Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Misjudging Risk: Causes Of The Systemic Banking Crisis In Ireland (Nyberg Report)
Comments
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
But you suggested that specific responsibility could not be apportioned for this financial crisis.
I would argue that specific responsibility could be apportioned. We know that the EZ provided the least amount of funds to the Irish banking system.
We know that Irish Residents and Rest of the World (excluding the EZ) both provided the vast majority of funds to the Irish banking system.
We know that the Irish banks were borrowing these funds at a profligate rate and then using these borrowings to loan recklessly in to the Irish economy primarily.
What I am suggesting is that we can apportion responsibility if we so choose.
Well, maybe we can try assigning responsibility - when President Obama comes to town, we can present him with the bill for the US financiers' share of "the blame". I wonder what the response from the US will be...
0 -
Mm, however conversely I've noted that you are almost incapable of conceding an argument which has been clearly lost, this one being a case in point. Perhaps consider a career in politics yourself, and I mean that in a good way?I seem to recall I've wished you luck with it before! I may also have remarked that I feel your methods of drumming up support are a little too combative...
Which of these two options were available at the time of the ruinous banking guarantee? Which of these two options would have forestalled it?You are:
a) free to vote for someone else, or,
b) stand for election if you are unhappy with the someone elses on offer.
Seriously lads and lassies, there isn't even an argument here.0 -
-
Amhran Nua wrote: »Mm, however conversely I've noted that you are almost incapable of conceding an argument which has been clearly lost, this one being a case in point. Perhaps consider a career in politics yourself, and I mean that in a good way?
Which of these two options were available at the time of the ruinous banking guarantee? Which of these two options would have forestalled it?
Seriously lads and lassies, there isn't even an argument here.
I'm afraid you're quite right there, but for the wrong reasons. I'm not really sure you've offered an argument that's of any actual relevance to the thread, and I don't think you've really needed anyone else's input to believe that you've won it, because, as you say, you don't even see that there is an argument.
I don't know whether you've actually read the report, but there's a section which summarises my position quite neatly:1.5 Assigning Blame
1.5.1 The Commission recognises that the desire to assign blame is a natural and understandable response to a crisis and that it is often a necessary requirement in the prevention of similar events in the future. However, the Commission’s remit is to identify the causes for failures, rather than to assign individual blame or responsibility. During the Period leadership as well as lower-level management and advisors changed repeatedly in most private and public institutions discussed; this makes apportioning individual responsibility for strategic or longerterm developments impractical. Most important, the nature of systemic banking crises rarely allows blame and responsibility to be confidently allocated. To understand why this is so, it may be instructive to, once again, consider the list of necessary contributors (paragraph 1.4.3 above) to a systemic banking crisis. Since all of these factors need to be present to generate a systemic crisis, stressing the impact of only one or two contributors would lack balance.
1.5.2 It is important to note that none of the elements mentioned above requires bad faith; lack of sufficient knowledge, analysis or foresight is quite enough as is, unfortunately, simply staying silent about one’s concerns. Essentially, a systemic banking crisis requires a widespread lack of understanding and/or suspension of good judgment or critical discourse in large parts of society. Nevertheless, people in positions of responsibility in financial institutions and public authorities should even in such circumstances be expected to act with regard to the responsibilities entrusted to them.
1.5.3 People in a position to make decisions are and must be ultimately responsible for them regardless of what advice or suggestions they have received. The higher and more influential their position, the greater their responsibility. For instance, holders of public office are and must be responsible for directly and indirectly influencing others’ conduct within their, often large, remit. They, no less than everybody else including borrowers, are, of course, also responsible for knowing what they are saying and doing.16 Public commentators with trusting audiences (“media”) had a relatively large influence on how pre-crisis developments were perceived, discussed and acted upon.
16 A common argument among private and public decision-makers (both in Ireland and elsewhere) has been that “they were not told”, implying that responsibility actually resides elsewhere. However, it is an essential part of the job of a decision-maker to make sure of being well informed. Accepting one’s own ignorance or inefficiency does not transfer responsibility onto others; instead it puts an extra demand on the decision-maker to obtain good advice.
I'm not sure which part of that you've chosen to take issue with, since your argument appears to be about something else entirely - that we should have been able to vote directly on the Banking Guarantee. That's an argument which frankly isn't relevant to the thread, which is about the causes of the crisis. One thing is certain, which is that the Irish electorate had their opportunity to vote on whether to follow a path of reckless exuberance in 2002 and 2007, and they chose to continue down it. Only when the price tag appeared did they choose something different.
The ability for the Irish public to vote on issues directly would not have made any difference to anything that's contained in the Nyberg Report. The democratic reforms you want to discuss are for another thread.
cordially,
Scofflaw0 -
-
Amhran Nua wrote: »Mm, however conversely I've noted that you are almost incapable of conceding an argument which has been clearly lost, this one being a case in point. Perhaps consider a career in politics yourself, and I mean that in a good way?
Just two ridiculous points made:
1. Non-experts should not hire experts unless they know enough about the area to accurately judge their work/conclusions.
2. The people are equally responsible and hence to blame for all government systems and decisions.
Now the first is just barking. While there is an obvious point that you should have some basic level of critical analysis you cannot possibly know the competency of the expert other than relying on other experts. If my pipes stop leaking that is what I hired the plumber for but I've no idea if he's done a temporary patch job. That's 'simple' plumbing, there are areas of expertise where the client cannot possibly know the background work e.g. Did the web designer program with ruby with rails or pearl or c++ - I've heard those terms, I've no idea what they mean or what they look like.
2. Firstly people dont have knowledge of every system or decision and can't possibly- it's a full time job. Secondly even if made aware or being affected by a systemic error they have no immediate access for intervention, unlike a minister. The view that the Irish people are equally to blame fails to recognise degrees of blame. So Susie Long was just as much to blame for her delay as Minister Harney. Rubbish Harney was ultimately responsible for the system, the people paid her to take on that responsibility.
With regard the irish crisis there are degrees of blame, the irish people come down the list and are generally shouldering their part of the blame - paying higher taxes, paying their mortgages etc - but there are people higher up the chain of blame that are not feeling the consequences of their decisions - Bertie has gotten more blame in lip service but not in actual consequence.there was no point at which coercion was used to run the country into debt.
And likewise nobody coerced bondholders to invest in our banks, they did so knowingly and expected losses when it all went tits up.0 -
-
Advertisement
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Advertisement
-
Advertisement