yes. But we need to be given credit for the fact that bigger European banks were reckless in lending to us to in turn lend recklessly - and furthermore, bondholders who took gambles need to know that they cannot have their gambles guaranteed for no reason.

fontanalis

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You obviously have very clever retorts here, but you're clearly shying away from any substantial contribution.

How do we intend on paying back €100bn? Over time, just the same way we pay back money we borrow from elsewhere.
I don't see your point.

What do we do without €100bn? How do we pay the Gardaí and turn on the lights and keep the water running? FÚCKING MAGIC?

You can make stupid asinine comments all day about whatever you want... but unless you want to contribute then gtfo.




I think we need to be clear that there is a systematic failure in the international banking system. We have outstanding debts that we need to repay, yes. But we need to be given credit for the fact that bigger European banks were reckless in lending to us to in turn lend recklessly - and furthermore, bondholders who took gambles need to know that they cannot have their gambles guaranteed for no reason.

I live in hope. So much of Western Countries economies are tied up in banking/financial services I think it's safe to say large banks are the masters of the universe.

FreudianSlippers

fontanalis wrote: »

I live in hope. So much of Western Countries economies are tied up in banking/financial services I think it's safe to say large banks are the masters of the universe.

That's the problem with modelling our banks on those of the US IMO.

US banks are masters of reckless lending and they were essentially the first domino to fall in the world banking collapse.
The thing about the US is they have the ability to just print more money (and borrow from China).
China currently holds $1trillion in US debt... obviously this will never be paid back.

Ali Babba

Let's be very clear about this, borrowing money is only going to put us deeper in debt, unless the banks free up money and stimulate the market and encourage people to spend money the country will be in a bigger mess in a couple of years time, probably without the option of being able to borrow more money.

iPlop

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

That's the problem with modelling our banks on those of the US IMO.

US banks are masters of reckless lending and they were essentially the first domino to fall in the world banking collapse.
The thing about the US is they have the ability to just print more money (and borrow from China).
China currently holds $1trillion in US debt... obviously this will never be paid back.

Which is why the US will eventually fall and the Chinese will be top dogs.

Check out this banned US tv commercial about the national debt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhK8uuqDR8M

fontanalis

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You obviously have very clever retorts here, but you're clearly shying away from any substantial contribution.

How do we intend on paying back €100bn? Over time, just the same way we pay back money we borrow from elsewhere.
I don't see your point.

What do we do without €100bn? How do we pay the Gardaí and turn on the lights and keep the water running? FÚCKING MAGIC?

You can make stupid asinine comments all day about whatever you want... but unless you want to contribute then gtfo.




I think we need to be clear that there is a systematic failure in the international banking system. We have outstanding debts that we need to repay, yes. But we need to be given credit for the fact that bigger European banks were reckless in lending to us to in turn lend recklessly - and furthermore, bondholders who took gambles need to know that they cannot have their gambles guaranteed for no reason.

Sink The Banana wrote: »

Which is why the US will eventually fall and the Chinese will be top dogs.

Check out this banned US tv commercial about the national debt

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hhK8uuqDR8M

China will plummet too. Get ready for Mad Max 2!

FreudianSlippers

Ali Babba wrote: »

Let's be very clear about this, borrowing money is only going to put us deeper in debt,

Obvious statement is obvious

unless the banks free up money and stimulate the market and encourage people to spend money the country will be in a bigger mess in a couple of years time, probably without the option of being able to borrow more money.

I agree with this, but the question is still simple:
What is our alternative to borrowing money?


We have no money - we have 3 possible sources:

1) the bond markets. IIRC the 10 year bonds on the market have an interest rate of 9.2% currently.

2) the European Financial Stability Facility - of which we just got €5bn @ 5.51%

3) the IMF which I believe is lending at 5.7%

or a combination of the above.

fontanalis

Ali Babba wrote: »

Let's be very clear about this, borrowing money is only going to put us deeper in debt, unless the banks free up money and stimulate the market and encourage people to spend money the country will be in a bigger mess in a couple of years time, probably without the option of being able to borrow more money.

Borrowed money?

squod

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

You obviously have very clever retorts here, but you're clearly shying away from any substantial contribution.

How do we intend on paying back €100bn? Over time, just the same way we pay back money we borrow from elsewhere.
I don't see your point.

What do we do without €100bn? How do we pay the Gardaí and turn on the lights and keep the water running? FÚCKING MAGIC?

You can make stupid asinine comments all day about whatever you want... but unless you want to contribute then gtfo.

We're already giving €20bn to the IMF in return for a ''loan'' in order to pay the debts of gamblers and career criminals. I suggest we use that loan to stabilise the economy in the coming year and start some job creation programmes. Then return to the markets once these private debts have been dealt with.

Remember the banking guarantees were a temporary measure to allow banks deal with their' debts. They weren't meant to be a bottomless pit of cash to throw at the fraudster mates of politicians. Since we cannot afford the IMF/EU bail-out the banks will still have to either default or deal with their' creditors themselves.

What your proposing is lying down in front of the IMF steam-roller and letting them bring this country into ruin for decades, who the fuck would trust us again after we transferred all our wealth to fraudsters?

Please answer the question........ how are we to afford to repay €100bn while the country is in a great recession? You do realise that we can't afford it don't you?

FreudianSlippers

squod wrote: »

We're already giving €20bn to the IMF in return for a ''loan'' in order to pay the debts of gamblers and career criminals. I suggest we use that loan to stabilise the economy in the coming year and start some job creation programmes. Then return to the markets once these private debts have been dealt with.

Remember the banking guarantees were a temporary measure to allow banks deal with their' debts. They weren't meant to be a bottomless pit of cash to throw at the fraudster mates of politicians. Since we cannot afford the IMF/EU bail-out the banks will still have to either default or deal with their' creditors themselves.

What your proposing is lying down in front of the IMF steam-roller and letting them bring this country into ruin for decades, who the fuck would trust us again after we transferred all our wealth to fraudsters?

Please answer the question........ how are we to afford to repay €100bn while the country is in a great recession? You do realise that we can't afford it don't you?

You're missing the point. A large breakdown of the money we're borrowing is not going to the banking sector and even the chunk that is, a large chunk of that is not going to bailing out bondholders.

Of course we can "afford" to borrow the money. We have no money, we can't afford not to borrow the money.

We haven't taken any money from the IMF yet either, so you're speculating on futures.

We are repaying the money over 32 years bit by bit. The "recession" is technically over (arguable whether it is a true double-dip or not)

fontanalis

squod wrote: »

We're already giving €20bn to the IMF in return for a ''loan'' in order to pay the debts of gamblers and career criminals. I suggest we use that loan to stabilise the economy in the coming year and start some job creation programmes. Then return to the markets once these private debts have been dealt with.

Remember the banking guarantees were a temporary measure to allow banks deal with their' debts. They weren't meant to be a bottomless pit of cash to throw at the fraudster mates of politicians. Since we cannot afford the IMF/EU bail-out the banks will still have to either default or deal with their' creditors themselves.

What your proposing is lying down in front of the IMF steam-roller and letting them bring this country into ruin for decades, who the fuck would trust us again after we transferred all our wealth to fraudsters?

Please answer the question........ how are we to afford to repay €100bn while the country is in a great recession? You do realise that we can't afford it don't you?

No he/she is not. He/she said the private debts should be taken care of by the owners not the irish people (what Noonan was saying).
I don't think there is any Irish person who wants to sweep up another countries banks mess but that's what Lenihan the Greater signed the country up for, this is what he and whoever he surrounded himself with needs to explain straight out.

squod

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

Of course we can "afford" to borrow the money. We have no money, we can't afford not to borrow the money.

I dunno where this is coming from. The money we're giving the IMF is form our pension reserve fund. Every econonmist is predicting default on these huge loans. So then can I ask you, when we default and we don't have enough money to run the country...... who should we borrow from?